[theaudiologist1]

Does 24bit/32bit have an advantage over 16bit in terms of digital volume control? If you lower the volume of 16bit you will get a terrible 8-10bits but if you lower the volume of 24bit audio you get 20bits?

 

[71 dB]

Does 24bit/32bit have an advantage over 16bit in terms of digital volume control? If you lower the volume of 16bit you will get a terrible 8-10bits but if you lower the volume of 24bit audio you get 20bits?

Zeros get added to 16 bit so what comes out is not "terrible 8-10 bits" for example -6 dB (bit shift) you have still 16 bits of information it's just shifted

 

[71 dB]

I still prefer 48khz over 44.1 due to compatability. I think the 44.1 multiples should just be dicontinued.

Also, is there a point of releasing digital recordings recorded at 24bits to vinyl? Imo only analog recordings should be on vinyl. It's pointless.

What "compatability" are you talking about? Typically digital audio devices support several samplerates.
The point of vinyls is to have vinyl distotion (many people like it) and large cover art.

 

[dazzerfong]

I still prefer 48khz over 44.1 due to compatability. I think the 44.1 multiples should just be dicontinued.

Also, is there a point of releasing digital recordings recorded at 24bits to vinyl? Imo only analog recordings should be on vinyl. It's pointless.

Then there are practically going to be no modern recordings are going to be on vinyl. Almost everything is recorded digitally.

People buy modern vinyl recordings for a whole host of reasons not related to sound quality itself. These include:

- Nostalgia
- Hipsters
- Vinyl album collection

 

[bigshot]

I still prefer 48khz over 44.1 due to compatability. I think the 44.1 multiples should just be dicontinued. Also, is there a point of releasing digital recordings recorded at 24bits to vinyl? Imo only analog recordings should be on vinyl. It's pointless.

You can master high data rate audio for LP release and it really doesn't make any audible difference. I would think a digital master would be less subject to dropouts or noise. But there wouldn't be any difference between a tape master or a digital copy of a tape master. Likewise, any data rate above audible transparency doesn't matter either. I guess humans have an urge to make numbers and formats line up nice and tidy, but what really matters is what you hear. When it comes to that, perfect sound is perfect sound.

 

[Davesrose]

You can master high data rate audio for LP release and it really doesn't make any audible difference. I would think a digital master would be less subject to dropouts or noise. But there wouldn't be any difference between a tape master or a digital copy of a tape master. Likewise, any data rate above audible transparency doesn't matter either. I guess humans have an urge to make numbers and formats line up nice and tidy, but what really matters is what you hear. When it comes to that, perfect sound is perfect sound.

I know you like to always simplify by saying perfect sound is always perfect (and anything recorded 16 bit is perfect). This seems an absolute....I'm not arguing that 16bit is a good audio container. I'm just seeing that many folks judge sound by their sound system: that often does have EQs and DSPs tied in with said compressed mp3/FLAC/however high bit-depth audio file. IMO also true for latest slight trend in vinyl uptick: albums that are from a digital source and folks enjoying the pleasurable distortions of playback equipment.

 

[bigshot]

Perfect for the purposes of listening to commercially recorded music with human ears. Sound processing has enough headroom to work audibly perfect at 16/44.1. If it needs more, it can uprez, perform the processing, then downrez. There isn’t anything in commercially recorded music to require more.

in my experience, even digitally mastered LPs have all the noise and distortion slathered on. That comes from the limitations of the format, not the master.

 

[Davesrose]

Perfect for the purposes of listening to commercially recorded music with human ears. Sound processing has enough headroom to work audibly perfect at 16/44.1. If it needs more, it can uprez, perform the processing, then downrez. There isn’t anything in commercially recorded music to require more.

in my experience, even digitally mastered LPs have all the noise and distortion slathered on. That comes from the limitations of the format, not the master.

I'm not really sure your argument that anything that can process 16/44.1 has enough headroom and is perfect for any ears. My point was about how it's processed (through further DSPs and EQs)....to reach that final output. Or are you saying all bluetooth headphones sound the same if they receive 16/44.1?

 

[bigshot]

The most recent Bluetooth codecs I’ve heard are transparent. They weren’t when I first investigated Bluetooth. With DSPs, I think processing power is more important than data rate. If you’re starting with a CD, which is transparent and encompasses just about all commercial music, the ability of the processor to do the processing is likely much more of an impediment than whether a recording is 16/44.1 or 24/96. I run CDs through all kinds of DSPs and I’ve never run into problems. Have you?

 

[Davesrose]

You keep rambling on about transparency with any system independent of what extra EQ or DSP (especially now, virtual surround systems) exist. Again, I’m not going to argue that a CD is a good carrier system. My current argument is with this idea that anything that accepts 16bit is unadulterated. I think it’s something else you say you run DSPs with your CDs...that proves my point. If anything is perfect by itself (and any audio is the same)...why are you running DSPs to begin with?

 

[bigshot]

When did I say everything that does 16/44.1 is transparent? I said THE FORMAT is transparent. Obviously if you use a CD player in a cheap boom box or clock radio, it isn’t transparent. The CD player built into it probably is, but the rest of the system isn’t so it doesn’t matter.

I use DSPs to correct errors in mastering and to calibrate my system.

 

[Davesrose]

When did I say everything that does 16/44.1 is transparent? I said THE FORMAT is transparent. Obviously if you use a CD player in a cheap boom box or clock radio, it isn’t transparent. The CD player built into it probably is, but the rest of the system isn’t so it doesn’t matter.

I use DSPs to correct errors in mastering and to calibrate my system.

I'm not going to try to review all your posts, but you're doing it in this post: assuming the CD player built into a cheap boom box is audibly "transparent" (which I would understand as fully utilizing all capabilities of the digital file). Bose would be a good example of audio technology that has a history of using EQ to make up for deficiencies of frequency range with their speakers. If we're theorizing about a cheap system's CD player: who knows, there could be issues with correct tracking....and there's certainly more stages of the signal going from DAC, whatever EQ settings the device has for balancing audio, to transducers. Or as you're now indicating: you side with changing that "transparent" audio signal with your own preferences (IE opinion about mastering or what sounds best with your system). There's also the issue of theoretical limits of a format vs actual utilization of recording (most all recordings falling short of absolute DR or boundaries of FR of a 16bit container).

 

[bigshot]

If you build an all in one component like a clock radio, there are certainly things limiting the fidelity (primarily speakers). Bose can try to EQ to take the curse that, but it's still going to be just as inaccurate. I'm not arguing that. I am saying the digital player hardware itself is all audibly transparent because that is what it's designed to be. The standards for digital players playing 16/44.1 ensures audible transparency. If they aren't able to do that, they aren't meeting spec. I have a $40 Walmart DVD player that is audibly transparent through line out. Every player I've ever owned has been audibly transparent through line out. If a cheap all-in-one piece of kit isn't audibly transparent, it is MUCH more likely to be due to the limitations of the mechanical components like speakers, and to a much lesser extent the analog components like capacitors or filters, not the digital ones. Digital disk player hardware- DACs and transports- are mass produced to meet specs as off-the-shelf parts. If you go out and buy a bunch of players, odds are the electronics inside of them are very similar if not identical. Transparent DAC chips cost just a few dollars. It isn't like there is a range of audible quality that relates to the price point. If a CD player doesn't produce sound to spec it is either defective from improper manufacture or deliberately hobbled to create a house sound, which isn't the fault of the player. That is defective by design.

The problem is that even if an audibly different digital player exists somewhere, it would account for what? .01% of the market? Probably considerably less. When people focus on the rare and undocumented exceptions so much, they give a misleading impression. No one needs to worry about whether a CD player is audibly transparent or not when they shop at Amazon for a player for their home. But there are many, many audiophiles that believe they all sound different because of people who hammer away at minute and meaningless exceptions instead of giving them real practical advice. The tendency to be over-focused on things that just aren't important isn't just limited to audiophools. It's common around here too. Sometimes I feel like we are playing out the story of the "Princess and the Pea". No matter how incredibly small it is, it still matters to some people.

I think we both are saying the same thing. You're just adding "wiggle room" for exceptions to the rule that none of us have ever run across personally. Every player I have ever owned and tested has been audibly transparent, since the very early days of the format when they made players without oversampling. (And then the difference, although audible, was negligibly small.) All the back and forth over this just muddies the water for the truth. There really isn't any reason to worry about digital components when it comes to audibility. If there is a problem, it is not likely at all to be because of the digital disc player hardware itself.

I'm afraid I don't understand what you are getting at with EQ and DSPs. That is precisely adjustable coloration to correct for acoustic and mechanical problems in transducers or the room. Signal purity isn't fidelity anymore once it reaches the real world. Although digital audio can easily be audibly perfect, when it comes to headphones, speakers and rooms there's no such thing as complete fidelity... only combinations of compromises that have better fidelity than other ones. DSPs and EQ can help to correct for inevitable acoustic problems that exist in the real world of living rooms. You can correct error, or you can add it for aesthetic reasons. There's nothing wrong with that at all. We all hold the car keys to our own systems.

 

[Davesrose]

I agree that on most concepts we have no disagreements. The only point I'm disagreeing with is an assumption that any digital audio device will sound the same. I'm not disagreeing that 16bit audio format is capable, or that a cheap DAC chip can render everything within human hearing. It's just that in my experience, a device might sound different due to enabled DSPs. Say a TV device: it could have a dynamic range limiter enabled, or some kind of virtual surround. I've also noticed the same with current Windows 10 standards. Certain software might have a set EQ or surround scheme that also has a different tonal balance.

 

[bigshot]

Yes, a device will sound different with DSPs. They will sound different with tone controls and different volume levels too. But that’s signal processing. That’s changing the sound by definition. Bypass the signal processing and they’re all transparent. At least every one I’ve run across.