Latest Thread Images

24-bit audio a con, according to Gizmodo
Feb 23, 2011 at 7:53 PM Post #16 of 210
 
Quote:
maverickronin said:
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.
Click to expand...


I guess I saw myself as trying to help, rather than trying to prove something.  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.  I don't have all the expensive equipment that Stereophile has, or even the 24/192 tracks, but I have no doubt that there's much better audio beyond the 44khz CD standard.  Several CD's I have note that they were recorded on the best possible 24-bit equipment and software, then "dithered" down to 16-bit for CD.  There's a lot of interesting stuff going on in that "dithering".
 
 
Feb 23, 2011 at 8:07 PM Post #17 of 210


Quote:
dalethorn said:
 

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
Click to expand...

 
Maybe it is just me, but citation to Stereophile does not support an argument.
 
 
Feb 23, 2011 at 8:17 PM Post #18 of 210
Quote:
dalethorn said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
 
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.

 
Feb 23, 2011 at 8:40 PM Post #19 of 210


Quote:
maverickronin said:
  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.
Click to expand...


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.
 
 
Feb 23, 2011 at 8:43 PM Post #20 of 210
 
Quote:
terriblepaulz said:
 
Maybe it is just me, but citation to Stereophile does not support an argument.
 
Click to expand...


Stereophile is a great source of information.  I wouldn't quote anything from them as argument because that would require that I do a bunch of research for no reward, and post the results here.  But as information, they are the best out there when it comes to high fidelity sound.  That's really no different than saying that top-line Sennheisers and Grados are great headphones.
 
Feb 23, 2011 at 8:58 PM Post #21 of 210
Quote:
dalethorn said:
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.
 
Click to expand...


Does Not Follow.
 
Transducers measure very, very differently and are easy to ABX under controlled conditions.
 
Feb 23, 2011 at 9:00 PM Post #22 of 210

 
Quote:
dalethorn said:
 

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
Click to expand...


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.
 
 
 
 
 
Feb 23, 2011 at 9:12 PM Post #23 of 210
Quote:
satellite_6 said:
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.
 
Click to expand...


That's what it says.  Its good for mixing since it has a low noise floor.
 
Yes, unless you really want the cannon in the 1812 Overture to temporarily deafen you.  The reason almost no one uses even half the dynamic range on CDs is because 96dB of range is capable of melting amps, blowing speakers, and breaking eardrums.
 
Yes.
 
There was one study about ultrasonic beat interference or something creating audible tones but it turned out the the audible tones were actually IMD from the tweeter they used for the testing.
 
As far as I can tell it is an epic waste of space.
 
Feb 23, 2011 at 9:17 PM Post #24 of 210
satellite_6 said:
 

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.
 
 
 
 
Click to expand...

Actually, Stereophile beat you to that conclusion by 49 years. They have said repeatedly every month since then that "If you can't hear it, it doesn't matter what the measurements say." And that's why I highly recommend Stereophile, because they will always come back to that and examine all claims. They're reliable and credible.
 
Feb 23, 2011 at 9:24 PM Post #28 of 210
Quote:
dalethorn said:
Quote:
maverickronin said:
Does Not Follow.
 
Transducers measure very, very differently and are easy to ABX under controlled conditions.
Click to expand...



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


ABX is a listening test...
 
Feb 23, 2011 at 9:28 PM Post #29 of 210
I looked for this thread and couldn't find it. I guess I didn't look hard enough. 
cool.gif

 
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.
 
Feb 23, 2011 at 9:45 PM Post #30 of 210

 
Quote:
dalethorn said:
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.
Click to expand...


If I may quote your original statement and try to figure out your argument. 96/192 is greatly superior to CD quality because Stereophile says so, even though they think that things you cannot hear do not matter. So, you're taking it on blind faith based on a site that apparently contradicts itself?

 
Quote:
bobsayshi said:
I looked for this thread and couldn't find it. I guess I didn't look hard enough. 
cool.gif

 
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.
Click to expand...

But whyyyyyyyyyy?
frown.gif

 
EDIT: it isn't even more accurate, is it?
 
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top