[KeithPhantom]

If you simply truncate the 24 bit sample points into 16 bit samples then this happens. If you add 16 bit dither noise to the 24 bit file before truncation, you mitigate problems: quantization errors get randomized into noise which doesn't correlate with the signal and also you prevent increased distortion. In that sense the original signal still has it's original dynamic range, but is masked partly by the added dither noise. Reverb tails for example decay into the noise the same fashion analog sound works so that signal levels below the dither noise level can be heard (if the listening level was insane) whenever the dither doesn't completely mask it. A 16 bit audio file produced from 24 bit file can theoretically have a "ananog-like noisy" dynamic range of 120 dB depending on what kind of dither is used. It's good to remember bits do not quarantee dynamic range. If I digitize old noisy C-cassettes into 24 bit files I certainly don't get huge dynamic range. A 24 bit file might have only 18 bits worth of dynamic range* for example so that turning it into "ananog-like noisy" 16 bit file which has a "noisy" 20 dB dynamic range doesn't mean much. In consumer audio about 80 dB of dynamic range is all we need, about 13 bits worth of dynamic range. In this sense even 16 bit is overkill by a few bits, but that's just a nice safety margin.

* Try and record acoustic instruments at 24 bit dynamic range and come back to tell us how well that went.

True, I already had knowledge of all of this, but I just tried to get the message across. In actual music, the last LSBs are actually filled with noise and not many productions take advantage of the full dynamic range of their medium. Also, when decimating even with dither, you cannot keep the same theoretical dynamic range of the higher-count bit format because of math, but that's inaudible anyways in the 24 vs 16 bit comparison.

 

[bigshot]

Most of the stuff we discuss around here is inaudible!

 

[71 dB]

Most of the stuff we discuss around here is inaudible!

MAYBE WE SHOULD USE MORE CAPSLOCK!!

 

[bigshot]

COMING IN LOUD AND CLEAR NOW!

 

[KeithPhantom]

Not really. There are no quantisation errors, what we have instead is dither noise, which *would* have "increased the noise floor" ONLY IF the noise floor of the 24 bit recording were below about -120dB.

Thanks for this information, didn't know this little fact. Well, actually I could infer this, but I didn't.

That depends on what you mean by "theoretical dynamic range of music". Your assertion could be true (in theory) for only one very specific form of music: Music comprised SOLELY of signals digitally synthesised (at >20bit), but even then it is only "theoretical" because AFAIK, there are no music recordings in practice that actually employ a dynamic range greater than 120dB.

Also true, but what I meant was more a perfect scenario, in real life almost all recordings don't get close to -120 dB, and this a limit even most (not state-of-the-art) electronics struggle to get consistently in terms of SFDR and other measurements. 16 bits with dither should be enough for transparency.

 

[bigshot]

You'd have to record a jackhammer in Carlsbad Caverns to get a noise floor of -120dB. Most recording studios have a room tone from air conditioning and traffic noise in the mid 20s I would guess.

 

[gregorio]

[1] Thanks for this information, didn't know this little fact. Well, actually I could infer this, but I didn't.
[2] Also true, but what I meant was more a perfect scenario, in real life almost all recordings don't get close to -120 dB, and this a limit even most (not state-of-the-art) electronics struggle to get consistently in terms of SFDR and other measurements. 16 bits with dither should be enough for transparency.

1. It's covered to an extent in the OP. Dither is and always has been a requirement of digital audio recording. In the very earliest days (1960's and much of the 1970's), the technology didn't exist to perform dither in the digital domain, so analogue white noise was injected. Digital dithering was far more controllable/efficient and eliminates (linearises) ALL quantisation error. At the start of the 1990's, when bit depths greater than 16 became available in the pro audio world, noise-shaped dither was invented specifically for the situation of a higher than 16bit recording (or mix) that had to be converted to 16bit for consumer distribution.

2. Again though, it depends on what you mean by "perfect scenario". Do you mean a scenario that is perfect within the "laws of physics", EG. Is never achieved in the real world but potentially/theoretically could be. Or, do you mean a hypothetical scenario which ignores the "laws of physics", EG. Could never exist in the real world?
For example, it might be theoretically possible to construct a recording venue with a 0dB SPL noise floor and, it is theoretically possible for say a large symphony orchestra to produce peak levels at 120dB SPL (if one records in or very near the orchestra). So theoretically wouldn't we have a dynamic range of 120dB (a noise floor at -120dB)? No, we wouldn't! Hypothetically we might but not in theory, because a large symphony orchestra requires 90+ musicians, all of whom are breathing, moving and therefore raising the noise floor considerably. And even in theory, a large symphony orchestra with no musicians or 90+ dead musicians is going to struggle to produce a 120dB peak level!

We've also got a problem with the theoretical max dynamic range of mics and in combination with a mic pre-amp, which at the very least is going to add thermal noise. We have a similar problem at the other end of the chain, with reproduction. Even if we have a recording with a noise floor of -120dB and we reproduce it with a DAC that has a noise floor of -120dB, we now have a noise floor of 117dB. However, we obviously can't listen to the output of an DAC, we first have to amplify the analogue output of the DAC and then convert it to acoustic sound waves. So at the very least we've got the added thermal noise of the amp and speakers/HPs, not to mention the listening environment noise floor. In theory, the best we could achieve is probably somewhere around 100-110dB dynamic range but the best commercial studios actually manage is about 90dB (at huge cost!). Lastly, we have to consider that commercial music/sound recordings are, by definition, entertainment. They are designed to be "comfortable" with moderately priced equipment, they are NOT designed to require $1m worth of construction/reproduction equipment and go so far beyond "comfortable" that we're push the limits of human hearing safety. This limits dynamic range to around 40dB-50dB or in the case of a niche market, to about 60dB or so.

G

 

[ScareDe2]

I would say 16 bits 48khz works best for listening to music and 24 bits 41khz works best for watching movies.

 

[KeithPhantom]

I would say 16 bits 48khz works best for listening to music and 24 bits 41khz works best for watching movies.

My question is why do you think that.

 

[bigshot]

You've got that backwards. 16/44.1 is for CDs. 16/48 is for broadcast and DVDs. 24 is for mixing and mastering. They all are audibly transparent.

 

[ScareDe2]

On youtube I went from 16 bits 44 Khz to 48 Khz (in Window sound) and I preferred the latter. Then I found this video :



As for the 24 bits 44 Khz it is my window setting of choice for live recorded music that was not transfered to CD, DVD Bluray !

 

[bigshot]

YouTube uses compressed audio. This is the lowest form of trolling.

 

[KeithPhantom]

On youtube I went from 16 bits 41 Khz to 48 Khz (in Window sound) and I preferred the latter.

Interpolation won't improve sound at all in this case. This is most likely expectation bias at its finest.

 

[Davesrose]

Interpolation won't improve sound at all in this case. This is most likely expectation bias at its finest.

Time and time again, this poster has shown bias for "analog" distortion and other woo bias. My take: it's futile to engage with him.

The analog conversion works in synergy with the rest of the chain and helps simulate natural motion pictures.

Anyway, before they close more topics and start deleting I will leave it at that for now. You guys are lucky modos are hunting down my threads because I had more science in the making.
GG ✌

I don't know if I'm missing something, but when I engaged about current video only being digital, I didn't get one scientific point.

 

[bigshot]

He's a troll and not a very good one. A good troll doesn't make everyone give up on him. It's time for him to ditch this sock account and go create another one and come back and try again. I don't think he is able to last more than a few days under any name though.

I was telling Castle the other day, this group is incredibly useful. There are a lot of people here that know their stuff. If someone wants help with something, there's always knowledgable suggestions to be had. For people to come here and piss all over us like that is disrespectful. I don't feel like I'm under any obligation to extend respect to people who don't do the same for me. If you don't like what we say, just go away. There are a bunch of forums on Head-Fi where nonsense is welcomed. If you come here, you should be here because you want to hear what we have to say. Not to argue absurdly ill-informed positions with us. Just stay away from Sound Science.