24bit Audio fills the air differently. If you don't feel that, sorry you don't. Many do.
Yes, some feel that way. Not "many" with respect to the total population of those listening to digital audio. 24bit Audio doesn't "fill the air" at all. It's very analog before it gets even close to the air.
I understand the statements regarding Dolby Digital/DTS. The movie industry forever has been doing anything they can to save space on physical media. If the movie studios can get away with not lossy Dolby Digital but a 16bit uncompressed soundtrack as opposed to a 24bit uncompressed soundtrack, why wouldn't they save the space. Space is a premium on disc and for a two hour movie, that is a considerable amount of space to use on something that has no sonic benefit.
Space for audio on BD is no longer at a premium. The above logic has no basis in reality for the BD medium.
I use the analogy because many of you are listening to 24bit audio in movies but cannot acknowledge that this was a benefit to movie soundtracks.
I'll defer to gregorio on this too, but in post 24bits does provide a lot more room for manipulation, but it's not base quality issue. It's well known that for release, 16 would be enough, but there's also no need to truncate if the original is already 24.
Also keep in mind there are no ADCs...and I mean there's like one exotic exception...that actually produce a true 24 bit dynamic range. All are limited to substantially fewer bits of DR, like 20. The words dribbling out are 24 bits, the bottom 4-6 bits are all noise.
24bit audio is a sensory perceived experience, not necessarily an auditory one. Again, it fills the space differently unachievable on headphones. Sorry but the truth. Scientifically proven that waveforms at many frequencies cannot fully develop in an a headphone. You won't get the sensation I get in my room or car.
Science has not proven that 24 bit audio is even clearly discernable, though.
Proves your point how. I think you need to read further and maybe others here can reeducate themselves since we are all so willing to learn. This was not one test by the way. This is data pulled from 18 studies.
The conclusions, specifically, were, "In summary, these results imply that,
though the effect is perhaps small and difficult to detect, the
perceived fidelity of an audio recording and playback chain
is affected by operating beyond conventional consumer oriented levels."
Note specifically, "small and difficult to detect", and that percieved fidelity is
affected. He didn't say "improved". If you look at the studies cited in the paper, you'll also find that not a single person was able to detect hi-res every time. Not one set of "golden ears" in the whole bunch.
Now, if you want to apply the results in the paper and face value, then go on to claim emphatically that hi-res (not 24bit alone, BTW) is somehow a night/day thing that everybody on the planet can hear, well the paper doesn't say that at all, quite the opposite. The results in the paper are 3% better than flipping a coin.
The researcher himself decided he needed to start listening to 24bit audio due to this research.
No, Reiss already held these positions:
• Co-Chair of the Audio Engineering Society (AES) Technical Committee on High-Resolution Audio
• General Chair of the 31st AES Conference; New Directions in High Resolution Audio, 2007
Pretty sure he'd been listening to high-res for a bit. If anything, those positions imply a bias.
If we want to trust scientists, maybe we should take one out of this researchers palybook and do some subjective 24bit listening and feel the AIR Man!!!
If you want to really feel the air, go hang gliding. Trust me on that one.
