Is there a noticeable difference between 18 bit and 24bit?

My old Rotel 975 is, I believe, 18 bit rate and the Arcam is 24, however, I have trouble detecting the difference between the two.

Oddly, in a similar way, I thought our TV of 50KHZ had a better picture than a price compatible 100.

The curious side of me says "why"?
 

CnoEvil

New member
Aug 21, 2009
556
13
0
Visit site
PP

The only thing I can tell you, is that 24 bit is clearly superior on a Linn Majik DS, with downloads from Linn Records - not sure if that helps.
 

6th.replicant

Well-known member
Oct 26, 2007
292
0
18,890
Visit site
Before I fully understood - still don't, TBH - the significance of 24-bit, I've noticed that CDs with cover-art that proudly proclaims "Recorded in 24-bit..." or "Remastered using 24-bit..." have oodles-more separation compared to non-24-bit recordings, especially classical stuff.

No doubt, some will argue that the above makes no sense because a CD's playback is 16-bit (I think..?).

Then again, IMHO, movie/TV footage shot with a 4k-resolution digital camera (ie the Red One) appears to have more detail when screened at 1080p, in comparison to footage shot with a 1080p camera and screened at 1080p
smiley-undecided.gif
 
6th.replicant said:
Before I fully understood - still don't, TBH - the significance of 24-bit, I've noticed that CDs with cover-art that proudly proclaims "Recorded in 24-bit..." or "Remastered using 24-bit..." have oodles-more separation compared to non-24-bit recordings, especially classical stuff.

No doubt, some will argue that the above makes no sense because a CD's playback is 16-bit (I think..?).

Then again, IMHO, movie/TV footage shot with a 4k-resolution digital camera (ie the Red One) appears to have more detail when screened at 1080p, in comparison to footage shot with a 1080p camera and screened at 1080p
smiley-undecided.gif

Right. If a standard cd playback is in 16 bit, then that means...?
 

6th.replicant

Well-known member
Oct 26, 2007
292
0
18,890
Visit site
plastic penguin said:
6th.replicant said:
Before I fully understood - still don't, TBH - the significance of 24-bit, I've noticed that CDs with cover-art that proudly proclaims "Recorded in 24-bit..." or "Remastered using 24-bit..." have oodles-more separation compared to non-24-bit recordings, especially classical stuff.

No doubt, some will argue that the above makes no sense because a CD's playback is 16-bit (I think..?).

Then again, IMHO, movie/TV footage shot with a 4k-resolution digital camera (ie the Red One) appears to have more detail when screened at 1080p, in comparison to footage shot with a 1080p camera and screened at 1080p
smiley-undecided.gif

Right. If a standard cd playback is in 16 bit, then that means...?

"Never mind the width, hear the quality"??
smiley-laughing.gif
 

CnoEvil

New member
Aug 21, 2009
556
13
0
Visit site
plastic penguin said:
6th.replicant said:
Before I fully understood - still don't, TBH - the significance of 24-bit, I've noticed that CDs with cover-art that proudly proclaims "Recorded in 24-bit..." or "Remastered using 24-bit..." have oodles-more separation compared to non-24-bit recordings, especially classical stuff.

No doubt, some will argue that the above makes no sense because a CD's playback is 16-bit (I think..?).

Then again, IMHO, movie/TV footage shot with a 4k-resolution digital camera (ie the Red One) appears to have more detail when screened at 1080p, in comparison to footage shot with a 1080p camera and screened at 1080p
smiley-undecided.gif

Right. If a standard cd playback is in 16 bit, then that means...?

CD = 1411 kbps

24/192 = 9216 kbps .....or something like that. :~
 

shooter

New member
May 4, 2008
210
0
0
Visit site
It's all about the dynamic range. A CD (16 bit) has a dynamic range of 96db or there about' s, a 24 bit recording has a dynamic range of 144db, 6db x per bit.

What this means in real term's is that a 24 bit recording should be nearer the original than the 16 bit because of the headroom it has and the information that is stored in a 24 bit recording. The term "glass ceiling" (or similar) you may of read or heard of before regarding CD playback, this relates to the lack of dynamic range a 16 bit recording hold's. If you imagine a shut off at 96db's when an instrument peak's well over the 100db's then all that information (sound) is lost in a 16 bit recording.

So too your point of not hearing a difference, you should a be able too as the human ear has a possible dynamic range of 140db's..
 

Diamond Joe

Well-known member
Mar 1, 2008
88
6
18,545
Visit site
Hi PP, I get tied in knots when I try to explain things, try Wiki for "Red Book (CD standard)" that's quite a good overview of all things 16 bit. Can't comment on 24 bit recordings as I've never heard one.
 
T

the record spot

Guest
It really depends as much on the quality of the recording and the mastering. A great CD at 16-bit will be a significantly better musical experience than a bad one of the same album at hi-res.
 

Mr Morph

New member
Aug 16, 2010
1
0
0
Visit site
plastic penguin said:
My old Rotel 975 is, I believe, 18 bit rate and the Arcam is 24, however, I have trouble detecting the difference between the two.

Pretty sure it refers to the filtering of the 'digital word length'. So it's more to do with the method you can arrange the same data, which is why some DAC's have switchable filters so you can choose between 16, 18, 20 ,24bit etc. Whether there's any difference or not will I'm sure be one of those great debates, like oversampling, upsampling and the usual marketing speel. This doesn't change the fact that there are still people who are happily listening to Philips 14bit chips, and refuse to be moved to anything else! Simple answer, if it sounds OK, who cares about the method...?
 

shooter

New member
May 4, 2008
210
0
0
Visit site
the record spot said:
It really depends as much on the quality of the recording and the mastering. A great CD at 16-bit will be a significantly better musical experience than a bad one of the same album at hi-res.

+ 1 on that.

What is your reference PP..
 
Mr Morph said:
plastic penguin said:
My old Rotel 975 is, I believe, 18 bit rate and the Arcam is 24, however, I have trouble detecting the difference between the two.

Pretty sure it refers to the filtering of the 'digital word length'. So it's more to do with the method you can arrange the same data, which is why some DAC's have switchable filters so you can choose between 16, 18, 20 ,24bit etc. Whether there's any difference or not will I'm sure be one of those great debates, like oversampling, upsampling and the usual marketing speel. This doesn't change the fact that there are still people who are happily listening to Philips 14bit chips, and refuse to be moved to anything else! Simple answer, if it sounds OK, who cares about the method...?

Absolutely concur - I still play the Rotel (3 or 4 times a year) and although there are tonal differecies I really can't decide which is better. The Arcam has a bigger boned or a more grown up sound, if you like, whereas the Rotel is more detailed.

Most of the CDPs have Wolfson DACs, whether 18 or 24, yet in a 'BLIND TEST', unless there are two of the same make, I couldn't tell you which I prefer.

Hence why I never get involved with the technical side: if it sounds good in my system I'll buy it, regardless of spec.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
In my experience the bottleneck in most systems is not the bitrate. There is no doubt that 24bit will sound better than 16bit on high end gear, but it is unlikely that most people will have kit good enough to notice. I have heard 24 vs 16 bit on high end and there is a difference. Just something to take into account.
 

Mr Morph

New member
Aug 16, 2010
1
0
0
Visit site
plastic penguin said:
I still play the Rotel (3 or 4 times a year)

Continue to do that, otherwise the mechanism will freeze up. And if you can use an '80 minute' CD now and again (and let it play out to the end) this will keep the laser travel working freely. I'd be willing to attempt to explain 'digital word lengths', if you want, but I can't guarantee my explanation is correct.
 
Mr Morph said:
plastic penguin said:
I still play the Rotel (3 or 4 times a year)

Continue to do that, otherwise the mechanism will freeze up. And if you can use an '80 minute' CD now and again (and let it play out to the end) this will keep the laser travel working freely. I'd be willing to attempt to explain 'digital word lengths', if you want, but I can't guarantee my explanation is correct.

The drawer mechanism is spent. Should've gone to the dump yonks ago. I'm a compulsive hoarder... ;)
 

Mr Morph

New member
Aug 16, 2010
1
0
0
Visit site
plastic penguin said:
The drawer mechanism is spent. Should've gone to the dump yonks ago. I'm a compulsive hoarder... ;)

Yep, if the drawer is still working the mech probably sounds like a piece of badly made agricultural machinery by now. My oldest Sony has the same problem. Only two mechanisms ever withstood the test of time, the Philips CDM1, and the Sony BU10. Full metal jacket etc...
 

Gerrardasnails

Well-known member
Sep 6, 2007
295
1
18,890
Visit site
FirstAid said:
In my experience the bottleneck in most systems is not the bitrate. There is no doubt that 24bit will sound better than 16bit on high end gear, but it is unlikely that most people will have kit good enough to notice. I have heard 24 vs 16 bit on high end and there is a difference. Just something to take into account.

Seriously, there is a massive difference between 16 bit and 24 bit files. Night and day.
 

Craig M.

New member
Mar 20, 2008
127
0
0
Visit site
if there is gerrard, it's down to the mastering rather than the bit-rate. wanna prove it? download a 24/96 file and resample it to 16/44.1 and then compare the two. very little, if any, audible difference.
 
T

the record spot

Guest
Ah, the old "night and day"...can't go wrong in an audio argument. Almost bankable.
 

ID.

New member
Feb 22, 2010
207
1
0
Visit site
There are two separate issues I think people are confusing here. One is the files/format of the recording, the other is the DAC chip.

I think the theory is that a higher bit chip has more processing power and should be able to do the conversion better (heck, the DAC unit in my kit is 32 bit). Some of these chips will upsample, upsample to DSD, etc. but I still think that the main thing is they are better able to do the processing and should give a better result (highly objective, and I'm not sure I could pick it. TBH I just haven't listened to enough to compare).

The chip has nothing to do with 16 bit or 24 bit files. The 32 bit chip in my kit doesn't mean that it can play 32 bit files. (please feel free to correct any of my above statements, as they are really only made on a very general understanding).

When we get into the issue of 16 bit vs 24 bit source material, then you'd be looking at CDs vs hi resolution downloads (or maybe DVDA or SACD), but I don't think that was what Plastic Penguin was referring to (my understanding was that he was referring to the differences in CD playback)
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
the record spot said:
Ah, the old "night and day"...can't go wrong in an audio argument. Almost bankable.

got some sony bookshelves and some wharfedales on one amp for a kind of semi surround sound in my room...the difference IS night and day (theres a speaker 1 on off and speaker 2 on of switch). not gonna comment on 16vs24 bit though...would have thought it would be the same because of the loudness war you can forget theoretical maxims of 96db vs 144 when realistically theres 10db of range in tinie tempah...every phrase has a place.
 

6th.replicant

Well-known member
Oct 26, 2007
292
0
18,890
Visit site
Craig M. said:
if there is gerrard, it's down to the mastering rather than the bit-rate. wanna prove it? download a 24/96 file and resample it to 16/44.1 and then compare the two. very little, if any, audible difference.

Just compared a 24/96 of John Hassell's Fascinoma via Airport Express -> Optical (16/44.1) and then MBP ->USB (24/96) into rDAC and the difference is marked, IMHO :)
 

Craig M.

New member
Mar 20, 2008
127
0
0
Visit site
is the airport express doing the downsampling? could be it's not very good at doing it, the files i heard were converted using audio software and the difference was very small - the higher bitrate file maybe sounded a bit more natural. i seem to remember a link on another forum to two versions of the same track - the original 24/96 and a downsampled 16/44. you could also argue that as your using two different inputs on the dac, some of the difference could be because of that.
smiley-smile.gif


i'm not 'dissing' high bitrate downloads if it means a remaster with a decent hifi in mind, rather than a car stereo. i'm just not sure the higher bitrate makes a big difference.

but then again, i thought itunes and puremusic sounded almost the same and any differences were in the other direction to yours.
smiley-laughing.gif
 

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts