Nothing much, as I am only assuming. I watched a clip from some one who recorded a piano under different bits and sampling rate. He explained something about quantified affect. It happens when the sample rate and bits just gives too much space...it became empty space, and the computer decipher it to be just noises. It lead me to believe in those empty spaces, something could fit, and the noises from these quantified affect will not present. The result I collected so far = that piano recorded vs some composed song at the same quality, the song just perform better where as in the piano solo there will be noises.
Again, it was what I collected to my own, I know you don't like it, but since you asked. I would love to have a song of those many many instruments and effects composed together. I would love to test it out and see
You're thinking of quantization error, but you've got the wrong idea. Simply put, it means 16 bit audio has a noise floor at -96 dB, -6 dB per bit. Unless you can hear this noise (which I guarantee you can't) it is not affecting your sound quality whatsoever. Here's a more in-depth explanation:
An analog signal like the audio we hear is a continuous sine wave, with a theoretically infinite number of points. In digital audio, we have to find a way to express those points in a file our hard drives can actually hold. How we do this is with bit depth and sampling rate. These are related to the frequency of the sound (the pitch) and the amplitude of the sound (the volume).
Bit depth is the vertical axis, the volume. Because, again, we're working with a finite amount of data, we have to fit the volume of the sine wave at the points we sample into one of a set number of values. This is rarely exact, so we have to round to the nearest value. The result is a sine wave that's fuzzy, as the volume has to be raised or lowered at each sample. The fuzz results in noise, quantization error, an additional signal that's uncorrelated with the original. White noise like static. Not distortion or a reduction in detail, just static. Though, obviously, you won't hear the recording very well if it dips below the volume of the static.
This might sound bad but it's not. 16 bit audio allows us 65,536 discrete volume levels to choose from. The amount of rounding is tiny. It's so tiny, in fact, that the fuzz is -96 dB below the maximum digital signal. Claiming that this is affecting your sound quality is like telling someone at a rock concert to stop whispering so you can hear the music.
There's a couple ways this could potentially be audible, though. One is if you play a quiet file at high volume in a dead silent anechoic chamber, not exactly a situation we find ourselves in very often. The other is if the recording has sounds quiet enough to be masked by the noise floor. No recording in existence has this level of dynamic range. Even if one did, you would go deaf trying to listen to it at a volume that makes those quiet passages appreciable.
You're going to want to look elsewhere for audible differences.
. In the mean time I will need to find the better source. Like I said, higher resolution audio, to me is just like high definition tv. It allows more pixel, that mean your source need to be recorded in those more pixels. It is meaningless to play flute or drum 16/44.1 vs 24/96 recording...because there is only one instrument. I will look for the most complicated song track which has 24/96 recording on a blu Ray with many many different instruments, notes, and etc played.
