Jump to content

24bit has no advantage over 16bit as a final storage format.


Recommended Posts



Does this present anything new?

I'd rather the auther hadn't added the sentence regarding 'if 24bits can't be heard how can an audiophile expect to hear differences between higher sample rates'... The findings on 16vs24bit tell us nothing, regardless of whether I agree or disagree with the sentiment that's a pretty thoughtless sentence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



 

This trial is commendable.  Theory needs to be tested.

 

The methodology of getting testers to listen at home has nice validity.

 

The results support the theory.

 

I hope there is another test of bit depth between 16bit and 8bit to support the methodology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



Well that's one way to get out of responding to a valid point raised. Perhaps you didn't understand it. Yeah actually that's more likely.

 

Well, you've been trying a way to get out of a valid question asked here: http://www.stereo.net.au/forums/index.php?/topic/67605-24bit-has-no-advantage-over-16bit-as-a-final-storage-format/?p=1140362 Perhaps you didn't understand it? No I think you did but have been put on the spot and have no answer so you been pumping out rhetorical questions to make the point that you think 24 bit is audibly superior to 16 bit. Yeah actually that's more likely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did you even read Part 1: PROCEDURE?

 

The bit where he explains taking 24bit/96khz material and dithering it down to 16bit/96khz by keeping the sampling rate at 96khz.

 

Where can you buy this 16bit/96khz material.

 

Does a 16bit/96khz "final storage format" even exist  and therefore where's the relevance of this test or the title of this thread to the real world.

 

If the test had been between 24bit/96khz and that material dithered down to 16bit/44.1khz I could see the point as it would be a valid comparison of formats that we can buy and use.

 

ie. 24bit/96khz hi-res versus CD.

 

Some people looking at this thread or even the test results are probably mistakenly under the impression that that's what was actually tested.

 

I think you're one of them.

Edited by KenTripp
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



Did you even read Part 1: PROCEDURE?

 

The bit where he explains taking 24bit/96khz material and dithering it down to 16bit/96khz by keeping the sampling rate at 96khz.

 

Where can you buy this 16bit/96khz material.

 

Does a 16bit/96khz "final storage format" even exist  and therefore where's the relevance of this test or the title of this thread to the real world.

 

If the test had been between 24bit/96khz and that material dithered down to 16bit/44.1khz I could see the point as it would be a valid comparison of formats that we can buy and use.

 

ie. 24bit/96khz hi-res versus CD.

 

Some people looking at this thread or even the test results are probably mistakenly under the impression that that's what was actually tested.

 

I think you're one of them.

 

 

The test you're suggesting has two variables not one and would justifiably be criticised for that. Your suggestion tests both dither and decimation / down sampling.

 

There are different types of dither, this test only uses one. I haven't read in detail on the topic but is flat triangular dither 'typical' of what is applied to music?

Edited by hochopeper
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

24bit has no advantage over 16bit as a final storage format.

 

The expected result from our current understand is that it should not be audible.  Tests show it regularly is not audible.  Seems like a bonafide walking, quaking, duck.

 

Not hating.   I would be thrilled if there was a way to improve playback....   Regardless.   The future is going to make this moot, as any 'new format' is going to be based on 24bits or higher anyway (because the increase storage requirements are trivial in modern times)

Edited by davewantsmoore
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did you even read Part 1: PROCEDURE?

 

The bit where he explains taking 24bit/96khz material and dithering it down to 16bit/96khz by keeping the sampling rate at 96khz.

 

Where can you buy this 16bit/96khz material.

 

Does a 16bit/96khz "final storage format" even exist  and therefore where's the relevance of this test or the title of this thread to the real world.

 

If the test had been between 24bit/96khz and that material dithered down to 16bit/44.1khz I could see the point as it would be a valid comparison of formats that we can buy and use.

 

ie. 24bit/96khz hi-res versus CD.

 

Some people looking at this thread or even the test results are probably mistakenly under the impression that that's what was actually tested.

 

I think you're one of them.

 

Well at least you're actually trying to answer what was asked of you instead of just taking sniping remarks.

Yes I did read the test procedure. I could tell you how wrong I think you are, but this has already been done by someone else.

Oh and I bet if they did test 24/96 to 16/44 then you'd be whinging and whining about that too :)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well that's one way to get out of responding to a valid point raised. Perhaps you didn't understand it. Yeah actually that's more likely.

 

I think people would like to know why you think comparing 24/96 and 16/96 is a problem.     You can help people ... or help turn the thread into the squalor that it usually becomes.

 

 

People not understanding your 'valid'  (but unjustified)  point, isn't a very good excuse IMO.

Edited by davewantsmoore
Link to comment
Share on other sites



where's the relevance of this test or the title of this thread to the real world

 

To determine if a bit depth of 16 vs 24 is actually audible to people.

 

 

Some people looking at this thread or even the test results are probably mistakenly under the impression that that's what was actually tested.

 

Did you even read Part 1: PROCEDURE?

 

The not altering the sample rate is the proper method for investigating bit rate alone ... if that creates confusion, then explanation is the solution.... not diluting the procedure.

 

For the purposes of this test, the "high resolution" 24/96 file samples were utilized directly from those sources (ie. I did not want to do any manipulation of the data like resample to 48kHz).

 

The author didn't want to change the sample rate .... as this could prejudice the results of the actual thing being investigated.

 

see if they can identify which sample of music was the original 24-bit source versus the same piece of music (exact same mastering)dithered down to 16-bits.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did you even read Part 1: PROCEDURE?

 

The bit where he explains taking 24bit/96khz material and dithering it down to 16bit/96khz by keeping the sampling rate at 96khz.

How is one supposed to do a scientific analysis on something if they change more than one variable at once?
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...
To Top