MP3 and 16 BIT Vs. 24 BIT Soundcard

Adarsh · « **on:** 24 Apr 2004, 07:14 pm »

Hi,

I'd like to know if there is any increase with the sound quality of a MP3 file if I replace my 16 BIT Creative Soundblaster 128 4 channel with a 24 BIT such as the Audigy IF presumably all MP3s are encoded at 16 BIT at 44 100 KHz.

Thanks,

Adarsh

Theoretically is there??

Adarsh · « **Reply #1 on:** 8 Feb 2005, 12:28 pm »

Hello?
Anyone???

CSMR · « **Reply #2 on:** 8 Feb 2005, 08:21 pm »

You will get a big increase in quality by going to a good non-Creative solution. There's nothing inherently wrong about using a 16bit card, unless you are going to do volume control from the PC; however I don't think there is any good card which is 16bit. That's just how it happens. There are bad 24bit cards.

Adarsh · « **Reply #3 on:** 8 Feb 2005, 09:30 pm »

You still haven't answered my question. Will I hear a difference with my MP3s if I install a 24 BIT sound card?

Thanks,

-A

CSMR · « **Reply #4 on:** 8 Feb 2005, 09:48 pm »

Easy there

Adarsh · « **Reply #5 on:** 9 Feb 2005, 02:12 pm »

Take your time...

nathanm · « **Reply #6 on:** 9 Feb 2005, 04:14 pm »

Quote

I'd like to know if there is any increase with the sound quality of a MP3 file if I replace my 16 BIT Creative Soundblaster 128 4 channel with a 24 BIT such as the Audigy IF presumably all MP3s are encoded at 16 BIT at 44 100 KHz.

Maybe

EchiDna · « **Reply #7 on:** 10 Feb 2005, 01:58 am »

yep, I agree with nathan... maybe you will maybe you won't... we can't get insde your head and hear what you hear!

you also need to know that nothing out of creative to date doesn't reclock the sound... hence the *ahem* prepondenrance to promote non-creative products for purely audio use.

Cards from RME, Lynx, M-Audio, EMU (a creative subsidury) and others offer far better bang for your buck - if YOU can hear the difference