16 vs 24 bit does it really make much difference

[Sylar]

I started off with 128kbps to 320kbps to VBR to currently FLAC (Mostly 16 bit 44.1 or 92 KHz).

While its non debatable that 128 sounds like crap, I'm wondering if there is much to gain looking ahead from CD quality. I find CD quality pretty good. I have not heard much of 24 bit audio nor much of higher sampling audio. The few songs with 24 bit / 92 KHz that I heard, were about 8 dB lower than the 16 bit / 44.1 KHz music. Kinda, strange the levels were different. I also found the Bass punch in the 24 bit were lower even after bumping the volume.
Still need to get hold of more 24 bit music and compare.

Meanwhile was wondering what are your thoughts on this?

 

[djreef]

I can hear a diffence on certain recordings. Roxy Music's Avalon and David Bowie's Let's Dance on SACD come to mind. My system is revealing to a fault tho, and I have the hearing of a dog, so YMMV depending upon the integration of your setup. How the recording were mastered for the release makes a big difference, as well. I think the best example of that would be the KISS catalogue. The Hi-Rez downloads available now sound night and day to the re-masters that came out in the 90's.

 

[BoredSysAdmin]

https://xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

 

[mr sarnoff]

As a rule 2 ch 24 bit is good for editing/ mixing and noise shaping and rendering a studio project down to 16/44 for CD/mp3 mix.

As far as playback good uncompressed ( not squashed ) for uniform loudness 16/44 CD or file is fine IMO.

OTOH I belive there are some occasions where a complex passage *may sound better at 24 bits (specifically 24/41 ) but IMO that's rare ouside of a squashed 16/44 CD mix as a comparison .

OTOH squashing is still all to frequent with CD mixes ☻☻ IOW 16/44 vs high res is a case by case basis and anything that bypasses uniform loudness squashing (compression and noise shaping etc. ) for CD mixes is a good thing IMO

OTOH an all to rare decent CD mix is fine .


The only thing the additional bit depth represents as it applies here are digital word lengths representing amplitude loudness points and dynaic range on a digital wave form representation and those truncaterd word lengths should be and are usually inaudable at a *24/41 > 16/44* truncation if done correctly and not squashed .

We work in 24/41 and truncate it to 16/44 for CD /mp3 mixes (same thing) whereas a 16/44 copy is just re encoded (squashed even more ) to mp3 and othewise sent to iTunes in 24 bit lossless for thier AAC encoding and 24 bit archives.


I usually listen to studio master replicatiions at 24/41 or 24/41>16/44 that bypass CD mixing provenence altogether as a matter of choice and most of the time (on a good recording /mix ) it's way better than a CD mix because it didn't get squashed .

OTOH it all starts with a good recording /mix IOW U can't get blood out of a turnip with digital music or upsamling (which is useless ) either ☻

 

[mr sarnoff]

I started off with 128kbps to 320kbps to VBR to currently FLAC (Mostly 16 bit 44.1 or 92 KHz).

While its non debatable that 128 sounds like crap, I'm wondering if there is much to gain looking ahead from CD quality. I find CD quality pretty good. I have not heard much of 24 bit audio nor much of higher sampling audio. The few songs with 24 bit / 92 KHz that I heard, were about 8 dB lower than the 16 bit / 44.1 KHz music. Kinda, strange the levels were different. I also found the Bass punch in the 24 bit were lower even after bumping the volume.
Still need to get hold of more 24 bit music and compare.

Meanwhile was wondering what are your thoughts on this?

Kinda, strange the levels were different.

Not at all if the 24 bit project to 16 bit CD mix was squashed (or comprerssed ) for uniform loudness it happens every day .

The problem there it raises the noise floor and thus compresses the dynamic range and usually introduces Thd+n at audible levels ....but it's louder and more uniform so it has to be better ? NOT!
If you have a properly layered 24 bit project it will have more dynamic range and impact bass than the same sample squashed for a uniform loudnedss (louder) 16/44 CD mix if you have a decent (not necessarily exotic) playback chain and know how to use it

ofc you have to compare a 24 bit project with the same project renered into 16 bit not 2 different sources to make a valid comparison and not be comparing apples to oranges .

 

[Blu-RayDisc+50GB]

I started off with 128kbps to 320kbps to VBR to currently FLAC (Mostly 16 bit 44.1 or 92 KHz).

While its non debatable that 128 sounds like crap, I'm wondering if there is much to gain looking ahead from CD quality. I find CD quality pretty good. I have not heard much of 24 bit audio nor much of higher sampling audio. The few songs with 24 bit / 92 KHz that I heard, were about 8 dB lower than the 16 bit / 44.1 KHz music. Kinda, strange the levels were different. I also found the Bass punch in the 24 bit were lower even after bumping the volume.
Still need to get hold of more 24 bit music and compare.

Meanwhile was wondering what are your thoughts on this?

It does according to me. The background noises can be heard more clearly with 24 Bit compared to 16 Bit.