But still you can't post any references which back up your argument? Here's a few more. https://www.head-fi.org/threads/24bit-vs-16bit-the-myth-exploded.415361/ https://www.mojo-audio.com/blog/the-24bit-delusion/ https://bpmskills.com/tech-tips/16-bit-vs-24-bit/ "Researchers conducted a small study which revealed that even the most experienced subgroups (musicians, sound engineers, and hardware reviewers) couldn’t really tell the difference between original 24-bit music and the same files dithered down to 16 bits. These were then fed into the DAC in the 24 bit container) in A-B listening tests. And this is even if they had access to equipment costing more than $6,000. This effectively reveals at least some interesting points to consider: even symphony orchestra recordings (that can have dynamic range greater than 60 dB) don’t really benefit from this technical advantage. That additional 48 dB starts to sound almost laughable when we realize that some types of music today can have a dynamic range of just 12 dB."

tunejunky:

CLEARLY, you are not a fan of classical music were the soft passages are just as important as the loud. AND btw... this is NOT about elitism - you'd hear the differences on a good boombox.

As I said before, there are niche cases where the differences aren't just noticed but actually matter. Some classical music falls under that category. I say some for 2 reasons: 1. Not all classical songs use/require such a wide dynamic range. 2. Of the songs that do use such a wide dynamic range, it isn't necessarily something worth caring about. Some people want to use psychedelics and crank up the volume for an immersive experience. Others want to soak in the composer's artistic intentions. Others are trying to study the subtle differences. That's not most people. Most people just want to be able to hear all the instruments without disturbing the neighbors or blowing out their eardrums during the crescendo. That's where 16 bit is actually a good thing, because a track properly optimized for that can be more easily enjoyed by a wider audience, regardless of their sound system.

the most important thing is that you're not a big music fan and so don't care.

No, I enjoy music plenty, I'm just not pedantic or an audiophile. There's a big difference. And no, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with being an audiophile. Far from it.

the only format(s) that do are high/res with the dynamic range of life as we live it.

With higher sample rates (not so much bit depth), the improved differences actually sound unrealistic, because you're hearing more than you naturally would being right in front of the source of sound live. It's no different than looking at someone's face in 4K on a 80" display - you're seeing far more detail of the person's skin than you ever could naturally at a reasonable distance.

tunejunky:

the arguments people have been making are fallacious.

Anecdotes are fallacious. Appealing to an authority (yourself) is also fallacious.

this is exactly like saying an i-3 can do the same work as an i-9, which it can - to an extent. but the people who actually use the computer for more than web browsing and online shopping know there's a huge difference in capability.

Absolutely right, but how often does grandma care about doing any more than that? In the rare situation she needs more power, that doesn't justify a more expensive system. To scale things up a bit, how often does the average gamer notice any significant difference between 12 threads vs 16? How many gamers will not just notice the difference between 144Hz and 240Hz displays, but actually benefit from it?

Richard Nutman:

Eh? 16bit 44.1khz is poor quality? You know humans can't tell any difference between standard CD quality and hires formats? http://archimago.blogspot.com/2014/06/24-bit-vs-16-bit-audio-test-part-ii.html

In blind test i can even tell you the bit and khz used or if it is analogic... i am rarely wrong at that exercice. And i am not trained or with special skill (in fact i have even lost some due to high RPM free exaust race engine: my main hoby)

Richard Nutman:

For recording @schmidtbag, yes 24bit makes a lot of sense I agree. More bits have nothing to do with loudness. A 1 bit file can be as loud as a 24bit file. The difference is the noise floor. With 96db of range, the noise floor is already below human hearing. You certainly aren't going to notice it with wireless earbuds or wireless headphones regarding this news announcement that's for sure.

A 1 bit file can theoretically be as loud as 24 bit file but a musical composition in a "1 bit file" will not have the dynamic range needed for reproduction as we know it, it will be either loud AF or quiet AF since you need them bits to describe DIFFERENCE in loudness in said dynamic range. And yes, as far as dynamic range goes, 96 dB is way more than enough. If there is a part of the song which is up there at the 96th decibel then anything under 80 dB wont be heard at the same time, even ~40 dB of dynamic range is "enough", 70 would be plenty , 96 is way excessive, 144 (24 bit) is just fallacious. If a composition is going 96 then 20, 96 then 20 in reproducing its "highs and lows" that also wont work because your ears adapt to the highest sound they hear and you wont hear the ones that are 20 dB right after you heard one thats 96 dB because 76 dB difference in a second or two is A LOT. I'd say you need bigger dynamic range for an action movie than music and thats where 24 bit could have its purpose, in music, hardly.

tunejunky:

CLEARLY, you are not a fan of classical music were the soft passages are just as important as the loud. AND btw... this is NOT about elitism - you'd hear the differences on a good boombox. the most important thing is that you're not a big music fan and so don't care. the goal of the recording industry from the days of Thomas Edison to now is to recreate the live experience. the only format(s) that do are high/res with the dynamic range of life as we live it.

I would say I am on @schmidtbag point of view side . On the other hand on this argument you paint me exactly classic music not my thing ... I mean I like music but I can go for weeks with out hearing any and not care so not big in music either .... So it really boils down to even if there is some difference there I do not care . I guess that's why I never really messed with audiophile equipment. I do not see an issue an issue with audiophiles a hobby is a hobby. Will be interesting if you have a link or two that we can take blind tests if we can hear it on our current gear ... Why not ? If anything for the curiosity shake !

CD Lossless quality over Bluetooth would be great but make it native to Android and Windows like SBC. That would be a good day.

Venix:

I would say I am on @schmidtbag point of view side . On the other hand on this argument you paint me exactly classic music not my thing ... I mean I like music but I can go for weeks with out hearing any and not care so not big in music either .... So it really boils down to even if there is some difference there I do not care . I guess that's why I never really messed with audiophile equipment. I do not see an issue an issue with audiophiles a hobby is a hobby. Will be interesting if you have a link or two that we can take blind tests if we can hear it on our current gear ... Why not ? If anything for the curiosity shake !

anyone can do it with existing equipment and the difference will be there. i never said whether or not hi-res was "worth it" as that is subjective. what i'm on about is not subjective in the least it is a matter of fact and record. d/l two files of the same song, one @16/44 and one at (let's be generous) @ 24/96 use a good media player that plays all formats (NOT iTunes) like VLC use the same setting for volume at a comfortable level on a playback device (that's wired) and you can do it yourself. the differences are there, you just have to decide if it's "worth it", which is an entirely different question and one that's personal.

@tunejunky you assumed I might use I tunes ? You insult me ! I avoid everything that comes from the bitten fruit ! I am on the phone atm . So I will try to remember to look to do the test ! By the way I am fully aware you where not arguing if it is worth it or not and the whole thing is about if there is difference or not. I was trying to put my point of view as a sound pleb 😛 . I said you make a good point ! The only thing I was sure it's not working at all was that audiophile ssd with the caps jammed on it , because I know how data is stored.

yeah Venix that stupid SSD was a con job

Schmidtbag - ALL classical music takes advantage of the widest dynamic range possible - period. in fact, recording standards for the entire analog era were based on Beethoven's 5th. the playing time of LP records is based on the length of the 5th, dynamic compression was introduced because of the 5th (otherwise needles couldn't track the groove as the width of the groove was the dynamic range), and most importantly and to the point higher power amplification came about (the late 60's) to compensate for the lack of dynamism. Also, sound has differing energy levels (HF is...higher, but LF takes more energy to reproduce) and only high dynamic range treats both equally in proportion. in all music the soft passages are written just as carefully as the loud. what you have attempted to say is that all composers and song writers don't know or care what they're doing and they shouldn't bother with the soft passages. a crescendo has little effect without the soft passages and not all music is written for 120bpm or the dance club. and what i've said applies equally to pop music. and as far as analog goes, analog music may be pleasant (esp. because of compression) but it is literally impossible to be lifelike when life over-saturates the medium resulting in compression being necessary to play it at all. whereas hi/res music is a 1:1 ratio with life (with high power can be louder, but never softer)

He also reffered to the "Loudness war" that was in effect up until recently, all audio CD's in the 90s and 00s were heavily compressed to the point their dynamic range was just 12 dB yet even then ppl praised dynamic range of formats, equipment or whatnot. There isnt a way how any of that corrects a heavily compressed SOURCE. @tunejunky is going by the marketing booklets 1:1 since i guess thats his background, retail, but it is far from an objective view of measurable difference let alone perceived difference. Diminishing returns start really low in the audio industry, it has been proven time and time again.

PPC:

He also reffered to the "Loudness war" that was in effect up until recently, all audio CD's in the 90s and 00s were heavily compressed to the point their dynamic range was just 12 dB yet even then ppl praised dynamic range of formats, equipment or whatnot. There isnt a way how any of that corrects a heavily compressed SOURCE. @tunejunky is going by the marketing booklets 1:1 since i guess thats his background, retail, but it is far from an objective view of measurable difference let alone perceived difference. Diminishing returns start really low in the audio industry, it has been proven time and time again.

ahh no. while i worked for a major manufacturer of audio equipment for 30 years, i worked with audio and acoustic (we make speakers too) engineers. more importantly and to the point, i play musical instruments and have since elementary school. not one comment on this posting is from a person with any musical background as they would've helped me sort out the signal from the noise. and "all audio CD's"???? no freaking way as i have been in the control room in many studios and one of my best friends has been the recording engineer for Neil Young, Pearl Jam, SF Symphony Orchestra, Counting Crows, Stone Temple Pilots and many more for decades, including the 90's. and i've been there (liaison - my former company is also a record label in Japan). Also, clearly, you don't understand how dynamic compression works. what you're on about is the reissue of analog masters on CD which by and large was crap and has since been remastered digitally. you can talk diminishing returns about a $1k piece of equipment vs. a $500 one. there are no diminishing returns to recorded music as the KEY WORD is FIDELITY, as in HiFi.

tunejunky:

ahh no. while i worked for a major manufacturer of audio equipment for 30 years, i worked with audio and acoustic (we make speakers too) engineers. more importantly and to the point, i play musical instruments and have since elementary school. not one comment on this posting is from a person with any musical background as they would've helped me sort out the signal from the noise. and "all audio CD's"???? no freaking way as i have been in the control room in many studios and one of my best friends has been the recording engineer for Neil Young, Pearl Jam, SF Symphony Orchestra, Counting Crows, Stone Temple Pilots and many more for decades, including the 90's. and i've been there (liaison - my former company is also a record label in Japan). Also, clearly, you don't understand how dynamic compression works. what you're on about is the reissue of analog masters on CD which by and large was crap and has since been remastered digitally. you can talk diminishing returns about a $1k piece of equipment vs. a $500 one. there are no diminishing returns to recorded music as the KEY WORD is FIDELITY, as in HiFi.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war No, no one is talking about reissue of analog masters on CD. Yes, there are artists who pushed back against this but they are in minority and often they were pressured by the publisher. Also, on diminishing returns, i was referring to the fact that a carefully selected system that costs lets say 5000$ can sound the same (sometimes even better) as a 30 000$ system or the differences will be so minor that for all intents and purposes the 30k one will only excel at bragging rights, about its price, and not much else. Also, I am an electrical engineer who specializes in acoustics. If i didnt know what dynamic range compression is, i'd be out of a job. For a "good" dynamic compression example you can try to find the original issue of Californication album by RHCP and listen to the track Otherside. The bass guitar clips almost the whole song. There are remasters now on streaming services that are normalized (for the streaming service standard) and in turn less compressed. It sounds like a different song, no amount of "gear" will change that.

PPC:

Also, on diminishing returns, i was referring to the fact that a carefully selected system that costs lets say 5000$ can sound the same as a 30 000$ system or the differences will be so minor that for all intents and purposes the 30k one will only excel at bragging rights, about its price, and not much else.

Yeah but I'd argue it's a little more nuanced than that. The differences past $5K typically become sound "preference" rather than "better" and how large of a room the speakers can fill. I've auditioned Reference 5's vs Sopra's vs 802s, etc.. they all sound different yet they are all $15,000+ speakers.. you would think there would be some convergence of sound at that level.. but they all have their own timbre. I personally prefer KEF's sound signature which is why I ended up with the R7s. That being said the R7 vs the Reference 5 (Both KEF) - timbre wise very similar sound but the Reference 5's could fill a much, much larger room compared to the R7s and do so with significantly less distortion. In my 20x25 living room I don't think that $15K is worth it but someone with a lot more money, much larger room, might find it so.