Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Why 24 bit audio and anything over 48k is not only worthless, but bad for music.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Why 24 bit audio and anything over 48k is not only worthless, but bad for music. - Page 8  

post #106 of 2273
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duncan View Post

If we spin this around, and say that the ONLY reason that 24/xxx could be better than 16/xxx is because it offered more headroom / dynamic range, would that then make things easier for both sides of this to see where the other is coming from?

Personally, I'm happy to listen to 256kbps mp3, as much as I am a DSD file, can I genuinely tell the difference? in mastering, yes, quite possibly, but to these ears, only by virtue of better headroom on the higher res file...

Then again, for those producers that don't push everything deep into the red, redbook can still sound extraordinary.

 

More headroom on hi-res files makes no sense though. Take a 192/24 file, downsample it to 44.1/16, the headroom will be exactly the same on both. Why would it even change? Is that coming from some assumption that because bit "depth" goes from 16 to 24, the "sound" also gains in "depth"??? lol...


Edited by elmoe - 5/4/14 at 10:30am
post #107 of 2273
Just to throw this in the mix, DSD files warrant 192 because of its sampling rate, correct?
post #108 of 2273
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duncan View Post

If we spin this around, and say that the ONLY reason that 24/xxx could be better than 16/xxx is because it offered more headroom / dynamic range, would that then make things easier for both sides of this to see where the other is coming from?

Personally, I'm happy to listen to 256kbps mp3, as much as I am a DSD file, can I genuinely tell the difference? in mastering, yes, quite possibly, but to these ears, only by virtue of better headroom on the higher res file...

Then again, for those producers that don't push everything deep into the red, redbook can still sound extraordinary.

The only thing bit depth affects is signal to noise ratio, or the height of the noise floor. Higher than 16 can be useful in production when levels are low and need to raise them without bringing up noise to noticeable levels, but for playback there is no benefit in higher than 16. For a track to require more than 16 it would either have simply been mastered to an incredibly low level, or it would have to have more dynamic range than pretty much any speaker (or ears) can handle.

post #109 of 2273
Quote:
Originally Posted by elmoe View Post

More headroom on hi-res files makes no sense though. Take a 192/24 file, downsample it to 44.1/16, the headroom will be exactly the same on both. Why would it even change? Is that coming from some assumption that because bit "depth" goes from 16 to 24, the "sound" also gains in "depth"??? lol...
...did you not read the last line of your quote? For those producers that like to push the limits, there is more potential snr with 24 bit compared to 16, 144db vs 96db iirc...

However, that is immaterial if you don't push deep into the red...
post #110 of 2273
And just to reiterate, the instantaneous dynamic range of our ears is about 60dB.

se
post #111 of 2273
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duncan View Post


...did you not read the last line of your quote? For those producers that like to push the limits, there is more potential snr with 24 bit compared to 16, 144db vs 96db iirc...

However, that is immaterial if you don't push deep into the red...

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Eddy View Post

And just to reiterate, the instantaneous dynamic range of our ears is about 60dB.

se

 

^ Enough said...

post #112 of 2273
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duncan View Post

If we spin this around, and say that the ONLY reason that 24/xxx could be better than 16/xxx is because it offered more headroom / dynamic range, would that then make things easier for both sides of this to see where the other is coming from?

Personally, I'm happy to listen to 256kbps mp3, as much as I am a DSD file, can I genuinely tell the difference? in mastering, yes, quite possibly, but to these ears, only by virtue of better headroom on the higher res file...

Then again, for those producers that don't push everything deep into the red, redbook can still sound extraordinary.


I think that you are misunderstanding the whole headroom/dynamic range thing. Think of the available headroom/dynamic range provided by 16 bit digital audio has a normal letter sized envelop (4" X 9-1/2") and think of the available headroom/dynamic range provided by 24 bit digital audio has a legal sized envelop (9" x 12"). Now think of the audio contained in these envelops as a normal sized business card. Someone mails you a normal sized business card in a letter sized envelop and you open the letter and pull out a normal sized business card. Now that same person mails you a normal sized business card in a legel sized envelop and you open the letter and pull out a normal sized business card. In either case the size of the business card is exactly the same, changing the size of the envelop does not change the size of the business card.

 

Changing the size of the audio container, i.e. increasing the bit depth, does NOT increase the dynamic range of the recording, it just increases the amount the dynamic range of that the container can hold. So a recording with 60db of dynamic range will have EXACTLY the same dynamic range, i.e. 60db, in any and all audio containers with enough bit depth to hold 60db of dynamic range - increasing the bit depth of the container will NEVER change this fact. But then again, FACTS are the bane of high end audio.

post #113 of 2273

If I remember correctly, it's also impossible (at least currently) to produce an analogue circuit with 144dB of signal to noise ratio.

post #114 of 2273
Ralph...

That is the difference between you and pretty much everyone else in this thread - you've explained it, not in an upfront, aggressive manner, but - in a way that actually makes objective sense...

I stand corrected on my thoughts re snr vs the peak recording level...

Thank You smily_headphones1.gif
post #115 of 2273
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duncan View Post

Ralph...

That is the difference between you and pretty much everyone else in this thread - you've explained it, not in an upfront, aggressive manner, but - in a way that actually makes objective sense...

I stand corrected on my thoughts re snr vs the peak recording level...

Thank You smily_headphones1.gif


You are most welcome.

 

Unfortunately there is just tons and tons of absolutely deliberate misinformation being spread around the internet and in print regarding high resolution audio since lots of people are looking to make lots of money by getting people totally confused. Get informed and you can then make informed buying decisions. In other words: Don't believe the hype.

post #116 of 2273
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duncan View Post

Ralph...

That is the difference between you and pretty much everyone else in this thread - you've explained it, not in an upfront, aggressive manner, but - in a way that actually makes objective sense...

I stand corrected on my thoughts re snr vs the peak recording level...

Thank You smily_headphones1.gif

 

I apologize if you thought any of my posts where aggressive, they weren't meant as such. My general approach to the Sound Science forum is 'all in good fun'.

post #117 of 2273
Quote:
Originally Posted by elmoe View Post
 

 

I apologize if you thought any of my posts where aggressive, they weren't meant as such. My general approach to the Sound Science forum is 'all in good fun'.

It's often hard on the internet to judge tone.

post #118 of 2273
You need hiRes tracks to hear it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kraken2109 View Post

It's often hard on the internet to judge tone.
post #119 of 2273
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soundsgoodtome View Post

You need hiRes tracks to hear it.

post #120 of 2273
Quote:
Originally Posted by ralphp@optonline View Post

Unfortunately there is just tons and tons of absolutely deliberate misinformation being spread around the internet and in print regarding high resolution audio since lots of people are looking to make lots of money by getting people totally confused. Get informed and you can then make informed buying decisions. In other words: Don't believe the hype.

It's so unfortunately true frown.gif

Cheers
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
This thread is locked  
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Why 24 bit audio and anything over 48k is not only worthless, but bad for music.