16 or 24?

No, not really... however it is harder / more expensive to get a really good sounding DAC at 16 bits than at 24 bit... so using cheaper components/equipment one can often get a better performance albeit at the expense of bandwidth...

BTW the limiting factor won’t be your human ear, but your speakers, replay equipment and recording equipment.

There is benefit in increasing sample word sizes when mixing however, but once mix mastered one can readily reduce the sample word size.

I’d almost hazard a statement, that the bit-depth is more important than the sampling rate. More bits to carry the information and nuances of it....
Think of it as a colour analogy - would you like to have more colours / shades then less?

The only answer for you that is real is to try it yourself on your own equipment.       With my system & audio receptors I can hear difference/better between 16  24;  problem is its invariably when I get a hi-res version to replace a CD rip & it can frequently be that the hi-res is a re-release & can be remastered so its not always comparing apples with apples.   The last time I did a comparison that I know was not remastered was London Grammar "Truth Is a Beautiful Thing"  & it just happens that the 16/44.1 rip was replaced with a 24/44.1 so it was literally comparing only the bit depth.  And no question, in that recording,  24 beats 16.     I have not been that convinced about the gains with higher sample rates, I will buy 192kHz but only if its the same price as 96kHz.  And on the same subject,  I can hear a difference between WAV & FLAC on my equipment,  & also DSD if available & providing its the right material & know a bit about the recording techniques is very worthwhile investigating.

Adam Zielinski posted:

I’d almost hazard a statement, that the bit-depth is more important than the sampling rate. More bits to carry the information and nuances of it....
Think of it as a colour analogy - would you like to have more colours / shades then less?

Agreed and, of course theoretically 24 bits can contain 256 times the information compared to 16 bits.

Imho 24 bit is more important sound wise than the jump to highres formats like 96 or 192kHz...

Of course 24 bit is better than 16 bit - without a doubt!

I read the forum regularly to keep in touch with the vibe and don’t understand why so many put 24 bit down. There is a far wider spacing of instruments, fading is smoother, there is a loss of sharpness and grit that 16 bit brings. Furthermore and pertinent to the wording of your question, the ‘apparent’ delusion can also remain as this enhances the delusion of a band or orchestra in front of you.

Yes companies try to market it on the higher bit and frequency, but I liken going from 16 bit to 24 bit to upgrading the preamp. 

It's also about dynamic range. It's tough to contain an orchestra within the dynamic range supported by 16 bits and the recording engineer had to compress the sound, dynamically tweak the max volume setting or accept occasional overload. There is no such problem at 24 bits, which is also why 24 bit recordings are generally quieter than 16 bit recordings, ie left to itself the max setting is the same and inevitably then the average level in a 24 bit recording is quieter.

best

David

To me, and certainly reading severeal interesting papers on definition in the AES, 16 bit or probably around 18 bit is fine (for the master)  for current audio reproduction and recording technology. However the sample rate is significantly more important.. as that contains that intrinsic timing information (not frequency) that adds reality to the sounds the hear.. our brains have to do less processing,  specifically uncorrelated sounds and tones such as from ambient recordings and orchestras etc. So I’d say 16 bit at 96kHz sample rate probably would be a pretty optimum definition on high quality replay equipment... but for mass appeal and using inferior equipment it’s probably best to go 24 bit at 96 kHz... but as I said one is throwing bandwidth at  addressing a hardware compromise shortcoming.

Consciousmess posted:

Of course 24 bit is better than 16 bit - without a doubt!

I, too, believe this. But to be honest, I am not sure if I do hear a difference. This can be because of my ears, my room or my hardware.

But if you hear a difference, this can be because of your ears or your hardware. Maybe the streamer or DAC is optimized for playing 24bit. So if you would upsample the 16bit track to 24bit already on the NAS before streaming it, maybe it would sound the same as the original 24bit on the hardware that shows a difference with 16bit?

With my bare nds at the beginning, without cisco 2960 switch and audioquest diamond ethernet lans, I could hardly hear differences between hirez and 16/44.  Now I hear it very clearly and regret that not all new produced albums are not available in hirez.

It is easy to obtain both 16/44 and 24/44 versions of the same album and/or individual tracks. Many music download sites offer different versions of what is probably the same master. This is especially easy for new release albums, where it’s hard to imagine they remastered for every type of file type, rather than just transcoded. I have done this with, amoungst others, Lorde, London Grammar and yes unbelievably the latest Paul McCartney. The improvement that swapping to 24 gives is pretty consistent. I feel greater bass “texture” , better voice articulation, smoother highs to point out a few areas. Definitely worthwhile to me. Like some others I think the jump to 24 is more worthwhile than the jump to higher sampling rates, although I think that there are gains there too.

Yes as said, go 24 bit to ‘boost’ your hardware, go higher sample rate if genuinely available (and not simply upsampled) to add realism to the sound on top quality hardware.

My equipment is ND555, 555 PS DR , 552 DR, 300 DR and Kudos Titan 606. The software is Bubble and Linn Kazoo. I mainly use Qobuz highest resolution. Is this the optimal set up to get the most out of the system as far as the software is concerned?

As to the ND555, what I have noticed amongst other things is that simple music sounds simple - very direct and stripped. Complex orchestral music is presented with complexity - layered, exciting and dramatic. The volume does not to be as loud as with my NDS which I traded in. I saw the auction price it achieved. Someone got a fantastic bargain. I have read less than enthusiastic comments on the forum about the NDS. They are wrong. It is a magnificent machine and there are now real bargains to be had out there