How much of a difference does a high-end audio interface really make?

[stoopicus]

The 8-bit and 12-bit samplers from the ‘80s were actually pretty awesome sounding. Anyone that claims the Ensoniq Mirage was anything short of a superb instrument is simply wrong.

[VELLTONE MUSIC]

To avoid any other ridiculous 'discussions' like these will point few things, only for the newbies and open minded people, who are interested to listen high quality music...other guys from 24bit boys bend,you can listen R2-D2 beat box ...
1.To be able to reproduce,hear and enjoy higher quality audio stream, you need better driver and player as much as you need better headphones or speakers - by default driver is the software,which move data between devices and translating 'right' 0-1 into sound ...
I recommend Flexasio and AIMP,tested many and these are the best i found for free.
- - - Otherwise you won't be able to hear the difference,even if it's there - - -
2. The example in the previous page with the noise exported in 24 and 32 bit formats...are kidding me,it's the same data,you don't even mix complex high quality material,so how to have ANY DIFFERENCE and different audible result...???
3.I can hear it loud and clear - the dynamics is better,the details,everything...it's not my theory,i just hear it and the pleasure is what makes me share it here and then to suffer as saint Paul preaching in a ancient roman province hahahah. :):)
4.Ok,if you wish call me i deluded person,who believe in something imaginary,so be it...i shared my pleasure listening 32bit float..i am not educated enough to prove a theory and don't have time and interest to prove anything...
Specially to whyterabbyt:
Be nice from time to time,only side effect is the smile on the faces of other people

1. I have RME UFX+ feeding trio11 + dual 15" subs directly - no EQ, no passive monitoring control, no nada. Interface directly to Trio11. My acoustics cost me way more than my speakers. Residual noise in my studio is typically under 30dB, as I have stupidly (or not) insanely over-engineered air supply.

All that together lands me into about 90dB of dynamic range, about 10hz-40khz range, if I push my speakers to the max - they peak at 118dB and woofers peak at 120dB with the power i feed them.
I think i have a good enough system. In fact, big studios aside, most people have worse systems

2. he was trying to show you file sizes. noise = random data, and as such a perfect candidate for size estimate. It's in fact more raw data than any music.

3. No you don't.

4. No, you're not.

What was this topic main title,do you read it right?
24bit coalition so far claim,that 24bit/48khz is the best for everything and 32bit float is just trade trick or something...like 32bit float recorders do no record more data or anything different,but same as 24bit/48khz so on and developers probably are misleading people like i do it here ...:):)
The 32bit float format specs say it's over 1500 db dynamic range,the coalition say it's the same as 144db.
NO IT'S NOT THE SAME...simple math.
Especially the statement that more is not more should be high level of math...
What is making me wonder how 'deep' is the 24bit coalition understanding about anything music related is the fact i didn't say the dynamic range is what make music better,some of 24bit boys in the band say it and others start to reply it...
The noise is what makes music better...probably the 24bit coalition will argue that too,but i will step aside and will trust all hardware engineers last 40-50 years,which actually did discover and build something,instead of denying everything...
So,more noise - more musical beauty...hardware engineers found it,trying to eliminate the noise,by the way...
I still can hear what's rich sound and what not,but let's not measure the ear size at least hahahha...:):)
Only one question to ploki:
Do 24bit/48khz format reproduce audible same sound as 24bit/96khz...
Answer just that question.
Is it the same sound in real world or not?

[Ploki]

To avoid any other ridiculous 'discussions' like these will point few things, only for the newbies and open minded people, who are interested to listen high quality music...other guys from 24bit boys bend,you can listen R2-D2 beat box ...
1.To be able to reproduce,hear and enjoy higher quality audio stream, you need better driver and player as much as you need better headphones or speakers - by default driver is the software,which move data between devices and translating 'right' 0-1 into sound ...
I recommend Flexasio and AIMP,tested many and these are the best i found for free.
- - - Otherwise you won't be able to hear the difference,even if it's there - - -
2. The example in the previous page with the noise exported in 24 and 32 bit formats...are kidding me,it's the same data,you don't even mix complex high quality material,so how to have ANY DIFFERENCE and different audible result...???
3.I can hear it loud and clear - the dynamics is better,the details,everything...it's not my theory,i just hear it and the pleasure is what makes me share it here and then to suffer as saint Paul preaching in a ancient roman province hahahah. :):)
4.Ok,if you wish call me i deluded person,who believe in something imaginary,so be it...i shared my pleasure listening 32bit float..i am not educated enough to prove a theory and don't have time and interest to prove anything...
Specially to whyterabbyt:
Be nice from time to time,only side effect is the smile on the faces of other people

1. I have RME UFX+ feeding trio11 + dual 15" subs directly - no EQ, no passive monitoring control, no nada. Interface directly to Trio11. My acoustics cost me way more than my speakers. Residual noise in my studio is typically under 30dB, as I have stupidly (or not) insanely over-engineered air supply.

All that together lands me into about 90dB of dynamic range, about 10hz-40khz range, if I push my speakers to the max - they peak at 118dB and woofers peak at 120dB with the power i feed them.
I think i have a good enough system. In fact, big studios aside, most people have worse systems

2. he was trying to show you file sizes. noise = random data, and as such a perfect candidate for size estimate. It's in fact more raw data than any music.

3. No you don't.

4. No, you're not.

What was this topic main title,do you read it right?
24bit coalition so far claim,that 24bit/48khz is the best for everything and 32bit float is just trade trick or something...like 32bit float recorders do no record more data or anything different,but same as 24bit/48khz so on and developers probably are misleading people like i do it here ...:):)
The 32bit float format specs say it's over 1500 db dynamic range,the coalition say it's the same as 144db.
NO IT'S NOT THE SAME...simple math.
Especially the statement that more is not more should be high level of math...
What is making me wonder how 'deep' is the 24bit coalition understanding about anything music related is the fact i didn't say the dynamic range is what make music better,some of 24bit boys in the band say it and others start to reply it...
The noise is what makes music better...probably the 24bit coalition will argue that too,but i will step aside and will trust all hardware engineers last 40-50 years,which actually did discover and build something,instead of denying everything...
So,more noise - more musical beauty...hardware engineers found it,trying to eliminate the noise,by the way...
I still can hear what's rich sound and what not,but let's not measure the ear size at least hahahha...:):)
Only one question to ploki:
Do 24bit/48khz format reproduce audible same sound as 24bit/96khz...
Answer just that question.
Is it the same sound in real world or not?

No, we’re saying that 32bit float capture is unnecessary and that 32bit float delivery is unnecessary. Not that it’s unnecessary as a format or intermediary…

No, 24bit / 48khz reproduces up to (or a little under) 24000hz, while 96khz sampling rate is able to reproduce up to 48000hz.

That means antialiasing filters and DAC reconstruction can have gentler slopes with less agressive phase response and can also be set higher in the inaudible frequency range.

However some DACs operate poorly @2x and 4x sampling rates, so you’ll get more jitter.

With vast majority of audio sources however, it boils down to filter implementation anyway because rarely have sources any meaningful info above 20k, nor can speakers reproduce it.

Whether or not filtering is consequential is up to debate, but we weren’t talking about sampling rate - we were talking primarily about bit depth. I think filter aggressive enough that phase response remains fairly flat below 18k is good enough.

[stoopicus]

Whether or not filtering is consequential is up to debate, but we weren’t talking about sampling rate - we were talking primarily about bit depth. I think filter aggressive enough that phase response remains fairly flat below 18k is good enough.

...and I don't even think there's much of a debate there. I think a steep LPF/brickwall rolling off at 18-20k is more than good enough, probably close to ideal actually. You'll still have a reasonable facsimile of an analog phase response up to close to 18k which is just fine.

With a 96k audio rate, sure, you could clamp it well above 20k, but no big difference for any musical part of the tones.

The whole goal would be to prevent the beyond-nyquist signal components from reflecting down from nyquist as aliases into the real signal and that plus oversampling (to artificially increase the nyquist frequency) would accomplish a lot towards that goal.

While the higher sampling rate would be an improvement in that you'd have actual samples (instead of interpolated or zeroed oversamples), you were right in our previous discussion that that difference is also a higher frequency component of the signal anyway and you're already filtering out part of that regardless.

[stoopicus]

(ed. note: deleted long attempts to argue against things no one actually said)

No one is saying that 32 bit samples cannot hold more info than 24 bit samples. If you think anyone did, I question your reading comprehension.

What we are saying is that you don't have hardware that can take advantage of the additional dynamic range.

You don't have an audio interface with hardware inputs that can sample with more than (or even close to) 144dB dynamic range.

You don't have a preamp with a noise floor below -144dB.

You simply don't.

Therefore, anything *more* than 24 bits of sample input for you would be either unused headspace or noise. Those are your two choices.

Again, post your audio interface - let's take a look at it's actual capabilities.

Oh, also incidentally - the dynamic range of human hearing is about 120-130dB. Feel free to post the specs of your brain implant that goes up to 1500 when you have time too

[Ploki]

130dB is already pretty much immediate hearing damage

[BertKoor]

How much of a difference does a high-end audio interface really make?

Two words: headphone amp

[stoopicus]

How much of a difference does a high-end audio interface really make?

Two words: headphone amp

This is true - both my previous SSL2 and my current mixer are *a lot* more capable of driving high impedance headphones than my previous interfaces were.

[Ploki]

get RME

[stoopicus]

Actually if I cared that much about headphone amp quality I'd probably just get another Schiit. I ended up selling my last one though.

[VELLTONE MUSIC]

Ok i would say,we speak the same,but from different prospective.
My point was that we are forced to use 24/41 by hardware developers or distributors now...
That's not the best for listening,neither the end of the story,digital formats will continue to evolve.
The more data,the more spectrum - the more pleasure for music lovers.
Some say 20-40khz AIR zone is useless or inaudible in the mix ...i say buy better speakers or new ears :):)
16bit /41khz was commercial standard over a DECADE,ordinary people didn't realize it is not good enough for pro standard and now is obsolete,so probably 24/41 will be obsolete some day...my personal minimum is 24bit/96khz so to have any pleasure of listening music (at least mine:) not sure why isn't used widely as standard,doesn't require so much digital space...
24bit /41khz is missing very important and vital part of spectrum,more like the air feeling, not so much the audible sound...
48khz is bit better,but not enough,the 96 khz have this extra air feeling and the energy,along other sweet spots across the spectrum...
I wonder will upgrade to 192khz change anything...?
I am considering an affordable ssl 2 sound card,which claim it's 32bit/192khz,but not sure ,will it gives me better fidelity when mixing,than my scarlett 2x2 at 24/96 ...?
I may be wrong about the bits,the difference comparing 24bit/48khz to 32bit/96khz is audible mostly because of the 20-40khz air in the mix,maybe not so much because of extra bits...
My logic is that,if a format uses more bits,it should contain more audible details,for example 32bit float should be designed for that,but anyway for the moment 24bit/41-48khz is widely used so agree or disagree,i use it as end product format - it is what it is...
Cheers

[whyterabbyt]

Again, post your audio interface - let's take a look at it's actual capabilities.

my scarlett 2x2

And the specs for the newest (Mk4) Scarlett 2x2 are as follows.

Analogue to Digital Converter

THD+N-110dB
Dynamic Range120dB

Digital to Analogue Converter

THD+N-115dB
Dynamic Range130dB

Line outputs (Balanced)
Frequency Response20-20kHz ± 0.02dB
Dynamic Range120dB
THD+N-109dB

Headphone outputs
Frequency Response20-20kHz ± 0.1dB @ 33Ω / 300Ω
Dynamic Range112dB @ 33Ω
115dB @ 300Ω
THD+N-99dB @ 33Ω
-108dB @ 300Ω

[whyterabbyt]

FWIW, when the OP was asking about 'high end' audio interface, that seems to have been in comparison to his home studio Scarlett Solo. In that context, some irony may be extrapolated from certain posts of an owner of same tier of hardware...

[Ploki]

Ok i would say,we speak the same,but from different prospective.
My point was that we are forced to use 24/41 by hardware developers or distributors now...
That's not the best for listening,neither the end of the story,digital formats will continue to evolve.
The more data,the more spectrum - the more pleasure for music lovers.
Some say 20-40khz AIR zone is useless or inaudible in the mix ...i say buy better speakers or new ears :):)
16bit /41khz was commercial standard over a DECADE,ordinary people didn't realize it is not good enough for pro standard and now is obsolete,so probably 24/41 will be obsolete some day...my personal minimum is 24bit/96khz so to have any pleasure of listening music (at least mine:) not sure why isn't used widely as standard,doesn't require so much digital space...
24bit /41khz is missing very important and vital part of spectrum,more like the air feeling, not so much the audible sound...
48khz is bit better,but not enough,the 96 khz have this extra air feeling and the energy,along other sweet spots across the spectrum...
I wonder will upgrade to 192khz change anything...?
I am considering an affordable ssl 2 sound card,which claim it's 32bit/192khz,but not sure ,will it gives me better fidelity when mixing,than my scarlett 2x2 at 24/96 ...?
I may be wrong about the bits,the difference comparing 24bit/48khz to 32bit/96khz is audible mostly because of the 20-40khz air in the mix,maybe not so much because of extra bits...
My logic is that,if a format uses more bits,it should contain more audible details,for example 32bit float should be designed for that,but anyway for the moment 24bit/41-48khz is widely used so agree or disagree,i use it as end product format - it is what it is...
Cheers

24bit for delivery is absolutely overkill enough for any music ever unless our ears evolve.
It's 144dB of dynamic range, meaning that you can have sounds as soft as 0dB (if you have a room that is quiet enough) and as loud as 144dB (jet engine at 10meters), if you have speakers capable enough to produce such sound pressure.
it's also more than the current physical limit of analog signal paths.

My logic is that,if a format uses more bits,it should contain more audible details,for example 32bit float should be designed for that

and your logic is wrong. More bits means less quantization errors and as a consequence lower noise floor.

-48 to 0dBFS (typical dynamic range of a modern master) sounds the same @ 8bits or @ 24bits.

if you add some noise @ -48dB, there won't be any difference between 24 and 8 bits.

[BertKoor]

My point was that we are forced to use 24/41 by hardware developers or distributors now...

1: No one is forcing anything. You are absolutely free to do whatever you want.
2: I was wondering where the "41" came from, but I think with "24/41" you actually mean "24bit @ 44.1 kHz". By getting the numbers (consequently) wrong, you leave an impression of not knowing what you're talking about.