| soundstage, instruments and voices in 3d space, edginess of crescendos, how relaxed I was in listening to the music |
| Depth, instrument brass and breathing of the voman |
| nothing specific - overall clarity and air and space |
| The 24-bit tracks sound more realistic, but the difference is very small. Some tips would be to use the best equipment you can, and do not listen for too long at a sitting. |
| Space, separation, intensity of instruments |
| Much more clarity and width/depth |
Small parts (10-15 secs) comparison.
24bit was to me which sounded the more colorful |
| Clarity of sound |
| Dynamics, detail. In my experience if tracks are produced and mastered in the same manner there is no significant audible difference in audio format. Differences in producing and mastering are what makes the difference. |
| Do not listen to a section of any more than ten seconds. Use good headphones and a good DAC. |
| Detail, space. |
| Tried to listen for the usual audiophile adjectives, but was ultimately unsuccessful in picking out those qualities. |
| Use headphones absolutely. Bozza - A Sample seemed more alive and enthralling. Vivaldi - A Sample seemed clearer. Goldberg - B Sample seemed richer and complete. |
| Listened for imaging, soundstage, clarity, decay of piano notes. |
| a mix of distortion and resonances |
| string instruments, background noise "air", human voice neutrality, brass instruments, bells... |
Started out listening for/expecting the stuff you specify in Q's 1-3, but mostly could not discern significant differences. In one case, on a different system, I got the opposite answer with the same notes (more "room" and "more resolved".
I went into it not at all confident that I would be able to discern the difference between a properly down-and-upres'd file and the original. Truncating or dithering-down a good quality recording mostly results in removing very little information. Upres can "smooth" things out (e.g. Cambridge Audio 840C - I sold it).
I suspect if this test were done with the sample rate rather than the bit rate, it would be more audible.
I also think a more meaningful comparison might be to simultaneously record a performance in 16 and 24 bit with the same ADC, though my current feeling is that it's best to record and play back at the "native" rates of the ADC/DAC. |
| Dynamic details, piano string more ohysical reality |
| Listening for instrument/vocal placement in the soundstage, transient dynamics, general recording ambience (such as reverb decays) and tonal qualities of instruments. |
| I already played this game with recent recordings that I own in both qualities. The listening is more intense and discerning at night. The morning is the worst moment of the day when everything sounds equally and sadly flat. |
The Dynamik, the Clearness, at the End: The Music
The Piano is easy, you hear definetly more mechanical Noises |
| I tried to listen to dynamic and spatial reconstruction |
1. With 24bit more reverberation can be heard.
2. Cymbals or other high tone percussion instruments have more clarity and remain clear when other instruments play loud (e.g. at the end of Bozza)
3. Piano tones have more information in the upper frequency range, especially in the attack. |
| dynamics and upper mid range 1 khz - 3 khz. |
For the first sample it was the cymbals.
For the second and third, it was what sounded more live and natural. |
Generally listen for clarity of the highs, separation of instruments and soundstage.
I'm pretty new to this though.
Really couldn't tell much of a difference in the three samples. |
| I do attend classical music concerts regularly and just try to compare how the instruments sound on the recordings to how i remember them sounding live - nothing more sophisticated than that.in truth. |
| I ythought the '24bit' recordings sounded sharper with more precision especially at the top end of the frequency range. But I might be wrong. |
| small clues such as sound of triangle, fullness of the sound, how fast the transient response is, room ambiance, decay of the piano, etc |
| I tried to focus on the clarity, on the precision and dynamic of the presentation, but honestly I cannot identify a single difference, even a very subtle one. No way to distinguish from the two versions. |
| Fullness of sound. Decay of notes. |
| If I'm right then I would bescribe the 24-bit sound less "spikey" and rounded. Less focused on left/right but more coherent and staged in the middle. I hate to say it, but "more analog" would describe it for me. (If I'm wrong with my choices then I will not buy any 24-bit music ... !!) |
| The A tracks seemed more life-like and engaging. The B tracks in comparison sounded flatter. |
| I listened for ringing on piano, realism in voices and "pressence" in all intruments and voices |
| More "airy", increased clarity and realism. |
| Smoothness and depth. |
| I felt the tracks I picked for 24bit had more open dynamics, the 16bit tracks sounded a bit constrained. |
| Honestly i couldn't tell between them, for "Bozza - La Voie Triomphale" i thought sample A had a bit more fullness/detail, but the other 2 sounded the same to me, if the difference can be heard it doesn't seem my equipment is good enough for me to tell (or my ears i suppose. haha) |
| High frequencies, airiness, etc |
| A more dimensional sound, one of the samples usually sounded "flatter" than the other. |
I listened to resoluion and depth at upper midrange and high frequencies to specify some differences.
Imagine a bright clear stary night sky. Guess how many gloomy stars our eyes are capeable of.
Which sky might be brighter to your perspective.
What about your reproduction system, will it be able to resolve the higher density transparently and deliver it to your ears.
24bit is nice, not necessary. |
This was my first time ever comparing the two. I don't recall listening to a 24-bit recording before.
The 24-bit version, at least what I thought they are, had deeper bass (noticeable in Vivaldi's), richer highs (around 1.5 minute into Bozza's), and crisper notes (Goldberg). |
| I looked for the air around the instruments and whether the notes lingered a bit longer or ended abruptly (ie not naturally). I tried to also notice the violin, guitar plucks and the piano to see if they sounded more natural. |
| Sounds closer miked than the 16 bit track, livelier, more rough. The 16 bit sounds more polished. The 16 bit might be a little bit more boring and easier to listen to. |
| Transparancy |
| Presence. |
more detail overall
In particular the transients and decays are much easier to follow on the tracks I've identified as 24 bit |
| richer sound |
separation
realism |
| I just felt I detected more detail, "air" |
| More relaxed, dimensional and resolved. |
| Nothing particular. I thought it sounded richer. |
| What sounded better! The last track was the hardest. |
| Nothing specific...just straight listening and looking for any possible difference whatsoever. |
24 Bit: more present, livelier, 3D space, subjectively more dynamical, more resolution of the polyphony
more details of airy sounds. While listening You forget about the media
16 Bit: flat, artificial |
| I was unable to honestly discern any difference between samples. My markings were a total guess! That has been my previous experience when comparing 16 to 24 bit from the same source. |
| Mostly imaging and top end clarity. |
| The sustain of notes and tonal quality |
| The highs specifically cymbals and sibilance in vocals. That is the usual way of telling a really low bitrate MP3 from lossless. Couldn't tell a difference. |
| Smoother, more lifelike and natural sounds to the instruments/vocals. |
| I tried to listen to then deepness of the sound, especially the bass |
I listened for
dynamic range
sound stage/spaciousness
attack and sustain
I am not an experience classical music listener, so not familiar with the instrumentation of these sample audio tracks.
on Goldberg. I preferred B, which I think was 16 Bit |
| Clarity of tone. |
| openness of sound seemed to me different. |
| a bit smoother and less harsh on the cymbals |
| High resolution; as when listening to a 64 kbit stream and the obvious difference when compared to CD quality |
| quiet passages |
The 24-bit sounds "thinner" because of better separation of instruments, sound is clearer, in particular bass is cleaner and more natural.
Have heard each piece once (no ABXing or similar), and decision was clear. Did a second round to double check, with same result. |
| I felt the tracks I identified as 24-bit had a *shade* more bass "impact" and less "edge" on the notes (e.g., "rounder", "smoother" sound). It was certainly very subtle in my setup (Geek Out 720, HE-500 headphones). |
| Smoother and less harsh sound. |
| vocals, piano warmth trebble |
With the first track I listened to the difference between the bass drums. The 24-bit track had a clearer "bang" here and the overall room between the instruments was larger.
The 2nd track was much harder to identify but also on certain passages the 24-bit gave it away through more details and more room.
The third track was the hardest and at the end I identified the 24-bit by the details of the side noise such as the breathing of the artist. |
| Greater attack, more space between instruments, more tonal colour. The first track had a much grander scale than the second. The third track held the attention much better and allowed the listener to see into the recording more - notes hung and decayed more realistically. On the piano track, the 16-bit sounded as if there was a blanked stuffed inside the piano in comparison with the 24-bit version. |
| Quietest passages. Headphones. |
| Too low a bit depth "flattens" the music. It will sound less airy, less dynamic. |
| I could not identify any differences between tracks. I listened for transparency, potential harshness, resolution and such things. |
| percussion; voice; extend/sustain |
| details |
| originally though i could hear a more realistic sound on piano/voice. i was exactly 50% for all three tracks with 10 trial ABX |
At first listening i thought i got it which one is some what "fresher", but after several times played i get confused TBH.
Did not perfome a/b-ing. Got no reason for that. If I can't tell difference within half a minute between two listenings then it is good enough for me.
Was picking sollely by impression of freshness. Not a native english orator so i can't figure more apropriate words.
Must say both Goldbergs is somewhat different sounding compared to my copy of the same recording and that is without a doubt. Unfortunatly got no ma own copy's of other two recordings to make that comparisson as well. Know that was not the question you asked, but thought you might find it interesting enough to mention. |
| Transients, tonality, space around the music. |
| no help here. Just listening for some sort of extra clarity for lack of a better word. |
I would not expect 24 bit to be different to 16bit, personally, but had a clear preference for A, B and B which surprised me.
Smoother with more air and better intelligibility. |
| complete |
| Just initial impressions. Most probably I picked more B tracks since they were the second listen of the musical piece! |
Imaging mostly, the ones I prefered had a better, more detailed and stable soundscape. The most obvious (to me) is the Vivaldi. The singer really stand out more in A while in B she is drowned in the accompaniment.
The piano is also more natural and stable in A, even though I hear notes bouncing all over the place in both, a normal phenomenom with a non-point source as the sounboard is, when closely miked.
The band was more difficult, I listened mostly to room decays, and better definition of the instruments.
Of course, I may be completely wrong... |
Spaciousness. The sound of the room more than the instruments. The interaction of different sounds.
The difference with the Bozza was vastly more obvious so I assume it may have been a trick question with the lower being deliberately knobbed.
IMHO, the best of 24-bit will come when producers etc. use less dynamic range compression. I look forward to that day. |
| Maybe a bit fuller and smoother. |
| Smoothness and presence |
| track b's were less pleasant to listen to, sounding thin. |
fullness of sound.
soundstage
imaging
smoothness |
The A tracks sounded consistently more strident, less focused and less coherent. Vocalist and piano was more diffuse on A tracks. Piano was duller sounding.
The B tracks were slightly more dynamic, more focused and richer in tone. The vocalist was more 3-D. |
| Upper bass. It is lighter in the 24 bit version. |
| air, spaciousness around decaying notes and transients |
| I was listening for any difference in overall listening experience. Did one sound more natural. I was particularly paying attention to the dynamics to see if that extra headroom allowed for greater impact and contrast from the soft to loud sections.I payed attention to noise floor etc. I didn't expect to hear a difference but i tried my hardest to find one and i honestly couldn't . at first i thought track 1 sample B was slightly softer in the quiet sections and had more impact in the louder sections but i used abx test and at best got 60%. |
I listened loud obviusly :) tried to hear the ambience but also the 3d space and deep bass and the silence ! if it sounded differently .
But... this is so hard |
