Not quite. I'm not necessarily comparing the same product in different formats but you're quite right that I'm saying it's not as straightforward as digital = good, analogue = bad/inferior

Not quite. I'm not necessarily comparing the same product in different formats

but you're quite right that I'm saying it's not as straightforward as digital = good, analogue = bad/inferior

Quote from: botface on 2008-12-02 19:27:33

Not quite. I'm not necessarily comparing the same product in different formats but you're quite right that I'm saying it's not as straightforward as digital = good, analogue = bad/inferior

The properties of FM radio and other analog sources are quantifiably inferior to vinyl so I'm not even going to bother going there.

Quote from: botface on 2008-12-02 19:27:33

Not quite. I'm not necessarily comparing the same product in different formats

Then you are very confused about what you are comparing and how to compare things in general. And as long as you keep mixing up medium and message, and avoid using reliable references, you are pretty much guaranteed to remain confused.

Quote

but you're quite right that I'm saying it's not as straightforward as digital = good, analogue = bad/inferior

All other things being equal, and relating to recorded audio media performance, digital = practically perfect, and analog = something that is audibly less than perfect.

High speed open reel tape inferior to vinyl? I think not

Quote from: botface on 2008-12-02 20:42:09

High speed open reel tape inferior to vinyl? I think not

While I respect the comment you are making here (I was not anally-retentive enough to add a couple words to prevent this kind of nonsense), your behaviour is that of a troll. I see very little evidence to the contrary here. You are cherry-picking the claims you dislike and ignoring completely the thrust of the arguments being made.

1) Why do you assume that Canar said all other analog sources are inferior to vinyl when this is not what he said?

2) Regarding your response to Arnold, what part of "All other things being equal" don't you understand?

High speed open reel tape inferior to vinyl? I think not

From where I sit it seems that people are ignoring what I'm suggesting and simply reiterating the same statements about digital's superiority, which I have not at any stage disagreed with.

I disagree. I think it's perfectly reasonable to compare say a live BBC broadcast of a string quartet with a "loudness wars" CD and make qualitative judgements about the relative sound quality of the two.

Quote from: botface on 2008-12-02 20:42:09

High speed open reel tape inferior to vinyl? I think not

I'm not exactly sure if that was ever meant, but FWIW, I recall a JAES paper that explicitly stated that lacquer masters beat 15ips on noise and distortion. Granted, that was before Dolby, but that was also before DMM too.

I've heard tape hiss on several records.

...not to mention that the CD is not the only chosen format to deliver hyper-compressed audio:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=66401

Quote from: botface on 2008-12-02 21:08:13

From where I sit it seems that people are ignoring what I'm suggesting and simply reiterating the same statements about digital's superiority, which I have not at any stage disagreed with.

So then digital is superior and you're making no claims to the contrary? Would you mind succinctly recapitulating what exactly you're trying to discuss here? This is going around in circles. There is no faith needed to place trust in digital recordings. The scientific measurements speak for themselves.

"I was simply pointing out that while in my opinion the superiority of digital is not always audible there are some members of this forum who are guilty of the same prejudice they scorn analogue-lovers for....."

The 1st statement doesn't look partricularly contentious to me so I guess it's the 2nd one that's upset some people

"People tend just take one side or the other. I have investigated and to my ears digital is sometimes superior. Vinyl is sometimes superior. Sometimes FM radio is superior to both. It's all in the care taken over recording, mastering and manufacturing in my opinion"

...not to mention that the CD is not the only chosen format to deliver hyper-compressed audio:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=66401

I personally feel that 16 to 24 bit is a small, but noticeable step up. I have a soundcard which lets me change the bit depth while music is playing. I have played around with it and I would say that it was about as noticeable as going from 720p to 1080p on a 35 inch tv. Few would notice. But at close glance, you can see the extra detail. But when you go from 44.1k to 48k BIG difference. Most noticeable when a quiet passage is played at a high volume. CD's suffer a digital hiss, which are basically the steps in between samples. DVDs sound clearer than cd's to me because of these extra "steps." More steps in the same amount of space = smaller step. But the sound is of a lower quality than a cd, if that even makes sense. I am not very good at expressing my thoughts through words sometimes . And I was joking about the lower.


Here is my stance. I am a guy who still buys records and loves to flac em 96k times a second with 24 bits in them samples.  You could have the normal 1(16 bit) lock on your doorknob. But I have a deadbolt, locking knob, and a chain.(24 bit) And instead of a wooden or plastic (44.1 khtz)door,  I have a steel door.

Am I actually safer(sound better) than you just because of that, maybe. But I definitely feel safer.

Was that too dumb

I have been fascinated by this discussion from the recording artist's perspective.  I am working on a major art rock musical and was contemplating releasing it on vinyl as well as CD/mp3.  I was wondering if having the lacquer cutting people use 24 bit files rather than 16 bit would yield a better product.  Now I'm not so sure it would matter.  Still, I love the look and experience of vinyl, with that great canvas for artwork!

With regard to audio perceptions of bit depth, I would have to say that from my own personal experience there is a WORLD of difference between 16 and 24 bit--but only at extremely low levels.

If you listen to the same program material recorded with the same field equipment at either bit depth, during extremely low levels (stuff barely above the noise floor) the 16 bit will sound like a low-res digital answering machine,

while the 24 bit will still sound decent, comparatively speaking.  Both will sound much worse than higher level program information.  I remember hearing the difference between 16 and 20 bit ADATs in the 90's when I worked in the music retail industry.  There was a real difference.

Having said that, for regular program material they are utterly indistinguishable for 99.999% of the population, so I don't want to oversell the difference.

From an artist's perspective, however, 24 bit is nice because it offers a much lower potential noise floor and more headroom prior to clipping.

This really helps keep things clean at mixdown.

Once the final mix is finished, the whole thing is going to be compressed for the intended medium anyway, so headroom is far less important an issue.

44.1/16 bit is fine--in fact, most people are going to bit-crush the music into their iPods anyway.

Quote from: disfrontman on 2009-05-10 00:28:27

I have been fascinated by this discussion from the recording
With regard to audio perceptions of bit depth, I would have to say that from my own personal experience there is a WORLD of difference between 16 and 24 bit--but only at extremely low levels.

Well, as perceptions anything goes, but as far as scientific audiblity goes, lots of people have looked for reliable proof of the audible benefits of 24 bits, but they all come up empty.

You'll find a lot of emphasis on HA for reliable listening tests - look at TOS 8 and many of the sticky threads. You've probably never done a truely reliable listening test. Few people in general have, but there is a lot of activity like that  around here.

44.1/16 bit is fine--in fact, most people are going to bit-crush the music into their iPods anyway.

Why answer so hard-edged to hist first post? The stated difference isn't even wrong. When you just turn up the volume high enough, low-volume passages are very easily ABXable between 16 and 24 bit. The only problem would be that this chosen volume level would result in turbofan jet engine sound pressure levels for the louder parts of the same record. The difference between 24 and 16 must be analyzed at non pathological volume levels, that don't hurt your ears at full amplitude, and there 24 and 16 bit are indeed indistinguishable as all serious testing has shown.

Quote from: disfrontman on 2009-05-10 00:28:27

I have been fascinated by this discussion from the recording artist's perspective.  I am working on a major art rock musical and was contemplating releasing it on vinyl as well as CD/mp3.  I was wondering if having the lacquer cutting people use 24 bit files rather than 16 bit would yield a better product.  Now I'm not so sure it would matter.  Still, I love the look and experience of vinyl, with that great canvas for artwork!

By most accounts, vinyl is equivalent to 12-13 bits, and maybe 32-40 KHz sampling. This ignores some other built-in problems with vinyl.

I don't know that many people are doing much in the way of recovering their investment in vinyl productions these days.

Quote

With regard to audio perceptions of bit depth, I would have to say that from my own personal experience there is a WORLD of difference between 16 and 24 bit--but only at extremely low levels.

Well, as perceptions anything goes, but as far as scientific audiblity goes, lots of people have looked for reliable proof of the audible benefits of 24 bits, but they all come up empty.

You'll find a lot of emphasis on HA for reliable listening tests - look at TOS 8 and many of the sticky threads. You've probably never done a truely reliable listening test. Few people in general have, but there is a lot of activity like that  around here.

Quote

If you listen to the same program material recorded with the same field equipment at either bit depth, during extremely low levels (stuff barely above the noise floor) the 16 bit will sound like a low-res digital answering machine,

Been there, done that and you are simply not well-informed. I've done that comparison dozens of times, as have a number of others around here, and once you control all of the relevant variables, it is a very tough comparison to get any traction on. I'm hardly alone in this, there is a well-known test like this that was published in the JAES in the past year.

When people say the difference is obvious, they're tacitly admitting that the alleged listening test they did was not good.

Quote

while the 24 bit will still sound decent, comparatively speaking.  Both will sound much worse than higher level program information.  I remember hearing the difference between 16 and 20 bit ADATs in the 90's when I worked in the music retail industry.  There was a real difference.

Now you're talking anecdotes, not science. An ADAT is a complex machine with many relevant variables besides just the bit depth of the converters. In the early 1990s, converter quality and pricel/performance were nothing like they are today. Doing proper comparisons between players and recorders is non-trivial. The really nasty part is geting two digital players to synch within a few milliseconds and keeping them that way. If you don't you can identify them by swithching back and forth and noticing the switch-over. Leading switching to lagging sounds different than lagging switching to leading when the synchoronization is off by even as little as a dozen milliseoncs or two.

Quote

Having said that, for regular program material they are utterly indistinguishable for 99.999% of the population, so I don't want to oversell the difference.

Nope, its a problem of 16 and 24 bits being difficult or impossible for *everybody* to distinguish, even well-known and very successful recording engineers like Katz and Massenberg.

Quote

From an artist's perspective, however, 24 bit is nice because it offers a much lower potential noise floor and more headroom prior to clipping.

I do a ton of live recording - I've recorded over a thousand choirs and maybe 400 or 600 bands and orchestras in the past 4 years. One of  my irritating little sayings is that "If you can't set levels and headroom within 20 dB, you shouldn't be passing yourself off as a professional recording engineer."  The bottom line is that there are very few recordings with more than about 70 dB dynamic range, which still leaves you with 24 or more dB headroom with 16 bits.

Quote

This really helps keep things clean at mixdown.

Multitrack mixdowns can have more variation in dynamic range because of the range of possible numbers of tracks. I mix from 2 to 22 tracks for live recording, and up to 36 independent sources for live sound. I can see the advantages of mixing at 24 bits or even 32 bit floating point.  The good news is that I have a 24 bit digital console (02R96) and 32 bit floating DAW software.

Quote

Once the final mix is finished, the whole thing is going to be compressed for the intended medium anyway, so headroom is far less important an issue.

I would say that 95% or more of the work I do never sees any adjustment of dynamic range other than normal mixing and gain riding. I have over 50 channels of compression at my disposal and simply never see the need for it.

Quote

44.1/16 bit is fine--in fact, most people are going to bit-crush the music into their iPods anyway.

IPODs and their many competitors are often just fine. Many are effective competitors or replacements for even the finest CD players.  Most will play non-lossy compressed files, either AIFF, WAV, or FLAC and the like.

I was referring to how 99% of the listening public tend to use mp3 players--with lossy compressed versions of their favorite songs.  Artists worry about these things.