|
16 bit vs. 24 bit AUDIBLE DISCUSSION (NO TECH SPECS) (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| 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? 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? |
|
|
| coroknight |
| I think the most pure, and complex music ever is nature |
|
|
| 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.
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. |
|
|
|
| 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. |
|
|
| Beatflux |
| 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 other people already made. |
|
|
| coroknight |
| 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. |
|
|
| Akridrot |
| 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. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| 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. |
|
|
| Akridrot |
| 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. |
|
|
| DjStephenWiley |
| 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. |
|
|
| palm |
| 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. |
|
|
| DjStephenWiley |
| 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 |
|
|
|
|
