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 - Page 2

post #16 of 210

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by maverickronin View Post

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.


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".
 

post #17 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

 

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

post #18 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by dalethorn View Post

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.

 

 

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.

post #19 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by maverickronin View Post
 

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.


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.
 

post #20 of 210

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by terriblepaulz View Post

 

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


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.

post #21 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by dalethorn View Post

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.
 


Does Not Follow.

 

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

post #22 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


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.

 

 

 

 

post #23 of 210

Quote:

Originally Posted by Satellite_6 View Post

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.

 


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.

post #24 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by Satellite_6 View Post


 


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.

 

 

 

 

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.
post #25 of 210

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

post #26 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by maverickronin View Post


Does Not Follow.

 

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

What you hear matters. What someone measures does not matter, not as much for sure. That's been Stereophile's position since 1962.
post #27 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by Satellite_6 View Post

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

They say that you can hear a big difference between the best CD quality and a 24/192 track. But that's about hearing, not measuring.
post #28 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by dalethorn View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by maverickronin View Post


Does Not Follow.

 

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



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


ABX is a listening test...

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.

post #30 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.


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:
Originally Posted by BobSaysHi View Post

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.

But whyyyyyyyyyy? frown.gif

 

EDIT: it isn't even more accurate, is it?
 

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