[castleofargh]

 

http://youtu.be/nLEhfieoMq8
If I understand your question correctly then this video answers it.

A nice video, but no, it doesn't explain my question.
 
The 16-bit vs 24-bit discussion thus far focuses entirely on the recording and digital mastering product. I completely agree with the main argument that 16-bit is more than sufficient as the mastering product. I have an advanced mathematical education so I have no issues understanding this part.
 
My question has to do with the practical effect on electronics going in the opposite direction, what happens from the digital audio file to the speaker cone, and whether using a higher bit depth (perhaps in combination with variable/adaptive gain) at any point in this process is useless, or not? For example...my favorite-sounding audio player, Audirvana, uses 64-bit (variable gain) for internal processing (they say it is to avoid round-off errors)...is this just a waste of my computer's CPU time? Another example, is buying anything more than a 16-bit depth DAC also a complete waste of money? Could it be that all the digital processing in this stage is just nonsense, that the sound improvements we hear in players like Audirvana are just a matter of coloring/styling the output to sound more pleasing to the ear? Should we focus more attention on the pre-amp stages in the DAC chip rather than worrying about all of the digital machinations of the chip?
 
I hope everyone can see that these are different questions. But I fear that the distinction might be lost on some, and if there is value to the A=>D=>A process (at any point) in using higher bit-depths then let's be careful to not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

you question comes down to a very simple question, can you abx a 16bit vs a 24bit of the same song? the result gives you an idea of the importance of using heavy hires files. if you're looking for audible changes that's all you need.
if you're looking for measurements, then we already have distortions and noise floor of gears showing that the math works pretty well with 16bit.

 

[limpidglitch]

  you question comes down to a very simple question, can you abx a 16bit vs a 24bit of the same song? the result gives you an idea of the importance of using heavy hires files. if you're looking for audible changes that's all you need.
if you're looking for measurements, then we already have distortions and noise floor of gears showing that the math works pretty well with 16bit.

 
He's not really asking if there's an advantage to 24bit files over 16bit ones, as I understand it.
He's asking whether there's an advantage to using 64bit processing when adjusting volume, or using a 24bit DAC when playing back a 16bit file. To the latter question I'd say yes, nwavguy touched upon this while discussing the design of the ODAC. As to the former question I don't really know, but I suspect you're well past adding any benefits from higher precision processing.

 

[castleofargh]

I thought those were examples of a more general question.

 
 

I do use my odac with foobar's output in 24bit, but I really can't say I hear a difference(unless I go full replaygain and -70db on volume setting on the computer or something stupid like that). to me it's more of a safeguard so that I can use a little of foobar's volume without fear of crushing the track. that's my own level of homeopathy, I can't hear that it really saves anything, but I believe it does.

 
and on paper, I guess it can also serve to keep the D to A noise below, so that the actual noise floor still is the dithered noise from the CD(or the noise floor from the amp section?).
 
anyway, it's not like 16bit DACs are still a thing nowadays. a few guys from Sparta resist with NOS DACs and painted abs, but that's pretty much it in audio.

 

[FFBookman]

High end math degrees can't hear better than my ears, or your own ears. If you only have measurements of 1 type of hearing (the frequency range) then you only have math for that 1 domain.
 
Timing and spatial recognition in the simulated stereo field is where the major change is, and it's where all the 16bit holdouts like to avoid. The MP3 people outright dismiss all of it. How convenient to throw it away since you don't have math for it.
 
Vinyl people and recording engineers and musicians and music lovers hear it because it's "presence".
 
16bit has really impressed me through the ponoplayer, it is a decent format. But the 24bit files just have extra room, extra goodness, extra presense that you will never get a measurement for. 
 
The "myth" is believing we have math equivalent to the human auditory system. Not even close. 

 

[lamode]

  High end math degrees can't hear better than my ears, or your own ears. If you only have measurements of 1 type of hearing (the frequency range) then you only have math for that 1 domain.
 
Timing and spatial recognition in the simulated stereo field is where the major change is, and it's where all the 16bit holdouts like to avoid. The MP3 people outright dismiss all of it. How convenient to throw it away since you don't have math for it.
 
Vinyl people and recording engineers and musicians and music lovers hear it because it's "presence".
 
16bit has really impressed me through the ponoplayer, it is a decent format. But the 24bit files just have extra room, extra goodness, extra presense that you will never get a measurement for. 
 
The "myth" is believing we have math equivalent to the human auditory system. Not even close. 

 
... which is all nonsense, as no-one can tell the difference between 16 and 24 bit in an double blind test. I don't want to stop you from wasting your own money but once you write something like this, I feel I need to write something to prevent other trusting souls from wasting theirs.

 

[FFBookman]

  you question comes down to a very simple question, can you abx a 16bit vs a 24bit of the same song? the result gives you an idea of the importance of using heavy hires files. if you're looking for audible changes that's all you need.
if you're looking for measurements, then we already have distortions and noise floor of gears showing that the math works pretty well with 16bit.

I think ABX listening tests, along with confirmation bias, makes most of these results garbage. If you don't hear an advantage right away and feel it, you are pushing some sort of agenda.
 
It isn't like the 16bit sounds like garbage, it sounds amazing if you love the song. The 24bit version, assuming from the same analog masters, sounds less digital. It's bigger, wider, more natural sounding. The presence and air and accuracy is there, whereas 16bit has a bit of that tinny small-box sound. But so much of it as about the performance, the mix, and the master.
 
Then there's the format, something the marketplace actually determines. I say MP3 needs to be retired, any bitrate. FLAC 16/44 should be the baseline format for digital audio. Their lossy tricks worked for over a decade but we deserve better for ourselves. We don't have dialup anymore.
 
Of course MP3 cheats and splices up it's bass frequency, and most modern players and headphones pump it back up to confuse the hell out of everyone. The modern production sucks all room out of the mix at every stage, with sometimes hundreds levels of compression at work in just the basic mix, not counting what the 10 other plugs in put on the signal. 

 

[FFBookman]

   
... which is all nonsense, as no-one can tell the difference between 16 and 24 bit in an double blind test. I don't want to stop you from wasting your own money but once you write something like this. I feel I need to write something to prevent other trusting souls from wasting theirs.

your tests lie to you. give you bad data. you base your entire argument on that bad data. people can hear better than an ABX test will ever show because the test itself assaults our natural hearing processes. 

 

[bigshot]

My intelligence is being assaulted too! (joke)
 
High end audio is built upon the foundation of expectation bias. It's the secret ingredient that makes 24 sound better than 16, one wire sound better than another wire, and expensive amps and DACs sound better than ordinary ones. Numbers and specs are the incantation that invokes the sonic improvement. The high end audio shaman uses imagery like "sound being chopped up into little bits" and "stair steps" to plant the seed in the mind that grows and grows as long as it is watered by imprecise testing and fertilized by even more subjective self justification. Self delusion is actually the single most effective way to make your stereo sound better to you. It really works! Thousands of high end audiophiles are proof of that.
 
Unfortunately, you happen to be posting in the Sound Science forum. This is the one place where expectation bias is going to get a pin stuck in it. We don't have anything to sell you, so we won't feed your placebo needs. You'll only lose your expectation bias and lose all the value you have invested in it all these years. That would be a terrible waste of all that hard work.

 

[FFBookman]

just because it's good enough for medicine and visual domains doesn't mean it's good enough for our ears, or our music. 
 
unless you get a better test than an ABX i will disregard your findings. you don't own math and physics, just the myopic kind that applies false limits based on ignorance. 
 
there's more to hearing than you have the math, or instruments, to properly measure.

 

[bfreedma]

 
just because it's good enough for medicine and visual domains doesn't mean it's good enough for our ears, or our music. 
 
unless you get a better test than an ABX i will disregard your findings. you don't own math and physics, just the myopic kind that applies false limits based on ignorance. 
 
there's more to hearing than you have the math, or instruments, to properly measure.

 
You're trolling Sound Science, right?

 

[limpidglitch]

  High end math degrees can't hear better than my ears, or your own ears. If you only have measurements of 1 type of hearing (the frequency range) then you only have math for that 1 domain.
 
Timing and spatial recognition in the simulated stereo field is where the major change is, and it's where all the 16bit holdouts like to avoid. The MP3 people outright dismiss all of it. How convenient to throw it away since you don't have math for it.
 
Vinyl people and recording engineers and musicians and music lovers hear it because it's "presence".
 
16bit has really impressed me through the ponoplayer, it is a decent format. But the 24bit files just have extra room, extra goodness, extra presense that you will never get a measurement for. 
 
The "myth" is believing we have math equivalent to the human auditory system. Not even close. 

 
Does listening to a 16bit file in a 24bit container sound like a fart in an auditorium?
Does listening to down sampled 24bit file feel like riding in a convertible with a buzz-cut?
Does listening to an mp3 file feel like sitting in a tattoo salon with a pair of didgeridoos stuck to the sides of your head?
 
 

 
just because it's good enough for medicine and visual domains doesn't mean it's good enough for our ears, or our music. 
 
unless you get a better test than an ABX i will disregard your findings. you don't own math and physics, just the myopic kind that applies false limits based on ignorance. 
 
there's more to hearing than you have the math, or instruments, to properly measure.

 
Thankfully maths and physics is completely open source, unlike audiophile hoodoo. If you wan't to critique it, have at it!
If you want to wax poetically like some third rate Henry D. Thoreau, please go somewhere else.

 

[FFBookman]

haha i guess i am trolling if you guys have scared out all other thought. i was trying to follow your weird examples until i got your sarcasm. can you give me a measurement of how annoyed i am by your thought process?  do you have numbers for that?
 
what's the best playback format for mathematicians? what's the best DAP under $500 for DSP programmers? do you compromise your music down for convenience but won't acknowledge other compromises?

 

[bigshot]

You're the one arguing that numbers matter, not us. Perhaps you could tell us which system is the best for mathematicians? I'm going to guess it's whatever system has the biggest numbers, regardless of whether it sounds any better or not.

 

[castleofargh]

 
just because it's good enough for medicine and visual domains doesn't mean it's good enough for our ears, or our music. 
 
unless you get a better test than an ABX i will disregard your findings. you don't own math and physics, just the myopic kind that applies false limits based on ignorance. 
 
there's more to hearing than you have the math, or instruments, to properly measure.

so subjective method isn't good enough, measurement isn't good enough, but you alone with a pono, and all is clear. how convenient. somehow I'm reminded of the dunning kruger link somebody posted some times ago.

abx is one of the most effective subjective test to search for audible differences. if you know of a more efficient subjective test that we all can take at home without our own gears, I'm all ears. or are you just criticizing for the pleasure of it?
 
now about "there's more to hearing than you have the math, or instruments, to properly measure." well sure, there is bias^_^. mood, expectations, pricetag, misinformation... they're all well passed measurements and math.
but else, if it's on a CD, then it has been turned into volts, measured and turned into digits. as long as you're satisfied with the album you're listening to, your not making any sense.

 

[limpidglitch]

  You're the one arguing that numbers matter, not us. Perhaps you could tell us which system is the best for mathematicians? I'm going to guess it's whatever system has the biggest numbers, regardless of whether it sounds any better or not.

 
My impression is that mathematicians like small and concise numbers, engineers like round numbers and astrophysicists like huge numbers.
 
By that reasoning a mathematicians system would be the bare minimum, implemented really elegantly, though sadly completely impractically. An engineers system would be the the required minimum, rounded up, so maybe 20bit/50kHz? And a an astrophysicist wouldn't really care, as sound can't travel in a vacuum anyway.
 
Following from this I think it is reasonable to claim that the current redbook standard was devised by a mix of engineers and mathematicians, and not astrophysicists.