24-bit audio a con, according to Gizmodo

[BobSaysHi]

Quote:

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

It's technically more accurate, and even if it's more accurate beyond my hearing level, then so what. In ten years we may all have robotic ears that can hear those frequencies(I realize processing goes on in the brain). Another thing is that simply knowing there is more data will make it sound better to my ears, similar to the way cables "work".

 

[haloxt]

Lol apple pushing 24bit. They can use that to push sales of new ipods, since current ipods play 16bit. I don't think I'd listen to 24bit music on an ipod, but with an ipod dock, a nice option.

 

[dalethorn]

 

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?

 
But whyyyyyyyyyy?

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

Stereophile says you can clearly hear the difference. You seemed to have missed that part.

 

[Danthrax]

Gizmodo has the worst site in the world. I can't read the article because it is so terrible.

 

[dalethorn]

ABX is a listening test...

That's good to hear.

 

[dalethorn]

Lol apple pushing 24bit. They can use that to push sales of new ipods, since current ipods play 16bit. I don't think I'd listen to 24bit music on an ipod, but with an ipod dock, a nice option.

Now all we have to do is wait for Apple's music distribution software to say "We guarantee that these are copies of the original 24-bit masters, and are not upsampled versions of 16-bit downsamples." What do you think? Trust them?

 

[dalethorn]

I looked for this thread and couldn't find it. I guess I didn't look hard enough. 

 
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.

I don't look at it as a more accurate file per se - I look at it as a file that hasn't been dithered or mangled or otherwise manipulated into something smaller that's "Guaranteed to be just as good" as the original. I think anyone who believes that digital sampling at CD quality of 44khz or whatever sounds exactly as good as live music is kidding themself. I suppose if the total recording process from mike to digital mixdown is sufficiently compromised, then the CD might sound as good as that final mixdown.

 

[maverickronin]

Quote:

That's good to hear.

Here's how it works.
 
Quote:

Now all we have to do is wait for Apple's music distribution software to say "We guarantee that these are copies of the original 24-bit masters, and are not upsampled versions of 16-bit downsamples." What do you think? Trust them?

I have an inherent distrust for Apple.  I think it has something to do with the fact that they are a fashion company that just happens to sell computers.  A move to 24 bit at this stage would certainly seem to support that.

 

[maverickronin]

Quote:

I don't look at it as a more accurate file per se - I look at it as a file that hasn't been dithered or mangled or otherwise manipulated into something smaller that's "Guaranteed to be just as good" as the original. I think anyone who believes that digital sampling at CD quality of 44khz or whatever sounds exactly as good as live music is kidding themself. I suppose if the total recording process from mike to digital mixdown is sufficiently compromised, then the CD might sound as good as that final mixdown.

You're right about that but it has nothing at all to do with the resolution of the file.  CD resolution is essentially transparent to humans who can't hear above 22kHz.  It has everything to do with limitations of the output transducers.  Music is mixed into stereo for playback over speakers but that would sound imperfect even over some magical set of speakers which were absolutely perfect in reproducing the signal sent to them.  Its even worse over headphones.
 
The closest you're going to get to perfect is binaural recording made from dummy head/mic a cast of your own head and played over headphones with a well crossover-ed sub.  That would reproduce the necessary HRTF and spatial cues that make live music sound live.  It is theoretically possible for such a setup to be completely transparent to the live performance.

 

[tdogzthmn]

Firstly why was this thread posted under headphones?  
 
In regards to 24 bit audio I have been reading the rumors that Apple might be offering 24bit losseless audio from iTunes in the not too distant future. I am really excited to see this happen because it will not only be a great and convenient way to buy high quality songs but I see it's potential to drive more consumers to explore the world of Hi-Fi. 

 

[Yoga Flame]

To me 24-bit music has one good benefit for end user listening. It allows you to adjust the volume digitally from your music player without perceptible loss of dynamic range. 16-bit is pretty much all you need, but once you start lowering the volume digitally, it effectively becomes much less than that. With 24-bit, there's still more than enough headroom left even after digital attenuation.
 
This is especially important when listening directly out of an iPod where you have no analog volume knob. The only way to lower the volume then is digitally. Too bad my iPod doesn't support 24-bit anyway. Ha.

 

[maverickronin]

Do you have any music that has so much dynamic range that lowering the volume pushes something beneath the noise floor?

 

[dalethorn]

 
Quote:

You're right about that but it has nothing at all to do with the resolution of the file.  CD resolution is essentially transparent to humans who can't hear above 22kHz.  It has everything to do with limitations of the output transducers.  Music is mixed into stereo for playback over speakers but that would sound imperfect even over some magical set of speakers which were absolutely perfect in reproducing the signal sent to them.  Its even worse over headphones.
 
The closest you're going to get to perfect is binaural recording made from dummy head/mic a cast of your own head and played over headphones with a well crossover-ed sub.  That would reproduce the necessary HRTF and spatial cues that make live music sound live.  It is theoretically possible for such a setup to be completely transparent to the live performance.

The problem with arguments about CD resolution et al is that they can be summarized as "good enough is good enough", which was argued for lots of things prior to CD.  44 khz sampling on a CD is not 44 khz of analog sound transmitted transparently from mic to CD.  At this point I have no doubt that many people in blind tests can tell the difference between a CD track and its 24-bit or 96-bit equivalent, given a final mixdown to the higher bitrate and then a dither down to 16-bit for CD.  It's not much different than anything else digital, including jitter.
 

 

[Scytus]

Quote:

Firstly why was this thread posted under headphones?  
 
In regards to 24 bit audio I have been reading the rumors that Apple might be offering 24bit losseless audio from iTunes in the not too distant future. I am really excited to see this happen because it will not only be a great and convenient way to buy high quality songs but I see it's potential to drive more consumers to explore the world of Hi-Fi. 

Mistake on my part, I thought I was in the Sound Science category when I posted, but it turned out that was another tab I had opened, not in the same tab I clicked "Start Thread" on. 
 
If anyone can move the thread there, I'd appreciate it c:

 

[maverickronin]

Err...Are you saying that a higher sample rate is somehow going to improve the rest of the signal chain?