Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The 24 bit debate
#3
24 bit is easier for recording, 16 bit is fine for distributing music. With properly dithered and noise shaped systems 16 bit can give more dynamic range that any domestic hifi that I am aware of.
One problem is that most recordings are done at 48, 96 or 192 kHz sampling rates. This means converting to 44 kHz red book standard requires computation. Not all the algorithms used are audibly transparent, so a file converted from 48/16, 48/24, 96/24 or 192/24 which are the pro standards commonly used to 44/16 may or may not sound the same as the original, depending on the quality of the algorithm used in the conversion.
I can hear the differences produced by such different downsampling calculations, though using the best one I could not hear the difference between the downsampled 44/16 and the 96/24 original.
It was most thought provoking.
Actually a signal to noise ratio of 16 bits is pretty impressive for most parts of the analogue chain, and 20/21 bit absolute state of the art, so post DAC very little will be better than 16 bit and nothing better than 21-bit.
FWIW
Devialet Original d'Atelier 44 Core, Job Pre/225, Goldmund PH2, Goldmund Reference/T3f /Ortofon A90, Goldmund Mimesis 36+ & Chord Blu, iMac/Air, Lynx Theta, Tune Audio Anima, Goldmund Epilog 1&2, REL Studio. Dialog, Silver Phantoms, Branch stands, copper cables (mainly).
Oxfordshire

Reply


Messages In This Thread
The 24 bit debate - by Confused - 13-Sep-2014, 10:53
RE: The 24 bit debate - by Jwg1749 - 13-Sep-2014, 14:07
RE: The 24 bit debate - by f1eng - 13-Sep-2014, 18:09
RE: The 24 bit debate - by Rufus McDufus - 13-Sep-2014, 18:54
RE: The 24 bit debate - by f1eng - 13-Sep-2014, 19:37
RE: The 24 bit debate - by Confused - 13-Sep-2014, 20:10

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)