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 106

post #1576 of 1923

Most people will take what you typed there at face value. Your slant to what you're saying doesn't come through.

post #1577 of 1923
It depends on how the tracks were mixed and mastered too. The human hearing range is about 140 dB, 24 bit gives you 144 dB of dynamic range, 16 bit gives you 96 dB, but most music nowadays, apart from classical and some jazz, has a dynamic range of around 5-7 dB, with some as little as 1-2 dB. So I don't see a lot of improvement between 24 and 16 bit unless the actual 24 bit track was mastered differently, hopefully with much less compression and limiting. A lot of the older analogue recordings including classical and jazz have very high noise floor, some as much as 60 dB, so 24 bit will not improve the sound quality unless the noise gets digitally removed. A lot of the older records from the Beatles to Pink Floyd have been remastered and remastered over the years with less and less dynamic range and with more and more enchantment through digital plugins, so the music sounds cleaner and clearer, but at the same time there are a lot of digital noises and artefacts added which weren't there in the original recording. So to me, if the 24 bit file was just an up-sampled 24/96 or a pre-down samples 24/96 version of the same master, I don't see much point in getting them than the CD version unless you're going to do your own version of remastering.
post #1578 of 1923
Quote:
Originally Posted by esldude View Post
 

Well like cameras or video you have your resolution products.  With audio 44.1 khz and 16 bit would be 22050 possible frequencies at 65K possible levels.  A total resolution product number of frequency and levels of 22,050x65,536=1,445,068,800.

 

Then your 192khz 24 bit is good for 16,777,216x96,000=1.61x10 to the 12th power. 

 

As doubling sample rates to 384 khz only doubles the resolution product. I think more bits is better.  Adding just one bit gets you twice as much.  Much more efficient way to expand the resolution product. 192/32 bit would give 8.25 x10 to the 14th power.  Far more resolution product that way for just a few bits extra. 

 

This evaluation of resolution also gives lie to the idea that DSD is high resolution.  Only 50,000 different frequencies at one bit.  Okay since one choice is 0 as well as one I'll be generous and say it is 50,000x2=100,000.  Totally pathetic vs even redbook for resolution products. 

 

So I think these increasingly high sample rates are really just marketing bull.  They intend to sell everyone 192khz and in a few years it will all be 384 khz rates and you'll need to buy your recordings all over again.  They need to make the jump directly to 32 bit and start working on 48 bit for now. 

 

 

 

 

Yes, I know the above reasoning is ridiculous.  But it makes more sense than plenty of marketing ads explaining benefits I have seen in many cases.

 

 

In case it was not clear, the above is an example of making something sound like it makes sense.  Like there is a measure to resolution, when in fact what I wrote makes no sense and is misleading in several ways.  Sure it has some simple math, uses the parameters of different sample rates and bit depths, but the use of them is out of context and misleading.  Just like lots of high end marketing spiel people read in magazines and on web sites, and on audio forums.

post #1579 of 1923
Quote:
Originally Posted by Danz03 View Post

 The human hearing range is about 140 dB

that might be the acknowledged dynamic, 1volume level at a time, one sound at a time, from ludicrously lowest perceived sound first, and then up to 140db louder when the guys started crying "plz kill me!!!!".

it has nothing to do with actual music listening, and the noise floor is a far away problem if we don't do dumb things with our digital volume control. simply by listening at say 90db on my phone, I already by myself remove a good 50db from my maximum perception range. -140db is a nice dream for people willing to listen to music at 141db so they can hope to grasp the finest details, when our hears would have already activated the emergency safety measures to reduce percieved sounds. then you add the masking effect and you see how candid it is to believe we can hear -100db sound behind music playing above.

 

that 140db value is a joke from the beginning when we're talking music. I just launched 2foobar sessions (2installs in different partitions, or one in a sandbox obviously not with wasapi ^_^). and played one song at max level and another at the same time 40db lower. it's already pretty fun how low the sound on the second is and how hard it is to get all the sounds when I know perfectly what I'm trying to listen to. and that's just -40db. -140db? impossibru!!!!

post #1580 of 1923
The instantaneous dynamic range of human hearing is about 60dB by the way.

se
post #1581 of 1923
That is exactly my point, although the human hearing range is 140 dB, we don't need the 144 dB in 24 bit audio. The loudest I've had to monitor music in mixing studios was around 105 dB, and I already had to wear ear plugs to protect my hearing, that is why so many musicians like Eric Clapton and Phil Collins are having hearing problems when they got older. A lot of rock concerts can be louder than 105 dB, depending on where you're standing. It's the same with the 20kHz treble, most ppl can't even hear that anymore when they're over 20, so it seems like 192 kHz sampling rate is quite an overkill.
Quote:
Originally Posted by castleofargh View Post

that might be the acknowledged dynamic, 1volume level at a time, one sound at a time, from ludicrously lowest perceived sound first, and then up to 140db louder when the guys started crying "plz kill me!!!!".
post #1582 of 1923
Quote:
Originally Posted by Danz03 View Post

That is exactly my point...

Yes, I know. Was just putting a number on it to help give others an idea of how poor the effective dynamic range of our hearing is.

You familiar with the two files produced by Bill Waslo? One is clean, the other has some Sousa music playing something like 70dB below it. Don't think anyone has passed the ABX that Bill intended it to be used with. If the dynamic range of our hearing approached even that of 16 bit, it would be trivially easy to tell them apart.

se
post #1583 of 1923

So how do the above responses, I mean about the last six is so, relate to trolling for the best possible music files to listen to. I have obtained some files which are said to be music video files from blue Ray at 24-bit depth. These files sound better to my ears than the ones of only 16-bit depth. So is that only because the translation from the Masters by the engineers on the 24-bit version is superior?

 

Also I possess a DAC which is the "Little Dot DAC_I Digital to Analog Converter" which is set to have the fall 24-bit 192 kHz capability if you wanted to. I have been always utilizing this DAC in the automatically select the best operating mode mode. And it has always said on the little LED display that 44.1 kHz is selected. So are there some files I should be listening to it by using the force mode switches to achieve the best possible sound? Or do you think I can continue trusting the automatic select mode mode?

post #1584 of 1923
Exactly, but unfortunately, that's the same reason why music is being mastered louder and louder until there's hardly any dynamic range left. At the moment the average for chart music is around 5-7 dB, who knows, it'll probably become less then 3 dB in a decade. Also those brick wall limiters add chipping and distortion to music, and the more they compress, the more distortions and chipping there will be. Lots of ppl think that vinyls sound better than CDs, it's not because vinyls have better sound quality, it's mainly because vinyls cannot be mastered loud, so there is much more dynamic range with vinyl mixes than CDs even though vinyls have a smaller dynamic range technically.

A lot of ppl claimed they can hear the difference between a 24/192 and a 16/44 file, I'm sure some can but it really depends on the actual recording and mix. And even if there is a difference, it doesn't always mean it's better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Eddy View Post

Yes, I know. Was just putting a number on it to help give others an idea of how poor the effective dynamic range of our hearing is.
se
post #1585 of 1923
As with the noise issue, no matter what ppl say, I hate it! Especially background noises! There is this old recording of a Schubert Piano Trio that I really like but I just can't stand the background noise on it. It was obviously mastered on analogue tape originally with a noise floor of around 60dB. It probably wouldn't matter much if it was on a Katy Perry song that has 5dB dynamic range but on a classical track, it does stand out a lot and is extremely irritating to me. Eventually I had to remove the noise digitally with Izotope RX2. Now since the file was digitally processed, I could have resampled it to 24/192 if I wanted to, and that would be technically a 24/192 remaster, now obviously that would sound better that the original 16 bit file. But if I had output another 16/44 file with 4X over-sampling, I don't think it would sound much different to the 24/192 version.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Eddy View Post

You familiar with the two files produced by Bill Waslo? One is clean, the other has some Sousa music playing something like 70dB below it. Don't think anyone has passed the ABX that Bill intended it to be used with. If the dynamic range of our hearing approached even that of 16 bit, it would be trivially easy to tell them apart.

se
post #1586 of 1923
Quote:
Originally Posted by bbmiller View Post
 

So how do the above responses, I mean about the last six is so, relate to trolling for the best possible music files to listen to. I have obtained some files which are said to be music video files from blue Ray at 24-bit depth. These files sound better to my ears than the ones of only 16-bit depth. So is that only because the translation from the Masters by the engineers on the 24-bit version is superior?

 

Also I possess a DAC which is the "Little Dot DAC_I Digital to Analog Converter" which is set to have the fall 24-bit 192 kHz capability if you wanted to. I have been always utilizing this DAC in the automatically select the best operating mode mode. And it has always said on the little LED display that 44.1 kHz is selected. So are there some files I should be listening to it by using the force mode switches to achieve the best possible sound? Or do you think I can continue trusting the automatic select mode mode?

Either master or placebo. And I know placebo is not on your mind, that's why placebo is still a factor. It's pretty hilarious what the human mind can trick us into sensing, and it's not really the fault of you per say, but humans in general.

 

The NorthWesternerAudioVideo person noted that many Dacs are claiming 24bit playback but in reality do not achieve this. What I also read is you should have software volume at max and change volume via volume knob, otherwise that 24 or 16 bit goodness is getting further reduced on top of whatever is going on. But in reality, good luck hearing 24 vs 16 bit. Or even 15 vs 16 bit.

 

 

Good old fashion 16bit 44khz is just fine. And if you want to argue technical reasons why that's no so, HydrogenAudio would love to deconstruct your claims methodically, one by one.


Edited by Dark_wizzie - 5/19/14 at 2:33am
post #1587 of 1923

So, if human can't hear the difference between 16 and 24bit records - is there any sense to buy players that can play 24/192? Or this is also marketing and hunting for our money?

post #1588 of 1923

Not for playing back music at that bit rate. But most modern players and DACs use up sampling ability to apply a more accurate filter above the range of human hearing. Without that, the rolloff from the filter can extend into the audible range a little.

post #1589 of 1923
Quote:
Originally Posted by PDVJAM View Post
 

So, if human can't hear the difference between 16 and 24bit records - is there any sense to buy players that can play 24/192? Or this is also marketing and hunting for our money?

no a 24/96 or more dac can benefit in several ways from a 16bit track. edit: it's the other way around ^_^.

I would tend to believe that 32bit is very much useless unless the last 8bits are used for digital volume control. but playing a 16bit file in 24bit is a good thing(or at least not a bad one). not that it might be audible, but it could be usefull on noise and volume control(digital). and by all means it has no bad effect at all, so I would always suggest you to output all your tracks as 24bit if it's ok with the dac.

and about upsampling, well that seems to be pretty usefull for some filters as said above. but it would be done by the dac without us knowing anyway ^_^.

 

so all in all, if the benefits might not be audible, they do no wrong this time.

post #1590 of 1923
Quote:
Originally Posted by Danz03 View Post

It depends on how the tracks were mixed and mastered too. The human hearing range is about 140 dB, 24 bit gives you 144 dB of dynamic range, 16 bit gives you 96 dB, but most music nowadays, apart from classical and some jazz, has a dynamic range of around 5-7 dB, with some as little as 1-2 dB. So I don't see a lot of improvement between 24 and 16 bit unless the actual 24 bit track was mastered differently, hopefully with much less compression and limiting. A lot of the older analogue recordings including classical and jazz have very high noise floor, some as much as 60 dB, so 24 bit will not improve the sound quality unless the noise gets digitally removed. A lot of the older records from the Beatles to Pink Floyd have been remastered and remastered over the years with less and less dynamic range and with more and more enchantment through digital plugins, so the music sounds cleaner and clearer, but at the same time there are a lot of digital noises and artefacts added which weren't there in the original recording. So to me, if the 24 bit file was just an up-sampled 24/96 or a pre-down samples 24/96 version of the same master, I don't see much point in getting them than the CD version unless you're going to do your own version of remastering.

I get what you are saying - IMHO it's not just the recording and mastering chain either. Alot of modern day rock/pop musicians don't play with real dynamics.

How many times have you heard musicians that can only play f, ff and fff ? Really annoying.

 

I think electric instruments and amplification are the root cause of alot of this - maybe people should learn to play unplugged but then alot of things would really sound crappy but hey that may not be a bad thing.

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!