[Pro-Jules]

Quite an excellent write up. I am eager to see the rebuttal.

Decide by using your ears.

My ears prefer 96k 24 bit.

88.2
177
192

also good.

I can hear more depth into the production, more sub bass and high frequency extension too.

As a recording engineer I would always opt to capture the final mix @ 24 bit 96k over 44.1k 16bit

 

[bigshot]

I can hear more depth into the production, more sub bass and high frequency extension too.

(whispering) I hear DEAD PEOPLE!

 

[CoryGillmore]

In this instance, TheSonicTruth is correct and bigshot is wrong. CD for example, has a bit rate of 705,600 bits per sec (per channel), while SACD has a bit rate of 2,800,000 bits per sec (per channel). SACD has a far higher bit rate but a bit depth of only 1bit, while CD has a bit depth of 16bits. So, contrary to bigshot's assertion, higher bit rate does NOT also mean higher bit depth! Same with dynamic range, SACD only has a dynamic range of ~6dB (without noise-shaped dither), while CD has a dynamic range of ~96dB (without noise-shaped dither). So again, SACD has a far higher bit rate than CD but a far lower dynamic range.



1. You seem to think this forum (and it's members) exists for you personally. This is the Sound Science forum which as the name suggests, exists to discuss the science of sound, it's NOT the "Alrainbow learning" forum. In other words, if you really want to learn the facts/science that's good but it's your responsibility to learn, it's not our responsibility to teach you. Therefore, if you want various test files, it's up to YOU to make or find them yourself, it's not up to us to make them for you.

2. Why would it be fun for us as a group? Creating various test files for you, in order to prove something to you that science has already proven and that we already know, would not be fun, it would be boring.

If you are polite and ask questions, then the members here are generally very good at answering those questions. However you've been the exact opposite, you've been very impolite and rather than ask questions you've just make-up some false assertions, which is a perversion of this subforum and therefore even more impolite! With regards to your aiff vs flac comparison, you can easily do an equivalent test yourself: On your computer, simply select your aiff file, right click and copy & paste (or duplicate) it. Play both files and if you can hear a difference between them, either you're imagining a difference where there isn't one or you have a faulty system. A 16 vs 24bit comparison is more involved but again, if you're polite and ask, I or another member here will explain how to create the test files.

G

Can someone point me to where this guy has been impolite? He may be wrong on the topic, but to me everyone else has been a condescending dick to him. I have only seen this guy try to be friendly and laugh off confrontation with light hearted responses only to be met with short snippy replies. Maybe I overlooked some of his replies?

 

[bigshot]

Well for about a year he has been claiming that he can easily tell the difference between 16 bit and 24 bit. Folks have patiently explained to him why that is about as unlikely as the moon being made of green cheese, but he persists in making the claim. When asked for proof, he just goes back to saying he can easily hear the difference again. Around here, we are allowed to ask for proof to verify claims. If someone repeatedly ignores that and just larks around saying things that aren't true, then they are going to be summarily dismissed by the group. That isn't being impolite. This is the internet. You have to expect stuff like that. We just don't have a lot of patience with people who spout nonsense and expect us to nod and smile and let them spread it all over to crap up a thread. We've been down that road too many times.

 

[castleofargh]

Decide by using your ears.

My ears prefer 96k 24 bit.

88.2
177
192

also good.

I can hear more depth into the production, more sub bass and high frequency extension too.

As a recording engineer I would always opt to capture the final mix @ 24 bit 96k over 44.1k 16bit

that's what we all do and suggest to others. the problem starts with what people define as "using their ears". to me it is using my ears as opposed to using my eyes and my preconceptions, so I test by literally trying to find out something with my ears(blind test). but for other people, using their ears means simply focusing on sound a little more in their mind, and assuming that by doing so, their impressions of sound will only relate to sound. except that's not how human brains work. so those people often reach mistaken conclusions about sound. it's even more likely when the differences we try to perceive are near or beyond Just Noticeable Differences. the fewer differences we get from sound, the more likely we are to rely on other senses and preconceptions to draw some fake heuristic conclusions about "sound".

 

[bigshot]

I decide using my feet!

 

[ALRAINBOW]

This, to me, is another nail in your coffin, because it shows that you didn't read the very first post on page one by Gregorio, which shows exactly why what you're saying is wrong. But please don't take that personal - most unknowing audiophiles believe the same thing as you. The point that Gregorio was making was the entire argument of his post, and you completely missed it. But I won't quote what he said, but instead ask you to go back and read the very first post again, hoping that you will learn something.
Or it's also possible that you did read the original post, but then simply didn't understand the central and very clear message. Either option supports why you're saying the things you're saying - either you didn't read it, or you didn't understand it.

But I do actually have a serious question for you:
What, if anything, can make you change your mind about your claim that you can hear a difference between 16 and 24 bit?
Or to be more specific, what, if anything, can make you change your mind about your claim that you actually heard audible differences, and can demonstrate it in a blind test, between those particular 16 and 24 bit files that you claim to have listened to?

And in case anyone was wondering (I assume nobody is), then I won't ask you for a log again, 'cause it's very clear that you don't have one, nor will you ever post one.

How do you have a clue where I read the info. ??? And lastly I cannot be wrong if I simply say it’s my observation. you need a weekend here by me to fix ur thoughts please.

 

[ALRAINBOW]

that's what we all do and suggest to others. the problem starts with what people define as "using their ears". to me it is using my ears as opposed to using my eyes and my preconceptions, so I test by literally trying to find out something with my ears(blind test). but for other people, using their ears means simply focusing on sound a little more in their mind, and assuming that by doing so, their impressions of sound will only relate to sound. except that's not how human brains work. so those people often reach mistaken conclusions about sound. it's even more likely when the differences we try to perceive are near or beyond Just Noticeable Differences. the fewer differences we get from sound, the more likely we are to rely on other senses and preconceptions to draw some fake heuristic conclusions about "sound".

Not flaming but are you claiming you don’t HEAR with ears ? lol

 

[ALRAINBOW]

This, to me, is another nail in your coffin, because it shows that you didn't read the very first post on page one by Gregorio, which shows exactly why what you're saying is wrong. But please don't take that personal - most unknowing audiophiles believe the same thing as you. The point that Gregorio was making was the entire argument of his post, and you completely missed it. But I won't quote what he said, but instead ask you to go back and read the very first post again, hoping that you will learn something.
Or it's also possible that you did read the original post, but then simply didn't understand the central and very clear message. Either option supports why you're saying the things you're saying - either you didn't read it, or you didn't understand it.

But I do actually have a serious question for you:
What, if anything, can make you change your mind about your claim that you can hear a difference between 16 and 24 bit?
Or to be more specific, what, if anything, can make you change your mind about your claim that you actually heard audible differences, and can demonstrate it in a blind test, between those particular 16 and 24 bit files that you claim to have listened to?

And in case anyone was wondering (I assume nobody is), then I won't ask you for a log again, 'cause it's very clear that you don't have one, nor will you ever post one.

Come to my place. I won’t yell or attack you lol. I’m simply saying I can and to add to this plight for you guys I have a few buds who can too. One is a pro who makes music.

 

[ALRAINBOW]

Also, if we send him files, he will most likely look at what file is which and then claim to have heard enormous differences. Alternatively, he might guess and get it right, since there's a 50 % chance anyway. One thing is for sure: He won't do an ABX test of the things he claims to be able to hear.

I won’t cheat guys no need to I pass or fail honestly. If I fail I’ll say I did.

 

[sander99]

Not flaming but are you claiming you don’t HEAR with ears ? lol

Not only with the ears no, hearing involves not just your ears and the actual sound but all your senses and the thoughts and ideas and convictions in your mind as well, that's how our brains work.
Those things can make someone hear "night and day differences" where there are no audible differences at all in the sound itself.
That's why it is possible that so many people believe in so many audio related myths. (And companies of course like to create/enhance/exploit that to increase sales).
And that's why (level matched) blind testing is so important.

Actually this might be the most important question you have asked. If you are not aware of above facts, if you think that what you hear only depends on what sound enters your ears then it must seem like we are all crazy here. Only once you are aware of and understand above facts you can start to understand that your convictions may be wrong.

 

[bigshot]

I cannot be wrong if I simply say it’s my observation..

Yes, it is your observation, and yes it is wrong.

 

[gregorio]

[1] Decide by using your ears. My ears prefer 96k 24 bit. 88.2 177 192 also good. I can hear more depth into the production, more sub bass and high frequency extension too.
[2] As a recording engineer I would always opt to capture the final mix @ 24 bit 96k over 44.1k 16bit

1. As has been discussed earlier in this thread, there are definite advantages of 24bit over 16bit for recording engineers. Namely, the huge dynamic range of 24bit allows much greater headroom (when recording) and therefore a lower mic pre-amp gain setting, which can result in less mic pre-amp noise/distortion. Additionally, many years ago, some non-linear plugins worked audibly better at 88.2 or 96kHz sample rates. However: Firstly, consumers reproducing a completed master obviously don't use mic pre-amps and also obviously don't need any headroom and Secondly, for more than a decade or so, non-linear plugins which can benefit from a higher sample rate, simply upsample internally.

2. Firstly, a recording engineer is not responsible for capturing the final mix, that's the job of the mix engineer, although admittedly, it's common for the recording engineer to also act as the mix engineer. Secondly, it's wise (and standard practice) to reduce the final mix to 24bit, again with significant headroom, for the benefit of the mastering process. Lastly, it's also wise as a music producer, recording, mix or mastering engineer to opt for 24/96 because a client may at some point require a hi-res version (for marketing purposes). Lastly, this thread is not aimed at the music producers and engineers creating music, it's aimed at consumers reproducing completed music masters, where there are no audible benefits of 24bit over 16bit.

If someone is going to call themselves a Recording Engineer (rather than just a Recording Person), surely it's required to have a decent/good understanding of not only recording but also of the underlying engineering?

G

 

[castleofargh]

Not flaming but are you claiming you don’t HEAR with ears ? lol

I'm saying that our impressions of hearing come from a pudding of senses, ideas, memorized patterns, etc. it's trivial to demonstrate that we can influence what listeners think they hear with non audio stimuli. in fact it is trivial to demonstrate that almost anything can influence impressions, beliefs, and even the way we will think. plenty of examples in the book I suggested to you the other day. and that's exactly why controlled testing is so important when trying to determine what we hear as opposed to what we think we hear. on such a topic the difference tends to be dramatic and be the very root of the debate.

 

[bigshot]

I won’t cheat guys no need to I pass or fail honestly. If I fail I’ll say I did.

But what if by saying you aren't lying, you are lying? Or maybe you say you are lying... are you, or are you telling the truth? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liar_paradox

The easiest way to convince people is to do a controlled listening test.