Martin Karne on 15/5/2007 at 17:17
But I was and I'm talking about ripping CDs which are only 16bits (excluding some special Alesis versions for studios and those are 24bit) into 24bit files.
Notice that I have not touched FLAC.
Martin Karne on 15/5/2007 at 17:22
And about that sound card, sorry but I have no specs about it.
I am aware that some dithering techniques may improve the missing bit depth, but I don't know if an 18 bit DAC will sound as a 24bit DAC, by comparison a well done dithering in 16bit audio might sound like an 18bit DAC, so I would guess that actually is more close to a 20bit DAC (if you got your specs right).
And 20bit is not really bad in the field between 16 and 24bit.
EDIT
Assuming you have got source audio which is superior to 16bit, like 18, 20, 24bit.
Kaleid on 15/5/2007 at 17:23
Quote Posted by Bjossi
Are you sure those are zeros? What if there is extra data added from my audio driver? The X-Fi does have a 24bit crystalizer feature.
The crystalizer adds extra bas and treble plus a hell of a lot of distorsion to the signal so it should not be used at all.
Most recording even if they're done at 24 bit are not up to a 16bit standard. Too much distorstion, noise etc...too poor A/D conversion.
There's absolutely no point in converting 16bit files to 24bit. And if you do you end in many cases with a transcoded file that actually sounds worse then the earlier version.
Most audiophiles can't pick the difference between a well coded 192kbit mp3 file from flac or wave.
A lot of it is nothing more than placebo.
Watch this: (
http://www.media.uio.no/personer/arntm/McGurk_english.html) :D
Martin Karne on 15/5/2007 at 17:33
I am sorry but using big speakers I do can tell the difference between 320kbps mp3 and the source CD (I perceive a loss of audio mass, mp3 sounds thinner), but on DVD audio 24bit even using a 24bit DAC I cannot tell the difference between 16 and 24bit audio, and about that many experts will agree that people can't tell.
Most people however can neither tell the difference of sound between a cheap 300 dollars receiver and a costly 70,000 dollars piece of equipment with costly speakers or cheap ones in double blind tests.
Bjossi on 15/5/2007 at 17:34
I'm using the crystalizer and I hear vast improvement in clarity. :confused:
Kaleid on 15/5/2007 at 17:36
Quote Posted by Bjossi
I'm using the crystalizer and I hear vast improvement in clarity. :confused:
It's possible to perceive the sound that way. Many like sound with extra weight and higher treble and which actually can make it possible to hear more details since it's louder in those parts.
Added distorsion can also give the impression that the audio is more detailed.
Martin Karne on 15/5/2007 at 17:39
Well if are going to debate about DSP versions, we are going to be here all day long. I like some DSP modes and some I loathe to death. Depends greatly on the equipment and types of sound manipulation used.
Kaleid on 15/5/2007 at 17:41
Quote Posted by Martin Karne
I am sorry but using big speakers I do can tell the difference between 320kbps mp3 and the source CD (I perceive a loss of audio mass, mp3 sounds thinner), but on DVD audio 24bit even using a 24bit DAC I cannot tell the difference between 16 and 24bit audio, and about that many experts will agree that people can't tell.
Most people however can neither tell the difference of sound between a cheap 300 dollars receiver and a costly 70,000 dollars piece of equipment with costly speakers or cheap ones in double blind tests.
Mmm, well maybe. But could you pick the difference in a blind test? That's when it becomes difficult since you don't really know which file is playing.
I helped a friend do a blind test who was absolutely convinced that the difference was huge and that he could always pick the difference but in a blind test he only could pick out 2 out 10 correct.
Did the same with a highly priced coaxial digitalcable and switched it to ultra low priced optical cable. We actually ended up preferring the cheap one. Told him to buy more records instead of wasting money... :thumb:
There are many 16bit dacs that outperform todays 24bits dacs since it's not all about the D/A conversion, the analog output is very important as well as clean powerful powersupply and a proper transport. (+room+speakers+sweetspot or not...)
Bjossi on 15/5/2007 at 18:02
Quote Posted by Kaleid
It's possible to perceive the sound that way. Many like sound with extra weight and higher treble and which actually can make it possible to hear more details since it's louder in those parts.
Added distorsion can also give the impression that the audio is more detailed.
It does sound more detailed. Or rather each sound played has a bigger role in the playback so I hear each of them more clearly. I like it that way.
And as a side note, I do hear difference between 320k and CD quality, but it's not big enough to be worth the multiplied filesize in my opinion. :erm:
Martin Karne on 15/5/2007 at 18:05
I do can tell the difference, because I have purposely mixed WAV files and mp3 files to random listening tests and I could perceive missing mass, there is no chest thumping like pure audio wave files.
