TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Production Studio
-- 16 bit vs. 24 bit AUDIBLE DISCUSSION (NO TECH SPECS)
Pages (5): « 1 [2] 3 4 5 »

quote:

Originally posted by DjStephenWiley But beyond classical, I can still hear a difference in other things. That difference is clarity, and it's quite noticable with my AKG 701's which are known for having some of the best hi-end hifi monitoring available. Lately, 24 bit or 16 bit has been a deciding factor in buying sample packs.

"Clarity" is not a quantitative term.

It's usually a good idea to record at 24 bits because you have a lower noise floor, and input devices like mics tend to give out a small signal. But as for bouncing to 24 bits and then encoding as a 16-bit MP3, you're going to have to do better than that for an explanation/evidence; most likely what you're hearing is not clarity, it's distortion caused by dithering (or worse, flat-out truncation), that you've conditioned yourself to subjectively prefer.

Nothing wrong with that as long as you recognize it. In a similar vein, a lot of people prefer the sound of a classic tube amp to a digital amp because the tube amp produces 2nd-order harmonic distortion and colours the sound.

Your sequencer internally is already mixing at 32 or 64 bits (floating point), so there is absolutely no way you can logically claim to get more "clarity" from bouncing to 24-bit as an intermediate on the way down to 16 bits than you would from simply dithering directly to 16 bits. It's actually no different from claiming that you can make a better vinyl by recording onto a cassette tape first - although I would imagine that more people realize how ridiculous that sounds because it's not as technical as "24 vs 16".

When you downconvert from 64/32 to 24 bits, you lose some fidelity. When you downconvert again from 24 to 16 bits, you lose more fidelity. The cumulative loss from two conversions is, almost as a matter of definition, worse than the loss from a single conversion from the same source to the same final destination. If it happens to produce a pleasing effect for you, that's a coincidence.

I believe a college professor did a study where every semester he had students listen to an MP3 song and then the same song in WAV format. He then recorded how many people preferred each version.

The conclusion was that the distortion of the MP3 was more familiar than the sparkling shine of the WAV and generally people prefered the MP3 to the WAV.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut "Clarity" is not a quantitative term. It's usually a good idea to record at 24 bits because you have a lower noise floor, and input devices like mics tend to give out a small signal. But as for bouncing to 24 bits and then encoding as a 16-bit MP3, you're going to have to do better than that for an explanation/evidence; most likely what you're hearing is not clarity, it's distortion caused by dithering (or worse, flat-out truncation), that you've conditioned yourself to subjectively prefer. Nothing wrong with that as long as you recognize it. In a similar vein, a lot of people prefer the sound of a classic tube amp to a digital amp because the tube amp produces 2nd-order harmonic distortion and colours the sound. Your sequencer internally is already mixing at 32 or 64 bits (floating point), so there is absolutely no way you can logically claim to get more "clarity" from bouncing to 24-bit as an intermediate on the way down to 16 bits than you would from simply dithering directly to 16 bits. It's actually no different from claiming that you can make a better vinyl by recording onto a cassette tape first - although I would imagine that more people realize how ridiculous that sounds because it's not as technical as "24 vs 16". When you downconvert from 64/32 to 24 bits, you lose some fidelity. When you downconvert again from 24 to 16 bits, you lose more fidelity. The cumulative loss from two conversions is, almost as a matter of definition, worse than the loss from a single conversion from the same source to the same final destination. If it happens to produce a pleasing effect for you, that's a coincidence.

Post some samples then. High frequency percussion with a large stereo field. Take an identical recording at 24bits and convert it over to 16, then convert both to 320 mp3 and post them here. You may want to do a couple of these.

Whether a high bit rate will be best for a sample has absolutely nothing to do with its high frequency content. High frequency content will be affected by sample rate, not bit rate. Do you know what the function of bit depth is in digital audio?

Hi frequency percussion is probably not a good example since percussion is very noise'y.

quote:

Originally posted by coroknight I believe a college professor did a study where every semester he had students listen to an MP3 song and then the same song in WAV format. He then recorded how many people preferred each version. The conclusion was that the distortion of the MP3 was more familiar than the sparkling shine of the WAV and generally people prefered the MP3 to the WAV.

I have had a similar experience where I preview something on Beatport, I download the 320kpbs file and I'm disappointed because the low bit rate hid ugly elements or meshed them together so I couldn't hear them.

quote:

Originally posted by DjStephenWiley Post some samples then. High frequency percussion with a large stereo field. Take an identical recording at 24bits and convert it over to 16, then convert both to 320 mp3 and post them here. You may want to do a couple of these.

I laughed when doing this:

First the 24bit part, then 16bit, then an inverted 16bit against the 24bit (which should result in the audible difference). No dithering applied. However it's all been done within the sequencer to have 32 bit processing.

http://www.storytellermusic.nl/16bitvs24.mp3

quote:

Originally posted by DjStephenWiley Post some samples then. High frequency percussion with a large stereo field. Take an identical recording at 24bits and convert it over to 16, then convert both to 320 mp3 and post them here. You may want to do a couple of these.

That is not the right process. You want to be comparing the original production in 32/64-bit float, properly dithered directly to 16-bit using an industry standard like UV22, and compare that to the same production dithered to 24 bits using the same standard and downconverted again to 16 bits using whatever process you choose.

What you're effectively saying is that you can tell the difference between a 24-bit recording dithered to 16 bits and the same recording truncated to 16 bits by some MP3 encoder. That is obviously true or at least believable, but it's not particularly interesting because you've already introduced the main lossy step (downconversion to 24 bits).

So how about this instead: You find some projects you think are appropriate for the test that are in the raw sequencer format (we'd need at least 5), and export each as a 32-bit floating point .wav, which will be a straight bounce with no downconversion. I'll take that and make two 16-bit versions encoded as 320 kbps MP3, the first in one stage, the second in two stages (dither down to 24-bit first). Then we will do an ABX test, to see if the two-stage version is actually identifiable at all.

Assuming we actually get past the ABX, which I doubt, I'll take each track, including the original, toss it into Wavelab, and post the statistics on each, and we can see which one is actually closer in fidelity to the original.

I always refuse to use my own tracks for these tests because it opens the door for excuses about the source material. You pick the tracks, and they have to be posted as 32-bit or 64-bit float PCM (.wav) files - if they're already 24-bit then half the test is out the window.

Well I'm really not concerned about anything above 24bit. I know I brought up 32bit, but 24 bit is my main focus and concern (hence the topic title)

I'm not going to flip out and you say you tainted the source and purposefully tried to fool me using your knowledge to prove you're right and i'm wrong. I have plenty of respect for you and I'm sure you're as eager as I am to see if I can differentiate between the two. Just get some 24 bit samples (get a variety, low mid and high freq's) and encode them to mp3 from 24 and 16

To the poster asking regarding high frequencies and bit rate, of course I know the difference. Jeez. I can make music but it takes a lot more time and effort for me than the average bear.

quote:

Originally posted by coroknight He then recorded how many people preferred each version.

did he use 24 bit or 16 bit?

quote:

Originally posted by DjStephenWiley Well I'm really not concerned about anything above 24bit. I know I brought up 32bit, but 24 bit is my main focus and concern (hence the topic title)

With all due respect, I think that you're missing the point.

The source is ALREADY in 32-bit. If your source material is a 24-bit sample, then the most significant downconversion (from floating-point to fixed-point) has already happened, and your comparison is simply one of dithering vs. truncation (which is what your MP3 encoder will do). These will obviously sound very slightly different, but the truncation (the one you identify as being clearer) is actually the one with worse fidelity. Think of anti-aliased text or graphics that you usually see on screens today vs. the old-school machines where you could always see the jagged edges - it's the same concept.

It's just not a valid test to start from 24-bit unless the entire sample is recorded from a live source into a 24-bit ADC. You need to start with the same bitrate that's native to the production environment, and that's either 32 or 64 bit floating point depending on your PC.

If it's what you want then I'll take a couple of old tracks and upload the samples that I specified in the earlier post - one dithered directly to 16 bits and another dithered to 24 bits and then dithered again to 16 bits. No truncation, i.e. trying to encode a 24-bit sample to MP3 - we already know why that sounds different.

Suppose I had you listen to 56kbps MP3s, and only 56kbps MP3s, until you were 25 years old. You've never heard anything of higher quality. Even in real life. It would be as if I put some kind of negative hearing aid in your ears.

You will, of course, hear many songs that you love even if they're only 56kbps.

When the hearing "aid" is finally removed, and I play a high quality .WAV or take you to a live performance, what do you think will happen?

Do you think you will enjoy extreme high quality by that point? Do you think it's possible that since you are so accustomed to low quality that you will prefer it for the rest of your days?

I've always wondered if there is a maximum level of detail that the mind can process. Not in terms of file format, but in purely audio terms. A sound so complex that you have listen to it many, many times to get it, yet every time you discover a new element, it's still pleasing.

Eventually, you learn the sound and can instantly recognize it, even though it's ridiculously complex. Perhaps, we could learn music as a form of communication. Highly detailed sounds transmitted to our advanced smart phones, allowing us to send finely detailed sound "bytes" to each other. It would differ from speaking on the phone since you can't make those sounds verbally and since you can't just play them into the phone. You'd have to send it electronically. The equivalent of HD video.

When I make music I always think to myself: "How is it possible that music is infinite? Won't we repeat ourselves? If music is a language, then how can you 'plagiarize' something if you source it? Better yet, why is it that we don't see notes and chords as vowels and words and rhythm as 'dialect'? Music should be seen that way. You can play a riff in many tempos, in minor or major, with various FX applied, or you can phrase it differently." Audio is infinite... but music is a finite set of all the possible audio phenomenon. Some sounds just aren't music.

Or will it simply take time for us to "learn" advanced music such as glitch? Eventually, will we be listening to ultra complex noise?

I think about things like this all the time... it might seem odd to the rest of you, but I find these topics fascinating. I even want to find more complex questions / ideas about audio from other people so I can think about them too.

Audio philosophy?

I think the most pure, and complex music ever is nature

Can't argue with that.

What if we constructed an artificial nature more complex than the default nature? It would not be artificial, it would be a more complex nature.

I found this. It's a mixture of clear, logical points and craziness. Yeah, it's one of those pages. Keep that in mind.

http://www.high-endaudio.com/philos.html

Snippet:

quote:

THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE My Audio Philosophy is basic and simple: I believe in Audio Minimalism It doesn't matter if your audio system is primarily analog, digital or both. This means the fewest components (no line stage) and fewest parts (speaker drivers), the shortest cables and the simplest signal path; even down to the minimum number of solder joints. Only simplicity is able to capture the complexities of music, while complex circuits will inevitably sound simple, predictable and, ultimately, boring. This doesn't mean utilizing shoddy or compromised parts, cheap power supplies, cases etc. Execution is crucial for the benefits of minimalism to be heard. Also, as Albert Einstein has said, care must be taken not to make things "too simple". When following this basic guideline, and with proper execution, several positive results will occur simultaneously: 1. You will hear more of the music, instead of your system. 2. What you hear will sound more natural or "musical". 3. Your system will be "quieter", in every sense of that word. 4. Your system will be more reliable, and the inevitable repairs will cost less. 5. Your system will cost both less to purchase and maintain. 6. Your system will be easier to "understand" and operate. 7. There will be far less need to make (expensive) upgrades.

Akridot, you might like to read "how music really works" sometime.

It covers some of the points you raised, and why the general population won't ever be listening to high speed glitch music.

Music is a language of emotions, with some artists able to express themselves better than others, by learning their craft. It is very similar to great writers being able to express themselves better than not-so-great writers, by learning how to put words together effectively.

Are all books today superior to Shakespeare? No - they're different, language changes slightly to fit the times, but it simply won't happen that language becomes better and better and at some point the general population will be reading highly condensed algebraic formula for fun, because the formulas somehow deliver a bookful of information in a sentence. The white space is as important as the black, in the same way that in music, silence and gaps are as important as the musical tones.

Yes, it can be interesting to let one's mind wander down various avenues of thought, but many of these avenues are quite pointless on a practical level.

quote:

Originally posted by Akridrot When I make music I always think to myself: "How is it possible that music is infinite? Won't we repeat ourselves?

We could have human enhancements to hear beyond our normal limits.

At one point or another, everything will be wiped out. We probably aren't the first earth, so we're probably making shit other people already made.

quote:

Originally posted by Akridrot Can't argue with that. What if we constructed an artificial nature more complex than the default nature? It would not be artificial, it would be a more complex nature.

Well, given the current wealth of knowledge humans have about the universe, I think it's safe to say that the universe is infinite in just about every context. Since we are talking about audio, think about just listening to nature. The subtleties are mind boggling.
However, even though the world supposedly has infinite depth that does not mean it contains all possibilities since an infinite set is not required to contain all possible outcomes.

Therefore I propose all of TA work together to build a "universe teleporter" allowing us to move from universe to universe at will to experience an even greater subset of all possible universes that also have infinite depth. Unfortunately, even then we would have to travel to an infinite number of universes to experience everthing. so FAIL

Edit: Summary, I don't think a infinite depth is an issue. It's the realm of possible sounds and sound combinations that is.

quote:

Originally posted by derail Akridot, you might like to read "how music really works" sometime. It covers some of the points you raised, and why the general population won't ever be listening to high speed glitch music. Music is a language of emotions, with some artists able to express themselves better than others, by learning their craft. It is very similar to great writers being able to express themselves better than not-so-great writers, by learning how to put words together effectively. Are all books today superior to Shakespeare? No - they're different, language changes slightly to fit the times, but it simply won't happen that language becomes better and better and at some point the general population will be reading highly condensed algebraic formula for fun, because the formulas somehow deliver a bookful of information in a sentence. The white space is as important as the black, in the same way that in music, silence and gaps are as important as the musical tones. Yes, it can be interesting to let one's mind wander down various avenues of thought, but many of these avenues are quite pointless on a practical level.

Thanks for the recommendation and the insight. I can't wait to get my hands on that book, it seems like an essential read for me. I've already connected emotion with music in my mind... however, it's still possible to listen to music introspectively, is it not? Sometimes, we listen to something because it's complex and intricate.

I agree with you about the general population. There are many people who aren't part of that.

When you "pointless on a practical level" do you mean that in the sense of "don't reinvent the wheel, even if you are creative, you're wasting your (creative) time" or "such thoughts have no value. don't even bother with them" ? It makes sense to use existing foundations to build new units of meaning, but what if we're doing something completely new that has no foundation yet?

If you have any other similar books to recommend, feel free to PM me or post them in this thread.

quote:

Originally posted by Akridrot Suppose I had you listen to 56kbps MP3s, and only 56kbps MP3s, until you were 25 years old. You've never heard anything of higher quality. Even in real life. It would be as if I put some kind of negative hearing aid in your ears. You will, of course, hear many songs that you love even if they're only 56kbps. When the hearing "aid" is finally removed, and I play a high quality .WAV or take you to a live performance, what do you think will happen? Do you think you will enjoy extreme high quality by that point?

Having grown up with vinyls and then cassette tapes, I can safely say that the answer is yes. Most people will prefer higher quality after a fairly short period of adjustment.

Anyway, if you want to discuss philosophy then I suggest starting your own thread instead instead of bringing an unrelated discussion way off topic.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Having grown up with vinyls and then cassette tapes, I can safely say that the answer is yes. Most people will prefer higher quality after a fairly short period of adjustment. Anyway, if you want to discuss philosophy then I suggest starting your own thread instead instead of bringing an unrelated discussion way off topic.

You're right, sorry about that.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut With all due respect, I think that you're missing the point. The source is ALREADY in 32-bit. If your source material is a 24-bit sample, then the most significant downconversion (from floating-point to fixed-point) has already happened, and your comparison is simply one of dithering vs. truncation (which is what your MP3 encoder will do). These will obviously sound very slightly different, but the truncation (the one you identify as being clearer) is actually the one with worse fidelity. Think of anti-aliased text or graphics that you usually see on screens today vs. the old-school machines where you could always see the jagged edges - it's the same concept. It's just not a valid test to start from 24-bit unless the entire sample is recorded from a live source into a 24-bit ADC. You need to start with the same bitrate that's native to the production environment, and that's either 32 or 64 bit floating point depending on your PC. If it's what you want then I'll take a couple of old tracks and upload the samples that I specified in the earlier post - one dithered directly to 16 bits and another dithered to 24 bits and then dithered again to 16 bits. No truncation, i.e. trying to encode a 24-bit sample to MP3 - we already know why that sounds different.

I respect your posts, but you have completely derailed this thread. There is a big reason why I put no tech specs, in capital letters, on the thread title.

I don't care about anything you just talked about.

Give me a 24 bit sample pack and give me a 16 bit sample pack and I will tell you which one is which and, as I have already said, I think the 24 bit pack sounds better. I don't care what kind of math you want to apply to it.

that is just stupid. it might have been mentioned already but most people actualy prefer 320mp3 over wav beacuse it distorts abit adding some grit which people seems to like, that doesnt make it better in any way. what sounds good is very diferent from person to person, and its stupid to talk about 24bit vs 16bit without talking about specs and facts and maths etc.

quote:

Originally posted by palm its stupid to talk about 24bit vs 16bit without talking about specs and facts and maths etc.

Then start paying attention to thread titles and stay out of this one

why dont u just stick with 16bit?

its a good standard and if ur not happy with the results u get with it its beacuse you suck at production, nothing more.

quote:

Originally posted by palm why dont u just stick with 16bit? its a good standard and if ur not happy with the results u get with it its beacuse you suck at production, nothing more.

Once again, this has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand. Please quit flaming and derailing my thread.

I'm trying to have a civil discussion regarding the audible differences between the two because I have found that I enjoy 24 bit sample packs quite a bit more than 16 bit sample packs. I do have a very nice monitoring capabilities so that of course helps, but plenty others on this forum have great monitors as well.

If you, and anybody else, don't want to talk about audible differences, preferences, etc. Please move on. This thread was not created to talk about numbers, whats possible or impossible, or anything quantifiable. It's here for pure subjective opinions regarding the topic at hand.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.