Sound quality research

[ColinLovesMusic]

CD is actually the best source. Reel to reel at what speed for second place?

In your house maybe. In mine it's not.

What sort of a reel to reel tape machine do you own and what sort of CD player?

I own a Studer A807 tape machine and a couple of Denon CD players.

7.5 and 15 ips 1/4 inch 2 track tapes sound better than vinyl and CD in my system.

You think LPs sound better than CD, so perhaps you are mixing better and worse up. I'm talking about the format, not my own equipment, but for your information at the moment I'm using a vintage Philips CD 850 MkII. I had a Revox once but no longer own a reel to reel, but I know that all the commercially available tapes were recorded at 3 3/4 ips, so what music are you listening to?

TrevC, your statement is incorrect. I don't think that LP's sound better than CD's in my system. I know.

Your statement that perhaps I am mixing better and worse up is so wide of the mark, it's not even in the same postcode (as the Mighty Jingles would say).

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. When it comes to CD's it's a relatively stale pudding in my system.

So you "know that all the commercially available tapes were recorded at 3 3/4 ips"?

Well check this out:

http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_odkw=&_osacat=618&_from=R40&_trksid=p204...

Well done, that's 3 incorrect statements that you've made in 3 sentences.

Best and worst depends on the person and the system as much as anything and what is it in the reproduction any one person is listening out for. But I think the general consensus amongst hifi enthusiasts is that vinyl has the potential to sound better but it does take a hell of a good turntable/arm/cart and set up to achieve it. Whereas a cheap even very cheap CD player will sound vastly superior to a cheap or very cheap turntable. So it must be down to what end of the market people are buying at (Budget end for me). Reason is probably because anything hitech can be manufactered very cheaply whereas a good turntable relies on the finest engineering and build as well as a touch of 'Foo' and the black art of hifi that defies technical measurement. I love vinyl and do appreciate the depth, ambience, resonance and deeply layered sound vinyl creates. I can forgive the surface noise and listen through it. Mechanical it is and a victim to variables such as some of my recent vinyl purchases don't seem to have the hole in the middle which defeats the point of having a turntable with rock solid pitch.

 

[ColinLovesMusic]

I will look it up myself. 44100Hz means 44100 cycles per second. I can't see how sampling can not be sampling the music at the given sample rate. I know I can hear a difference between 16bit and 24bit but I don't know how or why I can. What I know I know and what I don't know I can find out. So I will go indepth from a very reliable source online. You say you know what it means and I don't. I can't just accept you must know better just because you say so. You could be anyone. Are you a time served professional on the subject? I did learn what I said and know in a classroom, but of course I could only assume what I was taught was correct and I do not have hands on experience of professional digital recording.

The only difference between 16 bit and 24 bit is the dynamic range, if its the same mastering the sound will not change. So how can you hear a difference?

I have already said a few posts up the page what difference in sound I can hear from selecting 24bit output on the media player. And 24 bit digital downloads to begin with even better rather than the player just upscaling ( I suppose that is a good enough word for it) from 16bit. I am primarily talking about digital downloads on PC and then through USB to DAC and then on to the amp (via gotham gac-1 cables of course - what else for me - confused? ask trevc). Things like CD, DVD and other physical carriers of music are gradually on their way out with me. I don't know how to score DVD-Audio or SACD because I have never used them. I jumped straight from ordinary CD to Digital files when the penny finally dropped with me to add an outboard DAC to a basic laptop and it is such a good set up, I hardly ever spin a CD now. Vinyl is a hobby / an indulgence for me and neither sensible, cost effective or convienient but i like it. However will nevr again use it as my primary source.

 

[ColinLovesMusic]

I will look it up myself. 44100Hz means 44100 cycles per second. I can't see how sampling can not be sampling the music at the given sample rate. I know I can hear a difference between 16bit and 24bit but I don't know how or why I can. What I know I know and what I don't know I can find out. So I will go indepth from a very reliable source online. You say you know what it means and I don't. I can't just accept you must know better just because you say so. You could be anyone. Are you a time served professional on the subject? I did learn what I said and know in a classroom, but of course I could only assume what I was taught was correct and I do not have hands on experience of professional digital recording.

The only difference between 16 bit and 24 bit is the dynamic range, if its the same mastering the sound will not change. So how can you hear a difference?

I have already said a few posts up the page what difference in sound I can hear from selecting 24bit output on the media player.

Which post no. was that because I can't see it?

If you hear a difference then it must be your media player!

Ok can't find it myself to be honest. Wrote it somewhere cant find it now. So what I wrote or perhaps meant to write is the media player actually can output a many different bit rates and sample rates but I am stuck with 16bit 44.1kHz or 16bit 48kHz or 24bit 44.1 kHz or 24bit 48kHz because my DAC can only handle those bit and sample rates (budget DAC simple but good) so yeah choice is 16 or 24. The difference in sound is compared to 24bit 16 seems a little shallower and slightly thinner, less bold, less well defined. Switch to 24bit ther is greater depth, bolder sound, more solid bass and greater insight as if music has become more 3 dimensional. I know many other things come into it with media players like codec tweaks and choice of decoder as well as any sound processing I do to the sound but with a direct switching between 16 and 24 those are the difference. Switching between 44.1 and 48 to my ears and/or system seems to not make a difference. But I select 48kHz because I think 'why not' . Nothing technical there from me I know but just me listening to the A/B comparison. Maybe could well be the media player itself. I have several media players installed but AIMP my prefered. Free media player. I was sure I was not getting best sound so I googled the words ''high quality media player'' and that is the one showed up top of the pile. Fabulous interface as well.

 

[The_Lhc]

I will look it up myself. 44100Hz means 44100 cycles per second. I can't see how sampling can not be sampling the music at the given sample rate. I know I can hear a difference between 16bit and 24bit but I don't know how or why I can. What I know I know and what I don't know I can find out. So I will go indepth from a very reliable source online. You say you know what it means and I don't. I can't just accept you must know better just because you say so. You could be anyone. Are you a time served professional on the subject? I did learn what I said and know in a classroom, but of course I could only assume what I was taught was correct and I do not have hands on experience of professional digital recording.

The whole idea that the sample rate is how often the "level" of the signal is recorded is completely wrong. You know that staircase diagram they use to illustrate that 24-bit is better because the "steps" are smaller? Completely wrong.

You need to start with Fourier and the Nyquist-Shannon theorem, which demonstrates how a signal within a certain bandwidth can be PERFECTLY captured. In the case of CD that bandwidth has an upper limit of 22.05kHz, higher than any human can hear, all raising the sampling frequency does is raise that upper limit but as CD is already above our hearing range there's no point.

Hi,

I think that sampling rate is how often you sample the signal level. As such, is the correct interpretation.

Regards,

Shadders.

Shadders it is indeed how often you sample the signal. Hence the term sampling rate (too difficult for some to understand?). Or it is in my terms how many times a stab at it is taken every second. You are right and I can't understand how anyone can think it means something else. Getting bogged down in theorums is another example of how some bypass the obvious to attempt to understand the complicated. Why the obsession with frequency response to 22.5kHz and beyond? as if that is the sole parameter to judge sound by. It is quite simple to understand if there was nothing to be gained from using higher bit depths and higher sampling rates than the bog standard 16bit 44.1kHz then there would be no point in doing it. If it happens that say 24bit 96kHz can record up to a supersonic 48kHz then it doesn't mean it will and even if it does those supersonic frequencies will be 'shelved' 'cut' filtered out. Personally I think 24bit 48kHz is more than good enough in domestic surrounds but studio recordings have to be at the best available which is I believe 32bit 192kHz.

So let me get this right, you're actually saying that the mathematics that all digital sampling is based on is irrelevant and wrong. Not only that but you freely admit that you have no idea how it works but you still think it's wrong anyway?

I'm not hiding behind theorems, those theorems are the explanation for how digital sampling works! And the explanation for why a 44.1kHz sample rate will PERFECTLY capture every signal up to 22.05kHz.

All increasing the sample rate does is increase the maximum frequency that can be PERFECTLY captured but as we've already said, none of those higher frequencies are even audible to humans, so it's a complete waste of time.

 

[BigH]

I will look it up myself. 44100Hz means 44100 cycles per second. I can't see how sampling can not be sampling the music at the given sample rate. I know I can hear a difference between 16bit and 24bit but I don't know how or why I can. What I know I know and what I don't know I can find out. So I will go indepth from a very reliable source online. You say you know what it means and I don't. I can't just accept you must know better just because you say so. You could be anyone. Are you a time served professional on the subject? I did learn what I said and know in a classroom, but of course I could only assume what I was taught was correct and I do not have hands on experience of professional digital recording.

The only difference between 16 bit and 24 bit is the dynamic range, if its the same mastering the sound will not change. So how can you hear a difference?

I have already said a few posts up the page what difference in sound I can hear from selecting 24bit output on the media player.

Which post no. was that because I can't see it?

If you hear a difference then it must be your media player!

Ok can't find it myself to be honest. Wrote it somewhere cant find it now. So what I wrote or perhaps meant to write is the media player actually can output a many different bit rates and sample rates but I am stuck with 16bit 44.1kHz or 16bit 48kHz or 24bit 44.1 kHz or 24bit 48kHz because my DAC can only handle those bit and sample rates (budget DAC simple but good) so yeah choice is 16 or 24. The difference in sound is compared to 24bit 16 seems a little shallower and slightly thinner, less bold, less well defined. Switch to 24bit ther is greater depth, bolder sound, more solid bass and greater insight as if music has become more 3 dimensional. I know many other things come into it with media players like codec tweaks and choice of decoder as well as any sound processing I do to the sound but with a direct switching between 16 and 24 those are the difference. Switching between 44.1 and 48 to my ears and/or system seems to not make a difference. But I select 48kHz because I think 'why not' . Nothing technical there from me I know but just me listening to the A/B comparison. Maybe could well be the media player itself. I have several media players installed but AIMP my prefered. Free media player. I was sure I was not getting best sound so I googled the words ''high quality media player'' and that is the one showed up top of the pile. Fabulous interface as well.

I see what you mean but that sound difference is not down to the bits, if you convert a 24 bit to 16 bit the sound will be the same unless the 24 bit is over 100 dbs dynamic range then there maybe some difference, as most cds don't even reach 20db its not a problem.

 

[TrevC]

CD is actually the best source. Reel to reel at what speed for second place?

In your house maybe. In mine it's not.

What sort of a reel to reel tape machine do you own and what sort of CD player?

I own a Studer A807 tape machine and a couple of Denon CD players.

7.5 and 15 ips 1/4 inch 2 track tapes sound better than vinyl and CD in my system.

You think LPs sound better than CD, so perhaps you are mixing better and worse up. I'm talking about the format, not my own equipment, but for your information at the moment I'm using a vintage Philips CD 850 MkII. I had a Revox once but no longer own a reel to reel, but I know that almost all the commercially available tapes were recorded at 3 3/4 ips, so what music are you listening to?

 

[shadders]

The whole idea that the sample rate is how often the "level" of the signal is recorded is completely wrong. You know that staircase diagram they use to illustrate that 24-bit is better because the "steps" are smaller? Completely wrong.

You need to start with Fourier and the Nyquist-Shannon theorem, which demonstrates how a signal within a certain bandwidth can be PERFECTLY captured. In the case of CD that bandwidth has an upper limit of 22.05kHz, higher than any human can hear, all raising the sampling frequency does is raise that upper limit but as CD is already above our hearing range there's no point.

Hi,

The theory is not in question, all Colin was stating is that the sample rate is how many times per second that you convert the signal level to the relevant number. Where you have stated that this is wrong, I believe is an incorrect statement on your behalf.

Regards,

Shadders.

 

[TrevC]

CD is actually the best source. Reel to reel at what speed for second place?

In your house maybe. In mine it's not.

What sort of a reel to reel tape machine do you own and what sort of CD player?

I own a Studer A807 tape machine and a couple of Denon CD players.

7.5 and 15 ips 1/4 inch 2 track tapes sound better than vinyl and CD in my system.

You think LPs sound better than CD, so perhaps you are mixing better and worse up. I'm talking about the format, not my own equipment, but for your information at the moment I'm using a vintage Philips CD 850 MkII. I had a Revox once but no longer own a reel to reel, but I know that all the commercially available tapes were recorded at 3 3/4 ips, so what music are you listening to?

TrevC, your statement is incorrect. I don't think that LP's sound better than CD's in my system. I know.

Your statement that perhaps I am mixing better and worse up is so wide of the mark, it's not even in the same postcode (as the Mighty Jingles would say).

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. When it comes to CD's it's a relatively stale pudding in my system.

So you "know that all the commercially available tapes were recorded at 3 3/4 ips"?

Well check this out:

http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_odkw=&_osacat=618&_from=R40&_trksid=p204...

Well done, that's 3 incorrect statements that you've made in 3 sentences.

Oops! I should have said almost all recorded tapes, or all the tapes that I encountered. :O) Great if you want to pay a fortune for a tiny selection of something totally inconvenient and not as good as a CD.

How about these 15 ips precorded tapes? Where do you get those?

A CD played on good equipment will sound exactly like the studio master, so you can't really improve on that.

A common mastering processor for dynamic range compression
The source material, ideally at the original resolution, is processed using equalization, compression, limiting, noise reduction and other processes. More tasks, such as editing, pre-gapping, leveling, fading in and out, noise reduction and other signal restoration and enhancement processes can be applied as part of the mastering stage. This step prepares the music for either digital or analog, e.g. vinyl, replication. The source material is put in the proper order, commonly referred to as assembly (or 'track') sequencing.

If the material is destined for vinyl release, additional processing, such as dynamic range reduction or frequency dependent stereo–to–mono fold-down and equalization, may be applied to compensate for the limitations of that medium.

 

[manicm]

I will look it up myself. 44100Hz means 44100 cycles per second. I can't see how sampling can not be sampling the music at the given sample rate. I know I can hear a difference between 16bit and 24bit but I don't know how or why I can. What I know I know and what I don't know I can find out. So I will go indepth from a very reliable source online. You say you know what it means and I don't. I can't just accept you must know better just because you say so. You could be anyone. Are you a time served professional on the subject? I did learn what I said and know in a classroom, but of course I could only assume what I was taught was correct and I do not have hands on experience of professional digital recording.

The whole idea that the sample rate is how often the "level" of the signal is recorded is completely wrong. You know that staircase diagram they use to illustrate that 24-bit is better because the "steps" are smaller? Completely wrong.

You need to start with Fourier and the Nyquist-Shannon theorem, which demonstrates how a signal within a certain bandwidth can be PERFECTLY captured. In the case of CD that bandwidth has an upper limit of 22.05kHz, higher than any human can hear, all raising the sampling frequency does is raise that upper limit but as CD is already above our hearing range there's no point.

Hi,

I think that sampling rate is how often you sample the signal level. As such, is the correct interpretation.

Regards,

Shadders.

Shadders it is indeed how often you sample the signal. Hence the term sampling rate (too difficult for some to understand?). Or it is in my terms how many times a stab at it is taken every second. You are right and I can't understand how anyone can think it means something else. Getting bogged down in theorums is another example of how some bypass the obvious to attempt to understand the complicated. Why the obsession with frequency response to 22.5kHz and beyond? as if that is the sole parameter to judge sound by. It is quite simple to understand if there was nothing to be gained from using higher bit depths and higher sampling rates than the bog standard 16bit 44.1kHz then there would be no point in doing it. If it happens that say 24bit 96kHz can record up to a supersonic 48kHz then it doesn't mean it will and even if it does those supersonic frequencies will be 'shelved' 'cut' filtered out. Personally I think 24bit 48kHz is more than good enough in domestic surrounds but studio recordings have to be at the best available which is I believe 32bit 192kHz.

So let me get this right, you're actually saying that the mathematics that all digital sampling is based on is irrelevant and wrong. Not only that but you freely admit that you have no idea how it works but you still think it's wrong anyway?

I'm not hiding behind theorems, those theorems are the explanation for how digital sampling works! And the explanation for why a 44.1kHz sample rate will PERFECTLY capture every signal up to 22.05kHz.

All increasing the sample rate does is increase the maximum frequency that can be PERFECTLY captured but as we've already said, none of those higher frequencies are even audible to humans, so it's a complete waste of time.

You're talking about bit rate i.e. the frequency, I think he's talking about bit-depth which is a different animal.

 

[manicm]

I will look it up myself. 44100Hz means 44100 cycles per second. I can't see how sampling can not be sampling the music at the given sample rate. I know I can hear a difference between 16bit and 24bit but I don't know how or why I can. What I know I know and what I don't know I can find out. So I will go indepth from a very reliable source online. You say you know what it means and I don't. I can't just accept you must know better just because you say so. You could be anyone. Are you a time served professional on the subject? I did learn what I said and know in a classroom, but of course I could only assume what I was taught was correct and I do not have hands on experience of professional digital recording.

The only difference between 16 bit and 24 bit is the dynamic range, if its the same mastering the sound will not change. So how can you hear a difference?

I have already said a few posts up the page what difference in sound I can hear from selecting 24bit output on the media player.

Which post no. was that because I can't see it?

If you hear a difference then it must be your media player!

Ok can't find it myself to be honest. Wrote it somewhere cant find it now. So what I wrote or perhaps meant to write is the media player actually can output a many different bit rates and sample rates but I am stuck with 16bit 44.1kHz or 16bit 48kHz or 24bit 44.1 kHz or 24bit 48kHz because my DAC can only handle those bit and sample rates (budget DAC simple but good) so yeah choice is 16 or 24. The difference in sound is compared to 24bit 16 seems a little shallower and slightly thinner, less bold, less well defined. Switch to 24bit ther is greater depth, bolder sound, more solid bass and greater insight as if music has become more 3 dimensional. I know many other things come into it with media players like codec tweaks and choice of decoder as well as any sound processing I do to the sound but with a direct switching between 16 and 24 those are the difference. Switching between 44.1 and 48 to my ears and/or system seems to not make a difference. But I select 48kHz because I think 'why not' . Nothing technical there from me I know but just me listening to the A/B comparison. Maybe could well be the media player itself. I have several media players installed but AIMP my prefered. Free media player. I was sure I was not getting best sound so I googled the words ''high quality media player'' and that is the one showed up top of the pile. Fabulous interface as well.

I see what you mean but that sound difference is not down to the bits, if you convert a 24 bit to 16 bit the sound will be the same unless the 24 bit is over 100 dbs dynamic range then there maybe some difference, as most cds don't even reach 20db its not a problem.

Bit depth does not just equate to dynamic range, it's the amount of information captured at any one sample, per period. By only focussing on dynamic range you're selling the argument short.

'In digital audio[/b] using pulse-code modulation (PCM), bit depth[/b] is the number of bits[/b] of information in eachsample[/b], and it directly corresponds to the resolution of each sample[/b].'

 

[BigH]

I will look it up myself. 44100Hz means 44100 cycles per second. I can't see how sampling can not be sampling the music at the given sample rate. I know I can hear a difference between 16bit and 24bit but I don't know how or why I can. What I know I know and what I don't know I can find out. So I will go indepth from a very reliable source online. You say you know what it means and I don't. I can't just accept you must know better just because you say so. You could be anyone. Are you a time served professional on the subject? I did learn what I said and know in a classroom, but of course I could only assume what I was taught was correct and I do not have hands on experience of professional digital recording.

The whole idea that the sample rate is how often the "level" of the signal is recorded is completely wrong. You know that staircase diagram they use to illustrate that 24-bit is better because the "steps" are smaller? Completely wrong.

You need to start with Fourier and the Nyquist-Shannon theorem, which demonstrates how a signal within a certain bandwidth can be PERFECTLY captured. In the case of CD that bandwidth has an upper limit of 22.05kHz, higher than any human can hear, all raising the sampling frequency does is raise that upper limit but as CD is already above our hearing range there's no point.

Hi,

I think that sampling rate is how often you sample the signal level. As such, is the correct interpretation.

Regards,

Shadders.

Shadders it is indeed how often you sample the signal. Hence the term sampling rate (too difficult for some to understand?). Or it is in my terms how many times a stab at it is taken every second. You are right and I can't understand how anyone can think it means something else. Getting bogged down in theorums is another example of how some bypass the obvious to attempt to understand the complicated. Why the obsession with frequency response to 22.5kHz and beyond? as if that is the sole parameter to judge sound by. It is quite simple to understand if there was nothing to be gained from using higher bit depths and higher sampling rates than the bog standard 16bit 44.1kHz then there would be no point in doing it. If it happens that say 24bit 96kHz can record up to a supersonic 48kHz then it doesn't mean it will and even if it does those supersonic frequencies will be 'shelved' 'cut' filtered out. Personally I think 24bit 48kHz is more than good enough in domestic surrounds but studio recordings have to be at the best available which is I believe 32bit 192kHz.

Many recordings now I hear are in 48bit.

 

[BigH]

I will look it up myself. 44100Hz means 44100 cycles per second. I can't see how sampling can not be sampling the music at the given sample rate. I know I can hear a difference between 16bit and 24bit but I don't know how or why I can. What I know I know and what I don't know I can find out. So I will go indepth from a very reliable source online. You say you know what it means and I don't. I can't just accept you must know better just because you say so. You could be anyone. Are you a time served professional on the subject? I did learn what I said and know in a classroom, but of course I could only assume what I was taught was correct and I do not have hands on experience of professional digital recording.

The only difference between 16 bit and 24 bit is the dynamic range, if its the same mastering the sound will not change. So how can you hear a difference?

I have already said a few posts up the page what difference in sound I can hear from selecting 24bit output on the media player.

Which post no. was that because I can't see it?

If you hear a difference then it must be your media player!

Ok can't find it myself to be honest. Wrote it somewhere cant find it now. So what I wrote or perhaps meant to write is the media player actually can output a many different bit rates and sample rates but I am stuck with 16bit 44.1kHz or 16bit 48kHz or 24bit 44.1 kHz or 24bit 48kHz because my DAC can only handle those bit and sample rates (budget DAC simple but good) so yeah choice is 16 or 24. The difference in sound is compared to 24bit 16 seems a little shallower and slightly thinner, less bold, less well defined. Switch to 24bit ther is greater depth, bolder sound, more solid bass and greater insight as if music has become more 3 dimensional. I know many other things come into it with media players like codec tweaks and choice of decoder as well as any sound processing I do to the sound but with a direct switching between 16 and 24 those are the difference. Switching between 44.1 and 48 to my ears and/or system seems to not make a difference. But I select 48kHz because I think 'why not' . Nothing technical there from me I know but just me listening to the A/B comparison. Maybe could well be the media player itself. I have several media players installed but AIMP my prefered. Free media player. I was sure I was not getting best sound so I googled the words ''high quality media player'' and that is the one showed up top of the pile. Fabulous interface as well.

I see what you mean but that sound difference is not down to the bits, if you convert a 24 bit to 16 bit the sound will be the same unless the 24 bit is over 100 dbs dynamic range then there maybe some difference, as most cds don't even reach 20db its not a problem.

Bit depth does not just equate to dynamic range, it's the amount of information captured at any one sample, per period. By only focussing on dynamic range you're selling the argument short.

'In digital audio using pulse-code modulation (PCM), bit depth is the number of bits of information in eachsample, and it directly corresponds to the resolution of each sample.'

Not according to this article: http://www.head-fi.org/t/415361/24bit-vs-16bit-the-myth-exploded

 

[shadders]

I will look it up myself. 44100Hz means 44100 cycles per second. I can't see how sampling can not be sampling the music at the given sample rate. I know I can hear a difference between 16bit and 24bit but I don't know how or why I can. What I know I know and what I don't know I can find out. So I will go indepth from a very reliable source online. You say you know what it means and I don't. I can't just accept you must know better just because you say so. You could be anyone. Are you a time served professional on the subject? I did learn what I said and know in a classroom, but of course I could only assume what I was taught was correct and I do not have hands on experience of professional digital recording.

The only difference between 16 bit and 24 bit is the dynamic range, if its the same mastering the sound will not change. So how can you hear a difference?

I have already said a few posts up the page what difference in sound I can hear from selecting 24bit output on the media player.

Which post no. was that because I can't see it?

If you hear a difference then it must be your media player!

Ok can't find it myself to be honest. Wrote it somewhere cant find it now. So what I wrote or perhaps meant to write is the media player actually can output a many different bit rates and sample rates but I am stuck with 16bit 44.1kHz or 16bit 48kHz or 24bit 44.1 kHz or 24bit 48kHz because my DAC can only handle those bit and sample rates (budget DAC simple but good) so yeah choice is 16 or 24. The difference in sound is compared to 24bit 16 seems a little shallower and slightly thinner, less bold, less well defined. Switch to 24bit ther is greater depth, bolder sound, more solid bass and greater insight as if music has become more 3 dimensional. I know many other things come into it with media players like codec tweaks and choice of decoder as well as any sound processing I do to the sound but with a direct switching between 16 and 24 those are the difference. Switching between 44.1 and 48 to my ears and/or system seems to not make a difference. But I select 48kHz because I think 'why not' . Nothing technical there from me I know but just me listening to the A/B comparison. Maybe could well be the media player itself. I have several media players installed but AIMP my prefered. Free media player. I was sure I was not getting best sound so I googled the words ''high quality media player'' and that is the one showed up top of the pile. Fabulous interface as well.

I see what you mean but that sound difference is not down to the bits, if you convert a 24 bit to 16 bit the sound will be the same unless the 24 bit is over 100 dbs dynamic range then there maybe some difference, as most cds don't even reach 20db its not a problem.

Bit depth does not just equate to dynamic range, it's the amount of information captured at any one sample, per period. By only focussing on dynamic range you're selling the argument short.

'In digital audio using pulse-code modulation (PCM), bit depth is the number of bits of information in eachsample, and it directly corresponds to the resolution of each sample.'

Not according to this article: http://www.head-fi.org/t/415361/24bit-vs-16bit-the-myth-exploded

Hi,

I am not sure what you are disagreeing upon. Higher bit depth does indeed provide more dynamic range for two ADC's (24bit, and 16bit), who have the same FSD voltage for their inputs.

The article states that dither eliminates (100%) quantisation distortion. This is incorrect. Dither MODIFIES the distortion such that it cannot be heard.

Regards,

Shadders.

 

[BigH]

I will look it up myself. 44100Hz means 44100 cycles per second. I can't see how sampling can not be sampling the music at the given sample rate. I know I can hear a difference between 16bit and 24bit but I don't know how or why I can. What I know I know and what I don't know I can find out. So I will go indepth from a very reliable source online. You say you know what it means and I don't. I can't just accept you must know better just because you say so. You could be anyone. Are you a time served professional on the subject? I did learn what I said and know in a classroom, but of course I could only assume what I was taught was correct and I do not have hands on experience of professional digital recording.

The only difference between 16 bit and 24 bit is the dynamic range, if its the same mastering the sound will not change. So how can you hear a difference?

I have already said a few posts up the page what difference in sound I can hear from selecting 24bit output on the media player.

Which post no. was that because I can't see it?

If you hear a difference then it must be your media player!

Ok can't find it myself to be honest. Wrote it somewhere cant find it now. So what I wrote or perhaps meant to write is the media player actually can output a many different bit rates and sample rates but I am stuck with 16bit 44.1kHz or 16bit 48kHz or 24bit 44.1 kHz or 24bit 48kHz because my DAC can only handle those bit and sample rates (budget DAC simple but good) so yeah choice is 16 or 24. The difference in sound is compared to 24bit 16 seems a little shallower and slightly thinner, less bold, less well defined. Switch to 24bit ther is greater depth, bolder sound, more solid bass and greater insight as if music has become more 3 dimensional. I know many other things come into it with media players like codec tweaks and choice of decoder as well as any sound processing I do to the sound but with a direct switching between 16 and 24 those are the difference. Switching between 44.1 and 48 to my ears and/or system seems to not make a difference. But I select 48kHz because I think 'why not' . Nothing technical there from me I know but just me listening to the A/B comparison. Maybe could well be the media player itself. I have several media players installed but AIMP my prefered. Free media player. I was sure I was not getting best sound so I googled the words ''high quality media player'' and that is the one showed up top of the pile. Fabulous interface as well.

I see what you mean but that sound difference is not down to the bits, if you convert a 24 bit to 16 bit the sound will be the same unless the 24 bit is over 100 dbs dynamic range then there maybe some difference, as most cds don't even reach 20db its not a problem.

Bit depth does not just equate to dynamic range, it's the amount of information captured at any one sample, per period. By only focussing on dynamic range you're selling the argument short.

'In digital audio using pulse-code modulation (PCM), bit depth is the number of bits of information in eachsample, and it directly corresponds to the resolution of each sample.'

Not according to this article: http://www.head-fi.org/t/415361/24bit-vs-16bit-the-myth-exploded

Hi,

I am not sure what you are disagreeing upon. Higher bit depth does indeed provide more dynamic range for two ADC's (24bit, and 16bit), who have the same FSD voltage for their inputs.

The article states that dither eliminates (100%) quantisation distortion. This is incorrect. Dither MODIFIES the distortion such that it cannot be heard.

Regards,

Shadders.

I was disagreeing with "Bit depth does not just equate to dynamic range, it's the amount of information captured at any one sample, per period. By only focussing on dynamic range you're selling the argument short." Thats why I quoted it.

 

[manicm]

I will look it up myself. 44100Hz means 44100 cycles per second. I can't see how sampling can not be sampling the music at the given sample rate. I know I can hear a difference between 16bit and 24bit but I don't know how or why I can. What I know I know and what I don't know I can find out. So I will go indepth from a very reliable source online. You say you know what it means and I don't. I can't just accept you must know better just because you say so. You could be anyone. Are you a time served professional on the subject? I did learn what I said and know in a classroom, but of course I could only assume what I was taught was correct and I do not have hands on experience of professional digital recording.

The only difference between 16 bit and 24 bit is the dynamic range, if its the same mastering the sound will not change. So how can you hear a difference?

I have already said a few posts up the page what difference in sound I can hear from selecting 24bit output on the media player.

Which post no. was that because I can't see it?

If you hear a difference then it must be your media player!

Ok can't find it myself to be honest. Wrote it somewhere cant find it now. So what I wrote or perhaps meant to write is the media player actually can output a many different bit rates and sample rates but I am stuck with 16bit 44.1kHz or 16bit 48kHz or 24bit 44.1 kHz or 24bit 48kHz because my DAC can only handle those bit and sample rates (budget DAC simple but good) so yeah choice is 16 or 24. The difference in sound is compared to 24bit 16 seems a little shallower and slightly thinner, less bold, less well defined. Switch to 24bit ther is greater depth, bolder sound, more solid bass and greater insight as if music has become more 3 dimensional. I know many other things come into it with media players like codec tweaks and choice of decoder as well as any sound processing I do to the sound but with a direct switching between 16 and 24 those are the difference. Switching between 44.1 and 48 to my ears and/or system seems to not make a difference. But I select 48kHz because I think 'why not' . Nothing technical there from me I know but just me listening to the A/B comparison. Maybe could well be the media player itself. I have several media players installed but AIMP my prefered. Free media player. I was sure I was not getting best sound so I googled the words ''high quality media player'' and that is the one showed up top of the pile. Fabulous interface as well.

I see what you mean but that sound difference is not down to the bits, if you convert a 24 bit to 16 bit the sound will be the same unless the 24 bit is over 100 dbs dynamic range then there maybe some difference, as most cds don't even reach 20db its not a problem.

Bit depth does not just equate to dynamic range, it's the amount of information captured at any one sample, per period. By only focussing on dynamic range you're selling the argument short.

'In digital audio using pulse-code modulation (PCM), bit depth is the number of bits of information in eachsample, and it directly corresponds to the resolution of each sample.'

Not according to this article: http://www.head-fi.org/t/415361/24bit-vs-16bit-the-myth-exploded

That whole article is based around his premise 'There is in fact a perfect solution to quantisation errors which completely (100%) eliminates quantisation distortion, the process is called 'Dither' and is built into every ADC on the market.'

100%? That's his opinion and not fact.

 

[manicm]

I will look it up myself. 44100Hz means 44100 cycles per second. I can't see how sampling can not be sampling the music at the given sample rate. I know I can hear a difference between 16bit and 24bit but I don't know how or why I can. What I know I know and what I don't know I can find out. So I will go indepth from a very reliable source online. You say you know what it means and I don't. I can't just accept you must know better just because you say so. You could be anyone. Are you a time served professional on the subject? I did learn what I said and know in a classroom, but of course I could only assume what I was taught was correct and I do not have hands on experience of professional digital recording.

The only difference between 16 bit and 24 bit is the dynamic range, if its the same mastering the sound will not change. So how can you hear a difference?

I have already said a few posts up the page what difference in sound I can hear from selecting 24bit output on the media player.

Which post no. was that because I can't see it?

If you hear a difference then it must be your media player!

Ok can't find it myself to be honest. Wrote it somewhere cant find it now. So what I wrote or perhaps meant to write is the media player actually can output a many different bit rates and sample rates but I am stuck with 16bit 44.1kHz or 16bit 48kHz or 24bit 44.1 kHz or 24bit 48kHz because my DAC can only handle those bit and sample rates (budget DAC simple but good) so yeah choice is 16 or 24. The difference in sound is compared to 24bit 16 seems a little shallower and slightly thinner, less bold, less well defined. Switch to 24bit ther is greater depth, bolder sound, more solid bass and greater insight as if music has become more 3 dimensional. I know many other things come into it with media players like codec tweaks and choice of decoder as well as any sound processing I do to the sound but with a direct switching between 16 and 24 those are the difference. Switching between 44.1 and 48 to my ears and/or system seems to not make a difference. But I select 48kHz because I think 'why not' . Nothing technical there from me I know but just me listening to the A/B comparison. Maybe could well be the media player itself. I have several media players installed but AIMP my prefered. Free media player. I was sure I was not getting best sound so I googled the words ''high quality media player'' and that is the one showed up top of the pile. Fabulous interface as well.

I see what you mean but that sound difference is not down to the bits, if you convert a 24 bit to 16 bit the sound will be the same unless the 24 bit is over 100 dbs dynamic range then there maybe some difference, as most cds don't even reach 20db its not a problem.

Bit depth does not just equate to dynamic range, it's the amount of information captured at any one sample, per period. By only focussing on dynamic range you're selling the argument short.

'In digital audio using pulse-code modulation (PCM), bit depth is the number of bits of information in eachsample, and it directly corresponds to the resolution of each sample.'

Not according to this article: http://www.head-fi.org/t/415361/24bit-vs-16bit-the-myth-exploded

Hi,

I am not sure what you are disagreeing upon. Higher bit depth does indeed provide more dynamic range for two ADC's (24bit, and 16bit), who have the same FSD voltage for their inputs.

The article states that dither eliminates (100%) quantisation distortion. This is incorrect. Dither MODIFIES the distortion such that it cannot be heard.

Regards,

Shadders.

I was disagreeing with "Bit depth does not just equate to dynamic range, it's the amount of information captured at any one sample, per period. By only focussing on dynamic range you're selling the argument short." Thats why I quoted it.

The statement I quoted is incorrect? That bit depth refers to the amount of information captured at any one sample? Why?

 

[BigH]

I will look it up myself. 44100Hz means 44100 cycles per second. I can't see how sampling can not be sampling the music at the given sample rate. I know I can hear a difference between 16bit and 24bit but I don't know how or why I can. What I know I know and what I don't know I can find out. So I will go indepth from a very reliable source online. You say you know what it means and I don't. I can't just accept you must know better just because you say so. You could be anyone. Are you a time served professional on the subject? I did learn what I said and know in a classroom, but of course I could only assume what I was taught was correct and I do not have hands on experience of professional digital recording.

The only difference between 16 bit and 24 bit is the dynamic range, if its the same mastering the sound will not change. So how can you hear a difference?

I have already said a few posts up the page what difference in sound I can hear from selecting 24bit output on the media player.

Which post no. was that because I can't see it?

If you hear a difference then it must be your media player!

Ok can't find it myself to be honest. Wrote it somewhere cant find it now. So what I wrote or perhaps meant to write is the media player actually can output a many different bit rates and sample rates but I am stuck with 16bit 44.1kHz or 16bit 48kHz or 24bit 44.1 kHz or 24bit 48kHz because my DAC can only handle those bit and sample rates (budget DAC simple but good) so yeah choice is 16 or 24. The difference in sound is compared to 24bit 16 seems a little shallower and slightly thinner, less bold, less well defined. Switch to 24bit ther is greater depth, bolder sound, more solid bass and greater insight as if music has become more 3 dimensional. I know many other things come into it with media players like codec tweaks and choice of decoder as well as any sound processing I do to the sound but with a direct switching between 16 and 24 those are the difference. Switching between 44.1 and 48 to my ears and/or system seems to not make a difference. But I select 48kHz because I think 'why not' . Nothing technical there from me I know but just me listening to the A/B comparison. Maybe could well be the media player itself. I have several media players installed but AIMP my prefered. Free media player. I was sure I was not getting best sound so I googled the words ''high quality media player'' and that is the one showed up top of the pile. Fabulous interface as well.

I see what you mean but that sound difference is not down to the bits, if you convert a 24 bit to 16 bit the sound will be the same unless the 24 bit is over 100 dbs dynamic range then there maybe some difference, as most cds don't even reach 20db its not a problem.

Bit depth does not just equate to dynamic range, it's the amount of information captured at any one sample, per period. By only focussing on dynamic range you're selling the argument short.

'In digital audio using pulse-code modulation (PCM), bit depth is the number of bits of information in eachsample, and it directly corresponds to the resolution of each sample.'

Not according to this article: http://www.head-fi.org/t/415361/24bit-vs-16bit-the-myth-exploded

That whole article is based around his premise 'There is in fact a perfect solution to quantisation errors which completely (100%) eliminates quantisation distortion, the process is called 'Dither' and is built into every ADC on the market.'

100%? That's his opinion and not fact.

But you were saying about information captured and now you are talking about dither?

 

[stefanom]

Copy controlled CDs (EMI mostly) was a big mistake at the time. I have a few of those and they all pop and click when played thru the DAC in Marantz PM6005. But they play flawlessly on both CD6005 and SA8005.

 

[manicm]

I will look it up myself. 44100Hz means 44100 cycles per second. I can't see how sampling can not be sampling the music at the given sample rate. I know I can hear a difference between 16bit and 24bit but I don't know how or why I can. What I know I know and what I don't know I can find out. So I will go indepth from a very reliable source online. You say you know what it means and I don't. I can't just accept you must know better just because you say so. You could be anyone. Are you a time served professional on the subject? I did learn what I said and know in a classroom, but of course I could only assume what I was taught was correct and I do not have hands on experience of professional digital recording.

The only difference between 16 bit and 24 bit is the dynamic range, if its the same mastering the sound will not change. So how can you hear a difference?

I have already said a few posts up the page what difference in sound I can hear from selecting 24bit output on the media player.

Which post no. was that because I can't see it?

If you hear a difference then it must be your media player!

Ok can't find it myself to be honest. Wrote it somewhere cant find it now. So what I wrote or perhaps meant to write is the media player actually can output a many different bit rates and sample rates but I am stuck with 16bit 44.1kHz or 16bit 48kHz or 24bit 44.1 kHz or 24bit 48kHz because my DAC can only handle those bit and sample rates (budget DAC simple but good) so yeah choice is 16 or 24. The difference in sound is compared to 24bit 16 seems a little shallower and slightly thinner, less bold, less well defined. Switch to 24bit ther is greater depth, bolder sound, more solid bass and greater insight as if music has become more 3 dimensional. I know many other things come into it with media players like codec tweaks and choice of decoder as well as any sound processing I do to the sound but with a direct switching between 16 and 24 those are the difference. Switching between 44.1 and 48 to my ears and/or system seems to not make a difference. But I select 48kHz because I think 'why not' . Nothing technical there from me I know but just me listening to the A/B comparison. Maybe could well be the media player itself. I have several media players installed but AIMP my prefered. Free media player. I was sure I was not getting best sound so I googled the words ''high quality media player'' and that is the one showed up top of the pile. Fabulous interface as well.

I see what you mean but that sound difference is not down to the bits, if you convert a 24 bit to 16 bit the sound will be the same unless the 24 bit is over 100 dbs dynamic range then there maybe some difference, as most cds don't even reach 20db its not a problem.

Bit depth does not just equate to dynamic range, it's the amount of information captured at any one sample, per period. By only focussing on dynamic range you're selling the argument short.

'In digital audio using pulse-code modulation (PCM), bit depth is the number of bits of information in eachsample, and it directly corresponds to the resolution of each sample.'

Not according to this article: http://www.head-fi.org/t/415361/24bit-vs-16bit-the-myth-exploded

That whole article is based around his premise 'There is in fact a perfect solution to quantisation errors which completely (100%) eliminates quantisation distortion, the process is called 'Dither' and is built into every ADC on the market.'

100%? That's his opinion and not fact.

But you were saying about information captured and now you are talking about dither?

You used that article to prove the statement that I quoted was wrong, I just stated my interpretation of that article which centers around dither to compensate for the lack of higher bit depths. Dither obviously mitigates the lack bit depth but for the author to state it's 100% foolproof is a tall order and is not rooted in technical fact. Read the piece again.

 

[BigH]

I will look it up myself. 44100Hz means 44100 cycles per second. I can't see how sampling can not be sampling the music at the given sample rate. I know I can hear a difference between 16bit and 24bit but I don't know how or why I can. What I know I know and what I don't know I can find out. So I will go indepth from a very reliable source online. You say you know what it means and I don't. I can't just accept you must know better just because you say so. You could be anyone. Are you a time served professional on the subject? I did learn what I said and know in a classroom, but of course I could only assume what I was taught was correct and I do not have hands on experience of professional digital recording.

The only difference between 16 bit and 24 bit is the dynamic range, if its the same mastering the sound will not change. So how can you hear a difference?

I have already said a few posts up the page what difference in sound I can hear from selecting 24bit output on the media player.

Which post no. was that because I can't see it?

If you hear a difference then it must be your media player!

Ok can't find it myself to be honest. Wrote it somewhere cant find it now. So what I wrote or perhaps meant to write is the media player actually can output a many different bit rates and sample rates but I am stuck with 16bit 44.1kHz or 16bit 48kHz or 24bit 44.1 kHz or 24bit 48kHz because my DAC can only handle those bit and sample rates (budget DAC simple but good) so yeah choice is 16 or 24. The difference in sound is compared to 24bit 16 seems a little shallower and slightly thinner, less bold, less well defined. Switch to 24bit ther is greater depth, bolder sound, more solid bass and greater insight as if music has become more 3 dimensional. I know many other things come into it with media players like codec tweaks and choice of decoder as well as any sound processing I do to the sound but with a direct switching between 16 and 24 those are the difference. Switching between 44.1 and 48 to my ears and/or system seems to not make a difference. But I select 48kHz because I think 'why not' . Nothing technical there from me I know but just me listening to the A/B comparison. Maybe could well be the media player itself. I have several media players installed but AIMP my prefered. Free media player. I was sure I was not getting best sound so I googled the words ''high quality media player'' and that is the one showed up top of the pile. Fabulous interface as well.

I see what you mean but that sound difference is not down to the bits, if you convert a 24 bit to 16 bit the sound will be the same unless the 24 bit is over 100 dbs dynamic range then there maybe some difference, as most cds don't even reach 20db its not a problem.

Bit depth does not just equate to dynamic range, it's the amount of information captured at any one sample, per period. By only focussing on dynamic range you're selling the argument short.

'In digital audio using pulse-code modulation (PCM), bit depth is the number of bits of information in eachsample, and it directly corresponds to the resolution of each sample.'

Not according to this article: http://www.head-fi.org/t/415361/24bit-vs-16bit-the-myth-exploded

That whole article is based around his premise 'There is in fact a perfect solution to quantisation errors which completely (100%) eliminates quantisation distortion, the process is called 'Dither' and is built into every ADC on the market.'

100%? That's his opinion and not fact.

But you were saying about information captured and now you are talking about dither?

You used that article to prove the statement that I quoted was wrong, I just stated my interpretation of that article which centers around dither to compensate for the lack of higher bit depths. Dither obviously mitigates the lack bit depth but for the author to state it's 100% foolproof is a tall order and is not rooted in technical fact. Read the piece again.

I did not use to prove anything. I just said not according to this article. Do you have any evidence to disprove what he says?

 

[ColinLovesMusic]

I will look it up myself. 44100Hz means 44100 cycles per second. I can't see how sampling can not be sampling the music at the given sample rate. I know I can hear a difference between 16bit and 24bit but I don't know how or why I can. What I know I know and what I don't know I can find out. So I will go indepth from a very reliable source online. You say you know what it means and I don't. I can't just accept you must know better just because you say so. You could be anyone. Are you a time served professional on the subject? I did learn what I said and know in a classroom, but of course I could only assume what I was taught was correct and I do not have hands on experience of professional digital recording.

The only difference between 16 bit and 24 bit is the dynamic range, if its the same mastering the sound will not change. So how can you hear a difference?

I have already said a few posts up the page what difference in sound I can hear from selecting 24bit output on the media player.

Which post no. was that because I can't see it?

If you hear a difference then it must be your media player!

Ok can't find it myself to be honest. Wrote it somewhere cant find it now. So what I wrote or perhaps meant to write is the media player actually can output a many different bit rates and sample rates but I am stuck with 16bit 44.1kHz or 16bit 48kHz or 24bit 44.1 kHz or 24bit 48kHz because my DAC can only handle those bit and sample rates (budget DAC simple but good) so yeah choice is 16 or 24. The difference in sound is compared to 24bit 16 seems a little shallower and slightly thinner, less bold, less well defined. Switch to 24bit ther is greater depth, bolder sound, more solid bass and greater insight as if music has become more 3 dimensional. I know many other things come into it with media players like codec tweaks and choice of decoder as well as any sound processing I do to the sound but with a direct switching between 16 and 24 those are the difference. Switching between 44.1 and 48 to my ears and/or system seems to not make a difference. But I select 48kHz because I think 'why not' . Nothing technical there from me I know but just me listening to the A/B comparison. Maybe could well be the media player itself. I have several media players installed but AIMP my prefered. Free media player. I was sure I was not getting best sound so I googled the words ''high quality media player'' and that is the one showed up top of the pile. Fabulous interface as well.

I see what you mean but that sound difference is not down to the bits, if you convert a 24 bit to 16 bit the sound will be the same unless the 24 bit is over 100 dbs dynamic range then there maybe some difference, as most cds don't even reach 20db its not a problem.

Bit depth does not just equate to dynamic range, it's the amount of information captured at any one sample, per period. By only focussing on dynamic range you're selling the argument short.

'In digital audio using pulse-code modulation (PCM), bit depth is the number of bits of information in eachsample, and it directly corresponds to the resolution of each sample.'

Not according to this article: http://www.head-fi.org/t/415361/24bit-vs-16bit-the-myth-exploded

That whole article is based around his premise 'There is in fact a perfect solution to quantisation errors which completely (100%) eliminates quantisation distortion, the process is called 'Dither' and is built into every ADC on the market.'

100%? That's his opinion and not fact.

But you were saying about information captured and now you are talking about dither?

You used that article to prove the statement that I quoted was wrong, I just stated my interpretation of that article which centers around dither to compensate for the lack of higher bit depths. Dither obviously mitigates the lack bit depth but for the author to state it's 100% foolproof is a tall order and is not rooted in technical fact. Read the piece again.

I did not use to prove anything. I just said not according to this article. Do you have any evidence to disprove what he says?

I assume dither is automatically engaged on 16bit CD players and most users probably have never heard of it. On PC it is a requirement to have a codec pack and digital processor. I install the one of my choice with the most options and choices of quality rather than the default installed windows codec pack and digital processer. Under the options for Bit depths 16, 24 and 32 the usual option is to tick them all. The digital decoder processer is thoughtful enough to provide little drop down boxes explaining what each funtion is. Under 16 bit is an option to engage dither. The explanation for dither is to attempt to overcome the shortcomings of a shallow 16bit depth to bring quality up. I have also never disputed dynamic range improves with bit depth but so does sound quality. Obviously if 16 bit needs to have processing done to it to bring it up to standard then 16bit cannot be regarded as being as good as 24 bit. I have yet again used my ears over technical data and have heard loud and clear that 24 bit sounds better.

 

[BigH]

I will look it up myself. 44100Hz means 44100 cycles per second. I can't see how sampling can not be sampling the music at the given sample rate. I know I can hear a difference between 16bit and 24bit but I don't know how or why I can. What I know I know and what I don't know I can find out. So I will go indepth from a very reliable source online. You say you know what it means and I don't. I can't just accept you must know better just because you say so. You could be anyone. Are you a time served professional on the subject? I did learn what I said and know in a classroom, but of course I could only assume what I was taught was correct and I do not have hands on experience of professional digital recording.

The only difference between 16 bit and 24 bit is the dynamic range, if its the same mastering the sound will not change. So how can you hear a difference?

I have already said a few posts up the page what difference in sound I can hear from selecting 24bit output on the media player.

Which post no. was that because I can't see it?

If you hear a difference then it must be your media player!

Ok can't find it myself to be honest. Wrote it somewhere cant find it now. So what I wrote or perhaps meant to write is the media player actually can output a many different bit rates and sample rates but I am stuck with 16bit 44.1kHz or 16bit 48kHz or 24bit 44.1 kHz or 24bit 48kHz because my DAC can only handle those bit and sample rates (budget DAC simple but good) so yeah choice is 16 or 24. The difference in sound is compared to 24bit 16 seems a little shallower and slightly thinner, less bold, less well defined. Switch to 24bit ther is greater depth, bolder sound, more solid bass and greater insight as if music has become more 3 dimensional. I know many other things come into it with media players like codec tweaks and choice of decoder as well as any sound processing I do to the sound but with a direct switching between 16 and 24 those are the difference. Switching between 44.1 and 48 to my ears and/or system seems to not make a difference. But I select 48kHz because I think 'why not' . Nothing technical there from me I know but just me listening to the A/B comparison. Maybe could well be the media player itself. I have several media players installed but AIMP my prefered. Free media player. I was sure I was not getting best sound so I googled the words ''high quality media player'' and that is the one showed up top of the pile. Fabulous interface as well.

I see what you mean but that sound difference is not down to the bits, if you convert a 24 bit to 16 bit the sound will be the same unless the 24 bit is over 100 dbs dynamic range then there maybe some difference, as most cds don't even reach 20db its not a problem.

Bit depth does not just equate to dynamic range, it's the amount of information captured at any one sample, per period. By only focussing on dynamic range you're selling the argument short.

'In digital audio using pulse-code modulation (PCM), bit depth is the number of bits of information in eachsample, and it directly corresponds to the resolution of each sample.'

Not according to this article: http://www.head-fi.org/t/415361/24bit-vs-16bit-the-myth-exploded

That whole article is based around his premise 'There is in fact a perfect solution to quantisation errors which completely (100%) eliminates quantisation distortion, the process is called 'Dither' and is built into every ADC on the market.'

100%? That's his opinion and not fact.

But you were saying about information captured and now you are talking about dither?

You used that article to prove the statement that I quoted was wrong, I just stated my interpretation of that article which centers around dither to compensate for the lack of higher bit depths. Dither obviously mitigates the lack bit depth but for the author to state it's 100% foolproof is a tall order and is not rooted in technical fact. Read the piece again.

I did not use to prove anything. I just said not according to this article. Do you have any evidence to disprove what he says?

I assume dither is automatically engaged on 16bit CD players and most users probably have never heard of it. On PC it is a requirement to have a codec pack and digital processor. I install the one of my choice with the most options and choices of quality rather than the default installed windows codec pack and digital processer. Under the options for Bit depths 16, 24 and 32 the usual option is to tick them all. The digital decoder processer is thoughtful enough to provide little drop down boxes explaining what each funtion is. Under 16 bit is an option to engage dither. The explanation for dither is to attempt to overcome the shortcomings of a shallow 16bit depth to bring quality up. I have also never disputed dynamic range improves with bit depth but so does sound quality. Obviously if 16 bit needs to have processing done to it to bring it up to standard then 16bit cannot be regarded as being as good as 24 bit. I have yet again used my ears over technical data and have heard loud and clear that 24 bit sounds better.

Yes but thats on your player. I have seen a 24 bit converted to 16 bit, the soundwave looked exactly the same, it also sounded to my ears exactly the same, others said the same. Interestingly the record company had 2 versions for sale on their website as downloads, the 24bit soundwave did NOT look the same as their 16bit, which I think is a bit of a con and yes they did sound different. So be careful if you are comparing different samples. As I linked to before in a blind test musicians and sound engineers could not tell 320khs mp3 from cd, so picking 16 bit from 24bit will be even harder?

 

[MajorFubar]

Obviously if 16 bit needs to have processing done to it to bring it up to standard then 16bit cannot be regarded as being as good as 24 bit. I have yet again used my ears over technical data and have heard loud and clear that 24 bit sounds better.

How much of your own music have you ever recorded? Don't come back and say you're basing everything you think you know about digital audio on the sound of someone else's recordings. You've no idea if you're listening to exact same master file or not, so it's impossible to draw those kind of conclusions.

 

[manicm]

I did not use to prove anything. I just said not according to this article. Do you have any evidence to disprove what he says?

And yet you question the fact that a higher bit depth contains more information per sample?

 

[ColinLovesMusic]

I will look it up myself. 44100Hz means 44100 cycles per second. I can't see how sampling can not be sampling the music at the given sample rate. I know I can hear a difference between 16bit and 24bit but I don't know how or why I can. What I know I know and what I don't know I can find out. So I will go indepth from a very reliable source online. You say you know what it means and I don't. I can't just accept you must know better just because you say so. You could be anyone. Are you a time served professional on the subject? I did learn what I said and know in a classroom, but of course I could only assume what I was taught was correct and I do not have hands on experience of professional digital recording.

The whole idea that the sample rate is how often the "level" of the signal is recorded is completely wrong. You know that staircase diagram they use to illustrate that 24-bit is better because the "steps" are smaller? Completely wrong.

You need to start with Fourier and the Nyquist-Shannon theorem, which demonstrates how a signal within a certain bandwidth can be PERFECTLY captured. In the case of CD that bandwidth has an upper limit of 22.05kHz, higher than any human can hear, all raising the sampling frequency does is raise that upper limit but as CD is already above our hearing range there's no point.

Hi,

I think that sampling rate is how often you sample the signal level. As such, is the correct interpretation.

Regards,

Shadders.

Shadders it is indeed how often you sample the signal. Hence the term sampling rate (too difficult for some to understand?). Or it is in my terms how many times a stab at it is taken every second. You are right and I can't understand how anyone can think it means something else. Getting bogged down in theorums is another example of how some bypass the obvious to attempt to understand the complicated. Why the obsession with frequency response to 22.5kHz and beyond? as if that is the sole parameter to judge sound by. It is quite simple to understand if there was nothing to be gained from using higher bit depths and higher sampling rates than the bog standard 16bit 44.1kHz then there would be no point in doing it. If it happens that say 24bit 96kHz can record up to a supersonic 48kHz then it doesn't mean it will and even if it does those supersonic frequencies will be 'shelved' 'cut' filtered out. Personally I think 24bit 48kHz is more than good enough in domestic surrounds but studio recordings have to be at the best available which is I believe 32bit 192kHz.

So let me get this right, you're actually saying that the mathematics that all digital sampling is based on is irrelevant and wrong. Not only that but you freely admit that you have no idea how it works but you still think it's wrong anyway?

I'm not hiding behind theorems, those theorems are the explanation for how digital sampling works! And the explanation for why a 44.1kHz sample rate will PERFECTLY capture every signal up to 22.05kHz.

All increasing the sample rate does is increase the maximum frequency that can be PERFECTLY captured but as we've already said, none of those higher frequencies are even audible to humans, so it's a complete waste of time.

You're talking about bit rate i.e. the frequency, I think he's talking about bit-depth which is a different animal.

I didn't say it is wrong. I am in no position to say the mathematics of that is wrong. I don't understand it and intend keeping it that way. But this is all about trying to say the difference between 16bit and 24 bit is just dynamic range and the difference between sampling frequencies 44.1, 48, 88, 96 whatever is the higher the sampling rate the more extended the recordable frequency response is. And you want to believe that is all there is to it. It is not all there is to it. 24bit is better than 16bit overall and listening alone reveils that.