24/96 FLACs are a fraud

[CAPTAiN_24]

VERY Well said "Shire"

[bubanee]

Nice read this thread, i for one can tell the difference between a 320 and Flac. the top end for starters is more clearer and open headroom.
as for the 24/96 i can tell the difference with pre digital era vinyl releases with say remastered CD's..

The CD's of the 80s where Volume War crap didn't exist is the closest you'll get to match sound (16/44.1) to say a Vinyl/HD (24/96) but with todays mastering it's all gone to sh**

[77ausy]

16bit 44.1KHz cant match the bass of 24 bit 96KHz, as the volume get louder the 16 bits distorts.Also they are mastered completely different and i like the sound of vinyl with its little imperfections,alot of classic and jazz you can really tell the difference between redbook and vinyl,Vinyl for me rules invest in a good sound system and see for yourself.

[kjf]

16bit 44.1KHz cant match the bass of 24 bit 96KHz, as the volume get louder the 16 bits distorts.

That is completely untrue.

Digital distortion happens when you try to cross 0 dbFS, which can happen at any bit depth.

Sample rate is irrelevant in this scenario.

[77ausy]

16bit 44.1KHz cant match the bass of 24 bit 96KHz, as the volume get louder the 16 bits distorts.

That is completely untrue.

Digital distortion happens when you try to cross 0 dbFS, which can happen at any bit depth.

Sample rate is irrelevant in this scenario.

really,thats not my experience i have a good sound system and notice the difference big time,who are you to tell me im wrong?.Im speaking from experience lol.Even on the computer using earphones you can tell the difference between 16 bit and 24 bit as you turn the bass up.

[Q91]

Nice read this thread, i for one can tell the difference between a 320 and Flac. the top end for starters is more clearer and open headroom.
as for the 24/96 i can tell the difference with pre digital era vinyl releases with say remastered CD's..

The CD's of the 80s where Volume War crap didn't exist is the closest you'll get to match sound (16/44.1) to say a Vinyl/HD (24/96) but with todays mastering it's all gone to sh**

I call BS on that.

Some mp3 might sound worse, but it also depends on source, and how well it has been mastered.

[connor17]

Hi everyone.
I've read a good article about this:
http://www.stereophile.com/news/11649/
Although the master is the same, the remasterings are different, the point is obvious:
"Why would someone do this? The cynic would suggest that it was to make the SACD transfer more transparent-sounding than the CD transfer, with less grain and greater dynamic contrasts apparent. Maybe. However, you then have to deal with the fact that to untrained ears, "louder" is always "better," and the CD layer does indeed sound louder."
If you notice an improvement in the 24/96 layer, is not because of a superiority of the format, but of the remaster instead, which is in fact superior.
I think we all end up buying SACD players, but not because of the format. I'm afraid the state-of-the-art remasters will only be available in that new and improved (and more expensive) format.

[kjf]

who are you to tell me im wrong?.Im speaking from experience lol

I'm someone who has spent many years in the industry that creates the music you listen to.

I'm not saying you aren't hearing what you are hearing. I'm saying that bit depth has nothing to do with it.


Consider a house with two floors where the bottom floor is absolute silence, the top floor is maximum volume, and there are two sets of stairs that connect the two floors representing the bit depth.

The difference between a 16 bit staircase and a 24 bit staircase is that a 16 bit stair case has 2^16, or 65,536 steps while a 24 bit stair case has 2^24, or 16,777,216 steps.

There are a whole lot more volume steps in the 24 bit stair case, but top volume is no louder.

You may believe there is room for more bass volume in a 24 bit file, but that is mathematically impossible.

[connor17]

In this one @bigshot hits the target:

http://www.talkclassical.com/17868-solti...imate.html

[bubanee]

I think what a lot of people don't understand is that Vinyl was around before digital and when created you got what you got, with a lot of CD's say from music that was created before digital and transferred to CD, and because in the older days it went on Decibels and many LP's didn't go over 70 to 80db because the equimpent that makes the recording for vinyl would actually heat up to a point of almost ruining the Vinyl, hence why you don't get many sounds floating around 100db except maybe some mad part in an orchestra. So in all since 16bit is set around 95db i think??? So therefor a lot of recordings would of been less than 16bit anyway. But i don't think Bits existed back before digital, i guess it relied on good mics/leads/cables and the guys/gals at the mixer for volume and a good recorder. So i'm thinking is 24/96 a little bit to much for a lot of LP's.. How did they measure back then? what was the limits on the tape used? What i'm saying is, if it's recorded low db there would of been a lot of wasted space and 16/44.1 in equivilent would of been more than enough?

Perhaps Vinyl sounds better because there was no remastering as in volume wars and draw every level up. maybe we should compare a vinyl rip at 16/44.1 to a CD at 16/44.1 just like comparing a HD master at 24/96 to a vinyl 24/96.. interesting thought?