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.
@CORVUSMAXYMUS: GOOD LUCK LOOSE YOUR TIME IN SEARCH OF PERFECT SOUND INSTEAD OF LISTENING CD AUDIO QUALITY
@CORVUSMAXYMUS: 😅😅😅😅😅😅
@CORVUSMAXYMUS: A LOT OF GUY WHO VISIT THIS CHANNEL THEY SEARCH THE GHOST OF PERFECTION
@CORVUSMAXYMUS: 😂😂😂😂😂
@CORVUSMAXYMUS: 16 bits its ENOUGH
@CORVUSMAXYMUS: Dear listner stop search the ghost
@CORVUSMAXYMUS: MQA IS HISTORY
@CORVUSMAXYMUS: FLAC IS ENOUGH
@Jrer241067: Love the Chavez and you’re knowledge and whit. I own 2 cd players and still enjoy my cds, but also streaming.
The professional cd player is a Technics Broadcast player,regarded in bits day as “one of the best” and most complete in that price point,to such extent eas used in Abbey Road studios and others for its accuracy. Now it not the”best” ever produced,but extremely good. That is a 16 bit 2 times oversampling machine,with as you mentioned 96Db dynamic range.
The 2 player also a Technics, is, effective the successor to the SL-P1200 and this is a Reference Player SL-P2000, quiet rare. This uses (MASH) technology ( Multistage Noise Shaping) and that has 115db dynamic range, it sound superb.
I used the same cd and compared both on a sonic comparison,the SL-P2000 had slightly more control and better resolved dynamics,with slightly more finesse to the way it presented the music, but the actual audible differences were small overall. So it’s subjective and dependent on the listener’s hearing.
I did a similar test with the same album on vinyl,and the reproduction was fairly similar, but with a reduced db that affects vinyl. But it’s important to realise that today a CD and a vinyl pressing will both come off the same Master Tape,or source,so it’s unlikely that on either medium there would be a vast difference,other than how many thousands you record deck and stylus would be abd evenvthen could you tell the difference.
To put this into context in the 1970s if you went out and brought Fleetwood Mac Rumors and Pink Floyd’s Dark Side of the Moon,the reproduction would be leagues better than many remastered re-issued copies of the same albums. No this is mainly down to the mastering being “Analogue “and therefore produced a more fluid and transparent representation with great dynamic range. The newer pressing and Re- Masters are most likely digitalised and enhanced so that they can be sequentially produced for CD and Vinyl at the same time,the downside is although the Re-mastered mediums are perfectly ok,much of the substance,dynamics,bandwidth has been digital eroded in the process and to me that’s SAD. To new minenliums that probably will go entirely unnoticed. But it’s a shame that the quality of a product or medium on vinyl in the 70s and Cds in the 80d has had such a decline in quality over resent decades.
So its largely irrelevant whether you have 16 ,20, 24,bits and whether it sampled at 44,100 Htz or 192 Htz of the original Master Source wasn’t good or faithfully reproduced in respect to the artist,no amount of bits or bytes will effectively overcome the original shortcomings.
Finally what happened to the useful little guide on early CDs telling you how it recorded( AAD,ADD,DDD,DAD,) perhaps the record labels had let this master quality slide,and didn’t want to admit it.
Keep up the excellent content.
@rogersmith2129: Who and where was this guy raised? He is 20 years my junior and is repeating what I know, think audio magazines. At 19 my self test ed hearing had a range of 20 - 22k cps ,as I remember (ha ha) with a hole around 16 k from gun fire ( shooting before ear protection)! Listening to him in my bad ear, he is spot on. At my age, all my gear results in listening; when, where and how. My wife voice loses db’s under certain conditions as does my music. Keep up the good work, This video I am going to try to save by some means to listen too repeatedly.
@zen_dac: Hi-fi is for the insecure. Musicians are generally not interested in it. The basics of hi-fi marketing is the same as all tech. Find a number, use it to make the consumer insecure and sell something with a bigger or smaller number. That's all there is to it. If there were 64 bit recordings and DACs, audiophools would be off to the stores in droves imagining, as they do now with all currently available gear, that there is a clearly audible benefit to spending the cash. Current gear with distortion and noise already 100 times less than the absolute limit of human hearing proves this. The wheels of commerce are also well greased with the absurd notion that human ears can hear reality. Reality for the human mind (it is the human mind that imagines the experience of sound, not the ears) is whatever poses the greatest threat to survival at that moment. That will be the loudest noise. Whatever appears to represent the next insecurity fix will win.
Exactly the same with the next phone and its new numbers or the next 24k tv or 600 pixel camera. All tech sales is driven by insecurity. Audiophools think that it is a hobby. It most certainly is not. Listening to music is a hobby. Listening to cables is an insecure obsession for which there is no cure. Not even a $200k interconnect can sooth the troubled soul. Feeding an insecurity just makes it far worse.
I just bought a tablet that can edit uncompressed, 24k, 24 bit color video before I even shoot it. Contact me directly for orders ...
@1611guy: 2:30 Speaking of unpacking. My entry level streamer (Wiim Ultra) freezes up after playing just a few of those MAX 24 bit songs on Tidal. However, I do think it sounds better than 16. So if I want to her these enormous stuffed-suitcases of music, I need a more robust streamer to handle the unpacking. Well... there you have it... "Just enough, isn't enough"
@teufelsoldat: Vén bolond!!!!!A Streaming soha nem lesz olyan mint a cd vagy Vinyl!!!!!!Kár is magyarázni!!!
@matty7758: What do you think about 320kbps mp3?
@AudioMasterclass replies to @matty7758: MP3 is the past. The dead past.
@lf911sc: No Qobuz discussion?
@Razor2048: What everyone truly needs is 32 bit float streaming.
@AudioMasterclass replies to @Razor2048: I’m planning a future video explaining why everyone truly doesn’t.
@tinkeringsolderbro1968: In times of Loudness War, CD's are sold with 1db headroom and it's clipping from beginning to end😂
@ronzakar8597: seriously. who cares?
@AudioMasterclass replies to @ronzakar8597: "Who cares?" is a phrase often uttered by people who are doing nothing more than drifting through life.
@marcovitrano5946: In truth, according to the equal loudness contour (evolution of Fletcher-Munson graph), and a study on 37 home listening rooms, you can hear a 110 dB DR on the average home listening room. This is because we are not sensitive to all frequencies in the same way and noise is made of frequencies. We are most sensitive in the 1-5 kHz range and most part of the noise coming in a room from outside is about low frequencies because it is harder to filter. So the real noise floor in a room is lower than what an Spl meter can measure. But still, CD DR with dithering and noise shaping should be enough
@adrianoamatucci989: Sto ascoltando un cd Decca di musica classica barocca con un impianto economicissimo.
Ma il caso vuole che il lettore Philips cdr 951 sia ancora validisimo dopo 25 anni.
Lo streaming audio per i miei gusti musicali e' inutile.
Se lo accoppia ad altoparlanti di qualita' e a un amplificatore (il mio non ha contolli di toni) che non presenta "fronzoli" la qualita' del suono dell'ensemble e' stupefacente.
Philips cdr 951.
APPT (amplificatore bluetooth in classe d).
Altoparlanti RAM CD 20.
Saluti da Roma.
@scientificbrad: What about vinyl? that sounds way better
@scientificbrad replies to @scientificbrad: @RockManEnough cool I guess they fooled me, I always thought vinyl was way more real if you get me
@Infynyte: Till today, a really good recording from a CD still sounding better than any stream from any platform.
@mossup- replies to @Infynyte: All the streaming services sound muddy to me, I just starting listening to old formats again and A CD, An mp3 at 320kbps 44.1khz 16 bit and A minidisc all sound better then streaming services. I am betting its something to do with the compression they use, I'd like to know if it is or what it is.
@mobilepsycho: 97% of people could not distinguish between these micro units of audio formats....streaming your Apple Music playlist through your KEF LSX speakers for example will sound precisely the same (to most) if the music were being played from a Sony CD player connected to like receiver.
@leonardshevlin7260: 24 isn't 1.5 times more than 16. 24 is 1.5 times 16, or 0.5 more.
@a64738: I had a computer with Sound Blaster x-fi soundcard in the early 2010`s and it had 24 bit uppsampling and made everything sound totally identical to original 24 bit. I could not hear differnece from original 24 bit or 24 bit upsample. But there was a clear improvement going from 16 bit to 24 bit and anyone thesting A B blind test could clearly also hear the difference (regular people with no interest in high end Hi -.Fi....
@alexschwarzmeier7061: You can't hear the difference between a CD spoiled by the loudness war and 24bit studio quality? Are you kidding me?
@sejnb1: I record music in 24 bit and must convert it to 16 bit for release on streaming sites. The audio quality difference is substantial and easily discerned.
@иеох: As long as most sources of streaming audio are remastered crap, I will buy CDs.
@nunayobusiness7521: the funny thing is, there is a high pitch whine the entire video.
@m.zillch3841: 16bit is enough for us consumers, used as is, however as sound gets bumped from gizmo to gizmo the noise escalates slowly and while any one 16bit device has an adequately low noise floor on its own, assuming you have the luxury of setting the input level so the peaks hit just a smidge below 0dBFS, things get more iffy when you don't have this luxury in each box. Consumers, for example, have a misguided notion that their AVRs are noisy because of its DAC, but in truth it is more likely its ADC used to digitize the incoming analog signals so the various speaker delays, subwoofer processing, etc can occur in the digital domain. Thing is, that ADC has no idea what signal level might be coming in, so for safety they design them so even a very hot signal will not distort them no matter what. This means their input sensitivity is very low. That would be equivalent to using a 16bit digital recorder but only recording the incoming music peaks at 20dB down. Now suddenly 16-bit's "96 dB is plenty" dynamic range becomes only 76dB. Try to ride the gain while listening to the pianissimo opening of Bolero above your room noise and suddenly you hear HISS! I like your vids by the way. I bet you'd dig mine too becuase we are in the same camp.
@Vanflowne: Marketing has audiophiles' brains infected with marketing cosmetics. It's funny to watch them listen to 24 Bits 192kHz with high frequency modulation noise in music affected by loudness war with shitty BrickWalls techniques.
@alexey.sonkin: So primitive!!! Stupid arithmetic, without real understanding of sound signal processing. Trash video.
@AudioMasterclass replies to @alexey.sonkin: And you’ve just made a trash comment because you don’t seem to be able to explain yourself.
@RUcirius: The biggest limitation is the listener’s audio set up, especially their speakers. 99% of people don’t have the ears or the gear to really tell the difference.
@Seventh-f6p: Correct me if I am wrong when super audio cds (sacd) and players where released the reason it failed was CD was good enough for the average listener. No one wanted to upgrade.
@myxsys: I think the point of 24 bit is to have as much detail packed into every second of audio. That means the source(mic & recording equipment) must be capable of capturing enough detail that can pass along through the chain in 24 bit to reach the consumer. Otherwise if not enough detail is captured in the first place, then 16 bit should be passed to the consumer.
I think the reason why this topic is heavily debated is because of how different music is actually recorded. We have different mic brands of varying quality, DAW audio samples, hardware and software synthesizers that are used as instruments. A lot of samples used in creating digital music are not in 24 bit. You have to pay extra to get higher quality samples.
@I-Have-Fire: Here’s clip that pretty well sums up many of the comments here…just replace “job” with “bits” and “can he do” with “can he hear”.😂 https://youtu.be/-AYUB3tQs80?si=N0K36j0vpWO2WaDe
@blackwidowfarms: old video, but my two cents anyway. I can hear the difference between a 16 and 24-bit track IF it's the same piece recorded at 16 bit and at 24 bit.... and played back 16 and 24 bit. The latter has more warmth and presence to it, but it's very subtle and "just enough" to convince me to record in 24-bit.
From a post-processing perspective, if I run a track through an effect, there is simply more data in the 24-bit audio for the effect software to act upon, producing a more complete integration of said effect resulting in a "closer to analog" result. This translates well to the final 16-bit mixdown, a lot of the extra "quality" fits nicely into the final product.
@JohnLenin-y1w: King vinyl pure analog sound.No CD MP3 digital rubbish.
@bencompson: I've listened to it all on my pretty high end, if not dated, system (ARC tube pre, 5000w Mark Levinson amp, Aerial Acoustics towers, Transparent Super cables, etc etc). I hear no appreciable difference above CD quality. So screw the science and the math and be thankful that, like me, you don't have 'golden ears'. They are a curse, not a blessing.
@hbrookes: What if you found out that the streaming services were transferring from 16bit cd quality to their 24 bit services?
@AudioMasterclass replies to @hbrookes: Good luck to them transferring 16-bit masters to 24. Easy to do of course but there's no uptick in quality.
@johnrohdejensen1218: PERFECT !!!
24bit and 32float are awesome when recording and you have little idea what's coming your way but that16bit 96dB is more then enough when you hit that -1 dBTP on mastering.
Now I do have questions about that 44.1kHz on cd's. I would feel better with 48kHz and a less sharp low-pass filter. The extra 10% bits are trivial today.
@macehan: The encoding compression ratio define the sound quality. 16 or 24 whatever it is, the compression level is much more important in sound quality. Shure is a uncompressed 24bit audio incredible high quality, but the streaming or compressed lossed audio formats a mostly poor quality. Uncompressed audio is the best like in 16bit wav formattet track.
@ashleywhiteman2684: I did like the few 20 bit cd's I managed to find
@coolbro6969: Ok but. Doesn’t streaming always compress the song… so it doesn’t matter about bits. Stealing squashes your mis regardless.
@rafalsadowski5186: Of course I`m not a specialist. It is hard for me to compare cd 16 bit and streaming 24. But... on tidal using fiio q11 and headphones beyerdyn... dt 770 I can identify which recording is in 16 and which in 24 bits in more than 90% cases.
@alexanderwagner9524: Imagine having 24 bit and using a low quality speaker cable that is not made from pure gold alloyed with Rumpelstieltzchen's blood. 😉
@MaxCarola: Thank you! You brough in a real problem. I use a digital aggregatore that asks for 16bit 44.1 files for digital distribution and I never had complains about the final delivery. Still the average to peak level is a more important factor of quality, to me. And I was an early adopter of digital recording machines for recording and master (back in 1979 with Delta/Sigma converters and Sony F1s
@tomasjonsson7141: CD is the best music format 😻😻😻
@HonoraryBreathTaker: Don't forget music is compressed pretty hard so avarage dynamics of a song won't exceed 12-15 db range
@GustavoTrillo: I have Jose Pass CD in 24 bits and sound superb , I don't have 16 bits same CD so I can't tell you the difference but the sound it is amazing
@lewismartin4306: You sound like a sociopath
@markcarbone1004: This topic reminds me of another point. I have read that when doing digital equalization of music at home, one should avoid increasing any of the frequencies as it might cause clipping of the signal if the signal were coded close to the maximum; equalization should only ever decrease any frequencies from flat response. Is there truth in this?
@markcarbone1004 replies to @markcarbone1004: “encoded” close to the maximum
@AudioMasterclass replies to @markcarbone1004: If you use EQ boost then you are increasing the level of the signal. This may cause clipping. In digital audio workstation software EQ generally has 20 dB headroom above 0 dBFS. If you're using this much EQ, you're trying to solve one hell of a problem. In home audio there will be some headroom but I'd probably want to test it with sine waves and an oscilloscope to find out how much.
@d.charlesberti9002: I sure appreciate this well-baland informational video. It fits my experience, in that a well recorded, mastered, whatever, CD sounds just as good as any hi-rez streaming format. I understand, and am ok with, the fact that it may be just in my mind and emotions. Nevertheless, I actually feel that there is something better about a good CD. Maybe to some degree this happens with every move away from more tactile audio experience.The difference to me is in the realm of feeling rather than analysis. For some reason, a well recorded CD touches me more than something streaming. I do listen to some SACD, which is even better. So I don't doubt that a higher resolution can bring a more enjoyable sound, but I think that the physical media and player bring something to the table that streaming can't recreate. Maybe much of it has to do with just being more rooted in time and space, somewhat like the difference between listening to headphones vs. In-room speakers. This may sound more in the realm of philosophy, but every human
experience has a major spiritual component. One man's opinion/experience.
@leckmich20101: As sales-manager of a world famous audio-company, it’s all about the quality of the recordings❗️... the quality of the components that you use, the difference in sound-quality between different steamers as any other components, cables eccetera is what make the difference ... it’s not about bits.
ps. the difference in sound-quality between Tidal Qobuz and Apple Music, depending of the streamer you use, is quite surprising 😃 have fun ...
@user-wy6xd5ip8w: I have lovely CDs that followed the AAD production and manufacturing path. I have no problem hearing the analog noise floor with lots of delicious tape hiss preserved. And,,, they are pre-loudness wars so they aren't even gobbling up all the headroom provided in the available 16 bits.
@Kakker71: I had a sound studio with a friend many years ago, when the first 24bit 96Khz harddisk recorders came on market We could clearly hear difference between 24bit 96KHz and the downsampled 16bit 44,1Khz. Although we had quite professional equipment, I suspect our downsampling equipment may have been to blame. It was like it removed dynamics and "sparcle" in the music recorded. We tried blind tests and hit the right version every time when trying. The 16 bit version didn´t sound bad at all, but compaired to the original master, it lacked above mentioned things.
@JanSimmen-efolkeoplysning: Just a question from a radiojournalist who works with sound on a different way: You say that you work in24 bit in your studio? I was told always to work in 32 bit flow as a professionel due clipping risc (not due hifi ears... ;-) )
@AudioMasterclass replies to @JanSimmen-efolkeoplysning: 32-bit float doesn't sound any better than traditional 24-bit but uses eight extra bits. My opinion is that unless someone is really very careless with their levels it isn't necessary in production. For transfer from studio to studio though, I can see the advantage of less to go wrong in terms of levels. Field recording too, no worries about gain setting.
@alanhosman8185: Since the years I try to tell the people these basics but no...don't want to accept and understand 😮
@MrAllenRiley: Signal to Noise Ratio, Dynamic Range, and every specification except one of the most important to audio recordings, that is "Frequency Response" which is considerably greater at 24 bits than it is at 16 bits, seems to go unmentioned. Depending on the recording, without going into all the specs/details and with all things being EQUAL, an audiophile listener with excellent hearing can often hear the difference between a 24 bit master and a 16 bit master of the same exact recording. There is a perceivable difference for those with the ability to hear, that know what to listen for, in sound transparency. It's been tested in blind A/B comparisons in multiple Nashville playback scenarios and proven to be true. Is this omission just an oversight or is it purposeful for some reason not easily understood or that would make it irrelevant? You are appreciated.
@thomasmaughan4798 replies to @MrAllenRiley: "Frequency Response which is considerably greater at 24 bits than it is at 16 bits,"
Nope. Frequency response is determined by the bit rate. See Nyquist theorem.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist%E2%80%93Shannon_sampling_theorem
"often hear the difference between a 24 bit master and a 16 bit master of the same exact recording."
That seems unlikely; but you choose for you and I choose for me.
@johnenterline2879: What about file format? If you’re not using Tidal and stream from Spotify or Amazon 24 bit won’t make any difference.
@g.stephens: I'll chime in. If 24-bit 96/192 KHz is where the majority of mass manufacturing is at for DAC/ADC chips on digital devices, then that is where audio needs to be. For the economic's of scale in chip production (instead of different manufacturing processes for avarious resolution chipsl), suitability for any use (headroom wise), and less poor sample rate conversions down the track. If we dropped the days of hyper-compressed/smashed mastering, then the nominal level of audio on CD's could go back down to somewhere near -16 to -20LUFS like they were in the 80's (which would raise the average noise floor up 10dB) instead of the -10LUFS or worse as found on today's final masters for consumer use. We could get back to what used to be around 20dB of headroom in the analogue days from 'average/norminal-VU' level to 'peak' level, leaving room for more natural and interesting dynamics to the human ear and without driving a DAC to within a millimeter of its life. Also take in to account, anyone that uses a simple digital recording device or who does at home video/audio editing with 24-bit has oodles of headroom to adjust the peak level of an audio file without having to learn how to apply dynamic range compression to get things sounding as loud as studio produced final content within a dB of it's life, if the headroom existed on both sides of the fence more. Economics aside, before smart phones, most audio interfaces on computers were also 16-bit with a crystal that multiplied to a 48 KHz native sampling rate, and a lot suffered from poor on the fly software sample rate conversion from 44.1 KHz material to get it to 48 KHz out the interface as things went more online and away from CD. I'd much rather everything was now 24-bit 96 or 192 KHz across the board for that reason alone, not more dithering and cheap sample rate conversion going on in software adding to the already poor quality of cheaply produced sample rate conversion between various devices resolutions. Just my 2 cents.
@UntakenNick: Why comparing 16 bit CDs with 24 bit streaming instead of 16 vs 24 bit regardless of the media? Introducing unnecessary variables just for the sake of making your videos longer is a cheap tactic that has been ruining YouTube for years..
@stighenningjohansen: I just retested CD, and its probably the most solid music distribution systen of all times. I was shocked again.
The music fired up out of the black :
@socialite1283: Not every piece of consumer grade equipment can happily cope with having to reproduce a highly compressed and normalized piece of wall of sound rock or pop.
@socialite1283: The average home stereo in the average home doesn't have the noise floor to take advantage of 24 bit audio, which kinda makes it pointless as a consumer format.
However, in the recording studio, 24 bit allows for all manner of adjustments to be done to the sound as a part of creating the finished product.
@jazzcesar3367: Respeto su opinión, pero conforme más resolución obtendremos mejor sonido, dinámica, espacio musical, separación de instrumentos… en eso no hay duda, no es lo mismo una tv en HD que en 4 u 8 K, la definición varía, cámaras de fotos, cámaras de vídeo. Y no solo es eso, si no que ocupan más espacio físico los cds que la música en streaming, millones de canciones sin ocupar un enorme espacio físico. Hay que entender que a más resolución, mejor calidad de escucha, en un equipo decente. Hay muchos factores, equipo, habitación, dimensiones de esta… Yo prefiero escuchar la música en vinilo, pero hay que reconocer que con los adelantos en sonido, todo va mejorando sustancialmente. Toda opinión es respetable y nadie tenemos la verdad absoluta y muy pocos un oído absoluto.
@derberti2280: In the early 1990 I got my first CDplayer and since then I bought nearly 450
CDs. Since 2015 I stream with BluOS from Qobuz and Tidal. But over the years I recognized there is no need to stream more than CDquality. Much more important to enjoy the music is to
chose the right speaker for your room together with a good amp and a good DAC Then have a Look at good cables and enjoy the music.
@financeandpoliticstoday: Apple Music is definitely better than Spotify. I had Spotify and was satisfied with it. Then I got three months of free Apple Music and never went back. I recently tested it on my hifi music system and the difference is even greater.
@pikkuland: CD is not compressed. Streaming... well
@UntakenNick replies to @pikkuland: If he was so sure of what he says then he would compare 16 vs 24 bit audio in general instead of adding unnecessary variables like 24 bits "from streaming".
@TheRollingStoness: No one knows the difference, all these folks who claims are telling pure lies
@sf6657: I'm assuming you did the sample rate discussion in another video. 🙂 The way I used to explain bit depth was that the top 8 bits in 16bit are nearly as good as he top 8 bits of 24 bit. That's over simplifying it a bit but true. If you're recording rock or almost any other contemporary genre and you know how to get your tracks to sit in that top 10 db range you'll be fine. 24 bit is valuable for tracking wide dynamic performance like a jazz trio or orchestral or tracking without compression (That's analogue compression). But then there's 32 bit float for the real important stuff. And THAT's a whole other video.
@bshah4831: It all depends on who the consumer is. If it is the 80% of the gneral public, then fine.
@assaf3468: What I need to use on windows for better sound on 660s2 and fiiok7? bit24 441kHz?
@ploed: Thats why I love Bandcamp, most of the artists Upload FLAC with 24 bit.
@AudioMasterclass replies to @ploed: You say that, but I use CDBaby for my distribution. They only accept 16-bit 44.1. So I master for that. I send the same master to Bandcamp. Not ideal I know but that’s where I am. The good thing though is that anyone who buys my track gets the exact same master that I made and approved.
@ploed replies to @ploed: @AudioMasterclass never heard of CDBaby gonna check that. The other site I know is HDTracks but it looks fishy to me, but I could be wrong.
Does Bandcamp give the option that you want to upload a 16 Bit Version instead of 24? I get my Synthwave music there, so most artists probably already do 24 Bit while producing.
@AlexanderA-it9is: Все правильно. Можно добавить, что upsampling, которую позволяют делать звуковые карты компьютеров ухудшают звук. То есть магия цифр, что у вас 24 или 32 бита, может только ухудшить качество звука, если исходный -16 битный.
В то же время, цифрвая обработка заметно портит 16-битную запись, еле заметно портит 24-битную запись, а если использовать 32 битную, то цифровые фильтры звук не испортят. Поэтому, если в компьютере происходит цифровая коррекция звука и она происходит в том же формате, что и исходный звук, то он может испортить 16-битное звучание. Это относится к компьютерному звуку, но вряд ли к дорогой бытовой аппаратуре, если в ней нет цифровой коррекции
@jasinow: Your understanding of hearing is somewhat correct but your knowledge on feeling sounds below or above our hearing is limited, so your opinion shows a hint of disregard for the way sound waves interact with humans / nature, maybe due your limited schooling on the matter.
Meaning:
24bit has the ability of sounding better way better than 16 bit when you combine the frequency vibration factor.
When sounds exceed 20 - 20 kHz (ultrasound), humans generally cannot hear them, as they fall outside the typical range of auditory perception. However, even though we don’t perceive these frequencies as audible sounds, it is possible to feel them, primarily as vibrations or pressure changes in the body. This phenomenon occurs because sound waves, regardless of whether they are within the audible range, can still induce physical effects.
Mechanisms of Feeling High-Frequency Sound:
1. Vibration Sensitivity
2. Bone Conduction
3. Tactile Sensations
4. Resonance and Infrasound Interactions
Audio Devices: Some high-end audio equipment designed to produce ultrasonic frequencies (e.g., 40 kHz or higher) might be felt as vibrations through surfaces or through body contact, even if the sound isn’t consciously heard. This is why high-fidelity systems, or ultrasonic sound systems in certain applications, are designed to minimize interference with hearing but still create a subtle sensation of air movement or pressure.
Please investigate and maybe a follow up video just so people get a true view of the need for 24 bit or higher.
@Yourweakminds: https://youtu.be/EfvAXMnm5r4?si=rvps65jvSemMVzaF
Remember folks- hifi is jewellery.
@MartinLloyd-w1u: It’s all about mastering
@BritProgJazz: The difference I tend to hear between 16 and 24 bit is that there's more space around the sound of 24 bit, which adds realism.
Hearing noise and experiencing noise are different things.
@paulsantamaria2605: I don't know if you made this point yet, but being a photoshop artist I know that when you reduce a .psd (the native hi rez Photoshop format) to a .jpeg, you reduce the colors from 16.7 million to a fraction of that by reducing the SHADES of colors and the conversion chooses which shades are necessary to make the picture look acceptable. Same thing with .mp3, where frequencies (as I understand it) that are the same EQ can be deleted by a louder sound at the same frequency.
@johanbollen4262: Obey or we cut of your music.
@tomdemeo2708: Who is supplying 24 bit format no?
@pellepop100: Normal people uses their hifi to listen to music. Hifi enthusiasts uses music to listen to their audio equipment
@JohnRogers0014 replies to @pellepop100: Music is the fuel for my Hotrod.
@Mike1614YT: I've always heard that the ultimate place where sound recording will end up is this example: A person walks into a friend's house and hears a live band playing, it's obviously a live band playing in the back room, then walking into that room and discovering it's a recording. It's said that level of reproduction is now possible. it's intriguing. I imagine a lot of this perfect reproduction of live sound will be dependent on, or limited by the speakers used.
@arnoschaefer28: Claiming that 24 bits is 256x "better" than 16 bits is silly. Just because there are 256 times as many levels does not make something 256 times better. Sound quality is a subjective measure. There clearly is a diminishing return: a hypothetical 520bit resolution is not discernible to any human ear from a 512bit resolution . The jump from 8 bits to 16 bits is dramatic and obvious, after that, it gets blurry, and every additional bit makes less of a difference than the one before it.
@basbass429: 24 bit is better, but the difference is indeed very small compared to 16bit quality. It is probably 1.01 (1%) times better at most. But it is logical to use 24bit, because you then are sure quality is the maximum possible. 24bit will not fix the problem of total crap and often too loud (clipping) mixes and bad audio-quality they (many big commercial music labels) put out to the public. More bits will not fix a bad recording quality/mixing.
@telwood15: There are many ways industry can con you out of your hard earned cash.
@erwintimmerman6466: The only reason 24 bit streaming would sound better is if they use tracks that aren't squashed to 6 dB dynamic range but 20 dB or so. I can imagine that bands would put out 2 versions of their music. One for Spotify where it needs to be as loud as possible and one for high res use that's not as compressed.
I know a band that does that for their vinyl releases, so that the record has a better dynamic range than the CD... With drums that you can actually recognize as drums. In their case vinyl actually sounds better than digital 😆
@inventorpaul: 2 points:
Ultra quiet sections would necessarily be more distorted. (and) I would imagine there are sample rate beating effects near sub-multiples of 44.1kHz
@crapmalls: Depends. Is your dac even 16 bit quiet?
@nespstudio8803: Great video, as always. I bet you could say a lot about dynamic range and modern pop music compression techniques. I know I can. Oh, the fatigue, the fatigue… 😁
@BRICKSINSILK: If someone is coming around and I want to show off my stereo...I put on a cd, I don't stream.
@BUZZDAGEN: In the future all music will be remastered/ re-released so that the original songs will no longer be available. Keep your recordings.
@PedroDanielLopesFerreira: I went from records and tapes to CD in the 90s, to find it a very pleasant listening experience. The mp3 format brought convenience in carrying all my music in my pocket. Them streaming came along and I have my music and my friends music in my pocket... but since the CD, sounds pretty much the same to me...
@kevinmills5293: Yo Bro!
@titifatal: After decades of rigorous research in sampling, quantization, jitter and unspeakable things ... I realized that digital stuff is exponential and the human ear is logarithmic. So, yeah, 8bit diff and 1.5 times better is right. 🤣
@daanw6270: Do you need 24 bit?
Short answer: No.
Longer answer: Noooooo.
@jimromanski2702: Over the years I think I've come to realize that garbage in is one thing. But getting garbage out is another. Like analog when digital came along it seemed that to playback digital you "simply" reversed the process and vela perfect reproduction. Except it didn't work that way. It didn't work that way for analog. We slowly realized over the years that there was intricate detailed information in the grooves that we had to create delicate retrieval devices in our cartridges and turntable tonearms to extract that musical information. I'm beginning to see that it's the same story with digital. Many digital engineers argue that 44/16 is enough to capture music. And while it seems that you can capture more detail with higher bit rates there probably is a limit that we may or may not have already reached. However, just having enough bits to store the music isn't the whole picture. Apparently, we are able to achieve better reconstruction results using higher bitrates. So, I get why you can up sample a source and not create any new information (that wouldn't be right). But it may make the re-assembly of the musical information work better using the higher bitrates. It's taken me a while to come to this realization, but I think this is what's going on. DACs are getting better at re-assembling the digital musical information and higher bitrates are part of the reason.
@userbosco: Totally ignoring 8-track tapes! Loved this upload! Thank you!