|
16 bit vs. 24 bit AUDIBLE DISCUSSION (NO TECH SPECS) (pg. 9)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| PutBoy |
You don't use 24 bits because you can hear the difference. You do it because you want to use an as high a quality as possible. It gives you more room to work with when mastering for one.
There is no way the human ear can hear the difference in volume between a 16 bit wave changing one increment, which is 1/65536 of however many dB are the maximum, and I don't remember that, I'm guessing about 100. There is no way can ever ever ever hear the difference between 10.0001 dB and 10.0002. EVER! There is no perceivable way. So jump down from your high horses and admit you can't hear the difference.
However, it is simple to hear the difference between an MP3 file and a CD-quality wav file. Studies have shown that, with little practice, people (and not even musicians) can hear the difference in a reasonably 'normal' sound system. For one, MP3 handles frequencies above 16,000 hz quite badly, which is why hihats often get sort of muddy, try and see if you can hear it. |
|
|
| coroknight |
| Their is no maximum volume. All values are normalized to a number between -1 and 1. |
|
|
| PutBoy |
| quote: | Originally posted by coroknight
Their is no maximum volume. All values are normalized to a number between -1 and 1. |
I suspected it was so. The same applies though. |
|
|
| lenieNt Force |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
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? |
Regarding your first statement: Yes it has. What you are talking about here is bit depth and not bit rate.
Bit rate is sample rate * bit depth.
Other than that, you are right. It's just a misconseption of the meaning of the words. |
|
|
| lenieNt Force |
| quote: | Originally posted by Pjotr G
I don't know, but I can't think of any reason why this would be correct. That's why I'm interested in an explanation for this supposed phenomenon. |
What is important when recording is recording the signal as hot as possible (As high above the analog noise floor as possible). But if you dont go through any analog mixer or pre-amp before the signal reaches the digital realm, it's not that important to record hot anymore, as our a/d converters gets better and better in quality (i.e greater bit depth conversion). |
|
|
| lenieNt Force |
| quote: | Originally posted by DjStephenWiley
So you are saying that everything regarding this topic is factual, non-subjective, and the gospel?
Why is it so hard to try and discern audible differences from 24 bit or 16 bit.
I don't understand what differentiates this from other topics regarding different mediums for dance music. |
First educate yourself on the math, then prove to us that you have understood the math, then come to your same conclusions, and we might take you seriously. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by DjStephenWiley
The point of the thread is to gather opinions on the use of 24 bit samples vs. 16 bit samples, as well as how they sound when filtered down to mp3. |
Are we talking about samples, or are we talking about the final rendering? I've seen these two issues conflated several times in the thread, and they are worlds apart.
Using 24-bit samples, if you have them, is advantageous. It is going to sound better in the end, perhaps audibly better, because you are working with a lower noise floor. Of course this assumes that they are genuine 24-bit samples and not 16-bit samples that were up-converted to 24-bit.
The final render will also sound better in 24 bits as opposed to 16 bits, but only for as long as it's actually 24 bits. Once it's an MP3, that advantage is gone.
That doesn't mean that there's no point in using 24 bit samples if your final output is going to be 16 bits. There is. If you add 2.4 + 2.4 = 4.8, and then round off, your result is 5. If you round your inputs (2 + 2), your result is 4. There's no need to hear it - it's plainly obvious that using the highest precision inputs you can is a good idea even if your output is lower precision.
But when you're talking about the output, the end result, it's actually going to be detrimental to use 24 bits as an intermediary. Using the oversimplified math above, if you crunch some numbers and end up with a result of 3.47, and round to the nearest whole number, you get 3. If you round to 1 decimal place first (3.5), then round to the nearest whole number, you end up with 4. Bad.
I know, I know, all this dirty math and tech specs. But there is no sense in shooting opinions back and forth unless (a) we know what exactly it is we're talking about, and (b) we are all talking about the same thing. I see a lot of people in here not understanding the conceptual differences, and posting a couple of samples isn't going to highlight those conceptual differences.
We need to clarify this question; what are we referring to when we talk about "audible differences?"
A track made using 24-bit samples, vs. the same track made using the same sounds as 16-bit samples? Absolutely, there's an audible difference, although you might need some pretty high-end equipment to hear it, and even then you'll only notice if the track has a wide dynamic range.
A track bounced as a 24-bit wave file, then encoded directly as an MP3? Absolutely not - any audible difference you hear is going to be distortion.
Rather simple answers to simple questions that don't warrant such a lengthy discussion. |
|
|
| DjStephenWiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
A track bounced as a 24-bit wave file, then encoded directly as an MP3? Absolutely not - any audible difference you hear is going to be distortion.
|
Hmmm - Care to refresh my memory on some of the reasons people love true analog? |
|
|
| DjStephenWiley |
1. 24
2. 16
3. 24 |
|
|
| evo8 |
| quote: | Originally posted by DjStephenWiley
1. 24
2. 16
3. 24 |
2/3 sir :p ;)
| quote: | Originally posted by Diginut
A track made using 24-bit samples, vs. the same track made using the same sounds as 16-bit samples? Absolutely, there's an audible difference, although you might need some pretty high-end equipment to hear it, and even then you'll only notice if the track has a wide dynamic range. |
Is there really an audible difference tho. Whos to say that IF i had "pretty high-end equipment" i would hear a difference, plus a lot of the stuff we are making has a small dynamic range anyway.
I know you are saying that scientifically i should hear a difference but i cant. Ive got a MOTU Ultralite interface thru Mackie monitors, is that high-end enough to hear a potential difference??? i dunno but i cant distinguish....
I dont think the reality of it all is as simple as you are making out, if it was then we wouldnt be having this discussion!!
Stephen is there any chance you could make some 24 and 16bit wav loops from this sample pack you referred to in your first post, id like to have a listen to both just to if personally i can hear a difference......... |
|
|
| palm |
| quote: | Originally posted by DjStephenWiley
Hmmm - Care to refresh my memory on some of the reasons people love true analog? |
to avoid digital distortion |
|
|
|
|
