[dalethorn]

 

I'm not sure anyone knows for sure and at this point it's all a bunch of speculation and people having meltdowns on the internet about it.  My understanding is that the offerings will not be lossless.  But we'll just have to wait and see.

One of the three fundamental laws of logic: "Whatever is, is."

So who cares what Apple does? The tracks will either be or they won't be. Either way it's a package deal. If you really want lossless super-fi tracks, you'd be better off starting with Stereophile's sources and branching off from there. Supporting people who really care about music and high fidelity reproduction is always better than giving your money to mega-corporations like Apple.

 

[haloxt]

If apple did it, I think a lot of apple users would question it. There are good financial reasons for apple to try to sell consumers 24 bit hardware and music, but I think they will have to do some convincing. It would cause me great embarassment to see apple be the one to scientifically prove (truly or not, irrelevant so long as people believe) an audible difference between 16 and 24 bit.

 

[maverickronin]

Stupid office move.  I missed all the fireworks...

 

[Argyris]

Allow me to summarize the article with a metaphor of utility:

"Buying a car that goes higher than 70 mi/hr in the US is foolish. The highest posted speed limit anywhere is 70 mi/hr. Granted, cars that go higher than 70 mi/hr likely perform better and are more fuel efficient and reliable because the engine isn't maxed out just to reach the highest allowable speed. Also, such cars are likely better equipped to perform well in all weather conditions and to haul cargo. But since we believe that 70 mi/hr is the fastest the average driver should ever need to travel, we think it's a bad thing for you that cars that go faster are offered. We think you're foolish to want them."

Sometimes I just have to shake my head at what gets through editing. Addressing the article on point, the difference between 24-bit and 16-bit really isn't that dramatic (and I'm one of the relatively few people who is actually in a position to make that claim, as I have decent kit and have been recording my own tracks for years). But this "you don't need the extra capability because we arbitrarily decided you don't, even though we acknowledge its superiority" stance is absurd. If the article had merely painted this as just a marketing gimmick (I guess the author was going in that direction), then that would be fine. However, the way it came across was, "Here's all the wonderful things this format can do. But you don't need them. You must be one of those nitpicking audiophile fools if you think you do."

If you want to say that audiophiles can fall for their share of snake oil, I'm right there with you. If you want to say that this is more a marketing ploy than a revolutionary departure in sound quality, I agree, it probably is. If you want to argue that the 16-bit format is capable of a lot more than it's currently being used for, I fully agree. In other words, I agree with all the premises of this article. But the tone--that snarky, "we know what's best for you and you're foolish if you think otherwise" attitude--is what rubs me the wrong way. Extra utility is never a bad thing for users. It may be unnecessary, but part of living in a free country is having the opportunity to acquire more than the bare minimum required for survival. The only explanation I can think of is that maybe the author was born in a part of the world (or else is given to a radical ideology) that doesn't acknowledge this basic ideal. This probably isn't the case, so I really can't say what that tone was all about.

 

[haloxt]

It's called twisting the facts to suit your own opinion.

 

[BlackbeardBen]

Quote:

Quote:

 

There was no artificial signal processing, but the final product was still converted to 16 bits.
 
Not sure what point you are trying to prove.  Since you still refuse to listen to a 16 bit product and 24 bit product and tell us what the difference is with your golden ears, I'm not even sure what you are going on about anymore or what your actual goal is.

Yes, I do have golden ears, and by your snide remarks, I see that you don't. Too bad for you. Maybe you listen to your hi-fi gear and just imagine that you have the best stuff, or maybe "good enough" is good enough for you. Fine - but why are you here?

If you have "golden ears", prove it.  ABX DBT a 24-bit 96 kHz or 192 kHz track and a copy of it dithered and downsampled to 16 bit, 44.1 kHz.
 
Or, if you're too lazy for that or don't have a 24-bit capable DAC, start here: http://www.audiocheck.net/blindtests_index.php
 
See how you score.
 
Oh, and no one is rushing you.  You can spend a month listening to "A", a month listening to "B", and a third month listening to "X" if you'd like.  No one is dictating that self-run ABX tests have to happen within a given period of time.
 
 
I find it absolutely hilarious that you question the reliability and bias of "magazines" - which at that point was referring to AES and Nature peer-reviewed scientific publications, not popular magazines - yet somehow the entirely subjective opinions (A/B listening is not valid as an objective method free of bias) of reviewers at Stereophile is taken as entirely accurate by you.  Could you explain why?
 
 
 
 
 
Oh, although it's not really related, I think it's worth noting that the recording you happened to bring up was monitored with a pair of HD 580 headphones - which I'm sure you would say "aren't revealing enough" if they were used for any sort of testing...

 

[bobfa]

Well to add fuel to the fire.  HD Tracks newsletter yesterday said something about a "big" announcement next week.

 

[Richiyaado]

Well, I don't have a 200+ IQ or (so far as I can tell) "Golden Ears," but I'm very happy with my modest little headphone rig... without all the fancy (and expensive) cables.
 
Will I be banned from Head-Fi now?

 

[Cataphract]

Quote:

Well, I don't have a 200+ IQ or (so far as I can tell) "Golden Ears," but I'm very happy with my modest little headphone rig... without all the fancy (and expensive) cables.
 
Will I be banned from Head-Fi now?

Yes. Sorry

 

[BobSaysHi]

Quote:

If you have "golden ears", prove it.  ABX DBT a 24-bit 96 kHz or 192 kHz track and a copy of it dithered and downsampled to 16 bit, 44.1 kHz.
 
Or, if you're too lazy for that or don't have a 24-bit capable DAC, start here: http://www.audiocheck.net/blindtests_index.php
 
See how you score.
 
Oh, and no one is rushing you.  You can spend a month listening to "A", a month listening to "B", and a third month listening to "X" if you'd like.  No one is dictating that self-run ABX tests have to happen within a given period of time.
 
 
I find it absolutely hilarious that you question the reliability and bias of "magazines" - which at that point was referring to AES and Nature peer-reviewed scientific publications, not popular magazines - yet somehow the entirely subjective opinions (A/B listening is not valid as an objective method free of bias) of reviewers at Stereophile is taken as entirely accurate by you.  Could you explain why?
 
 
 
 
 
Oh, although it's not really related, I think it's worth noting that the recording you happened to bring up was monitored with a pair of HD 580 headphones - which I'm sure you would say "aren't revealing enough" if they were used for any sort of testing...

I scored a 10/10 on the 6 3 and 1 db tests. Cool. Got a 5/10 on the .5 db one. I think I'd score better in a completely silent room, my computer puts out 38 db (guess based on another test from the site).
10/10 on the 50 20 10 and 9/10 on the 5 c pitch tests.
 
Is that normal? The website didn't explain very well.

 

[Mdraluck23]

10/10 all the way to .5db... 8/10 on .5db. I'm guessing we are around average. I got 3/10 on .1db haha

 

[BobSaysHi]

Quote:

10/10 all the way to .5db... 8/10 on .5db. I'm guessing we are around average. I got 3/10 on .1db haha

I also forgot to mention that I have Tinnitus. That might affect things.

 

[emmodad]

Quote:

The first few pages of the 24-bit myth thread from 2009 should really be referenced here.  The limit to hearing a difference is not the equipment, it's the nature of digital sampling. The short take-home from gregorio's first post:
 
[ snip ]
 

So, 24bit does add more 'resolution' compared to 16bit but this added resolution doesn't mean higher quality, it just means we can encode a larger dynamic range. This is the misunderstanding made by many. There are no extra magical properties, nothing which the science does not understand or cannot measure. The only difference between 16bit and 24bit is 48dB of dynamic range (8bits x 6dB = 48dB) and nothing else. This is not a question for interpretation or opinion, it is the provable, undisputed logical mathematics which underpins the very existence of digital audio.

 

[ snip ]

 
 
Quote:

It's not a theory.  If you read this, you'd see that the additional bits do not add resolution, but dynamic range that you can't actually use, unless you're planning death by sound.

 
 
for those who did not grab a large single malt and read thru the entire lengthy "24-bit myth thread from 2009," pls recall that gregorio's initial posting contained fundamentally-flawed and misrepresentative info (the purported "misunderstanding made by many" as referenced above) concerning relationships between bit depth, quantization error, resolution and dynamic range.
 
digital signal processing is not an easy discipline to fathom, but the misstatements were egregious.
 
---
 
a simplified, very brief explanation presenting more correct info can be found here.
 
more thorough (and factually-correct) info concerning ie quantization error; quantization distortion; linearity error in converters; and relationships between bit depth, resolution and dynamic range can be found in resources authored by professionals who actually understand sampled data systems, digital signal processing and digital audio; and who have written texts and presentations which are reasonably-digestible for dsp non-experts:  ie "Principles of Digital Audio" (Pohlman) and numerous good public presentations from Analog Devices.
 
several of these are linked [ link1 link2 link3 link4 ] in followup addressing gregorio's own original "misunderstanding."
 
 
hth,
 
chuck

 

[emmodad]

Quote:

Originally Posted by nick_charles /img/forum/go_quote.gif
 
Harley whose only audio credentials were that he won an essay writing contest and whose articles contained so many material inacccuracies that he was routinely corrected by The Audo Critic, whose ramblings about jitter were so inaccurate that Aczel commissioned an article by Bob Adams (Analog Devices) specifically to undo all the damage he had done ?
 

those were the days.
 
like him or not, agree with his (often strongly-held) opinions or not:  one had to admire Peter Aczel's tenacity in addressing, exposing and debunking issues of uninformed a/o deliberate pseudoscience which were proliferating in the 90's era of high-end analog and digital audio.
 
the TAC jitter article by Bob Adams (which Nick referenced above) should be required reading; and especially as a prerequisite for any web posting concerning the topic of jitter
 
 
would that we could be fortunate enough to have Peter in a position to do the same in today's world of internet-blathering, commercially opportunistic "computer audiophiles" and their technically-ungrounded but volubly self-promoting "manufacturers of high-end digital audio products" ilk....

 

[k00zk0]

Really disappointing, Gizmodo going there. I used to read them daily some years back. Lack of time, now I'm just on digg occasionally, but I see the same crap. At least it is still user-submitted (but small-group promoted..)
 
24 bit is cool. Why not have both better resolution, AND dynamic range? They BETTER make songs sound averagely-loud at quarter or eighth volume. That is only two or three bits used for wild transients, or if they still choose to compress it to hell, it leaves room for an explosion, or sub-bass that the average target system can't respond to well, so it would be boosted greatly to near the max. Good for ambient tracks with random 10hz wmmms and fuhuhuhs. The noticeable aspect would be the presence of these realistic surprising loud parts, with screening or warnings for super-shocking or possible ear-hurting surprises for those who dare, and the music would preseve the 20 bits or so that make each point of height on the waveform 20 times as accurate to make the other side happy.
 
I can see people complaining about the 1.5x increase in filesize. IMO what should be done is 20 bit, with 1 or 2 for dynamic range (half volume average music with booms and surprises possible) and 48khz, to preserve the little bit of HF off the spectrum that may possibly be attributed to these hidden emotional effects and the like the HF apparently encodes and conveys. The resulting filesize is about halfway between 16/44 and 24/44, and does just about the same job as 24 bit will do (with DAC's being able to reconstruct the waveform perfectly fine with a 16 bit value anyway, let alone 18-19, right?) and actually puts some more information into the audio that any number of bits will never cover.
 
Er, does any common format support more finely selectable rates and resolutions such as 20 bit?