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.
335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344
346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355
  1. Pro-Jules
    Decide by using your ears.

    My ears prefer 96k 24 bit.


    also good.

    I can hear more depth into the production, more sub bass and high frequency extension too.

    As a recording engineer I would always opt to capture the final mix @ 24 bit 96k over 44.1k 16bit
    Last edited: Nov 27, 2019
  2. bigshot
    (whispering) I hear DEAD PEOPLE!
    upstateguy likes this.
  3. CoryGillmore
    Can someone point me to where this guy has been impolite? He may be wrong on the topic, but to me everyone else has been a condescending dick to him. I have only seen this guy try to be friendly and laugh off confrontation with light hearted responses only to be met with short snippy replies. Maybe I overlooked some of his replies?
    Hifiearspeakers likes this.
  4. bigshot
    Well for about a year he has been claiming that he can easily tell the difference between 16 bit and 24 bit. Folks have patiently explained to him why that is about as unlikely as the moon being made of green cheese, but he persists in making the claim. When asked for proof, he just goes back to saying he can easily hear the difference again. Around here, we are allowed to ask for proof to verify claims. If someone repeatedly ignores that and just larks around saying things that aren't true, then they are going to be summarily dismissed by the group. That isn't being impolite. This is the internet. You have to expect stuff like that. We just don't have a lot of patience with people who spout nonsense and expect us to nod and smile and let them spread it all over to crap up a thread. We've been down that road too many times.
    Last edited: Nov 27, 2019
    CoryGillmore likes this.
  5. castleofargh Contributor
    that's what we all do and suggest to others. the problem starts with what people define as "using their ears". to me it is using my ears as opposed to using my eyes and my preconceptions, so I test by literally trying to find out something with my ears(blind test). but for other people, using their ears means simply focusing on sound a little more in their mind, and assuming that by doing so, their impressions of sound will only relate to sound. except that's not how human brains work. so those people often reach mistaken conclusions about sound. it's even more likely when the differences we try to perceive are near or beyond Just Noticeable Differences. the fewer differences we get from sound, the more likely we are to rely on other senses and preconceptions to draw some fake heuristic conclusions about "sound".
  6. bigshot
    I decide using my feet!

    Chris Kaoss and robo24 like this.
    How do you have a clue where I read the info. ??? And lastly I cannot be wrong if I simply say it’s my observation. you need a weekend here by me to fix ur thoughts please.
    Not flaming but are you claiming you don’t HEAR with ears ? lol
    Come to my place. I won’t yell or attack you lol. I’m simply saying I can and to add to this plight for you guys I have a few buds who can too. One is a pro who makes music.
    I won’t cheat guys no need to I pass or fail honestly. If I fail I’ll say I did.
  11. sander99
    Not only with the ears no, hearing involves not just your ears and the actual sound but all your senses and the thoughts and ideas and convictions in your mind as well, that's how our brains work.
    Those things can make someone hear "night and day differences" where there are no audible differences at all in the sound itself.
    That's why it is possible that so many people believe in so many audio related myths. (And companies of course like to create/enhance/exploit that to increase sales).
    And that's why (level matched) blind testing is so important.

    Actually this might be the most important question you have asked. If you are not aware of above facts, if you think that what you hear only depends on what sound enters your ears then it must seem like we are all crazy here. Only once you are aware of and understand above facts you can start to understand that your convictions may be wrong.
  12. bigshot
    Yes, it is your observation, and yes it is wrong.
    upstateguy likes this.
  13. gregorio
    1. As has been discussed earlier in this thread, there are definite advantages of 24bit over 16bit for recording engineers. Namely, the huge dynamic range of 24bit allows much greater headroom (when recording) and therefore a lower mic pre-amp gain setting, which can result in less mic pre-amp noise/distortion. Additionally, many years ago, some non-linear plugins worked audibly better at 88.2 or 96kHz sample rates. However: Firstly, consumers reproducing a completed master obviously don't use mic pre-amps and also obviously don't need any headroom and Secondly, for more than a decade or so, non-linear plugins which can benefit from a higher sample rate, simply upsample internally.

    2. Firstly, a recording engineer is not responsible for capturing the final mix, that's the job of the mix engineer, although admittedly, it's common for the recording engineer to also act as the mix engineer. Secondly, it's wise (and standard practice) to reduce the final mix to 24bit, again with significant headroom, for the benefit of the mastering process. Lastly, it's also wise as a music producer, recording, mix or mastering engineer to opt for 24/96 because a client may at some point require a hi-res version (for marketing purposes). Lastly, this thread is not aimed at the music producers and engineers creating music, it's aimed at consumers reproducing completed music masters, where there are no audible benefits of 24bit over 16bit.

    If someone is going to call themselves a Recording Engineer (rather than just a Recording Person), surely it's required to have a decent/good understanding of not only recording but also of the underlying engineering?

    sonitus mirus and upstateguy like this.
  14. castleofargh Contributor
    I'm saying that our impressions of hearing come from a pudding of senses, ideas, memorized patterns, etc. it's trivial to demonstrate that we can influence what listeners think they hear with non audio stimuli. in fact it is trivial to demonstrate that almost anything can influence impressions, beliefs, and even the way we will think. plenty of examples in the book I suggested to you the other day. and that's exactly why controlled testing is so important when trying to determine what we hear as opposed to what we think we hear. on such a topic the difference tends to be dramatic and be the very root of the debate.
    Last edited: Nov 28, 2019
  15. bigshot
    But what if by saying you aren't lying, you are lying? Or maybe you say you are lying... are you, or are you telling the truth? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liar_paradox

    The easiest way to convince people is to do a controlled listening test.
335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344
346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355

Share This Page