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 116

post #1726 of 3723
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post
 

Whenever you put up listening tests on the internet, it's inevitable that people are going to cheat and use measurements instead of their ears.


I have had that experience certainly. 

 

I have cheated on myself.  Purchased hirez recordings done with modern digital gear.  Checked to see it has something above 20 khz.  Then digitally filtered out everything below 20 khz.  Play the result and heard complete silence.  My speakers go to 28 khz, and a test mic showed at least some response actually making it into the room.  To my hearing through my ear....nope, nothing.  Even more clearly when I generated high frequency test tones so I can be more certain something steady is there to be heard.  And I hear....nothing.  These wonderful qualities of hirez formats sure are hard to actually find.

post #1727 of 3723

I did say that i don't have deep understanding on the subject. 

Quote:
 I thought most people who agreed that 24bit is better can hear a noticeable difference right away.

I am not one of those people.

They claim that the ultasonic frequency's bring something to the music and so on. You would have to test and prove it in some form of blind test and the test should contain several songs to make sure the testing material has enough variance and it cant be blamed on just being one song. I personally don't think 16bit / 44.1khz sound any different when compared to 24bit / 96khz.

 

Even if you can analyze a file and it shows something above 20khz can you actually test and tell what that something is? Since you cant hear it........ ;)

That's why random file from internet does not really work for scientific testing.

post #1728 of 3723

It's important to remember that, like headphones and speakers, microphones are transducers and most do not respond well at all above 20kHz.

post #1729 of 3723
Quote:
Originally Posted by kraken2109 View Post
 

It's important to remember that, like headphones and speakers, microphones are transducers and most do not respond well at all above 20kHz.

They aren't designed to because they don't need to. Not for audio applications, anyway.

 

In the bat flight lab I used to work in, some of the biologists were interested in echolocation. They had microphones and speakers for the ultrasound. Those measure and produce ultrasound because it's relevant to the application.

 

 

Cheers

post #1730 of 3723
Quote:
Originally Posted by ab initio View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by kraken2109 View Post
 

It's important to remember that, like headphones and speakers, microphones are transducers and most do not respond well at all above 20kHz.

They aren't designed to because they don't need to. Not for audio applications, anyway.

 

In the bat flight lab I used to work in, some of the biologists were interested in echolocation. They had microphones and speakers for the ultrasound. Those measure and produce ultrasound because it's relevant to the application.

 

 

Cheers


someone is making some nice 24/96 recordings!

post #1731 of 3723
Quote:
Originally Posted by castleofargh View Post
 


someone is making some nice 24/96 recordings!


For bats, even 24/96 doesn't cut it! See (Fenton and Bell, 1981)

 

Cheers

post #1732 of 3723
Does anybody here think that music video producers give you a better production on 24 bit depth Blu-ray rather than 16-bit DVD not because the music produces cannot give you just as good sonic experience on 16 bits DVD, but they simply don't?
post #1733 of 3723
Quote:
Originally Posted by ab initio View Post
 

They aren't designed to because they don't need to. Not for audio applications, anyway.

 

In the bat flight lab I used to work in, some of the biologists were interested in echolocation. They had microphones and speakers for the ultrasound. Those measure and produce ultrasound because it's relevant to the application.

 

 

Cheers


That's kind of what I mean, what's the point in recording to a format that can store these frequencies when they won't actually be in the recording.

post #1734 of 3723
Quote:
Originally Posted by bbmiller View Post

Does anybody here think that music video producers give you a better production on 24 bit depth Blu-ray rather than 16-bit DVD not because the music produces cannot give you just as good sonic experience on 16 bits DVD, but they simply don't?

 

I think that many times, lower bit rate audio is deliberately hobbled, yes. Every legacy rock SACD I ever owned has different mastering on the redbook layer than on the SACD layer. The inferior sound quality of the redbook was always because of the inferior mastering, not the format itself.

post #1735 of 3723

It all comes down to profit as always. Its the music industry that is spreading the myth of 24bit / 96khz superiority. Or you could say force feeding it to people. I have noticed that a lot of recordings or masters seem to be worse these day's. In some it is so bad there is even audible distortion. I am not a big fan of conspiracy theory's but Music industry has done some very dodgy decisions in the past and i am not surprised if they are actually using different masters for CD and DVD / SACD layer / Blue-ray releases. Anybody remember the mess with copyright protection on CD's?

They are trying to sell new products but people wont buy them if the product is identical in quality, only difference is the price.

post #1736 of 3723

Agreed, and as this thread has shown, they sure have done a great job into making people (experts on the matter even, self proclaimed or not) believe there is any audible benefit to anything beyond Redbook. I say keep it simple, enjoy your CD's and compressed online streams, or show me the DBT results that proves otherwise.

post #1737 of 3723

I'm going to play the devil's advocate here (please note this is honest curiosity and I'm trying to further my somewhat limited knowledge).

 

What about the arguments that one can "feel" a difference in the music at 24 bits?  One example would be greater listening fatigue when comparing 16 to 24.  This type of difference wouldn't be apparent in a quick ABX test, but only after extended listening periods.

 

Would it be possible that the lesser noise of 24 bits over 16 bits (even though slight) could be perceived, maybe even on a subconscious level, and would lead to a better listening experience?

post #1738 of 3723

Listening fatigue is due to response spikes. The lack of super high frequencies won't cause it, but having too much up there will.

post #1739 of 3723
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rooster81 View Post
 

I'm going to play the devil's advocate here (please note this is honest curiosity and I'm trying to further my somewhat limited knowledge).

 

What about the arguments that one can "feel" a difference in the music at 24 bits?  One example would be greater listening fatigue when comparing 16 to 24.  This type of difference wouldn't be apparent in a quick ABX test, but only after extended listening periods.

 

Would it be possible that the lesser noise of 24 bits over 16 bits (even though slight) could be perceived, maybe even on a subconscious level, and would lead to a better listening experience?


I don't know if such a test of just this for only 16 vs 24 bits has been done.  It is very similar to an oft heard claim that longer auditioning is more perceptive, that quick switches interfere with more subtle perception.  That has been tested and always quick switches are more perceptive.  Fairly large distortion differences are not perceived when auditioning is over several minutes (or in one case several days to weeks).  Yet the same level of distortion is unambiguously perceived with segments of a a couple dozen seconds and rapid switching. 

 

Your ear has to perceive an actual difference for it to possibly effect you even over longer periods of time.  If some level of difference, 16 vs 24 bits, is below what human ear drums  can respond to, then how does more exposure over longer periods somehow uncover that?  If the ear cannot perceive something it cannot have an avenue of cumulative effect.

post #1740 of 3723
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rooster81 View Post


Would it be possible that the lesser noise of 24 bits over 16 bits (even though slight) could be perceived, maybe even on a subconscious level, and would lead to a better listening experience?

Where is this lesser noise?

I've never seen evidence showing there is more noise in 16 bit....there is evidence that higher res is actually noisier than Redbook

If your audio chain isn't designed to deal properly with ultrasonics then your subconscious is far more likely to perceive the distortions created in the chain
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!