Latest Thread Images

Electronic Music Exchange (House, DnB, Dubstep, etc.)
Oct 29, 2013 at 12:46 PM Post #5,131 of 6,987
starfly said:
24-bit is highly overrated. It's the sample rate that matters and I saw that on HD tracks the sample rate is only 44.1 KHz, the same as CD quality. Now if it were 96 KHz, it would be worth it :)
Click to expand...

Yeah, it being 44.1 khz really defeats the purpose of the added bit-depth, but bit-depth is definitely important. It's where the actual added detail is. It just doesn't make a difference in this case because it's only sampled at CD quality :p still sounds pretty good to me though.
 
Oct 29, 2013 at 1:05 PM Post #5,132 of 6,987
wes008 said:
  Yeah, it being 44.1 khz really defeats the purpose of the added bit-depth, but bit-depth is definitely important. It's where the actual added detail is. It just doesn't make a difference in this case because it's only sampled at CD quality :p still sounds pretty good to me though.
Click to expand...

I will disagree on you with that RE: the added detail being in the bit depth. It's in the sample rate :) There is actually no real audible difference between 16-bit and 24-bit recordings at the same sample rate, it's just a myth. It's the sample rate that matters.
 
Analog sound is a wave. The digitized version tries to approach that as closely as possible. A CD has 44,100 samples per second that try to produce the sound of that perfect wave. So go to 88.2 KHz and you have 88,200 samples trying to produce the sound of that perfect wave. And the more samples per second (the sample rate), the closer it will sound to that perfect wave. So basically, a higher sample rate is a higher resolution.
 
The bit-rate (16-bit vs. 24-bit) has nothing to do with added detail in the music. It's only necessary for increased dynamic range, but since most music is recorded at a max of maybe 15dB of dynamic range (and going from 16-bit to 24-bit adds about 48dB of dynamic range), you will hear no difference. All it does it take up more disk space :)
 
This article explains it in more detail: http://www.head-fi.org/t/415361/24bit-vs-16bit-the-myth-exploded
 
In short: the higher the sample rate, the better. But a higher bit-rate than 16-bit makes practically no difference.
 
Oct 29, 2013 at 2:03 PM Post #5,133 of 6,987
starfly said:
  I will disagree on you with that RE: the added detail being in the bit depth. It's in the sample rate :) There is actually no real audible difference between 16-bit and 24-bit recordings at the same sample rate, it's just a myth. It's the sample rate that matters.
 
Analog sound is a wave. The digitized version tries to approach that as closely as possible. A CD has 44,100 samples per second that try to produce the sound of that perfect wave. So go to 88.2 KHz and you have 88,200 samples trying to produce the sound of that perfect wave. And the more samples per second (the sample rate), the closer it will sound to that perfect wave. So basically, a higher sample rate is a higher resolution.
 
The bit-rate (16-bit vs. 24-bit) has nothing to do with added detail in the music. It's only necessary for increased dynamic range, but since most music is recorded at a max of maybe 15dB of dynamic range (and going from 16-bit to 24-bit adds about 48dB of dynamic range), you will hear no difference. All it does it take up more disk space :)
 
This article explains it in more detail: http://www.head-fi.org/t/415361/24bit-vs-16bit-the-myth-exploded
 
In short: the higher the sample rate, the better. But a higher bit-rate than 16-bit makes practically no difference.
Click to expand...

Should have known that you read that thread
biggrin.gif
 I have too. Where that article holds no water is that the sample rate determines how fast the bits are sampled. To add to your analogy that sample rate is like resolution, bit-depth is the quality of the media being played. (44.1 could be a DVD, 88.2/96/192 could be a Bluray). You can play a DVD on a large 1080p display, but it's not using the display to it's full advantage, because a DVD can only look so good.  So the bit-depth and the sample rate go hand-in-hand. Yes the file sizes are bigger; that's all the more dynamic room for sound 
smily_headphones1.gif
 whether it's taken advantage of is up to the music. But yes, a 44.1khz sample of a 24-bit recording won't sound too much better than CD quality (although I find it to be a tad better).
 
Oct 29, 2013 at 3:24 PM Post #5,134 of 6,987
On this bit depth-sampling frequency discussion, it is a widely discussed and debated topic. Here is mastering engineer Ian Shepherd's take: http://productionadvice.co.uk/no-stair-steps-in-digital-audio/
 
It might prove to be an interesting read if you have not already read extensively about the subject and in much more technical terms. I often don't agree completely with Ian's views, but I have a lot of respect for the man all the same. There are other articles I could have linked but those are even longer and much more technical, not to mention clearly biased in my opinion despite trying to clearly stay neutral in their presentation. My personal advice would be to though simply trust your ears and forget what anyone else tells you or what your presumptions are. Don't simply assume that bigger numbers automatically means better or that it is completely out of the question that it could even make things sound worse.
 
To throw my two cents in regarding digital audio, my current stance is that 24/48 does sound better than 16/44.1 based on my experience over the roughly ten years that I have been an audiophile now. Whether the jump from 16-bit to 24-bit actually does anything significant there I can't comment on, but it certainly doesn't hurt. I have no firm opinion on 88.2 or 96kHz sampling rates since I have hardly heard any such material. I would never pay for 192kHz files, though. Please don't ask why because the explanation is simply too long and technical for me to feel it worth my time to devote my time on in an electronic music thread on an online forum. One of the reasons is intermodulation distortion, but there are others. One link where you can read about the potential of intermodulation distortion is here, again written by Mr. Shepherd: http://productionadvice.co.uk/high-sample-rates-make-your-music-sound-worse/
There are better articles I've read on matters related to sampling frequencies, but sadly I have not saved those anywhere after reading the. Sorry.
 
Personally I have very limited interest in linear PCM audio in general. After upgrading to my current speakers I've for the first time found CD to be a more limited format in terms of absolute sound quality than I had previously thought. I also don't believe high resolution PCM audio offers enough to be worth bothering with honestly. On the other hand SACDs, or more accurately DSD audio is in my personal experience and opinion a clear improvement over PCM if done pure DSD without ever converting to PCM at any point. MUCH MORE important than the final listening format is the engineering and production however. Listen to Gangnam Style here both in 16- and 8-bit resolution and tell me how big you find the difference: http://www.audiocheck.net/blindtests_16vs8bit.php
Not that that is the pinnacle of audio finesse by any stretch of the imagination... Reproducing a more musically dynamic piece would offer much more of a challenge for mere 8 bits.
 
As one final note, my current format of choice is vinyl when done well, preferably all-analog if possible, although I've heard electronic music sound phenomenal on it as well even if not made using analog gear and recorded on tape. I only got my first turntable a couple months ago but none of the 3k+ CDs I currently own or even any of the audiophile SACDs I'd say manage to sound as good as the cream of my current LP collection of just over a hundred records. People may talk all they want about vinyl being technically inferior to CD, but I believe my ears over everything else. And just to mention, I have studied electrical engineering at university so the technical aspects of audio reproduction are not totally foreign to me. Art trump science, say I as an engineer. Technology is just a means to an end, not the end itself. Also the music itself is several degrees more important than sonics. Always. That should be self-evident, but it's something that is worth mentioning from time to time so none of us forget what it's all really about in the end.
 
End of rant.
 
To actually contribute music-wise to the thread, here's a track I just discovered through the Tokyo Bliss podcast no. 28.
 

 
Also there's this too...
 

 
Edit
M|O|O|N also released a new free song on Bandcamp yesterday. Enjoy.
 

M|O|O|N - Quixotic
http://music.musicofthemoon.com/album/quixotic
 
Oct 30, 2013 at 9:58 AM Post #5,136 of 6,987
New free album from Mosh.
 

Mosh - Empire
http://iammosh.bandcamp.com/album/empire
 
Oct 30, 2013 at 1:02 PM Post #5,138 of 6,987
I already shared a remix of this earlier, but here's the absolutely brilliant original. This is exactly the kind of music I wish people were making more of.
 

 
Oct 31, 2013 at 8:49 AM Post #5,140 of 6,987
Progressive electronic "fakebit" that "is the result of a fascination with the sound and aesthetic of 80s electronic music and science fiction, combined with a healthy love of chipmusic and old video game sounds."
 

Monomer - Quite Operational
https://monomer.bandcamp.com/album/quite-operational
 
 
This EP is INCREDIBLE!
 

Nekochan - Bloodyful
https://fuselab.bandcamp.com/album/bloodyful
 
Nov 4, 2013 at 2:59 PM Post #5,142 of 6,987

 
Sublime.
 
Nov 8, 2013 at 1:45 AM Post #5,145 of 6,987
I just saw datsik, funtcase, protohype, and the Frim live, and it was mental. Never had so much fun, but now I really wish I wore my earplugs..

I still haven't got around to listening to the new rogue ep, but I love his music.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 6 (members: 0, guests: 6)
Back
Top