What Hi Fi - 16bit vs 24bit
Posted by: MartinCA on 05 April 2010
FYI, there's an interesting feature in What HiFi this month. They get three people to blind-test 16 bit and 24 bit versions of 3 tracks downloaded from the internet from Naim/Linn sites. They play these through a Naim Uniti off a memory stick.
The testers picked the 24 bit track (blind) as better 8/9 times.
Maybe not an extensive detailed test over time, but more evidence to suggest that downloads will replace CDs for audiophiles at some stage in the future?? It would be nice if there was a bit more mainstream 24 bit music available!
Posted on: 05 April 2010 by Guido Fawkes
quote:
It would be nice if there was a bit more mainstream 24 bit music available!
Yes - seems memory sticks are the way to go too.
Posted on: 05 April 2010 by MartinCA
Well - they give me the best sound in my current set-up. But at the risk of revisiting well-trodden ground, what I'd really like is a good wireless streamer that doesn't cost the earth and which is flexible and easy to use. As far as I know, Sonos doesn't support 24 bit, and Logitech doesn't work with 801.11n. So its back to memory sticks, which are at least cheap.
Posted on: 05 April 2010 by rich46
ive compared 16/24 same music via the ndac. and you can tell the difference, it is not alot.
we have got 25 yrs of cds to rip and play about with. 24 bit downloads for all ,many years away.
memory sticks are a fad, nas are the future.
ive used the dac since mid december, one of the first to purchase one. after 2 days of constantly running the out put has not changed. it is an extremely capable hub, 4 dirrent sources .extremely musically delivery
Posted on: 05 April 2010 by gary1 (US)
While the 24 bit is clearly better than the 16 bit, alot comes down to how the music was recorded and mastered. I've heard some 16 bit ripped music played through a Naim system, incl. DAC, and was amazed at how good it sounds. I thought it was an A2D recording.
Posted on: 05 April 2010 by Joe Bibb
quote:
Originally posted by gary1 (US):
While the 24 bit is clearly better than the 16 bit, alot comes down to how the music was recorded and mastered.
I'd go further than that and say that the mastering and production is paramount. If you take the best CD recording you have ever heard - that is the standard that is possible. Everything short of it is not a limitation of the format.
It may be that the same mastering would sound even better at higher resolution. Sadly that is not often a comparison that is even possible as so little decent music is available in higher res. In any event the difference between 24bit and 16bit recordings of well mastered and produced music will be very small compared to the difference in good/poor masterings.
Joe
Posted on: 05 April 2010 by MartinCA
I'm always surprised at how good some quite old recordings sound. I've some CDs of classical music recorded in the late 50s that sound better than a lot of more recent recordings, especially cheap badly mastered stuff.
Actually - this general subject for me is not dissimilar to HDTV. I can tell the difference between a DVD and Blu-ray, but the difference isn't that much on my (decent) TV and it doesn't make any difference to my enjoyment. Still - in 5 years time most of us will have a Blu-ray player and not DVDs and we won't be buying DVDs anymore.
Posted on: 05 April 2010 by Mr Underhill
quote:
Originally posted by Joe Bibb:
....
I'd go further than that and say that the mastering and production is paramount.
Joe
I think this is spot on.
Even where I have well known music at 9624 it has been remastered, and so a like for like comparison is not available.
Where I have recorded music at 9624 and then down mixed to CD quality I am not convinced that I could pick the difference in a double blind test; but that said I am hardly recording with the best of equipment.
The upside for me is that while I still prefer my turntable I now greatly enjoy my ripped CDs.
M
Posted on: 05 April 2010 by DaveBk
The skill of the recording engineer in the mastering studio is certainly the most important factor. 16/44.1 is generally good enough to reveal this, but 24/96 can capture some more of the subtle details to make this really special. I wish there was more 24/96 material available, but my greatest fear is that the loudness wars destroy the fine art of the recording engineer.
Posted on: 05 April 2010 by gary1 (US)
quote:
Originally posted by Joe Bibb:
quote:
Originally posted by gary1 (US):
While the 24 bit is clearly better than the 16 bit, alot comes down to how the music was recorded and mastered.
I'd go further than that and say that the mastering and production is paramount. If you take the best CD recording you have ever heard - that is the standard that is possible. Everything short of it is not a limitation of the format.
It may be that the same mastering would sound even better at higher resolution. Sadly that is not often a comparison that is even possible as so little decent music is available in higher res. In any event the difference between 24bit and 16bit recordings of well mastered and produced music will be very small compared to the difference in good/poor masterings.
Joe
Well, not necessarily. Try downloading a 16 bit CD recorded by Ken C on the Naim label and then compare to the 24 bit one that was released about 6 months ago.
Posted on: 05 April 2010 by Joe Bibb
quote:
Originally posted by gary1 (US):
quote:
Originally posted by Joe Bibb:
Sadly that is not often a comparison that is even possible as so little decent music is available in higher res.
Joe
Well, not necessarily. Try downloading a 16 bit CD recorded by Ken C on the Naim label and then compare to the 24 bit one that was released about 6 months ago.
I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer I gave earlier.
Gary, the difference between 16bit Ken C and 24bit Ken C - if they use the same mastering will be tiny compared with, say, Nils Lofgren's Acoustic Live and The Killer's Hot Fuss.
Nil's album sounds awesome - The Killer's Hot Fuss is compressed to Hell and as a result sounds like a Gorilla shitting in a dustbin. None of that has anything to do with it being 16/44.
The point I'm making is that unless the mastering is right - worrying about the improvement 24 bit might make is utterly futile. That's not to say that 24bit isn't better, just that it would be wasted on most recordings until they sort the mastering.
Joe
Posted on: 05 April 2010 by james n
quote:
sounds like a Gorilla shitting in a dustbin
Now that made me laugh - great description
Posted on: 06 April 2010 by Eloise
The big question is also "how was the 24 and 16 bit versions produced"? Was it a 24 bit recording converted to 16 bit via some DAW - what software, what settings. It is possible that particular conversion method was used to "improve" the differences.
Second question is what form of 24bit file. Do they mean a 24/44.1 file compared with a 16/44.1; or a 24/48 or a 24/96 or a 24/88.2 file. "A 24bit version of 3 tracks" tells you nothing. Do they even both telling you the source of the files and what they were so you can repeat the experiment for yourself?
As is so often the case, two files - one and apple and one an orange - are being compared in a pseudo-scientific way and the results are being presented as factual.
Eloise
Posted on: 06 April 2010 by MartinCA
quote:
The big question is also "how was the 24 and 16 bit versions produced"? Was it a 24 bit recording converted to 16 bit via some DAW - what software, what settings. It is possible that particular conversion method was used to "improve" the differences.
Second question is what form of 24bit file. Do they mean a 24/44.1 file compared with a 16/44.1; or a 24/48 or a 24/96 or a 24/88.2 file. "A 24bit version of 3 tracks" tells you nothing. Do they even both telling you the source of the files and what they were so you can repeat the experiment for yourself?
As is so often the case, two files - one and apple and one an orange - are being compared in a pseudo-scientific way and the results are being presented as factual.
Eloise
It's just a magazine article - its journalism, not science. It just reports on readers' impressions from a blind test. It doesn't try to be pseudo-scientific and it doesn't make claims as fact - it just gives impressions.
For the record it is comparing 16 bit 44.1Hz with 24 bit 44.1 Hz. And yes - it tells you what the tracks were and where they got them from.
Posted on: 06 April 2010 by gary1 (US)
Joe,
I did get your point. All I was suggesting was that to get a true sense of the difference with a well done recording comparing KC's 24 bit to 16 bit gives you something to evaluate that is truly apples to apples.
Posted on: 06 April 2010 by abbydog
quote:
in 5 years time most of us will have a Blu-ray player and not DVDs and we won't be buying DVDs anymore.
Blu-ray is the movie industry's equivalent of SACD/DVD-A and will die for the same reasons.
I'll be streaming my video entertainment, thanks - and I won't be waiting five years.
Posted on: 06 April 2010 by uniti
unfortunatly for the streaming camp, video is a massive file and as such huge amounts of compression are used.
3.5Gb was the first film i streamed in "HD" barley up to the standard of DVD.
when i can get gigabit INTERnet and streaming is available for full 1080p/24 with the same bit rates as blueray then i will indulge. however BR price is coming down all the time and gets the most from my AV kit.
it would be like having a Bentley and driving everywhere in first gear.
Posted on: 06 April 2010 by winkyincanada
Blu-ray quality involves quite large amounts of data. The current bandwidth can't really cope, but we have been streaming some HD video-on-demand over our cable lately and the quality is quite good. Somewhere between DVD and Blu-ray quality and pretty glitch-free. Not sure that widespread streaming is too far off.
Posted on: 06 April 2010 by David Scott
quote:
Blu-ray is the movie industry's equivalent of SACD/DVD-A and will die for the same reasons.
I doubt if this is true as blu ray is obviously a lot better than the thing it replaces even when using very affordable equipment. You couldn't say the same for SACD/DVD-A.
Posted on: 07 April 2010 by Joe Bibb
quote:
Originally posted by David Scott?:
quote:
Blu-ray is the movie industry's equivalent of SACD/DVD-A and will die for the same reasons.
I doubt if this is true as blu ray is obviously a lot better than the thing it replaces even when using very affordable equipment. You couldn't say the same for SACD/DVD-A.
This is an important difference I agree. But the key will be disc availability and cost. SACD/DVD-A was mainly held back by these factors, although highish player costs certainly didn't help.
These industries have a habit of snatching failure from the jaws of success.
Joe
Posted on: 07 April 2010 by pcstockton
What is wrong with DVD-A????
Posted on: 07 April 2010 by Joe Bibb
quote:
Originally posted by pcstockton:
What is wrong with DVD-A????
Err, the fact that there are so few, maybe?
Posted on: 08 April 2010 by pcstockton
oh.... i get it. That isn't an inherent problem of DVD-A as a format though right?
I have some live DVDs with corresponding 2 Channel 24/96. Also some of the "classic album" series'.
The American Beauty DVD-A is very nice.
Posted on: 08 April 2010 by Joe Bibb
quote:
Originally posted by pcstockton:
oh.... i get it. That isn't an inherent problem of DVD-A as a format though right?
I have some live DVDs with corresponding 2 Channel 24/96. Also some of the "classic album" series'.
The American Beauty DVD-A is very nice.
Indeed, far from a problem with the format, more the usual botched introduction. Not enough titles, non compatible players with other formats, no real marketing etc. etc.
Posted on: 08 April 2010 by docmark
Yes, too bad about DVD-A. I own about 20 discs, and haven't played them since I got rid of my DVD-A compatible player. However, I've now got a program that lets me rip the audio content from them - I've converted several titles so far, most of them 96/24, and they sound great.
Posted on: 08 April 2010 by pcstockton
Doc,
I am in the same boat. I was given help to get them ripped and some are among my most cherished.
-p
