[old tech]

Thanks, i was curious to see if that consensus had changed at all since the original post in 2009. Not in regards to the science of file format as its well established, but more so with the hardware which has evolved. Unsure if hardware responded differently to different file resolution.
You've put my mind at ease, i'll go back to not worrying about these things.

Evolution of electrical hardware will not change the specifications of 16/44, 24/96. What does need to evolve to hear the difference between these formats are our ears and brains. Perhaps one day in the future with genetic engineering and hearing hardware implants we may get to a point where musicians can write and play 24 bit music, mixing and mastering engineers can hear and work with music beyond 98db and a frequency response beyond 20 khz and consumers will be able to listen to it.
Perhaps check back in this thread in 50 years time, rather than 10.

 

[bigshot]

Amps and players have been audibly transparent for some time. The only thing that might have improved is transducers, but those are still so far behind the electronics, it's really doubtful that you could hear the difference even with excellent headphones.

 

[gregorio]

[1] To my shock and annoyance. I can pick it up pretty consistently,
[2] 24bit had more dimension to the sound stage while 16 bit was thinner. ... But to me 24/96 sound fuller and smoother than 16/44.1 definitely. ... im hearing more depth, definitely
[3] I'm just shocked and annoyed that i believe i can hear a difference, since its against my best interest.

1. Can you really though? As others have said, you need a controlled blind/double blind test because it's trivially easy to differentiate if you know in advance which is which. I cover this more in #3 below.

2. As castleofargh stated, what you describe here is NOT what is actually happening (as explained in the OP); 24bit doesn't have more dimension to the sound stage, is not fuller, smoother or have more depth. The ONLY difference is that 16bit has a tiny bit of extra noise, which you won't be able to hear unless you listen at a playback level well above comfortable/reasonable and even then, only under certain circumstances.

3. This really is the heart of the matter and indeed, at the heart of more than a fair bit of what goes on in the audiophile world. On the one hand: Generally no one wants to admit they've been fooled, are imagining things or are not hearing accurately (especially as critical listening is a requisite for audiophiles) and in addition, the belief in what one hears/senses is strong, for example the old cliche that "seeing is believing", despite countless examples of optical illusions and that everyone is aware images can be and routinely are manipulated. For many audiophiles both of these add up to an unassailable belief in what they are hearing and being unassailable, anything/everything which disputes this belief must therefore be wrong; demonstrated facts, proven science, blind testing, objective measurements, everything, it doesn't matter! On the other hand though: Being fooled and imagining things or more precisely, what we think/believe we're hearing being changed/affected by biases (and therefore being inaccurate) is not only NOT a bad thing, it's actually vital! For 500 years or so, virtually all western music has been based on bias, namely the manipulation of expectation bias, the expected continuity of rhythms, the expectation of chord and melodic progressions and the resolution of dissonance. Without expectation bias affecting what we think we're hearing, it would be impossible to appreciate western music, it would all just sound like semi-random noise with absolutely no meaning or emotional impact. In other words, without bias affected hearing, music doesn't exist!

Thanks, i was curious to see if that consensus had changed at all since the original post in 2009. Not in regards to the science of file format as its well established, but more so with the hardware which has evolved. Unsure if hardware responded differently to different file resolution.

The hardware has evolved; in general (as with just about all modern technology), it's become better/more accurate or cheaper, or both. There's generally fewer incompetent digital audio devices, audibly transparent/perfect digital reproduction is even cheaper, the specifications of expensive devices have improved (though not audibly) and the issue of some devices operating better at higher sample rates, which was occasionally the case 10-15 years ago (to save money or through incompetence), is far less common today. What you believe you're hearing (a difference between 16/44 and 24/96) is possible, for example due to some seriously dodgy conversion software but that was relative unlikely even 10-15 years ago. So unless you're using conversion software that's ancient (and one of the dodgy ancient ones) and/or have made a serious error in the conversion settings, we can pretty much rule this out as a possibility.

G

 

[ChrisIsAwesome]

Thanks for taking the time everyone, you've put my mind at ease.

 

[tmb821]

I’m relatively new to the hifi world. At least in the headphone world. I have been on a quest to make music enjoyable. See, I have a pretty serious hearing impairment. So what most people hear, I just simply can’t. One of the biggest change I hear was going from a standard format to a 16bit/44.1khz format. It brought more clarity to the music. In all honesty I can’t tell a difference between the 16bit and 24bit formats that come up. But, maybe that’s because I can’t hear anyway.
Then there is the fact that I apply a eq to all music I listen to. My eq looks like a upside down v. But, at least I can hear the mid ranges now. I just wanted to say all this to say thanks for all the info in this thread, very helpful to a deaf guy like me. I say let all the people who say they can hear a difference in the bitrate have their higher bitrate.
And as far as car audio, it is possible to have very high quality sound, you just have to paaaaaay for it. Upwards of $30k is not unusual. I know, I did it in my younger years. It takes a lot of equipment and time and work, but the results are tremendous, at least to me.
Again, thanks for all the info.

 

[chennaxin95]

Coming from computer vision side this is a great write up. I often mentally compare audiophile stuff with camera and displays, and the bit depth can be seen as how many colors your image sensor could capture.

 

[Sonic Defender]

It makes me sad inside when I read comments from ardent 24bit fans who simply refuse to use proper testing saying such maddeningly things as "I trust my ears, that is good enough" as if that somehow constitutes evidence anymore than when your parents told you the tooth fairy was real constituted evidence of winged tooth bandits with spare change. I weep inside.

 

[Davesrose]

Coming from computer vision side this is a great write up. I often mentally compare audiophile stuff with camera and displays, and the bit depth can be seen as how many colors your image sensor could capture.

As someone with a professional background in computer graphics, I don't see it as such a close analogy. As so many pages past highlight, audio bit depth can cover any type of resolution or dynamic range, and don't need improvements. Since the beginning of digital imaging, digital cameras could capture a palette reaching millions of colors (3 channel 8bit per channel gives you 16 million colors). However, they're really lacking when it comes to realistic light modeling as well as the limits of human vision: which requires a higher dynamic range. Image sensors are in component color space: which places emphasis in dynamic range....14-16bit per channel space are the common exposure for base ISO (16bpc=65,536 shades of tone). The extreme HDR formats are 32bit per channel (4.29 billion tones)....who knows if digital cameras will ever be able to record that kind of space in one exposure, but it's been usable for its application for quite a number of years.

 

[chennaxin95]

As someone with a professional background in computer graphics, I don't see it as such a close analogy. As so many pages past highlight, audio bit depth can cover any type of resolution or dynamic range, and don't need improvements. Since the beginning of digital imaging, digital cameras could capture a palette reaching millions of colors (3 channel 8bit per channel gives you 16 million colors). However, they're really lacking when it comes to realistic light modeling as well as the limits of human vision: which requires a higher dynamic range. Image sensors are in component color space: which places emphasis in dynamic range....14-16bit per channel space are the common exposure for base ISO (16bpc=65,536 shades of tone). The extreme HDR formats are 32bit per channel (4.29 billion tones)....who knows if digital cameras will ever be able to record that kind of space in one exposure, but it's been usable for its application for quite a number of years.

Hopefully it won’t take forever. Currently good camera can do 15-16 stops, while human eye is about 20 stops. The same bit depth argument can go for 8bit vs 10bit color video recordings. You probably don’t need 10bit recordings for watching them but when you start editing those clips the artifacts will show.

 

[TheSonicTruth]

Hopefully it won’t take forever. Currently good camera can do 15-16 stops,
while human eye is about 20 stops. The same bit depth argument can go for
8bit vs 10bit color video recordings. You probably don’t need 10bit recordings for
watching them but when you start editing those clips the artifacts will show.

YES! What audio(and video)-philes must realize is that those higher sampling rates and bit-depths are useful only on the production side. Do everything right there, and the project will translate well at consumer specs.

 

[Davesrose]

Hopefully it won’t take forever. Currently good camera can do 15-16 stops, while human eye is about 20 stops. The same bit depth argument can go for 8bit vs 10bit color video recordings. You probably don’t need 10bit recordings for watching them but when you start editing those clips the artifacts will show.

And some of the best RED cameras will natively record 16bpc RAW. Tonemapping 12bit to 10bit or 8bit is pretty seamless now. I'm amazed by how much I can compress with new formats like h.265 and not see artifacts. Early mastered DVDs, though (with MPEG-2), can show a ton of artifacts on a large sized TV. We'll see how long it takes for TVs to improve contrast range: that's the current limitation. I heard an interview with Dolby when they were coming out with Dolby Vision. They mentioned that they tried using native 12stop/bit displays: which costs thousands of dollars and required special super cooling.

 

[bigshot]

Donald Fagin's "The Nightfly" was recorded and mixed at 16/44.1 and it is one of the best sounding albums ever produced. More data rate won't make it sound any better. It will just make it more flexible for filtering and balance leveling. Just like with photography, if you shoot for the "sweet spot" of your latitude, you can get great results even with limited range.

 

[TheSonicTruth]

Donald Fagin's "The Nightfly" was recorded and mixed at 16/44.1and it is
one of the best sounding albums ever produced. More data rate won't
make it sound any better. It will just make it more flexible for filtering and
balance leveling. Just like with photography, if you shoot for the "sweet spot"
of your latitude, you can get great results even with limited range.

Is that true - that an album back in that era would have been produced at consumer spec?

I have been told, on here by the way, that 24bit/96k sampling was the studio norm going back to the eighties.

 

[bigshot]

Yes, they were working at 16/44.1 in the early 80s if they recorded digitally. I think Dire Straits' Brothers In Arms was 16/44.1 too.

 

[524419]

Amps and players have been audibly transparent for some time. The only thing that might have improved is transducers, but those are still so far behind the electronics, it's really doubtful that you could hear the difference even with excellent headphones.

I can reliably hear the differences between 24/44, 24/96, and 24/192. Not to mention DSD Files.
Dynamics, and noise are pretty consistently what stands out between all these files, less noise on higher quality files, better dynamic range.
I hear the difference so much so, that I can no longer enjoy 16/44 files. They sound muddy and congested.
DSDs sound more analogue, "like I am there" than any other format.