Skip to main content
Topic: What would the difference be between 41.1/16 and 96/24 for this song (Read 2678 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

What would the difference be between 41.1/16 and 96/24 for this song

This song is currently 16 bit 44.1 khz but upon release will be 24 bit 96 khz. Would there be a subjectively noticeable difference? I know there is a lot of treads about this but i'm asking about a specific example. It seems it could perhaps be more crisp as its rather hard to hear the guitar: http://www.npr.org/blogs/allsongs/2013/08/...ession-in-thief

What would the difference be between 41.1/16 and 96/24 for this song

Reply #1
Concluding from the plethora of threads about this subject: Probably not.

What would the difference be between 41.1/16 and 96/24 for this song

Reply #2
I like crisp chicken. No idea how it relates to bits and samplerate.
Is troll-adiposity coming from feederism?
With 24bit music you can listen to silence much louder!

What would the difference be between 41.1/16 and 96/24 for this song

Reply #3
Why release a 16 bit song as 24 bit? Makes no sense whatsoever. If you're going to do further processing of the file, most software works at 32 bit floating-point internally. And no, it won't sound better.

What would the difference be between 41.1/16 and 96/24 for this song

Reply #4
If the rationale is 96 nyquist -> 48kHz resolution VS 44.1 nyquist -> 22.05kHz resolution means there will be more (useful) information about high frequencies that result in more 'crispness', I think this is erroneous. Other than noise and higher order overtones there won't be much info above the 22.05 kHz offered by a 44.1kHz file. Secondly, humans can't hear anything higher than ~20kHz with pristine ears. The older you get/more concerts and house-parties you've been to the lower this goes (~16kHz for adults).

The word length (bit depth) of 24-bits might offer more amplitude resolution, but 16bits offers enough room to have a dynamic range of effectively 120dB. More than enough. I never listen to music that loud voluntarily... I'd like my hearing to stay, thank you very much.

https://www.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html


btw: a 'crisp' hi-hat has most of it's energy (dominance) around a frequency of 11kHz

What would the difference be between 41.1/16 and 96/24 for this song

Reply #5
But alas, what if the song was originally 24/96 and this is just a version in 16/41.1. Then would the original have noticeable difference?

What would the difference be between 41.1/16 and 96/24 for this song

Reply #6
Read my signature.
Is 24-bit/192kHz good enough for your lo-fi vinyl, or do you need 32/384?

What would the difference be between 41.1/16 and 96/24 for this song

Reply #7
But alas, what if the song was originally 24/96 and this is just a version in 16/41.1. Then would the original have noticeable difference?

Nope. Have you read the article Propheticus just linked?

What would the difference be between 41.1/16 and 96/24 for this song

Reply #8
Secondly, humans can't hear anything higher than ~20kHz with pristine ears

Some (especially children) can hear higher, but the ability to hear isolated pure tones does not equate to the ability to hear these frequencies in content that is not just isolated pure tones (such as music).
Is 24-bit/192kHz good enough for your lo-fi vinyl, or do you need 32/384?

What would the difference be between 41.1/16 and 96/24 for this song

Reply #9
The volume needed to hear this tone would be pretty high even for those few that can.

What would the difference be between 41.1/16 and 96/24 for this song

Reply #10
Yes, very informative.

What would the difference be between 41.1/16 and 96/24 for this song

Reply #11
The volume needed to hear this tone would be pretty high even for those few that can.

...and when combined with content below these frequencies we're likely back at levels where prolonged exposure will cause damage, much like making audible use of resolution beyond 16 bits when all 16 are being utilized.  Never mind the fact that these frequencies will still be masked.
Is 24-bit/192kHz good enough for your lo-fi vinyl, or do you need 32/384?

What would the difference be between 41.1/16 and 96/24 for this song

Reply #12
Even if a recording does contain content over 20 kHz and a person (maybe a child) could hear them. What are the odds that content was intentional?

To make the questions above more objective, let's change its focus:
What instruments in common use, provide desired frequencies above  20 kHz?

I can only think of computer generated samples, but I myself can't imagine what they sound like. Because in my personal hearing tests, I couldn't hear tones that high.

What would the difference be between 41.1/16 and 96/24 for this song

Reply #13
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=40134

Read post #184 amongst other gems.  This has really been discussed to death.  Asking the question about a specific track that is no way extraordinary really doesn't change anything.
Is 24-bit/192kHz good enough for your lo-fi vinyl, or do you need 32/384?

What would the difference be between 41.1/16 and 96/24 for this song

Reply #14
This song is currently 16 bit 44.1 khz but upon release will be 24 bit 96 khz. Would there be a subjectively noticeable difference?

Your post is proof that there is an expectation—among fans, musicians and record company executives alike—that somehow, just somehow, the "high-res" audio has to sound different and better. So I would bet that the mastering engineer won't just convert the 16/44.1 data to 24/96. They know people like you are going to be disappointed if the 24/96 sounds exactly the same as the 16/44.1 which is a certainty if they just convert it with no other changes. So they'll probably be doing some further remastering: maybe boost the levels on that guitar a little, maybe apply some dynamic range compression here & there (or everywhere, as often happens), louden up the whole mix, expand the stereo separation... just something so everyone goes "ah, see? 24/96 sounds so much better!" And maybe the remastering they do will make it sound better, by whatever measure is within your ability to notice. But it won't be because it's 24/96 instead of 16/44.1.

What would the difference be between 41.1/16 and 96/24 for this song

Reply #15
Unfortunately they don't even need to do all these tricks. There always will be some that just only need a higher number and some spectral content in a pic to convince  themself how much more crisp that Hires sounds .
Is troll-adiposity coming from feederism?
With 24bit music you can listen to silence much louder!

 

What would the difference be between 41.1/16 and 96/24 for this song

Reply #16
Unfortunately they don't even need to do all these tricks.

It's true. There are other audiophile forums where some believe even a CD's pressing plant can make a difference in sound quality (after it's been shown to be bit-for-bit identical).

 
SimplePortal 1.0.0 RC1 © 2008-2020