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.
342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351
353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362
  1. bigshot
    That is totally possible, and it is just as possible that the 16 bit sounds better than the 24 too. I have albums that sound best on LP and others sound best on CD and others sound best on SACD. And I have albums that are the exact opposite. The quality of the mix and mastering is what matters, not format.

    Exactly, and I'll go the extra mile and help someone do their first controlled test if they are interested in finding out the truth for themselves. I've done that before. I gave this guy a chance because he said he wanted to do a test, but he's proven himself to be not worth my time. Now that I've dismissed him, he is blathering on with the troll speak... jackals. I'm done with people like this. I've wasted way too much time on them, and they scare away people who have honest questions. They should be given a chance, and if they continue to cause trouble like this, they should be weeded out.

    I'm already convinced he is going to cheat. He has already told us how he is going to do it too. At this point, I won't pay any attention to any "results" he gets. No, 10 out of 10 will not convince me.

    If he wants to do this, he should either just do it for himself and know that he cheated to achieve the results he wanted (a total waste of his time, not mine), or he should look for someone impartial to administer the test to him, so he isn't suspect.

    It isn't my fault that he is discrediting himself. I'm not being unfair if I don't acknowledge "results" when I am doggone sure that they didn't come from an honest place.

    I will say this... This thread and the Testing Myths thread are the ones that always seem to be the target of trolls. There is a reason for that. The top posts in these threads are smoking guns showing that cherished audiophile concepts are not based in reality. There are people who would love to see these threads get all mixed up in the comments and eventually locked. Those people don't belong in the Sound Science forum. There's a whole world of hoodoo outside of here for them to play their smoke and mirrors games.
    Last edited: Dec 2, 2019
  2. castleofargh Contributor
    Is this some reverse psychology trick where you hurt yourself so hard that others will be tempted to leave you alone?
    In any case, careful with the insults.
  3. old tech
    Reads just like a retort from an anti-vaxxer... It might be clownish to you but I, and I suspect most others that understand the science of audio and human physiology in this context would be excited if there was someone that could defy science and logic. And I don't get your point that it would convince no-one. If he does hear a difference with all the variables other than bit depth and sample rate controlled (including upsampling the 16/44 file to 24/96 which he doesn't seem to comprehend why this is important to control another variable) then who knows where it would lead. Surely others would be interested in replicating the findings and possibly change the paradigm?
    Last edited: Dec 2, 2019
  4. bigshot
    Here is the thing about us suggesting that people do tests around here... We aren't looking for some scientific be-all and end-all intended for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. No one needs to convince anyone. We're recommending it so people can find out the truth for themselves. First, we let them know that just about every controlled test that has ever been done comparing 16 and 24 has ended up with no audible difference, then we offer our own experience doing tests for ourselves, then we explain the science behind audibility and show that there is no reason to believe anything above 16/44.1 is audible, then we patiently explain how bias, auditory memory and level imbalances can affect the results. If after all that, the person still clings to their belief that they can hear a "night and day difference" between 16 and 24, we offer to help them set up a controlled test to find out for themselves.

    No one is required to prove anything. They should have the integrity and honesty to want to put their opinions to the test for their own sake. If they have no interest in learning, or if they don't have the integrity or honesty necessary to conduct a fair test, then I have no time for them. If they are unconvinceable, then fine. They can go through life ignorant of the truth. No skin off my nose.

    However, if they choose to utter a falsehood, I will call them on it and tell them that they are wrong and remind them that they don't know what they're talking about. Just because they have an opinion and I have an opinion, it doesn't mean our opinions are equal. You find out whose opinion is right by putting them to the test. I'll give people a chance to either learn from us or teach themselves, but that is as far as I go. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him think.

    "Being ignorant is not so much a shame as being unwilling to learn." -Benjamin Franklin
    Last edited: Dec 2, 2019
    sander99 likes this.
  5. castleofargh Contributor
    You guys are looking at the same thing from different angles. Obviously anything but a positive abx result would fail to shake the status quo. That's when things become interesting. When someone disproves the null hypothesis, it triggers the need for more questions, more tests to find out what specifically caused the audible difference. Even if it turns out that some device is defective or that a file was poorly manipulated(like we've seen a few times), at least something is happening and we can play detectives. In that respect you're correct IMO. A surprising pass would have a bunch of people curious to find out why and maybe discover something we didn't know.

    On the other hand, to determine how conclusive an experiment will be, we need to be able to judge the degree of confidence we can have in it. And that would never amount to much with an online amateur ABX. In that respect I certainly agree with @SoundAndMotion. I will not change my belief about bit depth no matter the result of his test. I don't think it's a pessimistic or dishonest position. Just the logical outcome based on having too little control/documentation over the experiment and the experimenter to put our full confidence in the results.
    Just one success can disprove the null hypothesis. Disproving an idea that way is what science does best. But that's assuming we can overwhelmingly trust the data. Which should never be the case with an online anecdote. The point of having @ALRAINBOW run this test isn't to change what the world understands about human hearing. It's to give him an opportunity to actually test himself. He's the one who can really gain from doing this. Us, not so much.
    old tech likes this.
    How about few groupies come to my Secret lair in queens hahaha I have many toys to play with. bring your files and blind folds and I’ll feed you guys
    I have both digital and analog too. vinyl and tape too. I’ll bet you guys will hear what I’m saying too.
    mad for what’s asked I don’t hear any change on my end and I did this with three files
    But I can’t get why I would hear a change is the hi res file is down sampled and back up again.
    The 24/96 file is not the same as 16/44.1 but it’s not as much as downloaded files in two formats
    Also do any of you guys have tidal ? They also have music at varying sample rates too. These also sound different as well.
    Please consider stopping by
  7. TheSonicTruth
    Different masterings, different sound. Get a hold of the same exact mastering, both in 16/44.2 and 24/96 or higher format WAV, abx-test them, and THEN tell us you can hear a difference.
  8. bigshot
    Could this guy sound any more creepy? I think there is something wrong with him. He definitely doesn't know how he looks to other people.
    Ok ur not invited now. Bro so when one guy makes a reference to a movie it’s cool and when I do I’m weird bro grow up get over what ever major malfunction ur on lol. I’m truly being serous in the invite. To me I have much to learn on how we hear and why it sounds like it does. You seem to know all there is. Well at my place there is both. Don’t get creepy bro I’m too old to care how you feel about me but also old enough to cut introvert slackers some Space too. Take a chill pill or the blue pill I don’t care but chill.
    Last edited: Dec 2, 2019
  10. bigshot
    Go away. It would be better for all of us. I have your best interests at heart here.
    Last edited: Dec 2, 2019
  11. Daiyama
    Just to make sure.
    The files linked in post #36 of this thread are fine for this purpose?

    Edit: I refer to this source for the files: http://www.soundkeeperrecordings.com/format.htm

    Last edited: Dec 3, 2019
  12. gregorio
    1. The practice is the same as the theory.

    2. You seem to have answered your own question; If it "sounds better because of better production" then the reason it sounds better is because of the better production (not because it's 24bit). Let's take a hamburger analogy; let's say you've got a Big Mac (the master) and you serve this Big Mac in a 4" box (the bit depth). Here's 3 simple questions:
    A. Will this Big Mac taste different if you serve it in a 6" box?
    B. How about if you've got two different Big Macs, say one has got extra pickles and you serve them both in a 4" box, will they taste different now?
    C. What about if you serve these two different hamburgers in different sized boxes, would it be nonsense/false to state that they taste different because they're in different sized boxes?

    1. Exactly, you've DISPROVEN your repeated assertion that you CAN hear a change/difference!

    2. Neither does anyone else, which is why we've been arguing with your repeated assertion to start with!

    3. Correct, they are different. The one you've down and up sampled will be missing the extra 8bits (replaced with zero's) and also missing audio frequencies above about 20kHz but as both of these things are inaudible, you're not going to hear any change/difference, as you've demonstrated with your "three files"!
    3a. Which indicates that the two files you've downloaded are different versions/masters and of course you should be able to hear a difference between different masters, in fact that's the whole point of making different masters in the first place, as already explained!

    4. But you've stated there IS a change/difference, that "the 24/96 is not the same as the 16/44.1" and I've explained (in the previous point) what that difference is! Once you down sample to 16/44 those extra 8bits and frequencies above about 20kHz are gone forever, upsampling back to 24/96 doesn't magically regenerate them. You can check the data in the upsampled version yourself, it's just 8 added zero's and still no material above 22kHz.
    4a. Very dumb indeed! 4b. Obviously we've attacked you, because you're the one who's made this thread "dumb" and what's "pretty sad" is you trying to make a thread in the sound science forum "dumb"!!!

    5. I don't have tidal but if the music sounds different at different sample rates, how do you know that it's because of the different sample rate OR because they're different masters? Your experiment so far (with you "three files"), along with all the reliable science, indicates it's the latter! Therefore ....
    1. Why don't you try your test with 16/44 and 24/88 (instead of 24/96)? If you want to save yourself the effort, the result will be the same, IE. It will NOT be "easy to hear", in fact you won't hear any change/difference!
    2. True, we won't hear any difference either, unless of course we're comparing different masters!
    3. But you've stated you couldn't hear a difference, so you must be describing the difference between two different masters!
    Which is at the root of all your problems here! Why would you come to a Sound Science forum and contradict the science if you have "much to learn"? Shouldn't you learn BEFORE you contradict the facts/science and isn't it "dumb"/"pretty sad" to do otherwise?

    Last edited: Dec 3, 2019
    old tech, taffy2207 and Chris Kaoss like this.
    My only comment from the first post is simply this
    It’s obvious that a file at 24:96 sounds different then a file at 16/44.1. It’s my only point here but you guys ice skate around it. Why the title of 16/24 bit depth exploded. There is no myth to disprove you even just said they are not the same and yes I can hear it. It’s also why is used one file and down sampled it. So to dispel any mastering change. this is my only claim here so am I correct yet. This is a little boys club and yes I’m tying to learn but it seems you guys just pick at null points of mine only. So can anyone posting here claim to hear a 24/96 over a 16/ 44.1 file change. If yes open your mouth and say it. If not then shut up and I’m correct. And what is the myth that is exploded here please explain to me. I’m serous now.
    In reading the title post I see why you guys attack me. And I agree in theory it should not matter. but having said this the playback does seem to have a lower blacker noise floor. I don’t claim to know why nor accept is my perception correct. But I do ask here if anyone can post an answer to my comments by simply playing files.
    since this is where math meets practical let’s reply. Also GREG your a good poster.
  15. SoundAndMotion
    @ALRAINBOW , when I first looked at your avatar closely, I laughed and thought it was clever. Now that I realize it's a real picture, I feel bad and want to send you a sympathy card...
    LOL, just kidding...
    Seriously though, you make the same comments again and again and again and...
    You ask the same questions AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN and ...
    You get the same answers, sometimes worded differently, AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND ....

    Do you really think asking one more time will change anything? What do you really want?

    Good Luck!!
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2019
342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351
353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362

Share This Page