Ron F.;204551 Wrote: > I have wondered about the jump from 16-bit to 24-bit, and how sonically > significant that is. I have done a few tests for myself using digital > test files and have concluded that when I am situated in my normal > listening position, with my system's volume control at it's normal > listening position - I cannot hear anything below -90 dBFS to save my > life. Nothing. We can reach -90 dBFS with 16 bits of course. > > I can hear -100dBFS if I crank the volume to something that is well > above normal, and I can perceive -110 dBFS if the volume is further > cranked to an insane point. If the SB3 glitched in that test, I think > my speaker cones would have been accelerated right through the grills > and killed me. -120 dBFS is detectable with even more insanity applied > to the volume knob, but at that point the test tones are dropping down > into my system's noise floor. > > I have a hard time justifying the need for 24 bit resolution. I don't > feel a need for that unless I want to play my system at a level > equivalent to a jet engine, and then have it drop to total silence > between tracks:) At -120 dbFS, with my volume cranked all the way, the > grinding of the plastic gears in a clock somewhere in my place is > louder, the blood now beginning to roar in my ears is louder, etc. > > I have done comparisons between 48kHz-24bit versus 44.1kHz-16bit music > and I think I could not pass an ABX test for anything, regardless of > the quality of the recording. However - there is a caveat here: I have > listened to both for extended periods of time, and I find that CDs, > even well recorded ones, are often fatiguing to me and I eventually > want to turn the volume down. With the same content at 48kHz-24bit (NOT > upconverted from a CD of course:) - it is not fatiguing and I can enjoy > the music indefinitely at the original volume setting. > > So - I am thinking that 48 kHz is definitely preferable over 44.1 kHz > even though the difference is small. > > -Ron
Hi Ron. I think that 24 bit files sound better than 16 bit for more reasons that broad dyanmic range expansion. Yes, there are benefits to the extra bits to allow recording engineers more headroom -- on very dynamic classical music in particular. However, considering that there are 256 more more amplitude levels in a 24 bit file each and every single amplitude level in a 16 bit file. 256 times more gradations in level --- To my ears what I preceive is a fluidity and naturalness in the presentation. The subtle inflections of a flute, or clarinet for instance are captured with more distinct realism -- as there are more bits to encode their dymaic envelope with. Yes sampling rate definately helps too -- especially in the higher frequencies....but 24bit does quite a bit in creating a better recording -- considing a good recording to begin with(16 or 24 bit). My few 24/48K FLAC files are among the most analog sounding and fluid I have. I enjoy most of them through SB front-end. I'm interesting in others perceptions and understanding on 24 bit vs 16 bit depth -- independant of sampling rate. -- jt25741 SB3->AR Masters Coax -> PS Audio DLIII -> Cardas Golden Reference XLR -> Sim Audio P5 -> Cardas Golden Reference XLR -> Sim Audio W5 -> Cardas Golden Reference Hi-Mid,PS Audio Xstream Plus Low-> Magnepan 3.6R ------------------------------------------------------------------------ jt25741's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=8645 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=34985 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
