[RRod]

   
We have to be careful here, film sound and music in effect are two very different things, they have very different workflows and distribution chains. We don't apply noise shaped dither in film/TV products, due to considerable amounts of additional processing being required downstream, after the print-master is completed. For this reason distribution is always 24bit or a proprietary lossy compressed format, to avoid any build up of dither, truncation or noise-shaping artefacts. We can't therefore use the same comparison logic as we can with music because there is no 16bit consumer content out there in the film world, let alone a dominant 16bit format in which the application of noise-shaped dither has been standard practise for commercial release for nigh on 20 years.
 
G

 
Right. My comment was aimed at how you'd do a blind comparison of something like TrueHD versus a theoretical version of the same material delivered at 16-bits. It simply doesn't do to compare the multi-channel 24-bit track to the stereo 16-bit track and say "ah HA, 24 bits is better".

Maybe people recite back to you simply because they know better than you? Sorry to burst your bubble but just because we can select "24 bit" or "32 floating point" from a drop-down menu in our DAW during recording and mixing, doesn't mean the actual content uses 144 dB or comes even close to that. People who have been saying to you that "you have never heard music sound like that" are right, since such music doesn't exactly exist ... at least when it comes to commercial recordings and albums.

 
If someone actually made a 24-bit capable system I wouldn't get within a mile of the thing.

 

[NoteEater]

Wow.  It is evidently apparant that many people on this thread have lost quite a bit of their hearing.  Must be, otherwise they could actually hear 24bit.  I am really sorry to hear that you are not able to hear what I hear.  I must be the lucky one.  Maybe I should start being a missionary like my friend Jesus and start curing the deaf as opposed to the blind.   

 

[CraftyClown]

  Wow.  It is evidently apparant that many people on this thread have lost quite a bit of their hearing.  Must be, otherwise they could actually hear 24bit.  I am really sorry to hear that you are not able to hear what I hear.  I must be the lucky one.  Maybe I should start being a missionary like my friend Jesus and start curing the deaf as opposed to the blind.   

 
Wow indeed! Perhaps your friend Jesus blessed your ears?

 

[Cerastes]

   Must be, otherwise they could actually hear 24bit.

 
It has very little to do with our hearing actually.
 
If the music being recorded has less than 120 dB of dynamic range (the limit for 16 bit audio, EDIT: with Dither) then it makes no difference if the 24 bit is being used or if the bit depth is increased from 16 bit to 24 bit - the dynamic range of the recording will remain unchanged. If the music doesn't go over that 120 dB threshold, then it's not a 24 bit recording.
 
Also ironically, if you would actually try to hear the difference between 16 bit and 24 bit music, you would have to blast the music so loud that it would permanently damage your hearing (not even mentioning issues with the ambient noise floor).
 
So it begs the question, are you sure you even understand what bit depth is and what it does?
 

   I must be the lucky one.

 
Based on your recent comments, no ... just ignorant.
 
If you want a simple & quick explanation how the bit depth works, you could check out this video for example.

 

[watchnerd]

  [deleted bunch of irrelevant stuff]
 

 
Nothing you said provides credible refutation of the science.
 
If you're willing to learn, we can point you to several sources to clarify things for you.
 
If you're not willing to learn, why are you here?

 

[dukefx]

Originally Posted by Cerastes /img/forum/go_quote.gif
 
If the music being recorded has less than 120 dB of dynamic range (the limit for 16 bit audio) then it makes no difference if the 24 bit is being used or if the bit depth is increased from 16 bit to 24 bit - the dynamic range of the recording will remain unchanged. If the music doesn't go over that 120 dB threshold, then it's not a 24 bit recording.

96dB actually (6dB/bit), but yes, it's like living in a room that has a much higher (16bit) than required (10-12bit) ceiling and someone is bragging that their ceiling is so much higher (24bit) while having the exact same square meters of space.

 

[NoteEater]

You guys are so wrapped up in any scientific article that refutes 24bit as much as you can as opposed to doing some subjective listening yourself. You should all know by now measurements and graphs do not necessarily equate to what we actually hear.  Have you guys not seen the research done by guys doing measurements that realize their measurements and science does not mean everything. We still have to listen. And not just on headphones.  
 
Everyone's ears are different.  Apparently mine are much different than those here as well.  And I love listening to crystal clear transparent 24bit FLAC files through these wonderful ears of mine at 90-100db.  Sounds AMAZING!!!. Live on 24bit HiRes Audio!!!

 

[U-3C]

You guys are so wrapped up in any scientific article that refutes 24bit as much as you can as opposed to doing some subjective listening yourself. You should all know by now measurements and graphs do not necessarily equate to what we actually hear.  Have you guys not seen the research done by guys doing measurements that realize their measurements and science does not mean everything. We still have to listen. And not just on headphones.  

Everyone's ears are different.  Apparently mine are much different than those here as well.  And I love listening to crystal clear transparent 24bit FLAC files through these wonderful ears of mine at 90-100db.  Sounds AMAZING!!!. Live on 24bit HiRes Audio!!!

I'm pretty sure everyone is here because they love music and they either listen to it every day or even work on it as a profession due to pain. 0.0;

 

[NoteEater]

24bit Audio fills the air differently.  If you don't feel that, sorry you don't.  Many do.  
 
I just don't understand why people have to refute us ignorant people so much.  Why not just let us have our 24bit audio and leave it alone.  You don't have to buy it.  And in fact the cost of your 16bit files will just be less if there is higher bit depth/bit rate for more money. You need competition to bring your prices down.  
 
I understand the statements regarding Dolby Digital/DTS.  The movie industry forever has been doing anything they can to save space on physical media.  If the movie studios can get away with not lossy Dolby Digital but a 16bit uncompressed soundtrack as opposed to a 24bit uncompressed soundtrack, why wouldn't they save the space.  Space is a premium on disc and for a two hour movie, that is a considerable amount of space to use on something that has no sonic benefit. 
 
I use the analogy because many of you are listening to 24bit audio in movies but cannot acknowledge that this was a benefit to movie soundtracks. 
 
I am just tired of this kind of talk ruining it for those that want HiRes Audio.  That is all I am trying to say guys.  Stop ruining it for everyone interested.  Let us wear our Emperors clothes and stop trying to change my mine and many other peasants minds. You have your opinion.  Let us have ours.  
 
24bit audio is a sensory perceived experience, not necessarily an auditory one.  Again, it fills the space differently unachievable on headphones. Sorry but the truth.  Scientifically proven that waveforms at many frequencies cannot fully develop in an a headphone.  You won't get the sensation I get in my room or car.  
 
I get I can't hear above 20khz guys.  I know what sampling frequencies and bit depth refer to.  I have been reading about this stuff for 30 years.  Started spinning my brothers vinyl records when I was 5 years old.  Regardless of all the science I have read, I still know how to do subjective listening and make my own conclusions regardless of the science. 
 
Its so funny how these forums tend to not allow people to have their own opinion, but whenever someone tries to take "your" opinion from you, the world is going to end. 

 

[dukefx]

  You guys are so wrapped up in any scientific article that refutes 24bit as much as you can as opposed to doing some subjective listening yourself. You should all know by now measurements and graphs do not necessarily equate to what we actually hear.  Have you guys not seen the research done by guys doing measurements that realize their measurements and science does not mean everything. We still have to listen. And not just on headphones.  
 
Everyone's ears are different.  Apparently mine are much different than those here as well.  And I love listening to crystal clear transparent 24bit FLAC files through these wonderful ears of mine at 90-100db.  Sounds AMAZING!!!. Live on 24bit HiRes Audio!!!

It seems to us that you are delusional, which is quite common among audiophiles, no offense. Specs (and prices) tend to create a "this has to be better" feeling and most of the time they do. You are fooled by your own brain. This is why gain matched blind testing was invented. Btw. 80+ dB for an extended period can cause hearing loss. A symphonic orchestra is at about 60dB which is loud enough. Add another 10 if you want to party.

 

[NoteEater]

Here is a transcript for Scientific American.  Someone else was doing research too and actually found more than 50% of people that can DBT pick the higher than CD quality file.  Interesting huh? 
 
Published just 6 months ago.  Hmmm...
 
Hi Res is not an auditory experience in that we will not hear frequencies outside our range, however we do get a feeling or sensory perception from it.  So you guys are right to a point with regards to human hearing and I have always known that.  There is more going on here than not being able to hear like a dog.  
 
You want science.  I give you science and a scientist that is changing his listening habits due to his own research. 
 
Maybe we all need to come here for some learning.
 
Jay Z's "Tidal" platform promises listeners CD-quality streaming music, in all its 44.1 kilohertz, 16 bit glory—much better, they say, than compressed files, like mp3s. But why stop there? Neil Young's PonoMusic Store sells music that's even better than CD quality. 
In a YouTube video for the service Young compares mp3 listeners to scuba divers, muddling around the seafloor. "You know you're walking around in the murk and there's big fish down there, that's kind of like listening to an mp3." 
CD listeners are underwater, too. The only way to rise to the top, he says, is to dial up sample rate to over four times that of CD: to 192 kilohertz. "When you make it to 192, you actually break through the surface, and you're breathing air. And the feeling is different, it actually is a visceral relief. You feel good."
But… how good? What researchers, record producers, audiophiles, sound engineers, want to know is: "Is CD, compact disc, enough?" Joshua Reiss (RICE), who leads audio engineering research at Queen Mary University of London. "And the arguments seem to be never-ending."
Reiss took a stab at settling the argument with a meta-analysis—a study of studies—on whether people can really perceive better-than-CD quality sound. He analyzed data from 18 studies, including more than 400 participants and nearly 13,000 listening tests. Overall, listeners picked out the better-than-CD-quality track 52.3 percent of the time. Statistically significant, if not all that impressive.
But when Reiss isolated studies that trained listeners first and gave them a chance to feast their ears on the difference, their odds of picking the higher-quality track climbed to 60 percent. Suggesting there may actually be some perceptible difference... at least enough to convince Reiss to change his listening habits. "Yes I think I actually will, based on this." The analysis is in the Journal of the Audio Engineering Society. [Joshua D. Reiss, A Meta-Analysis of High Resolution Audio Perceptual Evaluation]
Not that it will settle all arguments. "No, no never. But what I think it might do is allow the researchers to move on a little bit from this question and to start looking deeper into the causes of the perception." And for the audiophiles out there? It's no doubt music to their ears.
—Christopher Intagliata

 

[NoteEater]

You guys going to refute this science too?  Or are you open to new research?
 
http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=18296
 
All the research you guys have been discussing was older research.  Playback systems were not even up to par or controlled most likely.  
 
I have read all the same papers you guys have.  I just don't need to recite science to make my points.  This research here is making me love science more and more.

 

[NoteEater]

Want to retract your delusional statement.  I have not started directly attacking any of you.  Not cool guys.  Sorry you must not be a trained listener yourself or you simply just do not know what to listen for otherwise you would feel what I feel. 

 

[CraftyClown]

 

[dukefx]

  You guys going to refute this science too?  Or are you open to new research?
 
http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=18296
 
All the research you guys have been discussing was older research.  Playback systems were not even up to par or controlled most likely.  
 
I have read all the same papers you guys have.  I just don't need to recite science to make my points.  This research here is making me love science more and more.

I think I can speak for all of us when I say we are open for any kind of research done properly. Most of the time the method used is flawed and doesn't account for many things. Having read most of that paper you linked I can sum it up easily: people can't differentiate and are just guessing which pretty much proves our point.