or Connect
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 12  

post #166 of 2273
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Eddy View Post


You're saying their subjective experience isn't true? That they're subjectively experiencing something other than what they're reporting to be experiencing? I certainly hope that's not what you're saying, but I don't see you saying anything else here.

se

The problem is that the reported subjective experience is almost always directly linked to technical specifications like 24/196. And that IS very probably a false claim, as it is very probable that the experience has really nothing to do with those specifications. If someone claims that 24/196 sounds better than 16/44 to him/her, it's not the actual sound format that causes the subjectively different experience but the persons limited comprehension and prejudices about those formats. To put it differently - if a person claims that 24/196 sounds better, he or she is very probably just plain wrong. It's his own mind that causes the subjective difference, which, of course is very real. But the claim itself is fallacious. 

"24/196 sounds best to me" - it's just not true - prejudices, the lack of understanding of basic digital audio principles and human hearing limitations, is what causes 24/196 to subjectively sound the best. I can easily live with a claim that "24/192 sounds best to me, but i don't really know why". That's fine, you can't obviously know everything about everything. Bigger numbers, peer pressure, obviously it's usually going to sound better if you don't know the underlying facts. But not knowing stuff doesn't make an incorrect claim true. And that, of course, is the very essential reason why we need objective confirmation when talking about technical specifications, because as technical specifications are not subjective, it is wrong to link subjective impressions to objective parameters without objective confirmation.

post #167 of 2273
Quote:
Originally Posted by ToddTheMetalGod View Post


The human mind is powerful and fills in missing information for the senses. If you believe something hard enough it can affect what you hear. Ever thought you saw scary things in the night and convinced you did? I don't believe in ghosts, but many people claim they're real. In my eyes, the difference between 24-bit and 16-bit audio is as real as poltergeists.

 

And yet, people experience poltergeists!

 

People experience poltergeists, ghosts, psychic phenomena, and other stuff up to and including "god." I'd have to include myself in there somewhere, but I'm also an abject disbeliever in other things that would appear on the same list.

 

The experience is one thing: the explanation is another. Even an imaginary experience is an experience to the the person that has it. The mind is strong.

 

In audio, the subjectivist camp is characterised by a complete lack of analysis, and even a denial of it. The last time I tried to explain to audio friends that, yes, I was hearing a difference at this gear-change iteration, but self-examination caused me to conclude that I was hearing a difference because I had heard the same piece of music a number of times, and my brain was simply listening to different aspects of it, I was unanimously advised to trust my ears. Sure, I trust my ears (subject to know hearing loss) but that does not meant that, without introspection at least, I trust my mind/brain.

 

Why does the "subjectivist camp" (yes, I know, it's a generalisation, of course) do that? That is a scientific question in its own right, and I'm sure that some of the marketing departments are on to it!


Edited by Thad-E-Ginathom - 5/5/14 at 4:33am
post #168 of 2273
Did you see that Bigfoot Diaries programme where they DNA rested hair that fervent 'believers' claimed was real sasquatch? It was heartbreaking. One of them was from a porcupine, for chrissake. A porcupine. And don't get me started on the chump who reckoned he'd shot an infant big foot and held it in his hands as it died.

Some people just need to experience a reality that makes them different to the rest of us. It helps them through the night, clearly.

If your mumbo jumbo Hi-res audio helps keep the infinite perspective vortex at bay, so be it. Just don't try and sell it to me. I'm too busy taking photos of the Loch Ness monster with me mate Elvis.
Edited by Agharta - 5/5/14 at 4:43am
post #169 of 2273
Got annoyed when I read someone touting an android app that allowed 192khz playback and claiming it sounded much better.
post #170 of 2273
Quote:
Originally Posted by ab initio View Post


But the problem isnt people blowing their cash. It's that those who blow their cash also run their mouths and justify blowing their cash with claims that what they blow their cash on is inherently superior because it cost them a lot of dough, telling budding audiophiles that they need to blow their cash on the same crap, and insulting anyone who knows better and isnt foolish enough (or rich enough) to blow their cash on audiofool's gold.

Cheers

PS, im not sure that 24 bit is really as silly as the > 48kHz sample rates. Dynamic range and low noise floor can be beneficial when music has very soft bits and very loud bits.

Your first paragraph is quite true and reflects one of my major objections to subjective audio claims, however the second paragraph is just not true - as I stated earlier if the music being recorded has less than 120db of dynamic range (the limit for 16 bit audio) than it makes no difference if the bit depth is increased from 16 bit to 24 bit - the dynamic range will remain unchanged. By the way NO music has a dynamic range greater than 120db, NONE.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Agharta View Post

As I couldn't hear the difference, I played some cd sourced 16/44.1 files and the same songs in high resolution format to my pet cat.

He told me my music taste sucked.

Play your cat some Charlie Parker - all hep cats love be-bop.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thad-E-Ginathom View Post
 


With the right active ingredient, you might be able to see it, let alone hear it!

 

(NB: post based on experience in long, long ago youth. No, I have not indulged in such "experiments" for more than four decades.)

With some of the new hybrids available today one can not only hear it and see it but touch it and taste it as well.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by kraken2109 View Post
 

 

'The world's greatest sounding music downloads'

Doesn't sound like they're being subjective to me, sounds like they're making a factual claim.

 

From their FAQ section:

Q: Will I really hear the difference between the various formats?
A: You should hear a substantial difference when listening to the music on a home stereo. The music will sound cleaner, the bass will be tighter and you will notice a higher definition in all the instruments. If you are going to pay for digital music, you might as well own it in the highest-quality format available.

 

This video also claims they sound better than CD, DVD and even blu-ray which is interesting since blu-ray can store 192/24...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7l8xKUjqKOM

 

 

Please note I am using HDTracks as an example since they seem to be the most well known seller of high sample rate and high bit depth music.

Exactly my point - these claims about high resolution audio are not being made by just "someone" but by someone trying to get YOUR money based on these completely FALSE claims. Quite different from one's audiophile friend relating their experience.

post #171 of 2273
Quote:
Originally Posted by ralphp@optonline View Post

Your first paragraph is quite true and reflects one of my major objections to subjective audio claims, however the second paragraph is just not true - as I stated earlier if the music being recorded has less than 120db of dynamic range (the limit for 16 bit audio) than it makes no difference if the bit depth is increased from 16 bit to 24 bit - the dynamic range will remain unchanged. By the way NO music has a dynamic range greater than 120db, NONE.

16 bit has the dynamic range of 96dB. Using noise shaped dither, the dynamic range can be extended in some frequencies at the expense of bringing up the noise floor in others.

I never said all 24 bits are necessary, rather, that extra dynamic range isnt a bad thing. 18 or 19 bits would probably be enough to cover all situations, but data has a bad habit of taking up chunks of 8bits.

I have music that has sections mastered at -44 dB. They're from the 70s, so in this case the digital noise floor is below the tape hiss, but im not sure if that would be the case if it were recorded and mixed in a modern studio. The advice you give is good common sense, albeit not rigorously accurate. I just think it is poor form to preach blanket statements that arent 100 true.

Cheers

Cheers
post #172 of 2273
Quote:
Originally Posted by ab initio View Post


16 bit has the dynamic range of 96dB. Using noise shaped dither, the dynamic range can be extended in some frequencies at the expense of bringing up the noise floor in others.

I never said all 24 bits are necessary, rather, that extra dynamic range isnt a bad thing. 18 or 19 bits would probably be enough to cover all situations, but data has a bad habit of taking up chunks of 8bits.

I have music that has sections mastered at -44 dB. They're from the 70s, so in this case the digital noise floor is below the tape hiss, but im not sure if that would be the case if it were recorded and mixed in a modern studio. The advice you give is good common sense, albeit not rigorously accurate. I just think it is poor form to preach blanket statements that arent 100 true.

Cheers

Cheers


Nobody in a modern recording environment would be recording something at -44dB, let alone the final master being anywhere near that level. Most professional recording is done at 24bit, and that makes sense since it allows levels to be changed without any (no matter how small) negative impacts on the final CD (16bit) version.

The point we're making is that for playback, 16bit is more than enough.

post #173 of 2273
Quote:
Originally Posted by kraken2109 View Post




'The world's greatest sounding music downloads'
Doesn't sound like they're being subjective to me, sounds like they're making a factual claim.

From their FAQ section:
Q: Will I really hear the difference between the various formats?

A: You should hear a substantial difference when listening to the music on a home stereo. The music will sound cleaner, the bass will be tighter and you will notice a higher definition in all the instruments. If you are going to pay for digital music, you might as well own it in the highest-quality format available.

This video also claims they sound better than CD, DVD and even blu-ray which is interesting since blu-ray can store 192/24...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7l8xKUjqKOM


Please note I am using HDTracks as an example since they seem to be the most well known seller of high sample rate and high bit depth music.

That's called marketing.

The context of this particular discussion was an individual simply describing their subjective experience. Specifically to the accusation by others that such people are making false claims.

se
post #174 of 2273
Quote:
Originally Posted by kraken2109 View Post
 


Nobody in a modern recording environment would be recording something at -44dB, let alone the final master being anywhere near that level. Most professional recording is done at 24bit, and that makes sense since it allows levels to be changed without any (no matter how small) negative impacts on the final CD (16bit) version.

The point we're making is that for playback, 16bit is more than enough.


Thank you for helping me out. As you stated 24bit is very useful on the recording/editing side but unnecessary on the final playback side. By the way the fact that almost all recordings are edited at some point makes DSD pretty much another marketing hoax - as in to edit a DSD recording, the DSD must be converted to PCM, edited and then reconverted to DSD. (Of course for a straight conversion of analog to DSD, i.e. with no editing done in the digital domain, DSD is fine.) So remember once you go PCM you never come back!

post #175 of 2273
Quote:
Originally Posted by ToddTheMetalGod View Post

The human mind is powerful and fills in missing information for the senses. If you believe something hard enough it can affect what you hear. Ever thought you saw scary things in the night and convinced you did? I don't believe in ghosts, but many people claim they're real. In my eyes, the difference between 24-bit and 16-bit audio is as real as poltergeists.

Fine. But again, this goes back to accusing people of making false claims when sharing their subjective experiences.

I guess some just don't seem to grasp what it is I'm trying to say so I'll just move on.

se
post #176 of 2273
Quote:
Originally Posted by kraken2109 View Post


Nobody in a modern recording environment would be recording something at -44dB, let alone the final master being anywhere near that level. Most professional recording is done at 24bit, and that makes sense since it allows levels to be changed without any (no matter how small) negative impacts on the final CD (16bit) version.
The point we're making is that for playback, 16bit is more than enough.

You're making blanket statements. Artistic experession might lead an artist to put large swings in dynamic range in their music. Who are you to say otherwise?

I'm playing devils advocate here because i want you folks to make better, more rigours arguments. I think it's really important for folks to understand the difference between hires formats and redbook cd, and to understand how absolutely small any theoretical difference between the audibility of them actually is, and what bit depth and sampling rate affect.

Music doesn't have to have 120dB dynamic range to be limited by 16bits. Theoretically, anything with more than 96 dB will be affected. You guys would better server the public showing how those differences are vanishingly unimportant in 99.9% of all cases, and how they might only be detected in carefully designed examples.

At that point, it's pretty clear that anything more than cd quality is unnecessary.

Cheers
post #177 of 2273
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Eddy View Post


That's called marketing.

The context of this particular discussion was an individual simply describing their subjective experience. Specifically to the accusation by others that such people are making false claims.

se


No, I never disagreed with your assertion that if an individual claims to hear a difference, even when it is scientifically impossible for there to be any difference, then that individual believes that there is a difference. What I have been claiming all along is that when these purely subjective differences are used to make FALSE claims to sell a product that this is more than just "marketing" and should be called out for the garbage that it is. By the way my use of the word "false" in this case, and in the case of HDTracks marketing, is the use of purely subjective impressions being stated or implied as provable objective FACTS.

 

In other words, if one wants to believe in magic fairy dust, fine but just don't try to sell me any especially by making claims about the wonderful magic properties. In that case the only magic property in the fairy dust is the ability to separate fools from their money.

post #178 of 2273
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Eddy View Post


Fine. But again, this goes back to accusing people of making false claims when sharing their subjective experiences.

I guess some just don't seem to grasp what it is I'm trying to say so I'll just move on.

se

See my previous post. Private individuals as opposed to for profit corporate entities, even if the US Supreme Court has deemed them equal.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ab initio View Post


You're making blanket statements. Artistic experession might lead an artist to put large swings in dynamic range in their music. Who are you to say otherwise?

I'm playing devils advocate here because i want you folks to make better, more rigours arguments. I think it's really important for folks to understand the difference between hires formats and redbook cd, and to understand how absolutely small any theoretical difference between the audibility of them actually is, and what bit depth and sampling rate affect.

Music doesn't have to have 120dB dynamic range to be limited by 16bits. Theoretically, anything with more than 96 dB will be affected. You guys would better server the public showing how those differences are vanishingly unimportant in 99.9% of all cases, and how they might only be detected in carefully designed examples.

At that point, it's pretty clear that anything more than cd quality is unnecessary.

Cheers

If the music actually had a dynamic range of greater than 96db then it would not matter whether the digital audio recording of it was 16 bit or 24 bit since no home audio system would be capable of playing it because of the massive amount of power required to reproduce it, which is just another valid reason why 24bit is not necessary for proper playback.

post #179 of 2273
Quote:
Originally Posted by ralphp@optonline View Post


No, I never disagreed with your assertion that if an individual claims to hear a difference, even when it is scientifically impossible for there to be any difference, then that individual believes that there is a difference. What I have been claiming all along is that when these purely subjective differences are used to make FALSE claims to sell a product that this is more than just "marketing" and should be called out for the garbage that it is. By the way my use of the word "false" in this case, and in the case of HDTracks marketing, is the use of purely subjective impressions being stated or implied as provable objective FACTS.

In other words, if one wants to believe in magic fairy dust, fine but just don't try to sell me any especially by making claims about the wonderful magic properties. In that case the only magic property in the fairy dust is the ability to separate fools from their money.

But that's not what this particular discussion was about. It began with thus statement from kraken2109:

"My main point was that Jude is the 'frontman' of an audio forum and he shouldn't be spreading misinformation so a sponsor can make money."

To which I replied:

"What's the misinformation? That's all on the subjective side of the street. If someone says something sounds better to them, what's to argue?"

And kraken2109 again:

"The misinformation is claiming something sounds better when it is physically impossible for said thing to sound better."

The claim here is that someone simply expressing their subjective experience is misinformation. Which I disagree with. You came in quoting my "what's to argue" query when it comes to someone's subjective experience and said there's plenty to argue.

What I said had absolutely nothing to do with marketing or selling anything. It only had to do with someone's subjective experience being misinformation or a false claim. My only point being that there's nothing to argue when it comes to someone's subjective experience unless you're calling them a liar.

And I'm just going to leave it at that.

se
post #180 of 2273
Ego leads to all sorts of bad opinions.
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.