Why would 24 bit / 192 khz flac sound any better than 16 bit / 44.1 khz flac if both are lossless (if at all)?

[Digitalchkn]

 

   
Well, with dithering (the simple +/-1 LSB TPDF type), I can subtract the quantized signal from its original version, and the difference (the quantization error) sounds and looks (in a spectrum analyzer) like white noise at a constant RMS level no matter what the input signal is. This is easy to verify in practice

 
If the signal has sufficiently large variance, then quantization noise looses correlation to the input signal, including the non-dithered quantization. Are you referring to non-shaped TPDF generating white noise?

 

[Digitalchkn]

   
Which is probably why it was posted. It is a common tactic by audiophiles to try to confuse people with walls of information, and use the "audio is infinitely complex and you do not understand it" argument to justify believing in whatever they want.

 
It was posted for educational purposes. And yes, audio is pretty complex. That's why we are still finding new ways to make improvements in this field.

 

[Illmatiic]

Can anyone explain why my 24bit Vinyl downloads have a much lower play volume compared to my 16bit?
 
The two files I'm comparing are the exact same song with the following specifications:
 
24bit:
Sample rate: 96khz
Avg. Bitrate: 2761 kbps
 
VS.
 
16bit:
Sample rate: 44.1khz
Avg. Bitrate:  925kbps
 
The problem persists when played through Windows Media Player, VLC, and Winamp.

 

[miceblue]

Can anyone explain why my 24bit Vinyl downloads have a much lower play volume compared to my 16bit?

The two files I'm comparing are the exact same song with the following specifications:

24bit:
Sample rate: 96khz
Avg. Bitrate: 2761 kbps

VS.

16bit:
Sample rate: 44.1khz
Avg. Bitrate:  925kbps

The problem persists when played through Windows Media Player, VLC, and Winamp.

Is your 16-bit one a vinyl rip too?

 

[Illmatiic]

Is your 16-bit one a vinyl rip too?

 
No, the 16-bit is CD rip.

 

[miceblue]

Is your 16-bit one a vinyl rip too?

No, the 16-bit is CD rip.

Well n you're comparing 2 different masters.

Vinyl rips are dependent on the rip settings and whatnot, so they're usually not too reliable.

 

[pockits]

This is very easy to uderstand in practice. Because the DR is higher for a 24bit depth sample. Since you have much more headroom available.

 

[Illmatiic]

Well n you're comparing 2 different masters.

Vinyl rips are dependent on the rip settings and whatnot, so they're usually not too reliable.

 
Gotcha, I figured you were hinting that when you asked the question.

 

[miceblue]

Interesting:
http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=9902
http://www.merging.com/uploads/assets//Merging_pdfs/dxd_Resolution_v3.5.pdf

 

[Samuel777]

  If both formats are lossless, what differentiates the 2 versions in terms of sound quality if at all?

Why does 24 bit / 192 khz flac sound any better than 16 bit / 44.1 khz flac if both are lossless ?

Difference come from the quality of headphones, and the quality of music player (source).
 
sam 

 

[riverlethe]

It was posted for educational purposes. And yes, audio is pretty complex. That's why we are still finding new ways to make improvements in this field.

Except, they're not really improvements if they're inaudible. The threshold of audibility in digital to analog conversion was probably passed 30+ years ago. Now, AAC might be a little better than mp3 at the same bitrate, but they're both pretty transparent at 256kbps+. Is anyone aware of a large scale study comparing mp3/AAC to lossless or CD quality?

 

[DogMeat]

 

Why does 24 bit / 192 khz flac sound any better than 16 bit / 44.1 khz flac if both are lossless ?

Difference come from the quality of headphones, and the quality of music player (source).
 
sam 

which TOTALLY makes sense if he's using the same gear for them both.

 
 
The way I get my head around thinking of this is as being rather similar to video in the way moving images are better at higher FPS than at lower frame rates.
There's no loss of DATA in each single frame, but faster rates make the moving image more coherent.
 
Simplistic, but it kind of makes it more understandable to me.

 

[kraken2109]

  which TOTALLY makes sense if he's using the same gear for them both.

 
 
The way I get my head around thinking of this is as being rather similar to video in the way moving images are better at higher FPS than at lower frame rates.
There's no loss of DATA in each single frame, but faster rates make the moving image more coherent.
 
Simplistic, but it kind of makes it more understandable to me.

But this analogy fails because our eyes can actually process the extra frames in video, whereas our ears can't hear the higher frequencies that a higher sampling rate can provide.

 

[elmoe]

But this analogy fails because our eyes can actually process the extra frames in video, whereas our ears can't hear the higher frequencies that a higher sampling rate can provide.

Yet supposedly we shouldn't be able to see a difference between 60hz and 120hz screens but the difference is clear.

 

[DogMeat]

yes.
which is why I said "simplistic".

I don't think it's just about pitch, though, is it?

Isn't it about richness too?

Help us out.
Can you give amore apropos way of thinking about it?
Not being challenging, just trying to grip this issue myself.

I take those tests...and I can generally tell the diff. about 90%, most days.

probly 'cuz I live with dogs.
they've taught me all the tricks.