1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.

    Dismiss Notice

24bit vs 16bit, the myth exploded!

Discussion in 'Sound Science' started by gregorio, Mar 19, 2009.
329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338
340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349
  1. StandsOnFeet
    I think you nailed it. We tend to get the burden of proof mixed up. We're going to ABX the tracks the OP sends us, we'll all report that we can't tell them apart, and he won't believe us. He'll claim that his ears or equipment are better than ours, and we'll be no further ahead.

    He's the one with the claim that goes against basic physics, so the burden of proof is his: he has to demonstrate that he can tell them apart in a blind test.
  2. stonesfan129
    Can we hear the files?
  3. old tech
    Unfortunately they never do.

    I have over the years read a few posts like this and the promised files never eventuate while the poster disappears.

    I sometimes wonder what makes these people tick, coming into a sound science forum making anti sound science claims and then displaying cowardice, not having the balls to back it up.
    Last edited: Jan 2, 2019
  4. gregorio
    And, in addition to that we've got the noise floor of the listening environment! Even with treatment, the chances are that his room has a noise floor of 30dB or more. 120dB dynamic range (CD with noise-shaping) above that would give us a peak output of about 150dB, no speakers at any price can produce 150dB peak levels AND 120dB dynamic range and even if such speakers did exist, you couldn't listen to them at those levels without serious hearing damage.

    Me too. Worst I saw was nearly $200k of kit which could have been outperformed with a budget of about $5k. So often I see audiophiles doing the equivalent of spending a fortune trying to fix a paint flaw on the trunk of their car, which can only be seen with a magnifying glass, while ignoring the fact that the front of their car has been flattened by a tank!

    Ideally, you don't want to counter the room acoustics, you still definitely want room acoustics but neutral room acoustics. Pro audio nearfields are therefore not a great solution and although all top class commercial studios have nearfields, they also always have a very high quality mid/far field monitoring system. Consumers are relatively limited though, with both a limited budget and the fact that their listening room typically has to be either a multi-purpose room or a dedicated but very small room, either of which limits the amount/effectiveness of any acoustic treatment. For the serious listener, pro audio nearfields can often represent the best that can be achieved within the given limitations. Most likely you've made a wise choice, which is more of a compliment than it sounds because the "serious listener" marketplace effectively does all it can to steer consumers towards unwise choices! Having said this, I've often seen consumers using nearfield monitors completely incorrectly, for example placed very near walls and/or with the LP at double or triple the distance of what constitutes "nearfield".

    Apparently though, assuming @ALRAINBOW is being truthful, he is far less limited, both in terms of budget and the room. Why on earth he'd custom build a room with such poor dimensions is a mystery though, the ceiling height relative to the length and width of the room is an acoustic problem that can't be overcome. Double that height would have been appropriate or if that was outside the budget, then a much smaller room would have been preferable, at least half the length for example. While we don't know all the details, it appears obvious that he has NOT done "the best that can be achieved within the [his] given limitations"!

    Last edited: Jan 2, 2019
    Slaphead likes this.
  5. bigshot
    I think they assume that Sound Science is the same as any other audiophile forum. Most places you can claim things that are totally wrong and vehemently defend them. If you get huffy enough and post on it enough times, you "win". That doesn't work as well in Sound Science. Here, that sort of behavior elicits a dog pile of people demanding proof. By the time the poor sap realizes his mistake, he's in too deep so all he can do is go out in a blaze of glory. "You want proof! I'll go get you your proof and then you'll see!" Then they sneak out the back door and never come back. I don't get all worked up over these kinds of people any more. It isn't worth my time.
  6. ILikeMusic
    Agree. And one of the reasons the only subforum I bother to read anymore is Sound Science. In the other sections people are allowed to bloviate endlessly debating utter nonsense, in a 'DBT free' (What?) environment no less. This is the about the only place where facts matter and facts are apparently a very high bar in audio discussions. Pity the soul who comes here without them, and that's the way it should be.
  7. Slaphead
    LOL, if anything I'm too nearfield for a lot of my listening - the monitors are about a metre apart, and depending on what I'm doing I'm between 0.75 to 1.25 metres distant from them - they're 0.5 metres away from the rear wall, but that's as far away as they're going get. I live in a flat (apartment), which although very sizeable, means I can't really choose my room configuration, and I also have to take into account the fact that my neighbours may not enjoy my particular taste in music in a mid/far field application driven to my preferential SPL - which I may add is not that loud, but I can do it less annoyingly for them in a nearfield configuration and not really feel like I'm losing out.
  8. gregorio
    1. Nope, that's about right, although 1m - 1.25m would be ideal.
    2. More would be better but I've seen a lot worse! They should really be at least 1m from any wall and preferably more, the idea being that the direct sound from the nearfields is many times higher than the reflections, thereby rendering the room acoustics effectively a non-issue. Ideally therefore, they'd be fairly near the centre of the room, although that's highly impractical in most consumer situations of course. I'm sure you're already aware of all this but it might be useful for others.

    Slaphead likes this.
  9. stonesfan129
    So what did this guy just flake? No files I guess. Welp I'm sticking to my previous conclusion that CD quality and even 256k AAC is good enough for my needs.
    TheSonicTruth likes this.
  10. bigshot
    AAC 256 is good enough for anyone with human ears.
  11. Slaphead
    I have inhuman ears - I get a lot of stuff from my favourite Dub Techno/Drum & Bass DJs in... wait for it... AAC HE encoding which averages around 70Kbps, and I've no complaints, at least not in the environment that I listen to that stuff which is generally on my commute.
  12. stonesfan129
    I'm fine with iTunes downloads. Many times these are "Mastered For iTunes" which is taken from the exact same 24-bit master as what they sell on sites like HDtracks. And many times these 256k AAC tracks sound better to me than some of the older CD versions due to being a better mastering. But it's really on a case-by-case basis.
  13. Glmoneydawg
    Yep....my music room is about 1500 sq feet,but my speakers and i form about a 9ft equilateral triangle.I think nearfield takes some of the room acoustics out of the equation and takes away the need for excessive volume.
  14. castleofargh Contributor
    when I think about how big my "listening" room is, I remember this:sweat_smile: :

  15. Glmoneydawg
    If thats Columbo....and I'm pretty sure it is...you are MUCH older than i thought....it's ok ..comforting to know i'm being moderated by someone of similar vintage :wink:
329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338
340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349

Share This Page