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 188

post #2806 of 2812
Quote:
Originally Posted by OrbitingCow View Post
 

Well I have been following up on this debate again. Let me get what I have been reading. I have no idea about some of it and don't make any claims  as to the accuracy. As I said I get 24/96 to rest easy, and even 24/192 sometimes because really I don't care about space. I got the Grateful Dead is pure 24/192. Why some may ask? Because it is there and I have to worry about zero problems with mixing and mastering. It's definitive. Meaning never will be topped as far as I am concerned. One sec.....

 

There's still no guarantee that the effort given to a hi-res release is superior, in terms of mixing/mastering, to Redbook releases of the same material. It's still too far much of a crap-shoot to believe that sound quality is the overriding concern in the hi-res movement.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by OrbitingCow View Post
 

Here was this debate I was reading which was pretty entertaining: http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/article/digital-music-16-bit-44-khz-explained

 

One thing that should always be taken into account is that a high-res version of anything is almost ALWAYS going to better than its late 80s/early 90s counterpart at 44.1 if they even half-tried to make it decent. We didn't have technology back then to do the downscaling like we do now imo. I'm not saying it is 100% but I have heard some pretty resounding samples. STP's Core album to me sounds a lot better overall in high-res than it does with the old CD for whatever reasons. I'm sure the downscaling there had some issues.

 

I have plenty of classical albums from that period that sound superb compared with the standards of today. Heck, even some of my *early* 80s releases sound great. It's not a technological issue, it's a matter again of care being put into the actual production process.

post #2807 of 2812

Yes, correct, but those old CDs also had terrible scans to begin with in most cases. The converters were not even close to what we have today. Sure, they can sound decent, so can normal CDs from that day. But again, I felt something different on that STP Core release in high-res and I'm sure it is because of the awful tech or human element used to do the downscaling back then. People didn't understand all the stuff about low pass filtering and all the other jazz like they do now, and nor were the DACs and ADCs near as accomplished. So going high-res does have the opportunity to bypass at least a little of the production process. Then again it could be messed up just as well.

 

Also, I didn't comment on standards of today. I commented on the high-res version of an old CD being better, if it was properly made, because the converters were much worse and human element of error was much higher back then. It is not nearly as bad anymore though I have NO idea how accomplished most mastering and mixing engineers are. Again, another reason to go high-res if possible is to escape the human element, or at least have a chance at doing that.

 

Here is one of the new threads where people are fighting each other; it is about the perceived audibility of digital errors or something: http://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php?showtopic=107124&st=1025

 

Huge thread. And it turns out they may have wanted to sell high-res BS. Again, the best reason to get high-res stuff is because you have a higher chance of someone not ******* things up along the way. IMO anyway.


Edited by OrbitingCow - Today at 2:08 pm
post #2808 of 2812
Quote:
Originally Posted by OrbitingCow View Post
 

Yes, correct, but those old CDs also had terrible scans to begin with in most cases. The converters were not even close to what we have today. Sure, they can sound decent, so can normal CDs from that day. But again, I felt something different on that STP Core release in high-res and I'm sure it is because of the awful tech or human element used to do the downscaling back then. People didn't understand all the stuff about low pass filtering and all the other jazz like they do now, and nor were the DACs and ADCs near as accomplished. So going high-res does have the opportunity to bypass at least a little of the production process. Then again it could be messed up just as well.

 

Also, I didn't comment on standards of today. I commented on the high-res version of an old CD being better, if it was properly made, because the converters were much worse and human element of error was much higher back then. It is not nearly as bad anymore though I have NO idea how accomplished most mastering and mixing engineers are. Again, another reason to go high-res if possible is to escape the human element, or at least have a chance at doing that.

 

Here is one of the new threads where people are fighting each other; it is about the perceived audibility of digital errors or something: http://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php?showtopic=107124&st=1025

 

Huge thread. And it turns out they may have wanted to sell high-res BS. Again, the best reason to get high-res stuff is because you have a higher chance of someone not ******* things up along the way. IMO anyway.

 

Technology today of course allows for more leeway in not screwing up a recording and processing, but then you have to consider that the whole Loudness War was due to *deliberate* screwing up of mastering, not an element of human error. So some of us just aren't too jazzed about being resold old albums that shouldn't have been messed up in the first place. Even then, stuff like this happens even in today's hi-res environment:

http://www.digitalaudioreview.net/2015/02/disrespecting-artistry-becks-morning-phase-as-a-hi-res-download/


Edited by RRod - Today at 3:39 pm
post #2809 of 2812
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post
 

Transparent is transparent. Modern lossy codecs achieve audible transparency. You can use a file format that is bigger, but it won't sound better to human ears. I know you don't want to believe that, but it's true.

 

Studies have shown that your brain might be receiving some sort of stimulus from ultra sonic frequencies (most likely discomfort), but they add absolutely nothing to perceived sound quality of music. Worthless as teats on a bull hog.


And what is your harping on me about it going to do? I have stated my intention. It is my business and not yours. Leave it alone.

post #2810 of 2812
Quote:
Originally Posted by OrbitingCow View Post
 

Campbell and the Admin in the mac article up there get into an intense debate about some things. It is worth reading. They also link to some experimental studies on perception of sounds past the normal range and other useful tidbits.

 

http://jn.physiology.org/content/83/6/3548

 

"In conclusion, our findings that showed an increase in alpha-EEG potentials, activation of deep-seated brain structures, a correlation between alpha-EEG and rCBF in the thalamus, and a subjective preference toward FRS, give strong evidence supporting the existence of a previously unrecognized response to high-frequency sound beyond the audible range that might be distinct from more usual auditory phenomena. Additional support for this hypothesis could come from future noninvasive measurements of the biochemical markers in the brain such as monoamines or opioid peptides."

 

http://www.wescottdesign.com/articles/Sampling/sampling.pdf

 

But usually most think that a perfect conversation from 24/96 to 16/44.1 is fine. That doesn't mean you should trust those doing the converting! And that is why I prefer solid 24/96 or higher. Less human error.

 

There is also a piece with Bob Ludwig saying it's in the entire piece of the High-res stuff. You need to listen to it as a whole to hear the differences. Botnick of the Doors also said something about feeling better. Make of that what you will.


Thanks! I'm going to read these later tonight.

post #2811 of 2812
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greenears View Post
 

 

I sense another ABX log posting coming!  I rub my hands with glee!

 

Please post your 24 v 16.  Lossy v lossless is ok as well but I think that should be taken to another thread.  It's a fun argument point but it's not the same question as 24v16 and does not have the same impact for most people (unless most of your collection was never on CD to begin with then you may have a lot of lower bitrate lossy).  Besides, the thread title and OP is not about lossy.


I think they're cousins, at least. Lossy count as 16bit too, right?

post #2812 of 2812
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post
 

 AAC 256 VBR is exactly the same as lossless and it is a much smaller file. It works for my home stereo, it works for portable. No compromises at all, except for ones that exist only in theory, not in the real world.

I envy your ears; under normal listening conditions I have trouble with 128 AAC. Then again, normal listening conditions means the kids are around and the furnace is runing (the furnace is right next to my study). Perhaps in the summer, when it's quieter :)

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!