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 14

post #196 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chromako View Post
 

1: Gizmodo really should get out of hi-fi writing (as should CNN- they just had a series of wretched op-eds about hifi stuff). This just isn't their area of expertise.

2: They do have a point- 24-bit files are most of the time going to be a gimmick for the studios to make more money, as 95% of the systems the files will be played on won't be able to reproduce the difference. 

3: Their article is written to the more average person, and we are looking at this from a different perspective. There's no need to get too angry, as we aren't their target audience. 

3.5: So, basically, what I mean is that the article wasn't written with the serious audiophile in mind.

Indeed they don't target audiophiles but a significantly larger group: "normal" users, consumers.

 

 

I don't see why Gizmodo shouldn't write about hi-fi. Some (many?) things in high end audio are just ridiculous and who is more likely to point them out: someone on the inside or someone on the border or even outside?

Ridicule is a tool and when they say "audiophile has always been another word for sucker" they're making use of it. If you are not, you shouldn't be offended by it and if you are, you shouldn't be either. :D Instead of judging it as an insult think of it as food for thought.

 

There's much BS in high end audio and it is indeed the audiophiles that literally buy into it. Telling consumers that a track sounds better due to 24 bits and therefore can be justified to be more expensive is the same BS when the real change is different mastering.


Edited by xnor - 10/5/13 at 10:52am
post #197 of 210

Me in this thread.

 

post #198 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by 24Bit View Post
 

Me in this thread.

 

post #199 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by xnor View Post

Ridicule is a tool and when they say "audiophile has always been another word for sucker" they're making use of it. If you are not, you shouldn't be offended by it and if you are, you shouldn't be either. biggrin.gif Instead of judging it as an insult think of it as food for thought.

Wise words!

Must not be offended, for it is them who are being silly.
post #200 of 210

16 bits gives enough dynamic range.  Of the 24 bit albums I own, I've only purchased them because of recommendations from sites like this and others that spoke of improved SQ over the CD.

post #201 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by hogger129 View Post

16 bits gives enough dynamic range.  Of the 24 bit albums I own, I've only purchased them because of recommendations from sites like this and others that spoke of improved SQ over the CD.


 



Good one.

Personally, i wont download 24 anymore, unless it's free or comes in some sort of package, like the new Nine Inch Nails release; basically you pay for the album and they'll let you download it in every format available.
I downloaded one of the Chesky Binaural albums in all available formats and tested it out. As those albums are, as far as i know, universally praised for their production and sound quality and all, i think if difference between 16/44.1, 24/96 and 24/192 are negligible (to my ears), pretty much every other album i listen to will also be. Also, i downloaded a live bootleg by Pearl Jam (my favorite band) from a show i attended in 24/96 and 16/44.1 to be sure.

My conclusion? Like i said, no 24 bit for me.
Does it sound better? i Think it's not the right question to ask, as music appreciation is more of a subjective experience. The real question would be:
Do i hear more music in 24 bit? NO, i do not.

The problem is that for some music, 24 bit DOES seems to offer better sound quality. It's not that 24 bit recordings sound better; it's that some 16 bit sounds so awful that we buy 24 bit in hopes of better dynamics. With 24 I'm not buying better resolution, i am buying HOPEFULLY a better mix.

So 24 bit sometime sounds the way a CD should have sounded in the first place. So yeah, it's a sales gimmick.
post #202 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duartisimo View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by hogger129 View Post
 

16 bits gives enough dynamic range.  Of the 24 bit albums I own, I've only purchased them because of recommendations from sites like this and others that spoke of improved SQ over the CD.

 



Good one.

Personally, i wont download 24 anymore, unless it's free or comes in some sort of package, like the new Nine Inch Nails release; basically you pay for the album and they'll let you download it in every format available.
I downloaded one of the Chesky Binaural albums in all available formats and tested it out. As those albums are, as far as i know, universally praised for their production and sound quality and all, i think if difference between 16/44.1, 24/96 and 24/192 are negligible (to my ears), pretty much every other album i listen to will also be. Also, i downloaded a live bootleg by Pearl Jam (my favorite band) from a show i attended in 24/96 and 16/44.1 to be sure.

My conclusion? Like i said, no 24 bit for me.
Does it sound better? i Think it's not the right question to ask, as music appreciation is more of a subjective experience. The real question would be:
Do i hear more music in 24 bit? NO, i do not.

The problem is that for some music, 24 bit DOES seems to offer better sound quality. It's not that 24 bit recordings sound better; it's that some 16 bit sounds so awful that we buy 24 bit in hopes of better dynamics. With 24 I'm not buying better resolution, i am buying HOPEFULLY a better mix.

So 24 bit sometime sounds the way a CD should have sounded in the first place. So yeah, it's a sales gimmick.

 

After Eddie Vedder's comments I refuse to support Pearl Jam anymore.

post #203 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by hogger129 View Post

 

After Eddie Vedder's comments I refuse to support Pearl Jam anymore.

 



The millions of nasty comments about George Bush?
post #204 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by hogger129 View Post
 

 

After Eddie Vedder's comments I refuse to support Pearl Jam anymore.

 

He hasn't ever been particularly coy about his political opinions, ever since he and Pearl Jam started to receive attention in the early 90's.

It's a bit late lamenting now.

post #205 of 210
I understand.
As i am from Mexico, i guess i am less affected by the guy's words than some of you are. I just REALLY like their music.

I admit to be a bit unforgiving in regards to audio quality on albums. I will not buy any 24 bit album if i already have it in 16 bit and if it was released before the 24 bit era; as far as i know it was around 1999 or 2000, by the time Ricky Martin recorded Living la Vida Loca on Pro Tools.
Anyway, even if Metallica release a very good audiophile, 24 bit version of Death Magnetic (worst sounding album ever!) with awesome dynamics, i still will not buy it. They had their chance to get it right the first time with 16 bit.
Edited by Duartisimo - 10/14/13 at 3:15pm
post #206 of 210

And so the HD formats war continues on. I'm always curious to know more about this mysterious HD stuff despite myself buying a good handful of albums. Usually I buy HD albums for the convenience of having lossless files at my fingertips. I can't say I hear a difference between a 24/96 file and a downsampled equivalent of 16/44. Since the price of albums on a popular HD music-distributing website has gone up, I haven't bought anything recently.

 

Funny that I ran into DigitalFreak's "The Sad State Of The So Called Audiophile DAP Market" thread a few weeks too.

post #207 of 210

 

 

More 24bit enabled devices equates to the higher potential for general consumers to be forced to become more informed with their audio selection.   

 


Edited by 24Bit - 10/15/13 at 4:41pm
post #208 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by 24Bit View Post
 

 

 

More 24bit enabled devices equates to the higher potential for general consumers to be forced to become more informed with their audio selection.   

 

 

It's also a potential for record companies to sell us the same music we already own once again, at a higher price.

post #209 of 210
^ so true

Introducing Pink Floyd's new Dark Side of the Moon re-re-re-re-remastered album from the original studio re-re-remaster in super high-fidelity formats up to 64-bit/768 kHz! Now with never-before-heard bonus audio! Early bird pricing starting at $119 USD.
Edited by miceblue - 10/15/13 at 5:52pm
post #210 of 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by hogger129 View Post
 

 

It's also a potential for record companies to sell us the same music we already own once again, at a higher price.

 

Yep, or resold under guise of actually being 24bit, when in fact it is 16bit 256kbps upconverted to 24bit 320kbps or higher sampling rate.  

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