[Arjisme]

Quote:

Originally Posted by leeperry /img/forum/go_quote.gif well I was using Wavelab at that time, and I tried all the noiseshaping/resamplers available...now you tell me that this app is junk, but I believe it's the best Windows editor

Hmm, I don't have Wavelab, but maybe someone else does? If so, maybe they would be willing to replicate what you did if you uploaded one of your files? It should be very straightforward to reconcile your assertion that quality decreased when you converted to 16 bit with gregorio's explanations that quality will not decrease (practically speaking) when doing that. Especially as you have provided a clear explanation of what the quality degradation sounds like.

Can you post the exact steps you followed to convert to 16 bit? If you don't recall, can you repeat the process again and get the same result?

 

[leeperry]

well, it sounded like quantization....like if you downsample a CDDA to 12/13bit.

sure, I still have the 24/96 untouched .APE files around, but do we really care that much...that's the true question

whatever rocks your boat you know, I love to rip vynil to 24/96 and listen to 5.1 24/96 MLP w/ a binaural stereo downmixing matrix....shoot me now

 

[Arjisme]

Quote:

Originally Posted by leeperry /img/forum/go_quote.gif sure, I still have the 24/96 untouched .APE files around, but do we really care that much...that's the true question

I think in this thread, we do. Gregorio has gone to great lengths to explain how 16 & 24 bit encoding impacts what we hear at the listening end. You've posted an experience that presumably refutes it. I'd say it's worth investigating.

 

[gregorio]

Quote:

Originally Posted by leeperry /img/forum/go_quote.gif well I was using Wavelab at that time, and I tried all the noiseshaping/resamplers available...now you tell me that this app is junk, but I believe it's the best Windows editor

There are a number of better editors in Windows; Sonic Solutions, Nuendo and of course ProTools (plus one or two others). However, what you have described as happening, I would not have expected from Wavelab as I don't believe it's junk. There are so many reasons why this could have happened, from a dodgy installation, to some sort of incompatibility, a particularly jittery ADC process or it's not inconceivable that there's a bug in the program, although I'd have thought this would have been identified and fixed pretty quickly.

G

 

[endless402]

hmm didnt read all of this thread before so this may have been covered:


in the end, the music sounds the best in the format in which it was recorded in

aka take a listen to kent poon's free tracks. 24/96 sounds better than the 16/44.1 version most likely due to the conversion process

 

[gregorio]

Quote:

Originally Posted by endless402 /img/forum/go_quote.gif in the end, the music sounds the best in the format in which it was recorded in ... take a listen to kent poon's free tracks. 24/96 sounds better than the 16/44.1 version most likely due to the conversion process

In some respects these two statements encapsulate the problem. The first statement has been true for the vast majority of the history of recording. Even until the early 1990s the recording format was different to the consumer format. For years consumers were buying vinyl but the recording format was usually 2" tape, which was never practical for the consumer. Around the middle to late 90s most studios started switching over to 24bit as the recording format.

Now, for just about the first time, consumers have direct access to the professional recording format. Unfortunately, it's too late! It could have made a difference 15 years ago and earlier but today, the technology has developed beyond the ability of anyone to hear the difference or of any analogue equipment to reproduce it. We are well past the point where higher specification means better sound. As time goes on improvements will of course be made but the improvements will be in the processing and processes rather than the underlying digital specification.

So your second statement of something sounding better and my point above about the current specifications being beyond what can make something sound better.

RE the conversion causing the problem: To be honest, with professional conversion there should not be any noticable artefacts. In other words, it's unlikely to be the conversion process itself causing a perceived lower quality and more likely to be the person doing it. If you can, have a look at the peak levels on the 16bit version. If the peak level is higher than -3dBFS, it's possible that the reconstruction filter or any EQ added by the consumer could cause clipping. Secondly, it's not at all uncommon for inexperienced producers and engineers to maximise signal levels during mixing. Add just a tiny bit more limiting when converting to 16bit and distortion can so easily occur. This is even more likely to be missed if the focus is on a 24bit release. There are in fact quite a number of ways that two different versions of the same master can vary. None of these potential problems are directly related to the digital audio format though.

G

 

[endless402]

why dont u go listen to it yourself. he's a pretty famous sound engineer

Design w Sound » AJP3 - Free Hi-Res Samples

might also be the fact that my dacmagic upsamples 96 to 192 much more cleanly than 44.1 to 192 since it's a perfect 2:1

 

[Acix]

Quote:

Originally Posted by gregorio /img/forum/go_quote.gif 1. As far as I'm concerned, I am willing to admit that it may be possible to perceive some sonic content above 20kHz, although there is only anecdotal evidence for it. However, if there is anything to be heard it is definitely lower than 40kHz, simply because there are no studio mics that can pick up anything above this point. A 40kHz signal can be encoded using a sample rate of 96kFs/s. There is however absolutely no advantage to a sample rate of 192kHz as there simply is nothing between 48kHz and 96kHz which can be recorded. If someone thinks they hear a difference with 192kFs/s, it cannot be anything to do with the recording, because no studio mics can record above 40kHz, so the only thing which can be in these higher frequencies on a recording is noise. 2. Sorry but you are way off the mark with your second paragraph. I have been recording and mixing exclusively in higher than 16bit since the end of 1992, not long after the technology was first available (Yamaha DMR8 + DRU8). I switched over from 20bit to 24bit in about 1995, when multi-channel 24bit converters first became available (DigiDesign 888). So, there can't be that many engineers who have a longer practical experience than me in working with >16bit. Also, I've used higher resolution recording technology not just for music recording and production but also quite extensively for film and TV sound too. My understanding of the theory side of HR has come from a fair bit of research over the years and particular thanks need to go to Nika Aldrich who gave many hours of his time online to help iron out many of my misunderstandings. In fact, there is not much in the digital audio chain that I haven't thoroughly tested. Take dither for example, to start with only TDPF (Triangular Probability Density Functions) were available but I've used extensively Sony Super-Bitmapping, UV22, POWr, Waves L2 and DigiDesign. I've gone through or tested countless mics, mic-pres, cables, ADCs, DACs and speakers. Since the early '90s I must have spent around $500,000 on equipment and acoustics. I've also done work in many of this country's (UK) top studios and dubbing theatres as well as my own of course. G

It's really simple, if you're not able to hear information between 20 and 22kHz, so your approach to sound if questionable on the whole topic. Now, as I already mentioned, proper studio equipment is needed to detect sound above these levels. Speakers, headphones and the whole signal chain needs to be able to support 24/96. This is just the beginning to work in higher resolution. I've followed you throughout the thread and it seems to me that you might a have a misunderstanding in your concept of HR sound. It's not even about if you can hear above 22kHz. Let's take your case as an example: You don't hear between 20 and 22kHz. You're still going to benefit from the headroom of high resolution that allows more room for peak level... before converting to 44.1.
And this is actually the benefit of recording and working in high resolution, as I said before.

 

[Eric M]

Sorry if this was asked before... I know there's no difference noticeable to humans between 16bit and 24bit, but what about frequencies.

Does 16/96 sound better than 16/48?

 

[JaZZ]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric M /img/forum/go_quote.gif Sorry if this was asked before... I know there's no difference noticeable to humans between 16bit and 24bit...

That's still not written in stone (despite the thread title), although personally I tend to give this theory some credit.


Quote:

...but what about frequencies? Does 16/96 sound better than 16/48?

A clear yes from me and my ears.
.

 

[Acix]

Quote:

Originally Posted by gregorio /img/forum/go_quote.gif There are a number of better editors in Windows; Sonic Solutions, Nuendo and of course ProTools (plus one or two others). However, what you have described as happening, I would not have expected from Wavelab as I don't believe it's junk. There are so many reasons why this could have happened, from a dodgy installation, to some sort of incompatibility, a particularly jittery ADC process or it's not inconceivable that there's a bug in the program, although I'd have thought this would have been identified and fixed pretty quickly. G

LOL...Wavelab Nuendo and Cubase are from the same company, Steinberg.

 

[Clutz]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acix /img/forum/go_quote.gif LOL...Wavelab Nuendo and Cubase are from the same company, Steinberg.

How does that in anyway contradict what he wrote?

 

[Clutz]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acix /img/forum/go_quote.gif Speakers, headphones and the whole signal chain needs to be able to support 24/96.

That doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

 

[Acix]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clutz /img/forum/go_quote.gif How does that in anyway contradict what he wrote?

Does Wavelab sound better than Nuendo?

 

[Clutz]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acix /img/forum/go_quote.gif Does Wavelab sound better than Nuendo?

How would I know, I'm not a sound engineer- BUT, he didn't claim that he'd expect them to sound any different. You're making an inference that he never implied. But even so, so what? Since they're different products offered by the same company it stands to reason that they differ from each other in some way. You can by a Corvette or a Solstice- they're both made by GM, but they're very different products.

Your readiness to make ridiculous arguments causes me to question *everything* you write.