ARCHIVED FORUM -- March 2012 to February 2022READ ONLY FORUM
This is the second Archived Forum which was active between 1st March 2012 and 23rd February 2022
Has anyone here tried to hear the difference between 24 bit and normal 'cd' quality 16 bit audio? From what I read on the internet, it's very debatable, and I read some articles about it being total nonsense, a commercial trick to enhance sales again with a 'new' sort of 'better' sound.
Most download shops offer 24 bit at a higher price. Is it worth it?
Hi,
Unfortunately, the answer to your question is "it depends"...
It depends on
That being said, some of the best recordings I own are "high resolution" recordings - but they're good recordings. The fact that they're also available in high resolution is just one of many aspects that make them good.
Cheers
-g
There is a huge difference (up to Studio master files). BUT.....
The better the System (DAC, speaker.......) the less is the difference you can hear.
And now we have the paradoxon. People, who do not spend much money for the music system, won't spend much money for high resolution files, even they had the biggest advantage. People who spend much money for the high res files normally have a expensive system, an just a little advantage.
What a wonderful thread is going to start.......
Geoff Martin: the quality of the rest of your playback system. (is the dynamic range and/or frequency range of the music file itself the limiting factor in your system? - BEWARE that this answer is not as simple as it seems... see this link for example...)
Oops. Forgot the link. It's here.
cheers
Geoff Martin: how the "high resolution" version was made (is it really a high-res original, or is it just a resampling - and therefore a con?).
One thing I also came across was that the 24 bit version of an album benefitted from a better mix than the 16 bit version of the same recording. In this case the advantage of the 24 bit version was not (only) that is was 24 bit, but that it had been better mixed.
Conclusion:- sometimes you want the 24 bit version, but the reason is not (only) the bit depth as such;- you want to make sure that you are always know what you are comparing and that you are not changing several variables at the same time.
Cheers,
Sebastian
Those weren't the answers I hoped to get...Now I need to buy 24 bit music...:-)
Life is getting difficult. I believe there was a discussion about the Beolab 5 being not able to play 24 bit music. (don't own them) That would be a serious disadvantage for a high end system, reading the comments above. I'm sure B&O will update them so that they can play 24 bit. Same about the Beosound 5. For example an Essence can play 24 bit, so that makes it a (slightly) better offer than the BS 5, for serious music listening.
BTW, I don't listen to Gangnam style, I listen to Beethoven, Mozart and the Bach family...
I agree with Geoff, I have been using studio masters from linn records for a while since I had a linn klimax ds,I do hear a difference In a good quality recording,as my system is revealing.
i use a linn exakt system now with 24 bit files streamed straight to the speakers and it is in a different league sound wise to my dads beosound 5 lab 5 combo.
Saying that,I don't hear much difference between 16 and 24 quality through my Beolabs.
A good quality,well recorded cd still sounds good on both systems though.
just my experience.
There are only very few real 24/96 (or higher) recordings for sale.
With real I mean, where the source is recorded in 24/96 with microphones, that are able to capture the higher quality. If any mixing etc is done afterwards, the bitdepth of the initial recording even had to be higher than the 24.
MM
There is a tv - and there is a BV
So, not every new (classical) recording is recorded in 24 bit?
I visit a lot of (again classical) concerts. Sometimes I think the live-performance sounds less 'hi-fi' than the best CD-recordings played on a high-end audio-set. Are we going to be too critical, too demanding? Perhaps, with all the recording techniques and 'mastering', the final music record is more perfect than the live music? In the end, it's all about live, 'real' music.
linn is all about source first,and as they own their own record label also,it pays to have the best recordings to showcase their systems.
I have been to the studio when Clair Martin has recorded a song then played straight back on a exakt system,also everything is still handbuilt in my native Scotland.
One of the things I miss about B&o everything was done in Denmark,shapely not now.Its all about being true to your heritage.
And are you sure, that that Claire Martin recording (without any mixing/editing) was the version, that was for sale afterwards.
Remember the postings before christmas here about the Linn '24-bits of Christmas' offer.
It turned out to be a mixed bag.
Linn is business - just as any other recording label.
Today (and even more this coming year) we (will) see a great deal of hype about 'highres audio'.
Not saying that the recordings of Linn are bad - not at all.
But how are we really to know about the provenance of the files being offered to us as costumers?
@Butch1: which beolabs are you using, with which source?
If you don't mind, I take into account your Scottish preference, reading and weighing your verdict of the used hardware :-)
It may be interesting for this discussion to see a posting I did a while back regarding some analyses of a couple of high res recordings.
http://www.tonmeister.ca/wordpress/2014/05/23/high_res_audio_analysis_01/
I believe that this discussion took place last year where another poster came in with some analyses that he did with respect to the mastering differences on different releases of the same recording. The topic of discussion there was "vinyl vs. digital" but the message is the same.
Two different mastering versions of the same recording will sound much more different than a 24-bit vs. a 16-bit version of a 24-bit recording.
-geoff
jc I am using beolabs with numerous sources,from cd to linn ds streaming.
Like I said previously,myself and my family have been B&o owners for years and myself,or my dad has had most items from the last 25-30 years.
I have demoed most of the speakers back to back ,with different sources as I have a seperate music room and like to keep cinema and music seperate.
Everytime I go back to a complete linn activ system,the lab 5s are great, but they can not compete with a linn exakt system,they have power but that's not everything,I don't know if it's their age with the dacs etc.I am very open minded when it comes to technology and not brainwashed,I demo everything and compare with my eyes and ears.I have compared meridian,naim,classe etc and keep coming back to linn and B&o systems,
i am looking to get lab 20s or 18s and 19 to go in my tv room with 7-40 to my old 5.1 setup which has served the family well,as I love the system integration and looks.I would not have a linn 5.1 as too many cables so B&o is ideal.
Regarding source last night I demoed a friend vinyl from a full spec lp12 and then 24bit stream and he preferred the vinyl,not the only one may I add.
Everyone here's things different,so buy and listen to what you enjoy.
Geoff, Butch1, thank you for your answers.
Always wondered why people use 5.1 surround set-ups for TV/movies, I never wanted to, I prefer just good stereo sound to go with TV/movies. Tastes differ.
I'm primarily a music listener, it's difficult to figure out what 'good' or even 'the best' sound is. Sometimes I think a lot of 'high end' listeners are more interested in technology than in music. I will just find out myself, by comparing 16 bit and 24 bit downloads. I am ready to believe that Linn sounds better, but to my eyes it's no comparison design-wise to the Danish company. However, I must also admit that musical qualities are more important than the looks. B&o still have no real competition as a 'design' brand, and that is a positive thing, I mean, in a artistic way. Anyway, reviews of the Beolab 5's and the Beosound 5 always were very positive, sound wise.