CD vs. 24-bit streaming - Sound of the past vs. sound of the future (Turntable tips)
Comments on this video
You can comment on this video at YouTube
You can comment on this video at YouTube
Tuesday April 18, 2023
David Mellor
David Mellor is CEO and Course Director of Audio Masterclass. David has designed courses in audio education and training since 1986 and is the publisher and principal writer of Adventures In Audio.
@johnwet6969: You forget to say one important thing. Everything is about master quality and these days we live in absolutely stupid times because we have all the tech, but audio industry destroyed almost all great music and all emotions from it, because of LOUDNESS WAR and DIGITAL REMASTERS and from fantastic music they made an absolute garbage (brick wall limiters, auto plugins,...) and now they are selling us this garbage upsampled to 24 bits. This is the crime of century!!!!! Happy man who has his own collection of old CD's and LP's or tapes...
@Webcastering: There is no human being alive to notice/feel any theoretical quality increase beyond the redbook standard.
@paullaw1438: Sanity at last! Thank you 🙏
@fuga9: Yes agrée.
The human ear is configured for analog, but sounds above the audible frequency of 50-12/kHz are noise or vibration, and the rest is judged by the absolute pitch of the recording engineer, and the full production and production of spatial sound breathes life into each instrument, so 24 bits should not be mistaken as a waste.
@eduardowillio: Eu já fiz vários rip cd rip wav 16 24 ate 32 bits o cd original no dvd tocando nas caixas é muito superior não tem pra ninguém cds originais vai ser imbatível por muitas décadas ainda
@rongreen4536: This is the thing: If you believe 24 bit is better than 16 bit it is. I save my music to my hard drive to make CDs for the car and I save it at 24 bit because my mind tells me 24 bit is higher than 16 bit so it has to be better. Even if it's not true and my ears can't hear the difference it makes me feel better knowing that it's saved at the highest resolution. These days it seems music is more of a mind game that a listing experience.
@obidavekenobe: Correction: technically it is the sample rate that determines resolution. The higher the resolution the more faithful the sound is to the original sound.
@davidnicholas1436: It’s not just the bits but the encoding / decoding of those 16 bits where audible problems arise. The higher the sampling frequency, the greater the risk of encoding ultrasonic noise and thus the mandate for filtering (which has downstream, possibly audible phase impacts)…but with lower the sampling frequency, you increase both level errors and timing errors in the waveform. Improvements in clocking have greatly lowered timing errors but you still have only 16 bits to encode the dBs of the waveform. Advanced DACs can compensate for waveform errors through oversampling / interpolation, balanced again by the need to use filters for unwanted sonic noise. Overall: 16 bit / 44.1kHz seems like a decent compromise.
@obidavekenobe replies to @davidnicholas1436: To add that,Such errors are more likely to occur when you down sample digital audio. Up sampling will have no improvement on sound quality. Unless you’re talking about nyquist theory, then that is a limitation within the digital realm, with is why a filter can help.
@ychanan36: CD 💿
@jwwild1: So if SACD's are only 1bit then normal CD's sound 16x better??
@AudioMasterclass replies to @jwwild1: Don’t worry. All those extra megahertzes compensate.
@electricjazzpiano: Ive started producing tracks at 16 bit 44.1khz.. I can easily do higher but I don't hear any difference so fuck it.
@obidavekenobe replies to @electricjazzpiano: Did you upsample your old library? If you did, it’s no wonder why you can’t hear an improvement in sound quality. You’d just made a larger file.
@AtomicOverdrive: Not to mention modern mastering of music has almost all the dynamic range squished all to heck and back. So most songs have less then 6db of dynamic range from the quietest to the loudest parts of the song 🙂
But yea, he is correct. 24bit is what you want to use when making music and saving your masters to. But 16bit is what you want to convert your files to for distribution. But remember folks, if your arguing over 24bit streaming vs a 16 bit CD your missing the point. You OWN the CD, the streaming service is nothing more than a radio service your paying for.
@JimmyN2: 99% of my 24bit SACDs are night & day better sounding than their Redbook cd 16bit counterparts.
@jameskirk2579: Why the gesture with your fingers when you want to quote something ? ????
@georgemcr1802: oh it's already 2 years old.. ok now I found it ...hi I am nobody ... No budget no good ears no audiophile ... Also I've lost the high frequencies from my hearing due to age and my job over the past years (sth like Good morning Vietnam ...anything just played loud) ... so ignorant and broke I got Pebble Pro on sale for 36 bucks! And if you don't know USB and BT connections are limited to 16 bit 48 KHz while the 3.5 jack taking signal directly from the sound card bypassing Pebble's DAC goes to 24 bit 96 KHz ..And I the nobody the oblivious in audiophile music can hear the difference ... A LOT ... so yes we do need the upgrade if we have the budget to spend...well I don't !!! Greetings !!!
@obidavekenobe replies to @georgemcr1802: Rock on!!!
@jazzlouise: How much dynanmic range do you need? 16 vs. 24? It's a big nothing.
@vertigo0105: The vast majority of Humans simply can not tell the difference in sound quality between Standard Definition CD (44.1 kHz/16-bit) and Hi-Res (48 kHz/24-bit). All of he scientific research on this concludes that almost all partificipants could not tell if it was high-def or Standard. A very small percentage of people were able to tell the difference 60% (instead of 50%) of the time (but could not tell the difference 40% of the time); However they could only do this when expensive high end audio equipment was used, in a sound contolled environment. When not using the high-end audio equipment or sound controlled environment, they could not tell the difference. This small percentage of people were either gifted with above average hearing, or were sound engineers (& some audiophiles) who trained their ears. So the difference between high-def & Standard is extremely subtle for a very small percentage of people under extreme circumstances. Other there is no audible difference!!
@soapberrygreen: I am not sure if 96/24 isn't any better than CD format in home audio. Perhaps 96/24 offers a bit of advantage in some contexts., which is hard to rule out completely. It may have something to do with digital filter design or people being subconsciously affected by ultrasonic frequencies they cannot consciously hear. In my own experience, I have not perceived any real difference, and I won't intentionally seek 96/24 materials. If there really is a tiny difference, it may be like switching from a good RCA tube to a premium Telefunken tube. Most audiophiles are just exaggerating and imagining things all the time. Putting some Scotch tape over the grille of an open headphone may have a bigger sonic effect than 24 vs 16 bit. So don't worry about it.
@MarkMonforti: Both of those paintings on your back wall. Are in a museum 5 miles from my house
@AudioMasterclass replies to @MarkMonforti: They’re fakes. I left them when I stole the real ones.
@MarkMonforti replies to @MarkMonforti: @AudioMasterclassnext time your doing a heist in Chicago lmk, I can be the driver
@holgerhansen5643: Klingt halt deutlich besser.
@rbaxter286: Sorry, I am NOT going to get handicapped by having to stick with GREEDY, VENAL STREAMING SERVICES for my music and audio.
You STILL have not answer the challenge, "Tell us your MIRACLE CURE and DEFEND IT AS REASONABLY SUPREIOR!"
@AudioMasterclass replies to @rbaxter286: Firstly you’re clearly not sorry. You’re somehow angry that people have the opportunity to listen to almost the whole history of recorded music for what used to be the price of a CD per month. Secondly you can buy downloads if you want to. You have the choice. Thirdly, hey my music is on streaming and you can buy my downloads from Bandcamp. Stop being sorry. Go to Bandcamp and buy my music. https://davidmellor.bandcamp.com Put your money where your mouth is.
@trespasser121: As Amazon have been upgrading 16 bit tracks to 24 bit, I could CLEARLY hear the difference
@br549-c4q: If your grandmother installs 16 chocolate chips in one cookie and 24 chips in another, is the 24 chip cookie better or overkill? Is the 16 chip cookie "good enough" or "just right"? Ponder that!
@cpu554: It's all in the mix
@fredlupin: You are totaly right! People listen through crappy speakers on a computer so consumer wont feel any difference.. Plus music sources are awful plugins with huge useless specs. recording bad sources through good convertors won't change the problem. I hear differences between 48khz 24 bit DAT master and a CD, with studio monitors. but the CD is good enough for the audience. And 96 khz and more are useless if we are not working into restauration and noise reduction...
@DjNikGnashers: I always stick to a maximum of 70 mph in my car. Until I get off the driveway.
@AudioMasterclass replies to @DjNikGnashers: I have to reverse off mine so it takes a little longer.
@Supergeologist: Like many others have noted on here its poor, lazy production and sound engineering on modern music that makes the difference. I have some cracking older music that just sounds fantastic. Unfortunately if your tastes are more modern then I might suggest a top end hifi is a waste of money.
@christophervan6966: A chain is as strong as the weakest link. My system is nice good chain but the second I play a badly recorded CD I can hear it. At least with your gazillion bit streaming you are absolved of bad quality CDs.
@grattanvaz1614: Bullshit, not even one and a half times better. Cd still sounds the best. Not interested in the this stupid theory.
@jamesmay3941: What's important is recording engineering, production and mastering. I'd rather have 16 bits of great recording than 24 bits of crap. We also need to remember that ultimately we are trying to reproduce as faithfully as possible musical performances of instruments and voices. I'm the bassist in my band and believe me that in some gigs you wouldn't want to reproduce some of those sounds! Studio recordings are fake versions of live performances and are usually far too perfect anyway. If you're an audiophile and want the most faithful sound, go to some local gigs!
@arturbomert9877: When it comes to quality, remember that we are comparing 16-bit Wave files with 24-bit mp3s
@nunyabidness7547: your hearing never improves..only gets worse
@TerryPoulin: This is perhaps one of the better explanations that I've ever seen, and didn't involve maths chalked on a blackboard or a signal on an oscilloscope. I must say, the bit of cheek over 8-bits sampling especially nicely done. Both as a programmer, and someone who considers CD a suitable reference for what I can hear, I can appreciate this explanation. The next time someone grumbles at me over sample rate and I feel like pointing here, well, there's no solutions to some problems.....
@mdp581: What the listener needs are speakers that convey the sounds of the recording, whether 16 or 24-bit. Its the same as photography equipment, results from a very expensive camera will not be seen if the lens used is not of decent quality.
@tonyhirst9319: There’s no mention here about playback equipment. I have a Hegel H360 driving Keff reference 3’s. CD’s are played through a Hegel Mohican connected with Audioquest Water XLR cables. I stream through a Bluesound Node connected with a €100 coaxial cable. CD playback is better than streaming in every way. If I have the music available on CD that’s what I’ll listen to. I’m thinking about upgrading my streamer to match the Mohican but first step will be to upgrade the Coax cable.
@TurboMountTV: From a listening point of view, did A/B testing: Apple Music 24 bit lossless sounds better than Amazon 24 bit. No doubt, Amazon Music lossless is good, but I could easily tell the Apple Music difference. But I prefer the Amazon App interface, so there is that ;-)
Then there is new ATMOS format, which is even better and CD doesn't do.
@markvogelfaenger9801: Yes only amateurs makes a point about dynamic range vs SNR because for practical purposes they are interchangeable. I remember older CD reissue of analog recordings having lots of noise. CBS in particular was all noise hiss. But even the early DG digital recordings had lots of noise. CD is enough as a distribution format in terms of dynamic range and frequency response. I thought that professionals used 32bit floating point for production.
@billstensrud8201: I may not be qualified to comment but in a blind test I was able to identify high res audio vs cd quality audio from Apple Music over 90% of the time in 50 samples. It was incredibly obvious.
@aleks2194: I think the thing to take away from this is that streaming is finally delivering good audio
@paulomontero12: Cd's sound better on my system. Everybody's system is different all depends what u have.
@theancientvoice9272: Well, I recently tried to make the maths on an annual high res subscription, and I concluded I would be better off running on ebay and build myself a fancy and large discothèque, I would probably take years to listen fully. 16bit is well enough to enjoy the music and make the most of my equipment. By the way, with AI music becoming a thing I'm sure my kids will be keen to inherit my originals, just saying. Streaming services are trying to sell you something you can't own and that doesn't ring well in my hears
@cskabos: You are all wrong!! Technicly there is no 8 bits different!!!! No dac can perform better then 21-22 bit in a laboratorium!!! SINAD. But a 16 bit can do 15.5 bit…… and bit does not makes better sound at the end you all see the same analog signal!!!
@guily6669: I use 68bits because we all know what happens after that 🤣
Anyway I use 24bit but can't really hear any difference between 16 and 24 bit or higher even on lossless audio at same exact sample rate on my crap 5.1 speakers...
My soundcard maxes out at 32bit 384Khz but it's all pointless for me, I use like 24bit 88Khz if I remember well and even at this rate I can't notice any difference by lowering it and going above is even worse cause some games seem to not like above that and causes audio issues.
@Zickcermacity: Very often the Hi-res 'remeaster' of a CD from the 1980s will be loudness-war smashed, so you'll have a 24-bit over-compressed mess ot listen to!
@Zickcermacity: The biggest difference between Red Book CD and High-resolution (24 bit or higher) is how well the mastering was done for each.
@rillloudmother: Word up. 16 bit CD quality is definitely better quality then 99.99% of consumer sound reproduction systems can produce. Never mind the audiophiles, lol.
@Michael-xz1nk: I’m very happy with the 16bit I get from Youtube Music (pId streaming). When I have tested Tidal and Qobuz p, I could not hear a difference. I also found their libraries did not compare to YTM.
@kingofbonngo: Now he's coming at me with technical facts again, when it's really about faith.
@normundsveselis8349: Slightly different view about can you spot difference between 16bit and 24bit. I remember, many early CD players had just a 80dB dynamic range due to problems with analog circuits. Later sound cards. Initially 16-bit, then 24-bit cards. Usually these 24-bit cards had better analog circuits than 16-bit. Therefore, 24-bit sounds better. This is just another confusing element in this topic.
@OscarJung-bw8bs: Actually, Spotify is 24-bit now... and Tidal does not use MQA anymore
@mikechaplin1566: The 16 bits gives you a sufficient S/N ratio, but 24 would still give you more discrete levels, and I assume that a top-level DAC could turn that into a more precise analog signals because there are 256 more 24-bit discrete levels between each discrete 16-bit CD level.
@paulmcp-p8n: It’s definitely about the quality of the recording, engineering and mastering - not the bits. Older analogue recordings can sound fabulous as well. If it’s recorded poorly to begin with, then you’re on an uphill struggle to create “good” sound later.
@SuperAnatolli: 24bit seems like overkill since most recordings has a crest factor of less than 20dB. Many modern rock/pop production are below 10dB.
24bit is good format for mixing and production, not for distrubution.
@christophermitchell7925: From my experience, 24 bit streaming audio only sounds about 236 or 237 times better than 16 bit CDs, and only about 17.526 times better than SACDs, not 256 times better. 🙄🤣 Truthfully, both sound excellent, and I think many people probably just perceive an improvement from 24 over 16 due to confirmation bias.
@mattbukovski92: Nobody is gonna notice a difference between 16 and 24 bits. Dynamic range is more than good enough in 16 bits:) 24 bit recordings and samples are important when it comes to music production though.
@robertkovacic4623: Oh my friend, crazy about vinyl...when he first heard some really well-recorded CDs from me...Shefield Lab,Telarc,Reference Recordings etc...he looked at me with awe and said that if all CDs were made like this, Vinyl would never make a comeback. CD (already 16/44.1) is a damn perfect medium...but we know where the sinners are...
That's why I'm a fan of SACD...because that's where the "sinners" make an effort, because they know all too well who the target audience is.
There are very, very few poorly produced SACDs.
@Satch_4_Hogs: hypothetically, yes.
It's like having a larger container. You can have 10 liters container, but 1 liter of liquid is the same in a larger container. It depends on what you put into a 24 bit file.
@tudvalstone: I'm streaming at 96+/24 and it sounds better than any CD I've ever heard. Mastering, re-mastering, whatever, it's not even close.
@AudioTask: I'm convinced that many people don't pay any attention to the original quality of the medium they're listening to. I mean, they seem to forget the difference between a good recording and the medium itself. Only this can explain why sometimes someone claims that “vinyl is better than CD”, while someone else insists on the opposite.
When the recording quality is superb, anything can happen, regardless the medium. I can confirm that many CDs — or even digital hi-res remastered files at 24-bit/192 kHz — can sound poor, simply because the sound engineer behind the session was possibly ‘drunk’ or deaf that day... and I have a TDK metal compact cassette that can compete with some of the CDs I've bought.
Technically speaking, higher resolution surely provides greater precision, but it cannot mend a poorly recorded master. Hi-res quality is already available at 16-bit/44.1 kHz, and while 24/96 is certainly a step above, the difference isn’t that dramatic. In my humble opinion, the importance of a good recording process always stays at the very top of the chain.
Great video/topic indeed. Congrats.
@oliviamaynard9372: There were lots of 24bit CDs though. They are better or that salesman lied to us in 1999.
@kevinschiller1749: Albums survive 100 years manuel typewriters survive 100 years old cameras survive 100 years
@GrayVinni: Just admit it, you hate streaming and just get a Viagra boner over CD's!
@GrayVinni: I stood next to my uncle who fired his shot gun and it came at 160db. It maxed out at 160 and yes, I lost partial hearing in my right ear. so yes, humans can hear above 120db, not for long but they can!
@JohnCurtisDownunder: One and a half times better is not what you actually mean. You mean one and a half times as good. One and a half times better would mean it is 150% better, i.e. 250 v 100, when you actually mean it is just 50% better, i.e. 150 v 100. PLEASE GET IT RIGHT SUNSHINE!! Sorry but I am a very well educated didactic septuagenarian who gets annoyed when people, such as you, who purport to be knowledgeable professionals, make such very basic mistakes.
@AudioMasterclass replies to @JohnCurtisDownunder: No thank you.
@JohnCurtisDownunder replies to @JohnCurtisDownunder: @AudioMasterclass So, then keep sounding ignorant.
@AudioMasterclass replies to @JohnCurtisDownunder: Don’t worry. I’ll do what I like and there’s nothing an arse like you can do about it.
@JohnCurtisDownunder replies to @JohnCurtisDownunder: @AudioMasterclass Oh dearie me, such a thin skinned twat you must be!!
@saintsi6997: Still none the wiser!
@kevinu.k.7042: Then onto the stage, compression, used by those mastering the C-D sound in order to maximize volume.
Post 90's CD's can sound really rubbish because of that dirty mastering habit.
Would you unpack that one for us please?
TBH I don't understand it, but I am a slum-dweller in the Flac world.
@TurboLoveTrain: Computer Science / Math degree holder here the improvement curve is logarithmic, not linear.
Lossy and Lossless does NOT refer to compression types. Digital sampling from any analog signal to a digital format is the definition of compression. Lossy and Lossless refer to reproduction fidelity of an already compressed digital file and the marketing teams gloss over this because they only care about what's within the limitations of the average human's hearing. You can have a Lossy reproduction of an ultra high fidelity recording that has a higher bit rate than a lossless recording.
@dddjjjsss1: Excellent analysis. Everything you said I agree with. I have been doing pro audio for 50 years. 24 bits while mixing and mastering. 4x over-sampling for plugins. 16 bits for the final consumer product.
@aand439: Most of the music that I want to listen to is AAD on CD.
@amosmoledi: How many bits does the original masters have? Where do these streaming services get this files or music from?
@AudioMasterclass replies to @amosmoledi: 16 or 24. Distributors. Amen.
@egodyla1: What about sampling rate?
@AudioMasterclass replies to @egodyla1: This would be a video for the future when masters are commonly made at 96 kHz. As of now, 44.1/48 is the norm. Some people will claim to be able to hear the difference but I suspect most of us can't.
@ThomisticAmerican13FOX: Greetings from California. Superb video!
Can I ask which region of the UK is your accent from?
@AudioMasterclass replies to @ThomisticAmerican13FOX: Vaguely North East England. I never really had a proper local accent so I’m not a good example.
@FreeSpeechThought: I am a pro conductor and amateur recordist
I record 24 kHz and 192 kHz sampling rate
It makes a huge difference over a professional DAT
@TheOnlyonejeep: equiment matters too sony or emerson sherwood or fulmer lol sparkomatic or realistic these are old school machines lol
@TheOnlyonejeep: file size also flac files are huge
@TheOnlyonejeep: the end product of the cd is the way it was mastered which is on the cd envelope on the back
@evil_twit: Nobody's home system can even display 16 bits over room noise floor.
@皿煮浸布謀財害命: BIT數真沒啥意義. 絕大多數的錄音的動態 連14 BIT都很難做到.
16 BIT的動態. 說真的 你也不會想在自己的家裡聽到.
很吵 真的吵. 除了傷耳朵 一點用處都沒有.
@devildogcody: I recently did an A/B listen test on 16 bit and 24 bit "Hi Res" of the same track. I didn't notice a "sound quality" difference, but I did hear a noticeable difference in sound stage. This was through IEMs, where sound stage was already limited, so may not be universally reproduceable...but if 24 bit is available, I opt for it.
@dwightballard3868: I think 24 bits provide better resolution- at least on my system. But it is marginally rather than radically better- not sure why, but my guess is it is related to the noise floor, space and silence between instruments and sound stage depth. In terms of MQA you are getting the entire file, but there is a "folding" (whatever that means) process that is decoded by the MQA dac restoring the file. After all Bob Stewart was the original designer of the Meridian "lossless" digital codec and the one of the founders of MQA. Although it is a Highly Controversial subject in high end circles, but when my wife was randomly picking songs on my playlist I was able to pick MQA files about 8 out of ten times which is statistically significant. Seems results are highly dependent on the resolution of any given system.
@dazza9129: definitely i can hear the difference on my laptop speakers.
@forbidd3nghost188: I don't really understand what everyone is talking about.
When I listen to 16 bit music vs 24 bit music the difference between the two is large if using the correct equipment (lossless codec with headphones or speakers that support it).
How can anyone say there's not enough of a difference without having hearing loss?
@forbidd3nghost188 replies to @forbidd3nghost188: @rockmanenoughY'all can say that all you want. I'm no idiot. If I'm using the correct equipment there is a notable difference. Why would anyone lie about this unless they aren't using the correct equipment.
@edmararaujo9163: The valid discussion isn't 16-bit versus 24-bit. That controversy is a smokescreen! The correct discussion would be which is better, 16-bit/44.1kHz versus 24-bit/48kHz, 24-bit/96kHz, 24-bit/192kHz...? The sample rate is what makes most of the difference in audio between CD and high-resolution streaming (assuming the streaming file is the same as the master)!
@Bob-w6j5p: Most people's stereos are crap. 24 bit is better dynamic range.
@Bob-w6j5p replies to @Bob-w6j5p: @rockmanenoughsounds better. As does hdcd. It's not so much the range but resolution as well.
@Bob-w6j5p replies to @Bob-w6j5p: @rockmanenoughhow fking arrogant to tell me what I hear. Audiofool
@Bob-w6j5p replies to @Bob-w6j5p: @rockmanenoughlmao. Maybe you just got a shifty stereo and ears. To say there's no sinic improvement is stupid. You know better then all the engineers in the world? That according to you are fools. It higher resolution and dynamic range ffs. Study computers much? I suppose 96k isn't better cause you can't hear over 20k. Lmao
@ChrisTaylor-dz6nk: Mqa😂i never understood why People belived in it😢its 25years old😅just sales pitch .
@klejmen8514: I've noticed on Tidal that 16/44 sound more pleasant than 24/something. Have no idea why.
@TheFlutecart: Once they get to 24/96K, if it's better, I can't tell. But as a person who records music for production, what I don't hear is still useful in the mix process and final project, and that, I can hear. CD is honestly, barely decent, always has been, studio Analog gear blew it out of the water. A Fostex 24 track reel to reel just absolutely destroys CD quality with just seconds of listening to it. In fact, HiFi Super VHS sounds better than CD, most people don't even know those audio tracks are analog. It was the high water mark for analog consumer HiFi. Entirely ignored nowadays. Go get you some, and find out.
@pierpaoloazzalin9505: insightful on what is worth to spend the budget on when it comes to taking some decisions and steer expectations. Some people are after hi-res just because they think it sounds better. In my experience with some upsampling (the original signal comes in 16bit) it just gets more boosted in certain frequencies, as the gear wanted to let you know “hey you are in 24bit now, you are hearing more…”. I don’t think upsampling is the way to go, eventually hi-res 24bit of lossless original masters is something worth to hear. But don’t chose a gear just for it’s hi-res capabilities, there are other factors that count more (power supplies, connection, clock etc.). My high quality seriously-built CD transport sounds better than the cheaper streamer I owned when played in hi-res via Qobuz.
@alexpest4234: 24/48 would be enough for anything. Why they hadn't chose this format?
@captaindrywall: As interesting as anything I learned in high school. Boring
@MrTripcore: 16-bit SNES is better, because 24-bit neo.geo is super expensive
@RM-lv9ng: I have Redbook CDs that sound much better than some SACDs.
@HenrikG1963: When I recording my old vinyls I'm using 96 khz 24 bit because of noise on vinyl and the pickup. Then I'm reducing the noise with software. In my opinium it give at more clear sound than 44.1 khz 16 bit. So what's next? "NOBODY need an amplifire with more than 2x20 watt"? "That's more than enough!!!" :-)
@gjvdspam: 4 bits is more than enough with modern super compressed music. Dynamics is something from the past.
@keng8883: I find these videos informative and interesting, but I am completely happy with a 320 MP3.
@SteveThompson-t9i: Brilliantly presented.
@chriscutress1702: I've been an audio professional for over 50 years. I currently record using 24 bit-48 KHz for capture recording and mix at that rate even though the music is rarely released at that sampling rate. Usually the final mixes are converted to 16-44.1 or mp3 by the recording artists. The major difference I found when going from analog to 16-44.1 digital was the left right spectrum when listening back to properly mixed recordings. 16-44.1 to 24-48 I noticed that the depth was improved in comparison. This was during classical recordings in a totally controlled environment with SOA equipment. The industry has defaulted to a lot of semi-pro equipment due to cost and availability of gear and I now find that microphone selection, pre-amp, amplification and equipment signal to noise now has a greater influence on the finished product than in the analog tape days of recording. I'm no longer concerned with tape hiss and more with microphone noise floors and cleanliness of the amplification circuitry in recording gear. Whether 92 dBm or 144 dBm if the music is over compressed, over limited and mastered for maximum levels there isn't much difference when listening to the final product but when properly recorded and mastered with realistic dynamics and using acoustic instruments then the sampling rate can make a difference in the final products sonic enjoyability to a trained and seasoned ear. When asked the secret of being a recording engineer and producer I tell the questioner that it's all down to the ears. No piece of equipment can replace trained ears. Without the ears and experience the project is doomed from the start.
@darelvanderhoof6176: CD is no lossy compression. Duh! Streaming service may have lossy compression and sounds like crap. Sixteen bit has plenty of range. More bits are useful in a live recording or production environment.
@marcbrasse747: People are so full of snotty sh(beep). As it stands virtually nobody is using the dynamic range of even the CD format, let alone that of any higher standard. So stop the loudness wars and the revival of vinyl first before proceeding with this discussion ….. and please God, if you are for once listening, also repair my “when I’m 64” hearing. Only then might all of this again become relevant to my ears.