[watchnerd]

  You guys are so wrapped up in any scientific article that refutes 24bit as much as you can as opposed to doing some subjective listening yourself. You should all know by now measurements and graphs do not necessarily equate to what we actually hear.  

 
I will repeat, since apparently it didn't register the first time.
 
1. I record in 24bit.  I distribute in 16bit.
 
2. I have done ABX tests of my own 24bit masters vs dithered 16bit SRC using SOX of the same master.  They are transparent to each other.

 

[TheoS53]

   
I will repeat, since apparently it didn't register the first time.
 
1. I record in 24bit.  I distribute in 16bit.
 
2. I have done ABX tests of my own 24bit masters vs dithered 16bit SRC using SOX of the same master.  They are transparent to each other.

Out of interest, have you tried doing a null test with 2 recordings (16 vs 24 bit)?

 

[watchnerd]

  Out of interest, have you tried doing a null test with 2 recordings (16 vs 24 bit)?

 
Passband limited or not?

 

[TheoS53]

   
Passband limited or not?

Errm. not sure...what's the difference? 

 

[NoteEater]

You Win.  16 bit is the same as 24bit.  No difference.  Happy now. You can now move on to your next prey.  Have fun guys

 

[pinnahertz]

Darn.  Just when I was going to have some fun with "a cassette deck sounding better than any know reel to reel", "absolute phase", "mic response to 5Hz", "recording DC"  and my favorite, "24bit Audio fills the air differently."  
 
Oh well, really didn't have enough time...in my life...

 

[TheTrace]

You Win.  16 bit is the same as 24bit.  No difference.  Happy now. You can now move on to your next prey.  Have fun guys

Damn the war has ceased after years of heated debate.

Now for American politics.

 

[spruce music]

NoteEater,
 
What proof do you have other than your ears?
 
Under what conditions would you accept that your ears/brain have fooled you into thinking 24 bit sounds vastly better than 16 bit when it isn't actually true?

 

[U-3C]

Damn the war has ceased after years of heated debate.

Now for American politics.

I just got reported and received a warning for posting a pic of yugioh cards and a certain political figure.
 
Don't go there! D:

 

[pinnahertz]

 
Under what conditions would you accept that your ears/brain have fooled you into thinking 24 bit sounds vastly better than 16 bit when it isn't actually true?

Three sheets to the wind for starters....

 

[watchnerd]

  Errm. not sure...what's the difference? 

 
Well if it's not passband limited it certainly can't null.

 

[TheoS53]

   
Well if it's not passband limited it certainly can't null.

what I mean is, taking 2 recordings of the exact same song (for example), one at 24 and the other at 16...overlaying them and inverting one, then seeing what the result is. If they're identical, there should be zero output

 

[spruce music]

  what I mean is, taking 2 recordings of the exact same song (for example), one at 24 and the other at 16...overlaying them and inverting one, then seeing what the result is. If they're identical, there should be zero output

Or the result could be a non-zero output.  Yet one so low that the difference could never alter the sound in a way audible to humans.  Playing the difference signal at normal listening volume the human listener will hear complete silence even though the actual signal level is not zero. 

 

[castleofargh]

 

   
Well if it's not passband limited it certainly can't null.

what I mean is, taking 2 recordings of the exact same song (for example), one at 24 and the other at 16...overlaying them and inverting one, then seeing what the result is. If they're identical, there should be zero output

why would they be identical? and what would that demonstrate? we're discussing audibility while playing music at normal listening levels. not pretending that 24bit files don't have extra data compared to 16bit. so aside from demonstrating what is already a consensus, i.e. that bigger bit depth can store quieter data, I don't get the point.

 

[TheoS53]

 
Or the result could be a non-zero output.  Yet one so low that the difference could never alter the sound in a way audible to humans.  Playing the difference signal at normal listening volume the human listener will hear complete silence even though the actual signal level is not zero. 

 
 

 
why would they be identical? and what would that demonstrate? we're discussing audibility while playing music at normal listening levels. not pretending that 24bit files don't have extra data compared to 16bit. so aside from demonstrating what is already a consensus, i.e. that bigger bit depth can store quieter data, I don't get the point.

The point would be to demonstrate to those who say that they can hear a difference, that in fact it would be practically impossible for them to do so. Whilst a difference between 16 and 24 bit can be measured and represented graphically, that same graphic could be used to illustrate how it would technically be possible for humans to actually hear that difference (because it falls within the audible spectrum), but probably not loud enough. 

Anyways, I've done exactly that:

192khz vs 96khz:



192khz vs 48khz:



192 vs 44.1-16bit:
 

We can see that for the 16 bit file, there is some noise present within the audible spectrum. But is it loud enough for us to hear? Probably not. But the difference between 48khz and 192khz is absolutely inaudible