Originally Posted by CDBacklash
Have you listened to any 8bit recordings recently? There is little high pitches to speak of (and definitely no sparkle), and in most encodes there is a pleasant rolloff.
He's not arguing that there isn't a benefit between going from 8 bit to 16 bit, he's saying there isn't any benefit from going between 16 bit to 24 bit. 8 bits represents 2^8= 256 possible levels, 2^16= 65536, and 2^24 = 16777216. Those are totally different things. The benefit you get from increasing resolution (bit depth) is asymptotic. There is a maximum resolution that you are capable of discerning- whatever that may be- and storing the data (music in this case) at any higher resolution doesn't give you any additional benefit because you cannot discern it. The second issue is that as your resolution increases, background noise caused by the various electronic components sets a certain practical maximum level of resolution. This is the difference between accuracy and precision. gregorio is arguing that going from 16 bit to 24 bit provides no benefit because of both of these reasons. The nyquist-whatever sampling theory (and theory = law, it doesn't mean some random unproved ideas: e.g. the theory (law) of gravity). says that you need to sample a frequency at approximately 2X the frequency you wish to reconstruct, so if you want to be able to reconstruct a 20 kHz tone, you need to be able to sample that tone at 40 kHz (and CDs sample at 44.1 kHz). Unless you're like 12 years old, you can't hear much beyond 20 kHz.
Now come the arguments of people professing that they can hear greater than 20 kHz. Sorry, you probably can't - even if you think you can hear it. Take a tone generator, set your system to a given volume, and listen to tones generated at 100, 200, 500, 1000, 2000, 5000, 10000, 12000, 15000, 20000. Set the volume to a level where you would normally listen when playing either the 500, 1000, or 2000 hz tone, and then proceed through the rest without adjusting the volume. Now being honest, can you really hear 20,000 hz? Science suggests that if you're an adult male you probably can't. Simply saying that you can won't convince me either. I'm 31, and seven years ago when I had my ears tested I could hear maybe up to 20 kHz, but the sound was so faint that it didn't really matter much.
This is why medical researchers study the effect of drugs using double blind studies- so that neither the individual being measured, nor the individual measuring knows whether they are being given the real treatment or being given a placebo. Just wanting something to be true is enough in order to convince yourself that it is. Some small fraction of the adult population maybe able to hear 20 kHz without drastically increasing the volume, but it will be a very small percentage.
|Why is this so? Well, high frequencies are harder to put in the digital realm and need more data to be represented accurately (or at all in some extreme cases). The spectrum is expanded from 16 bit when it is in 24bit. The resolution is "higher".
Dude, he understands this - don't be patronizing.
|16bit can extend beyond the range of human hearing, but there is little study on whether frequencies above conventional hearing have an impact on the overall sound on the rest of the song through constructive interferance where as removing a lot of highs will leave just the fundamental and things will sound nearly identical to eachother - you lose the character that is violin or flute (produce a similar wave form and have similar attacks decays so on).
If you're going to engage in a scientific discussion and reference a paper supporting your position you are remiss if you do not cite it specifically.
You haven't made any arguments from which any conclusions can be deduced 'logically'.