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 89

post #1321 of 1923
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcx View Post
 

even the last generation of full resolution "flagship" grade audio ladder DACs were advertised for at least 8x oversampling

 

so upsampling with digital filtering, correction were here already

 

but yes multi-bit delta sigma seem to have won the market

 

but there are a few hold outs claiming delta-sigma noise shaping loop dynamics, "noise floor modulation" is evidence of some mysterious musical soul destroying "time domain error" that engineers are overlooking

 

It's probably easier, hence cheaper than a precision controlled ladder DAC. Could be a simple case of economics overruling the performance benefits.

 

Adding any kind of noise (autocorrelated to source signal or not) is by definition a "time domain error".  Modulating the noise is an intruguing notion that probably ultimately depends ultimately on the ranges of SNR achieved. If it's "lowenough" then it's "good enough"

post #1322 of 1923

recently discussed at diyAudio - one of my replies:

 

Quote:
I think I have all of ESS public app notes, white papers

all I can find is one graph suggesting the "bad competitor" DAC audio band noise floor rose ~ 10 dB from -117 dB to -106-7 dB as signal amplitude rose into the top -10 dB to 0 dB fs of the converter


using estimates of recording mic noise, home listening room noise floor, masking curves..
 

..I simply don't see where that (delta-sigma?) DAC's noise floor modulation is going to be audible with music played in the top 10 dB of the DAC, not with THX system sensitivity, or even 120 dB SPL peak system capability
post #1323 of 1923

For testing such problems, difference extraction like shown here can be useful. If the residual, with a huge amount of gain, still does not have any plainly audible distortion or other artifacts, then there is most likely to be no real - practically relevant - issue.

post #1324 of 1923
Quote:
Originally Posted by marone View Post


My ears and what I hear are my evidence.

I can accept your belief system (Science) without insult.

Why do you empiricists lack the ability to reciprocate?

 

Ya right. Here is what your vision alone(!) can do to your audio signal chain.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-lN8vWm3m0
No digital, no wires. Purely analog human hearing and perception. Highly fascinating field by the way. Where again was your evidence in hearing? It is true that you are free to believe what you want but unless you didn't reliably test yourself and hear a difference in blind-tests or abx-testing, there is no evidence and a high probability that you imagine the difference. Believe what you want personaly, however, the problem arises when people seek advice on if they should buy high-rez files or expensive gear and they are told without evidence that there is a huuuge difference. It is misleading and the basis of so many fraud in the audio world. That's why we can't reciprocate.

post #1325 of 1923
Quote:
Originally Posted by SonicSavour View Post
 

 

Ya right. Here is what your vision alone(!) can do to your audio signal chain.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-lN8vWm3m0
No digital, no wires. Purely analog human hearing and perception. Highly fascinating field by the way. Where again was your evidence in hearing? It is true that you are free to believe what you want but unless you didn't reliably test yourself and hear a difference in blind-tests or abx-testing, there is no evidence and a high probability that you imagine the difference. Believe what you want personaly, however, the problem arises when people seek advice on if they should buy high-rez files or expensive gear and they are told without evidence that there is a huuuge difference. It is misleading and the basis of so many fraud in the audio world. That's why we can't reciprocate.

 

That is nuts!

post #1326 of 1923

HOLD up, totally un realted but xnor is BANNED... when did that happen :O I was JUST reading his posts here. And I find a thread with him and I see that his title is banned? Is that an error on my part or is he really banned [if he is REALLY banned... I won't ask why] just curious

 

also this my be unrealted but listened to my fully balanced DT 880 today, from dac to amp to can... 24bit still sounded just as spacious as 16 

post #1327 of 1923
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mshenay View Post
 

when did that happen :O

 

I think about a week ago, so he might be back soon.

post #1328 of 1923
Quote:
Originally Posted by stv014 View Post
 

 

I think about a week ago, so he might be back soon.

 

*face palm* sheesh, well I guess we'll see 

post #1329 of 1923
We all take turns being thrown out into the street here in Sound Science. I'm sure Galileo and Darwin were treated like this by the rabble with their torches and pitchforks too.
post #1330 of 1923

It's probably already been mentioned a hundred times in this thread, but for some reason 24 bit albums are mastered differently. Does anyone know why exactly?

 

So it is quite possible to hear a difference between 16 and 24 bit, but not because of added resolution.

post #1331 of 1923
They master at 24 bit so the filters they apply for sweetening can take advantage of the lower noise floor and higher sampling rate. Once it's processed, it sounds exactly the same as the 16 bit bouncedown.

High bitrates are an advantage for mixing and mastering. For normal listening, redbook is all you need.
Edited by bigshot - 9/21/13 at 4:25pm
post #1332 of 1923
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post

They master at 24 bit so the filters they apply for sweetening can take advantage of the lower noise floor and higher sampling rate. Once it's processed, it sounds exactly the same as the 16 bit bouncedown.

High bitrates are an advantage for mixing and mastering. For normal listening, redbook is all you need.

 

So people claiming to hear a difference based on the different mastering, are BS-ing?

post #1333 of 1923
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marleybob217 View Post
 

 

So people claiming to hear a difference based on the different mastering, are BS-ing?

The people claiming can always run a double-blind test in ABX and find out for sure.

post #1334 of 1923
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marleybob217 View Post

So people claiming to hear a difference based on the different mastering, are BS-ing?

No not at all. The mastering is different, so it's going to sound different.

Again, 24 bit is useful for the sorts of filtering and sweetening done as a part of the mastering process. It helps to have a wider range to draw from when you are doing noise reduction and equalization. 24 bit mastering can sound better than 16 bit mastering.

However, once you bounce the finished, mastered track from 24 bit to 16 bit to put it on a CD, there is no audible difference between the 24 bit and 16 bit bouncedown. The higher bitrate is only an advantage in MASTERING. There is no advantage to high bitrates when just listening to a track on your home stereo.

Is that clearer?
post #1335 of 1923
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post


No not at all. The mastering is different, so it's going to sound different.

Again, 24 bit is useful for the sorts of filtering and sweetening done as a part of the mastering process. It helps to have a wider range to draw from when you are doing noise reduction and equalization. 24 bit mastering can sound better than 16 bit mastering.

However, once you bounce the finished, mastered track from 24 bit to 16 bit to put it on a CD, there is no audible difference between the 24 bit and 16 bit bouncedown. The higher bitrate is only an advantage in MASTERING. There is no advantage to high bitrates when just listening to a track on your home stereo.

Is that clearer?

 

Very clear! Thanks :)

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!