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 153

post #2281 of 2289

That image was part of a video they made to promote the Pono.

post #2282 of 2289
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krutsch View Post
 


I looked for that "graph" on the pono site; where did you find it?

 

It was originally on their Kick Starter site, but it has been replaced with a different graph.

 

http://www.innerfidelity.com/content/its-masters-damit

post #2283 of 2289
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krutsch View Post
 

I looked for that "graph" on the pono site; where did you find it?


as bigshot says. I remembered it from one of the silly videos, and just googled pono+underwater in google image hoping somebody would have done a screenshot already ^_^. 

post #2284 of 2289
Quote:
Originally Posted by sonitus mirus View Post
 

 

It was originally on their Kick Starter site, but it has been replaced with a different graph.

 

http://www.innerfidelity.com/content/its-masters-damit


So, I watched that video which was interesting. Thanks for sharing.

Maybe Sound Science needs to consider replacing the ABX comparator with the head-bop test. :L3000:

 

Then, at the 5:00 minute mark, after being passionately lectured about the craft and the artistry, we have the singer from Linkin Park shrieking into a mic. And then, we get to watch Snoop Dogg wax-on all nostalgic about CDs... right, so when you're reading the lyrics, you can really understand the context of what Snoop means when rants about b-i-t-c-h-e-s and hoes.

 

I hear what my 12 year-old daughter listens to, and it's no better. I try... I've exposed her to a lot of music and I encourage her to use the 2-channel system, so it doesn't sound like crap. I bought her a nice set of Grados to replace the ear buds and sometimes she wants a copy of my graybeard stuff she's just heard for her iTunes library. But as soon as I take my hand off that steering wheel, she's back to Bruno Mars, using the speakers on her laptop.

 

Really, who on earth is the target for that marketing message?

post #2285 of 2289
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krutsch View Post
 

Maybe Sound Science needs to consider replacing the ABX comparator with the head-bop test. :L3000:

 

here is what busta rhymes had to say after listening to the pono in a car(because that's where you can judge real music for a portable DAP... in a car).

post #2286 of 2289

The question has come back to focus because of pono's crappy marketing, but tbh, I kinda don't mind the 24 bit. I have 3 points:

 

1. The increased dynamic range is nice since 96db on CD is arguably not enough, and you no longer have to use dithering which increases noise.

2. The size increase is only 50%. With advancements in storage, this is gonna seem like less and less of a big deal. Sizes of albums are still really small compared to good high res video or a game with high res textures.

3. Why 16 bit lossless in the first place? If you are really a miser with bits, you can get a high quality lossy file that you can't distinguish from the lossless at fraction of the bitrate. And if you encode directly from the 24 bit master, you get better dynamic range too afaik.


Edited by mindbomb - Yesterday at 10:22 pm
post #2287 of 2289
Quote:
Originally Posted by mindbomb View Post
 

The question has come back to focus because of pono's crappy marketing, but tbh, I kinda don't mind the 24 bit. I have 3 points:

 

1. The increased dynamic range is nice since 96db on CD is arguably not enough, and you no longer have to use dithering which increases noise.

2. The size increase is only 50%. With advancements in storage, this is gonna seem like less and less of a big deal. Sizes of albums are still really small compared to good high res video or a game with high res textures.

3. Why 16 bit lossless in the first place? If you are really a miser with bits, you can get a high quality lossy file that you can't distinguish from the lossless at fraction of the bitrate. And if you encode directly from the 24 bit master, you get better dynamic range too afaik.

 

I am not an expert in any of the fields pertaining to audio, so there's that.

 

Now I'm going to use my knowledge I have gained so far from reading what I have researched, and

1. Music doesn't go above 60db anyways. 96db is plenty for playback.
2. The size increase is only 50%, with the sound quality increase of 0%.
3. 16bit/44.1kHz is the sweet spot for capturing what that matters for playback with transparency and fidelity.

 

Those points matters for studio use, but has no bearing at all for playback(Digital volume control does benefit from the added bits though).

 

 

post #2288 of 2289

Quote:

Originally Posted by mindbomb View Post
 

The question has come back to focus because of pono's crappy marketing, but tbh, I kinda don't mind the 24 bit. I have 3 points:

 

1. The increased dynamic range is nice since 96db on CD is arguably not enough, and you no longer have to use dithering which increases noise.

2. The size increase is only 50%. With advancements in storage, this is gonna seem like less and less of a big deal. Sizes of albums are still really small compared to good high res video or a game with high res textures.

3. Why 16 bit lossless in the first place? If you are really a miser with bits, you can get a high quality lossy file that you can't distinguish from the lossless at fraction of the bitrate. And if you encode directly from the 24 bit master, you get better dynamic range too afaik.

 

1. as said more dynamic is absolutely not for the song itself, no song uses 90db, it's at best for the noise floor.

before we had even less than 16bit, like k7 tapes and vinyls. and both were cool enough for sound quality, a little too much distortion, but the most audible and obvious problem with those was the noise. so a way to push that noise down was clearly a good decision. now do we hear the dithered noise floor of a 16bit CD when we listen to our songs? no, else people wouldn't fail ABx so much. I mean if all I had to do was listen for some noise, I clearly shouldn't struggle so much to tell 16/44 apart from 24/96 in an abx. did you try that? to actually judge for yourself how low a noise you can really hear when music is playing at the same time?

so if it's not for the dynamic of the song and not for the noise, what's the point of adding bits?

 

2. I agree with you that storage isn't the reason to stay at 16bit. if it was the same price, with the same products available, I might very well have my tracks in 24bit flac on the computer. at least for archive purpose. but we clearly don't live in that world. we live in a world where there is no transparency, and you end up paying more for something you usually know nothing about.

 

3. why would encoding to mp3@320 from 24bit improve dynamic range?

 

 

 

most of us here do have some hires files, some audio DVDs some SACDs. we're not anti-hires because our religion told us to, we're really just anti BS. we know that a highres file will measure slightly better than 16/44, at least for the noise floor. we're all just saying that people should concentrate on what we actually hear, instead of buying into marketing.

post #2289 of 2289
Quote:
Originally Posted by mindbomb View Post
 

The question has come back to focus because of pono's crappy marketing, but tbh, I kinda don't mind the 24 bit. I have 3 points:

 

1. The increased dynamic range is nice since 96db on CD is arguably not enough, and you no longer have to use dithering which increases noise.

2. The size increase is only 50%. With advancements in storage, this is gonna seem like less and less of a big deal. Sizes of albums are still really small compared to good high res video or a game with high res textures.

3. Why 16 bit lossless in the first place? If you are really a miser with bits, you can get a high quality lossy file that you can't distinguish from the lossless at fraction of the bitrate. And if you encode directly from the 24 bit master, you get better dynamic range too afaik.

 

1. Really? Are you actually hearing quantization noise? You'd be lucky to have a listening room as quiet as 30dB, which means that if you were listening to music with peaks at 116dB (painful) your quantization noise would still be as quiet as the room background noise.

 

If you:

a) have exceptional hearing (very few do) AND

b) you live in an anechoic chamber (even fewer do) AND

c) you listen to music with really really quiet passages (only a few classical recordings would qualify) AND

d) you have your system turned up so loud that the peaks are painful AND

e) the master itself has a noise floor lower than 96dB

 

THEN you might hear a little quantization noise, which is still a benign hiss. (and I'm being generous here as there are techniques to achieve over 100dB DR with a CD)

 

2. True, the 50% extra data of 24 bit is not a BIG deal, but it's still wasted space and space still costs money even if it's not a lot.

 

3. You won't get an MP3 file with higher DR just because you converted from a 24 bit file.

16 bit is a good format because it is enough for any domestic listening situation (as I showed above). No-one is choosing it because they are a "miser with bits"

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!