24-bit audio a con, according to Gizmodo - Page 2

Originally Posted by maverickronin 

Quote:
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.

Originally Posted by dalethorn 

 

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

Originally Posted by dalethorn 

The consensus of opinion at Stereophile is that the digital tracks that are "24/192" are much superior to CD tracks, or any of the digital tracks offered by Apple, Amazon, etc.

Originally Posted by maverickronin 
 

Well, that may the consensus of subjective opinion, but the consensus of objective ABX testing is that no one can tell the difference when listening to actual music at non-ear-bleeding levels.

 

 

You can make special test tones that can be differentiated at normal listening levels but not with actual music.  High-res downloads, SACDs, DVD-As and what not often do sound better than CDs of the same album but that's because the high-res releases are recorded and/or mastered better, not because of any inherent superiority of the format.  All tests I'm aware of in which both the high and low res samples come from the same master show no audible difference.

 

Based on this I think it would be a poor choice to chose the high res media if you know that the low res version is made from the master as the high res version.

Originally Posted by terriblepaulz 

 

Maybe it is just me, but citation to Stereophile does not support an argument.
 

Originally Posted by dalethorn 

I would think by this analogy that all headphones should also sound the same, or even if they're different, none are really better than the others, regardless of price.
 

Originally Posted by dalethorn 

 

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

Originally Posted by Satellite_6 

So, according to this, bit depth is important because it is higher resolution.

 

isn't it just wasted resolution because it gives you a greater dynamic range which isn't even necessary?

 

According to this a sampling rate is important because frequencies we can't hear can affect frequencies we can hear.

 

This seems rather ridiculous, There isn't much musical information past around 16 or 17khz so even if the recording included these ultrasonic frequencies, there wouldn't be anything there, right?

 

It really seems like an epic waste of space, these arguments aren't very compelling at all, unless there's more to it.

 

Originally Posted by Satellite_6 

 

So, according to this, bit depth is important because it is higher resolution.

 

isn't it just wasted resolution because it gives you a greater dynamic range which isn't even necessary?

 

According to this a sampling rate is important because frequencies we can't hear can affect frequencies we can hear.

 

This seems rather ridiculous, There isn't much musical information past around 16 or 17khz so even if the recording included these ultrasonic frequencies, there wouldn't be anything there, right?

 

 

 

 

 

It really seems like an epic waste of space, these arguments aren't very compelling at all, unless there's more to it.

 

 

 

 

Originally Posted by maverickronin 

Does Not Follow.

 

Transducers measure very, very differently and are easy to ABX under controlled conditions.

Originally Posted by Satellite_6 

So Stereophile thinks that it doesn't matter then? :)

Originally Posted by dalethorn 



What you hear matters. What someone measures does not matter, not as much for sure. That's been Stereophile's position since 1962.

Originally Posted by dalethorn 

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.

Originally Posted by BobSaysHi 

I looked for this thread and couldn't find it. I guess I didn't look hard enough. 

 

I understand where hard drive space would be a concern, but I have several terabytes of HDD space left to spare, and a more accurate file (even if meaningless) is preferred to me.