16-bit files with higher sample rate

[ChrisHorry]

If you have a 24-bit (96 kHz) audio file which you want to use also on a piece of equipment which only works with 16-bit, in converting the file, does it makes sense to stay at 96 kHz? Or is there no point in going above 44.1 kHz with a 16 bit file?

 

[spiny norman]

It's fairly likely that any equipment only able to play 16-bit will also only be able to play sampling rates up to 44.1kHz, or possibly 48kHz.

If the latter is the case, there's a small theoretical advantage in downsampling 96kHz to 48kHz rather than 44.1kHz, as 48kHz is of course half of 96kHz, and thus a 'cleaner' downconversion , but really it won't make that much difference.

So downconvert to 16-bit/44.1kHz.

 

[ChrisHorry]

Thanks, that's really useful. Actually, what I'm using will play the 16-bit file with the sample rate left at 96 kHz. But of course, the file sizes are much bigger. Hence. my question whether there is any point in sticking with the higher sample rate if it doesn't make sense for a 16-bit file. Anyway, I think I'll go wih your sugestion to use 44.1 kHz for 16-bit files and only stick with 96 kHz for equipment that will play the original 24-bit files. Thanks once again.

 

[fr0g]

The 16 bit affects the dynamic range of the file

The 96 KHz affects the available frequency range

With a 16 bit file you have a theoretical 96 dB of dynamic range.

With a 96 KHz file you can accurately recreate an analogue sound up to 48 KHz

A CD equivalent is 16 bit and 44.1 KHz giving you that 96 dB of dynamic range and a maximum frequency of over 20 KHz

In a normal, quiet listening environment you can't make any use of any extra dynamic range. (Consider that your "quiet" room is probably at at least 30 dB. Adding 96 to that gives you levels that would deafen you within a very short time.

Adding to the 44.1 KHz will give you higher frequencies, none of which you, as a human can hear.

I did a test recently, I bought an HD track, downsampled to CD quality and null-tested it.

The difference is silent. It shows up as a flat signal in Audacity and only shows information below around -80 dB and mostly above 22 KHz

None of this is physically possible to hear in any normal room, or even studio.

CD quality, 16/44.1 is more than enough to give the highest possible quality playback for human beings in normal environments.

I say normal environments as I guess in a sealed soundless chamber, you "might" tell the difference if you upped the bitrate a little...but I doubt it...I imagine your own personal sound would be louder than the difference.

 

[ChrisHorry]

Also very interesting comments. I'm using these 24-bit, 96 kHz audio files for the first time and they are obviously more expensive and bulkier. But you come close to saying that there is no point in going beyond 16-bit, 44.1 kHz - the incremental audio content is all but inaudible to the human ear. However, there appears to be a trend towards higher resolution audio files.

 

[fr0g]

Also very interesting comments. I'm using these 24-bit, 96 kHz audio files for the first time and they are obviously more expensive and bulkier. But you come close to saying that there is no point in going beyond 16-bit, 44.1 kHz - the incremental audio content is all but inaudible to the human ear. However, there appears to be a trend towards higher resolution audio files.

Some purchased 24 bit 96 KHz files sound better than the CD.

I still sometimes buy them.

But downsample them and they will be just as good, and equally better than the CD.

I'd like to say I don't know why they do it, but I fear it's marketing. Most people don't care about the science, but can see that you are getting "more".

The fact that the "more" is inaudible is irrelevant to 99 of 100 people.

It's a shame really.

 

[fr0g]

By the way, the reason they are better is because they are from "uncompressed" masters.

For years now, CDs have been getting dynamically compressed, to suit radio play and to make "this" CD sound louder.

Dynamic compression is one thing, but often that also results in clipping. ie the peaks of eg snare hits are simply lopped off. This sounds utterly horrible.

If the CD is dynamically compressed and clipped, and they release an HD version that isn't, it WILL sound better. It will still sound the same when downsampled (and burnt to a CD if you like).

 

[MajorFubar]

I think the only positive thing is that, with no-doubt some exceptions, hi-res downloads usually sound better than CDs, with less compression and with masters sourced from early-gen tapes. The extra effort all that takes at least partly explains why they are typically more expensive.

 

[MajorFubar]

Whoops sorry fr0g, cross-posted more or less the same thing.

 

[fr0g]

Whoops sorry fr0g, cross-posted more or less the same thing.

No worries, I am just glad that it is beginning to become the consensus.