Bit-Depth – does it really make a difference?
A strange thing happened last night. I opened up J River Media center on my laptop, and found that it had compiled a music library for me, without prompting. This usually irks me, because I hate duplicates and there seemed to be lots of duplicates. When I looked closer, I found that those duplicates were actually 2 or 3 different versions of files. I had recently ripped a number of CDs into flac format and then re-converted them to MP3 (to have 2 different versions) using the “extreme” MP3 settings on DBPoweramp. Somehow, the library put all of these together with my relatively small 24 bit file collection. Having nothing better to do for an hour, I decided to compare the sound quality of the three sets of files using my audioquest dragonfly DAC-headphone amp into a pair of B&W P5 headphones (I know that they are not great, but they are good headphones that I find comfortable).
The files I compared were all of the songs on
1. Sunken Condos by Donald Fagen (24/88 from HD tracks)
2. So Beautiful of What by Paul Simon (24/96 from a code with the vinyl version)
3. Hotel California by the Eagles (24/96 HD tracks)
4. Slowhand by Eric Clapton (24/96 HD tracks versus Deluxe Edition released this week)
5. 2nd Law by muse (24/96)
6. Crosby Stills and Nash – CSN (24/96 HD tracks) versus 16 bit HDCD version on my server ripped as ALAC
7. Automatic for the People (24/48 DVDA rip) versus 16 bit version on my server ripped as ALAC
8. Love by the Beatles (24/96 DVDA rip) versus 16 bit version on my server ripped as ALAC
9. The Artistry of Freddie Hubbard – Freddie Hubbard (24/96 HD tracks) versus CD
What I learned was that I enjoyed the music regardless of the bit depth of the source. There was no question that there was a smoothness with the 24 bit material that reminded me of vinyl. Warmer, more relaxed, less fatiguing but also less immediate. I must confess that I didn’t find a huge difference between the MP3 and the 16 bit flac/alac files: yes the MP3s were a little more metallic sounding but certainly not “bad” as certain audiophiles with “golden ears” would claim. Given a choice – I would certainly buy the 24 bit files before the 16 bit ones, but only for the right price. Would I pay 25% more for the 24 bit recording? Perhaps, 50% – no way (particularly as I don’t get a nice jewel box and album art). Would I buy the MP3 for 25% less than the CD – no, 50% – no: I don’t see the point in buying MP3s when I can stream for free on spotify or deezer at the same bit-rate.
Conclusion – the 24 bit recordings won, but not by a great margin. I did follow this up by listening to some of the recordings that I downloaded from the B&O society of sound club: these are generally 24/48 flacs. Again they were warm, smooth and very involving – high quality recordings that sounded, almost, analogue. My biggest surprise of the evening was Eric Clapton’s Slowhand: I enjoyed the newly remastered deluxe version more than the original. I have always found late 70s Clapton a little bland, and the 24 bit version was just too smooth. The new remaster was louder (as usual0 with more dynamics and a larger soundstage. It sounded – less boring!
audioexchange 