Zing said:Yeah, 24-bit in and of itself is meaningless. As Flint and Soundhound have said, I would rather have 16-bit lossless than 24-bit lossy. :eusa-whistle:
Flint said:It doesn't mean anything to be 24 bit. I would rather have lossless 16-bit than highly compressed 24-bit.
Once we know the data rate we'll know if this is more interesting or completely pointless.
While I agree that could be the implication, it could also be that the author and/or "unnamed source" erroneously believe that all 16-bit files are lossy and that the higher 24-bit files are lossless. Just because they're the people selling it to us doesn't mean they know what they're talking about.Haywood said:This line was the basis of my assumption, "Essentially, these retailers are hoping to hawk 24-bit audio rather than the compressed 16-bit files available today, possibly with a price premium attached. " They talk about compressed 16-bit files. That implies that the 24-bit files are not compressed.
Yesfan70 said:If both files are lossless, then I wonder how much longer a 24 bit lossless file would take compared to its 16 bit counter part. If it's much longer, then I'll stay with 16 bit lossless.
soundhound said:Yesfan70 said:If both files are lossless, then I wonder how much longer a 24 bit lossless file would take compared to its 16 bit counter part. If it's much longer, then I'll stay with 16 bit lossless.
24 bit files would take 1/3 rd longer by themselves to download, but 24 bit files are also usually at either at 88kHz or 96kHz sampling rates instead of the current 44.1kHz, and that along with the 24 bit word length would make for a VERY long download.
Haywood said:If 24-bit allows them to market lossless audio, I can deal with the bigger file size. Storage is cheap...............The reason I'm following this is that I am afraid that CDs will disappear over the next ten years and I don't want to be left with nothing but lossy options.