Why 24 bit audio and anything over 48k is not only worthless, but bad for music.

[71 dB]

Every format is remastered for that format. You can’t compare a CD to a download. Two different things. The way to compare is to take a high data rate file and bounce it down to a lower data rate.

Exactly!

 

[Davesrose]

Pro Logic is the decoder being used back then. It’s the first iteration of Dolby Surround. Pro Logic II adds left and right to the rears and a sub channel for things encoded in Pro Logic II. I think Pro Logic II is backwards compatible. From what Daverose says, it appears that the new Dolby Surround DSP isn’t. And yes, you’re right, there’s no flag to indicate the type of encoding.

It is backwards compatible: Dolby considers the new Dolby Surround badge to be the successor to Dolby Pro Logic IIz (which took Pro Logic from processing standard stereo to 7.1.2). And again, the Pro Logic decoder can process standard stereo to surround. I really don't know if there are any blu-rays that have an old stereo track that was encoded in the "35mm Dolby Stereo" format of 4.0. Movies that were surround were mixed to 5.1 (like Star is Born or Star Wars), and lower budget movies that had been standard stereo stayed stereo. I'm looking at the specs of Sign O the Times: it says that the BD is PCM stereo-so it's not Dolby Stereo. If you set your receiver to Dolby Pro Logic, then it's taking that stereo source and is processing to 5.1 (or more depending on your speaker setup).

The main addition with Dolby Surround I've heard is how it processes 5.1 sound to 7.1.4 surround. I have heard scenes in which the camera is inside a helicoptor, and you hear the blades above you. Or Master and Commander, where there are scenes in which you can hear sounds happening above deck. I find that to be pretty impressive. Yet it also doesn't go over the top with a source that's stereo (the sound field isn't much different than when I had a 7.1 setup using Harman Kardon surround or Dolby Pro Logic).

You said it was too bad that I can't listen to my Police BD on the old Dolby Stereo format, but it never had a Dolby Stereo track. It's a reunion tour concert: where they could have recorded in stereo and/or multichannel. The stereo track is PCM 2.0 (like all other concerts I have on blu-ray: PCM 2.0, or DTS-MA 5.1). If on your system, you switch away from stereo mode and go to pro logic, it's processing that 2.0 track to at least 5.1.

What sparked our dialogue was me indicating that I liked that discs stereo track over the multi-channel (when for other BD concerts, I've enjoyed the multi-channel). It's just the way that the stereo track was mixed to sound more dynamic and have use of bass.

 

[Elegiac]

Condensed as in dynamically more compressed?

Perhaps. But mostly I notice less detail. On the CD the guitar takes up less space.. it's spread-out less. It's more a solid mass.
On the 24bit files I can pick over the entire texture, peer into it. Get inside of it.
It's like the difference between looking at something from a distance, and looking at it up close.

 

[71 dB]

Perhaps. But mostly I notice less detail. On the CD the guitar takes up less space.. it's spread-out less. It's more a solid mass.
On the 24bit files I can pick over the entire texture, peer into it. Get inside of it.
It's like the difference between looking at something from a distance, and looking at it up close.

If you can, make a 16 bit version of the 24 bit file and listen if it still has these fine qualities.

 

[ubs28]

In music production, 24-bits is used as the minimum. So it not bad for music, it is how music is even created.

/close thread

 

[71 dB]

In music production, 24-bits is used as the minimum. So it not bad for music, it is how music is even created.

/close thread

24 bit is not "minimum" in music production. It is possible to produce good sounding music with only 16 bit (but one has to be careful about how dynamic range is used). It is a practical amount of bits in music production. It is however overkill for consumer audio considering 13 bits would be enough and we have 16 bit digital audio in common use.

 

[bigshot]

ubs28​

Elegiac​

Please see the article in my sig file titled "CD sound is all you need". It clearly and thoroughly explains why 24 bit and high sampling rates are not beneficial to listening to music in the home. If that is too technical, the link to Mark Waldrop might be easier to parse. The original post in this thread does a good job of explaining it too. Based on your comments, I'm betting you haven't read that before replying to this thread.

If you have any interest in the subject, and want to understand the replies that you are receiving, take a moment and make an effort to understand. It's a waste of everyone's time for you to comment the same thing over and over without making any effort to process the replies you receive. A discussion is give and take. We are listening to you and replying to what you say. You need to do the same for us.

 

[old tech]

Perhaps. But mostly I notice less detail. On the CD the guitar takes up less space.. it's spread-out less. It's more a solid mass.
On the 24bit files I can pick over the entire texture, peer into it. Get inside of it.
It's like the difference between looking at something from a distance, and looking at it up close.

I am willing to bet it is all in your head. There is no difference in resolution, only the noise floor.

Watch this video for a practical demonstration, seriously, and then consider if the slight difference in noise (there is nothing else) between dithered 8bits and 16bits, is it possible for any human to pick a difference between 16 and 24 bits in a blind test?

https://productionadvice.co.uk/bit-depth-and-resolution/

 

[old tech]

In music production, 24-bits is used as the minimum. So it not bad for music, it is how music is even created.

/close thread

As far as I am aware 24bits has not (generally) been used for music production for at least a couple decades now, mostly 32 bit float.

In any event headroom for music production is not the same requirement for music reproduction. 16 bits is already overkill for playback.

 

[bigshot]

I’ve never heard of anyone who could discern any difference between 16 and 24 bit at normal listening levels. In order to hear a difference in noise floors, you would have to boost the volume level of 16 bit up to ear shattering volumes. Likewise, to tell the difference between 44.1 and 96, you would have to be able to hear frequencies humans can’t hear. Within the range covered by 16/44.1, the sound quality is identical to the same range in 24/96. There is no difference in detail, nor resolution between them audibly.

I don’t doubt you perceive something. It’s just that what you hear is due to comparing apples to oranges or perceptual error/ expectation bias.

 

[Elegiac]

I am willing to bet it is all in your head. There is no difference in resolution, only the noise floor.

Watch this video for a practical demonstration, seriously, and then consider if the slight difference in noise (there is nothing else) between dithered 8bits and 16bits, is it possible for any human to pick a difference between 16 and 24 bits in a blind test?

https://productionadvice.co.uk/bit-depth-and-resolution/

It may all be in my head. I'm going to test it. Trust me, I have low expectations in these matters, and if anything, I'm biased towards CD. My ears are as skeptical as my brain ...so I want to figure it out, not just assign some arbitrary reason for my perception.

ubs28​

Elegiac​

Please see the article in my sig file titled "CD sound is all you need". It clearly and thoroughly explains why 24 bit and high sampling rates are not beneficial to listening to music in the home. If that is too technical, the link to Mark Waldrop might be easier to parse. The original post in this thread does a good job of explaining it too. Based on your comments, I'm betting you haven't read that before replying to this thread.

If you have any interest in the subject, and want to understand the replies that you are receiving, take a moment and make an effort to understand. It's a waste of everyone's time for you to comment the same thing over and over without making any effort to process the replies you receive. A discussion is give and take. We are listening to you and replying to what you say. You need to do the same for us.

Lol, I'm just replying to replies, and making every effort to understand, which is why I'll view your links. Easy, tiger.

For example, I'd thought that what we had decided I was hearing differently was the difference between CD and digital download- because, as you said, the music would be remastered for CD- not the difference between 16 and 24 bit per se.

 

[bigshot]

When I was puzzling stuff out, I found it useful to read about the basics of how digital audio works... Nyquist Theory, the difference between bit rate and sampling rate... basic stuff. Then you can understand what high data rate files are adding to the sound, and what is or isn't missing on a CD. It's also good to understand how to apply controls to listening comparisons to minimize the effects of bias and perceptual error, so you can focus on the sound itself, not the way your ears and brain are interpreting it.

 

[old tech]

It may all be in my head. I'm going to test it. Trust me, I have low expectations in these matters, and if anything, I'm biased towards CD. My ears are as skeptical as my brain ...so I want to figure it out, not just assign some arbitrary reason for my perception.

Make sure when you do test it that you are using the same mastering and level matched. Perhaps the easiest way of doing this is to download Foobar and the DBT plugin. Then all you need to do is use your 24bit file and the software will do the rest for you, i.e. convert a 16bit version, play random sections which you pick which you think is the 16bt version. At the end of the test it will provide you with a score, including the probability of just guessing.

 

[Elegiac]

Alright, I get it. As much as I'm going to get without some serious study of audio science. Which I feel no urgency to pursue. I'm a student of the humanities... most specifically writing and history, but also cultural/philosophical ideas in general. What I mean to say is... while I may not understand down to the deepest level of this, I have a good nose for the truth, and an eye for what an unbiased set of ideas looks like. I don't always get it right, but where my instincts fail, my inquiring mind picks up the slack.
Anyway, nothing seems suspicious in what I've been presented with here.

Pretty much gels with what experience has taught me. There are crap-quality productions in 24 bit, and excellent-quality productions in 16 bit. The production means more than the sample rate and bit depth.

 

[71 dB]

As far as I am aware 24bits has not (generally) been used for music production for at least a couple decades now, mostly 32 bit float.

32 bit floating point is effectively 24 bit just like 314*10^-2 is pi given at 3 digit accuracy.