[spruce music]

Dolby Digital can have a bit rate as high as 3mbits/s and as low as 500kbps.  All depends on how compressed they make it.  

Dolby Digital Plus is even higher rates and I feel people will still feel there is a huge difference between Dolby Digital Plus and the 24bit Movie soundtracks.  Mostly due to dynamic range expansion going to 24bit depth and not just bitrate.

If you listened to 16bit uncompressed PCM movie soundtracks against the Dolby True HD or DTS Master Audio version I would imagine you would draw the same conclusion of an overall improvement to sound quality. 

You're still comparing apples to oranges. Other differences in those formats than just bit depth.

 

[RRod]

  Dolby Digital can have a bit rate as high as 3mbits/s and as low as 500kbps.  All depends on how compressed they make it.  
 
Dolby Digital Plus is even higher rates and I feel people will still feel there is a huge difference between Dolby Digital Plus and the 24bit Movie soundtracks.  Mostly due to dynamic range expansion going to 24bit depth and not just bitrate.
 
If you listened to 16bit uncompressed PCM movie soundtracks against the Dolby True HD or DTS Master Audio version I would imagine you would draw the same conclusion of an overall improvement to sound quality. 

 
The proper comparison would be to take the True HD version, truncate/dither/shape to 16 bits, then pad back to 24-bits and recode as True HD. In any case, the difference between purely truncated 16-bit vs. 24 are truncation errors that *peak* at -96dB, which means if you set your max peaks to 120dBSPL you are claiming to hear stuff that is at most 24dBSPL. Noise-shaped dither makes the perceived difference even quieter. So how quiet is your listening room?

 

[NoteEater]

Listen this thread has been going on since 2009 and it does not look like the argument will ever stop.  This will be the last time I am going to post here. It is just a waste of my energy.  Sorry nothing personal, just a topic that irks me every time I see another post or article about it.  I am going to keep doing what I am doing because I hear a difference on most recordings.  Now I understand we probably have a median age on this forum of probably 25 year sold and I get that most of the well recorded music is not your taste.  I am sorry that your era of music has compressed the living hell out of your favorite tunes sometimes giving you as little as 3db of dynamic range.
 
If you have any faith in your fellow Head-Fiers you would agree that there are some very smart people on here that would not waste their hard drive space, their time, and their money if they saw no sonic benefits from 24bit.  Most who have properly experienced 24bit audio will try to listen to 24bit whenever they can because they know what they are missing if they don't.  These very smart people hear it.  I don't believe for a second that everyone that purchases SACD, DSD, or 24bit PCM are tricking themselves into buying something without sonic benefits.  This is not a small group of people in the audiophile community. It is a large portion of it which I am sorry to say but extends beyond listening to music on headphones.  
 
I take this 16bit vs 24bit thing very personally.  I felt that over the last 18 years since 24bit audio was released to us that I was cheated out of a real HiFi revolution that was squashed by compressed dynamic mp3 files. America decided what it wanted and as usual chose to eat junk food again.  I really hope the naysayers don't ruin it for all of us again as they did by downloading free junk food in the early 2000s.  Our only hope is Hi Res audio is selling well right now and that might just be profitable enough to get new releases and re releases on a regular basis.  
 
I have been listening to 24bit audio for 18 years now and have enlightened so many people.  This is commonly recited back to me, "I have never heard music sound like that before, and I have heard some really good sound systems." I will just keep working on people with open ears.  Tired of trying to convert those that listen to a one minute comparison track on mediocre hi res equipment that is probably not even set to play the 24bit file in anything but 16bit and then they say there is no difference.  
 
If you came on a drive with me for an hour, I know you would be a convert. I have done it a hundred times. You just need to know how to set it up right and don't trust the recording you are listening to if you don't hear a difference.  Try a bunch of different 24bit recordings.  You will find bliss eventually. Hopefully

 

[RRod]

Seeing as how I'm looking at a box of about 200 SACDs, which adds to the over 1000 CDs of highly-dynamic, classical recordings extending back to the late 70s, I find your lack of faith… disturbing. Enjoy whatever you think you're hearing from 24-bit delivery.

 

[watchnerd]

  Now I understand we probably have a median age on this forum of probably 25 year sold and I get that most of the well recorded music is not your taste.  I am sorry that your era of music has compressed the living hell out of your favorite tunes sometimes giving you as little as 3db of dynamic range.
 

 
Not me (nor I suspect much of this sub-forum).  I'm in my 40s.  Most of my listening is jazz and classical, with ample dynamic range.
 
I also work as a volunteer recording engineer for the local symphony and jazz venue.  Recent recordings I've done have about a 40dB dynamic range. Originally recorded in 24bit, distributed in 16bit.
 

 
If you have any faith in your fellow Head-Fiers you would agree that there are some very smart people on here that would not waste their hard drive space, their time, and their money if they saw no sonic benefits from 24bit.  Most who have properly experienced 24bit audio will try to listen to 24bit whenever they can because they know what they are missing if they don't.  These very smart people hear it.  I don't believe for a second that everyone that purchases SACD, DSD, or 24bit PCM are tricking themselves into buying something without sonic benefits. 

 
I believe exactly what you said: people are tricking themselves into buying 24bit PCM without sonic benefits.
 
I do not waste hard drive space or money on 24bit recordings.  I have performed multiple ABX tests on Redbook vs high resolution.  
 
It's simple logic:
 
1. The extra dynamic range of 24bit is useful in production.  It's not useful in playback.  You will not find a commercial available recording of music that exceeds the 96 dB available with 16bit.  And, even more to the point, the 144 dB dynamic range is beyond the noise floors of playback equipment.
 
2. You can't hear ultrasonics.  You don't need sample rates extending into dog hearing range.  And your playback system isn't designed for ultrasonics, either.
 
As for the "very smart people"...well look at the AES papers where the subject matter experts (not just smart, but experts in the domain) have done multiple studies on the audibility of high resolution.
 

 
 
I take this 16bit vs 24bit thing very personally.  I felt that over the last 18 years since 24bit audio was released to us that I was cheated out of a real HiFi revolution that was squashed by compressed dynamic mp3 files. America decided what it wanted and as usual chose to eat junk food again.  I really hope the naysayers don't ruin it for all of us again as they did by downloading free junk food in the early 2000s.  Our only hope is Hi Res audio is selling well right now and that might just be profitable enough to get new releases and re releases on a regular basis.  
 

 
You're conflating high resolution with lack of compression.
 
Apples vs oranges.  Two different issues.
 
I can make a Redbook recording with high DR, or a highly compressed high-rez recording with low DR.  In fact, there are many on the market.
 
Quote:

  If you came on a drive with me for an hour, I know you would be a convert. I have done it a hundred times. You just need to know how to set it up right and don't trust the recording you are listening to if you don't hear a difference.  Try a bunch of different 24bit recordings.  You will find bliss eventually. Hopefully

 
Anecdotal experience, with full human sighted biases, does not really meet the criteria for good empirical evidence.

 

[spruce music]

  If you came on a drive with me for an hour, I know you would be a convert. I have done it a hundred times. You just need to know how to set it up right and don't trust the recording you are listening to if you don't hear a difference.  Try a bunch of different 24bit recordings.  You will find bliss eventually. Hopefully

Is this really Neil Young?  Please don't tell me you can take me on a drive in your car for one hour and convert me.  The only thing that would convince me of firmly is you fooling yourself.  Of all places a car is not where you would hear a 24 bit vs 16 bit difference.  You lost credibility there friend. 
 
Your ideas about those who don't agree don't match reality.  I too have done recording, and have heard 24 bit on excellent systems.  My experience doesn't match your description of the large difference whatsoever.

 

[watchnerd]

  Is this really Neil Young?  Please don't tell me you can take me on a drive in your car for one hour and convert me.  The only thing that would convince me of firmly is you fooling yourself.  Of all places a car is not where you would hear a 24 bit vs 16 bit difference.  You lost credibility there friend. 
 
Your ideas about those who don't agree don't match reality.  I too have done recording, and have heard 24 bit on excellent systems.  My experience doesn't match your description of the large difference whatsoever.

 
I think you're right -- it is Neil Young!
 
I should have caught on when piracy was mentioned...

 

[NoteEater]

You guys ever run Hertz Mille Speakers Active not passive off a 32 band capable Calibration with appropriate Time Delay personally by the Midwest Hertz Audison rep.  He used a very expensive Audison Bit Tune Auto Calibration System through an Audison 24 Audison Bit One processor also supporting a 10" Dual Voice Coil Sealed Hertz Audison subwoofer with 900 watts pumped through it? 
 
Probably not huh? I have for 7 years now.  You have no idea what you are missing. One of the best sound spaces I have been in myself and hundreds of people who know good sound have sat in it for hours and agree. Don't speak of what you don't know, please. Talk of your own experience or call it your own theory.  
 
I love Neil Young.  Show some respect boys.  The man has pushed the envelope of sound quality on more musicians than you can probably name.  Give it a rest already.  Who cares if he came out with an average DAP that blew up in his face because a company decided to sell uprezzed 16bit files. The guy has wrote more songs than ten post 2000 era musicians combined.  
 
Just because new members on this forum have few posts, don't underestimate there experience and their anecdotal evidence.  After all we are listening actively right.  Not just writing about it on our computers?   I see live music all the time.  Is this not what we are trying to replicate.  At least trying to replicate the studio. Half of my collection is 16bit FLAC recording of live performances and just about as many 24bit FLAC live recordings. Modern recordings done right.  The 24bit recordings are the only recordings that put me back at the venue I was at often the night before.  Many agree with this anecdotal evidence.  Been doing it for years. Have you ever gone out and recorded a live music venue in DSD or at least 24bit 192khz and then listened to it later that evening?  Probably not huh?  Well I have many many times. I can replicate the show I just saw often better than most spots in the venue.  As if I have the sweet spot in the venue.
 
If you take a DSD recording and convert it down to 24bit 96khz and play that back on a proper system, most people will say they have never heard any sound like that before from a sound system.  If you record the same performance in 24bit 192khz and convert that down to 16bit after compressing the hell out of the mix, there is no comparison in quality.  The way something is recorded and mastered makes all the difference in the world in whether you will hear a difference in 16bit vs 24bit.  I agree that I have heard a lot of bogus files in 24bit that should never been sold as 24bit.  They exist, in droves.  It is a shame and should be considered fraud in my opinion especially if you are profiting from it. Sorry.  Many naysayers here probably bought a bunch and are ticked off.  I would be too.  Sorry you wasted your money.
 
I hate to break it to you guys, but with all this flac I am getting, I really I am starting to believe that headphones are not the proper venue for 24bit audio.  :-/ The waveforms cannot develop in a headphone the way it can in an open space.  Maybe a Smyth Realizer is what is needed.  Not sure. Have not heard one yet.  The point here is the way the sound fills a room is completely different when it is a proper 24bit recording.  There is a sense of not being able to place sound coming from the speaker itself and instead you just the room filled with music.  An extension of sound from the speaker cabinet is evident up to 3ft from he speaker in a proper room. Maybe even further in a large room with better equipment.  16bit Files have a tendency to sound veiled and ever so slightly extended from the speaker.  As if the sound is struggling to fill the air and I can tell I am in a room with speakers.   This is a sensory perception and not necessarily and auditory one, which I actually do have some study in and experience for 14 years.  Headphones cannot give you this experience.  At least I have not heard it yet and it is because the waveforms have specific distances they need to travel to completely form(just physics here really) and there is obviously nothing but SPL exhibited in an ear/headphone due to lack of space.  Sorry but its the truth.  Pretty darn sure. Right Tyll?
 
I listen on my home system as much as I do on my headphones currently.  But mostly I do my serious listening in the car.  There is enough room in a vehicle to get a similar sense of music filling the entire vehicle as opposed to sensing sound from the left and right speaker.  When done properly the car can be one of the best sound spaces you will ever experience.  You can find quotes from Peter Gabriel talking about this very thing.  Another that deserves respect and certainly knows good sound experiencing it in person his whole life.  Created a whole Society around Sound if I am not mistaken.  
 
By the way, Neil Youngs newly pressed vinyl releases over the past few years ripped to 24bit 96khz FLAC sound absolutely AMAZING!!!!  

 

[spruce music]

  You guys ever run Hertz Mille Speakers Active not passive off a 32 band capable Calibration with appropriate Time Delay personally by the Midwest Hertz Audison rep.  He used a very expensive Audison Bit Tune Auto Calibration System through an Audison 24 Audison Bit One processor also supporting a 10" Dual Voice Coil Sealed Hertz Audison subwoofer with 900 watts pumped through it? 
 
Probably not huh? I have for 7 years now.  You have no idea what you are missing. One of the best sound spaces I have been in myself and hundreds of people who know good sound have sat in it for hours and agree. Don't speak of what you don't know, please. Talk of your own experience or call it your own theory.  
 
I love Neil Young.  Show some respect boys.  The man has pushed the envelope of sound quality on more musicians than you can probably name.  Give it a rest already.  Who cares if he came out with an average DAP that blew up in his face because a company decided to sell uprezzed 16bit files. The guy has wrote more songs than ten post 2000 era musicians combined.  
 
Just because new members on this forum have few posts, don't underestimate there experience and their anecdotal evidence.  After all we are listening actively right.  Not just writing about it on our computers?   I see live music all the time.  Is this not what we are trying to replicate.  At least trying to replicate the studio. Half of my collection is 16bit FLAC recording of live performances and just about as many 24bit FLAC live recordings. Modern recordings done right.  The 24bit recordings are the only recordings that put me back at the venue I was at often the night before.  Many agree with this anecdotal evidence.  Been doing it for years. Have you ever gone out and recorded a live music venue in DSD or at least 24bit 192khz and then listened to it later that evening?  Probably not huh?  Well I have many many times. I can replicate the show I just saw often better than most spots in the venue.  As if I have the sweet spot in the venue.
 
If you take a DSD recording and convert it down to 24bit 96khz and play that back on a proper system, most people will say they have never heard any sound like that before from a sound system.  If you record the same performance in 24bit 192khz and convert that down to 16bit after compressing the hell out of the mix, there is no comparison in quality.  The way something is recorded and mastered makes all the difference in the world in whether you will hear a difference in 16bit vs 24bit.  I agree that I have heard a lot of bogus files in 24bit that should never been sold as 24bit.  They exist, in droves.  It is a shame and should be considered fraud in my opinion especially if you are profiting from it. Sorry.  Many naysayers here probably bought a bunch and are ticked off.  I would be too.  Sorry you wasted your money.
 
I hate to break it to you guys, but with all this flac I am getting, I really I am starting to believe that headphones are not the proper venue for 24bit audio.  :-/ The waveforms cannot develop in a headphone the way it can in an open space.  Maybe a Smyth Realizer is what is needed.  Not sure. Have not heard one yet.  The point here is the way the sound fills a room is completely different when it is a proper 24bit recording.  There is a sense of not being able to place sound coming from the speaker itself and instead you just the room filled with music.  An extension of sound from the speaker cabinet is evident up to 3ft from he speaker in a proper room. Maybe even further in a large room with better equipment.  16bit Files have a tendency to sound veiled and ever so slightly extended from the speaker.  As if the sound is struggling to fill the air and I can tell I am in a room with speakers.   This is a sensory perception and not necessarily and auditory one, which I actually do have some study in and experience for 14 years.  Headphones cannot give you this experience.  At least I have not heard it yet and it is because the waveforms have specific distances they need to travel to completely form(just physics here really) and there is obviously nothing but SPL exhibited in an ear/headphone due to lack of space.  Sorry but its the truth.  Pretty darn sure. Right Tyll?
 
I listen on my home system as much as I do on my headphones currently.  But mostly I do my serious listening in the car.  There is enough room in a vehicle to get a similar sense of music filling the entire vehicle as opposed to sensing sound from the left and right speaker.  When done properly the car can be one of the best sound spaces you will ever experience.  You can find quotes from Peter Gabriel talking about this very thing.  Another that deserves respect and certainly knows good sound experiencing it in person his whole life.  Created a whole Society around Sound if I am not mistaken.  
 
By the way, Neil Youngs newly pressed vinyl releases over the past few years ripped to 24bit 96khz FLAC sound absolutely AMAZING!!!!  

When I play this back over my gear  in my boat at 32 bit (like 24 bit could compare...you must be joking), it sounds incredible.  Best sound you never heard.

 
 

 

[dukefx]

That terrible noise you linked has a dynamic range of about 40dB and I'm being generous here. That's about 7 bits. What do you need 32 bits for? Even 16 bits are twice as much as required.

 

[spruce music]

  That terrible noise you linked has a dynamic range of about 40dB and I'm being generous here. That's about 7 bits. What do you need 32 bits for? Even 16 bits are twice as much as required.

To make it sound good is what the bits are for mate.  Spend an hour in my boat and you'll get it clear as a bell or marker buoy. 
 
Neil Young would get it too.  Here is a bit from a Fresh Aire interview with Graham Nash about Neil.
 
In the midst of the interview, Gross asked Nash to talk about his friendship with Neil Young, a man Nash has called “the strangest of my friends.” Just what makes him strange? Nash explains:
 

The man is totally committed to the muse of music. And he’ll do anything for good music. And sometimes it’s very strange. I was at Neil’s ranch one day just south of San Francisco, and he has a beautiful lake with red-wing blackbirds. And he asked me if I wanted to hear his new album, “Harvest.” And I said sure, let’s go into the studio and listen.
 
Oh, no. That’s not what Neil had in mind. He said get into the rowboat.
 
I said get into the rowboat? He said, yeah, we’re going to go out into the middle of the lake. Now, I think he’s got a little cassette player with him or a little, you know, early digital format player. So I’m thinking I’m going to wear headphones and listen in the relative peace in the middle of Neil’s lake.
 
Oh, no. He has his entire house as the left speaker and his entire barn as the right speaker. And I heard “Harvest” coming out of these two incredibly large loud speakers louder than hell. It was unbelievable. Elliot Mazer, who produced Neil, produced “Harvest,” came down to the shore of the lake and he shouted out to Neil: How was that, Neil?
And I swear to god, Neil Young shouted back: More barn!

 

[dukefx]

Let me tell you the story of my very young and naive self who sometimes burned 128kb MP3s to audio CDs (back in the days there weren't any MP3 players) and realized how much better the audio CD sounded compared to the original source (yes, that crappy MP3). Back then I didn't understand the science behind it, but now I do and laugh at myself. Before you go into bits and sampling rates you need to understand human hearing.

 

[spruce music]

  Let me tell you the story of my very young and naive self who sometimes burned 128kb MP3s to audio CDs (back in the days there weren't any MP3 players) and realized how much better the audio CD sounded compared to the original source (yes, that crappy MP3). Back then I didn't understand the science behind it, but now I do and laugh at myself. Before you go into bits and sampling rates you need to understand human hearing.

Come on, try and keep up now.  Look at my posts in just this thread and it should be enough.  Look at the posts of NoteEater.  That should suffice.  TIC and all of that. I do believe you have taken me the wrong way round.  Parodies are complicated sometimes. 

 

[gregorio]

  You guys ever run Hertz Mille Speakers Active not passive off a 32 band capable Calibration with appropriate Time Delay personally by the Midwest Hertz Audison rep.  He used a very expensive Audison Bit Tune Auto Calibration System through an Audison 24 Audison Bit One processor also supporting a 10" Dual Voice Coil Sealed Hertz Audison subwoofer with 900 watts pumped through it? 
 
Probably not huh? I have for 7 years now.  You have no idea what you are missing. One of the best sound spaces I have been in myself and hundreds of people who know good sound have sat in it for hours and agree. Don't speak of what you don't know, please. Talk of your own experience or call it your own theory.

 
If you're going to play that card then OK, let's play:
No, I've never heard the specific system/space you're talking about. On the other hand, have you ever worked in or even heard a commercial dubbing theatre? 900 watts is pathetic for a sub, the last system I worked with had over 20,000 watts of sub. The system was not calibrated by some sales rep but by Dolby techs and real experts and your idea of expensive is another pathetic joke, was it a $20,000,000+ purpose built film audio facility? Probably not huh? I have for about 20 years now, you have no idea what you're missing, please don't speak of what you don't know. Talk of your own lack of experience and call it your own theory!!!
 
OK, now we got that nonsense out of the way, let's deal with some of your so called "facts": Dolby Digital is NOT 500kbps  - 3mbps! It's maximum is 768kbps but that is rarely used, for HDTV, DVD and BRD 448kbps is the DD standard, IE. It's highly compresse!. Dolby Digital is NOT 16bit and furthermore, it's a 5.1 format whereas TrueHD is 7.1, you are comparing apples and oranges, as stated by others. Your statements about localisation are also nonsense; yes, 7.1 is better than 5.1 for localisation but it still has the same basic issues, which is why it was replaced by formats such as Dolby Atmos. But none of this has anything to do with 16 vs 24bit. Is 24bit better than lossy compression? Of course but again, that's nothing to do with 16 vs 24bit!
 
You having spoken about "converting" people is very troubling. Converted them to what? Converting them from ignorance to incorrect/false information is doing them a serious disservice and as a professional in the field, I'd appreciate if you'd STOP your phoney "conversions"! If you want to learn how it really works, then ask, we're happy to help but don't make-up factual statements you can't back up, which conflict with the science and with how it really works or about your experience of a high-end, so called expensive system which is actually a very cheap, low-end system!
 
Quote:

  The proper comparison would be to take the True HD version, truncate/dither/shape to 16 bits, then pad back to 24-bits and recode as True HD. In any case, the difference between purely truncated 16-bit vs. 24 are truncation errors that *peak* at -96dB, which means if you set your max peaks to 120dBSPL you are claiming to hear stuff that is at most 24dBSPL. Noise-shaped dither makes the perceived difference even quieter. So how quiet is your listening room?

 
We have to be careful here, film sound and music in effect are two very different things, they have very different workflows and distribution chains. We don't apply noise shaped dither in film/TV products, due to considerable amounts of additional processing being required downstream, after the print-master is completed. For this reason distribution is always 24bit or a proprietary lossy compressed format, to avoid any build up of dither, truncation or noise-shaping artefacts. We can't therefore use the same comparison logic as we can with music because there is no 16bit consumer content out there in the film world, let alone a dominant 16bit format in which the application of noise-shaped dither has been standard practise for commercial release for nigh on 20 years.
 
G

 

[Cerastes]

I have been listening to 24bit audio for 18 years now and have enlightened so many people.  This is commonly recited back to me, "I have never heard music sound like that before, and I have heard some really good sound systems." I will just keep working on people with open ears.  Tired of trying to convert those that listen to a one minute comparison track on mediocre hi res equipment that is probably not even set to play the 24bit file in anything but 16bit and then they say there is no difference.  

 


Maybe people recite back to you simply because they know better than you? Sorry to burst your bubble but just because we can select "24 bit" or "32 floating point" from a drop-down menu in our DAW during recording and mixing, doesn't mean the actual content uses 144 dB or comes even close to that. People who have been saying to you that "you have never heard music sound like that" are right, since such music doesn't exactly exist ... at least when it comes to commercial recordings and albums.

"24 bit" is a simple marketing trick since it has zero benefits when it comes to audio playback, but is commonly used in audio editing for headroom and convenience reasons.