24-bit audio a con, according to Gizmodo

[Shike]

 
Quote:

Quote:

 

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.
 
I'm sorry, but what?  I didn't say this anywhere.  I said this has been tested though, and in the case of these tests not a single person was able to identify the two with statistical relevance.  I fail to see how actually testing now equals "blind faith" in your head.
 
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.
 
What ABX testing did they do?  Oh right -- they didn't.  Opinions and speculation don't work here.

Do you remember the controversy about "inaudible" watermarks?
 
Which one?  Need to be more specific than that.

Responses in bold.  I find it odd that people tell you to do an ABX and you start accusing them of religion.  Apparently we should believe everything anyone has said because "stereophile says so". ಠ_ಠ

 

[dalethorn]

 

Responses in bold.  I find it odd that people tell you to do an ABX and you start accusing them of religion.  Apparently we should believe everything anyone has said because "stereophile says so". ಠ_ಠ

Your attempt to reframe the argument to support your religious beliefs, and worse yet, trying to cast youself as the skeptic when it is I who am the real skeptic, is quite transparent. Bottom line: Stop dithering my music just because you believe the ignorant masses can't tell the difference.

 

[maverickronin]

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?

OMG!!1  You're right!  Its a conspiracy!  How do we know they ALL aren't subtly degrading the sound ON PURPOSE!  You have no recourse but to record and mix ALL your own music YOURSELF.
 
TRUST NO ONE!
 

 
Seriously, you already trust them with "blind faith" to do everything else in the signal chain.

 

[dalethorn]

 
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?

Any real skeptic can hear the difference, but true believers like you-know-who cannot hear the difference. Again, what are you after here? Do the research yourself. It seems obvious to me that most people are happy with the status quo, as is the case for everything in life, not just hi-fi. Bottom line: Stop downsampling the music just to suit some obsolete "standard" you believe in. The arguments you make have been made by experts ever since Caruso sang into a recording horn.

 

[Shike]

 
Quote:

Quote:

 

Responses in bold.  I find it odd that people tell you to do an ABX and you start accusing them of religion.  Apparently we should believe everything anyone has said because "stereophile says so". ಠ_ಠ

Your attempt to reframe the argument to support your religious beliefs, and worse yet, trying to cast youself as the skeptic when it is I who am the real skeptic, is quite transparent. Bottom line: Stop dithering my music just because you believe the ignorant masses can't tell the difference.

How has anything I said at all related to religion in anyway shape or form?  Do you even know the definition of religion?  I don't think it means what you think it means.
 
Oh, and thanks for side stepping the issue for the billionth time: have you ran a single ABX of 24 bit for 16 bit?  Doesn't look like it.

 

[dalethorn]

OMG!!1  You're right!  Its a conspiracy!  How do we know they ALL aren't subtly degrading the sound ON PURPOSE!  You have no recourse but to record and mix ALL your own music YOURSELF.
 
TRUST NO ONE!
 

 
Seriously, you already trust them with "blind faith" to do everything else in the signal chain.

So you're so desperate to support and defend the obsolete "standard" of CD audio that you dredge up conspiracies to scare off your detractors?

 

[dalethorn]

 

How has anything I said at all related to religion in anyway shape or form?  Do you even know the definition of religion?  I don't think it means what you think it means.
 
Oh, and thanks for side stepping the issue for the billionth time: have you ran a single ABX of 24 bit for 16 bit?  Doesn't look like it.

I'm not side-stepping, you are. Stop monkeying with the signal. You need to learn to be less controlling and to just "let go" of your fervent belief in the sanctity of downsampling to 16 bits.

 

[maverickronin]

Quote:

So you're so desperate to support and defend the obsolete "standard" of CD audio that you dredge up conspiracies to scare off your detractors?

No.  You're so desperate to defend your preconceived notions that you were the one nearly suggesting a conspiracy.
 
In case you couldn't tell I was parodying your position.

 

[Shike]

 
Quote:

Quote:

OMG!!1  You're right!  Its a conspiracy!  How do we know they ALL aren't subtly degrading the sound ON PURPOSE!  You have no recourse but to record and mix ALL your own music YOURSELF.
 
TRUST NO ONE!
 

 
Seriously, you already trust them with "blind faith" to do everything else in the signal chain.

So you're so desperate to support and defend the obsolete "standard" of CD audio that you dredge up conspiracies to scare off your detractors?

I don't know of anyone that wouldn't get the point behind that post.  He's taking your position and dramatizing it so you can see how asinine it actually is.  The fact you criticized it only makes this more humorous (if not sad).
 
 
Quote:

I'm not side-stepping, you are. Stop monkeying with the signal. You need to learn to be less controlling and to just "let go" of your fervent belief in the sanctity of downsampling to 16 bits.

 
I haven't dodged a single question here: you have.
 
You were saying earlier that it didn't matter as long as we couldn't hear a difference.  No one seems to be able to do that.  You're claiming you can, so prove it.  When asked to provide evidence your argument breaks down to personal attacks and playing the victim.  That's side-stepping (avoiding questions and or requests for evidence).

 

[dalethorn]

 
Quote:

No.  You're so desperate to defend your preconceived notions that you were the one nearly suggesting a conspiracy.
 
In case you couldn't tell I was parodying your position.

That's funny, but pathetic also.  My claim is very simple.  Stop *changing* the music through whatever manipulation you support to maintain the obsolete "standard".  You can keep dredging up conspiracies and other nonsense, but the issue will never change.  You support maintain the old obsolete standard forever through down-sampling, and I say quit doing it.  Let the original 24-bit music (or whatever the original recording is) come direct to the consumers.

 

[dalethorn]

 
Quote:

I don't know of anyone that wouldn't get the point behind that post.  He's taking your position and dramatizing it so you can see how asinine it actually is.  The fact you criticized it only makes this more humorous (if not sad).
 
I haven't dodged a single question here: you have.
 
You were saying earlier that it didn't matter as long as we couldn't hear a difference.  No one seems to be able to do that.  You're claiming you can, so prove it.  When asked to provide evidence your argument breaks down to personal attacks and playing the victim.  That's side-stepping (avoiding questions and or requests for evidence).

That's very clever of you, but I expect people will see through it.  Stereophile said you can hear a difference, period.  I never supported you monkeying with the original track just because "you could not hear a difference".  Of course you will never hear a difference, because of your obvious commitment to the old obsolete standard.  So don't put words in my mouth.  And I don't make personal attacks - you are doing that now by making accusations that are unwarranted.  I don't make accusations - I state facts.  The facts are simple - you support manipulation of the 24-bit recordings to maintain a dubious "standard", and I oppose that.  Very simple.
 

 

[144004]

I'm sorry dalethorn, but you really do seem hell-bent on being argumentative instead of discussing whether 24-bit music distribution--if it does become a reality--is a good idea for the business, justified for average consumers, and whether it satisfies the minority that are audiophiles. I mean, that's really at the heart of Gizmodo's article, no? 
 
The bottom line of your argument is that recordings should be as close to the reality as possible. In tandem with this, however, you cited Stereophile's stance as your own: that a difference should be perceptible, not just measurable. (One is almost reminded of the Turing test...) So, in line with your philosophy on perception being the arbiter of sufficient quality, you've been asked if you can perceive the difference. 
 
Yes or no? 
 
I trust I've been polite and reasonable with you, and appropriately direct in my question, but you're not doing me the same courtesy. In fact, you're not doing anyone much courtesy at all. 
 
Gentlemen, there comes a point in every thread that one should unsubscribe; I believe we're well past that point now. Goodbye.

 

[dalethorn]

 
Quote:

I'm sorry dalethorn, but you really do seem hell-bent on being argumentative instead of discussing whether 24-bit music distribution--if it does become a reality--is a good idea for the business, justified for average consumers, and whether it satisfies the minority that are audiophiles. I mean, that's really at the heart of Gizmodo's article, no? 
 
The bottom line of your argument is that recordings should be as close to the reality as possible. In tandem with this, however, you cited Stereophile's stance as your own: that a difference should be perceptible, not just measurable. (One is almost reminded of the Turing test...) So, in line with your philosophy on perception being the arbiter of sufficient quality, you've been asked if you can perceive the difference. 
 
Yes or no? 
 
I trust I've been polite and reasonable with you, and appropriately direct in my question, but you're not doing me the same courtesy. In fact, you're not doing anyone much courtesy at all. 
 
Gentlemen, there comes a point in every thread that one should unsubscribe; I believe we're well past that point now. Goodbye.

So now it's hit and run, yes?  You can see that you're losing the argument, so you say "I win" and leave. 
 
1) It's OK with me that you want to feel like your position is right.
2) It's not OK that you put words in my mouth.  I never agreed to downsampling because some hypothetical listener "can't tell the difference".
3) It's not OK that you should grant the music industry a license to continue butchering the music just to suit some obsolete standard.
4) It's not OK that you should make accusations of impoliteness in a rational discussion. 

 

[Shike]

 
Quote:

That's funny, but pathetic also. 
 
So is criticizing your own position because you can't see the forest through the trees.
 
My claim is very simple.  Stop *changing* the music through whatever manipulation you support to maintain the obsolete "standard".
 
You're claim is you can hear a difference, we're asking for proof.  If we're going to put a standard out to pasture there should be a reason.  MP3 vs. FLAC can be ABX'ed, there's no reason this can't if the difference is audible like you say it is.
 
You can keep dredging up conspiracies and other nonsense
 
What conspiracy claim have I made?  Quote me.  I take offense to your false accusations.  The only one here to even be treading the conspiracy line is you.
 
, but the issue will never change.  You support maintain the old obsolete standard forever through down-sampling, and I say quit doing it.  Let the original 24-bit music (or whatever the original recording is) come direct to the consumers.
 
Just because it's 24bit doesn't mean they won't perform dynamic compression (ala loudness wars) on it anyway.  We're arguing a technical standard that has proven sufficient for all intents and purposes and YOU, sir, are claiming it's not enough.  Thus we ask YOU for evidence beyond anecdotes.

Responses in bold.  This just feels like an over the top troll at this point.
 
EDIT:
 
 
 
Quote:

That's very clever of you, but I expect people will see through it.
 
See through what, there's nothing to be seen through?
 
Stereophile said you can hear a difference, period.
 
Stereophile says a lot of things.  That doesn't make them right, especially with substantial contradictory evidence.
 
I never supported you monkeying with the original track just because "you could not hear a difference".
 
That's been the core of the discussion.  So you're saying then that we can not hear a difference, but it doesn't matter we should obsolete the current standard anyway?
 
Of course you will never hear a difference, because of your obvious commitment to the old obsolete standard.
 
I won't hear a difference because audibly there isn't one when level matched.  Unlike you I HAVE performed ABX, and unlike Stereophile experts in the field HAVE tested this substantially.
 
So don't put words in my mouth.
 
No one has put a single word in your mouth.  Well, where I said "So you're saying then that we can not hear a difference, but it doesn't matter we should obsolete the current standard anyway?" I did to highlight the absurdity of what you're saying.
 
And I don't make personal attacks
 
Yes, yes you have.  You've accused us of being something akin to a cult and we certainly don't appreciate it in the least.
 
- you are doing that now by making accusations that are unwarranted. I don't make accusations - I state facts.
 
Like accusing us of lack of reason and calling us religious fanatics?  Accusing us of conspiracies that you yourself made.  Right . . . good luck with that one.
 
The facts are simple - you support manipulation of the 24-bit recordings to maintain a dubious "standard", and I oppose that. Very simple.
 
I support standards that are audibly transparent.  You've shown NOTHING contradictory besides Stereophile's anecdotes.

 

[maverickronin]

Quote:

I trust I've been polite and reasonable with you, and appropriately direct in my question, but you're not doing me the same courtesy. In fact, you're not doing anyone much courtesy at all. 
 
Gentlemen, there comes a point in every thread that one should unsubscribe; I believe we're well past that point now. Goodbye.

Well maybe you're already gone, but whether or not its worth it to continue the conversation depends on what your goals are.  If your goal is to convince, within this single thread, dalethorn and others who are firmly on his side that they are wrong then I agree that it is useless to continue.  No single argument is likely to give someone a sudden epiphany and change their mind.  Its a more gradual process.
 
If your goal is to convince people who are on the fence or don't know anything about the subject then its worth it to continue.  That's what I'm trying to do here.  I can either convince them with evidence and logical arguments or by simply making a fool of the opposition.