16 vs 24 bit

[hemiolacadence]

Can some explain the difference between 16 and 24 bit audio?

I am unbothered enough by mp3s to use mp3s at 320 kbps bitrate on average.

I think a good vinyl pressing can sound better, but I've been disappointed. If I buy a bad vinyl I usually think I wasted my money and don't listen to it so I'm open minded.

Blu-Ray typically sounds really good to me, a good blu-ray sounds much better than mp3s or cds. I don't necessarily think cds sound better I don't know if computers that do the tests can hear what he hear or if the things they measure we can't hear.

But if the 24 bit is significantly better then I guess it wouldn't matter as much right? I mean if the master is 24 bit then vinyl should sound better right, all other things being equal?

 

[Frank Harvey]

"Hold on to ya butts!"

 

[Hi-FiOutlaw]

Hi welcome to the forum!

...and you just hit a hornest's nest...

 

[CnoEvil]

The "sample rate" (kHZ), tells you how many times the original signal has been sliced up.
The "bit depth" (eg.32 24 or 16) tells you how much is recorded on each slice (ie.The resolution).

Check this old thread out: http://www.whathifi.com/forum/hi-fi/what-does-sample-rate-and-bit-rate-mean

Also, here is a great site for all things to do with computer audio: http://www.thewelltemperedcomputer.com/KB/Bit1624.htm

 

[Glacialpath]

If you are buying vinyl and it sounds bad say compared to a CD of the same album then I would say it's down to a bad pressing of the vinyl.

Blu-ray sound so good because the audio is uncompressed unlike CD (limited to allow a louder volume) , MP3 and the like. BD audio is also 24bit 96kHz unlike CD that is 16bit 44.1kHz a lower resolution.

Though the difference is not as big as DVD and BD is kind of the same thing. Whether you can hear the difference or not, only you can know that.

 

[Overdose]

If you are buying vinyl and it sounds bad say compared to a CD of the same album then I would say it's down to a bad pressing of the vinyl.

Blu-ray sound so good because the audio is uncompressed unlike CD (limited to allow a louder volume) , MP3 and the like. BD audio is also 24bit 96kHz unlike CD that is 16bit 44.1kHz a lower resolution.

Though the difference is not as big as DVD and BD is kind of the same thing. Whether you can hear the difference or not, only you can know that.

The dynamic range of vinyl is up to 70dB, CD standard (16bit) a usable 90dB and 24bit a usable 120dB.

I have not come across a recording that fully utilises the full dynamic range of vinyl, never mind the other two, so that rather makes the increased range of 24 bit over 16 bit a moot point, because you will never get to hear it. All that is only relevant anyway, if your hifi system can actually make use of this full dynamic range, which is actually rather unlikely. Can your hifi truly deliver a constant and undistorted 120dB at your listening position? If it could, are you really going to be listening to it at those levels? No, is the likely answer to those two questions.

The situation just get ridiculous when you look a bit closer at the figures.

In essence, CD standard is more than enough in a home environment and fully encompasses all the audible frequency range ,fidelity and quality that can be heard. 24 bit just offers a theoretical and unusable additional headroom.

 

[The_Lhc]

The dynamic range of vinyl is up to 70dB, CD standard (16bit) a usable 90dB and 24bit a usable 120dB.

I have not come across a recording that fully utilises the full dynamic range of vinyl, never mind the other two, so that rather makes the increased range of 24 bit over 16 bit a moot point, because you will never get to hear it. All that is only relevant anyway, if your hifi system can actually make use of this full dynamic range, which is actually rather unlikely. Can your hifi truly deliver a constant and undistorted 120dB at your listening position? If it could, are you really going to be listening to it at those levels? No, is the likely answer to those two questions.

Not least because it would permanently deafen you, the 90dB range that CD can provide is enough to do that, given that a "silent" room (what we think of as silent) is typically around 30dB, so with the CD audio starting at that level the full 90dB range would give you a top end volume of 120dB and that will destroy your hearing very quickly.

 

[Overdose]

The dynamic range of vinyl is up to 70dB, CD standard (16bit) a usable 90dB and 24bit a usable 120dB.

I have not come across a recording that fully utilises the full dynamic range of vinyl, never mind the other two, so that rather makes the increased range of 24 bit over 16 bit a moot point, because you will never get to hear it. All that is only relevant anyway, if your hifi system can actually make use of this full dynamic range, which is actually rather unlikely. Can your hifi truly deliver a constant and undistorted 120dB at your listening position? If it could, are you really going to be listening to it at those levels? No, is the likely answer to those two questions.

Not least because it would permanently deafen you, the 90dB range that CD can provide is enough to do that, given that a "silent" room (what we think of as silent) is typically around 30dB, so with the CD audio starting at that level the full 90dB range would give you a top end volume of 120dB and that will destroy your hearing very quickly.

Indeed. Permanent damage starts at levels of 85dB depending on exposure time.

 

[davedotco]

This should all be pretty simple.

24/96 is the norm for digital recording, the 'extra resolution' allows for manipulation during the recording and mixing process so that any degredation to the file is in the 'extra' bits.

16/44.1 is CD standard and the norm for lossless downloads, it is downsampled from the 26/96 master and if this is carried out correctly, it will sound the same.

MP3 and other lossy formats reduce the file size significantly and is useful where storage is finite or in the case of streaming, bandwidth is limited. Good quality lossy files such as 320 kpbs or Ogg Vorbis are very nearly as good as the CD standard original. Just how good ia a matter of debate.

The complication arises with the deliberately complex and misleading marketing strategies of the record companies, who are desperate to sell you 'new improved' formats that are nothing of the sort.

This is further complicated by the fact that some 'Hi-res' releases sound better than the cd version of the same recording, though this is invariably a result of superior mastering rather than 'extra bits'.

In effect, the record companies are trying to charge you more for better quality hi-res releases when they could have given you the same quality in the cd release in the first place.

 

[MajorFubar]

Questions like this which crop up every new moon would benefit from being in some kind of WHF FAQ. I'm sure we can all think of other regularly-asked questions which would be suitable for such an area too. I mean this as a constructive reply, not a criticism of the OP. After a while, such an area would turn into a veritable little knowledge-base. With the new super dooper website I'm sure this must be possible? Of course it would help if we had a working search facility on the forum, which until the recent 'upgrade', we did have.

 

[Craig M.]

Questions like this which crop up every new moon would benefit from being in some kind of WHF FAQ.

This has been mentioned many times before. It will never happen. Plus, who would compile the questions and answers? WHF? Given some of their reviews I'd rather they didn't. How many would agree with their views on, for eg., hdmi cables? It would be better to link to independent external sites that deal in facts rather than fanciful fairy tales.

 

[KidKomet]

Can some explain the difference between 16 and 24 bit audio?

I am unbothered enough by mp3s to use mp3s at 320 kbps bitrate on average.

I think a good vinyl pressing can sound better, but I've been disappointed. If I buy a bad vinyl I usually think I wasted my money and don't listen to it so I'm open minded.

Blu-Ray typically sounds really good to me, a good blu-ray sounds much better than mp3s or cds. I don't necessarily think cds sound better I don't know if computers that do the tests can hear what he hear or if the things they measure we can't hear.

But if the 24 bit is significantly better then I guess it wouldn't matter as much right? I mean if the master is 24 bit then vinyl should sound better right, all other things being equal?

There are plenty of great articles on the internet that explain the technical differences, just Google them. As for the practical differences, very little exploits the headroom 24bit offers so a well mastered 16bit CD will sound every bit as good as the 24bit equivalent unless remastering is employed.

 

[davedotco]

Questions like this which crop up every new moon would benefit from being in some kind of WHF FAQ.

This has been mentioned many times before. It will never happen. Plus, who would compile the questions and answers? WHF? Given some of their reviews I'd rather they didn't. How many would agree with their views on, for eg., hdmi cables? It would be better to link to independent external sites that deal in facts rather than fanciful fairy tales.

I offered to do it some time back as I have all the correct qualifications.

I have a wife that knows everything......*good*

 

[chebby]

Questions like this which crop up every new moon would benefit from being in some kind of WHF FAQ.

You mean like this? ...

http://www.whathifi.com/news/high-resolution-audio-everything-you-need-to-know

*diablo*

 

[MajorFubar]

Questions like this which crop up every new moon would benefit from being in some kind of WHF FAQ.

You mean like this? ...

http://www.whathifi.com/news/high-resolution-audio-everything-you-need-to-know

*diablo*

Probably not Chebby seeing that it insists "the main benefit of high-resolution audio files is their superior sound quality over compressed audio formats and CDs." I don't think such a generalisation could be any more misleading and it doesn't help 'HD newbies' like the OP to separate fact from marketing spiel.

 

[iMark]

[/quote]

Probably not Chebby seeing that it insists "the main benefit of high-resolution audio files is their superior sound quality over compressed audio formats and CDs." I don't think such a generalisation could be any more misleading and it doesn't help 'HD newbies' like the OP to separate fact from marketing spiel.

[/quote]

Exactly. It is sheer stupidtity to call Redbook CDs a compressed audio format. If I make a recording in 16/44.1 it is not compressed. Even downsampling from 24/96 to 16/44.1 will not lead to a great loss in sound. Hi-res is not the answer to the loudness wars.

Personally, I prefer to listen to a well-recorded CD than a badly recorded hi-res file.

 

[chebby]

Questions like this which crop up every new moon would benefit from being in some kind of WHF FAQ.

You mean like this? ...

http://www.whathifi.com/news/high-resolution-audio-everything-you-need-to-know

*diablo*

Probably not Chebby seeing that it insists "the main benefit of high-resolution audio files is their superior sound quality over compressed audio formats and CDs." I don't think such a generalisation could be any more misleading and it doesn't help 'HD newbies' like the OP to separate fact from marketing spiel.

It wasn't a serious response (hence the little demon emoticon).

 

[MajorFubar]

I know mate, I got you. I guess I just find it a little disheartening that even this very mag can't seemingly separate fact from spiel. What would have been truer to say is that some HD recordings appear to sound superior to their CD equivalent because they have been derived from different masters.

 

[chebby]

I know mate, I got you. I guess I just find it a little disheartening that even this very mag can't seemingly separate fact from spiel.

I assume that's because the journalists all have arts / humanities / business / marketing backgrounds. No contributors with a technical background.

Sadly, even the written quality of the 'articles' has bombed recently. (And the 'good stuff' has been made almost impossible to find with the new website revisions.)

A good piece on that subject here.

 

[matt49]

A good piece on that subject here.

Yes, a good piece, and I liked the sly reference to Steven Fry. Apparently Mr Fry was rather taken with a Cerruti tie that Andrew Everard used to sport. The things one learns!

 

[tinkywinkydipsylalapo]

Seems the things one learns don't include accurate reading: having consulted a copy of Mr Fry's latest memoir to find out what other information I could glean, it appears Mr F was 'insanely in love with' his own Cerruti tie, and that the mention of our former forum member was purely a credit for having taken the picture in which Mr F is wearing it. So no new sartorial insights.