[1] I'm sensing you're all riled up about this for some reason and didn't actually read my post properly.
[2] Perhaps you should have a think about the mechanism, dither can only span those quantisation gaps over time, time a transient may not have.
[3] You appear to be disputing a mathematical fact.
[4] You see this is where I'm disagreeing with you, dither can only work over a number of samples because it's a statistical method.
[5] I suspect the problem is that you haven't reviewed many digital waveforms close in and seen how much each point counts.
[6] Take the old Genesis 'Lamb Lies Down' album, very dynamic ...
[7] Well no, again you simplify, mastering doesn't just use TPDF, shaped dither is a popular way to get a better sound from the CD format: your declaration that is 'is best' disagrees with all those mastering engineers who use a shaped dither.
[8] Who can't tell the difference?
[9] Less hysteria, more thought please.
[9a] What makes you think 96dB covers all possible cases?
[10] How can you re-create a live concert sound in your house or headphones with 96dB?
[10b] Or even the sound of a well hit snare drum?
[11] It seems to me you are arguing for Mid-Fi, not Hi-Fi.
[12] You also keep ignoring the fact that some people post process their digital music as which point 24bit would be rather more useful.
And you keep refusing to explain your reasons for not liking 24bit as a 'consumer' medium, what's the deal with that? 'Because you don't think other people need it' wasn't registering here as a reason BTW.
1. Unfortunately, your "sensing" is backwards, it's you who haven't read your own posts properly! It was you who quoted that dither prevents non-linear behaviour and since then you've tried to argue that it doesn't?
2. Again, you've got it backwards and YOU need to think about the mechanism! I notice that you have yet again failed to answer the question and presumably you do not realise that transients, like every other sound, only exist over time. If the frequency of the transient is too high/fast (beyond the Nyquist point) then it cannot be captured and cannot be dithered. There is no transient or any other audio waveform which can be captured with just a single sample, at least two samples are required. If it can be captured, then it can be dithered.
3. Again, completely backwards. You posted the quote, which is the end result of the "mathematical fact" and you are the one now disputing that quote/mathematical fact!!
4. And that's precisely why you're stupid to disagree! Yes, dither does take a number of samples BUT so does encoding a waveform as digital data in the first place and so does reconstructing it back into an analogue waveform. A to D and D to A conversions are themselves statistical processes. This really is digital theory lesson #1, which you clearly do not know and is presumably why you're coming out with all this nonsense ... and you accuse others that a little knowledge is dangerous, sheesh!
5. It's really impressive how much you are able to get so utterly wrong with just one simple sentence!! Firstly, it demonstrates that you don't understand even the absolute basics of digital audio theory and secondly, your "suspected problem" couldn't be more ludicrous if you deliberately tried! 1. You are looking at digital data points, not a waveform! That digital data represents coordinates which will only become a waveform once processed by a sinc function, until it is, then of course it will contain errors, digital data is NOT an analogue of the waveform!! Come on, this is the basics of digital audio developed 90 years ago! 2. I've "reviewed" digital audio data "close in" pretty much every working day of my life for the last 20 years!
6. "Very dynamic" compared to what? Compared to many modern pop music releases sure, but compared to the dynamic range offered by 16bit, NO, it has a tiny dynamic range, about 100 times less than 16bit!!
7. This just gets better! Now you're telling a mastering engineer what mastering engineers do.
8. Duh, I'm quoting YOU! "
I'm still not sure why you keep pushing 16bit, 24bit is clearly a better format - even if you can't tell the difference...". Are you not reading your own posts?
9. Less delusion and ignorant nonsense please and more logic and facts!!
9a. How many commercial recordings can you name with more than 60dB dynamic range? If nothing else
answer this question!
10. Been to many live concerts or houses with a 0dBSPL noise floor have you?
10b. You normally sit with your ear an inch or two away from the snare drum during a live gig do you? The only situation I can imagine where you might have your ears that close to a snare drum during a performance is if you were giving the drummer a blowjob! In which case, some ear defenders would be essential and a moist towel would probably come in handy as well!
11. It seems to me that you are arguing for exactly the same "fi" but just want it to be bigger and cost more!
12. Explain why a 24bit distribution format would be more useful if people want to post process their digital audio.
G