- Apr 3, 2010
- New Joisey
I hate to break the industry lie but here goes (I will be banished forever more!). This is a massive study done on the subject and well conducted, basically no one cound pick the difference above statistical chance:
"The results of this survey appear to support the notion that high bit-depth music (24-bits) does not provide audible benefits despite the fact that objectively measurable DACs capable of >16-bit resolution are readily available at very reasonable cost these days."
HAVING SAID THAT, IF WE CAN DO 24 BIT/ 96kHZ WHY NOT!!!
The tests needed to be conducted using familiar material and in Surround Sound (Quad or 5.1.) Straight stereo just doesn't have enough musical and spatial resolution to bring out the advantages (granted, very minor) of higher bit rates. Also, remember my premise...I was listening to a self-made mix. I had listened to it at least 10 times during the same day, and many more times during the previous days, so I was extremely familiar with every nuance of an extremely familiar song. If given a test using unfamiliar material, I doubt that I would be able to distinguish between 16 and 24 bit samples. Key point: One must be extremely familiar with the material.
Here's an analogy: I was into scotch during my younger years. A bartender bet that I could not tell the difference between Johnny Walker Black and Chivas Regal. He put two shot glasses in front of me. I took a sip from the first glass and without taking a sip from the second, correctly identified the first one as Chivas. He asked how I could tell. I responded, "Because the Chivas is sickening sweet." Again, extreme familiarity is key.