I realize that a lot of people can’t tell the difference. But I definitely can. There is a lot more texture to the music. There’s an emotional layer that exists in music, which 16-bit strips a lot out of. I’m also in the camp that believes vinyl sounds way better than CDs.
Anyway, it seems like if Sandisk figured out 16-bit Flac, it should be able to handle 24-bit.
Also, it’s in Sandisk’s best interest to get it to work with 24 bit, and to promote HD-audio, because 24 bit consumes far more space and that means they can sell more and bigger memory cards, and larger-size portable audio players. This will ultimately help the company keep from bleeding red-ink and restore their profitability.
While 16-bit and 24-bit FLAC are both lossless, 24-bit can sound better because there’s more information.
Since CDs are equivalent in sound-quality to 16-bit FLAC, there would be no difference between 16-bit and 24-bit FLAC taken from a CD.
However, the 24-bit FLAC files I’m trying to play are ripped directly from the analog studio master, so the sound-quality of the 24-bit FLAC is closer to the original analog sound than the 16-bit version.
In theory, you are correct…however in the real world most people will not be able to determine any difference between a 24 bit file and a 16 bit one. I restore old recordings for a living and work exclusively with 24 bit/96K files…because our filtering algorithms are more precise with such files.
But, even with pristine originals, a very small percentage of people will be able to tell an audible difference. If you do, that is great, but to expect a $60 playback device to be able to reproduce such file is asking a lot from the product.
Message Edited by fuze_owner-GB on 12-19-2008 02:21 PM
Message Edited by databass on 12-19-2008 04:15 PM