16-bit... It really is enough!

[anphex]

I'd say I hear a difference between true 24 bit recording and 16 bit. 44,1 khz to 96 khz? Not so much, but I'd be happy if at some point in the future 24bit/96khz becomes the standard for music like 4k is slowly becoming the end of the line for even enthusiast consumers in TV.

 

[Frank Dernie]

I find the 12 to 13 bit equivalent dynamic range of a tape recorder can be slightly difficult to get levels optimum on some music but 16-bit easy. 24-bit is completely idiot proof and also allows channels recorded with completely incompatible levels to be corrected and merged transparently.
That is handy.

 

[Frgirard]

In a decade we will have the same debates on the edge of the ear with 24 vs 32 bit.
I hear so it is.
I hear so i am.
Remember 2001 space oddity

The debate vinyl vs digital are not finished...

 

[anphex]

The debate vinyl vs digital are not finished...

Well, the debate is mostly vinyl-lover-sided since digital is technically superior in about every aspect. 24 bit vs 32 bit might a funny debate since it probably is on the border of audible difference like 16 and 24 already is for many. But no, I am not opening that can of worms any further.

But yes, as long as there are people who buy expensive power filters there will be people arguing over their sound purity.

 

[Frank Dernie]

24 bit vs 32 bit might a funny debate since it probably is on the border of audible difference like 16 and 24 already is for many. But no, I am not opening that can of worms any further.

Ha-ha given that "24-bit" SOTA at the moment is around real 21-bit debating 32-bit v 24-bit would be even more ridiculous than the usual!

 

[KSTR]

Ha-ha given that "24-bit" SOTA at the moment is around real 21-bit debating 32-bit v 24-bit would be even more ridiculous than the usual!

FWIW, modern DS-DACs actually do resolve all 24 bits with great linearity, it's that the low bits are just buried in the residual analog noise (notably when the noise-shaping high-frequency region is not filtered out) -- with enough averaging/paralleling the switching of the lowest levels can be made visible.

 

[Sal1950]

Dynamic range is absolutely critical. I actually require 32-bit audio for anything I listen to.

You must have an aweful small music library.

 

[MOCKBA]

18 bit is enough for a real life. Increase it to 20 to be safe. Simply 24 is 3 even bytes. Generally DACs from Schiit designed on this assumption. Everything above is just fooling a consumer and push him/her to pay more.

 

[BrEpBrEpBrEpBrEp]

You must have an aweful small music library.

No, I usually just run my vinyl recordings through platinum plated upsampling cables for maximum dynamic range. Don't forget to put a heavy doorstop on the amp, monitors, cables, LP, tonearm, and your own head.

 

[Frank Dernie]

FWIW, modern DS-DACs actually do resolve all 24 bits with great linearity, it's that the low bits are just buried in the residual analog noise (notably when the noise-shaping high-frequency region is not filtered out) -- with enough averaging/paralleling the switching of the lowest levels can be made visible.

I was meaning the DAC as in the commercially available device with an analogue output to connect to one's hifi but still I didn't realise the chips could be configured to get all of the 24 bits, thanks.

 

[Sal1950]

No, I usually just run my vinyl recordings through platinum plated upsampling cables for maximum dynamic range. Don't forget to put a heavy doorstop on the amp, monitors, cables, LP, tonearm, and your own head.

ROTFLMAO

 

[Sal1950]

14 pages now and I've yet to read a post by anyone who claims they can take a digital recording done and released at anything better than Redbook, then downsample it to Redbook, and identify one from the other under bias controled DBT conditions.
So for me that pretty much answers the OP question.
Yes, for the final consumer product, 16/44.1 is enough

 

[Blumlein 88]

14 pages now and I've yet to read a post by anyone who claims they can take a digital recording done and released at anything better than Redbook, then downsample it to Redbook, and identify one from the other under bias controled DBT conditions.
So for me that pretty much answers the OP question.
Yes, for the final consumer product, 16/44.1 is enough

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...e-rate-and-audible-frequency.9411/post-247125

A pdf attached of blind testing at McGill university where they heard a difference in 88 khz downsampled to 44 khz, but interestingly not between native 44khz and 88 khz. Apparently the down sampling was audible. All the gear was high quality gear, and the down sampling done with Izotope. One reason I prefer original sample rates whenever possible.

 

[fieldcar]

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...e-rate-and-audible-frequency.9411/post-247125

A pdf attached of blind testing at McGill university where they heard a difference in 88 khz downsampled to 44 khz, but interestingly not between native 44khz and 88 khz. Apparently the down sampling was audible. All the gear was high quality gear, and the down sampling done with Izotope. One reason I prefer original sample rates whenever possible.

Just a FYI. They used Pyramix 6 for resampling, which has some major aliasing artifacts (source: https://src.infinitewave.ca/ )
I'm not surprised they heard a difference.

We isolated five short excerpts from our recordings, corresponding to musical phrases of five to eight seconds, both at 44.1 kHz and 88.2 kHz. No sound
processing was applied, except for a fade-in and a fade-out in Pyramix 6 software (Merging Technologies, Switzerland). We made sure that the selected files at 44.1 kHz and 88.2 kHz had the exact same fades (in and out) and length. Then, we downsampled the 88.2 kHz files to 44.1 kHz. We chose Pyramix to down-sample the files, this software being commonly used by sound engineers who record acoustic music in high-resolution formats.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Just a FYI. They used Pyramix 6 for resampling, which has some major aliasing artifacts (source: https://src.infinitewave.ca/ )
I'm not surprised they heard a difference.



View attachment 131960View attachment 131962

That may explain it then. My faulty memory was they used Izotope which is one of the very best resamplers.
Here is the Pyramix vs one of the Izotopes of which several versions produce excellent results. Quite a few DAW's have built resampling which is not very good. Which is surprising and unnecessary this late in the game.

I know I could hear a difference using ABX on Arny's jangling keys with his original files. I resampled his file with Sox and I could no longer hear a difference. So whichever resampler Arny used may have also had some artifacts. Sox was clean to my ears.

 

[Ron Texas]

I like 48 kHz because it's what's used for video. It's also the native rate in the widely used Realtek chips. Besides, 44100 is a strange and illogical number. It all sounds the same to me. Stuff ripped from CD's may have artifacts from media damage leading some to believe their high res downloads are better.

 

[Wes]

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...e-rate-and-audible-frequency.9411/post-247125

A pdf attached of blind testing at McGill university where they heard a difference in 88 khz downsampled to 44 khz, but interestingly not between native 44khz and 88 khz. Apparently the down sampling was audible. All the gear was high quality gear, and the down sampling done with Izotope. One reason I prefer original sample rates whenever possible.

Storage is cheap. If you have a HiRes file, just save it. I do. But I don't go looking for HiRes files.

 

[Sal1950]

Storage is cheap. If you have a HiRes file, just save it. I do. But I don't go looking for HiRes files.

Same here, I never bother to up or downsample anything. The majority of music I've added to my library over the last few years has been large multich hi-res files. My music file storage now stands a bit over 3.2 TB and still growing, I'll be looking to add to my 4TB's of SSD's very soon.

 

[BrEpBrEpBrEpBrEp]

My take-away from this paper is that if you have to really squint to even differentiate, let alone prefer, then the high-res paradigm is absolutely meh.

It might actually be even less than that, the paper in question seems to have some issues.

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...d-details-over-20khz.20007/page-6#post-661635

 

[Dialectic]

Storage is cheap. If you have a HiRes file, just save it. I do. But I don't go looking for HiRes files.

I have spent a lot of money, and continue to use a lot of storage, on high-res files, but here is the problem with saving 24-bit PCM audio with lossless compression: at 24 bits, the file is going to include content below the analog noise floor. Noise is not susceptible to compression. A CD of classical music ripped and converted to FLAC 6 often compress to 250 MB. Going up to 24 bits without changing the sampling rates usually doubles the size (or more). Sure, space is cheap, but I'm nearly at the limit of my 8TB drive. At least with me, it's getting ridiculous.

20 bits (120 dB of dynamic range) would be the sweet spot from my OCD/audiophile point of view. But for music listening, it just doesn't matter.