# 24 Bit - Wow!



## troutspinner

I installed a new HU about a month ago that can play 24 bit flac files. Today I finally got around to trying it with the Dire Straits album, Brothers In Arms. All I can say is Wow! I typically listen to 320 MP3's and am slowly converting over to flac as it is a nice improvement, this however is like being on the stage with the band, the imaging is insane!

I actually got a little nervous that I was pushing my system too hard while at volume levels I run every day but at the same time, it was quiet. Hard to explain but is was pure listening bliss. With this in mind, do you guys adjust your crossovers or slopes when you go to a high quality file like a 24bit flac?

I can see it now, I'll be revising my library again with any 24bit I can get my hands on......


----------



## fcarpio

Welcome to the world of uncompressed music. Now try "Love Over Gold", it is recorded better than "Brothers In Arms".


----------



## edzyy

placebo effect


----------



## subterFUSE

edzyy said:


> placebo effect


Ladies and Gentlemen.... Let's get ready to rumble!!!!!!!!! :laugh:


----------



## ErinH

I have various recordings of various albums so there are certainly differences, depending on how the mix was done. For example, I have Michael Jackson's Thriller in 24-bit as well as the original recording and the 2000's remaster. Switching back and forth between Billie Jean on the 24-bit version vs the other two, the most immediate difference is the high frequency rolloff on the 24-bit version. I actually noticed this by accident; had the two tracks back to back and was scrolling through my library track by track and these two were back to back. It first made me think something had messed up on my computer but sure enough, the versions were indeed different. 

You want info on your Dire Straits' albums, check here:
Album list - Dynamic Range Database
That shows the different mastering of each release (that someone has ran through the DRDB). For a more exact comparison, look at the significant dynamic range differences in remastered versions of a standard CD. Or look at the differences in the SACD versions. 

Another example is Tears For Fears' The Hurting. I have a 1999 remaster and compared directly to the 1983 original I own, the silent passages are not silent. A cause of having the levels bumped up. When I go here, it makes sense:
http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/list?artist=&album=the+hurting
See the 1983 version average album DR is 13. The 1999 remaster is 8. The 2013 version is a touch better than the 1999 version. Of course, these are just numbers; I won't get in to the sonic differences of instruments, etc. But, that site alone will prove there are sonic differences between certain mixes. Some being minute while others are severe.

That said, you shouldn't have to adjust your crossover points for different albums. If you start doing that, you're going to find yourself in a world of hurt and confusion every time you play a different CD. Set your crossovers to limit low frequency distortion and high frequency beaming and you'll be fine.


----------



## troutspinner

bikinpunk, good stuff and advice.

edzyy, nice troll response but definitely not placebo. Finding it hard to believe myself, I went back and forth between 16 and 24 on the same song and there is a significant difference. Would I have heard it with my stock HU and speakers, no way

I've seen the debates on MP3 quality and the conclusion is always whatever your ears hear, much like we choose speakers, they all sound different to different people.

Going with ignorance is bliss, I wish my ears heard mid level MP3's the same as a higher quality.....it sure would save me some space on my computer and phone.


----------



## ErinH

Just to be clear, the experience I mentioned above regarding the Billie Jean track wasn't an audible difference as in "oh, the cymbals sound more real" or anything along the lines of psychoacoustic talk. In this case, there was an obvious difference in overall frequency response; the highs were rolled off. And I noticed this on my iMac speakers (the speakers are at the bottom of the monitor and pointed down). The difference was significant, to the point that if I were in my car and thought I was listening to the standard album (not the 24k version) I'd have thought my tweeters just went out. 

That's the thing about these conversations. People may take it out of context or expect the convo to veer toward the magic pixie dust of placebo affect. These cases exist (go check out the Steve Hoffman forum sometime for an example of just how crazy it can get). However, there are cases where there are significant differences in various recordings and the differences are completely obvious. The DRDB is proof enough that these differences do exist.


----------



## mires

Slightly off topic, but what new head unit did you get?


----------



## cajunner

if I take a straight digital feed that is a master, and during that initial analog to digital processing I make a redbox 44.1K version, and I make a 24 bit 96K version using the exact same source material in bits, is that even possible? 

okay, if I take those two separate but sharing the same exact code, bit streams and record them at the exact same level, I don't think people could tell them apart.

I know theoretically they can put more information into a 24 bit recording, but I don't believe the differences are audible, they make it audible with level changes and probably a little dynamic noise shaping or wizardry in the digital domain. WE don't have access to those mastering and production components, so we don't know how much they screw with the feeds coming off the analog tape, we don't have access to that unless we're intimately involved in mastering engineering or whatever.

so when you have a 24 bit version, and you have a 16 bit version, they are going to sound different because they have an interest in making them sound different. I bet if you asked the re-master guys to create an audibly identical version of the 16 bit, with the 24 bit hardware, you could A-B them all day and not know which was which.


----------



## subterFUSE

cajunner said:


> I bet if you asked the re-master guys to create an audibly identical version of the 16 bit, with the 24 bit hardware, you could A-B them all day and not know which was which.


Absolutely true. The quality of the original recordings, and the quality of the mastering are big determining factors.


----------



## troutspinner

mires said:


> Slightly off topic, but what new head unit did you get?



Kenwood DNX691HD


----------



## minbari

edzyy said:


> placebo effect


exactly! I have a couple albums in 320kbps and flac and cant tell any difference.

if you are hearing a difference, then the 320 rip wasnt done well in the first place. 24 bit vs 16 bit has been beat to death too. there is zero audible difference.


----------



## troutspinner

cajunner said:


> so when you have a 24 bit version, and you have a 16 bit version, they are going to sound different because they have an interest in making them sound different. I bet if you asked the re-master guys to create an audibly identical version of the 16 bit, with the 24 bit hardware, you could A-B them all day and not know which was which.


Great point and agreed, I would wager the same as you. If consumers had the ability of ripping at the 24 bit level, we would be hard pressed telling the difference between 24 and 16. But! I do like that they have an interest and can take it up a notch.


----------



## cajunner

minbari said:


> exactly! I have a couple albums in 320kbps and flac and cant tell any difference.
> 
> if you are hearing a difference, then the 320 rip wasnt done well in the first place. 24 bit vs 16 bit has been beat to death too. there is zero audible difference.



but it's rare to find a 16 bit version that is the same, and that hasn't been screwed with in the 24 bit version.

I don't know if this is going to be controversial but I think if they do a master in 24 bit, and then you re-sample that down to 16 bit, you lose enough information that it could be audible even if you don't apply sound shaping, noise reduction or compression on the conversion.

but that's where I thought that you're not working off the same stream, the analog to digital first conversion is going to dictate how much information is involved and if you have an infinite number of bits, and pull down 1411 or WAV, out of that stream, or you pull down whatever 24 bit is, each digitizing of the original infinite is going to give you a different set of information bits...

kinda complicated and I don't know if that's right but I would guess that if you are hearing significant audible changes from one format to the next, it's because they want that separation, they want you to feel like you're okay spending money on the same music twice, because you can hear that difference. If all 24 bit remasters sounded just like the 16 bit, I don't think they would sell nearly as many.


----------



## minbari

read this, particulaly the parts on 16 vs 24 bits. 16 bits of digital audio has more than enough bits for playback that is well above what most people can hear.

24/192 Music Downloads are Very Silly Indeed

I wont argue that if the 24 bit master is re-engineered when they down sample it, then it will sound different. But if you take a 24bit master and do NOTHING else, except down sample it. you wont hear anything different.

sure they would. people feel like they are getting something better and they WILL hear it, even if it is not there. why are cat back exhaust system so popular? it makes more noise, so it must be better right? put them on a dyno and you get 5-10 more hp. (you still have the bottle neck of the CAT and the pipe in front of the cat) on a 150-200 engine, that is barely noticeable, but people will still spend $800 on it.


----------



## ErinH

minbari said:


> exactly! I have a couple albums in 320kbps and flac and cant tell any difference.
> 
> if you are hearing a difference, then the 320 rip wasnt done well in the first place. 24 bit vs 16 bit has been beat to death too. there is zero audible difference.


please see my replies above. You should know that I am anything but a subjective person. 

the masters can differ and those differences can certainly be audible. as was the case with the two versions of Billie Jean I have (24bit vs 16bit original). that's not the same as saying the exact same version of a track put down on 16 bit will sound different than 24-bit. I'm just saying, there are justifiable reasons for someone hearing a difference in a track if the track was altered. Most people don't know if it has or not. That's a good place for the DRDB to help.


----------



## cajunner

minbari said:


> read this, particulaly the parts on 16 vs 24 bits. 16 bits of digital audio has more than enough bits for playback that is well above what most people can hear.
> 
> 24/192 Music Downloads are Very Silly Indeed
> 
> I wont argue that if the 24 bit master is re-engineered when they down sample it, then it will sound different. But if you take a 24bit master and do NOTHING else, except down sample it. you wont hear anything different.
> 
> sure they would. people feel like they are getting something better and they WILL hear it, even if it is not there. why are cat back exhaust system so popular? it makes more noise, so it must be better right? put them on a dyno and you get 5-10 more hp. (you still have the bottle neck of the CAT and the pipe in front of the cat) on a 150-200 engine, that is barely noticeable, but people will still spend $800 on it.


If I owned the rights to a bunch of old music and I was in the business of selling music, I'd make several versions of the music and put it out for sale, and then obfuscate the general public with varying levels and using fancy packaging or gold-toned top layers on the CD's, and even try to make audible differences in the mastering so that it is actually different and not just different in name only.

It's not like they are going to be stuck with a huge bunch of 24 bit, digital recordings if they don't even have to store them in a digital warehouse, haha..

Everything should be cost-relative, and it's not. You're paying extra for flac today, and why? You're going to tell me that the differences in download time, or server space, or hardware costs, means you pay that much more?

no, they are gouging us at the pump, and getting an income stream where dishonesty is acceptable practice. It's a shame.


----------



## troutspinner

I just converted that 24 bit flac to a 320 MP3. I'll give a listen to it when I run out in a little while. I am going to bet that I do not hear a difference and the re-mastering is the real difference I heard.

That's why I like coming here though, the knowledge on this forum about audio is impressive!


----------



## AAAAAAA

The point here is that IF there is an audible differnece you can't simply assume it's because of the 24 bits... the dac or coper chassis ect ect.


----------



## troutspinner

troutspinner said:


> I just converted that 24 bit flac to a 320 MP3. I'll give a listen to it when I run out in a little while. I am going to bet that I do not hear a difference and the re-mastering is the real difference I heard.
> 
> That's why I like coming here though, the knowledge on this forum about audio is impressive!


I learn something new every day...

So I swapped one of the songs back and forth from a 24bit 96khz flac to a Lame encoded MP3 forced at 320kbps about 10 times and my verdict in a simple word, same. The mids and highs were just as crisp and the imaging remained excellent.

If I were to give ANY differing opinion, I might say that the lows on the flac may be insignificantly smoother? The only reason I say that is the vibrations my sub made were slightly, and I mean very slight a tad cleaner. Had I been moving in the truck, there would be no way to pick up on this and I would actually attribute this to lossless vs. MP3 though and not bit rate.

So the lesson learned today, time spent chasing down 24bit lossless files over 320kbps MP3 files would not be worthy. I would however take a nicely re-mastered flac over a 16bit CD rip flac any day.....and then convert it to 320kbps MP3 to save space. 

To reflect back to my original post, this album re-mastered this way sounds incredible!


----------



## cajunner

troutspinner said:


> I learn something new every day...
> 
> So I swapped one of the songs back and forth from a 24bit 96khz flac to a Lame encoded MP3 forced at 320kbps about 10 times and my verdict in a simple word, same. The mids and highs were just as crisp and the imaging remained excellent.
> 
> If I were to give ANY differing opinion, I might say that the lows on the flac may be insignificantly smoother? The only reason I say that is the vibrations my sub made were slightly, and I mean very slight a tad cleaner. Had I been moving in the truck, there would be no way to pick up on this and I would actually attribute this to lossless vs. MP3 though and not bit rate.
> 
> So the lesson learned today, time spent chasing down 24bit lossless files over 320kbps MP3 files would not be worthy. I would however take a nicely re-mastered flac over a 16bit CD rip flac any day.....and then convert it to 320kbps MP3 to save space.
> 
> To reflect back to my original post, this album re-mastered this way sounds incredible!



it's nice when first hand experience is able to give you a result you can believe in.

I went from a 1-bit DAC deck, to a 24 bit unit and I swear, I can hear actual, audible change in sound quality.

but then, mama always said I was not right...


----------



## Hanatsu

Not the compression, probably a remastered version / mixed differently. 24bit is an useless format imo.

24/192 Music Downloads are Very Silly Indeed

For all intents and purposes, 256-320kbit/s mp3 should be indistinguishable from lossless unless you got uber hearing.


----------



## troutspinner

Hanatsu said:


> Not the compression, probably a remastered version / mixed differently.


The MP3 was created by me using the .flac file as the source.


----------



## troutspinner

fcarpio said:


> Welcome to the world of uncompressed music. Now try "Love Over Gold", it is recorded better than "Brothers In Arms".


Holy file size! Love Over Gold is huge!


----------



## quality_sound

fcarpio said:


> Welcome to the world of uncompressed music. Now try "Love Over Gold", it is recorded better than "Brothers In Arms".


Why wouldn't you just use the CD then?

Sent from my Moto X using Tapatalk


----------



## Freedom First

quality_sound said:


> Why wouldn't you just use the CD then?
> 
> Sent from my Moto X using Tapatalk


CD's are so... 90's.


----------



## cajunner

Freedom First said:


> CD's are so... 90's.


and the nineties were the golden age of car audio.... coincidence?







when CD digital killed the analog/cassette, it mutated into peer2peer sharing when it hatched the mp3 and we're suffering from bad genetics.

I remember not long ago, used cassettes, bargain bins, etc. at the local mall outlets.

now a CD is considered antiquated, show someone your 'case' of discs and they laugh.

"you bought all that? like at the store and stuff, hahahaha.."


----------



## Freedom First

cajunner said:


> and the nineties were the golden age of car audio.... coincidence?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> when CD digital killed the analog/cassette, it mutated into peer2peer sharing when it hatched the mp3 and we're suffering from bad genetics.
> 
> I remember not long ago, used cassettes, bargain bins, etc. at the local mall outlets.
> 
> now a CD is considered antiquated, show someone your 'case' of discs and they laugh.
> 
> "you bought all that? like at the store and stuff, hahahaha.."



Yeah, but who wants to fumble around with jewel cases while driving, and worry about scratching or smudging the disc when handling it? And CD cases from CaseLogic (and others) just make it easy for some lowlife to jack your collection. And we all know changers just don't cut it, because the CD you want to listen to _right now_ is never in the changer (a Murphy's Law?).

And when you can get 120 hours of listening material on a device no bigger than your fingernail... 

...well, I'm done playing the Devil's advocate. 

In reality, the digital age ushered in by the Compact Disc is a Godsend to music. And our hobby. Copious quantities of music at your fingertips, with high portability and flawless reproduction (provided it wasn't ripped by some ding-dong with an old 386 and a crappy, error-prone CD drive then uploaded in 48kbps to Napster 15 years ago). 

Back to the OP's point: There IS a difference between higher quality (or Hi-Res) files and their mp3 counterparts, and it's apparent. Whether it's due to better mastering or original source material, or the decoding, is a matter for honest debate. But, I've recently found some SACD rips of music I already have both in mp3 and FLAC formats, and the SACD rips blow them away in terms of richness, texture and 3-dimensionality.


----------



## subterFUSE

quality_sound said:


> Why wouldn't you just use the CD then?
> 
> Sent from my Moto X using Tapatalk


I still purchase my music on CD, and then rip to Apple Lossless for the iPod convenience.

I have never purchased a single track from the iTunes store. Not one, ever.


----------



## troutspinner

quality_sound said:


> Why wouldn't you just use the CD then?
> 
> Sent from my Moto X using Tapatalk


CD's max out at 16 bit.


----------



## cajunner

Freedom First said:


> But, I've recently found some SACD rips of music I already have both in mp3 and FLAC formats, and the SACD rips blow them away in terms of richness, texture and 3-dimensionality.


did you buy those SACD rips, or was it illegally obtained since it's not an exact duplicate of the version you already purchased in FLAC format, or stole in mp3 bit depth?

that's the hangnail on the thumb drive, nobody is legally purchasing this SACD version unless they bought it as an SACD, and if they did, they paid twice for their music, giving all new royalty and music rights percentages not to the artist, but to the recording entity or music rights holder that is doing a re-issue.

so, you get a mildly improved product that should cost only the amount of whatever it took to technically improve the material, but you can't show proof of purchase and excise the original music tax added. The artist isn't getting their cut of that $25.99 purchase of SACD, it's going to the Michael Jackson inheritance fund, or Jackson's family, hahaha... 

I can't help but see a negative when they serve up the same bits you already paid for, but demand you pay twice, and they add a premium because they added salt this time.


----------



## minbari

not to mention that "richness, texture and 3-dimensionality" is audiophile jibber jabber. if you have a Flac version of the file, that is lossless. or the same as the CD, exactly! (what "lossless" means) buying an more expensive SACD version of the same file is a waste of money.

As you have mentioned, it is all about the mighty $ and if you tell someone something is better than the previous version and charge more for it, then it must be better, right?


----------



## Freedom First

minbari said:


> not to mention that "richness, texture and 3-dimensionality" is audiophile jibber jabber. if you have a Flac version of the file, that is lossless. or the same as the CD, exactly! (what "lossless" means) buying an more expensive SACD version of the same file is a waste of money.
> 
> As you have mentioned, it is all about the mighty $ and if you tell someone something is better than the previous version and charge more for it, then it must be better, right?


You completely missed my point about mastering, and given a typical CD is limited to only 16-bit 44.1Khz (as troutspinner pointed out) and hi-res formats can be as much as 48-bit 192kHz, it doesn't really matter if the rip is flac or not now, does it? A flac rip of a CD (1411 kbps) and a flac rip of a SACD (5645 kbps for DSD64 or 16934 kbps for DST64) are NOT the same. There IS a difference. Try it for yourself.


----------



## minbari

I have, there is no difference. any differences people pretend to hear is all in thier head.


----------



## Freedom First

minbari said:


> I have, there is no difference. any differences people pretend to hear is all in thier head.


We'll agree to disagree, and leave it at that, then.


----------



## troutspinner

minbari said:


> I have, there is no difference. any differences people pretend to hear is all in thier head.


You need to sit in my truck.


----------



## ErinH

There can be differences in versions outside of typical dynamic range issues typically found in remasters. From a different forum: "So Far Away" MoFi SACD vs original CD spectrum delta.


----------

