460+ pages on 24 vs 16 bit which can be returned to the original topic at any time if anyone has anything new to add.
Even if it was 4600 pages, a lot of people in the World still believed 24 bit offers better sound quality compared to 16 bit in consumer audio. Myths die hard and this 24 bit 16 bit thing isn't really a myth, but something intuition says when knowledge and understanding doesn't say otherwise.
The way to make more people listen to what you have to say is to hone your messaging, something people who know what they are talking about are often neglecting. How to explain this 16 bit vs 24 bit thing to people effectively? What are our "talking points?"
A --- Resolution is a picture thing, not a sound thing.
B --- Fidelity is a sound thing.
C --- Sampling rate dictates highest possible frequency
(Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem)
D --- Bit depth dictates how low the noise floor is (dynamic range) and nothing else.
E --- Dithering adds noise, but makes digital audio 100 % distortion free!
F --- "Staircases" are just an abstract way to illustrate digital signals.
G --- Reconstruction filters in DACs smooth out the signal.
H --- In band-limited signals the signal can take only one route between sample points.
I --- In any given situation the dynamic range of human hearing is about 70 dB (~12 bits)
J --- Children can hear frequencies up to 20 kHz. Adults less than that.
K --- 44.1 kHz sampling rate is enough for the ears of children let alone adults.
L --- 80 dB (~13 bits) of dynamic range is enough in the most demanding consumer audio.
M --- Shaped dithering can increase perceptual dynamic range as much as 20 dB.
N --- 24 bit offers benefits in audio production for technical and practical reasons.
O --- 16 bit is overkill by about 3 bits in consumer audio.
P --- Sound quality comes mostly from recording, producing, mixing and mastering.
Q --- If 24 bit sounds different from 16 bit, it is different master or/and Placebo effect.
R --- 24 bit is used as snake oil in consumer audio as a business model.
S --- 24 bit truncated to 16 bit sounds exactly the same, even without dither!
I think it is important to make clear the difference of picture resolution and sound fidelity clear. Otherwise people use picture resolution as an intuitive model for assuming greater bit depth will always translate into greater sound quality. Since Blu-ray offers much better picture resolution compared to DVD, surely 24 bit audio must be perceptually superior to 16 bit? Well no! We should not compare picture and sound like that. They are different things. Same digital signal processing principles and methods (such as dithering and filtering) can be utilised in both, but the benefits can't be compared just like that. People should be careful when sound is presented in graphical from, because the way sound "looks" is not always the way it sounds. Huge differences in how signals "look" in graphical representation may result in just small or even inaudible difference in how they sound and vice versa.
Any suggestion as to how to improve this messaging?
