[RRod]

@amirm Would you agree that where you set your pot matters for all this? For example, I have been able to ABX 16 vs 14 bits *without* shaped dither using open cans in a quiet bedroom on orchestral material. But if I try the same thing with a metal track, I won't be able to do it, because where I put my pot for the metal track can be > 20dB lower! Now, if I had a room that was 15dBA instead of 35 dBA, maybe I'd have a shot. Add in noise-shaped dither, and what chance do I have? Truncation errors in fade-outs aren't some mysterious thing: turn up the volume enough and you'll hear them. The question is whether that volume is a listening volume or not, and that depends on the material.

 

[bigshot]

It is really easy to detect the difference between 16 bit and 24 bit. All you do is clip a tiny bit of the fade out just before it goes into silence and turn the volume up real loud. Am I right, amirm?

 

[Cutestudio]

1. You can't put a figure on it but typically, in the case of popular music, it would be way, way more than 6dB. Madonna's original mix would have had way more than 6dB of compression to start with, even before the original mastering, let alone after the remastering. And no, there's no way to know how much compression has been applied without access to the original recorded, unprocessed tracks. Audiophiles have got to get away from the notion that compression and distortion are bad things, on the contrary, they are essential and have been for 50 years or so. Do you really want all the guitar solos in rock and pop music to sound like a virtually inaudible series of very short duration twangs, because that's what an electric guitar sounds like without compression and distortion? And what about all the other elements/instruments in the mix? Without compression and distortion the popular/rock music you listen to would not sound anything like pop or rock music, so please stop with the "we've lost the MSB" because we've lost a whole lot more than the MSB and gained a far greater amount from that loss!!

Your literal interpretation of 6dB is rather sad as you have entirely missed the point being made by a person who looks at them almost daily. Well recorded pop music tends to have a dynamic range of around 16dB and no clipping and no visible (rough) flat tops, poorly mastered and remastered pop music tends to have a dynamic range of < 10dB and clipping or visible (rough) flat tops. The difference between good and bad is around 6dB and can be seen by comparing a remaster to an original well mastered track, something you have clearly failed to a) take on board or b) look at for yourself. The difference is about 6dB, and consists of all of the peaks being cut off, which is equivalent of omitting the MSB from the digital word. You probably wouldn't know this because instead of looking you're here busy disagreeing with people. Go take a look: learn something.

No one expects the full dynamic range of a snare drum to be reproduced in their living room so lets stick to the reality of recorded music instead of claiming that somehow I said all compression was bad. I didn't. No one did. EXCESSIVE COMPRESSION IS BAD BECAUSE THE MUSIC JUST SHOUTS AND IS WEARING TO LISTEN TO BECAUSE EVERYTHING IS ALWAYS TOO LOUD. Do you understand?

2. Nope, even the OP discussed this. The number of quantisation values doubles for each bit of data: 16bit = 65,536 values, 17bit would therefore = 131,072 and 24bit = 16,777,216. So the difference between 16 and 24bit is obviously not 256 potential values but 16,711,280!

Skim reading my posts as you decide the best way to argue against them causes this very type of reading comprehension mistake - as self appointed arbiter of truth do you really think me, a programmer of over 30 years doesn't know the difference between the max values of a 16 and 24 bit word? Seriously? READ the post, I clearly state that below the LSB there is 256 extra values, because each step of a 16bit word is represented by 256 steps in 24 bit, because - duh - it's 8 bits longer. To scale a 16bit word to a 24 bit word one multiplies by 256 (or shifts right by 8 bits) which means the very last bit - bit0 - the LSB, now has a value of 256, giving it 256 potential values. Exactly as I said.
[/quote]

3. Again, no! You've made a good argument for a processing environment to be greater than 16 bits but not the distributed audio files themselves. This is why today's pro mixing/processing environments are typically 64bit float and even going back around 20 years they were 32bit float or 48bit fixed.
G

Your obsession with disagreeing s curious, what's up with that? I was not discussing studio mixing here, or even distribution in 24bit: did you actually read any of my post properly? You are failing to have a discussion here, you are merely imposing your erroneous preconceptions onto the thread, having the biggest ego is one thing, the desperation of showing it is another.

 

[castleofargh]

It isn't even an issue with dynamic recorded music. The most dynamic recorded music doesn't exceed a dynamic range of 50dB or so, and music is usually normalized to a few dB of the zero line. With redbook, that leaves a whole lot of room to play "hide the noise floor". I've done a lot of mixes where we worked at 24 bit and then bounced down to 16 at the end. We carefully compared the 24 bit mix to the 16 bit bounce down each and every time. Never a difference. That's on studio equipment with a room full of critical ears doing the checking. 16 bits is totally sufficient to cover the dynamics in any recorded music.



And we're in a forum to discuss how science can help improve the perceived quality of sound in recorded music. Arguing for extremes like this belongs in a forum for research scientists or perhaps studio engineers, not for home stereo enthusiasts. Demanding that a DAP have a noise floor that far down is no different than demanding that Dark Side of the Moon requires 24/192 for distribution and that frequencies above 20kHz are worth going to the mat for. That kind of obsessive pursuit of the unhearable is patently absurd.

Cutestudio, compression is a recording tool, just like EQ, reverb and levels. It isn't good or bad unto itself. It's all about how it's applied. You wouldn't like the sound of Madonna's song if absolutely no compression was applied. You'd struggle to understand the words and the subtler sound of the instruments would be plowed under. Also, I don't know what you mean by missing "top bit". Dynamic range in digital audio extends downward, not upward like burning in on analogue tape. The difference between 16 bit and 24 bit is in the quietest parts, not the loud ones. The part of the dynamic range that 16 and 24 share at the top are identical. Did you have a chance to read the article in my sig called CD Sound Is All You Need yet?

we're on a forum where anybody can start a discussion about anything he likes(within TOS). you and I are on the more practical end of the spectrum, some are very passionate about the most that can be achieved, and some are even interested in theoretical science. the place is big enough to accommodate everybody.

Let me state my position without the back and forth as to make it more clear.

It is important in the context of audio "science" that we are true and correct to what that is. Paper after paper from luminaries in audio show that 16 bits is insufficient dynamic range (without noise shaping) to be transparent to listeners. There is also research that shows high resolution content resampled to 44.1 Khz can have audible consequences. If you are going to jump up and down and say this isn't so, please don't bother unless you have research you can put forward to the contrary. Or controlled listening tests you have performed. Otherwise, it really is useless to give me anecdotal information about what you think or hear. That is not material.

It is also true that vast majority of people and this includes audiophiles will have a heck of time telling the difference between high resolution content and CD rate. We as listeners simply don't know what these effects are and much of what we say we hear in sighted listening is not because of what we hear, but what we think we hear. Given this, why do I insist on the first paragraph above? Simple: if as objectivists we wear the cloth of science, science should not be the first thing we sacrifice to promote our message. We need to be truthful and knowledgeable about what the science says in this regard.

In my past career, I have done a ton of controlled testing and found the above to be very true. But what was also true was that I and the rest of trained listeners in my group and elsewhere in the industry could readily hear and identify artifacts that vast majority of people could not. Unless you have been exposed to this class of people (and a few gifted individuals who have these abilities without training), you can't generalize to what "people can hear."

Heck, I can teach you to hear some of the things you say are impossible to hear! I suggest not going there though as it is not good to learn to hear small differences.

So in summary, pull back a bit from extremism here. Our case doesn't hold when we go there.

Finally, all of this talk is immaterial anyway. CD as a format has had its useful life and there is no reason for us to continue to melt plastic to make it. We can deliver content online without such a constraint and vast majority of our devices already knows how to play high-res. To that end, I like to get my hands to stereo mixes prior to CD mastering. Whatever that sample rate is, I want it! If I want it at 16/44.1, I can convert it myself or download that version which usually is available anyway. I don't want my content to have been subjected to loudness compression which sadly comes with mastering the CD. By constantly defending the CD as a format, we work against this ideal. That is not right in my book.

if I need training to notice something, then was it audible for me before the training? I can't do a backflip so I find it false to claim that I can. but of course if I trained, I could surely do one in a matter of days. still it's a little silly to assume I can do it before I can.
audibility is the same. just because once you bring up the most extravagant conditions including training, something becomes noticeable, doesn't mean we have to agree that it is noticeable anytime we're outside of your conditions. which is pretty much always for a dude just enjoying a song.

 

[amirm]

I cannot disagree with bigshot's assertion on this point, there is not the science to contradict it and it's in line with my professional experience and those with whom I've worked for more than two decades.

I am sorry but I don't know how any of this translates to a precise measurement of dynamic range of music we all have. If it is a measurement, then you or he should be able to explain how you arrived at it. Since I know there is no tool to make such a measurement, I hope you appreciate my skepticism on that.

The way we all can easily determine if our music has 50 db or less of dynamic range is to convert it to 8 bits. 8 bits gives us 8*6+1.76 = 50 db of dynamic range.

I took a random high-res track from my library, the "Broadway" track from David Chesky's Jazz in the Harmonic album, which is in 32 bit format at 192 Khz. I kept the sampling rate the same but converted the bit depth to 8 bits using TPDF dither. I then did a double blind ABX test of the two using my laptop default headphone output and my Etymotic ER4S IEMs. Here are the results:

foo_abx 1.3.4 report
foobar2000 v1.3.2
2017/11/16 11:27:05

File A: C:\Users\Amir\Documents\Test Music\Chesky 8 bit Test\Original 192 32 bit file.wav
File B: C:\Users\Amir\Documents\Test Music\Chesky 8 bit Test\Converted 192 8 bit file wit TPDF dither.wav

11:27:05 : Test started.
11:27:19 : 01/01 50.0%
11:27:27 : 02/02 25.0%
11:27:34 : 03/03 12.5%
11:27:40 : 04/04 6.3%
11:27:45 : 05/05 3.1%
11:27:50 : 06/06 1.6%
11:27:54 : 07/07 0.8%
11:28:00 : 08/08 0.4%
11:28:05 : 09/09 0.2%
11:28:12 : 10/10 0.1%
11:28:17 : 11/11 0.0%
11:30:39 : Test finished.

----------
Total: 11/11 (0.0%)

As you see, not only did I get 11 out of 11 answers right, but I did so at lightning speed. There is only 4-5 seconds for each trial which includes listening and voting to go to the next trial. In other words, it is 100% and clearly audible increase in noise floor.

Did you ever perform such a test and failed to hear such a drastic difference? This is so easy to tell that everyone here should be able to hear it.

So no, I don't think Bigshot is right. He has done no verification of what he is saying, nor is his data based on any kind of research. It is just based on simplistic assumptions that may feel right, but are just incorrect.

 

[bigshot]

If simplistic is a synonym for practical experience, I’ll agree

 

[amirm]

If simplistic is a synonym for practical experience, I’ll agree

No, it means lay assumptions that are incorrect as a matter of audio science and research -- both medical and enjoyment fields.

 

[amirm]

if I need training to notice something, then was it audible for me before the training? I

I don't know if you do or do not need training. I don't know that you know if you do or do not either. I have had people with no training beat me and beat me good in hearing audio impairments. When I write something in forums I have to include the possibility of such people being readers of what I say. I can't just exclude them and worse yet, say audio science says they don't exist.

And let's put all of this in context. Who on earth are we protecting here? Almost all of us have the capability to play at > 16 bits /44.1 Khz. There is no royalty or any cost associated with playing high resolution content. So what is the purpose here? A cause célèbre to make a name for ourselves on forums while we sacrifice what we know in research?

 

[bigshot]

Compression in pop music is one part stylistic and one part practical. The attitude of “play it loud” is a big part of a lot of pop music, particularly hip hop. Pop music is designed to be played on kids’ phones on trains and busses.

Other types of music have different styles of recording and practical compromises. Classical music is the opposite side of the spectrum, and it can have as much as a 50dB range.

No one disagrees that hot mastering is an overreaction. There’s no excuse for clipping. But compression is often a creative choice. Compression is not necessarily the same thing as loudness wars.

 

[Cutestudio]

Loudness war is a commercial thing. People with more sophisticated music taste buy more music which does not suffer from it.

Amazing. I have no words. Is this really a HiFi forum?

We defend 16 bit digital audio in this thread.

No we don't, some of us are acutely aware of its limitations.
Additionally the defence of 16bit is irrational and has no purpose. Digital has moved on. Welcome to 2017.

 

[bigshot]

I train myself to understand and appreciate a wide range of music. That’s like learning a language. The more you hear and process, the deeper your understanding and more fluent you become. Training your ears instead of your brain just involves turning up the volume at the right spot. It may help you detect things, just like using a magnify glass does. But it doesn’t improve your understanding of music at all. It’s a mechanical exercise, not an intellectual one.

 

[Cutestudio]

Compression in pop music is one part stylistic and one part practical. .

If that was true then the remasters would not lose 6dB of dynamic range over the originals.
But they do.

So your statement has no bearing. You appear to be blissfully unaware of what the Loudness War actually is in practical terms on a digital waveform level. That's fine, not many people are, but please stop pretending that you do. Amirm and one or two others have got it, but there seems to be a camp fighting a corner based on a similar method to one employed by the Ostrich.

 

[bigshot]

No, it means lay assumptions that are incorrect as a matter of audio science and research -- both medical and enjoyment fields.

Post some charts and diagrams related to enjoyment. That is actually my profession- to entertain. I’m sure you have some fascinating insights into that!

 

[bigshot]

If that was true then the remasters would not lose 6dB of dynamic range over the originals.
But they do.

I’d be happy to explain that to you. When a record is mixed, the balances are judged in a best case scenario- on the calibrated monitors of a professional recording studio. In the early days of CDs, mastering for the limitations of LPs was no longer necessary. And the people who owned CD players were mostly people with nice stereos. The market for CDs in the 80s skewed older and more affluent than the market for digital music today. Mastering engineers today are working to get around the limitations of the equipment their customers use. Ear buds and cell phones require a different sort of mastering than high end stereos do. CD sales are plummeting. Streaming is where the market is. Mobile is where they’re listening. That means more compression is desirable. It may not suit your purposes as well, but audiophiles are now a niche market. There are specialty retailers for that. This is what I meant by practicality. You serve your demographic.

 

[TheTrace]

Amazing. I have no words. Is this really a HiFi forum?


No we don't, some of us are acutely aware of its limitations.
Additionally the defence of 16bit is irrational and has no purpose. Digital has moved on. Welcome to 2017.

What are those limitations?