Testing the claim: "I can hear differences between lossless formats."

[Music Alchemist]

I honestly don't care about this thread. If a human couldn't hear the 24bit difference, then the file wouldn't be made.
Explain this - a DAP will click (different chipset) when switching from 16bit FLAC to 24bit. If a consumer aimed DAP [FiiO X1] supports 24bit FLAC, aimed at the masses, then obviously people can tell the difference between the two. The X1 doesn't down sample 24 to 16 because it uses something else to process the file.

Honestly I don't care, I'm not an audiophile if this is what they do, sit around comparing graphs of music. I just buy high end audio projects / mid end stuff I like, use it and enjoy it. You probably should too, instead of dissenting music.

 
Anyone can easily tell the difference between, say, a 16-bit / 44.1 kHz CD and a 24-bit / 96 kHz download if they came from significantly different masters. The difference is due to that, not the fact that the latter is 24-bit / 96 kHz (or whatever). Digital music stores, devices, etc. support 24-bit because it's an easy misconception for the masses to make, not because it has any proven benefit. If someone who lacks a basic understanding of what 24-bit audio actually does and why it is irrelevant to playback hears an album that sounds better due to coming from a different master, but doesn't realize that's the reason why and instead just sees the bigger number of 24 instead of 16, and you multiply that by countless others who made the same blunder, then a marketplace based on misguided notions is the natural result.
 
It's dishonest to imply that I don't enjoy music simply because I want to help people achieve a greater understanding of audio.

 

[esldude]

I honestly don't care about this thread. If a human couldn't hear the 24bit difference, then the file wouldn't be made.
Explain this - a DAP will click (different chipset) when switching from 16bit FLAC to 24bit. If a consumer aimed DAP [FiiO X1] supports 24bit FLAC, aimed at the masses, then obviously people can tell the difference between the two. The X1 doesn't down sample 24 to 16 because it uses something else to process the file.

Honestly I don't care, I'm not an audiophile if this is what they do, sit around comparing graphs of music. I just buy high end audio projects / mid end stuff I like, use it and enjoy it. You probably should too, instead of dissenting music.
Try tell a Christian that their beliefs don't exist, and they'll try prove you wrong. Same concept - try tell people there's no difference between 24 and 16...

Well, things must really be good then.  The FiiO X1 DAC is a 32 bit sigma-delta design.  Or at least it can handle 16,24 and 32 bit input.  Texas instruments who makes the DAC chip for it claims either 112 db or 106 db SNR depending on which version of the chip is used.  So that would be 18 or 19 bit performance.  It uses an amplifier chip from Intersil with a 103 decibel SNR.  But I guess by your reasoning humans must be able to hear 192 db of dynamic range (32 bit) or they wouldn't make it (never mind it can't meet that spec anyway).   As for why it clicks between 24 or 16 bit I don't know (does it do this?) as it runs 32 bit internally and will ignore whatever bits below 16 as zeroes when running 16 bit.  There isn't a 24 and a 16 bit chip inside.  One chip does both.
 
Look the FiiO is an excellent DAP.  But you might get along better and provoke a bit friendlier response if you didn't tell us how we don't enjoy music because we actually like to know how things work.  While making claims that simply don't line up with realities of the physical world.

 

[daltonljj]

looks like you stepped on the another persons foot. Frankly I have nothing against your view and I agree to your views to a certain extent.

 
Look the FiiO is an excellent DAP.  But you might get along better and provoke a bit friendlier response if you didn't tell us how we don't enjoy music because we actually like to know how things work.  While making claims that simply don't line up with realities of the physical world.

 
Yes I agree with you that the music industries can be dishonest thus misleading the audience. Lets point out all this in a more friendlier and diplomatic manner.
 
Music should unite us not make us fight man.

 

[Music Alchemist]

  looks like you stepped on the another persons foot. Frankly I have nothing against your view and I agree to your views to a certain extent.
 
Yes I agree with you that the music industries can be dishonest thus misleading the audience. Lets point out all this in a more friendlier and diplomatic manner.
 
Music should unite us not make us fight man.

 
More like another person tried swimming against the current.
 
And yup! Music is my favorite thing in the world.
 
For the record, I see nothing wrong with keeping music stored in whatever original format you got it, given that you have enough hard drive space. I just wanted to clarify and investigate a few things, hence this thread.

 

[bigshot]

  For the record, I see nothing wrong with keeping music stored in whatever original format you got it

 
I rip to AAC and put the original format (CD) in a box in the garage.

 

[Music Alchemist]

  I rip to AAC and put the original format (CD) in a box in the garage.

 
Nothin' wrong with that either!
 
Just wanted to clarify that I don't hold it against anyone who never bothers downsampling their 24-bit downloads.

 

[money4me247]

  First and foremost, I really don't know what your intention of this post is. Because you sure come off very offensive as if you're trying to dis people of their beliefs be it real or placebo. Not a very nice thing to do in a forum imo. 
 
Anyway back to your topic does 24bits matter? if so prove how you can test it? A least that is what i understand you asking me.
 
To tackle the problem I will first ask you. Assuming all thing equal. Same DAC  and same media player. If you were to play the same file (both in 16 and 24bits or even if 32 bits if you're so anal about it) and use like some device compare their analog signal wave forms when played. Is there a difference? The answer is gonna be a yes and also depending on the DAC that you use this difference will vary.
 
As of how to prove humans can hear it I would have to say that IMHO there is no way to scientifically test and prove that I can hear it. Reason is that there are no 2 human beings in the world that are identical. They way we perceive sound is different. Take for an example. Having a flat freq response. What may seem flat to one may sound bass heavy to another.The perception of sound is attributed to a lot of factors. On the human it could be the shape, size of your year canal and even the sensitivity of the individual's hearing. Another thing is that the difference with are talking about here is very minute. So an analogy that I can come up with is if I were to give you 2 identical balls, one 1kg another 2kg can you tell the weight difference? Obviously you can else something is really wrong with you. Now same experiment. with mass 2kg and 2.1kg can you fell the difference most probably still yes. Guess what some ppl might tell you they don't feel the difference. They start to dis you and ask you to prove how you can feel that 10% change in weight when you are not even a weighing scale. Point i'm trying to put across here is that human sensitivity varies too. So frankly I think its hard to scientifically prove that human's can tell the difference between 16bit and 24bit.
 
Or how about this prove to me how you can test that humans can't hear the difference between 16 and 24 bits.
 
Thus to sum things up it matters but whether you can hear it is a different thing all together. 

Some outside resources about this topic. It seems like it is possible to show the relevance of sampling rates and bit depth.
 
http://www.head-fi.org/t/415361/24bit-vs-16bit-the-myth-exploded
 
http://www.sonicscoop.com/2013/08/29/why-almost-everything-you-thought-you-knew-about-bit-depth-is-probably-wrong/
http://www.tested.com/tech/1905-the-real-differences-between-16-bit-and-24-bit-audio/
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/apr/05/pono-neil-young-24bit-192khz-review
https://xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html
 
Nyquist sampling theorem: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist%E2%80%93Shannon_sampling_theorem
 
My conclusion: More likely another variable (such as different version of the song) contributing to the any perceived audible differences rather than the sampling rate or bit depth. Only people promoting higher sampling rates/bit depths are people selling you stuff, and most scientific sources will tell you that it does not make an audible difference. You can draw your own personal conclusions on this matter, but I feel like there is pretty convincing evidence out there if you like to take the time to check it out.
 
Cheers

 

[RRod]

I honestly don't care about this thread. If a human couldn't hear the 24bit difference, then the file wouldn't be made.
Explain this - a DAP will click (different chipset) when switching from 16bit FLAC to 24bit. If a consumer aimed DAP [FiiO X1] supports 24bit FLAC, aimed at the masses, then obviously people can tell the difference between the two. The X1 doesn't down sample 24 to 16 because it uses something else to process the file.

Honestly I don't care, I'm not an audiophile if this is what they do, sit around comparing graphs of music. I just buy high end audio projects / mid end stuff I like, use it and enjoy it. You probably should too, instead of dissenting music.
Try tell a Christian that their beliefs don't exist, and they'll try prove you wrong. Same concept - try tell people there's no difference between 24 and 16...

 
Some of us buy high end audio products, use them, enjoy them AND don't overpay for audio content we can't hear. Religion involves faith by necessity, testing 24 vs 16bit does not.

 

[stv014]

   
Strut your stuff just means display your skills. I invited you to do so. How could you possibly be offended by that?
 
If you have already selected the song(s) to use (ones you perceived differences with) and converted the 24-bit file(s) to lossless 16-bit / 44.1 kHz, you can then follow the instructions in this guide to conduct the ABX test.

 
Ideally, the 44.1/16 version should be converted back to the original format for the purpose of the comparison. This obviously cannot recover the lost information, but it prevents a false positive result due to hardware or software issues. For example, the DAC may output an audible click when switching between 44.1 and 96 kHz sample rate, which gives away the identity of X and Y in the test.

 

[stv014]

I honestly don't care about this thread. If a human couldn't hear the 24bit difference, then the file wouldn't be made.

 
The files are made because there are people who buy them since they believe the format makes a useful difference. That is just how the free market works. The files can also be really (audibly) different for other reasons, such as mastering. Sell a heavily compressed and clipped "loud" CD format version for the masses, and a non-distorted high resolution one at a higher price for audiophiles. In this case, the latter is indeed better, but for purely marketing reasons, and not because it would not sound the same if simply converted to 44.1/16 format.

 

[Music Alchemist]

My conclusion: More likely another variable (such as different version of the song) contributing to the any perceived audible differences rather than the sampling rate or bit depth.

 
I hope everyone in this thread understands this and at least went to the trouble of converting the 24-bit file(s) to 16-bit to ensure they weren't hearing two different masters.
 

  Ideally, the 44.1/16 version should be converted back to the original format for the purpose of the comparison. This obviously cannot recover the lost information, but it prevents a false positive result due to hardware or software issues. For example, the DAC may output an audible click when switching between 44.1 and 96 kHz sample rate, which gives away the identity of X and Y in the test.

 
Ah, yes. I even heard that certain equipment processes 24-bit data differently than 16-bit, further complicating matters.

 

[castleofargh]

the "bit" about the X1 making a noise when changing resolution is true. but of course I desagree with the reason mentioned. there aren't 2 chips for 2 resolutions.
 
 

 

[Whitigir]

I see...going through the previous posts. Yes, I agree that people can not clearly tell the differences between 16 bits vs 24 bits. It took me a while to differentiate the differences from a Cd quality flac vs my bluray uncompressed quality. It is not anything exactly is missing....just the feeling of the music being fuller. I could not hear the differences when I unconverted it to 24 bits...because my bluray was recorded at 16 bits and 48000 only. I will try to find the real 24/96 source myself and do some conversions...also I am waiting on my FX750 as my first pair of high-res headphones

 

[Music Alchemist]

I see...going through the previous posts. Yes, I agree that people can not clearly tell the differences between 16 bits vs 24 bits. It took me a while to differentiate the differences from a Cd quality flac vs my bluray uncompressed quality. It is not anything exactly is missing....just the feeling of the music being fuller. I could not hear the differences when I unconverted it to 24 bits...because my bluray was recorded at 16 bits and 48000 only. I will try to find the real 24/96 source myself and do some conversions...also I am waiting on my FX750 as my first pair of high-res headphones

 
Basically what I am trying to determine is 1) whether there is a definite audible difference, and 2) what is causing it.
 
So you are saying that after ripping the Blu-ray audio, doing some conversions, and listening to the original 16-bit / 48 kHz version and a 16-bit / 44.1 kHz version, the former sounds fuller to you? Can you explain how the conversions were done? Do you have the files on a computer right now?

 

[Whitigir]

Basically what I am trying to determine is 1) whether there is a definite audible difference, and 2) what is causing it.

So you are saying that after ripping the Blu-ray audio, doing some conversions, and listening to the original 16-bit / 48 kHz version and a 16-bit / 44.1 kHz version, the former sounds fuller to you? Can you explain how the conversions were done? Do you have the files on a computer right now?

Yes ! I do have the files on the computer. I used acrok to rip the bluray audio, and audacity to convert the files. You can do this too. I can also write a tutorial on how to rip high resolution music of higher than cd quality from any bluray if you need. But it will be hell lot of time consuming