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 108

post #1606 of 1923

By same token might as well keep things as 32 (64, oh my) bits to line up to the native word processor word boundaries. These days storage is cheap. So is processing the power. Overkill? Yes. But it's almost for free. Don't you agree?

post #1607 of 1923

More data increases the odds of file corruption. If you've ever had a protools project that got corrupted, you know how bad that can be. There is something to be said for just one level of overkill, not two or three or a dozen levels.

post #1608 of 1923
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post
 

More data increases the odds of file corruption. If you've ever had a protools project that got corrupted, you know how bad that can be. There is something to be said for just one level of overkill, not two or three or a dozen levels.

 

That's more of an example of a flaw specific to protools. With modern error checking and correction mechanisms data integrity shouldn't be a primary concern.

post #1609 of 1923

Anything that you are editing is subject to error occasionally, not just protools. The bigger the files you are working with, the more chance of corruption. Hard drives themselves can be the culprit through data deterioration.

post #1610 of 1923

this falls into the concept of safety margin... like when you build a bridge to handle double or triple the expected worst case scenario.  In reality going from 16 to 24 or even 32 bits should not dramatically increase file size if indeed a well behaved lossy compression is being used that limits the information in the file to the true limits of human perception in which case most of the extra bits are all redundant and compressed out. in the case of lossless compression the same is also true assuming there is actually no more significant information contained in the data.  For example in the case where the recording does not use the full dynamic range indeed the most and least significant bits are all 0 anyway.

post #1611 of 1923
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post
 

Anything that you are editing is subject to error occasionally, not just protools. The bigger the files you are working with, the more chance of corruption. Hard drives themselves can be the culprit through data deterioration.

Not necessarily - you could make the file larger by adding a lot of ECC at the end of each sample, which would make the chance of corruption go down by an enormous amount.

post #1612 of 1923

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post
 

The bigger the files you are working with, the more chance of corruption. Hard drives themselves can be the culprit through data deterioration.

 

I think this statement is no longer as valid as it once was. While data corruption is still a real problem it has been mitigated to a high degree of reliability.  If it were not the case the modern computing and networking systems would be in perpetual state of crashing considering the amount of data that must be processed. Or at least fail far more often than we see in practice.

post #1613 of 1923
Quote:
Originally Posted by Digitalchkn View Post

By same token might as well keep things as 32 (64, oh my) bits to line up to the native word processor word boundaries. These days storage is cheap. So is processing the power. Overkill? Yes. But it's almost for free. Don't you agree?

Storage may be cheap but doesn't mean you have to waste it. A personal music collection only grows bigger. In a mobile/DAP scenario it's convenient to have all you collection with you all the time. The bigger the file the harder the DAP has to work and significantly shortens battery life. Flash storage is not as cheap as mechanical. So your argument does not have as strong merit yet in the mobile space.
post #1614 of 1923
Quote:
Originally Posted by headwhacker View Post

Storage may be cheap but doesn't mean you have to waste it.

It's like getting people to move toward higher efficiency air conditioners to save energy. But instead of saving energy, they just use them more. biggrin.gif

se
post #1615 of 1923

In mixing, higher bit rates tax the processor more. This means that if you add too many RT filters, frames will start to drop in monitoring. If you have a very complex mix, like I often do in TV work, with multiple music, dialogue and effects tracks all with different RT filtering applied, super high bit rates can grind the processor to a halt. The more data you can push through a processor, the more data wants to be pushed through. It pays to be efficient and not waste resources on things that just don't make a difference.

post #1616 of 1923

couple more years and between the abundance of ultra cheap flash and ultra fast and omnipresent cloud storage and both lossy and lossless compression advances and I don't think file size will concern anyone anymore.  I would like to see 24/96 as the new 16/44 into the foreseeable future.

post #1617 of 1923
Quote:
Originally Posted by groovyd View Post
 

couple more years and between the abundance of ultra cheap flash and ultra fast and omnipresent cloud storage and both lossy and lossless compression advances and I don't think file size will concern anyone anymore.  I would like to see 24/96 as the new 16/44 into the foreseeable future.


I think 24 bit /48 khz would be a more appropriate standard than 16/44 actually.  Certainly we don't need even 24/96, but some will want it anyway. 

post #1618 of 1923

yeah, bandpass filters are not perfect or ideal so having twice the number of samples then needed for the highest frequencies will do a lot to smooth the true response and give reasonable safety margin for even the most critical head-fier using single crystal gold power cords.  

post #1619 of 1923
Isn't 48khz already twice the sample of up 22KHz band? All those samples can more than fit into 16 bits.
post #1620 of 1923

Whenever you establish a threshold where you say "anything beyond this doesn't matter", there's always some joker in the crowd who insists that the line needs to be just a few feet further along... "just to be safe... just in case..." This happens over and over again with people worrying about "that last five percent" until the line gets pushed way over into La La Land.

 

Redbook standards were based on human hearing thresholds. If it performs to redbook spec, it's good enough for human ears. Period. Anyone who thinks they need more are either super humans or not in touch with reality. Take a guess which group I think they belong to!

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!