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 98

post #1456 of 1879

i'm not saying i think ultrasonics matter, but here's just one (of many) articles (here's another one that i don't really like) that hint that perhaps noises outside of our hearing range can in fact be detected and processed, just not as "sound".  heck, we all know that though we can't hear 10Hz, if it's played loud enough there is no one that won't know it's there.  there is at bare minimum, a basis to be looking into these types of things.  

post #1457 of 1879

The point is music. The only place super audible frequencies exist in music is in upper harmonics of cymbal crashes. And even if we could hear it (which we can't) it would probably be masked by frequencies we can hear.

 

If someone wants to look into sound for the purposes of improving reproduction of music, they would use their time much more profitably by focusing on sound that can actually be heard by humans.

post #1458 of 1879
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post
 

The point is music. The only place super audible frequencies exist in music is in upper harmonics of cymbal crashes. And even if we could hear it (which we can't) it would probably be masked by frequencies we can hear.

 

If someone wants to look into sound for the purposes of improving reproduction of music, they would use their time much more profitably by focusing on sound that can actually be heard by humans.


With all due respect, you're forgetting those of us who are more machine than man...

 

 

I suspect 24bit/320kHz is a tad more important for those who've succumbed to the dark side.

 

 

Cheers

post #1459 of 1879
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monstermunch View Post

Hi-res audio is the perfect concept for robbing all these poor buggers at the same time.

This leads to an internal conflict... whether to attempt to warn and educate them, or to fleece them.

post #1460 of 1879
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monstermunch View Post

I have long suspected that there is a subsect of the audiophile community which contains individuals who actually don't like music very much, who are caught up in an obsessive compulsive disorder of sorts, whereby the search for technical improvement has become the means and the end in and of itself.

 

There are reviewers here on Head-Fi who admit they aren't interested in music very much, and whose interest is purely in audio reproduction for its own sake.

 

Quote:
These are the people who will always be suckered by claims of advances and developments by manufacturers.

 

But this is certainly not true, judging by the reviews of the these same people.

post #1461 of 1879

Has anyone listened to cd's from record label, rockcandy, that state "fully remastered sound shaped from 24bit digital technology" ?

Are these recording's anything special, or is it just a marketing gimmick ?? 

post #1462 of 1879
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob49 View Post

marketing gimmick
post #1463 of 1879
Quote:
Originally Posted by skamp View Post

 


.....that was perhaps my thoughts.....Rock Candy are releasing Toto's first three albums, I'm a huge fan, but I think i'll save my money & not bother buying them ?

post #1464 of 1879
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob49 View Post


.....that was perhaps my thoughts.....Rock Candy are releasing Toto's first three albums, I'm a huge fan, but I think i'll save my money & not bother buying them ?

Maybe buy just one to compare it to the original CD, then report back what you think. As a fan you'll know the original well enough to tell if the remaster is better, worse, or just hype.

I would appreciate knowing and think many others here would too!
post #1465 of 1879
Really takes a while to catch up on this topic. But I think, it's worth reading all the arguments. I made several tests myself (limited by my equipment and listenming skills), A very well mastered recording in hi- res format (24 bit) when downsampled properly indeed sounds identical to me ( I use SoX for downsampling files). The same recording compared to the original CD I bought years back sounded a bit different. (e.g, higher background noise and somewhat lacking in minute details).

This tells me that the method used in mastering accounts most of the difference between 16 bit and 24 bit files than the bitness and the sampling rate. Comparing the spectrum analysis chart of both hi-res file and downsampled version show the amount of data looks the same at 22Khz and below. The downsampled image show it just cuts off everything beyond that.

I will still buy hires music but only to store my music, since remastered records nowadays are in hires format. However, everything going to my DAP will only be 16/44 or 16/48.
post #1466 of 1879

Google Play Music All Access (they really should do something about the name) has the Grateful Dead "Compete Studio Albums Collection" available to stream.  They only provide up to 320 kbps mp3 streams, but the remastered versions sound fantastic and definitely sound different from the original studio albums.  There are high rez versions available to purchase at 192kHz and 96kHz, both at 24 bits, although I seriously doubt there is any noticeable difference from those expensive versions and the streaming version I have access to as part of my subscription.

post #1467 of 1879
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregorio View Post

In some respects this thread doesn't help head-fiers because there is not much concrete advice. 24bit over 16bit offers no advantages but sampling rates higher than CD may, under certain circumstances, offer marginal improvement.

 

Hello.  I'm still reading through this thread, and was hoping to get completely up to date before posting, but the statement above compels me to chime in.  I realize it was written in 2009, but as someone just getting into the world of high-end headphones, DAPs, and computer audio, this information is invaluable: gregario, you've saved me from spending untold amounts of money buying high res music just for the sake of it being high res.  I've been liberated from format chauvinism, so to speak.  I'll still buy high res if I learn that a particular recording has better mastering than the CD, or can't find it on physical media, but I'm not going to re-purchase my collection just because of the bits and sampling frequency.  

 

To turn a popular head-fi-ism on its tail, thank you for my wallet.

 

I also feel somewhat relieved, because so far I've been hard pressed to tell the difference between 16/44.1 and the higher resolution content, at least in terms of any night-and-day differences.  I own several versions of a favorite album, and I have to say that the best sounding of all is the K2HD-mastered version, which of course is 16-bit, 44.1-kHz.  I like it better than the 24/176 version I recently purchased online.  

 

I don't want to derail the thread, but it seems to me -- having read only up to page 17 so far -- that the "chain of custody" of the audio data is more important than the final format.  By "chain of custody," I mean from the moment the microphone transducer sends a signal to the release of the finished product.  I've nothing to do with the world of pro audio and my ignorance is profound, but would you be able to describe -- perhaps in a new thread -- what happens (or should happen) to the audio data from recording to public release?  What are the best procedures, and where do people mess up?  When a recording is remastered, who decides who gets to do the remastering, who decides it's worthy of release?  (In my example above, who would decide what albums get the K2HD treatment?  Why those albums?  Etc.)  I'm suddenly insatiably curious about the subject, and feel like this is way more important than the bit counts and sampling frequencies...

 

Of course, if a whole new thread is out of the question, a few helpful link recommendations would be welcomed...  :smile:

 

Back to catching up...

post #1468 of 1879

Now that you've had the scales pulled off your eyes when it comes to 24 bit, would you like us in Sound Science to turn you on to just as surprising truths about high bit rate lossy files, headphone amps and external DACs?

post #1469 of 1879

The PONO appears to be a decent deal at its current kickstarter price of $300, and with just a few days left, I need to decide yea or nay.  

I believe that there could be a hearable -- or "experiencable," perhaps -- difference between 16/44.1 and 24/96(192, whatever). But when people say things like "man, if you can't hear the difference between an SACD and a CD, you're deaf," I get a little frustrated.  An SACD is almost certainly going to be a remaster, right?  And during remastering, an engineer is going to be trying to achieve the best sound, using the best tech available.  I would expect a new remaster to sound better than an unremastered CD.  (Otherwise, why release it at all?)

 

It seems to me that the test would be to take a CD encoded at 24/96 or "better" , downmix (is that the right word?) it to 16/44.1, and do a blind comparison.  That removes the remaster/remix as a factor...has anyone done this in a rigorous way?  

post #1470 of 1879
Yes, careful comparisons between high bitrate files and redbook bouncedowns have been done many, many times. i've done it myself. When these tests are done with sloppy controls, expectation bias intrudes. But I've never seen any careful test show any audible difference at all. That really shouldn't be surprising, because if you understand how digital audio works, it's obvious that the differences are completely inaudible.

The fact that people keep imagining that they can hear a difference tells you a lot about how sloppy people are about their thinking. Whenever I see someone talking about how inaudible frequencies make music sound better and claiming to hear things they clearly can't hear, I know that I don't really need to listen to anything else they say.
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!