[amirm]

Sorry, I think what you ask is irrelevant. It doesn't matter what the bit depth is.

It is? I thought we were still dealing with music doesn't have that much bit depth. How did that become irrelevant?

So that we don't die here waiting for you all to answer these simple questions, I will answer it. There is no way you can look at a file and compute its bit depth. Reason is that noise can have music signal in it so you cannot, can not, use that as the floor. This is the mistake forum objectivists like bigtop do, not understanding the science of audio.

The right method which by the way Meridian (and before that Pacific Microsonics with HDCD) did to develop MQA. You have to perform a statistical model to distinguish random low order bits from (music) correlated ones. Since none of you seem to know the science let alone the outcome of such research, then you best not keep saying music has so few bits. It is just garbage proclamations that has no place in an informed discussion.

 

[amirm]

What fear of hi res music? I do listen and purchase hi res music if that is the best mastered version of an album. The only fear I can read on this thread is yours of 16bits, or the inexplicit fear of going from 24bits to 16.

What??? I like to have a choice of buying high-res music, or CD rate. Folks here want to foreclose my choice, and seemingly yours in that regard by dissuading people from high-res music. Instead of explaining my psychology, you want to explain their anti-consumer one?

And remember this, more and more we want to perform signal processing in our audio system. DSP and room correction is mandatory for proper sound reproduction in the room. As such, there is benefit in receiving music at > 16 bits even if our interest is limited to 16. You would be dithering the music twice if you perform the signal processing at higher bit depth (as you should).

Likewise headphone listening can benefit from DSP correction, virtualization, etc. All of these could benefit from receiving the music at > 16 bits and not dithering multiple times, lest you want to arrive at 15 bits or even lower.

Bottom line is: the world is different now than it was when SACD/DVD-A were introduced. Folks who are still chanting the arguments of that era need to realize that we have moved on, and high-resolution music needs to be an offering for us as a choice. All of our hardware easily plays them and we can convert them to 16 bit if we want, or not. Last thing I want is another uninformed "mastering engineer" playing signal processing god and deciding how to dumb down the music files for me. I can do that if I need to, thank you very much.

 

[71 dB]

It is? I thought we were still dealing with music doesn't have that much bit depth. How did that become irrelevant?

So that we don't die here waiting for you all to answer these simple questions, I will answer it. There is no way you can look at a file and compute its bit depth. Reason is that noise can have music signal in it so you cannot, can not, use that as the floor. This is the mistake forum objectivists like bigtop do, not understanding the science of audio.

The right method which by the way Meridian (and before that Pacific Microsonics with HDCD) did to develop MQA. You have to perform a statistical model to distinguish random low order bits from (music) correlated ones. Since none of you seem to know the science let alone the outcome of such research, then you best not keep saying music has so few bits. It is just garbage proclamations that has no place in an informed discussion.

It's not that we don't know this. It's that we don't hear LSB, so who cares if it's music or noise?

 

[bigshot]

That was your accusation which you continue to unprofessionally make at every chance.

How many times did I ask you politely whether your test results were achieved at a fixed normal listening level? Five times? Six? I still haven’t gotten a straight answer. You just deflected my question and changed the subject. If you prefer not to be looked upon as disingenuous, you should try being honest.

This isn’t a contest to prove who is the biggest expert, and this isn’t a forum that requires everyone to be a professional. This is a place where hifi nuts share technical information to help other hifi nuts improve the sound quality of their home audio system. I always try to be helpful and give people practical advice to help people find a practical solution. I have no interest in absolutism and theoretical pie in the sky. And I sure don’t need Internet forums to validate myself. All that stuff is lame.

Let’s all try to be practical and helpful and use science to solve real world problems.

 

[bigshot]

What sort of DSP designed for consumer playback would degrade the sound from 16 bit dithered down to having an audible noise floor when playing commercially recorded music at a normal listening level? Can you name one that absolutely requires 24 bit to sound good?

It seems to me that 16 bit dithered is so far into overkill that no filter is going to raise the noise floor to audible levels... ie: below 11 bit.

I don’t think this is a real issue. I think it’s heaping overkill on top of overkill. How much overkill is enough?

 

[71 dB]

Folks who are still chanting the arguments of that era need to realize that we have moved on, and high-resolution music needs to be an offering for us as a choice. All of our hardware easily plays them and we can convert them to 16 bit if we want, or not. Last thing I want is another uninformed "mastering engineer" playing signal processing god and deciding how to dumb down the music files for me. I can do that if I need to, thank you very much.

Is high-res a choice or not? Have we "moved on" or not? What is the format for you that you can call good enough? For me it's 16/44.1 because 8 bit music just sucks. For me the lack of dynamic range has been an issue with FM-radio, vinyl and also with C-cassette some 30 years ago. With CD never, because 16 bits is so much. At least those who sell high-res music should be honest with it and stop telling people they need more than 16/44.1 for sound quality. Selling high-res for "paranoid people who don't trust mastering engineers and want to truncate + dither the music themselves." is much more ethical, because even 16 bits is so overkill for Matt listening to DJ Khaled on his Beats Audio headphones connected to his iPhone.

24 bit and more belong to the studio where it has real benefits in music production

 

[HotIce]

Archimago put forward a nice test of 24 bit versus 16 with excellent countermeasures to deter mechanical analysis of its bit depth. Have you run it? I have, and here is the outcome for one of the clips in double blind ABX test:



Here is the original link: http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2014/06/24-bit-vs-16-bit-audio-test-part-i.html

Let's have you all run the same test so that we can determine if we are operating from the same point of critical listening ability. 'Cause it sure seems like we are generalizing from our hearing to what everyone else is hearing (or worse, not ever experimenting).

Was the A/B pattern fixed and published?
Because if it was, I can see folks with an agenda or the other, to post results based on that knowledge.
In order to be a true A/B test, A/B patterns needs to be randomly generated by the software, and results somehow signed by the application.
Only that prevents results spoofing and steering.
So as a personal game to test personal hearing capability it is nice, but I would doubt of it as way to make broader conclusion on whether "people" are able to detect differences.

 

[castleofargh]

yes there can be audible signal below 16bits under specific listening conditions and most likely specific content. and yes 16bit is more than enough and audibly transparent for typical listening conditions and albums. those 2 statements aren't contradicting each other, conditional truth simply depends on the conditions.

@amirm
I don't think there is any sort of racism toward 24bit as a resolution. there is certainly some disgust coming from the nasty atmosphere surrounding high res as a business over the years, but that's a very different issue.
if a master was systematically available in all formats, I'd be "yeah, cool", and go wonder what's for diner. but the industry never aimed for that. instead we get more and more manufactured diversity in exclusive contents. you're pissed because a master doesn't exist in high res, and I'm pissed because the only way to get some other master is to pay more for a bigger file that never sounds better or even different to me. only disadvantages.
same idea for new standard. I really don't care if all albums starting tomorrow are given in 24 or even 32bit. I bother ripping a CD I can bother converting a file if I think it's too big. it's all the same to me. what I wouldn't take with a smile is learning that all albums now cost 10$ more. because money happens to be a very finite resource for me. I'll never give priority to improved background noise fidelity over getting more albums. so long as those are the options the industry is giving me, I'll buy more CDs or lossy albums for the same amount of money. it has nothing to do with bit depth.

 

[danadam]

Here is the original link: http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2014/06/24-bit-vs-16-bit-audio-test-part-i.html

Let's have you all run the same test

As far as I can tell the files are not available any more. The link to his server gives "wrong login or password" and the other links are dead.

 

[gregorio]

OK, please manufacture your own. How long will it take you?

I did, years ago, numerous times and so can you. It should take you about 5 mins. Create a 1kHz sine wave at say -75dBFS in 24bit, create a TDPF dithered version in 16bit. Playback both files at a comfortable level (say with 60dB of gain) and it's trivial to hear the difference. Do you really not know how to do this?

And remember this, more and more we want to perform signal processing in our audio system. DSP and room correction is mandatory for proper sound reproduction in the room.
[1] As such, there is benefit in receiving music at > 16 bits even if our interest is limited to 16.
[2] You would be dithering the music twice if you perform the signal processing at higher bit depth (as you should).
[3] Bottom line is: the world is different now than it was when SACD/DVD-A were introduced.

1. How so?
2. Why would you need to dither twice?
3. How is it different?

[1] I like to get the original stereo master as created. ... Last thing I want is another uninformed "mastering engineer" playing signal processing god and deciding how to dumb down the music files for me.
[2] I can play the mastered format on my system thank you very much. Keep your hands away from my bits!
[3] Shaped? What percentage of your music has shaped dither? You don't know, right?
[4] It is just garbage proclamations that has no place in an informed discussion.

1. Make up your mind, do want the original stereo master or not? If you do, then that stereo master is created by a mastering engineer playing signal processing god. If you don't want a mastering engineer playing signal processing god then you can't have a stereo master because without a mastering engineer playing signal processing god, there is no master!

2. No you can't and even if you could, there is no way to get that mastering format to the consumer. There is no alternative to changing the bit depth!

3. Well, it's standard mastering procedure, so pretty much all of it. The exception would be with pieces where the dynamic range is so small that there's not a hope in hell of hearing the dither at any range of normal playback levels. With pieces where there might be a slight chance, classical music would often be a good example, then time is spent not just applying shaped dither but actually choosing an appropriately shape.

4. Again, make up your mind, which do you want? A discussion of purely published scientific papers/tests or an "informed discussion"? If it's the later then informed discussion surely must actually be "informed" (for example of the actual, real world practicalities of music performance, recording, mixing and mastering), otherwise you are likely to make "garbage proclamations" based on theory and/or outliers! Careful then with the insult of "garbage proclamations", those who live in glass houses ....

G