[sonitus mirus]

Have you attempted to null a 16-bit with a 24-bit file where you know you hear a difference to see what audio data might remain? It really is like saying 2+2=5 and not 4, like math and science would dictate; then claiming that nobody cares about addition and no one has actually used real apples to verify if 2 apples + another 2 apples actually equals 5 apples rather than 4. Your justification for the total disregard of facts and logic is personal opinion and strong beliefs.

Either you are not providing the necessary information that is needed to identify where a difference would be created (unintentionally), or the difference isn't real. If there is a difference, it is not simply a 16-to-24 bit conversion. Something in your system or process technique is causing a change. What has been explained is that this is not the expected behavior for a properly working audio system.

 

[bigshot]

Avatar66, I'm afraid that your sentence and paragraph structure and posting style doesn't inspire confidence in the seriousness of what you're saying. I think you're trolling.

 

[castleofargh]

Wow! Nice to see all the enthusiasm around this subject

Still, it's nothing new...

I've been reading this rap for three years. I'm still not convinced.

It's the same with people who say that editing existing songs in a DAW, SHOULDN'T give any quality drop when bouncing.

Still there is a loss in tightness, depth and detail between the original file and the edited file. (I have tried Pro tools, Logic, Audition, Audacity, FL. With different Mac's and PCs. With and without ext. Sound Cards. Even in a Pro studio!!). I've been experimenting with this for 6 years!!!

Kind of tired of the "you can't hear it"-crap.

No one gives a damn to even try for themselves. ("No your wrong, I haven't tried, but it shouldn't, so I don't know... but you are wrong!").

No one cares for Good SQ in Electro, EDM, Glitch Hop music... where I see a great win in it.

I'm before my time!

Hope you don't get to offended of this.
It's just my opinion and my strong belief, that 16/44 sound gets tighter on straight 16/44 playback.

Let time tell right

Thanks for your time and detailed explanations.

Good luck.

to be ahead of your time on digital audio would really be amazing. but I wonder how you can spend 6 years on this without actually getting to the bottom of it? does your experimenting involved really as little measurement as possible? and as little blind testing as possible to confirm that you aren't hearing a difference with your eyes? am I warm here?

if you have files you know to sound different, share a sample of each and explain how you made it and what you used, so people can check them. although turning a 16bit file into a 24bit file is not rocket science and it would be bad luck if you succeeded in having the same sort of setting mistake on all DAWs and unknowingly so. so I wouldn't bet on the files being anything out of the ordinary.
if you're convinced that the files don't actually show a difference but that your playback system handles 16bit in a different way compared to the same file set to 24bit, then you would record the output of signal. ideally starting with the output of the DAC, or even in a digital loop that doesn't leave the computer. so you can check where a significant change is occurring. plus you can abx the files once you put them all to the same 24bit so the change is in the recording and not in how you play different bit depth again. plus you could provide the recorded files for everybody here to try if they're interested. that would be evidence. evidence of an issue somewhere, in your gears in the way you do things, IDK? but evidence still. and also with abx you demonstrate that it's really a difference in sound and not just a mental bias you have when you know which bit depth is playing.
now even if you're not obsessed about this and wait 5 years and 6 months to get a reasonable ADC and the right plugs, you should still be done in under 6 years IMO.


as for being tired of having people assume what you're hearing or not hearing, perhaps you'd have the moral high ground is you didn't assume what people have tried and will say in the very same post!

 

[71 dB]

I've been reading this rap for three years. I'm still not convinced.

All you have to do is to import a 24 bit music file in Audacity, duplicate it and then convert the duplicated track to 16 using dither of your choice or no dither. Then invert the 16 bit version and mix the 16 bit and 24 bit tracks into one 24 bit to get the difference what in your opinion gives "tightness". Listen to the difference at normal level (the level you would listen to the original track). Do you hear anything? You shouldn't hear anything. Now, amplify the noise 50 dB. Now you should hear it clearly. Now think hard if this difference can create any kind of perceived difference in sound quality. If you think it can then you are simply very dumb and nobody here should take you seriously. Sorry, but that's how it is.

 

[gregorio]

[1] Still, it's nothing new...
[2] It's the same with people who say that editing existing songs in a DAW, SHOULDN'T give any quality drop when bouncing.
[3] I've been experimenting with this for 6 years!!!
[4] Kind of tired of the "you can't hear it"-crap.
[5] No one gives a damn to even try for themselves. ("No your wrong, I haven't tried, but it shouldn't, so I don't know... but you are wrong!").
[6] No one cares for Good SQ in Electro, EDM, Glitch Hop music... where I see a great win in it.
[7] I'm before my time!
[8] It's just my opinion and my strong belief, that 16/44 sound gets tighter on straight 16/44 playback.
[9] Let time tell right [9a] who knows, [9b] I might be wrong... so might you.

1. Agreed, nothing new at all.
2. It should be obvious that "shouldn't give any drop in quality" depends on exactly what you mean by "editing" and, what is done and how "when bouncing".
3. 6 years, you're joking? It should have taken you no longer than about 6 minutes! Rather than wasting 6 years with your "experimenting", you'd have been far better served by spending just a little of that time learning how to reliably test/experiment in the first place.
4. Not as tired as we are of the "I can hear what isn't there" -crap!
5. Now you're just making up nonsense, WHY? I've tried it for myself countless times, I try it every time I master a mix and have done for about 25 years, as have just about all other professional audio engineers. So where does this "no one" come from?
6. You know everyone on the planet who makes Electro, EDM, etc., do you? I've had clients creating EDM tracks who are borderline OCD when it comes sound quality, so your "no one cares" is just another completely made-up piece of nonsense, WHY?
7. You're nearly 30 years behind the times!!
8. Maybe you're not aware that this is NOT the "My opinion and strong belief" forum, it's the Sound Science forum! Belief and opinion are not worth much in this forum and they're worth EXACTLY NOTHING when they contradict the known facts/science and have nothing whatsoever to back them up except the assertions of those who don't know how to experiment/test in the first place!
9. How much time, isn't nearly 30 years enough?
9a. Countless scientists, audio engineers, university lecturers and anyone who has either bothered to learn and understand the science or who has reliably tested/experimented!
9b. Let's see: Your amateur "notion"/"opinion"/"strong belief" might be wrong OR, decades of easily demonstrated science, countless thousands of audio professionals and reliable tests might be wrong. What rational person with an ounce of common sense would bet on the former rather than the latter?

G

 

[buonassi]

2/ a 16bit track you set to output at 24bit will simply have extra zeroes for the extra bits in each sample. which doesn't change the amplitude of the sample.

this^

now, it's possible that your specific DAC doesn't do 24 as well as 16 for some reason - but even that I can't imagine how - provided you're using a halfway decent DAC.

 

[gregorio]

it's possible that your specific DAC doesn't do 24 as well as 16 for some reason - but even that I can't imagine how

Given a 24bit recording and an old 16bit DAC, it's possible there could be a difference, as an old DAC would truncate the 24bit signal which could produce audible artefacts, although in practise extremely rarely ever does. However, in this case we'd be talking about the truncation of 8 zeros and no difference whatsoever, let alone audible. In a more modern DAC, there is no way a DAC couldn't do 24bit as well as 16bit because the DAC chips are only operating at 24bit, they can't operate at 16bit.

G

 

[theveterans]

In a more modern DAC, there is no way a DAC couldn't do 24bit as well as 16bit because the DAC chips are only operating at 24bit, they can't operate at 16bit.

The DAC chip inside my Schiit Bifrost can only operate in 16 bits BTW. A 24-bit file is actually truncated to 16-bits but the sample rate remains the same all the way up to 192 KHz

 

[TheSonicTruth]

That one you got right. Based on your message you have a long way to understand digital audio. Trust me, many assumptions you have about digital audio are wrong. Maybe the comments you have been given here have already exposed some of them?

How about Low-Res Dubstep? What if 8 bit Dubstep is even tighter? That's the first question you should have asked yourself when coming up with your theory. In other worlds, what is the optimum bit depth in regards of tightness? The second question to ask is if this "tightness/sloppyness" is a real property of the sound or something your head makes up, because in audio our heads make up a lot of things (placebo effect) and you can't trust your ears 100 %.

I might attribute the "tightness/sloppiness" to production technique, or mastering, not to the bit depth of format.