[dalethorn]

 
Quote:

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

In a lot of cases, it's not about dynamic range, it's about having tracks on CD or more often digital music that has low volume, relatively.  And for a lot of things, you take what you can get.  You can't always get a better copy of something you want. 

 

[dallan]

Well I happily pay extra to get the Phish concerts to download in 24 bit.  The only problem is that only one set of shows was 24/96 the others have been 24/48 i'm afraid.  
 
So I guess I put my money where my mouth is at least, let the others baulk.

 

[dalethorn]

 
Quote:

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

Good question, but backward logic.  It's not about improving per se, it's about not making bad in the first place.  By preserving the best possible sample you can get that's practical.

 

[Yoga Flame]

 
Quote:

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

 
 
I am, of course, talking about very low volume levels. This happens with all my 16-bit music, which is the vast majority of my collection. Try setting volume to 1% or so with your music player, and then turn up your analog volume knob so you can hear the music again. When I do that everything sounds dull, as if the details in the music are gone.
 
That is an extreme example just to illustrate my point. I would not disagree if you said digital volume at 80% (just a number I pulled out of nowhere) has no detrimental effect on audible dynamic range.

 

[maverickronin]

Quote:

Good question, but backward logic.  It's not about improving per se, it's about not making bad in the first place.  By preserving the best possible sample you can get that's practical.

Well when the data rate is already high enough that humans can't tell the difference between it and any arbitrarily higher data rate why should bother to use something higher.
 
Quote:

 
 
 
I am, of course, talking about very low volume levels. This happens with all my 16-bit music, which is the vast majority of my collection. Try setting volume to 1% or so with your music player, and then turn up your analog volume knob so you can hear the music again. When I do that everything sounds dull, as if the details in the music are gone.
 
That is an extreme example just to illustrate my point. I would not disagree if you said digital volume at 80% (just a number I pulled out of nowhere) has no detrimental effect on audible dynamic range.

I've tried that and not really heard a difference.  A lot of it depends on the exact implementation.  I suppose there could be a few cases where that could be a problem, but I don't notice it on my D2+ at less than 10% with my SE530s which is about the worst case scenario that couldn't easily be avoided some other way.

 

[Shike]

Quote:

 

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.
 

 


Actually a DBT was done a while back and curiously with the same source material dithered down to 16 bit they couldn't.  I think it was in the 24 bit myth thread.
 
You can argue that it's more accurate all day, but unless you can hear the difference it doesn't matter.  Past studies show the odds are not in your favor.

 

[dalethorn]

Quote:

 

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.
 

 


Actually a DBT was done a while back and curiously with the same source material dithered down to 16 bit they couldn't.  I think it was in the 24 bit myth thread.
 
You can argue that it's more accurate all day, but unless you can hear the difference it doesn't matter.  Past studies show the odds are not in your favor.

Odds? You could not possibly sell that argument in Vegas or anywhere else. "Hey guys, here's something audio that's really different, but you'll never be able to hear the difference." Or there's this one: "Hey guys, it's 1982 and I just invented the CD and a new A to D converter. It's so perfect a digital copy of the analog sound you'll never be able to tell it's digital." Any of those sound familiar? Not to me of course, since I was born in 1990. Something like that.

 

[Shike]

 
Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

 

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.
 

 


Actually a DBT was done a while back and curiously with the same source material dithered down to 16 bit they couldn't.  I think it was in the 24 bit myth thread.
 
You can argue that it's more accurate all day, but unless you can hear the difference it doesn't matter.  Past studies show the odds are not in your favor.

Odds? You could not possibly sell that argument in Vegas or anywhere else. "Hey guys, here's something audio that's really different, but you'll never be able to hear the difference." Or there's this one: "Hey guys, it's 1982 and I just invented the CD and a new A to D converter. It's so perfect a digital copy of the analog sound you'll never be able to tell it's digital." Any of those sound familiar? Not to me of course, since I was born in 1990. Something like that.

Well since you're so sure you can tell the difference where no documented attempt has born fruit why don't you take a 24bit native file and run a conversion on it and ABX it for yourself?
 
Past studies have shown that no one has been able to tell the different between 24bit and 16bit at the same listening level (in a statistically significant manner).  You're going to have to provide evidence as you can't prove a null.
 
EDIT:
 
Link that mentions the results of the AES test:
 
http://www.audioxpress.com/magsdirx/ax/addenda/media/galo2941.pdf
 
Abstract of the test:
 
http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=14195
 
 
Given the audioxpress article is biased (we hear a difference and we can't be wrong because we say so), but the results speak for themselves.  You're going to have to show some substantial contradictory evidence before your argument has any credence in this case.

 

[qusp]

Quote:

Here's how it works.
 

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.

too funny, your prejudice is showing. apple still utterly dominates education, music production, graphic design, scientific modeling in some spheres. they just happen to also have produced the most successful dap, phone and tablet ever, as well as knowing how to market well because of being at the center of design, video production industries since forever. plus now they are the only computer that allows you to run any software you like, i probably missed something.
 
but oh thats right, all these people were just brain washed by fashion 

 
as far as the 24bit thing, everything is recorded at 24/96 or higher now and i would porefer my music not dithered before i get it. higher bitrate is more appealing, but 24 bit does indeed in my experience produce more complex harmonics with greater accuracy. of course harmonics that go on above 17khz have effects down in the audible band, just as they do in the amplifier and dac itself. no doubt there will be a barrage of naysayers now, so i'll catch you later. i for one will love it if the start selling hirez content, i use itunes because it allows me to use my ipad as the coolest remote ever for my system, so would love to not have to switch apps for hirez

 

[Eric_C]

dalethorn: to quote you (and you were quoting Stereophile), if it can't be heard, it doesn't matter. So, can you hear a difference between 16 and 24 bit?

 

[Currawong]

Considering all that I've spent on my rig, I feel I should get the best out of it by listening to high-res music, even the benefits are questionable.  While I don't understand the technicalities, there was some discussion in that thread regarding downsampling music having detrimental effects depending on what equipment or software was used. This could explain why some people felt certain albums sounded better in high-res than at regular CD quality. As well, I'd be curious to investigate the possibility of some DACs sounding better when high-res (or up-sampled) music is played through them. It seems to me more likely that the benefits of high-res music have to do with the equipment converting between analog and digital and back.

 

[Shike]

Quote:

Considering all that I've spent on my rig, I feel I should get the best out of it by listening to high-res music, even the benefits are questionable.  While I don't understand the technicalities, there was some discussion in that thread regarding downsampling music having detrimental effects depending on what equipment or software was used. This could explain why some people felt certain albums sounded better in high-res than at regular CD quality. As well, I'd be curious to investigate the possibility of some DACs sounding better when high-res (or up-sampled) music is played through them. It seems to me more likely that the benefits of high-res music have to do with the equipment converting between analog and digital and back.

Generally we see a lower noise floor from DACs with higher bitrates, but the results are fairly insignificant.
 
If you're going for high-res just for piece of mind that's one thing I can understand.  Just because I know I probably can't hear jitter doesn't mean I don't want a DAC that performs admirably handling it anyway.  Still, in the large scale of things current tests lean towards there not being a discernible all things being equal.  The problem is things usually aren't equal (the source recording) which throws a huge monkey wrench in things.  Odds are your high resolution music is probably from better masters anyway -- get a low resolution version from a regular CD, rip it, and compare the dynamic range from that compared to the high resolution file.  I think you'll find they're actually quite different and that it has nothing to do with 24bit.
 
@qusp:
 
Bieber, Kanye, Gaga, etc also dominate the charts.  Does popularity mean the music is good?  Group think and trends have absolutely nothing to do with their success either right?  Same can be said about any product on the market: popularity can be mutually exclusive from quality or design.  Given Apple has innovated in a lot of ways, but their strength has always been in strong marketing.  When people are willing to buy something "because it's an Apple" and not because they know the features then maverickronin's comment holds weight.  This is true all too often.

 

[maverickronin]

Quote:

too funny, your prejudice is showing. apple still utterly dominates education, music production, graphic design, scientific modeling in some spheres. they just happen to also have produced the most successful dap, phone and tablet ever, as well as knowing how to market well because of being at the center of design, video production industries since forever. plus now they are the only computer that allows you to run any software you like, i probably missed something.
 
but oh thats right, all these people were just brain washed by fashion 
 
as far as the 24bit thing, everything is recorded at 24/96 or higher now and i would porefer my music not dithered before i get it. higher bitrate

I don't think I said or implied that they make bad products, because generally I think they don't.  They make average products and dress them up in nice cases, market them as a "lifestyle" and charge a premium for it.  That's not something I even have a problem with.  It just makes me suspicious of their motives in moving to 24 bit.   As you seemed to imply above, their greatest strength is marketing and that's fine.
 
What I actually hate about Apple is their tendency to turn all their platforms into walled gardens, but I didn't even mention that.  That probably factors more into my distrust of them than the marketing gimmick/fashion thing but its not relevant to this discussion.
 
BTW I hate Microsoft a lot more than Apple but I still use their stuff because its a lot more useful, at least to me.

 

[dalethorn]

 

Well since you're so sure you can tell the difference where no documented attempt has born fruit why don't you take a 24bit native file and run a conversion on it and ABX it for yourself?
 
Past studies have shown that no one has been able to tell the different between 24bit and 16bit at the same listening level (in a statistically significant manner).  You're going to have to provide evidence as you can't prove a null.
 
EDIT:
 
Link that mentions the results of the AES test:
 
http://www.audioxpress.com/magsdirx/ax/addenda/media/galo2941.pdf
 
Abstract of the test:
 
http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=14195
 
 
Given the audioxpress article is biased (we hear a difference and we can't be wrong because we say so), but the results speak for themselves.  You're going to have to show some substantial contradictory evidence before your argument has any credence in this case.

So what you're saying is, we can let any record company do these "conversions" any way they choose with total blind faith in their methods, intentions, equipment, and whatever else, and we can be guaranteed of no effective data loss whatsoever. Gosh, that sounds like religion to me. And of course you could look up Stereophile's tests yourself, but you don't care about that because of your religious conviction.

Do you remember the controversy about "inaudible" watermarks?

 

[Eric_C]

Quote:

So what you're saying is, we can let any record company do these "conversions" any way they choose with total blind faith in their methods, intentions, equipment, and whatever else, and we can be guaranteed of no effective data loss whatsoever. Gosh, that sounds like religion to me. And of course you could look up Stereophile's tests yourself, but you don't care about that because of your religious conviction.

Do you remember the controversy about "inaudible" watermarks?

 
That's a bit of a leap of logic there, going from Shike's assertion that people can't actually hear a difference between 24- and 16-bit recordings, and you concluding that he's suggesting we blindly trust record companies.
 
Also, your remarks about his "religious conviction" are uncalled for.
 
Finally, please answer the question being posed to you: can you hear a difference between 24- and 16-bit?