Jump to content
IGNORED

16 bit files almost unlistenable now...


Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, numlog said:

 

As the system improved the limitations of redbook really start to show which is a disappointing surprise.

 

Sample rate is important but I did not realise just how critical higher bit depths are, 16 bits is just way to low.

Even with the best 16bit recordings and I can now notice this distinct hazy and compressed sound , it's really surprising how clearly audible it is once you get to moderately high volumes.

 

 

 

 

Hmm. So you’ve improved your system so much, the vast majority of recorded music sounds worse. Red book is quite capable of stunning sq. Don’t have a clue what you have or have changed but I respectfully suggest you haven’t improved in all areas. 

Regarding electronic, hip hop etc. you may be aware of recent posts from a mastering engineer who posted here for a while before being banned (I think?) for being a bit of an arse. During his brief tenure he did however bring some interesting insights. Of relevance here is that 16/44 is actually the preferred choice (admittedly often mastered in 24 bit for headroom) for many masters due to the particular sound density (my words and interpretation). 

This has further implications for those upsampling to dsd etc. Changing the sound perhaps but also presumably moving further from the (audio) truth...

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Cary said:

Noise floor of 50db in your room + a 90db dynamic range for 16 bit = 140db peak levels to exploit the full dynamic range.  I would love to know what you are using for equipment that allows you to hit those levels, much less higher to hear the extra dynamics of a higher bit depth.  You also must have amazing ears to still be able to hear anything after hitting those levels.  

 

Hi Cary - While your numbers are correct I get the sense that the OP is't going to receive your offering very well. I suggest different tone and possible explanation so s/he actually understands what you're saying and could learn something. 

 

 

Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems AudiophileStyleStickerWhite2.0.png AudiophileStyleStickerWhite7.1.4.png

Link to comment
2 hours ago, GUTB said:

Anyone who gets serious in digital playback — gets a modern DAC, does some basic clean-up of power and source noise — is going to leave 16 bit audio behind because it sounds like crap compared to high res.

 

You can improve Redbook playback through multibit and high end ladder DACs. You can add tube buffers and/or tubed source gear to warm it up. But in the end of the day, high res beats low res and nothing changes that.

 

Not. A. Clue.

"Science draws the wave, poetry fills it with water" Teixeira de Pascoaes

 

HQPlayer Desktop / Mac mini → Intona 7054 → RME ADI-2 DAC FS (DSD256)

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, GUTB said:

 

What’s your system?

I don't think the system is going to be the answer.  More likely:

 

1. Some people still like 16/44, even though they can hear a difference with high resolution

2. Some people can't hear a difference, even though it is there. 

3. Some people don't want to hear a difference.

 

I keep looking for quotes from audio engineers telling us that 16/44 is transparent to the source.  I haven't had much luck with that.  Maybe 18 or 20, or not at all, is what I find.

 

 

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...