Well, to all the 24-bit and vinyl detractors, I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree. I’m not as technical as a lot of you are, but I know that my ears can appreciate the difference between 16 and 24 bit, and it’s not placebo effect either. There’s just a much warmer and textured sound with 24-bit, for lack of a more technical explanation.
If you think 24 bit sounds warmer, then I’m sorry, but something is wrong. There are real benefits to higher bit depths, but warmth isn’t one of them. Generally changes in warmth mean the test was not done properly, or the 16 and 24 bit samples were mastered differently.
If it were legal, I would post a link to a 24-bit rip of my CSN 2009 vinyl remaster of their first album, so you could perhaps hear the difference, but this argument is not worth getting a knock on the door from the FBI
Its legal to post 30 second clips, so please do. I bet we can figure this out.
What really doesn’t make sense to me though, is that some of you detractors appear to work for or are affiliated with Sandisk,
No one from Sandisk has posted in this thread. I don’t think they have a problem with 24 bit FLAC, they probably just haven’t gotten around to fixing it.
FYI, There is a new 24-bit player that just hit the market, but unfortunately it’s way out of my price range: http://hifiman.us/sale/
Yes but due to analog design its output SNR is less then 16 bits, making 24 bit flac relatively useless on it. You can find test results here:
The DAC is firmly sub 16 bit, and generally performs worse then the Fuze and Clip. In general you will find this is true on most mp3 players. The power and budget constraints will generally mean that >16 bit performance is unlikely on portable devices.