|
24/192 Music Downloads ...and why they make no sense (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Looney4Clooney |
| quote: | Originally posted by clay
my point was that by using 44,1khz you cannot really recreate a sinus at 22kHz, 20kHz or even 15kHz, at best maybe at 11kHz (four samples) however i see now that due to stuff like dithering and difficulties in the dacs analog parts will not be able to recreate it perfectly anyway, and also the fact that humans cannot hear the difference, i understand that i made a fool out of myself. please forgive my stupidity, please please. my entire day depends on it. however i think its interesting to read about it and it seems to me that our problems with soundquality today does not lay in the bit depth or sample rate, its in the music, bad mixing, the mastering (loudness war), and in the gear used both in monitoring while creating the music, and reproduction in the consumer market, and finally also mp3/streaming codecs off course.... when i think about it stuff sounded perfectly fine during the early days of 80s throughout most of the 90s. |
90s and 80s were definitely not considered a period with great mixing. Those early digital interfaces compared intro level interfaces were rough. Unfortunstely most music made now only has production and mixing to showcase. Sounding ok wasn't so bad when the performances were new different and well ya ....
Most of that aliasing is masked by the louder main signal that it is a non issue with today's music. And you can always use a higher sample rate. |
|
|
| PaULiN0 |
| quote: | Originally posted by MSZ
This thread has been palm'd. |
:haha: |
|
|
| Lith |
I admit some ignorance regarding the topic, but there were two things I didn't easily find in the article:
1. Acoustics
2. Harmonics
I get the premise (though I wish something like infrared was not brought up in this case, not a topic I've seen here before), but the physics involved perhaps do make differences that are imperceivable still possible.
I'm not saying that's true, just asking?
The message I kept taking away from each part was the fact that it was not capable to hear. That's true, but when you push several different sound sources, or even one in an odd room, things start acting a bit differently.
I don't question that human capabilities are different, especially from the golden-standard mentioned, but in certain playback situations, perhaps these work in different ways? A square room will boost the out of a bass, but the acoustic and harmonic responses will shape it completely differently (not just talking playback but other instruments as well). I may have missed the point, I'm asking?
But. there is some laziness:
Better headphones
The easiest fix isn't digital. The most dramatic possible fidelity improvement for the cost comes from a good pair of headphones. Over-ear, in ear, open or closed, it doesn't much matter. They don't even need to be expensive, though expensive headphones can be worth the money.
Lith again: I ask you to compare in-ear vs. over-ear and ask yourself if that makes a difference. a 1/4" driver does make a difference vs. a 1 1/2" driver, cmon now.
Anyway, really good thread. I'm interested to hear more opinions! |
|
|
| Looney4Clooney |
| and after you spent the 200 bucks. The safest thing to do if you fall into the ocean is to keep your head above the water and not drown. Thanks. |
|
|
| Lith |
| My headphones cost $75. I would put up a good argument for them against Apple's or Samsung's. |
|
|
| DJ RANN |
Help me out here guys:
I actually think that Clay and Richie are making very valid points here and if you go on to the net, and look up higher bit depths, you'll find blog upon blog and thread upon thread suggesting more is clearly better.
As the info in this thread has demonstrated, that's not quite a clear definition and really thinking about this and the maths involved has convoluted the situation for me.
The bit that really s me off about the original article, is that his whole argument is really just about dynamic range.
Yes, agreed in real working practices (i.e. real world usable dynamic range, ambient noise interference etc) the higher bit depth is of no advantage but the massive bit he keeps glossing over, is that 24 bit audio provides more steps of resolution (i.e. is samplerate is resolution on a horizontal plain, bit depth is resolution on a vertical plain).
These are the only passages where he addresses it:
| quote: | | It is also worth mentioning that increasing the bit depth of the audio representation from 16 to 24 bits does not increase the perceptible resolution or 'fineness' of the audio. It only increases the dynamic range, the range between the softest possible and the loudest possible sound, by lowering the noise floor. However, a 16-bit noise floor is already below what we can hear. |
| quote: |
None of that is relevant to playback; here 24 bit audio is as useless as 192kHz sampling. The good news is that at least 24 bit depth doesn't harm fidelity. It just doesn't help, and also wastes space.
|
Can anyone see anything part in there where addresses higher bit depth giving more steps/finer resolution/etc? |
|
|
| echosystm |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ RANN
I actually think that Clay and Richie are making very valid points here |
Clay said "Nyquist theory isn't good enough for audio". That's like saying gravity isn't good enough for human flight. Gravity doesn't give a and neither does Nyquist, which is why we build aeroplanes and use sample rates greater than double the highest intended frequency. Not sure what's valid about that point at all? |
|
|
| Teezdalien |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ RANN
Help me out here guys:
I actually think that Clay and Richie are making very valid points here and if you go on to the net, and look up higher bit depths, you'll find blog upon blog and thread upon thread suggesting more is clearly better.
As the info in this thread has demonstrated, that's not quite a clear definition and really thinking about this and the maths involved has convoluted the situation for me.
The bit that really s me off about the original article, is that his whole argument is really just about dynamic range.
Yes, agreed in real working practices (i.e. real world usable dynamic range, ambient noise interference etc) the higher bit depth is of no advantage but the massive bit he keeps glossing over, is that 24 bit audio provides more steps of resolution (i.e. is samplerate is resolution on a horizontal plain, bit depth is resolution on a vertical plain).
These are the only passages where he addresses it:
Can anyone see anything part in there where addresses higher bit depth giving more steps/finer resolution/etc? |
Not exactly sure what you're asking here?
Are you suggesting that any bit-depth higher than 16 bit is of no advantage?
I mean you're right in saying that the sample rate doesn't have much bearing to dynamic range. I agree 16 bit at 44.1 is adequate for playback, but I was also under the belief that a higher bit depth is desirable for recording due to being able to more accurately represent the dynamic range of a waveform.
I'm no expert but definitely interested in learning more about this stuff. |
|
|
| DJ RANN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Teezdalien
Not exactly sure what you're asking here?
Are you suggesting that any bit-depth higher than 16 bit is of no advantage?
I mean you're right in saying that the sample rate doesn't have much bearing to dynamic range. I agree 16 bit at 44.1 is adequate for playback, but I was also under the belief that a higher bit depth is desirable for recording due to being able to more accurately represent the dynamic range of a waveform.
I'm no expert but definitely interested in learning more about this stuff. |
You did actually read the thread and the first link right? The entire thing is about higher bit depths NOT being of any advantage at for playback.
Palm - you raise some good points, and I've always believed (and now it seems rightly so) that for producing and recording higher bit depth is better.
As you point out though, the content doesn't seem to address pro audio uses especially with very serious pro audio interfaces/DAC etc. I think his main argument is for consumer audio devices and that makes sense.
The bit I'm still struggling with (and it's more theoretical that practical at this point) is truly whether or not there is an advantage in resolution of the higher bit depth.
Even with the real world usable dynamic range 93db (or 120, however you want to look at it) that doesn't affect the resolution, in the same way, you don't get more pixels if you're only look at one part of the screen (if that makes sense); The resolution stays the same regardless of how much of the range you are using.
I can't seem to figure a straight answer on this, and whether that extra resolution con be perceived as a better sounding? |
|
|
| Looney4Clooney |
It is more forgiving. If you are a technical mixer with impeccable gain staging , then sure 16 bit is fine. If you run a fledgling mastering house and your wife is overweight and her vagina has too much headroom , 24 bit.
That is how we do
 |
|
|
| Teezdalien |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ RANN
You did actually read the thread and the first link right? The entire thing is about higher bit depths NOT being of any advantage at for playback.
The bit I'm still struggling with (and it's more theoretical that practical at this point) is truly whether or not there is an advantage in resolution of the higher bit depth.
Even with the real world usable dynamic range 93db (or 120, however you want to look at it) that doesn't affect the resolution, in the same way, you don't get more pixels if you're only look at one part of the screen (if that makes sense); The resolution stays the same regardless of how much of the range you are using.
I can't seem to figure a straight answer on this, and whether that extra resolution con be perceived as a better sounding? |
Sorry for the confusion. Of course I read the article, I was just also left a bit puzzled with your previous post, this comment in particular as you didn't mention playback.
| quote: | | Yes, agreed in real working practices (i.e. real world usable dynamic range, ambient noise interference etc) the higher bit depth is of no advantage but the massive bit he keeps glossing over, is that 24 bit audio provides more steps of resolution (i.e. is samplerate is resolution on a horizontal plain, bit depth is resolution on a vertical plain). |
Now these unanswered questions you raise. It just goes against the things I've been taught and understood. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'd just like to get to the bottom of this too.
I dunno, I just thought that it was ideal to use the higher resolution bit depths because they are more accurate when capturing or rendering digital audio. Personally I don't hear any improvement when listening back when compared to a 16 bit file, and I don't really think there is any either. |
|
|
|
|
