____twoism

just purchased the 24bit WAV version. holy shit!
running that version through ps1000 and my schit valhalla amp/dac is freakin incredible.
i suggest buying the 24bit version. worth it.
its unreal.

re-phaelam-ed wrote:just purchased the 24bit WAV version. holy shit!
running that version through ps1000 and my schit valhalla amp/dac is freakin incredible.
i suggest buying the 24bit version. worth it.
its unreal.

YEESSSSS!! The detail is really something, worth the extra $.

noby wrote:Placebo.

you wish that were true...yes we are limited by range...
but ive just done the A/B test on my set up...it IS noticeable. that all i can say. and its great.

Thing that made me believe was going from the rip of the stream of the lp then to mp3, wav and finally 24 bit. There is more detail in the 24 bit.

re-phaelam-ed wrote:you wish that were true...yes we are limited by range...
but ive just done the A/B test on my set up...it IS noticeable. that all i can say. and its great.

No really, you can't or you have capabilities beyond humans, or they haven't done proper truncation (and dithering) to 16 bits. Or possibly you have a poor quality DAC?

A video for us lazy ones: http://xiph.org/video/vid2.shtml

Torn n Frayed wrote:Thing that made me believe was going from the rip of the stream of the lp then to mp3, wav and finally 24 bit. There is more detail in the 24 bit.

Irrelevant detail that is not possible for you to hear.

noby wrote:

re-phaelam-ed wrote:you wish that were true...yes we are limited by range...
but ive just done the A/B test on my set up...it IS noticeable. that all i can say. and its great.

No really, you can't or you have capabilities beyond humans, or they haven't done proper truncation (and dithering) to 16 bits. Or possibly you have a poor quality DAC?

A video for us lazy ones: http://xiph.org/video/vid2.shtml

Torn n Frayed wrote:Thing that made me believe was going from the rip of the stream of the lp then to mp3, wav and finally 24 bit. There is more detail in the 24 bit.

Irrelevant detail that is not possible for you to hear.

Hey man, let people have their fun. Audiophile arguments are like masturbation; just a lot of self-righteous stroking resulting in nothing of value. I don't wanna see that happen to Twoism, I love this place. Save it for AudioKarma.

Audiophile arguments are like masturbation; just a lot of self-righteous stroking resulting in nothing of value.


damnit, so true.

Amo Bishop Roden wrote:Hey man, let people have their fun. Audiophile arguments are like masturbation; just a lot of self-righteous stroking resulting in nothing of value. I don't wanna see that happen to Twoism, I love this place. Save it for AudioKarma.

According to bleep it's a matter of 15€ of "value". Don't you think it's good for people to know about the facts before they spend money on something? This isn't audiophilia, just some rudimentary digital signal processing.

And don't worry, I'm not going to be spending too much time here once the TH's dust has settled.

noby wrote:

Amo Bishop Roden wrote:Hey man, let people have their fun. Audiophile arguments are like masturbation; just a lot of self-righteous stroking resulting in nothing of value. I don't wanna see that happen to Twoism, I love this place. Save it for AudioKarma.

According to bleep it's a matter of 15€ of "value". Don't you think it's good for people to know about the facts before they spend money on something? This isn't audiophilia, just some rudimentary digital signal processing.

And don't worry, I'm not going to be spending too much time here once the TH's dust has settled.

I won't argue with that, though the difference in price is so minuscule ($3 US) that I would say some people might take that option simply because the 24bit includes the FLAC as well. Granted, it's easy as hell to convert WAV to FLAC, but I would imagine some people would rather not be bothered.

And for the record, I agree with your sentiment on 24bit, science is science, after all. And please don't take my reply as a reason to leave the forum if that's what you meant! I didn't mean to be offensive if I was, I've simply heard this debated ad nauseum in recent times, haha.

noby wrote:

re-phaelam-ed wrote:you wish that were true...yes we are limited by range...
but ive just done the A/B test on my set up...it IS noticeable. that all i can say. and its great.

No really, you can't or you have capabilities beyond humans, or they haven't done proper truncation (and dithering) to 16 bits. Or possibly you have a poor quality DAC?

A video for us lazy ones: http://xiph.org/video/vid2.shtml

Torn n Frayed wrote:Thing that made me believe was going from the rip of the stream of the lp then to mp3, wav and finally 24 bit. There is more detail in the 24 bit.

Irrelevant detail that is not possible for you to hear.

sorry bro...there may be shit we arent hearing. but on the lower quality recs...stuff may be getting compressed out. there is a diff. you just dont have the gear to hear it. buds dont werk. but these do....

being used to listen with...


Tranducer - type dynamic
Operating principle - open air
Frequency Response - 5-50
SPL 1mW - 98
Normal Impedance - 32ohms
Driver matched db - .05

a good thing about the grados...they allow you hear the difference. a negative though, is, they WILL reveal what you once thought was a good recording as kind of a shitty one if it wasnt given the attention it needed.
i didnt believe they were worth the money and thought my friend was stupid for wasting the money on his pair until i put them on. i immediately got myself a pair. hefty price. but if you wanna hear it....then its worth it.

defo feels like on my stereo my speakers are getting a little more punch and flex in the bass....and tinkle in the highs, broader sound stage. but its audiophile shit too...you can definitely hear diff qualities of recordings.

i used to be happy with 192kpbs recordings when i used my little sony wrap arounds. but since getting my grade rs-1's, then the ps1000s....that just wont do

noby wrote:And don't worry, I'm not going to be spending too much time here once the TH's dust has settled.

now THIS is some positive news.

Agreed. With the right gear you can hear the difference between 16-bit, 44.1kHz and 24-bit, 48kHz

It's not so much the greater frequency as it is the audio resolution. But certain low-end sounds are likely to be more prominent in a 24-bit recording than at 16-bit. Ever mix and match a cd recording versus a DAT recording? There is a very noticable difference, especially in the low-end.

Amo Bishop Roden wrote:I won't argue with that, though the difference in price is so minuscule ($3 US) that I would say some people might take that option simply because the 24bit includes the FLAC as well. Granted, it's easy as hell to convert WAV to FLAC, but I would imagine some people would rather not be bothered.

And for the record, I agree with your sentiment on 24bit, science is science, after all. And please don't take my reply as a reason to leave the forum if that's what you meant! I didn't mean to be offensive if I was, I've simply heard this debated ad nauseum in recent times, haha.

First of all, I apologize for my bluntness, those were some tired late night posts with the addition that I've been going through these arguments to ad nauseum as well. And yeah the price difference isn't too much, but I'd recommend not to spend another fifteen if you already have perfectly good losslessly compressed 16-bit versions. And don't worry, your post wasn't something that would cause me from stopping visiting .

re-phaelam-ed wrote:sorry bro...there may be shit we arent hearing. but on the lower quality recs...stuff may be getting compressed out. there is a diff. you just dont have the gear to hear it. buds dont werk. but these do....

being used to listen with...


Tranducer - type dynamic
Operating principle - open air
Frequency Response - 5-50
SPL 1mW - 98
Normal Impedance - 32ohms
Driver matched db - .05

a good thing about the grados...they allow you hear the difference. a negative though, is, they WILL reveal what you once thought was a good recording as kind of a shitty one if it wasnt given the attention it needed.
i didnt believe they were worth the money and thought my friend was stupid for wasting the money on his pair until i put them on. i immediately got myself a pair. hefty price. but if you wanna hear it....then its worth it.

defo feels like on my stereo my speakers are getting a little more punch and flex in the bass....and tinkle in the highs, broader sound stage. but its audiophile shit too...you can definitely hear diff qualities of recordings.

i used to be happy with 192kpbs recordings when i used my little sony wrap arounds. but since getting my grade rs-1's, then the ps1000s....that just wont do

The thing is, I don't even need to listen to it. It doesn't matter what kind of equipment you're using since the difference between a 16-bit and a 24-bit recording is beyond our hearing. And thanks for giving the specifications to further establish my point. Even if the 16-bit recording wasn't dithered at all (which I'm 99% certain it is) it would have a surface noise and harmonic distortion at around -100dB at the most, which means that you would need to run your headphones at 100 decibels - which is exceedingly load for continuous usage, to even have the noise floor of the quantization at an audible level, and good luck trying to hear a barely audible sound even over your listening space's background noise or your headphones' thermal noise let alone the music itself which is playing at 100dB.

I'm sorry to tell but unless you have an undocumented superhuman hearing or the digital stage of your equipment doesn't handle the playback correctly. Funnily enough you're also using an amplifier with vacuum tubes that will produce greater harmonic distortion and noise than a 16-bit recording would.

I can update this with a null test later today to see if there actually is a difference between them, and I can say that I'm not going to expect sound above -100db. If there is, then the person who was responsible for the conversion process has simply fucked up and is something that Warp should be aware of. In any case though, if you're just using the files for listening purposes (which I'm assuming most of us are, though with music of this kind it still doesn't really make a difference) you can dither+truncate the 24-bit files to 16 bits and save some disk space without having any audible difference.

Weekend_Warrior wrote:Agreed. With the right gear you can hear the difference between 16-bit, 44.1kHz and 24-bit, 48kHz

It's not so much the greater frequency as it is the audio resolution. But certain low-end sounds are likely to be more prominent in a 24-bit recording than at 16-bit. Ever mix and match a cd recording versus a DAT recording? There is a very noticable difference, especially in the low-end.

Sorry, no. You can believe it all you want but there is no science backing that up. Only thing such effects would occur is on faulty or extremely low quality equipment. Only way a DAT and a CD recording could be different is if both were sampled separately from an analog source (and assuming you aren't doing the DAT capture at 32khz 12-bit), but even then the difference most likely would be at least close to inaudible.

I don't need science. I went to school for audio recording and we ran comparison tests on this very subject

Even when you dither down from 96kHz, 24-bit or 48kHz, 24-bit to 44.1kHz, 16-bit there is a noticable loss of depth in the low-end, particularly in the 30 - 85Hz range.

There's a reason why many producers/engineers still prefer mixing down to DAT (via optical/lightpipe). Because it retains the integrity of the audio better than mixing down raw from something like Pro Tools or a DAW to a stereo, 16-bit audio file.

Trust me, DAT is better than cd. Ask anyone in the industry who's been around long enough to know better

Weekend_Warrior wrote:I don't need science. I went to school for audio recording and we ran comparison tests on this very subject

Even when you dither down from 96kHz, 24-bit or 48kHz, 24-bit to 44.1kHz, 16-bit there is a noticable loss of depth in the low-end, particularly in the 30 - 85Hz range.

There's a reason why many producers/engineers still prefer mixing down to DAT (via optical/lightpipe). Because it retains the integrity of the audio better than mixing down raw from something like Pro Tools or a DAW to a stereo, 16-bit audio file.

Trust me, DAT is better than cd. Ask anyone in the industry who's been around long enough to know better

Then it's a case of bad hardware or a bad implementation or some general problem caused by the nature of the analog domain. Maybe it does the a/d conversion or d/a conversion differently, but that's a completely different matter and has nothing to do with the subject at hand. I've studied the subject too, only in my case from the more scientific point of view. Also you don't dither when downsampling, only when you truncate. And "integrity of the audio", please...

Weekend_Warrior wrote:I don't need science. I went to school for audio recording and we ran comparison tests on this very subject

Even when you dither down from 96kHz, 24-bit or 48kHz, 24-bit to 44.1kHz, 16-bit there is a noticable loss of depth in the low-end, particularly in the 30 - 85Hz range.

There's a reason why many producers/engineers still prefer mixing down to DAT (via optical/lightpipe). Because it retains the integrity of the audio better than mixing down raw from something like Pro Tools or a DAW to a stereo, 16-bit audio file.

Trust me, DAT is better than cd. Ask anyone in the industry who's been around long enough to know better

The reason bass is lost when dithered down to 16bit is that 16bit doesn't have the headroom that 24bit recording does. Therefore, it gets rid of the majority of stuff in the ultra low end, as well as in the upper end fto shrink the filesize.
If you run the 24bit audio through a large PA system, you will soon hear/feel the difference and see it on the meter's/spectrum.

StarblazerUK wrote:The reason bass is lost when dithered down to 16bit is that 16bit doesn't have the headroom that 24bit recording does. Therefore, it gets rid of the majority of stuff in the ultra low end, as well as in the upper end fto shrink the filesize.
If you run the 24bit audio through a large PA system, you will soon hear/feel the difference and see it on the meter's/spectrum.

You're not making any sense. When you truncate, the whole spectrum is affected uniformly (with the exception of shaped dithering noise). It's as if you're mixing up lossy file compression into this matter.

The whole recording world understands that recording at higher sampling rates will give you greater dynamic range, and that the preferred option of mixing down from 24-bit to 16-bit (cd quality) is to use dither rather than simply cutting off those remaining 8-bits and throwing them away - "To hell with those, we didn't need them anyhow!"

But apparently, Noby knows something the rest of us do not... ?

Interesting. Twoism is a good place for this

StarblazerUK wrote:

Weekend_Warrior wrote:I don't need science. I went to school for audio recording and we ran comparison tests on this very subject

Even when you dither down from 96kHz, 24-bit or 48kHz, 24-bit to 44.1kHz, 16-bit there is a noticable loss of depth in the low-end, particularly in the 30 - 85Hz range.

There's a reason why many producers/engineers still prefer mixing down to DAT (via optical/lightpipe). Because it retains the integrity of the audio better than mixing down raw from something like Pro Tools or a DAW to a stereo, 16-bit audio file.

Trust me, DAT is better than cd. Ask anyone in the industry who's been around long enough to know better

The reason bass is lost when dithered down to 16bit is that 16bit doesn't have the headroom that 24bit recording does. Therefore, it gets rid of the majority of stuff in the ultra low end, as well as in the upper end fto shrink the filesize.
If you run the 24bit audio through a large PA system, you will soon hear/feel the difference and see it on the meter's/spectrum.

Yup, this guy knows. As for eliminating a lot of the high-end frequencies. That's also true, but from my understanding those frequencies being eliminated won't be as noticable (if at all) because they are beyond the human range of hearing (20kHz+). You definitely lose the phatness of the low-end though. Even when using dither, like I mentioned before. This is almost common knowledge. I'm surprised Noby is arguing with us about this