Album Rating: 4.5 | Sound Off

This thread got weird.

Album Rating: 4.0

I listen to music for the sounds

Album Rating: 4.5

I listen to music to bash the production

Album Rating: 4.0

i respect that

"The thing with a 24-bit resolution is that it also means that the bitrate is higher. 24-bit flac is usually around 3000 to 6000 kbps, where a 16-bit CD is 1000 and an MP3 is 320. THAT is the difference, and THAT is audible."

So you use the numbers and capital letters to cement absolution. Ok. Sorry but this is not 100% true. In fact, it is below 50% true. Are you aware of the blind tests have been made by engineers upon cd format sound and hi-res inputs? You'll be surprised. From homedjstudio.com:

"These lossless audio files have a higher sampling rate and greater bit depth. The higher sampling rate results in less fake samples making their way into an average person’s hearing range. The bit depth allows for greater nuances to be captured. The end result is a cleaner sound.
The question remains whether we can actually hear the difference. Blind test studies have shown that for most people they cannot tell the difference when compared to CD quality audio.
There is no need to be rushing out to get HD audio files as you’ll likely not notice the difference. But knowing that the audio you are listening to is as close to the original recording as possible does offer a sense of security."

You can find the blind tests on the web, it's an astonishing 1-year research.

Album Rating: 4.5

I'm not surprised most people don't hear the difference, it is a very subtle difference but it is there for sure. Of course it has to do with your setup and attention to detail too. The fact that you quote a DJ-production page bugs me, because bitrate mostly makes a larger difference in 'organic' productions, with real instruments. The difference between MP3 and CD isn't that large, but MP3 to Flac really matters to my ears. Especially the bass and treble sound way better. The difference between 256 kbps (Apple streaming) and 320 kbps is remarkable too, I thought it didn't matter but I quit my Apple Music account because I could hear the difference between that and Google Play/Spotify.



It's fine that you don't hear it, everything should decide for themselves if they think 24-bit or whatever is worth their time/money. But don't hit me with this bullshit that you can't hear the difference. Also, if the production is shit, a 24-bit version won't sound that much better, especialy if it's very compressed/limited.

i dont listen to music

@Beardog: This "bullshit" i mention is a well respected 1-year research by 2 sound engineers with a sample of nearly 500 listeners and using high-end equipment. The results have nothing to do with how much experienced is the listener, so the "you cannot hear it because you don't hear carefully and you are not experienced enough" is irrelevant. Read the research, you'll do yourself a favor. Is it debatable? Yes. That's what i'm stating. Everyone can have their own opinion? Yes. In a general discussion, do i trust a professional research or the individual Beardog - Sput guy experience? The former. For Beardog - Sput guy matters any professional research or his own experience? The latter. I am open to throw me any professional opinion or research, based on multiple trials that proves your "THAT is the difference, and THAT is audible" -that excludes debate- statement of yours.

Album Rating: 4.5

I'm curious to read the research, but I just can't agree... It doesn't really matter what they throw at me, because I hear the difference so clearly. It makes sense that if you take 500 randoms, you get the conclusion 'most don't hear the difference anyway'. I can see that you are very put off by my statement, but you (should be able to) hear the difference between a 256 kbps, 320 kbps and a 6000 kbps audio file. Yes, if you listen to music with overcompressed/limited/sampled garbage production, it gets hard to hear.



This discussion feels to me as if three researchers told me that pilsner is just as good as craft beer, because 500 people they asked say so. Some would agree, most people that care about beer would not.



I still feel like I'm being hit by bullshit, just because it's a 'professional' research doesn't mean the conclusions are T R U T H. Some researchers say that electric vehicles are better for the environment, some don't. So who is right? All depends on what factors they researched and the usecases of an ICEV vs an BEV. It's cool they researched this though, hit me up with a link.



As to convincing you, I can't. No research can. You can look up what the difference in bitrate and kpbs actually means, and that kinda shows why you SHOULD be able to hear the difference between 256, 320 and 6000. Trying to convince you of the fact that you hear the difference is like convincing you

that '100 dollar whisky tastes better than 30 dollar whisky!'. It doesn't have to, but it can for sure

Now we're talking, I totally agree with what you say, I'm mentioning it again, it is DEBATABLE, I claim nothing more. I don't think that any research is a "totem" but it adds data nonetheless.

http://drewdaniels.com/audible.pdf

Album Rating: 5.0

Said research may not be entirely representative if the sample consisted of songs only from one or two genres. Also, it would only make sense to survey people who have no hearing loss and use the exact same equipment, preferably something hi-fi.



I am sure that there are plenty of albums from all genres for which 16- and 24-bit versions sound the same (hello, rust in peace). For this album though, there is a pretty distinct difference.

Said research may not be entirely representative if the sample consisted of songs only from one or two genres. Also, it would only make sense to survey people who have no hearing loss and use the exact same equipment, preferably something hi-fi. [2]

Album Rating: 5.0 | Sound Off

"The thing with a 24-bit resolution is that it also means that the bitrate is higher. 24-bit flac is usually around 3000 to 6000 kbps, where a 16-bit CD is 1000 and an MP3 is 320. THAT is the difference, and THAT is audible."



no it isn't. the biggest determining factor in bitrate isn't the bit depth - it's the sample rate and usually the sample rate of most 24bit releases is exactly the same as their 16bit counterparts - which is 44100hz - 22050hz per channel.



now cult of luna are an exception here which accounts for the inflated bitrate, the 24bit release of a dawn to fear is 96000hz - 48000hz per channel. this is why the album is like, 1.2gb. sounds great huh. however you then have to consider that the cap in which most humans can hear is at maximum about 17000-18000hz if you're lucky.



so the biggest determining factor of whether you can hear the difference remains to be the previous point, which is the increased room for dynamic range and it's been proven time and time again that in all reasonable test environments that you just cannot tell the difference.

Yeah, wider dynamic range means de facto better audio quality. But that better audio quality your ears can't catch. So, if your ears can't catch it, how exactly is it better, and so on... It's like having a 32'' tv with 1080p screen and one with 8k screen. The latter has far better analysis but in 32'' you won't notice a thing. So, why even exists that screen? Because it is advertised as a better choice at a higher price. Just saying...

Album Rating: 5.0 | Sound Off

it's why i roll my eyes when i see smartphones advertising 4k resolution. what is the fucking point.

Album Rating: 4.5

But 256 kbps and 320 kbps have the same sample rate right? and there's a very large difference between the two, so I think kbps still matters a ton. But yeah, sample rate is important as well

Album Rating: 5.0

Exactly.



Most 24-bit albums have the same sample rate as their 16-bit counterparts. Still sound different.

Album Rating: 4.0

All previous research on 24-bit recordings has involved human subjects. Results not applicable to Pikachus.

Album Rating: 5.0 | Sound Off

"But 256 kbps and 320 kbps have the same sample rate right? and there's a very large difference between the two, so I think kbps still matters a ton. But yeah, sample rate is important as well"



yes because 256kb/s and 320kb/s is still within the range that the khz that is lost can still be heard by the human ear (that's approximately around the 18khz range?). that's not a fair comparison. not only that, any compression algorithm leaves artifacts - when we're talking lossless audio there's even less variables.



every blind test i've ever seen conducted absolutely goes against the idea that anyone can tell the difference in a reasonable test environment between 16bit lossless and 24bit lossless and all facts we know about what the human ear can perceive points towards this too, regardless of what you feel you've perceived.

Album Rating: 5.0 | Sound Off

also to say there's a large difference between the two... you've overstating it. most people in a blind test can't tell much of a difference, if at all, on any setup. now 192kb/s vs 320kb/s? absolutely - simply because we're bleeding far more into the perceivable frequency range of the human ear. this focus on 24bit 96khz for 'quality' music is honestly bollocks when really the biggest contributing factor is the mixing and mastering.



this album sounds great, yeah, but when the average dynamic range score on this album is a DR7, and no doubt would have benefited from a higher dynamic range. if you did a blind test between a mix with higher dynamic range in 16bit flac and this mix in 24bit flac, you'd say the 16bit flac one was the better sounding better one, no contest. so perhaps instead of pushing bands to release their music in higher 'quality' - ie encodings we can't even perceive the quality of - we should push them to make the quality better in ways we *can* perceive?