Is there actually a difference between 16bit 44.1kHz and 24bit 192kHz audio

[Stahlmann]

Hey audio enthusiasts!

 

I've been wondering, is it only placebo or is there actually a quality difference between the different settings?

Always thought the higher, the better but i'm really struggling to hear a difference even when explicitly trying to compare it.

I even found out that in some games like Cyberpunk i get random crackling noises when setting my audio to anything higher than 24bit 48kHz.

 

My music source is mostly Amazon Music HD (supports up to 24bit 192kHz FLAC audio streaming)

 

My audio setup:

AMP/DAC FiiO K5 Pro (supports even up to 32bit 768kHz, but this is clearly a marketing gimmick...)

Beyerdynamic Amiron Home

 

When googling about this i found very mixed results with some people saying 24bit and up is only useful for mastering, not for listening to finished songs. And then i find people talking about how much better their 24bit 368kHz audio sounds...

[dilpickle]

Anything beyond CD quality (16bit 44khz) is mostly placebo. Of course you'll always get the golden ears who claim they can hear the difference.

[SteveiJobs]

Is there a difference? Sure. But the overarching question is whether it makes any difference to the ear.

 

The numbers you are referencing are resolution and sample rate. For resolution, 16 bit vs 24 bit means that there are 8 more bits in the 24 bit sample than the 16 bit, but at the end of the day, you're just approximating an analog waveform. If the waveform can be reproduced (or captured) in 16 bits worth of data, then there's really no benefit to 24 bit. Same thing goes for sample rate. You can dice the wave up in time into smaller chunks, but is there really an audible difference between 44,000 times per second vs 192,000 times per second? I doubt you could hear the difference.

 

Of course at the end of the day, if the hardware supports it and there isn't a performance penalty, sure, use the higher values. But if you have to lower them for any reason, I doubt it'll make any audible difference and as much as audiophiles like to think they can hear those nuances, they usually can't  

[tikker]

1 hour ago, SteveiJobs said:

The numbers you are referencing are resolution and sample rate. For resolution, 16 bit vs 24 bit means that there are 8 more bits in the 24 bit sample than the 16 bit, but at the end of the day, you're just approximating an analog waveform. If the waveform can be reproduced (or captured) in 16 bits worth of data, then there's really no benefit to 24 bit. Same thing goes for sample rate. You can dice the wave up in time into smaller chunks, but is there really an audible difference between 44,000 times per second vs 192,000 times per second? I doubt you could hear the difference.

Not an audio engineer, but can we argue this from a physics/math point of view as well? Our ears top out around 20 kHz depending on age, or 28 kHz in ideal lab conditions according to wikipedia. Since Nyquist sampling tells us we can (theoretically) reconstruct a signal properly if we sample it at  at least twice the frequency, that means 44 kHz should be able to reconstruct signals of 22 kHz and below. Higher than or around the limit of the average human hearing. So theoretically there should be little benefit of the higher sampling rate, imperfections from a non-ideal world aside?

 

Number of bits is a different story of course.

[CTR640]

Shit like that is exactly why I do not bother at all getting any more expensive and high-end dac/amps. I only buy audio stuff to enjoy, not to try growing platina ears right outta my ass lol to hear a difference lol. The headphones are the first number one that makes a huge difference, the difference is night and day, yin and yang, Jekyll and Hyde and so on

 

You say you get random crackling in games like Cyberbug 2077? Maybe it's because these games are filled with bug as usual these days.

 

And you really struggle to hear the difference? Then don't bother, like at all. Enjoy and never look back.

[Stahlmann]

51 minutes ago, CTR640 said:

You say you get random crackling in games like Cyberbug 2077? Maybe it's because these games are filled with bug as usual these days.

Only when setting a higher sample rate like 192kHz. More standard ones like 44.1kHz don't have the same issue.

 

51 minutes ago, CTR640 said:

And you really struggle to hear the difference? Then don't bother, like at all. Enjoy and never look back.

Yeah that's basically my thought progress atm.

[Derkoli]

God that's a can of worms.

 

Like other's have said, the Nyquist theorem dictates the highest frequency that can be constructed by certain sampling rates. So 44.1kHz is absolutely fine.

 

When put simply, Bit Depth just dictates the dynamic range. 16 bit is 96dB, but with noise shaping it can attain 120dB+ of Dynamic Range.

 

IMO, 16 bit 44.1kHz/CD quality is just fine for home use. I do however use much higher sampling rates and bit depths to master, as it has been shown that working at higher sampling rates/bit depths when mastering then downsampling to 44.1kHz produces better subjective results over just working at 24bit/44.1kHz.

 

When I listen, I prefer to either have 24 bit/44.1kHz files or higher, as my DAC's are capable of over 16 bits of resolution.

 

Another thing: The Mastering of the audio will matter much more than the difference between 44.1kHz and 192kHz.

[Stahlmann]

6 hours ago, Derkoli said:

When I listen, I prefer to either have 24 bit/44.1kHz files or higher, as my DAC's are capable of over 16 bits of resolution.

That's my whole question; Is it just "preference" or is there any real benefit for 24bit or higher sampling rate when i don't have anything to do with mastering? I don't mean a theoretical benefit, but a practical one.

 

I also do have a DAC that's capabe of higher bitrates and sampling rates. (i refer to my OP)

[WereCatf]

6 minutes ago, Stahlmann said:

I don't mean a theoretical benefit, but a practical one.

If you can hear the difference, then there is a practical benefit. If you can't hear the difference, then no.

 

I have potatoes for ears, so I can't tell the difference. It's the same thing with people who insist on uncompressed audio vs. e.g. MP3 -- I can't tell the difference, so I don't care.

[Stahlmann]

8 minutes ago, WereCatf said:

If you can hear the difference, then there is a practical benefit. If you can't hear the difference, then no.

 

I have potatoes for ears, so I can't tell the difference. It's the same thing with people who insist on uncompressed audio vs. e.g. MP3 -- I can't tell the difference, so I don't care.

I wouldn't say i have bad ears, but i really struggle to hear a difference. Maybe i only think i hear a slight difference because i'm biased by seeing higher numbers... I honestly couldn't say just from listening, so i guess i answered that myself.

 

However, i do hear a difference between compressed and uncompressed audio in most cases, which was the main reason why i ditched Spotify a year ago and went to Amazon Music HD. Probably gonna switch back as soon as Spotify gets their Hi-Fi service going. Amazon's software/app is just garbage in comparison.

[WereCatf]

3 minutes ago, Stahlmann said:

However, i do hear a difference between compressed and uncompressed audio in most cases, which was the main reason why i ditched Spotify a year ago and went to Amazon Music HD. Probably gonna switch back as soon as Spotify gets their Hi-Fi service going. Amazon's software/app is just garbage in comparison.

Take a look at Tidal? They also offer high-quality audio.

[Stahlmann]

8 minutes ago, WereCatf said:

Take a look at Tidal? They also offer high-quality audio.

I tried Tidal before ending up at Amazon Music. Imo Tidals software is worse than Spotify, but still somewhat better than Amazon Music. But certainly not good enough to justify paying double the price of Amazon Music each month. Spotify is the most appealing streaming service for a reason, even with their (in comparison) lower quality audio. It's just the most streamlined and "just works" (still love that quote ), which is the reason why i'll be switching back to Spotify as soon as they offer CD-quality music on their platform. 

[tikker]

16 hours ago, Derkoli said:

IMO, 16 bit 44.1kHz/CD quality is just fine for home use. I do however use much higher sampling rates and bit depths to master, as it has been shown that working at higher sampling rates/bit depths when mastering then downsampling to 44.1kHz produces better subjective results over just working at 24bit/44.1kHz.

Another can of worms: if it has been shown to consistently produce better subjectiver results, does that make it objectively better?

 

On a more serious note, I guess the downsampling helps because while working on it you're not just reconstructing the signal, but editing it or doing other stuff to it that benefits from this flexibility (and noise I guess)?

[Derkoli]

8 hours ago, Stahlmann said:

That's my whole question; Is it just "preference" or is there any real benefit for 24bit or higher sampling rate when i don't have anything to do with mastering? I don't mean a theoretical benefit, but a practical one.

 

I also do have a DAC that's capabe of higher bitrates and sampling rates. (i refer to my OP)

Keep in mind that just because your DAC is capable of decoding 24 bit's it won't output 24 bits of Dynamic Range.

 

At the moment, we literally cannot produce a DAC with Dynamic Range better than about 20.8 bits, roughly. We just cannot make the power supplies quiet enough. This file is about ADC's, but it all mostly applies to DAC's. https://www.ti.com/lit/wp/slyy086/slyy086.pdf?ts=1619795861067&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F

 

Personally, I can very easily hear the difference between MP3 and 44.1kHz FLAC.

 

I think I can hear the difference between 192kHz and 44.1kHz, but I'm fairly sure it's confirmation bias, not an actual audible difference. When I'm allowed friends or family into my home again, I'll try to setup an ABX or A/B test.

 

8 hours ago, Stahlmann said:

Probably gonna switch back as soon as Spotify gets their Hi-Fi service going

 

Exactly what I'm thinking of doing. I use Spotify and Qobuz for on the go listening, and I love Spotify's UI and music discovery system.

 

7 hours ago, WereCatf said:

Take a look at Tidal? They also offer high-quality audio.

 

I would avoid Tidal after the recent controversy over MQA. They've shown themselves to not be trust worthy.

[Derkoli]

2 minutes ago, tikker said:

Another can of worms: if it has been shown to consistently produce better subjectiver results, does that make it objectively better?

 

On a more serious note, I guess the downsampling helps because while working on it you're not just reconstructing the signal, but editing it or doing other stuff to it that benefits from this flexibility (and noise I guess)?

You tend to master at 32 bit because of all the headroom you can have with it. You don't have to worry about clipping the hell out of something. 192kHz is just nice because you can oversample to help cut down phase distortion and help eliminate aliasing.

[H713]

Frankly, I like the obsession over higher sample rates. Audio interfaces that support 192 kHz sample rates are quite useful. With an appropriate attenuator (such as Jan Didden's autoranger), a lot of these interfaces are a fairly reasonable audio analyzer. Previously, the starting price for something like this would have been $10,000 - $15,000 US.