16 bit vs 24 bit flac

[Shadow_Storm56]

Just curious in buying flac versions of songs if there is a huge difference between the 16 and 24 bit versions? 

[The Sloth]

here a article on it http://www.tested.com/tech/1905-the-real-differences-between-16-bit-and-24-bit-audio/, it will depend if your equipment can support it. 

[LooneyJuice]

I'd honestly recommend seeing if you can try a similar comparison before biting the bullet to hear if you can pick up the difference. Especially depending on what kind of audio hardware you're using.

[Shadow_Storm56]

8 minutes ago, LooneyJuice said:

I'd honestly recommend seeing if you can try a similar comparison before biting the bullet to hear if you can pick up the difference. Especially depending on what kind of audio hardware you're using.

I have done the online tests and I can tell the quality differences quite easily. 

[Himommies]

26 minutes ago, Shadow_Storm56 said:

I have done the online tests and I can tell the quality differences quite easily. 

Are we talking about listening on a phone?on a PC?

[Shadow_Storm56]

8 minutes ago, Himommies said:

Are we talking about listening on a phone?on a PC?

Pc to Sennheiser PXC 550 Wireless Headphones. 

 

[Himommies]

1 minute ago, Shadow_Storm56 said:

Pc to Sennheiser PXC 550 Wireless Headphones. 

 

Honestly if there the same price get the 24 bit one but I(for casual listening at least) wouldn't pay over 1 dollar for the 8 bit upgrade

[Volbet]

The only difference between 16bit and 24bit audio files is how much dynamic range they're capable of. 

A 16bit file is capable of 96db of dynamic range while a 24bit files is capable of 123db of dynamic range.

To my knowledge there is no commercially released music or audio that exceeds 70db of dynamic range, and these days you'll be hard pressed to find recordings with more than 5db of dynamic range.

 

So paying extra for 24bit FLAC files is basically paying more for empty data (and potentially E-pen, but that's another story). 

[BoredErica]

Do I actually want to hear over 96dB of dynamic range? Like, I don't think my ears will survive that.

 

30dB ambient noise in my room, add 96 (ignoring dithering which should increase it above that) = 126 = ears kill themselves.

 

 

Personally I'm already crying at 85.

 

Here's the link I personally go to about this topic, not to say there aren't good ones elsewhere: 

https://www.head-fi.org/f/threads/24bit-vs-16bit-the-myth-exploded.415361/

[rhyseyness]

50 minutes ago, Dark_wizzie said:

Do I actually want to hear over 96dB of dynamic range? Like, I don't think my ears will survive that.

 

30dB ambient noise in my room, add 96 (ignoring dithering which should increase it above that) = 126 = ears kill themselves.

 

 

Personally I'm already crying at 85.

 

Here's the link I personally go to about this topic, not to say there aren't good ones elsewhere: 

https://www.head-fi.org/f/threads/24bit-vs-16bit-the-myth-exploded.415361/

Research the difference between sound pressure level (measured in dB) and dynamic range (also measured in dB).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_range

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_pressure

dB is used as unit to compare 2 things, not an absolute measurement.

96dB of dynamic range means 96dB between the smallest input and largest input at a given frequency.

Sound pressure level is a measure of loudness (what you're talking about) compared to silence, not compared to the same device at it's smallest possible input.

They're similar measurements, but by no means the same.

This is my understanding anyway, someone correct me if I'm wrong.

Hope this helps

[BoredErica]

3 minutes ago, rhyseyness said:

Research the difference between sound pressure level (measured in dB) and dynamic range (also measured in dB).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_range

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_pressure

dB is used as unit to compare 2 things, not an absolute measurement.

96dB of dynamic range means 96dB between the smallest input and largest input at a given frequency.

Sound pressure level is a measure of loudness (what you're talking about) compared to silence, not compared to the same device at it's smallest possible input.

They're similar measurements, but by no means the same.

This is my understanding anyway, someone correct me if I'm wrong.

Hope this helps

Yes, they're not the exact same thing. But presumably we want say, 96 dB of dynamic range because the song has 96 dB of dynamic range. So the difference between the quietest and loudest sound would be 96 dB. Now I apply that to the real world, I'm listening to that hypothetical song. In order for me to hear the quietest sound it should at least be as loud as the ambient noise of my room, otherwise it's just drowned out. So to really get my 96 dB's worth of dynamic range in the real world, the loudest sound in the track would have to be 30db (ambient noise of room) + 96dB.

[rhyseyness]

7 minutes ago, Dark_wizzie said:

Yes, they're not the exact same thing. But presumably we want say, 96 dB of dynamic range because the song has 96 dB of dynamic range. So the difference between the quietest and loudest sound would be 96 dB. Now I apply that to the real world, I'm listening to that hypothetical song. In order for me to hear the quietest sound it should at least be as loud as the ambient noise of my room, otherwise it's just drowned out. So to really get my 96 dB's worth of dynamic range in the real world, the loudest sound in the track would have to be 30db (ambient noise of room) + 96dB.

Good point.

As Volbet said, that kind of dynamic range is a myth really

[SSL]

Higher bit depth also has less quantization error.

 

Instead of circle-jerking over extreme sampling rates, audiophiles and snake-oil proponents alike should have been championing 24-bit content, regardless of whether it was greater than 44.1 kHz. 24-bit 48 kHz could have been the ultimate high-quality music format, allowing more precision and slower roll-off antialiasing filters. Instead we are stuck with the inanity of DSD and 192 kHz.

[seduce_me]

Theoretically, without quantization error, you can perfectly reconstruct the original signal given that the bandwidth is limited to half of the sampling rate but that would require an infinite number of bits.

Upsampling eases the requirements for the digital filters in DACs. (If you had a DAC that upsamples to 192kHz, you only need a low pass filter at 96kHz to be able to create the original signal theoretically.) However, there is a need to interpolate between the samples, which makes the best delta-sigma DACs still an approximation of the original signal.

However, non-oversampling DACs also have their own problems - creating such a steep filter also distorts the signal.

A higher bit depth decreases quantization error, in this case 24 bit > 16 bit. There are definitely exceptions to this rule like the upsampling R2R DACs from Schiit.

 

The best compromise would be 24/96 to decrease quantization error and ease the filter requirements.