Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Spectrograms Comparison: 24x96 vs 16x44.1 (Read 4973 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Spectrograms Comparison: 24x96 vs 16x44.1

I used sox to reduce the file size:

Code: [Select]
sox.exe -S "original-24x96.flac" -r 44100 -b 16 "output-16x44.wav"


original-24x96.flac


output-16x44.wav



Does the output wav file still lossless or did it lose audio quality?

Spectrograms Comparison: 24x96 vs 16x44.1

Reply #1 –
I doubt you lost audio quality. This process is not lossless by nature. Have a listen and tell us what an abx test results in.
Is troll-adiposity coming from feederism?
With 24bit music you can listen to silence much louder!

Spectrograms Comparison: 24x96 vs 16x44.1

Reply #2 –
Both sounds exactly the same. I was concerned that it would be losing real quality.
Thanks

Spectrograms Comparison: 24x96 vs 16x44.1

Reply #3 –
Generally speaking:

Bit depth reduction = 1. loss of extremely quiet material (and I do mean extremely quiet); 2. addition of quantization noise; and 3. optional addition of dither (sounds like tape hiss) to partially mitigate #1.

Sample rate reduction = 1. loss of highest frequencies, and 2. possible addition of harmonic distortion depending on content and conversion algorithm.

SoX has a very good sample rate converter, so no worries about audible distortion. Conversion from 96 to 44.1 kHz means discarding frequency content in the 22-48 kHz range, which was inaudible anyway.

Quantization noise added when reducing bit depth from 24 to 16 shouldn't be audible. And there's no quiet material to lose. This is music, probably a vinyl rip with only 10-12 bits resolution anyway. If it were a pure-digital field recording of rustling leaves from a mile away, with super-long fades, you might want to keep it at 24.

In other words, what you're doing changes the audio, but almost certainly not audibly, so there's no real quality loss.

Spectrograms Comparison: 24x96 vs 16x44.1

Reply #4 –
You can see the data loss.  The question is: can you hear it?

Spectrograms Comparison: 24x96 vs 16x44.1

Reply #5 –
The audio sounds exactly the same.
I think I (and anybody else who hears the music) will never ever miss those bits

Spectrograms Comparison: 24x96 vs 16x44.1

Reply #6 –
Never forget the voice of reason
It's only audiophile if it's inconvenient.

Spectrograms Comparison: 24x96 vs 16x44.1

Reply #7 –
Nice article!
Now I know better, 96Khz audio resolution won't worth (or justify) the space taken for so very inaudible tiny loss (if any).