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 55

post #811 of 1923
Quote:
Originally Posted by milosz View Post

And that's all that matters to me-  I'm the one who buys gear and recorded music for me, and if I can't hear the difference between redbook and 24/96 recordings, well then I see no need for me to spend my hard-earned cash on exotic DACs or hard-to-find 24/96 recordings. 


I don't believe I'm quoting you out of context in grabbing your final couple of sentences - apologies if that is the case but this thread is a monster already. I agree with you 100% - good enough is most definitely good enough. If folk want to collect the remaining hi-rez discs and pay for downloads, all power to them, but most of us seem to have survived with nothing more than Redbook CDs for many years. I;d be happier if the recordings themselves were better in many cases, but I have absolutely no control over that. Inebitably, there will be people out there who claim they can tell the difference between Redbook and 24/96, but I'm not one of them. Choice is good, but that has to go both ways - religious wars rarely allow for that kind of leeway. 

 

post #812 of 1923
Quote:

Originally Posted by jaud View Post

 


And here's another pretty picture demonstrating an increase in the bit depth:

 

Sines.png

 

 

This is a misrepresentation of the differences in bit-depth as it relates to digital audio. The extra bits are not equally spread over the visible wave-form, they are centered around the zero-crossing area and are therefore practically invisible as well as inaudible. This sort of cognitive error along with common but misleading terms like "snapshots" lead to misunderstanding.

post #813 of 1923
Quote:
Originally Posted by joe_cool View Post

The extra bits are not equally spread over the visible wave-form, they are centered around the zero-crossing area and are therefore practically invisible as well as inaudible.

Huh?

post #814 of 1923
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaud View Post

This is a misrepresentation of the differences in bit-depth as it relates to digital audio. The extra bits are not equally spread over the visible wave-form, they are centered around the zero-crossing area and are therefore practically invisible as well as inaudible. This sort of cognitive error along with common but misleading terms like "snapshots" lead to misunderstanding.

Quote:
Originally Posted by xnor View Post

Huh?


 

And there is the crux of almost all 192/24 vs. 44/16 threads... biggrin.gif

 

post #815 of 1923
Quote:
Originally Posted by ILikeMusic View Post


 

And there is the crux of almost all 192/24 vs. 44/16 threads... biggrin.gif

 


Yes,this. triportsad.gif.

Only very few people here know what they are talking about.

 

post #816 of 1923
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaud View Post

 

Here's a pretty picture to illustrate what I'm talking about in regards to increasing the sample rate:

 

PCM v DSD.jpg

 

 

Since the noise question has been already been beaten to the death MULTIPLE times, I shall not go there. But it seems the sample rate one has yet "die" enough times so I shall go .

 

Going by the sample rate impulse graph shown, 192khz seems like a terrible choice for a recording format. 24/96 combines the best of 2 worlds, DSD is good and all but its noise characteristics by heavy noise shaping makes it sucky for recording but great for playback or format delivery(mastering). 192khz though it reaches close to the impulse response of the analog sound, there is significant "spread" or ringing which to me, may be more audible than the maximum amplitude of the impulse response. 


 

post #817 of 1923
Quote:

Originally Posted by firev1 View Post

 

192khz though it reaches close to the impulse response of the analog sound, there is significant "spread" or ringing which to me, may be more audible than the maximum amplitude of the impulse response.


The ringing is at 96 kHz, though, so I do not think it is audible. Also, by implementing a smooth roll-off already below the maximum frequency (e.g. from 24 kHz to 96 kHz), the ringing can be made much shorter (its length is inversely proportional to the bandwidth of the lowpass filter).

 

post #818 of 1923

I see, but fact still remains that with the extremely high sample rates, we lose some accuracy, simply put, I don't think impulse response tell the whole picture.

post #819 of 1923

In theory, no accuracy is lost with a higher sample rate. It just allows you to reproduce a wider frequency range, but it is up to you how the extra bandwidth is used. Here are some impulse and frequency response graphs for comparison:

 

48 kHz with fast roll-off:

48k_i.png    48k_f.png

48 kHz with slow roll-off above 20 kHz:

48k_lp_i.png    48k_lp_f.png

96 kHz with slow roll-off above 24 kHz:

96k_i.png    96k_f.png

 

The 96 kHz version has ruler flat frequency response (and also phase response as it is linear phase) up to 24 kHz, so nothing is lost there compared to the 48 kHz sample rate. Due to the increased bandwidth of the lowpass filter, it has far less ringing.

A higher sample rate is technically better (assuming that it does not introduce problems related to non-ideal hardware), but of course it may not actually make an audible difference compared to 48 or even 44.1 kHz, so the extra bandwidth is still likely to be a waste of space in practice.

 

post #820 of 1923

the fact is that with Analog Signals we are starting with limited "bits" - all real world signals have limited bandwidth, a noise floor (Johnson "thermal" noise and often other types)

 

EarthWorks makes much in their marketing of their products super bandwidth - the fastest mic they sell for recording use has a 50 kHz 2nd order roll off, and due to its small size it has higher noise floor

 

most mics used in recording studios have 20-25 kHz or less bandwidth

 

plug the numbers into Shannon-Hartley Channel Capacity Theorem and good 20 bit (enob) 96/192 k ADC aren't missing much

 

 

any idea of the best ever delivered by any analog mass market consumer music recording media - hard numbers?


Edited by jcx - 3/27/12 at 11:25am
post #821 of 1923

My comment on accuracy mainly goes for 192khz sample rate, with 96khz there is almost no problem(at least for A/DC). Unless I misinterpret Lavry's paper incorrectly? 

post #822 of 1923
Quote:
Originally Posted by firev1 View Post

My comment on accuracy mainly goes for 192khz sample rate, with 96khz there is almost no problem(at least for A/DC). Unless I misinterpret Lavry's paper incorrectly? 


There is nothing inherently (i.e. not related to its current implementations) wrong with the 192 kHz sample rate either, although for music storage/distribution there is not much point using it.

 

post #823 of 1923

Does anyone know where I can get a test track that is in 192KHz / 16 bit, 44.1KHz / 24 bit and 192kHz / 24 bit?

 

I realize I can do this myself with dBpoweramp, but my understanding is that most software out there just truncates the extra bits off.  The process requires dithering and needs to be done properly for a fair comparison.

 

I would like to play these tracks myself and see what I can actually hear.

 

?

 

 

post #824 of 1923

If you have a link to a good 192/24 or 96/24 test file that can be freely used, I can create a blind test thread for the comparisons, including files that go through actual D/A-A/D conversion if that is relevant.

 

post #825 of 1923

-


Edited by khaos974 - 3/31/12 at 8:21pm
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!