[Lazysnakes]

Lossy compression is a good thing for convenience. The folks who invented the principles of lossy compression were geniuses

...agreed...

. What you're using now is called the slippery slope fallacy. Don't.
Why, you are creating a fallacy.

I personally vouch for lossless files because I'm a data hoarder, but day to day I don't use said lossless files. FLAC doesn't universally support replay gain across all my devices whereas MP3 gain works no matter what.

...Good for you, largely no one can use them....

Difference in signal between 16 bit and 24 bit? You literally cannot. It's like saying what's the difference between 1010000000000000 and 101000000000000000000000. Answer is 8 zeroes that were never going to be used in the first place anyway.

Is it true that conveying a higher sampling rate like that of a CG sample from 500khtz is possible WITHOUT a bit depth of 24bit?
My understanding is that there is still information in those zeros. And to some tracks and people it is applicable.

The slippery slope fallacy absorbs your comment. Nothing your saying refutes the idea capping audio or reducing size fro. A bit depth is a bad thing generically speaking. Especially in recording.
In 3085 when we do have the technology to expand our brains to hear music in 80khtz range or what ever, it would be nice to have the content lot limited by those who claim a visible difference is pure snake oil or is not useful in some way.

Unless I'm wrong about sampling and smoothness of the actual sound is achievable with a different technique.

 

[Lazysnakes]

"So, 24bit does add more 'resolution' compared to 16bit but this added resolution doesn't mean higher quality, it just means we can encode a larger dynamic range. This is the misunderstanding made by many. There are no extra magical properties, nothing which the science does not understand or cannot measure. The only difference between 16bit and 24bit is 48dB of dynamic range (8bits x 6dB = 48dB) and nothing else. This is not a question for interpretation or opinion, it is the provable, undisputed logical mathematics which underpins the very existence of digital audio."

From O.P. original forum comment.

This bit I have a problem with. If you want to limit dynamic range do it to your own music. Using the median sound to maximum sound loudness difference, ignoring the lowest sound which no one wants anyway (except for tou jazz-class jazzercise fans that want to hear clanking of both tables and covid coughs in the background, that's not my point) the larger bit depth, the more difference here or as is that wrong.

 

[bigshot]

With modern codecs like AAC and MP3 LAME, at a certain data rate, lossy files are audibly transparent to 100% of audiophiles. It may theoretically possible, but I've never heard of anyone identifying a difference between AAC 320 VBR, 16/44.1 or 24/96 or above. They all reproduce everything we can hear. For the purposes of listening to music in the home, high data rate lossy files can sound just as good as lossless. All of the benefits of 24 bit over 16 bit are beyond the range of human hearing.

But don't take my word for it. Set up a simple test and see for yourself. The people here can tell you how to do that if you are interested.

 

[sander99]

This bit I have a problem with. If you want to limit dynamic range do it to your own music. Using the median sound to maximum sound loudness difference, ignoring the lowest sound which no one wants anyway (except for tou jazz-class jazzercise fans that want to hear clanking of both tables and covid coughs in the background, that's not my point) the larger bit depth, the more difference here or as is that wrong.

I have a feeling here you confuse the actual dynamic range of the music (or whatever content) on the recording with the dynamic range of the recording format. As if dynamic compression would occur when converting 24 bits to 16 bits (without additional processing): that is not true. The level differences between different sounds in the content remain exactly the same. Only if the actual dynamic range of the content were too large to fit in 16 bits then the softest parts would drop below the noise floor.

 

[dazzerfong]

This bit I have a problem with. If you want to limit dynamic range do it to your own music. Using the median sound to maximum sound loudness difference, ignoring the lowest sound which no one wants anyway (except for tou jazz-class jazzercise fans that want to hear clanking of both tables and covid coughs in the background, that's not my point) the larger bit depth, the more difference here or as is that wrong.

Unless you're trying to reproduce a cannon shot (1812 comes to mind), music never goes that loud. The way bits work, it's a relative system: if your music ever gets to -60 dB, 16 bit or 24 bits would sound exactly the same. It's only if the quietest and loudest sound is more than 96 dB that you'll need more than 24 bits.

The way you're thinking about it is like 'steps' that, with more dB, you'll get a more 'accurate' reproduction of the original sound. Probably something like this sith the number of 'steps':

Doesn't work that way in reality. Like, yes, if you plot it it will look less 'jagged'. But that 'jaggedness' represents a signal that is so quiet you can't hear it.

 

[sander99]

if you plot it it will look less 'jagged'. But that 'jaggedness' represents a signal that is so quiet you can't hear it.

More than that: The 'jaggedness' or steps are not even really there in the first place. The digital samples give a number of points and the reconstruction filter creates a fluent curved line through those points. (And the deviation of that reconstructed signal from the original sampled signal - that is the noise - will be a little more with less bits, but with 16 bits still quiet enough.)

 

[dazzerfong]

More than that: The 'jaggedness' or steps are not even really there in the first place. The digital samples give a number of points and the reconstruction filter creates a fluent curved line through those points. (And the deviation of that reconstructed signal from the original sampled signal - that is the noise - will be a little more with less bits, but with 16 bits still quiet enough.)

Yep - that's why those stairstep plots are incredibly misleading. Those inaccuracies manifest as noise, and if you apply dithering, it's something that's even less of a problem.

 

[KeithPhantom]

Yep - that's why those stairstep plots are incredibly misleading

Sample and hold. Samples aren't stairsteps at all, they are points in the curve representing the signal (+ quantization errors). Oversampling takes care of that easily.

 

[71 dB]

I think part of @Lazysnakes issue is that he references that pseudoscience Hans beek you tube videos as a source.

Hans Beekhuyzen's job is to sell snakeoil. It's kind of sad these guys on the Youtube sound so convincing to those who don't undertand and know digital audio well.

 

[Lazysnakes]

Unless you're trying to reproduce a cannon shot (1812 comes to mind), music never goes that loud. The way bits work, it's a relative system: if your music ever gets to -60 dB, 16 bit or 24 bits would sound exactly the same. It's only if the quietest and loudest sound is more than 96 dB that you'll need more than 24 bits.

The way you're thinking about it is like 'steps' that, with more dB, you'll get a more 'accurate' reproduction of the original sound. Probably something like this sith the number of 'steps':



Doesn't work that way in reality. Like, yes, if you plot it it will look less 'jagged'. But that 'jaggedness' represents a signal that is so quiet you can't hear it.

Wouldn't you have to change the mixing and thus the sound ratios? Why does 8 bit sound so much worse than 16 bit if the recording is in 16 bit and gets compressed, and why
are go u totally and completely backwards when it comes to that. Because the difference between 8 bit and 16 bit is NOT in the quietest sound, it is the median to loudest values that have the most relevant change, I'm arguing the same goes for 24 bit depth.

Furthermore cannons are well over 150db. And I'd love to be able to actually here one so the point still stands.

The record for human audio is 171db in an automobile recorded early this year, 2020 with a custom setup. In order to achieve the record a human must withstand the audio present and he did.

 

[71 dB]

This bit I have a problem with. If you want to limit dynamic range do it to your own music. Using the median sound to maximum sound loudness difference, ignoring the lowest sound which no one wants anyway (except for tou jazz-class jazzercise fans that want to hear clanking of both tables and covid coughs in the background, that's not my point) the larger bit depth, the more difference here or as is that wrong.

When my listening room is VERY quiet the background noise level is maybe 30 dB. If I listen to music quite loud, the peaks go to 100 dB and if I go crazy the peak go to 110 dB. This extreme situation "needs" technically speaking 80 dB of dynamic range (about 13 bits), except if I listen to music so loud the peaks go to 110 dB, my hearing threshold raises temporarily and I won't hear 30 dB sounds, not even close! So the "needed" dynamic range is even less than 80 dB. Vinyl nuts never complain about the limitations of dynamic range with vinyl when it's about 60 dB (10 bits) at best. 60 dB of dynamic range starts to be enough in consumer audio. Since you want some dynamic headroom (say 12 dB or 2 bits worth) for the highest short peaks and also some margin (say 6 dB) in the least significant bit, 10+2+1 bits = 13 bits is what you "need" in consumer audio. So, 16 bit digital audio is OVERKILL by 3 bits or so. Overkill is overkill. Going from 3 bits of overkill to 11 bits of overkill is just overkill with more bits. There are no practical benefits.

 

[Davesrose]

Wouldn't you have to change the mixing and thus the sound ratios? Why does 8 bit sound so much worse than 16 bit if the recording is in 16 bit and gets compressed, and why
are go u totally and completely backwards when it comes to that. Because the difference between 8 bit and 16 bit is NOT in the quietest sound, it is the median to loudest values that have the most relevant change, I'm arguing the same goes for 24 bit depth.

Furthermore cannons are well over 150db. And I'd love to be able to actually here one so the point still stands.

The record for human audio is 171db in an automobile recorded early this year, 2020 with a custom setup. In order to achieve the record a human must withstand the audio present and he did.

The subject was if 16bits is enough for reproducing all ranges of human hearing. As has been addressed, with dithering, 16bits allows 120dB DR (with peak being up to 0dB and noise floor being negative value).

When it comes to the loudness of a cannon or gun, you do realize it diminishes the further you stand from it? If you want a new standard in sound reproduction to produce levels that are harmful after very short intervals....good luck with your one man crusade.

 

[71 dB]

Wouldn't you have to change the mixing and thus the sound ratios? Why does 8 bit sound so much worse than 16 bit if the recording is in 16 bit and gets compressed, and why
are go u totally and completely backwards when it comes to that. Because the difference between 8 bit and 16 bit is NOT in the quietest sound, it is the median to loudest values that have the most relevant change, I'm arguing the same goes for 24 bit depth.

Going from 16 bits to 8 bits truncates the last 8 bits. What this does it raises the noise floor by 48 dB. It also introduces distortion if dither noise is not used.
You mix data compression with volume compression.

 

[Lazysnakes]

Hans Beekhuyzen's job is to sell snakeoil. It's kind of sad these guys on the Youtube sound so convincing to those who don't undertand and know digital audio well.

Mmm I may not, but I have no interest in believing in something with no evidence, just physical proof that 24 bit is absolutely better than 16 bit depth, regardless of human abilities to tell the difference.
Likewise I am not a high-end hi-fi audiophile, and my interest in pointing out the glaring flaws of the original post is purely scientific.

I believe the relative factor is still not of your understanding here. The idea that the change from normal music to the maximum is present in going from 8 to 16bit,
Even there most people never use the range in record broad music, but narrower music interest as well as home and public theater do use difference of this and more. And on recording that comes from rock and such still have a difference that could be widened with 24 bit.

The use of other techniques is still sound dampening by some degree, and although I wouldn't have this huge expensive push toward things that are not really making a difference for your hi-fi music, I personally don't see such a ridiculous hostility toward larger bit depth technology and not utilizing it to a further degree.

The military and metal detection use sampling above 1gigahertz (1,000,000 hertz) in order to produce accurate measurements of sound waves around 1/10 of that, or 100,000 htz which are used for echo location and for slowing down of the recording. The latter which could actually help a lot with pitch control and redefinition.

Also more advanced techniques for algorithm coding to shrink the size of such recording after first making it, including lossy compression of dense music that has as you say "more information than nessicary for human hearing " could be used down the road to keep files the same size as lossless 16 bit and have the same quality, with possibly more relevant information. And even compressed smaller, lossy, and still sound the same because of the information gained from the curves and the algorithmic curve prediction for frequencies of sound being predicted, due to 4 times the recording points. This can not be improved without wider acceptance of 24 bit depth recording and even consumption.

Although considered irrelevant by some here, no one has provided evidence that the future is not brighter with 24 bit depth, mark my words, 24 bit will be used to noticeably make audio better. And as of 2021/2020 there is no longer a compelling counter that we shouldn't use it.

I was messaged by someone that said it themselves: some recordings are only available in 24 bit depth, there is plenty of storage for the increase, there is less need for dithering and other labor techniques, less mixing nessicary, and a broader range for deliberate manipulation of the sounds.

Cannons and such sounds, bass boosting without using amplification, and public theater explosion sounds can also accept an improvement. I don't understand all of this yet but I will unfollow this forum because I have reduced the responses from the majority helping my understanding and contributing, to jabs at my reputation and blatant "no you" and "you're wrong" "you knownothing" statements, which besides being unhelpful and far from the truth are damaging to the spirit of education and science.

 

[Lazysnakes]

Sample and hold. Samples aren't stairsteps at all, they are points in the curve representing the signal (+ quantization errors). Oversampling takes care of that easily.

Using higher sampling allows better definition of the curve. With practice, and a genius interested in music with an immeasurable IQ (none such genius has existed in known history, unfortunately), I suspect it is easier to compress 24 bit to a smaller size than 16 bit, or to be more specific, 196k htz to be compressed to 44k htz with wave forms that make music sound better because the quantinization errors make lower sampling rates harder to do lossy and lossless compression without losing information.

It is the same with 4k 1080p picture. It actually compresses to a smaller 1080p file than 1080p does, invented recently, 1080p that is recorded at twice the definition (4k) has a cleaner downscale and a smaller lossless algorithm compression due to the wider range of pixel colors, especially when taking HDR into the mix. A case of compressing a more complete information index into a small size rather than not being able to compress files too well because of the

(Genius) earlier who suggested entropy causes a problem. He was wrong and totally missed my point this is a better way to explain my philosophy on compressing audio.