[71 dB]

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 ?

13 bits
What is needed in consumer audio is 13 bits worth of dynamic range (about 80 dB). CD is kind of overkill already, but only 3 bits so who cares? 24 bit audio is technically 11 bits overkill, but in practice a lot less than that, because of the lowest 8 bits most if not all is noise unless the sound is completely computer generated (so, Autechre's 24 bit files might actually have 24 bit worth of dynamic range, but of course you can't really experience it for many reasons and the same files dithered to 13 bits would sound the same).

If you hear the noise floor of 16 bit audio, the reason is:

(1) The recording contains high levels of background noise. 24 bit version would have the same noise.
(2) Your volume is turned to insanely high levels to hear the noise floor. You would never listen to music at those insane levels.

Dither expands dynamic range below the LSB, in fact there is no limit to that other than the fact that the dither noise masks the signal depending on the type of dither. Noise shaped dither noise mask less and can expand the perceivable dynamic range even 20 dB! Quiet sounds do not granulate (modulate the noise), but they "live" in the noise like signals in analog audio.

How "loud" is dither noise? You can generate TPDF dither in Audacity following these steps:

STEP 1 - Open Audacity and select Generate ---> Silence ---> 10 seconds
STEP 2 - Select Audio Track ---> Set Sample Format ---> 24 bit PCM
STEP 3 - Select Audio Track ---> Set Rate ---> 44100 Hz
STEP 4 - Select Effect ---> Nyquist Prompt ---> write (mult (sim (noise) (noise)) (recip 65536)) and click ok

Try to hear the noise. The level meters show there's stuff at level around -90 dB. Turn up volume until you hear the noise. Now, listen to a music file using the same volume setting if you dare! Don't do it, because you probably damage your ears and gear! That's how quiet TPDF dither is. Noise shaped dithers are perceptually even quieter!


44.1/48 kHz
No higher samplerate is needed than 44.1 or 48 kHz in consumer audio. Those cover the human hearing range 20-20000 Hz in the childhood (upper limit lowers with age). However, if the music is for dogs (a dog whistle concerto), 88.2 kHz is kind of the lower limit I would use, 96 kHz would be safer as dogs can hear up to 45 kHz I believe. Cats can hear up to almost 80 kHz, so their audio formats would probably use 176.4 kHz or 192 kHz sampling rates. Dolphins would need to use 352.8 kHz!

 

[ALRAINBOW]

It's very obvious and not a white paper thing. I truly follow you on this and do feel as you do. Big time over kill but to hear it it's the point
Now why I hear it is another point to be made.
Take any CD player play red book it's obvious if I go to a sever of same mine is lower even at red book. But go up to 24 bit depth it's a game changer for me. Maybe my setup is this apparent but it is not my ears at 61 no way am I great.
Try it ok. I am out now when I get back I'll put up two songs at redbook and 24/88.2 you play and advise ok. It's just obvious they its blacker less hash. Now given why no idea but I can measure the noise with a scope at analog outputs

 

[71 dB]

It's very obvious and not a white paper thing. I truly follow you on this and do feel as you do. Big time over kill but to hear it it's the point
Now why I hear it is another point to be made.
Take any CD player play red book it's obvious if I go to a sever of same mine is lower even at red book. But go up to 24 bit depth it's a game changer for me. Maybe my setup is this apparent but it is not my ears at 61 no way am I great.
Try it ok. I am out now when I get back I'll put up two songs at redbook and 24/88.2 you play and advise ok. It's just obvious they its blacker less hash. Now given why no idea but I can measure the noise with a scope at analog outputs

What your (analog) gear does is another story. Could be your gear does something nasty with redbook and performs better at other formats, but even half-decent DACs of today do very good transparent job with 16/44.1. That wasn't the case in the early 80's when CD format emerged, but digital audio and DACs have since matured to perfection allowing CDs to be a transparent format meaning it's all we need for stereo sound.

 

[ALRAINBOW]

It's complex for me to say what I use but let's say it's very state of the art being 3 pc s for music process and various dacs all act the same at there own level of quality.
I'll post soon as I can and let's post Honest of what we hear and I am completly with you on your white paper ideals. It's nuts but I am not either lol.

 

[bigshot]

I think you've got some expectation bias going there. This isn't just theoretical. A lot of us have actually done controlled listening tests and have proven to ourselves that audibly transparent is all you need. The trick is to make sure you're comparing apples to apples. Mastering between formats can be quite different.

 

[bfreedma]

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

Have to love when people post in Sound Science and the first sentence in the post is an instruction to ignore science...

 

[ALRAINBOW]

by the comment your not trying either it's amazing how much can be done on paper with no real-time hearing
cheers to your ignorance in this.
So on paper bits are bits right
Jitter does not exist
Flabby bass or schilling highs it's the System or recording. Such little actual knowing and so much more on a parrots level and repeat. If I posted it it's real try it or shut up about how it can be.
I will upload soon as I can to push for anyone who can take the time to hear it.

 

[TheSonicTruth]

by the comment your not trying either it's amazing how much can be done on paper with no real-time hearing
cheers to your ignorance in this.
So on paper bits are bits right
Jitter does not exist
Flabby bass or schilling highs it's the System or recording. Such little actual knowing and so much more on a parrots level and repeat. If I posted it it's real try it or shut up about how it can be.
I will upload soon as I can to push for anyone who can take the time to hear it.

Nirvana fan perchance?

Read up and get back to us:

https://www.audiostream.com/content/high-resolution-downloads-nevermind

 

[bfreedma]

by the comment your not trying either it's amazing how much can be done on paper with no real-time hearing
cheers to your ignorance in this.
So on paper bits are bits right
Jitter does not exist
Flabby bass or schilling highs it's the System or recording. Such little actual knowing and so much more on a parrots level and repeat. If I posted it it's real try it or shut up about how it can be.
I will upload soon as I can to push for anyone who can take the time to hear it.

Insults are no substitute for evidence. Either produce supporting documentation/test results that anything on your “audiophile list of things you imagine impact reproduction” are audible to humans (assuming your gear isn’t broken/defective) or please take your posting to the appropriate forums on head-FI. It’s more than a little ironic that you accuse anyone of parroting when that’s exactly what you’re doing - parroting the marketing materials of the vendors looking to sell you solutions in search of problems to solve.

“If I posted it it’s real try it or shut up”? Who knew the Sound Science quote of 2018 would come on the last day of the year.

 

[ALRAINBOW]

You say my stuff is broken lol and quote papers to what end ? You ssy my stuff is broken wjat do you use ?

 

[bfreedma]

You say my stuff is broken lol and quote papers to what end ? You ssy my stuff is broken wjat do you use ?

I didn’t say “you’re stuff was broken”. I said that what you’re asserting as problems (jitter, altered bass/treble) are not issues on properly working audio reproduction electronics. If you have evidence supporting an alternate view, feel free to post it.

 

[stonesfan129]

Show me a single AES paper or some kind of scientific data that shows an audible difference between 16 and 24 bits. I have never seen one. As I wrote a few posts back, formats like 24-bit PCM and DSD are beneficial to mastering but make no difference for listening. The CD-standard (16-bit, 44.1khz, 1411kbps) perfectly recreates everything audible to the best human ears. This has been backed up by years of research called the Nyquist Theory. I would even doubt that jitter is affecting the sound. Everything out there has enough processing power to recreate everything bit perfectly. This is like the people who say there is an audible difference in WAV and FLAC.

 

[ALRAINBOW]

Just wait for my files it's obvious

 

[bfreedma]

Just wait for my files it's obvious

If it’s obvious, then it will be easily measurable. When you post, please make sure to provide the provenance of the files to make sure we’re dealing with the same master, how it’s been converted, and that no processing occurred during the conversion.

In all likelihood, I’ll take the higher res version and bounce it down to red book myself to ensure this is an apples to apples comparison.

Al, you do realize this is futile, right? I’ll listen and unless 2019 brings new laws of physics and other impacting science, I won’t hear a difference. Then you’ll claim I have bad ears or bad gear (neither is true) and we’ll be right back where we started...

 

[stonesfan129]

I'll keep an open mind and hear the files first.