or Connect
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 97

post #1441 of 3472
Quote:
Maybe this is rhetorical, but since we haven't understood everything we by definition don't understand anything?  Please not this tired old canard. ​

So by your definition, there is no reason to understand everything completely as we already understand enough to prove what we already think we know. I'd prefer to look forward, or we'd still be listening to AM radio. 

 

Quote:
You say listening to live music no recording matches that.  I agree.  Will it match it suddenly at 32 bit or 48 bit? You do realize it is near impossible to exceed a noise floor in the analog world beyond 20 bit don't you?

By agreeing, then by definition, you realize our method of capturing and recreating is flawed. So sample rate at this point doesn't matter. Which is my point, we have yet to recreate the sound and feel of the music that was created by the instruments and voices of the original performer. 

 

Quote:

4K video does provide pixels of a size within the resolving power of our eyes at the correct distance.  192khz sampling rates aren't analogous to that.  And even 4k pictures from too far away look no better than 2k pictures.  This happens when they fall below the resolution of the eye in angular terms.  192 khz sampling is more analogous to saying video displays with ultraviolet light output beyond human vision look better even though we cannot see it.  More than 24 bit in audio would be analogous to having a range from total darkness to brighter than our eye can stand without being blinded (or ears deafened).

 

Now the reason live music is not fully re-created has to do with soundfields imposed upon a different room from the recording.  24 bit allows definition in terms of loudness from total quiet to louder than we could stand with enough fineness there is no issue.  48 khz or so sampling covers the frequencies we can hear.  The complete recreation of the soundfield at our ears is another matter and not limited by the basic resolution of digital audio at normal sample rates.  Any advance is in manipulating the signals we get to our hears, not in the basic fidelity of the digital audio medium.  That might mean more channels and/or different type miking and some more advanced DSP.  Those higher bits and sample rates get us no closer to a solution for those problems.  Stereo is a convincing illusion or trick anyway.

I appreciate your write up here, it is in depth. But by just accepting 48khz sampling as the final answer, just because it covers our ears frequencies seems disappointing.. because--even by your confirmation above-- that we have yet to match/capture a live music experience, seems to prove we have to be missing something.  I still think we have a long way to go in the recreation of the full visual and audio recreation of what this real world has to offer. Is there a way to truly capture it? Perhaps not, but you cannot deny the magnificence of what is real. To go back to color as an example. Color is relative, and a dog's eyes have more rods than cones to see better in darkness that which they see in this world. Humans have 3 (RGB) cone receptors. Butterflies have 5 (we have yet to determine what they fully see), Mantis Shrimp have 16 (This is beyond our comprehension). The point is, we really don't know all the answers in life, and have a long way to go in being able to recreate it. Far from a 4000 pixel image or 16/24 bit+ audio sample in comparison. 

post #1442 of 3472
Quote:
Originally Posted by bunner View Post
 

So by your definition, there is no reason to understand everything completely as we already understand enough to prove what we already think we know. I'd prefer to look forward, or we'd still be listening to AM radio. 

 

By agreeing, then by definition, you realize our method of capturing and recreating is flawed. So sample rate at this point doesn't matter. Which is my point, we have yet to recreate the sound and feel of the music that was created by the instruments and voices of the original performer. 

 

I appreciate your write up here, it is in depth. But by just accepting 48khz sampling as the final answer, just because it covers our ears frequencies seems disappointing.. because--even by your confirmation above-- that we have yet to match/capture a live music experience, seems to prove we have to be missing something.  I still think we have a long way to go in the recreation of the full visual and audio recreation of what this real world has to offer. Is there a way to truly capture it? Perhaps not, but you cannot deny the magnificence of what is real. To go back to color as an example. Color is relative, and a dog's eyes have more rods than cones to see better in darkness that which they see in this world. Humans have 3 (RGB) cone receptors. Butterflies have 5 (we have yet to determine what they fully see), Mantis Shrimp have 16 (This is beyond our comprehension). The point is, we really don't know all the answers in life, and have a long way to go in being able to recreate it. Far from a 4000 pixel image or 16/24 bit+ audio sample in comparison. 


You do realize the test has been done more than once.  No difference between 176 khz and 44khz.  No difference between 24 bit and 16 bit was detected.  With several hundred people involved in one such test.  Maybe we can  gain something from 24 bit if other processing goes on.  Though for final playback probably not.  Going further isn't getting us one bit closer to your goal of recreating life music.  We are already beyond what human ears can ear.  The general" hey more is better" idea you are portraying and a feeling of faith it gets us closer isn't rational.  We don't know everything, we know more than we used to and yes some of what we know does show limits for what makes any sense.  5 megahertz audio bandwidth is no better than 1 mhz is no better than 20 khz bandwidth if we are using human ears to hear it.   Whatever stands between us recreating life music is not lacking in these basic parameters. 

 

So no, increased sample rate doesn't matter.  Same for going beyond 24 bit.  Accepting 48 khz as the answer because it covers our ears frequency range may disappoint you, but if we are making this for humans it simply is enough.  The idea of lets just up it and hope it is better is not science.  This is the Sound Science forum you are in here. 

 

You also are either twisting or misunderstanding me to say we know all we need to know and not to know more is worthwhile.  I specifically said we don't know.  However, that as an excuse to ignore what is known is simply irrational.  I can go over many things, but perhaps it makes more sense for you to go back and read the rest of this thread.  No sense in me repeating what is already here.


Edited by esldude - 2/9/14 at 1:43am
post #1443 of 3472

I've never felt 24 bit was necessary for anything other than mastering. 

post #1444 of 3472
Quote:
Originally Posted by esldude View Post
 


You do realize the test has been done more than once.  No difference between 176 khz and 44khz.  No difference between 24 bit and 16 bit was detected.  With several hundred people involved in one such test.  Maybe we can  gain something from 24 bit if other processing goes on.  Though for final playback probably not.  Going further isn't getting us one bit closer to your goal of recreating life music.  We are already beyond what human ears can ear.  The general" hey more is better" idea you are portraying and a feeling of faith it gets us closer isn't rational.  We don't know everything, we know more than we used to and yes some of what we know does show limits for what makes any sense.  5 megahertz audio bandwidth is no better than 1 mhz is no better than 20 khz bandwidth if we are using human ears to hear it.   Whatever stands between us recreating life music is not lacking in these basic parameters. 

 

So no, increased sample rate doesn't matter.  Same for going beyond 24 bit.  Accepting 48 khz as the answer because it covers our ears frequency range may disappoint you, but if we are making this for humans it simply is enough.  The idea of lets just up it and hope it is better is not science.  This is the Sound Science forum you are in here. 

 

You also are either twisting or misunderstanding me to say we know all we need to know and not to know more is worthwhile.  I specifically said we don't know.  However, that as an excuse to ignore what is known is simply irrational.  I can go over many things, but perhaps it makes more sense for you to go back and read the rest of this thread.  No sense in me repeating what is already here.

I grant you this, you are fully correct on this for a cold one-dimensional sound as it pertains to an acceptable (seemingly) real recreation to human ears. I am not trying to argue with you, I am just curious is all.

 

But you cannot deny that 48khz will be obsolete when future studies show there is more to humans perceiving sound than just the audible spectrum. Lower frequencies can be felt, it is a science fact. Higher subsonic frequencies are yet to be determined. Given that ultrasonic frequencies operate in the 60khz range, would require a sample rate of 120khz. Just because we don't audibly hear them doesn't mean they shouldn't exist or cannot be recreated with the intention of reproducing a real life sound.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HyperSonic_Sound#HyperSonic_Sound

 

We also don't understand energy and how it pertains to real life human beings. Do aura's exist? Does emotion have a real energy as the performer is singing it? Why do animals sense emotions of human being's moods? Why can some dogs detect cancer in an individual and other dogs/cats know or are able to predict when someone is about to die? If you could prove a soul existed, it would be the biggest discovery of all time. It's easier to laugh off and call ideas we don't understand as crazy.. but my argument still stands; we have yet to recreate a life-like recreation of a live musical event. So if this is a sound science forum, then we should at least entertain the possibility that we don't know all of the answers for what could make sound recreation better; just that we DO understand the one that our limited minds accept as fact because it fools us enough to accept it. Science is about discovery and imagination, and then proving theories, not about accepting an outcome as indisputable fact. Smarter people than you or I are probably already working on these studies, but I personally want to hear a better recreation of what is real, and our current model of accepting 48khz DOES NOT do this.

post #1445 of 3472
Quote:
Originally Posted by esldude View Post
 


You do realize the test has been done more than once.  No difference between 176 khz and 44khz.  No difference between 24 bit and 16 bit was detected.  With several hundred people involved in one such test.  Maybe we can  gain something from 24 bit if other processing goes on.  Though for final playback probably not.  Going further isn't getting us one bit closer to your goal of recreating life music.  We are already beyond what human ears can ear.  The general" hey more is better" idea you are portraying and a feeling of faith it gets us closer isn't rational.  We don't know everything, we know more than we used to and yes some of what we know does show limits for what makes any sense.  5 megahertz audio bandwidth is no better than 1 mhz is no better than 20 khz bandwidth if we are using human ears to hear it.   Whatever stands between us recreating life music is not lacking in these basic parameters. 

 

So no, increased sample rate doesn't matter.  Same for going beyond 24 bit.  Accepting 48 khz as the answer because it covers our ears frequency range may disappoint you, but if we are making this for humans it simply is enough.  The idea of lets just up it and hope it is better is not science.  This is the Sound Science forum you are in here. 

 

You also are either twisting or misunderstanding me to say we know all we need to know and not to know more is worthwhile.  I specifically said we don't know.  However, that as an excuse to ignore what is known is simply irrational.  I can go over many things, but perhaps it makes more sense for you to go back and read the rest of this thread.  No sense in me repeating what is already here.

I grant you this, you are fully correct on this for one-dimensional sound as it pertains to acceptable seemingly real recreation to human ears. I am not looking for an argument, I just refuse to accept an end game of 1 fact, compared to what and where we could possibly go.

 

But you cannot deny that 48khz will be obsolete when future studies show there is more to humans perceiving sound than just the audible spectrum of our ears. Lower frequencies can be felt, it is a science fact. Higher subsonic frequencies are yet to be determined. Given that ultrasonic frequencies operate in the 60khz range, would require a sample rate of 120khz. Just because we don't audibly hear them doesn't mean they shouldn't exist or cannot be recreated with the intention of reproducing a real life sound. You can look up hypersonic sound and its creation from Elwood Norris on your own; I am not allowed to share external links. I did do a search of this and haven't seen it addressed.

 

We also don't understand energy pertaining to humans and animals. Do aura's exist? Sometimes animals and people can sense emotion. Is there an emotion given off with live music that cannot be recreated? It's easier to laugh off and call ideas we don't understand as crazy.. but my argument still stands; we have yet to recreate a lifelike recreation of a live musical event. So 48khz does NOT completely represent a full sampling of recreating live sound. Just the common accepted belief of representing a one-dimensional signal to fool our ears capability of 20hz-20khz. Sure we can live with this cold fact, or someone can do better to figure out beyond what we currently accept; and possibly recreate the real experience. I am hoping for the latter. I'm not expecting you to debate every single item stated above, as being in a position to prove what neither of us know is pointless. I just think its foolish for all of us to ignore the unknown, and claim its irrational to want to understand it.

post #1446 of 3472
Quote:
Originally Posted by bunner View Post
 

I grant you this, you are fully correct on this for one-dimensional sound as it pertains to acceptable seemingly real recreation to human ears. I am not looking for an argument, I just refuse to accept an end game of 1 fact, compared to what and where we could possibly go.

 

But you cannot deny that 48khz will be obsolete when future studies show there is more to humans perceiving sound than just the audible spectrum of our ears. Lower frequencies can be felt, it is a science fact. Higher subsonic frequencies are yet to be determined. Given that ultrasonic frequencies operate in the 60khz range, would require a sample rate of 120khz. Just because we don't audibly hear them doesn't mean they shouldn't exist or cannot be recreated with the intention of reproducing a real life sound. You can look up hypersonic sound and its creation from Elwood Norris on your own; I am not allowed to share external links. I did do a search of this and haven't seen it addressed.

 

We also don't understand energy pertaining to humans and animals. Do aura's exist? Sometimes animals and people can sense emotion. Is there an emotion given off with live music that cannot be recreated? It's easier to laugh off and call ideas we don't understand as crazy.. but my argument still stands; we have yet to recreate a lifelike recreation of a live musical event. So 48khz does NOT completely represent a full sampling of recreating live sound. Just the common accepted belief of representing a one-dimensional signal to fool our ears capability of 20hz-20khz. Sure we can live with this cold fact, or someone can do better to figure out beyond what we currently accept; and possibly recreate the real experience. I am hoping for the latter. I'm not expecting you to debate every single item stated above, as being in a position to prove what neither of us know is pointless. I just think its foolish for all of us to ignore the unknown, and claim its irrational to want to understand it.


I guess I agree with one statement you made.  Debating what neither of us can know is pointless.  You speak about future studies that will obsolete 48khz as if you believe and have faith it will happen.  That kind of faith and wishful thinking is not science.  There is no rational debate about imagined things that might occur.  Get back to us when those studies happen that obsolete 48 khz.  The refusal to accept facts is anything except scientific.  The rest of your babble about aura's and emotion is not scientific.  Nor rational.  If you think you have made damning criticism, I fear you don't understand the issue.  So far you seem determined to not understand it if it conflicts with your evidence-less feelings of how things might work.  You won't progress very far that way. 

post #1447 of 3472

There have already been studies on the effect of super audible frequencies. Frequencies beyond the range of human hearing have no impact on the sound quality of recorded music at all. Frequency response is pretty much fully understood. And high bitrate sound is indeed primarily for mixing and mastering, not playing back music in the home. Redbook covers that completely.

 

If you want an area that has potential for learning new things about improving recorded sound quality, that would be multichannel sound and synthesized acoustic environments, not bigger files with lots of information we can't hear. But the real trick here isn't scientific as much as it is aesthetic. Engineers need to learn how to apply the tools we already have.

post #1448 of 3472
Quote:
Originally Posted by esldude View Post
 


I guess I agree with one statement you made.  Debating what neither of us can know is pointless.  You speak about future studies that will obsolete 48khz as if you believe and have faith it will happen.  That kind of faith and wishful thinking is not science.  There is no rational debate about imagined things that might occur.  Get back to us when those studies happen that obsolete 48 khz.  The refusal to accept facts is anything except scientific.  The rest of your babble about aura's and emotion is not scientific.  Nor rational.  If you think you have made damning criticism, I fear you don't understand the issue.  So far you seem determined to not understand it if it conflicts with your evidence-less feelings of how things might work.  You won't progress very far that way. 

 

I already addressed this. Ultrasonic/Hypersonic frequencies has already rendered 48khz obsolete. Feel free to live in the past, and hang on to the 48khz theory. It just doesn't do a full recreate of life like sound. It's easy to dismiss something as babble, but they are real rational questions that prove flaws in the inability for 48khz to recreate sound naturally as they were originally produced or felt. Just because you refuse to accept something doesn't mean it does not exist.  If you really think what I am talking about is out there and nonsense, you are free to think whatever you want; google the studies of ultrasonic frequencies. I feel I am done here debating you, as you cannot provide answers that can substantially disprove what I have already addressed.


Edited by bunner - 2/9/14 at 8:44pm
post #1449 of 3472

They did that test in the AES. The results were that although super high frequencies might be perceivable by some people as sound pressure in test tones at high volumes, they didn't improve the sound quality of music at all.

post #1450 of 3472

Another point is that spectrum analysis of all 192K and even 96K (at least ones I looked at) production files doesn't really reveal anything but noise in the upper registers of the recording spectrum. Basically tells me that either a) there is not much up there to record and/or b)   the signal chain (transducers, amps, cables, mixers, so on) is band limiting the recording well before the sampling rate limitations kick in.


Edited by Digitalchkn - 2/9/14 at 10:03pm
post #1451 of 3472

Yeah, seriously, if you use Earthworks mikes or some such you have the extraordinary bandwidth of about 40 khz.  Generally no mikes respond further, and in fact few highly regarded mikes go even that far.  So much for extended bandwidth.  There simply won't be any signal to work with.  88 or 96 khz sampling is simply all you could possibly offer up in any manner with available microphones. 

 

Excepting of course the faith that future results will show human response to extreme frequencies (which we already know for a fact, yes an actual fact, will not involve perception by the ears), and future mikes that have wide bandwidth response.  Like response more than 40 khz man.  Check your aura and all that.

 

Peace brother....................................

post #1452 of 3472
Quote:
Originally Posted by esldude View Post
 

Yeah, seriously, if you use Earthworks mikes or some such you have the extraordinary bandwidth of about 40 khz.  Generally no mikes respond further, and in fact few highly regarded mikes go even that far.  So much for extended bandwidth.  There simply won't be any signal to work with.  88 or 96 khz sampling is simply all you could possibly offer up in any manner with available microphones.

 

Excepting of course the faith that future results will show human response to extreme frequencies (which we already know for a fact, yes an actual fact, will not involve perception by the ears), and future mikes that have wide bandwidth response.  Like response more than 40 khz man.  Check your aura and all that.

 

Peace brother....................................

 

I am tempted to think there probably just isn't much signal energy up there anyway.  Since we are not bats we naturally designed things to occupy the spectrum that gives us most visceral impact. As a consequence, things that we make noise with are mechanically large enough and likely can't resonate with large amounts of energy at extreme harmonics.  For instance, violin strings which are smallest of stringed instruments, fundamentally resonate up to only few kilohertz and I think have any measurable harmonics maybe to ~30KHz.  They just physically can't resonate faster.

post #1453 of 3472
Quote:
Originally Posted by Digitalchkn View Post

I am tempted to think there probably just isn't much signal energy up there anyway.  Since we are not bats we naturally designed things to occupy the spectrum that gives us most visceral impact. As a consequence, things that we make noise with are mechanically large enough and likely can't resonate with large amounts of energy at extreme harmonics.  For instance, violin strings which are smallest of stringed instruments, fundamentally resonate up to only few kilohertz and I think have any measurable harmonics maybe to ~30KHz.  They just physically can't resonate faster.

I'm tempted to agree with this!

Since we are surrounded by ultrasonic frequencies all the time, I can see how some would propose it as something needed to 'complete' the signal to make it more natural.

However in my mind it's the fault of the transducers (not to even mention the recording process itself) that a recording can't match the wild untamed noise fronts of a live performance, stereo or multichannel is still just an illusion anyways. Interesting to me is at a rock concert you are essentially hearing the sound from multiple transducers where an orchestra is more of a natural presentation...
post #1454 of 3472

The other thing that isn't apparent looking at numbers without context is that from 20kHz to 40kHz is just one octave. It's just a sliver of sound anyway.

post #1455 of 3472
Quote:


...Since we are surrounded by ultrasonic frequencies all the time, I can see how some would propose it as something needed to 'complete' the signal to make it more natural...
 

 

I saw an article just yesterday (can't remember where) that sighted a study done in the mid-70s where the conclusion is that our acuity could resolve on the order of 1 degree phase offset of a 250Hz test tones, translating to something like nearly 10uS timing resolution. So the conclusion was we need sampling rate that covers that kind of bandwidth. But that's not actually correct. We only would need sampling rate that sufficiently covers the 250Hz. In other words, don't expect some signal to suddenly show up at 100KHz.

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!