Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › 24bit vs 16bit, the myth exploded!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

24bit vs 16bit, the myth exploded! - Page 84

post #1246 of 1813
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltMusicSnob View Post

For different but related example, in a large orchestral texture, the melody may be played at unison by strings, flutes, oboes, clarinets. The conductor halts the rehearsal and says "2nd clarinet, you're not blending in at the 3rd bar, please match the tone of the 1st chair there."

The engineers cannot parse the 2nd clarinet's sound out of the mixdown signal (obviously they could if every part was separately miked). The conductor's brain can take the binaural signal arriving at his/her ears and distinguish every characteristic of every part. The engineer may be able to run stats and see a slightly different spectrum, different peaks, maybe a vanishingly small RMS amplitude difference--but they can neither measure nor point to the difference that the conductor hears, the one s/he cares about.

This happens at virtually every orchestra rehearsal (with a decent conductor) everywhere. It's not quite the same as "measuring"; probably this should be called "decoding the signal". Your brain can separate the components of the sound in ways that are not available via hardware or software.

If you were to place binaural microphones (sort of like headphones) on that conductor's head and make a recording.

See:

Stereo Recording & Rendering - 101

http://www.linkwitzlab.com/Recording/AS_creation.htm

 

Then another equally skilled conductor could hear the same problem when listening to the playback.

post #1247 of 1813
Quote:
Originally Posted by Speedskater View Post
 

If you were to place binaural microphones (sort of like headphones) on that conductor's head and make a recording.

See:

Stereo Recording & Rendering - 101

http://www.linkwitzlab.com/Recording/AS_creation.htm

 

Then another equally skilled conductor could hear the same problem when listening to the playback.

 

Now didn't 24bit offer more room for mastering? Your article helped confirm this [as did Adelle] but obviously recodring and mastering have a big effect on sound [duh] and this thread has nothing to do with that, as a track mastered in 24bit then dwn sampled to 16 bit will sound much the same, but most often we don't find 24bit tracks down sampled. I know in my case my chesky Albums are dwn sampled to 24bit from what 32bit 192Sample

 

So I suppose the only reason I own any 24bit it out of laziness, as I agree that 16 bit and 24 bit sound the same 

 

Still honestly shouldn't we start a new thread, [Sorry I'm,  doing algebra home work and I can hear my Proffessor saying "Answer the question asked, don't just give me numbers]

 

That being said, what is the question we are even talking about any more? [And honestly I only ask that our of curiosity :D] that and 

post #1248 of 1813
Quote:
Originally Posted by proton007 View Post
 

 

 

I'm pretty sure its possible to analyze all the different notes being played. Signal analysis is pretty sophisticated nowadays.

Or by 'blending' if you mean 'musically pleasing' then its a different concept altogether.

Sometimes--also depends on noise. But in this case the notes are not different. The winds and strings are unison on the melody (very common in orchestral music). No current system can separate out the different instruments playing that one same note together--but the brain can.

post #1249 of 1813
Quote:
Originally Posted by Speedskater View Post
 

If you were to place binaural microphones (sort of like headphones) on that conductor's head and make a recording.

See:

Stereo Recording & Rendering - 101

http://www.linkwitzlab.com/Recording/AS_creation.htm

 

Then another equally skilled conductor could hear the same problem when listening to the playback.

Yes, exactly. This goes more to "understanding" or "decoding" the signal rather than measuring it per se, in the ways recording engineers usually think about. In the example you reference above, the decoder in both cases is a human brain. Perhaps not forever, but we're still ahead of the machines in this respect! :D

post #1250 of 1813
Quote:
Originally Posted by marone View Post

Both of you lack the ability to hear past the clicks and surface noise, to the more life-like mid-range and body of the instruments in the sound-field.
Umm, wrong. Technically, that's a non sequitur. Don't mistake an appreciation for lack of surface noise in digital for a lack of appreciation for vinyl, or lack of ability generally.
post #1251 of 1813
Quote:
Originally Posted by Speedskater View Post
 

If you were to place binaural microphones (sort of like headphones) on that conductor's head and make a recording.

See:

Stereo Recording & Rendering - 101

http://www.linkwitzlab.com/Recording/AS_creation.htm

 

Then another equally skilled conductor could hear the same problem when listening to the playback.

 

Sorta...

 

The problem with binaural has always been the differences between individuals hears, heads, chests, etc.  For the individual, his own "set" is learned or burned into the brain, so it decodes life really well.  But if presented with a binaural recording made with someone (or something) else's set of hears, head, chest, etc., it may not match well.  Add the possible non-perceptually-flat response of a set of headphones, and the precision of dimensional reproduction begins to fail, often quite badly. And, in some cases, it still works well enough.  But but if you record with mics in your own ears, and play back to yourself, binaural can be astounding.

post #1252 of 1813
Maybe you guys simply cannot hear what others can.

To assume everyone has the same ability to hear detail would be foolish, and to assume that every aspect of hearing that enters into the brain interface can be measured by something as crude as FR or spectral analysis would assume we know all there is and history has shown that to be false. Techniques have improved with time. Would you be able to hear something in the future that could be measured then, but not measured now?

I am listening right now on 668b's to an mp3 320/44.1 rip of the Act's 'Too Late at 20' and before that a rip of the CD of The Woodentops 'Giant'. The rip of the vinyl sounds as I recall the record sounding and the CD rip does not.

Yes, there is no surface noise on the Giant rip but much of the detail, warmth, upper bass, midrange and room behind the instruments is gone. This agrees with the sound of the record and subsequent CD, both of which I owned and compared.

Compare that to an amateur home PC rip on likely a very cheap turntable and needle setup of The Act, which has so much more body to the instruments with internal tonal and harmonic continuity.

In other words the vinyl rip sounds better and more lifelike even though one can hear the surface noise and other vinyl artifacts. Even though the CD was professionally done and the vinyl rip was probably on a $30 rig. Even though the cheap electronics of the vinyl rip chain are obvious, the body of the instruments and sound is simply better.

You cannot hear this - that's fine.

But don't hide behind science as your belief system to justify your opinions and bias.

I state plainly that I can hear this and no amount of science will alter this as I know what I know, see what I see, and hear what I hear. I know what I state is opinion and I stick to it. You hide behind your opinion as being 'real' and based on 'science' and being 'objective' when it isn't.

I would be much more accepting of your point of view if you merely confessed that your bias is to believe science knows it all now and that you cannot hear what cannot currently be measured, even though what can be measured has changed over time.

Would you then be able to hear it because it could be measured at some future date with better technology?
Edited by marone - 9/14/13 at 3:11am
post #1253 of 1813
Quote:
Originally Posted by marone View Post

so much more body to the instruments with internal tonal and harmonic continuity.

What the hell does that even mean?
Quote:
Originally Posted by marone View Post

I state plainly that I can hear this and no amount of science will alter this as I know what I know, see what I see, and hear what I hear.

Except that both your eyes and your ears can easily be fooled. You don't have to be a scientist to know that.

Also, I thought you said you couldn't convince anyone, and no-one could convince you?
post #1254 of 1813
Quote:
Originally Posted by marone View Post

I am listening right now on 668b's to an mp3 320/44.1 rip of the Act's 'Too Late at 20' and before that a rip of the CD of The Woodentops 'Giant'. The rip of the vinyl sounds as I recall the record sounding and the CD rip does not.

 

The point of this thread is that for normal music listening, 16 bit PCM format is enough. Since your vinyl rip has already been in 44.1/16 format, and then even converted to MP3, I am not sure what you are trying to prove, especially comparing two different tracks.

post #1255 of 1813
Quote:
Originally Posted by marone View Post

Maybe you guys simply cannot hear what others can.

 

In this case, just about anyone should be able to hear it.

 

Quote:
To assume everyone has the same ability to hear detail would be foolish, and to assume that every aspect of hearing that enters into the brain interface can be measured by something as crude as FR or spectral analysis would assume we know all there is and history has shown that to be false. Techniques have improved with time. Would you be able to hear something in the future that could be measured then, but not measured now?

 

If there is an audible difference - a real difference, detectable in a blind test - the difference is measurable. It's always been been measurable, the only thing that has changed over time is the ease and precision of measurement.

 

Quote:
 ...  The rip of the vinyl sounds as I recall the record sounding and the CD rip does not.

 

Well, of course. I doubt there are many here who would have difficulty telling which is a rip of the LP and which is a rip of the CD. 

 

The crucial point is that your references are the original LPs of the recordings. To you, LP sounds "better, more lifelike" than CD. That is your expressed opinion. You're entitled to it, but it is no more valid than the countering opinion that the CD sounds better because it doesn't contain the distortions and imperfections that the LP does. What you call the "detail, warmth, upper bass, midrange and room behind the instruments" of the LP is another person's "euphonious distortion".

 

Quote:
 ...  You cannot hear this - that's fine.

But don't hide behind science as your belief system to justify your opinions and bias. .... 

 

They can indeed hear it. And unlike you, they don't have to rely on faith or dogma as a belief system. They can point to real physical differences to justify their opinions.


Edited by Don Hills - 9/14/13 at 6:48am
post #1256 of 1813
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Hills View Post

 

The crucial point is that your references are the original LPs. To you, they sound "better, more lifelike" than the CDs. That is your expressed opinion. You're entitled to it, but it is no more valid than the countering opinion that the CD rip sounds better because it doesn't contain the distortions and imperfections that the LP rip does. What you call the "detail, warmth, upper bass, midrange and room behind the instruments" of the LP rip is another person's "euphonious distortion".

 

 

They can indeed hear it. And unlike you, they don't have to rely on faith or dogma as a belief system. They can point to real physical differences to justify their opinions.

Agree'd an honestly imo. Digital has always sounded better, but some genres of music do sound nice with the extra noise and color of an OLD Lp player, But what does this have to do with the Thread topic? In addition most of the 94bit Vinyl records I've gotten [and I have  GOOD source mind you] sound a little grainy and a touch noisy... the Beyers don't hide that like other cans might. So I still prefer CD to Vinyl rips 

post #1257 of 1813
Quote:
Originally Posted by marone View Post

I am listening right now on 668b's to an mp3 320/44.1 rip of the Act's 'Too Late at 20' and before that a rip of the CD of The Woodentops 'Giant'. The rip of the vinyl sounds as I recall the record sounding and the CD rip does not.
 

The reference memory was of vinyl, so why wouldn't the rip sound like....well, vinyl?  I'm not going to bother with the discussion of how auditory memory works...or doesn't.

Quote:

Originally Posted by marone View Post


Yes, there is no surface noise on the Giant rip but much of the detail, warmth, upper bass, midrange and room behind the instruments is gone. This agrees with the sound of the record and subsequent CD, both of which I owned and compared.

Compare that to an amateur home PC rip on likely a very cheap turntable and needle setup of The Act, which has so much more body to the instruments with internal tonal and harmonic continuity.

In other words the vinyl rip sounds better and more lifelike even though one can hear the surface noise and other vinyl artifacts. Even though the CD was professionally done and the vinyl rip was probably on a $30 rig. Even though the cheap electronics of the vinyl rip chain are obvious, the body of the instruments and sound is simply better.
 

So, and we've talked about this before, the total path the audio takes to get to your years for the CD vs the vinyl or vinyl rip is different.  The people who mastered the CD weren't the same people who mastered the vinyl, and would not have made the same decisions.  It may not have even been the same master tape.  If you start with the same original tape, and do nothing different in creation of the vinyl and CD master, other than what it normally takes to compensate for the losses in vinyl, you end up with identically sounding vinyl and CDs except for the additional noise and distortion of vinyl.  Identical.  Not different in any other way.  Did I say "identical"?   I've done this, twice.  When you get the entire process and all systems under control, the vinyl/digital differences vanish except for surface noise, record wear, and tracking related distortion, which on a first play of a new pressing are pretty darn small.  All comparisons of vinyl to CD have in common the complete lack of knowledge of the origin of each.  Since the creation of the two masters span time and often space, and people, you can be sure there will be differences.  

 

Now, here's the key.  A lot of older vinyl was mastered by people who really knew there stuff.  A lot of CDs, in the past and today, are mastered by people who either don't know their stuff, or are forced into "competitive" decisions by the producer (or guy writing their check).  Yes, in many cases the vinyl sounds better, but it's not because its vinyl. But the important thing here is the vinyl rip, even 16/44.1, will sound indistinguishable from the vinyl, whereas the CD will often sound different.  It's true, it's audible, measurable, and not magic. Just be aware of the cause.

post #1258 of 1813
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaddie View Post

 

Now, here's the key.  A lot of older vinyl was mastered by people who really knew there stuff.  A lot of CDs, in the past and today, are mastered by people who either don't know their stuff, or are forced into "competitive" decisions by the producer (or guy writing their check).  Yes, in many cases the vinyl sounds better, but it's not because its vinyl. But the important thing here is the vinyl rip, even 16/44.1, will sound indistinguishable from the vinyl, whereas the CD will often sound different.  It's true, it's audible, measurable, and not magic. Just be aware of the cause.

Good point 

post #1259 of 1813

However good the points you make are, don't expect him to read/understand them. After all he's still writing the same nonsense he did 2 pages back with countless corrections in between...

post #1260 of 1813
Quote:
Originally Posted by xnor View Post
 

However good the points you make are, don't expect him to read/understand them. After all he's still writing the same nonsense he did 2 pages back with countless corrections in between...

 

xnor how do we keep meeting on these... almost pointless threads... I like to learn and most of you guys are pretty knowledgeable but every thread I meet u at.. ends up a repetion of the same things over and over again... 

 

I say we... ignore him? And... move on to more LEARNING I actually wouldn't knowing the history behind the advances in Digitial Audio... was 16bit the first commonly used format? Or did they start WAY up HIGH in like 32bit 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › 24bit vs 16bit, the myth exploded!