24bit vs 16bit, the myth exploded! - Page 67

Originally Posted by rtaylor76 

I doubt if it was a question of level. The ADC's used have no input level control. Basic plug and play. Many ADC's, especially high end ones, have soft or even hard limiters at 0db, so it dosen't go into digital distortion territory.

Originally Posted by rtaylor76 

You are talking Nyquist here, understood. However, there is still so many samples per complicated part in quieter passages.

 

Those complicated and quieter passages should be reproduced accurately through a properly implemented digital system.

 

The bandwidth limitations of the pick-up, record head, pre-emphasis eq, bias, etc. are all imposed by the very nature, not forced through filters just because. I am not worried about anything above 20k. I doubt I can hear anything above 15k. But how accurate is that high end? How fast is it? If RMAA says it can go to 30k, then to me at lower frequencies, it is more accurate. Not always the case, but most likely. And yes, system noise from background or thermal noise can be higher than quantization or dither noise. Even our own listening environments have high noise floors. However, the noise is encoded in the file and always there to mask the distortions.

 

The pick-up head limitation is not part of any particular instrument limitation. Filters are not there just because, they prevent aliasing and cut-off noise. Digital can go much higher than 30kHz.

 

I can see that frequency response can affect dimension, space, detail, impact and bandwidth. However, with two different speakers with the same measured frequency responses, might sound worlds different in these areas, but be actually representing the full frequency spectrum. One might sound flat, dead, and honky, and the other deep and infinite. Or one could sound in your face and full, but have no depth. Certain gear can do this as well, not just speakers.

 

Two speakers than measure the same at any one location, may measure completely different at another, even the same model and brand. I'm not even including non-linear differences. Regardless of whether these speakers are "full-range" or not, they will sound different because they will have different frequency response. If you are more familiar with the term tonal balance, tonal balance is a characteristic of frequency response.

Originally Posted by rtaylor76 

Thanks for the vote of confidence.

 

I doubt if it was a question of level. The ADC's used have no input level control. Basic plug and play. Many ADC's, especially high end ones, have soft or even hard limiters at 0db, so it dosen't go into digital distortion territory.

 

And there was no EQ. Nothing plugged up between tape machine and ADC. Only XLR cables. Tape machine -> ADC -> console to stereo input. For the 1/2", the XLR cables going into the converter were then plugged straight into the cables going to the console, bypassing the converter. What I meant by EQ was tonal balance.

 

One thing I will will bring up that you can feel free to discuss is the theory I have of resolution, detail, and volume level. We all know that digital is "stair steps," and that condition gets worse as the volume level is lower. So technically a 24-bit file could possibly have the same resolution of 16-bit because it is too low, and not taking advantage of the extra dynamic range. In this case, imagine the 24-bit file being just a tad quieter on the recording, but then level matched during playback. The 24-bit file in this case could also take advantage of that extra dynamic range in the peaks, but really it almost the same resolution of the 24-bit file. Make sense?

 

Now on this same concept, detail is in the quieter parts. This is the area that gets more "stair steppy" and thus distorted, but then masked by dither. I have always thought that digital to me loses it in the finer details. Not because of sampling rate, nyquist theories, filtering, 20Hz cut-off, but more due to the details, the quieter parts, have less resolution. Now the same can be argued against any analog medium, say tape, that it also has noise and loses resolution in quieter passages. And I would say that is true, but it does not introduce distortion and masking the way digital does.

 

Now back to 24 vs 16 bit per the OP - my question is, does it matter? In stereo files that are congested, maybe not to the extent that we think. Maybe we can't always tell and spot the difference. I do know that almost every recording done today is at 24 bit, but they are tracking everything and need as much detail to fit down to two stereo tracks. Does that track need to be 24 bits? Do we have the system to tell? Do we have the ears to hear it? All questions we must ask ourselves. I know I have several recordings I love that would not benefit me at all in higher resolution. It takes true talent to get and demonstrate something more out of a particular recording. And it is not just one thing, either the medium, format, tracking engineer, producer, mixing, mastering, talent, but all of it. Just as there are many more recordings I would love to hear in a higher resolution format. To me it is not just a comfort thing.

 

I know I am new here, but as someone involved in audio for awhile, I find it hard to think many break things down to just audio spectrum or high frequencies. It is much more than that. Dimension, space, detail, impact, bandwidth, all come well before say any such high frequency information is there. A good recording should sound 3D and have depth for days. And not just wide, like deep space.

Originally Posted by jupitreas 

24 bits is not an increase in detail over 16 bit, it is an increase in dynamic range. The extra 8 bits are useful when recording and producing but 16 bits is more than adequate for playback. The "stair steps" analogy as used by so many people is completely wrong as it comes from a misunderstanding of signal theory.

Originally Posted by rtaylor76 

 

Okay. What I am trying to say is that how many bookshelf speakers measure 60-20k Hz? Nearly all of them. But we all know they sound different and some have more natural or pleasing sound. Now two speakers with the same frequency response curve, might also not sound the same. Same goes for amplifiers or any other type of equipment. That is all I am trying to say. Just because frequency response is the same means they will react in the same way.

Originally Posted by rtaylor76 

What I am trying to say is that how many bookshelf speakers measure 60-20k Hz? Nearly all of them. But we all know they sound different and some have more natural or pleasing sound. Now two speakers with the same frequency response curve, might also not sound the same. Same goes for amplifiers or any other type of equipment. That is all I am trying to say. Just because frequency response is the same means they will react in the same way.

Originally Posted by GrindingThud 

Cross thread post (did not see it referenced in this thread...apologies if I missed it), found a very enlightening article on both sample rate and bit depth:
http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html
This is worth the read and also worth listening to the files.  I'm in the 24bit matters camp because it seems to mitigate poor mastering/conversion to 16bit.   

thanks to phlashbios for posting it.
http://www.head-fi.org/t/626950/24-192-audio-pointless

Originally Posted by rtaylor76 


That first link was good for a laugh.
Differences in speakers is a different thread, and a different forum. It is is nit all frequency response. There are many other factors to consider. Speaker specs are measured in anechoic chamber.

Originally Posted by ultrabike 

Now, what part(s) of that article made you laugh? TBH I though it was very well put together.