24bit vs 16bit, the myth exploded!
Dec 28, 2018 at 4:44 AM Post #5,011 of 7,175
1. To be pedantically accurate, noticing any difference may not ONLY be due placebo effect. The reason for this is that your second sentence is true, recording, mixing and mastering are far more important and there are quite a few cases where the CD version of a recording has different mastering than the hi-res version and therefore it can be relatively easy to tell the difference in some cases. As there is no intrinsic audible difference between CD and hi-res, there is the temptation to reduce the quality of the CD version and justify the higher price of the hi-res version. In some cases where audiophiles believe they're noticing a difference, it is as you say placebo effect but in other cases they maybe noticing a real, actual difference but it's between different masters, not the audio file format.

2. We have to be a bit wary of analogies with video and audio. HD in video (even 720p) is technically AND VISUALLY higher definition than standard definition. When greater than 16/44.1 audio became available, the audiophile marketing world jumped on the "HD" video bandwagon, but in order for the term "HD" (or "Hi-res") to have any meaning they had to call CD (16/44.1) "standard definition". This was effectively a lie/false marketing because CD is NOT anywhere near equivalent to standard definition video. Relative to the capabilities of human vision and human rearing, CD is in fact higher resolution/definition than even the latest 4K HDR video specification! Once we have a video specification that exceeds ALL the capabilities of human vision, then higher definition than that would be pointless and that's the situation we have with CD audio.



1. That's not always the case, some of the best studios can manage a dynamic range of over 90dB. It's VERY expensive though, you're looking at double-shell construction and other expensive isolation strategies/treatments to get the noise floor of the studio very low and then a particularly good sound system capable of high output levels (and low noise/distortion).

2. We have to be careful here and make the distinction between the "mix environment" and the "audio file format" absolutely CLEAR. Modern professional mix environments are typically 64bit (float), all processing ("levels, EQ and other effects") occurs at this bit depth and therefore even cumulative quantisation errors are way below our ability to even reproduce, let alone hear. However, this mix environment is completely INDEPENDENT of the bit depth of the audio file format we load into it. Whether we load a 16bit file or 24bit file into the mix environment is completely irrelevant as the processing (and quantisation errors) will all be at the 64bit level. So as far as headroom for processing during mixing and mastering is concerned, it's EXACTLY THE SAME with 16bit and 24bit audio files. The ONLY place where a 24bit file format can make any difference is for additional headroom during recording.

G

"1. To be pedantically accurate, noticing any difference may not ONLY
be due placebo effect. The reason for this is that your second sentence
is true, recording, mixing and mastering are far more important and there
are quite a few cases where the CD version of a recording has different
mastering than the hi-res version
and therefore it can be relatively easy to
tell the difference in some cases. As there is no intrinsic audible difference
between CD and hi-res, there is the temptation to reduce the quality of the
CD version and justify the higher price of the hi-res version..."




I'm genuinely surprised that, as a widely regarded mastering engineer, you would admit that, Mr. C! I've been saying that for years, about composition, performance, recording, and mastering all being more critical than specific format.
 
Last edited:
Dec 28, 2018 at 9:30 AM Post #5,012 of 7,175
"1. To be pedantically accurate, noticing any difference may not ONLY
be due placebo effect. The reason for this is that your second sentence
is true, recording, mixing and mastering are far more important and there
are quite a few cases where the CD version of a recording has different
mastering than the hi-res version
and therefore it can be relatively easy to
tell the difference in some cases. As there is no intrinsic audible difference
between CD and hi-res, there is the temptation to reduce the quality of the
CD version and justify the higher price of the hi-res version..."




I'm genuinely surprised that, as a widely regarded mastering engineer, you would admit that, Mr. C! I've been saying that for years, about composition, performance, recording, and mastering all being more critical than specific format.


I’m surprised that you’re surprised given that no one has ever argued that point in this forum. Different mastering of CD vs. SACD and it’s potential audibility has been consistently discussed here. I certainly don’t recall @gregorio ever stating that when properly utilized, format was important, let alone more critical than the music, recording, and mastering.
 
Dec 28, 2018 at 10:54 AM Post #5,013 of 7,175
I’m surprised that you’re surprised given that no one has ever argued that point in this forum. Different mastering of CD vs. SACD and it’s potential audibility has been consistently discussed here. I certainly don’t recall @gregorio ever stating that when properly utilized, format was important, let alone more critical than the music, recording, and mastering.

But it is when different mastering is used to set one format apart from another that is dishonety in marketing. Not impugning Gregorio's work in any way, just a general statement.
 
Dec 28, 2018 at 12:18 PM Post #5,014 of 7,175
I'm genuinely surprised that, as a widely regarded mastering engineer, you would admit that, Mr. C!

Firstly, I'm not a "widely regarded" mastering engineer. I've worked with some top mastering engineers and I always advise my clients to go to one of them but despite this advice, I have a handful of clients who insist I master for them. Having said this, I work mostly in Film these days and in the TV/Film world, the mix engineer is also effectively the mastering engineer. Secondly, it's hardly news, much earlier in this thread there were two instances of actual record labels contributing to this thread; Linn Records was one and you can see the exchange that started around post #401. I believe the other was a representative of HD Tracks (although it might have been another audiophile label) but it was many years ago and I can't find the exchange. Linn for example put up what they called a "real world" CD vs "Hi-res" listening challenge. The two example files were easy to tell apart and that was because they were in fact different masters! When challenged on this subterfuge Linn admitted they were different masters but effectively stated that because they always required the mastering engineer to create a different master for the CD version, that's why they called it a "real world" challenge. HDTracks (if that's who it was) not only admitted that their CD versions were different but admitted that they required their CD versions be mastered with more compression applied. The explanation was (paraphrasing from memory) that they expected CDs to be purchased by consumers who were going to rip them to a lossy format for their iPods and therefore more compression/louder would be appreciated, while the "hi-res" version was less compressed and designed more for audiophile consumption. I asked why they didn't sell both different versions on CD (16/44.1), why was the audiophile version only available in the higher bit depth/sample rate format (for which they charged substantially more), even though there would be no audible difference and that it actually cost more to produce the cheaper CD version? The answer, maybe unsurprisingly, was nothing at all, there was no response or any further contribution to the thread.

It was clear that both those audiophile labels saw this thread as a typical audiophile marketing opportunity but once they realised their usual nonsense wasn't going to work in this sub-forum, they promptly disappeared! Bare in mind this was nearly a decade ago and was just two small audiophile labels.

G
 
Dec 28, 2018 at 12:40 PM Post #5,015 of 7,175
Different mastering can be better, or it can be worse. It all depends on how good of a job they do and what the intended purpose is. And it isn't just mastering that might be different between CD and SACD... it might even be completely remixed. A lot of SACDs that have multichannel mixes will put the 2 channel fold down of the 5.1 in the stereo track. You can't tell much by just trusting the numbers. You have to talk to people who have listened to the release to know if it's worth getting.
 
Dec 28, 2018 at 3:48 PM Post #5,016 of 7,175
Firstly, I'm not a "widely regarded" mastering engineer. I've worked with some top mastering engineers and I always advise my clients to go to one of them but despite this advice, I have a handful of clients who insist I master for them. Having said this, I work mostly in Film these days and in the TV/Film world, the mix engineer is also effectively the mastering engineer. Secondly, it's hardly news, much earlier in this thread there were two instances of actual record labels contributing to this thread; Linn Records was one and you can see the exchange that started around post #401. I believe the other was a representative of HD Tracks (although it might have been another audiophile label) but it was many years ago and I can't find the exchange. Linn for example put up what they called a "real world" CD vs "Hi-res" listening challenge. The two example files were easy to tell apart and that was because they were in fact different masters! When challenged on this subterfuge Linn admitted they were different masters but effectively stated that because they always required the mastering engineer to create a different master for the CD version, that's why they called it a "real world" challenge. HDTracks (if that's who it was) not only admitted that their CD versions were different but admitted that they required their CD versions be mastered with more compression applied. The explanation was (paraphrasing from memory) that they expected CDs to be purchased by consumers who were going to rip them to a lossy format for their iPods and therefore more compression/louder would be appreciated, while the "hi-res" version was less compressed and designed more for audiophile consumption. I asked why they didn't sell both different versions on CD (16/44.1), why was the audiophile version only available in the higher bit depth/sample rate format (for which they charged substantially more), even though there would be no audible difference and that it actually cost more to produce the cheaper CD version? The answer, maybe unsurprisingly, was nothing at all, there was no response or any further contribution to the thread.

It was clear that both those audiophile labels saw this thread as a typical audiophile marketing opportunity but once they realised their usual nonsense wasn't going to work in this sub-forum, they promptly disappeared! Bare in mind this was nearly a decade ago and was just two small audiophile labels.

G

WOW. What insight into that whole HDTracks thing! Looks like I'm not missing anything by spending hard-earned dough on stuff with more DR compression put on a higher-res format. I wouldn't mind hearing the same stereo masters used, I.E., for my 1985 Thriller CD, unaltered, on a higher-res format, just to know that there really wouldn't be that much of a difference. Of course, that's wandering into territory already covered in that thread "...Claims and Myths", lol!
 
Last edited:
Dec 29, 2018 at 3:20 AM Post #5,017 of 7,175
If the mastering was the same, there would be no difference between SACD and CD. If you want a test to make sure, just buy a Pentatone SACD disc and rip the CD layer and to a line level matched, direct A/B switched blind test. That will tell you exactly how irrelevant format is to sound fidelity. Pentatone is one of the few labels that uses the same mastering on both layers.
 
Dec 29, 2018 at 5:46 AM Post #5,018 of 7,175
If the mastering was the same, there would be no difference between SACD and CD. If you want a test to make sure, just buy a Pentatone SACD disc and rip the CD layer and to a line level matched, direct A/B switched blind test. That will tell you exactly how irrelevant format is to sound fidelity. Pentatone is one of the few labels that uses the same mastering on both layers.
While I don't doubt that Pentatone use the same mastering on both layers, it is a mystery to me as to why.

I sort of can understand having different masterings on either layer, either for a deception in favour of the SACD or for practical purposes so a more compressed CD layer to sound better in noisier environments like listening in a car.

What I don't understand is why would someone who has invested in a SACD player, the higher price of a SACD (and who presumably believes it results in sound quality improvements) would want a CD layer?
 
Dec 29, 2018 at 3:00 PM Post #5,019 of 7,175
When I was comparing SACD to CD, I found that particularly with rock albums they would put older masterings on the CD layer and the newer ones on the SACD layer. In one case I found a song that had a totally different mix on the two layers. The redbook layer is generally at a lower level too. I think they do this to enhance the perception of quality of the SACD layer. If both sounded the same, what would be the point of buying an SACD? They stack the deck a bit by hobbling the CD layer.

Pentatone is a classical label that sells only hybrid SACDs. None of their recordings are available as CDs. I would bet a majority of their customers don't even have an SACD player. They buy the discs to play them as normal CDs. This makes them motivated to not hobble the CD layer. That's my theory at least.
 
Dec 29, 2018 at 11:08 PM Post #5,020 of 7,175
24-bit and DSD make sense for archival and mastering. I was never able to hear an audible difference after I converted them to CD-quality WAV files and did a blind test. In fact, I can't even hear any difference between 256k AAC files and CD-quality tracks. Maybe my hearing just sucks but if the difference is there I don't hear it or just don't know how to listen for it. I'm on a 1st-gen FiiO X1 and Sennheiser HD598SE headphones.
 
Dec 31, 2018 at 8:10 AM Post #5,021 of 7,175
(1) When I was comparing SACD to CD, I found that particularly with rock albums they would put older masterings on the CD layer and the newer ones on the SACD layer. In one case I found a song that had a totally different mix on the two layers. The redbook layer is generally at a lower level too.
(2) I think they do this to enhance the perception of quality of the SACD layer.
(3) If both sounded the same, what would be the point of buying an SACD?
(4) Pentatone is a classical label that sells only hybrid SACDs. None of their recordings are available as CDs. I would bet a majority of their customers don't even have an SACD player. They buy the discs to play them as normal CDs. This makes them motivated to not hobble the CD layer. That's my theory at least.

(1) So you have two masterings on one disc…
(2) Hateful if this is the case.
(3) Multichannel support is the only point of SACD, because for stereo sound CD is all we need.
(4) I don't have Pentatone's releases, but I have SACDs from BIS, CPO + some other labels. I have never noticed any "hobbling" with the CD layer. It's classical music and the rules are probably very different from rock.
 
Dec 31, 2018 at 8:40 AM Post #5,022 of 7,175
Regardless of meaning how does the same track sound 24/16 ? For me it's obvious that redbook missed the Boat at using 16 . Any same track at 24 shows a much lower noise floor
It plays from blacker background.
Even 24/88.2 is miles better.
The lower noise floor maybe due to a much higher band width some 256 more in dynamics.
So asdide from math does anyone hear this improvement ?
 
Dec 31, 2018 at 9:15 AM Post #5,023 of 7,175
Regardless of meaning how does the same track sound 24/16 ? For me it's obvious that redbook missed the Boat at using 16 . Any same track at 24 shows a much lower noise floor
It plays from blacker background.
Even 24/88.2 is miles better.
The lower noise floor maybe due to a much higher band width some 256 more in dynamics.
So asdide from math does anyone hear this improvement ?

I don't. I have never seen any AES paper proving there is an audible difference in fact. I thought 16-bits already had such a low noise floor no one could hear it. If I hear a difference in the 24-bit version (which a lot of Mastered For iTunes AAC files are sourced from), it's because it's a different mastering than the CD.
 
Dec 31, 2018 at 9:23 AM Post #5,024 of 7,175
Just try it forget papers ok I know what you mean and I am not nuts or hear like a bat lol.
Any same tracks in 24 bit depth blows away 16 even at 44.1 or 88.1 bit res
Many cd titles were done at 24/88.2 as well a shame it was not the red book standard. Try then post if I have to I'll do a share link for you.
Formats matter too but this is another discussion
 
Dec 31, 2018 at 10:01 AM Post #5,025 of 7,175
Regardless of meaning how does the same track sound 24/16 ? For me it's obvious that redbook missed the Boat at using 16 . Any same track at 24 shows a much lower noise floor
It plays from blacker background.
Even 24/88.2 is miles better.
The lower noise floor maybe due to a much higher band width some 256 more in dynamics.
So asdide from math does anyone hear this improvement ?
the thing with noise is that there is always some. so common sense makes us look for a recording medium that will have self noise at lower level than the most of the other loud noises that will reach us. 24bit is overkill even for ideal playback in the Batcave. for starters, our audio gears don't resolve 24bit. but that's only the start of how irrational we are when we imagine that 24bit albums offer 24bit of resolution. it's not like the band is going to play and sing at 160dB SPL just to make sure what's recorded doesn't contain ambient noise from the studio, when a singer records a gentle song, having 24bit is only relevant if we were trying to use some NCIS magic enhancer tools to find out when the truck passed 2 streets below the studio. ^_^
in practice for most albums you can also remove a few bits for headroom and gain matching of the various tracks mixed into the song. each mic will have recorded the ambient noise of the studio and added it's own noise. when playing back the song in our room, how loud will we play it? depending on the answer, the ambient noise in the room will have by far the loudest noises.
so already you get a good idea as to why noticing the noise difference in a song is not as easy as audiophiles like to say it is. simply because the stuff we're looking for is drowned in many different and louder noises. when you know all that you can of course manufacture situations where you'll be able to hear the quantization noise of a 16bit track, but such a situation is not similar to listening to your typical recorded album. this is again something the guys from NCIS or some spy in the other room will have issues with. not you and your favorite album.

that was only about noise and only about an objective assessment of noise levels and how 16bit is so very unlikely to come close to the the highest noises from the track, from your gear, from your room, etc. now consider auditory masking, as soon as you will have sounds close to 0dB on a digital recording at a given frequency, I dare you to notice another quieter signal around that frequency at 70 or 80dB below. the music itself is effectively covering most noises. in fact it does so at such levels that just the distortions from the music will be signals loud enough to mask most noises down at 16bit or lower if they ever happened to actually be recorded in the first place. our own hearing has a pretty limited dynamic range. we say it's around 120 or 130dB, but that's only when you try in a super quiet room with amazing acoustic treatment and the quietest signals are played alone!!!!! any loud noise in the room, and for a while you won't be able to notice the quiet sounds anymore(just like you need to have some quiet time to start noticing how "loud" your own heartbeat really is). and of course it implies that the loudest sound is around 120 or 125dB SPL where sound becomes actual pain. we've had discussions with people who consider that listening to music with 120dB SPL peaks at home is normal in their opinions. in my country it's about the loudest you can legally play in a club or at a live event. so yes it's possible and yes it happens, but if you listen to music at those levels on a regular basis for significant periods of time, chances are that you soon will have more important things to be concerned about than HiFi. and again, even then, it does not mean you'd get to perceive 120dB of dynamic, because those loud sounds would absolutely mask the quieter ones, no matter how accurately they got recorded.

so for all those reasons, it's very unlikely that noise from a 16bit track will be audible to us in playback. if you perceive an obvious difference with hires tracks, first it would be a good idea to make sure it's not in your head with a blind test. and maybe even before that, it would be a good idea to check that you're comparing the same mastering, by converting your hires track to 16bit and then doing a blind listening test between those 2. then if you happen to still notice a difference, which is unlikely but happens, you might want to look up if your DAC isn't one of those to roll off the trebles when playing 44.1khz. nothing to do with bit depth but as people usually compare high sample rate and high bit rate against CD resolution, it might be worth checking with a loop and a measurement of the frequency response at various sample rates.
on the same idea, if using a computer, it could be relevant to look up the resampling settings. on occasion resampling has been known to suck enough that it made an audible difference. again that's sample rate and not bit depth, I really doubt that you would hear anything between 16 and 24bit. once all those things have been controlled, if you still perceive a difference in a blind test, I suggest to sell your listening skills to all the big brands selling hires gears and tracks, and become the guy to show the clearly audible superiority of hires once and for all.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top