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 61

post #901 of 1813
Quote:
Originally Posted by dbbloke View Post

I don't have time to read this thread. It's bollocks.

24 bit is an improvement over 16bit. There is more air around things, there is more description of the reverb of the room, things sound more lifelike and slightly more subtle. I know this 100% for sure, it's a fact. No matter of flawed science can prove it otherwise.

 

Whether or not it makes THAT much difference or that much MORE of a music experience though ... probably not much. If anything like a good DAC, it can ruin with extra vision like 1080p sometimes does.

 

Why even bother ?

post #902 of 1813
Quote:
Originally Posted by dbbloke View Post

I don't have time to read this thread. It's bollocks.

24 bit is an improvement over 16bit. There is more air around things, there is more description of the reverb of the room, things sound more lifelike and slightly more subtle. I know this 100% for sure, it's a fact. No matter of flawed science can prove it otherwise.

 

So you did something like this:

- take a 24-bit track and convert it to 16-bit with dithering

- optionally convert the 16-bit file back to 24-bit again

- compare the original and degraded 24-bit file with the foobar2000 ABX comparator plugin (or other ABX software of your choice)

And you can tell the files apart with at least 95% confidence, at a sane volume level ?


Edited by stv014 - 12/3/12 at 2:20pm
post #903 of 1813
Quote:
Originally Posted by dbbloke View Post

I know this 100% for sure, it's a fact.

Well, you can't beat FACTS. I'm convinced!
Quote:
Originally Posted by stv014 View Post

compare the original and degraded 24-bit file with the foobar2000 ABX comparator plugin

Don't you know that ABX tests are fundamentally FLAWED? They confuse your brain into thinking that everything sounds the same! They're EVIL! We've got people claiming that they can't ABX even 128 kbps MP3! Non-sense!!!!!1!!ONE

wink.gif
post #904 of 1813
Quote:
24 bit is an improvement over 16bit. There is more air around things, there is more description of the reverb of the room, things sound more lifelike and slightly more subtle. I know this 100% for sure, it's a fact. No matter of flawed science can prove it otherwise.

You just made a claim. Prove it. If not: silly troll attempt.

 

Nope, you just saying so doesn't mean anything. See my signature.


Edited by xnor - 12/3/12 at 12:57pm
post #905 of 1813
Quote:
Originally Posted by xnor View Post

That's why he wrote "eliminate quantization distortion" and: "Essentially during the conversion process a very small amount of white noise is added to the signal, this has the effect of completely randomising the quantisation errors."

 

I don't understand what you're saying here. Could you rephrase this please or expand a bit?

Specifically, dither improves specific inharmonic distortion.

 

About the other point: Nyquist-Shannon theorem says things about stationary signals (continuous and repeating). Typical signals though have a beginning and the end - it's there where the reconstruction filter response matters. This is typically the windowed sinc filter, as (straight) sinc filters are covered by the second part of the theorem.

 

Almost all devices have very good reconstruction filters, dropping at most 1 dB at the highest end and adding neglible distortion. There are rare mistakes, like the 18 dB rolloff in the audible band of HM-801 - but these won't be fixed by bit depth. There are other limitations at the lowest end due to (at least stray) inductance forming a highpass filter.

 

There is a limit on reconstruction filters too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheung%E2%80%93Marks_theorem

And here's the dual for time (transient) resolution: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balian%E2%80%93Low_theorem

The issue is similar to Schroedinger's equation in wave form.

 

Excess bit depth will slightly improve interpolation filter's quality - the result should be slightly better distortion figures as well as noise. (with or without dithering or AWGN added)


Edited by AstralStorm - 12/4/12 at 12:17am
post #906 of 1813
Convert from 24-16-24 ??? Whats wrong with doing a recording straight from a desk 24bit and then 16 bit? Yeah, it's not going to sound identical cause it's hard to play completely the same piece twice, but will it sound different? Lot simpler. I guess you need good mikes etc..
2 adcs simultaneously might not be the go on account of different electronics, but with a master clock, high grade low tolerance components should be close. I suppose if you had 2 adcs you could do 16 bit on each and see if they sound the same. then 16 vs 24 and see if it;s the same as well smily_headphones1.gif ?

Who says science is correct. It isn't, not even close in a number of areas. I mean just look at a similar topic global warming.

Seems there are 24bit activists / terrorists as well now. It's just plan funny a thread got this long on something that's obvious.
It's like arguing you don't need speakers that reach below frequencies under the bottom note of a bass guitar or something. Super tweeters are interesting as well.

I guess I should have made more of a name for myself as a hifi reviewer, any audio people who know me and trust me would just take my word.
To actually prove to you is a bit more tricky, it would involve sitting in front of a great hifi setup (not headphones for sure) and playing back identical source material at different bits etc. The new graceland 25th anniversary release is nice, remastered in 24 and 16 bit. I should try the test myself. Or maybe just try and get my favourite record label to record 24 bit just for me smily_headphones1.gif
http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f14-music-analysis-objective-and-subjective/graceland-24-96-a-14025/

Not heard my decent hifi in 24bit yet it's in a container for the last 3 yrs, did all my 24 bit tests a while ago.
So I can only suggest people go to a good hifi shop like I did (few and far between) and get a 24bit demo room booked for the afternoon.
Take along your own files, go to they gym before, drink lots of water etc.. Cardio workout does more wonders for hifi imho.

On the topic of files, I guess you can hide behind mastering and release formats as to why it's more detailed using the same DAC, laptop, amps, speakers, cables, just a different file. But if 24 bit files are more detailed in general over many files (its what i found, instruments consistently more real) then there is a good enough reason to go big files.

So ok, argue it out in science, this thread really is pointless like WAV vs FLAC or foobar vs jplay, I2s etc.. Enjoy smily_headphones1.gif I bother to reply because I have read a few places 24 bit isn't any different where the science isn't there yet and it's just plain annoying and defeating to progress. 24 bit had enough issues.
BTW, Linn are offering free 24 bit downloads ATM. http://christmas.linn.co.uk/
Edited by dbbloke - 12/4/12 at 4:36pm
post #907 of 1813
Quote:
Originally Posted by dbbloke View Post

Convert from 24-16-24 ??? Whats wrong with doing a recording straight from a desk 24bit and then 16 bit? Yeah, it's not going to sound identical cause it's hard to play completely the same piece twice, but will it sound different? Lot simpler.

Wait a second, what's wrong with doing a simple conversion? There's no point in comparing two different recordings. Even if you had identical mics, they cannot be in the same place.

 

Quote:
Who says science is correct. It isn't, not even close in a number of areas. I mean just look at a similar topic global warming.

24/16-bit audio and global warming .. similar topics? Does not compute!

And who says you are not wrong?

 

Quote:
I guess I should have made more of a name for myself as a hifi reviewer, any audio people who know me and trust me would just take my word.

So hifi reviewers are less wrong / more trustworthy. You're kidding right? Especially considering the affiliations ...

The beauty of science is that we do not have to take somebody at his/her word.

 

Arguments from authority .. irrelevant, anecdotal evidence ... irrelevant.

 

Quote:
To actually prove to you is a bit more tricky, it would involve sitting in front of a great hifi setup (not headphones for sure) and playing back identical source material at different bits etc. The new graceland 25th anniversary release is nice, remastered in 24 and 16 bit. I should try the test myself.

Ensure the 16-bit file wasn't mastered differently.

 

Quote:
On the topic of files, I guess you can hide behind mastering and release formats as to why it's more detailed using the same DAC, laptop, amps, speakers, cables, just a different file. But if 24 bit files are more detailed in general over many files (its what i found, instruments consistently more real) then there is a good enough reason to go big files.

Hide behind? These are variables that have to be controlled in order to get any meaningful result. But maybe that simple fact is above some hifi reviewers heads..

 

Quote:
So ok, argue it out in science, this thread really is pointless like WAV vs FLAC or foobar vs jplay, I2s etc.. Enjoy smily_headphones1.gif

The thread is not pointless, but irrelevant replies are. rolleyes.gif

 

Quote:
I bother to reply because I have read a few places 24 bit isn't any different where the science isn't there yet and it's just plain annoying and defeating to progress. 24 bit had enough issues.

But misinformation aids progress?

 

Quote:
BTW, Linn are offering free 24 bit downloads ATM.

Oh, do they also offer 16-bit files for "comparison" that are secretly mastered differently .. like they did a while ago on this forum, I guess, to promote their more expensive 24-bit files?

 

 

edit:

Quote:
Originally Posted by dbbloke View Post

My testing was done an a 250k system.

And what is the point of that?


Edited by xnor - 12/4/12 at 4:59pm
post #908 of 1813

It's not because you can't understand science that it is false...

post #909 of 1813
Why is it that people who don't understand how audio works seem to own $250K systems. There's a correllation there somewhere.
post #910 of 1813
Quote:
Originally Posted by dbbloke View Post

Who says science is correct. I mean just look at a similar topic global warming.
 

 

Just when I thought I found the sane and rational Head-Fi sub-forum. 

post #911 of 1813
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strangelove424 View Post

 

Just when I thought I found the sane and rational Head-Fi sub-forum. 

 

It's OK. He's just visiting.

post #912 of 1813
Quote:
Originally Posted by xnor View Post

Quote:

Wait a second, what's wrong with doing a simple conversion? There's no point in comparing two different recordings. Even if you had identical mics, they cannot be in the same place.

 

So you can't tell the difference between a les paul and a stratocaster.

Instruments all have a unique sound (stradivarius etc) and as such, if you record one 16 bit and another 24 bit you will notice the difference in the detail and the fingerprint of the instrument. So you don't need to identical recordings at all.

 

Quote:

24/16-bit audio and global warming .. similar topics? Does not compute!

And who says you are not wrong?

I know I'm not wrong, best way to go about life, be open to everythig. You can say I am I don't care so much about one person really.

global warming - flawed science.

 

Quote:

So hifi reviewers are less wrong / more trustworthy. You're kidding right? Especially considering the affiliations ...

The beauty of science is that we do not have to take somebody at his/her word.

Nope, most hifi reviewers are bought off by the people who advertise in their magazines.

The problem with science is we don't understand the system yet! So it's pointless to try other than to prove the science is flawed.

 

Quote:

Arguments from authority .. irrelevant, anecdotal evidence ... irrelevant.

 

Come on, I agree in general most people aren't so good at things, but you can't generalise about everyone.

 

Quote:
Ensure the 16-bit file wasn't mastered differently.

One of the arguments is... what is available in the real world in 24-bit and does it sound better than the 16 bit. I guess that's a whole topic there really. And one which can't be won.

 

Quote:
Hide behind? These are variables that have to be controlled in order to get any meaningful result. But maybe that simple fact is above some hifi reviewers heads..

I was trying to say that some people here clearly haven't heard a difference between 24 and 16 bit files. They think their science is right and the understanding of how people perceive music complete. It's just strange when there is an obvious difference, people use science and all kinds of arguments not to accept what is there. Perhaps they just need to listen on a decent non-headphone system.

 

Quote:
The thread is not pointless, but irrelevant replies are. rolleyes.gif

It's pointless because no matter what science you throw at something, if the science isn't at a level of describing the real world then it's pointless trying to use science. A Bit like global warming! Who most people think is ******** feedback anyhow. You can win money if you can prove it.

 

 

Quote:
But misinformation aids progress?

My findings, I thought I would share.

 

 

Quote:

Oh, do they also offer 16-bit files for "comparison" that are secretly mastered differently .. like they did a while ago on this forum, I guess, to promote their more expensive 24-bit files?

 

How the hell would I know, I just download the 24-bit ones because they are free. Perhaps if you want to find out go and have a look. I thought I would just share a free resource of 24-bit files for those who are probably interested in 24-bit music. I'm not even a Linn fan at all, or come to think of it Naim do a good job at providing overpriced averageness. Linn have come up in my estimation by offering Free music though. :)

 

Quote:

edit:

And what is the point of that?

So you think I'm not so newb who is using a pair of ****ty AKG headphones linked up to an fiio or something. I dont have a 250k stereo, it was in a shop for half a day.

I do have friends with recording studios, loads of bands / orchestras though. 

Update, speakers were quad 2905's but to be honest I didn't think they were so great sounding.

Yes I do understand how Audio works, but I try not to let it spoil my enjoyment of music.

 

I agree, just when you think you find a decent forum, people respond to posts only from their perspective. And don't give others any credit, why is the forum world so often closed minded, judgemental, pretentious.

post #913 of 1813
Quote:
Originally Posted by dbbloke View Post

why is the forum world so often closed minded, judgemental, pretentious.

 

That describes the exact nature of your posts in this thread.

 

normal_smile%20.gif

 

 

If you see a flaw in something specific about the science being discussed in this thread, feel free to point it out. But to say that all science is flawed is a little ridiculous. If you think that's true, I would avoid any doctors, medicine, etc... and just step back from your computer because it was made using theories from science too. And you don't want none of that.

post #914 of 1813
Quote:
Originally Posted by dbbloke View Post

I agree, just when you think you find a decent forum, people respond to posts only from their perspective. And don't give others any credit, why is the forum world so often closed minded, judgemental, pretentious.

We hope that in a sound science forum, nobody takes arguments personally (because they're not intended that way), and if you have a different theory or evidence to support a different conclusion, you please contribute that rather than launching ad hominem attacks. If you feel certain about something that is easy to test, then test it, if you have the time and will. If there is not much justification for any claims made, then expect skeptics to be skeptical. If that bothers you, prove them wrong. If it doesn't, then we can all just move on.
post #915 of 1813
Quote:
Originally Posted by dbbloke View Post

So you can't tell the difference between a les paul and a stratocaster.

Instruments all have a unique sound (stradivarius etc) and as such, if you record one 16 bit and another 24 bit you will notice the difference in the detail and the fingerprint of the instrument. So you don't need to identical recordings at all.

I'm repeating my question: what's wrong with a simple conversion?

 

You don't seem to understand even something as simple as an ABX test. If we just want to test 16 vs. 24 bits why on earth would you use different recordings, instruments ...

 

 

Quote:

I know I'm not wrong, best way to go about life, be open to everythig. You can say I am I don't care so much about one person really.

Oh, how convenient. It doesn't matter whether you are delusional or if 10, 100 or 1000 people say you are wrong - it doesn't change reality one bit.

 

Being open is good, but are you also open to the idea of eliminating biases? Blind tests? Science in general? If not, you're clearly closed-minded.

 

 

Quote:

The problem with science is we don't understand the system yet! So it's pointless to try other than to prove the science is flawed.

Are you saying you don't understand science? You're certainly right about that.

 

 

Quote:

Come on, I agree in general most people aren't so good at things, but you can't generalise about everyone.

Look up the terms arguments from authority and anecdotal evidence if you don't know what they mean.

 

 

Quote:
I was trying to say that some people here clearly haven't heard a difference between 24 and 16 bit files. They think their science is right and the understanding of how people perceive music complete. It's just strange when there is an obvious difference, people use science and all kinds of arguments not to accept what is there. Perhaps they just need to listen on a decent non-headphone system.

And I was trying to say that some people think they have heard a difference between 24 and 16 bits. They think that science is wrong and there's magic to how people perceive music. (Btw, I've seen nobody claim that they understand how people perceive music completely...)

It's just strange when there is no obvious difference, people use anecdotes and arguments from authority etc. to try to convince others of something that's not even there. Perhaps they just need to do a proper test.

 

 

Quote:
It's pointless because no matter what science you throw at something, if the science isn't at a level of describing the real world then it's pointless trying to use science.

You really don't understand science. :/

 

 

Quote:
So you think I'm not so newb who is using a pair of ****ty AKG headphones linked up to an fiio or something. I dont have a 250k stereo, it was in a shop for half a day.

No, I was asking you: what is the point of that? You complain about science being unrealistic but we should believe some random, anonymous guy who claims to have heard differences on a 250k system without a shred of evidence?! LOL.


Edited by xnor - 12/7/12 at 12:42pm
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!