Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › 24-bit audio a con, according to Gizmodo
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

24-bit audio a con, according to Gizmodo

post #1 of 210
Thread Starter 

http://gizmodo.com/#!5768446/why-24+bit-audio-will-be-bad-for-users

 

Seems controversial x]

post #2 of 210

Best thing I've read all day.

post #3 of 210

I have many opinions on the implementation Apple may or may not be implementing... I think we'll just have to wait and see.

post #4 of 210
Gizmodo is wrong. They may be right that the 24 bit we get could be a con, but they are way way wrong about how great CD potential is. The CD standard, 44 k sampling or whatever, is greatly surpassed by the 96/192 audiophile tracks being supplied to subscribers of some services now. Stereophile has a lot of info on that.
post #5 of 210

From the article;

 

"Which is where Dr. Dre comes in. The hip-hop producer has offered his Beats headphones to audiophiles for some years..."

 

Sorry, did I miss that memo? Or have I entered some alternate universe? Where Dr. Dre Beats feature regularly in the High End thread and SkyLab has them plugged into his Leben because his R10's just weren't cutting it. 

 

Bah.

post #6 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by dalethorn View Post

Gizmodo is wrong. They may be right that the 24 bit we get could be a con, but they are way way wrong about how great CD potential is. The CD standard, 44 k sampling or whatever, is greatly surpassed by the 96/192 audiophile tracks being supplied to subscribers of some services now. Stereophile has a lot of info on that.


 

Why are they superior exactly? (I'm not saying they aren't, I'm just highly skeptical)

post #7 of 210

Don't forget that Gizmodo is rabidly anti-Apple after the iPhone 4 scoop drama. Though I would say that high-res audio is best saved for high-end systems and non-compressed music. It'll be great to be able to use an iPod as a high-res transport in the future. 

post #8 of 210

audiophiles = suckers?!

 

send the author of the article to the gallows!!!!!!!

post #9 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by ohhgourami View Post

audiophiles = suckers?!

 

send the author of the article to the gallows!!!!!!!



But but... the gallows are full of the audio naysayers. We'd yet to have time to execute the last group of non-believers. 

 

How I like the good old days when we could just burn them at the stake... 

post #10 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrQ View Post

From the article;

 

"Which is where Dr. Dre comes in. The hip-hop producer has offered his Beats headphones to audiophiles for some years..."

 

Sorry, did I miss that memo? Or have I entered some alternate universe? Where Dr. Dre Beats feature regularly in the High End thread and SkyLab has them plugged into his Leben because his R10's just weren't cutting it. 

 

Bah.


They were losing me with the Beats photo from the start.  And like almost every other techblog, Giz showed me that they never know what they're talking about.  A lot of these bloggers talk about subjects beyond their ken.  Most of the "audiophile" articles reveal how little they know about the topic they write about.

 

The only thing I regret is clicking on the link and giving them some ad pay.

post #11 of 210

Upgrading to 24 bit so music sounds better out of your dr dre beats? 

err i dont think so

post #12 of 210
post #13 of 210

I'd have to agree that 24-bit downloads do seem like a bit of a con.  As mentioned, most albums don't even use half of the dynamic range that 16-bit Redbook offers, so upping the bit depth will "sound" no different to the listener IMO.  I guess the studio fade would sound really smooth at the end of a track...so worth it!  I'd rather see them up the sample rate instead, that might actually improve the sound!

 

I'll stick with LPs and CDs for now!

post #14 of 210

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Satellite_6 View Post

 

Why are they superior exactly? (I'm not saying they aren't, I'm just highly skeptical)


There's an article in the Feb. 2011 Stereophile on page 37 that explains pretty well.  Someone even got the Audio Engineering Society involved, who are usually a bit slow to adopt any new ideas.

 

Here's a neat little article on 24 -vs- 16 as well, noting that if you can hear the difference between an MP3 and an uncompressed track, you can hear those other differences too.  A Google search for 24/192 quality turns up some good stuff.

 

http://www.tweakheadz.com/16_vs_24_bit_audio.htm

post #15 of 210

Quote:

Originally Posted by dalethorn View Post

There's an article in the Feb. 2011 Stereophile on page 37 that explains pretty well.  Someone even got the Audio Engineering Society involved, who are usually a bit slow to adopt any new ideas.

 

Here's a neat little article on 24 -vs- 16 as well, noting that if you can hear the difference between an MP3 and an uncompressed track, you can hear those other differences too.  A Google search for 24/192 quality turns up some good stuff.

 

http://www.tweakheadz.com/16_vs_24_bit_audio.htm


Your link is all about why you should use higher bit/sample rates when recording and mixing and and really says nothing about why its better for final distribution for listening.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › 24-bit audio a con, according to Gizmodo