24bit vs 16bit, the myth exploded!

[71 dB]

I'm not sure why others continue with the dialogue. As 71 dB observed, you seem too vain to accept that your individual preference is less fidelity and try to dress that up with made up assertions.

Continuing dialogue long after the futility of it has been established is one of my weaknesses. Eventually I get frustrated and angry. I am forced to say to myself the dialogue serves nobody. Maybe in the distant past people practised source criticism, didn't ignore scientific facts and didn't "choose" truth according to their personal taste. We are unfortunately living in a post factual World of subjective truths. Of course greedy people take advantage of this and that's why there is so much disinformation out there. If you try to fight the disinformation all you get is frustrated and angry. Depressing.

 

[71 dB]

Well here is a comparison between dithered 8 bit and 16 bit. As you can hear, the only difference between the two bit depths is noise. After watching this, how could you not believe that 13 bits is more than enough to capture vinyl?

In all fairness, audiokangaroo seems to be more openminded to accept that 16 bit or even less can be enough for perfect consumer audio. It is the sample frequency/band-width were the disagreements are. I give credit where credit is due. It is good if audiokangaroo at least knows/understands that going beyond 16 bit in consumer audio doesn't increase accuracy/fidelity, but can only lower the noise floor to be even more inaudible.

 

[castleofargh]

Continuing dialogue long after the futility of it has been established is one of my weaknesses. Eventually I get frustrated and angry. I am forced to say to myself the dialogue serves nobody. Maybe in the distant past people practised source criticism, didn't ignore scientific facts and didn't "choose" truth according to their personal taste. We are unfortunately living in a post factual World of subjective truths. Of course greedy people take advantage of this and that's why there is so much disinformation out there. If you try to fight the disinformation all you get is frustrated and angry. Depressing.

I’m of the opinion that we’re not totally wasting our time. For kanga, it seems to be pointless, now we know it. But it’s a forum. Sometimes, people with doubts need to see irrational in action to reach their conclusions.

In all fairness, audiokangaroo seems to be more openminded to accept that 16 bit or even less can be enough for perfect consumer audio. It is the sample frequency/band-width were the disagreements are. I give credit where credit is due. It is good if audiokangaroo at least knows/understands that going beyond 16 bit in consumer audio doesn't increase accuracy/fidelity, but can only lower the noise floor to be even more inaudible.

Obviously. How would a belief in favor of mooooooore bit depth, work with a belief that tape, vinyl, and dsd are the better choices? Once you create that strange line up of ”fidelity” choices, you can't allow yourself to be obsessed with bit depth. Even made up facts would struggle to reconcile those ideas.

 

[old tech]

In all fairness, audiokangaroo seems to be more openminded to accept that 16 bit or even less can be enough for perfect consumer audio. It is the sample frequency/band-width were the disagreements are. I give credit where credit is due. It is good if audiokangaroo at least knows/understands that going beyond 16 bit in consumer audio doesn't increase accuracy/fidelity, but can only lower the noise floor to be even more inaudible.

Yes and in fairness that post was in response to his question to you whether you know how 13 bits sound. The video demonstrates that 8 bits dithered has the same accuracy as 16 bits (or 24 bits for that matter) but a higher noise floor. The noise floor of 13 bits is lower than vinyl or analog tape.

 

[71 dB]

Yes and in fairness that post was in response to his question to you whether you know how 13 bits sound. The video demonstrates that 8 bits dithered has the same accuracy as 16 bits (or 24 bits for that matter) but a higher noise floor. The noise floor of 13 bits is lower than vinyl or analog tape.

The answer is I do know what 13 bit audio sounds. I have tested it myself. It sounds the same as the 8 bit example of the video except the noise floor is 30 dB lower making it inaudible unless you listen to an extremely quiet part while turning the volume up exceeding reasonable listening levels.

I’m of the opinion that we’re not totally wasting our time. For kanga, it seems to be pointless, now we know it. But it’s a forum. Sometimes, people with doubts need to see irrational in action to reach their conclusions.

You are right. Someone else not even participating in the discussion might be reading and learning.

Obviously. How would a belief in favor of mooooooore bit depth, work with a belief that tape, vinyl, and dsd are the better choices? Once you create that strange line up of ”fidelity” choices, you can't allow yourself to be obsessed with bit depth. Even made up facts would struggle to reconcile those ideas.

Good point.

 

[bigshot]

It's not my explanation, it's the proven facts, both mathematically and in practice!

Welcome back Gregorio. The forum has suffered without your participation. I'm glad to see you back.

 

[danadam]

making it inaudible unless you listen to an extremely quiet part while turning the volume up exceeding reasonable listening levels.

IMO, it doesn't have to exceed reasonable levels in case of classical music and dither without noise shaping. Here's a sample made from "Hilary Hahn: The Complete Sony Recordings / Mendelssohn, Shostakovich - Violin Concertos / 01. Violin Concerto in E minor, op. 64: I. Allegro molto appassionato". It contains 18s excerpt starting at 6:47 (a quiet passage) and 18s excerpt starting at 11:39 (a loud passage). I also added 3s of silence at the beginning. Every 0.5s the sample has a dither applied at 13 bit level using SoX's "dither" effect with "-p 13" option. With volume level that doesn't make the loud passage unreasonably loud I can hear the the dither in the quiet passage starting at around 13s.
But with noise shaping, yes, it becomes inaudible (at least to me).

 

[71 dB]

IMO, it doesn't have to exceed reasonable levels in case of classical music and dither without noise shaping. Here's a sample made from "Hilary Hahn: The Complete Sony Recordings / Mendelssohn, Shostakovich - Violin Concertos / 01. Violin Concerto in E minor, op. 64: I. Allegro molto appassionato". It contains 18s excerpt starting at 6:47 (a quiet passage) and 18s excerpt starting at 11:39 (a loud passage). I also added 3s of silence at the beginning. Every 0.5s the sample has a dither applied at 13 bit level using SoX's "dither" effect with "-p 13" option. With volume level that doesn't make the loud passage unreasonably loud I can hear the the dither in the quiet passage starting at around 13s.
But with noise shaping, yes, it becomes inaudible (at least to me).

Yes, that is as demanding music sample as they come so definitely shaped 13 bit dither (I can hear that non-shaped dither too). Note that this kind of "pulsing dither" of yours is more noticeable than constant dither, because it draws attention to itself. Real 13 bit system wouldn't be able to do this "pulsing".

 

[gregorio]

If we measure the frequency response of a tape recoder around -50dB, we will have to consider that tape is indeed a high resolution format with a very extended frequency response.

And have you measured the frequency response of a tape recorder to signals "around -50dB"? If you haven't, then even by your own terms you do NOT have to consider that tape is a high resolution format!

Here are the measurements of pretty much all the most widely used studio tape recorders: http://www.endino.com/graphs/

Note though:
1. That these measurements are not in response to a -50dB signal but in response to an optimal (0dBVU) signal, they would obviously be worse for a -50dB signal.
2. These tests were run on freshly calibrated/aligned recorders. Which is NOT the case with in music studio recordings. Pro studio tape recorders were aligned once, at the beginning of each day, not for each recording pass.
3. A music analogue tape master is the result of at least 2 (and typically more) tape "generations", each generation introducing more noise, more distortion and more signal loss.
4. Notice the comparison with the last measurement, the frequency responses of the built-in ADC of a mid 1990's consumer desktop computer!!

It's unlikely that an acoustic ultrasonic signal at -50dB would be above the noise floor on a typical analogue music master.

As of tape recording producing harmonic distortion, It may be considered problematic, but I don't think that it can explain the fact tape sounds more natural that basic
digital audio.

You're right, it doesn't "explain the fact" because there is no scientific explanation of a fact that is false! For example, there is no scientific explanation for the fact that pigs can fly! In addition to the reliable evidence that's already been posted by Old Tech that demonstrates your fact is false, you also refuse to address the obvious question: How does adding unnatural noise and distortion make an acoustic instrument sound more natural?

Tape and high sample rate digital produce a better sound stage than 44.1. Do you think that we could explain this with harmonic
distortion ?

Same again: No, we have no scientific explanation for why figs can fly! The actual fact is that tape has worse soundstage than 44.1, due to crosstalk and other distortions, while higher sample rates have the same soundstage a 44.1.

he only reason I listen to 24/192 over 16/44.1 in most cases is because the song is often mastered differently, and you can tell when the artist has some fun in making objects move or adding reflections/reverberations in the 24/192 that the 16/44.1 doesn't have. Does that make one better than the other just from that? No each is a different listening experience.
In terms of actual quality of a song that is mastered identically in 24/192 vs 16/44.1, I thought I heard a difference, but I am nearly 100% sure I couldn't tell in blind testing, and it was a phycological thing.

Unfortunately, your first assertion can often be true, because your second assertion is always true! In controlled double blind tests, no one has been able to distinguish 16/44.1 downsampled from a higher resolution master ("controlled" in this context means certain conditions, such as reasonable listening levels, typical filters, etc.). Of course, that's a very inconvenient fact if you want to charge more money for a 24/192 version than the 44.1kHz version. So it's not uncommon for record labels or distributors to change the 44.1kHz version enough so that there is an audible difference.

Incidentally, this "change" is usually just additional audio compression, rather than a change made to the reverberation or positioning, the latter isn't really practical to try and change during mastering as it's already been baked into the mix. However, as additional audio compression can change the freq response and the relative balance between the reverb and the direct signal, it can affect the perception of reverb and/or positioning.

G

 

[audiokangaroo]

Gregorio, it looks like that you are considering audio phenomenons only through measurements and not through actual audition.
You said for instance that tape has worst soundstage than 44.1 because it has worst crosstalk results. However, thruth is that tape has better sound stage
than 44.1 in spite of having worst crosstalk. Listen carefully and you will hear it. In fact soundstage does not only depend on crosstalk but also on the way that the original
waveform is reproduced. This is the reason why frequency response is more important than crosstalk as far as sound stage reproduction is concerned.

 

[sander99]

Gregorio, it looks like that you are considering audio phenomenons only through measurements and not through actual audition.

In controlled double blind tests, no one has been able to distinguish 16/44.1 downsampled from a higher resolution master

I for example, have done myself or been involved with numerous ABX tests and read about and/or discussed with other pro engineers numerous other unpublished ABX tests.

...
...
...
...
...

 

[bfreedma]

Gregorio, it looks like that you are considering audio phenomenons only through measurements and not through actual audition.
You said for instance that tape has worst soundstage than 44.1 because it has worst crosstalk results. However, thruth is that tape has better sound stage
than 44.1 in spite of having worst crosstalk. Listen carefully and you will hear it. In fact soundstage does not only depend on crosstalk but also on the way that the original
waveform is reproduced. This is the reason why frequency response is more important than crosstalk as far as sound stage reproduction is concerned.

Your ability to repeatedly ignore actual facts while constantly manufacturing “facts” that don’t exist outside of your imagination is truly impressive.

Everyone here is wrong. Known science is wrong. Published testing is wrong. But you, who have stated you don’t understand these topics well, are right…

 

[gregorio]

Gregorio, it looks like that you are considering audio phenomenons only through measurements and not through actual audition.

Hang on, YOU are the one that stated "If we measure the frequency response of a tape recorder..."! And, Contrary to your false assertion, I have actually auditioned professional studio tape recorders in professional studios, many times in fact! Have you?

If you haven't, what is it that you're considering? It's not "actual audition" or the measurements, which you're deliberately ignoring, so what's left? Your imagination, marketing or other made up nonsense?

You said for instance that tape has worst soundstage than 44.1 because it has worst crosstalk results. However, thruth is that tape has better sound stage
than 44.1 in spite of having worst crosstalk. Listen carefully and you will hear it. In fact soundstage does not only depend on crosstalk but also on the way that the original
waveform is reproduced. This is the reason why frequency response is more important than crosstalk as far as sound stage reproduction is concerned.

I have listened very critically (to pro studio tape recorders and digital recorders) and heard the opposite, better sound stage with digital 44.1kHz. And, if frequency response is more important than crosstalk, then as the measurements prove, an extremely cheap 1990's built-in ADC has far more accurate frequency response then even the best studio tape recorders costing thousands of times more!

Again, how have you arrived at your "truth" (which is false)? What actual auditions have you done with studio tape recorders and/or what measurements?

G

 

[Davesrose]

Gregorio, it looks like that you are considering audio phenomenons only through measurements and not through actual audition.
You said for instance that tape has worst soundstage than 44.1 because it has worst crosstalk results. However, thruth is that tape has better sound stage
than 44.1 in spite of having worst crosstalk. Listen carefully and you will hear it. In fact soundstage does not only depend on crosstalk but also on the way that the original
waveform is reproduced. This is the reason why frequency response is more important than crosstalk as far as sound stage reproduction is concerned.

I'm not following this logic. 44.1 has better frequency response measurements and tape has more crosstalk. If you state frequency response is more important than crosstalk for soundstage reproduction, then how is it tape is better? It seems you have your preference for whatever analog setup vs whatever digital system you listen to (and then are filtering what data you'll accept vs considering changing your opinion if such data goes against your reasoning). I think the simple explanation is that digital is better at accurate reproduction (completely flat frequency response within all auditory ranges): and analog will always have some distortions. You prefer these distortions (people can prefer vinyl or tubes due to certain frequencies being rolled off).

 

[castleofargh]

@audiokangaroo is out of this thread for a week. I think we all deserve a break.