[StanD]

   
Could you be more specific? Did you download 24-bit files, convert them to 16-bit (via a program like dBpoweramp or foobar2000), and then compare? If you just compared, say, a 24-bit download to a 16-bit CD rip of the same album, you may just be comparing two different masters of the recording.

Or a bad rip.

 

[CanadianMaestro]

24-bit from a FLAC file from commercial site.
16-bit FLAC from a CD of same recording.

 

[Music Alchemist]

  24-bit from a FLAC file from commercial site.
16-bit FLAC from a CD of same recording.

 
You are comparing two different sources (probably different masters), not two different resolutions. To compare the resolutions, you have to take your 24-bit files, convert them to 16-bit / 44.1 kHz, and then compare.

 

[StanD]

  24-bit from a FLAC file from commercial site.
16-bit FLAC from a CD of same recording.

Doesn't sound absolute to me. Commercial site and rip from CD does not does not mean from the same master or mixdown..

 

[Music Alchemist]

  Doesn't sound absolute to me. Commercial site and rip from CD does not does not mean from the same master or mixdown..

 
Yes, in fact, more often than not, high-res downloads are a different master than their CD counterparts.

 

[CanadianMaestro]

Not sure why I would bother converting 24-bit to 16-bit. I would degrade the SQ, lose a ton of information.

 

[Music Alchemist]

  Not sure why I would bother converting 24-bit to 16-bit. I would degrade the SQ, lose a ton of information.

 
Absolutely not. There is no audible difference between 24-bit and 16-bit. Converting and comparing it yourself is to hear (or rather, not hear) it for yourself.

 

[cjl]

  Not sure why I would bother converting 24-bit to 16-bit. I would degrade the SQ, lose a ton of information.

You'd convert from 24 to 16 bit to test if the difference is audible or not. I suspect you'll find that the SQ isn't audibly degraded at all (nobody yet has shown 16 bit quantization to be audible on any reasonable recording), and you're really only losing about 3-5 bits of low-level information anyways (no DAC or ADC in audio has a true 24 bits of resolution, and no recording has a low enough noise floor anyways).

 

[StanD]

  Not sure why I would bother converting 24-bit to 16-bit. I would degrade the SQ, lose a ton of information.

If you are trying to compare, then your statement sounds a more than a bit off. IMO you're trying too hard to prove what isn't going to happen.

 

[CanadianMaestro]

I stand by my statement. On my full 2 ch floor system, most 24-bit files I listen to sound better than my 16-bit files.
 
(hmm maybe I should stop upgrading....)
 
cheers,

 

[Music Alchemist]

  I stand by my statement. On my full 2 ch floor system, most 24-bit files I listen to sound better than my 16-bit files.
 
(hmm maybe I should stop upgrading....)
 
cheers,

 
And we are saying that the reason the 24-bit files sound better is because they came from a different master, not because they are 24-bit. If you converted the 24-bit files to 16-bit, you could hear for yourself that they sound exactly the same. You haven't compared resolutions yet; all you have compared are different masters of the recording.

 

[BrianovichIV]

If you do a good ABX test you'll find that you can't hear a difference. That's true.
 
But after reading a bunch of threads here and elsewhere, both written by people pro hi-rez and anti hi-rez, I can't help but feel as though ABX testing is just not foolproof. It's a test that doesn't properly emulate usual listening conditions. It's revealing, yes, but not the entire picture.
 
My theory, which I wouldn't know how to test, is that any differences are incredibly subtle and may be noticed only under a perfect storm of conditions. If you have a really well-mastered piece of music, which you have listened to countless times on a revealing system and know like the back of your hand, then I wonder if you'd notice a degradation in quality if someone swapped out your 24/192 recording with a downsampled AAC.
 
From my perspective, an ABX test only proves that differences are not immediately audible to 99+% of the population. There may very well be people out there who can tell the difference between formats and/or resolutions under certain circumstances.

 

[bigshot]

  But after reading a bunch of threads here and elsewhere, both written by people pro hi-rez and anti hi-rez, I can't help but feel as though ABX testing is just not foolproof. It's a test that doesn't properly emulate usual listening conditions. It's revealing, yes, but not the entire picture.

 
If you do controlled listening with all your concentration focused on discerning differences in direct comparison, and you can't hear a difference; you will NEVER hear any difference listening casually while you sit on the couch and thumb through the liner notes on your CD.

 

[Steve Eddy]

Anyone is free to prove whatever they want.  Is it in my head that WAV is the most pleasing to me?  Yes.  So what.  Just put on the cans, turn on the tunes and enjoy!

That's fine. I believe people should go with whatever gives them the most pleasure, regardless of the reasons behind it.

Just that that doesn't belong in the Sound Science forum is all.

se

 

[Steve Eddy]

Not sure why I would bother converting 24-bit to 16-bit. I would degrade the SQ, lose a ton of information.

If you're just talking bits, you just lose dynamic range. But you're not losing anything meaningful. The instantaneous dynamic range of our hearing is only about 30-40 dB. At 96 dB for 16 bit, that's more than enough.

se