Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Vinyl vs Digital and 24 bit vs 16 bit from vinyl. (Read 207053 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Vinyl vs Digital and 24 bit vs 16 bit from vinyl.

Reply #175 –
Quote from: greynol on
...no more indoctrinated than learning that 2+2=4.

2+2=4? Wow. Even the mods are testy here.

Quote
I recognize that you've qualified your ability to distinguish 16 bit from 24 through a massive volume increase.

Thank you, I guess.

Quote
To stir the pot regarding the ability to distinguish audibility between 16-bit and 24-bit, allow me to point to this discussion:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....st&p=610558

Considering that this thread is about vinyl and that it's already well established that 16/44 is more than adequate for delivering vinyl transparently, I think this other discussion would be a better place to take the general discussion about 16-bit vs. 24-bit.

Fine. If it is already been conclusively established that 44.1k/16 bit is "more than adequate" for delivering vinyl, then what would be the point of any further discussion on this thread? Apparently none.

I regret ever posting here.

Vinyl vs Digital and 24 bit vs 16 bit from vinyl.

Reply #176 –
Quote from: disfrontman on
Fine.  If it is already been conclusively established that 44.1k/16 bit is "more than adequate" for delivering vinyl, then what would be the point of any further discussion on this thread?  Apparently none.

I regret ever posting here.


Whats the point of posting to tell us theres no point in posting?

Vinyl vs Digital and 24 bit vs 16 bit from vinyl.

Reply #177 –
Quote from: disfrontman on
Fine.  If it is already been conclusively established that 44.1k/16 bit is "more than adequate" for delivering vinyl, then what would be the point of any further discussion on this thread?  Apparently none.


I asked this question years ago and this was the thread:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....69&hl=vinyl

Vinyl vs Digital and 24 bit vs 16 bit from vinyl.

Reply #178 –
Quote from: disfrontman on
If it is already been conclusively established that 44.1k/16 bit is "more than adequate" for delivering vinyl, then what would be the point of any further discussion on this thread?
Well, if you want to post some speculation without evidence, there would be no point at all.

If you have an LP which is faithfully reproduced by, say, 24-bit 96kHz recording, but has audible problems at 16-bit 44.1kHz, we'd all be interested to hear some samples.

You could time-align and level-match the files, and play them in foobar2k's ABX comparator to determine whether the difference is real (= you can tell which is which just by listening) or imagined (=you can't tell which is which when you don't know which one you're listening to).

HA is about finding real problems and fixing them - not waffle and imagination.

Cheers,
David.

Vinyl vs Digital and 24 bit vs 16 bit from vinyl.

Reply #179 –
Quote from: 2Bdecided on
HA is about finding real problems and fixing them

I'm glad for that, and I hope to learn more from HA over the next few months that can directly help me with my recording efforts.

Vinyl vs Digital and 24 bit vs 16 bit from vinyl.

Reply #180 –
Welcome on board, disfrontman. If you can make it through the initial hazing, where our better-informed users tell you in no uncertain terms where and how you're wrong, there's a whole lot you can learn here. I hope you enjoy your stay.

Vinyl vs Digital and 24 bit vs 16 bit from vinyl.

Reply #181 –
disfrontman, you're on the right track regarding 16 vs 24 bit...it's a valid issue for recording and production, but for home playback, it really is only an issue if you are listening to the quietest part of a track, at levels that will be deafening during the loudest parts.  I applaud you for including the caveats right up front.  (That said, I believe most home gear these days will convert 16 bit input to 24 bit anyway, if there is any DSP enabled in the signal path, which there often is; so in days to come it may just make sense to bring digital to the consumer at 24 bits right off the bat.)


As for higher sample rates at playback (or even recording), the utility of upping the SR really hinges on how audible you think modern oversampling DAC filter stages will be.  Because the evidence that content difference from using higher sample rates than 44.1 -- which is to say, the broader bandwidth -- is, in itself, likely to be audible, with music at normal levels, is just not that solid.
 

Vinyl vs Digital and 24 bit vs 16 bit from vinyl.

Reply #182 –
The thing I'm finding intriguing about this whole thread is that 96/24 is just a complete non-issue with regard to computing resources nowadays. Even a Mac Mini includes 96/24 capability on it's in-built I/O. Now, I accept that you might want to ration your processing resources more rigorously if you're simultaneously working with dozens of tracks with strings of inserts on many of them, but we're talking about the simple matter of a stereo capture of a record here. Perhaps 44.1/16 is "more than adequate" for vinyl but I don't see that anybody has actually proven that here (is it provable?). Regardless of the merits of 44.1/16, I respectfully suggest that 96/24 might be better. It can't be worse, can it? Essentially, what is being discussed here are the capabilities and limitations of a nascent recording medium developed 30-plus years ago for the technology of the day verses a more contemporary version incorporating some of the 30-plus years of improved knowledge more appropriate for the tools of now. What's wrong with going with the present?

Vinyl vs Digital and 24 bit vs 16 bit from vinyl.

Reply #183 –
Quote from: Hanuman on
The thing I'm finding intriguing about this whole thread is that 96/24 is just a complete non-issue with regard to computing resources nowadays. Even a Mac Mini includes 96/24 capability on it's in-built I/O. Now, I accept that you might want to ration your processing resources more rigorously if you're simultaneously working with dozens of tracks with strings of inserts on many of them, but we're talking about the simple matter of a stereo capture of a record here. Perhaps 44.1/16 is "more than adequate" for vinyl but I don't see that anybody has actually proven that here (is it provable?).


Yes, it is provable.  Record an LP to digital.  Compere the recording to the original, double-blind, level-matched, and time-synched.  REpeat as needed until you're convinced one way or the other, based on the # of correct identifications vs the significance threshold .

Quote
Regardless of the merits of 44.1/16, I respectfully suggest that 96/24 might be better. It can't be worse, can it?


Theoretically, it could, but it's not likely to today.

Quote
Essentially, what is being discussed here are the capabilities and limitations of a nascent recording medium developed 30-plus years ago for the technology of the day verses a more contemporary version incorporating some of the 30-plus years of improved knowledge more appropriate for the tools of now. What's wrong with going with the present?


What's being discussed here are the claims for inherent audible improvement, und thus NEED FOR, the higher rates,  that have never been definitively demonstrated. 

Please explain why 24 bits would be intrinsically *needed* for an LP capture, to capture all its audible attributes?  As opposed to practical reasons why one might use it (e.g., post-capture processing)  Then do the same for higher sample rates.

Vinyl vs Digital and 24 bit vs 16 bit from vinyl.

Reply #184 –
Quote from: Hanuman on
The thing I'm finding intriguing about this whole thread is that 96/24 is just a complete non-issue with regard to computing resources nowadays.
In ten years time it will be possible to use 10MHz sampling instead of 96kHz, with the same minimal impact on computing resources.

Does that means that you should?

Cheers,
David.

Vinyl vs Digital and 24 bit vs 16 bit from vinyl.

Reply #185 –
Quote from: krabapple on
Please explain why 24 bits would be intrinsically *needed* for an LP capture, to capture all its audible attributes?  As opposed to practical reasons why one might use it (e.g., post-capture processing)  Then do the same for higher sample rates.


Just by recording a signal, using any kind of method, we degrade it. There doesn't yet exist a means of passing an analogue signal through a recording or transmission chain in such a way as to result in an identical version of the signal on output as appeared at the input. It follows that any recording system (even a well-designed digital one) will compromise the fidelity of the analogue signal that is fed into it, even if that signal is the undoubtably flawed output of a vinyl record playing system. Now, by all objective measures available, digital recording at 44.1Khz 16-bit seems to have vinyl well covered - wider dynamic range, greater resolution, flatter frequency response, no wow & flutter etc, etc. But it's not the point. While it's fair enough to say that a certain storage medium has greater performance potential than another in all these areas, it's not correct logic to therefore conclude that that superior medium is all you need for faithful capture of the other without loss. There will be a loss. We know that 44.1/16 despite it's many virtues, is not a perfect recording method (no method is) and that the signal will be degraded. Considering the practicality and cheapness of using higher data-rates, I don't see much merit in not seeking to make less imperfect recordings with less signal-degradation by using those higher rates.

Vinyl vs Digital and 24 bit vs 16 bit from vinyl.

Reply #186 –
So, 24-bit signal with nothing but noise in least significant 8 bits is undoubtedly better than 16-bit signal?

Vinyl vs Digital and 24 bit vs 16 bit from vinyl.

Reply #187 –
Quote from: Hanuman on
Considering the practicality and cheapness of using higher data-rates, I don't see much merit in not seeking to make less imperfect recordings with less signal-degradation by using those higher rates.

An LP pressed on the highest quality heavyweight virgin vinyl has about 12 bits of resolution (on a good day with a following wind), and contains overwhelmingly noise and distortion above about 18kHz. These are well known limitations of the medium itself. Recording it at 96/24 instead of 44.1/16 is only "less imperfect" in the sense that you capture a more faithful representation of its noise and high frequency distortion. *Every last nuance* of the actual musical signal that comes off an LP is captured with as much accuracy at 44.1/16 as it is at 96/24. Higher data rates simply confer no benefit whatsoever.

"So what?, it can't hurt" you might respond. Well: in the domain of digital transfer of LPs, where you might be interested in doing a bit of restoration work, it very well *can* hurt. And the reason is that some restoration tools might not support those higher data rates. Why deny yourself access to potentially useful tools in exchange for the false confidence that you're making "more accurate" recordings?

Vinyl vs Digital and 24 bit vs 16 bit from vinyl.

Reply #188 –
Quote from: cliveb on
"So what?, it can't hurt" you might respond. Well: in the domain of digital transfer of LPs, where you might be interested in doing a bit of restoration work, it very well *can* hurt. And the reason is that some restoration tools might not support those higher data rates. Why deny yourself access to potentially useful tools in exchange for the false confidence that you're making "more accurate" recordings?


I'm well aware of that possible limitation and I completely concur. When I started doing my own restoration work this definitely was a concern. But I have to say that after careful testing I didn't find that the efficacy of my chosen restoration toolset was compromised by the higher sampling-rate and bit-depth.

Vinyl vs Digital and 24 bit vs 16 bit from vinyl.

Reply #189 –
Quote from: Hanuman on
Just by recording a signal, using any kind of method, we degrade it. There doesn't yet exist a means of passing an analogue signal through a recording or transmission chain in such a way as to result in an identical version of the signal on output as appeared at the input. It follows that any recording system (even a well-designed digital one) will compromise the fidelity of the analogue signal that is fed into it, even if that signal is the undoubtedly flawed output of a vinyl record playing system.

If you want to travel to smartass land, I would recommend visiting the capitol and not just hanging out at the periphery. There is no such thing as a verifiable identity between two analog signals beyond your measurement equipment's sensitivity. So your claim is not verifiable in an absolute sense. You either can prove identity within measurable bounds or defend a not verifiable position.

Whether a secondary recording medium is capable to completely capture a primary medium's information is verifiable within the bounds of both available measurement equipment and average variation between playback rounds. A modern ADC/DAC combo can easily capture as much information, that there is less or equal variation between playback of the secondary medium and the a vinyl record than between several playback rounds of the original record.

Quote from: Hanuman on
Now, by all objective measures available, digital recording at 44.1Khz 16-bit seems to have vinyl well covered - wider dynamic range, greater resolution, flatter frequency response, no wow & flutter etc, etc. But it's not the point.

Well, actually that is the point.

Quote from: Hanuman on
While it's fair enough to say that a certain storage medium has greater performance potential than another in all these areas, it's not correct logic to therefore conclude that that superior medium is all you need for faithful capture of the other without loss. There will be a loss.

With proper analog to digital conversion you will not be able to identify the digital record out of three (two analog). Even with the finest measurement equipment.

Quote from: Hanuman on
We know that 44.1/16 despite it's many virtues, is not a perfect recording method (no method is) and that the signal will be degraded. Content with <96db dynamics and no frequencies above 22kHz is not degraded in any measurable way.
Considering the practicality and cheapness of using higher data-rates, I don't see much merit in not seeking to make less imperfect recordings with less signal-degradation by using those higher rates.

The merit is the same why you don't use 500kHz/128 bit recordings: sanity. You don't want to waste bits that are either all zeroes or noise in 100% of the time. The only domain where Hi Rez makes sense is recording and mastering. You can amplify quiet instruments without getting too close to the noise floor and you can generally process very heavily without getting into the limits discrete recording. As a final storage format anything above Redbook hasn't much merit. Feel free to try a round of ABXing.

Moderation: Very slight re-wording of the second paragraph as requested.  For those that do not know, you have only an hour to edit your posts before they are locked, at which time you need to PM a request to either a moderator or administrator. http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=72003

Vinyl vs Digital and 24 bit vs 16 bit from vinyl.

Reply #190 –
Any more questions, Hanuman? 

Vinyl vs Digital and 24 bit vs 16 bit from vinyl.

Reply #192 –
It's an interesting question - if the noise floor of a source is at x dB below peak, and the next stage unavoidably adds its own noise at y dB below peak, what value of y gives a "good enough" rendition.

y=x doesn't work - noise powers add - the result is trivial to ABX if the original noise was audible by itself.

So, y<x - but by how much?

Well, assuming you're trying to fool the human ear, the added noise needs to be inaudible. That's a non-trivial thing to work out. I don't have the data for noise masking noise.

Assuming you don't want to change the existing noise spectrum by more than 0.1dB at any point, the second noise source needs to be at least 38dB below the first at every frequency.

If you relax the constraint to allow a 1dB change, you still need to keep the second noise source 18dB below the first.

As I said, I don't have the data to hand to know what the correct number is - and this is the number required to ensure that you don't make any audible change to the original background noise - in practice, you might not care about doing that - you might just care about the music  - that's hopefully a lot louder than the original noise.

Cheers,
David.

Vinyl vs Digital and 24 bit vs 16 bit from vinyl.

Reply #193 –
Quote from: lvqcl on
So, 24-bit signal with nothing but noise in least significant 8 bits is undoubtedly better than 16-bit signal?


A parallel can be drawn to the field of archival feature film restoration where the minimum scanning requirement seems to be 4K now and will probably be 6K & 8K soon. Combine this with the 16-bit quantizing and internal processing pipeline of the scanner and you're definitely working towards beautifully recorded grain! This kind of over-engineering is most certainly encountered in professional applications.

Vinyl vs Digital and 24 bit vs 16 bit from vinyl.

Reply #194 –
Film makers actively worked with different film materials to exploit certain visual effects. It makes a lot of sense to preserve this character and grain, especially since it is clearly visible on a big screen. In contrast to film grain, sub 96db audio noise is not clearly audible underneath a signal, if at all only between tracks, and in the case of vinyl it wasn't even specifically selected by an artist but is a result of the manufacturing process and the record's physical condition. In contrast to audio, visual reproduction is today also still far away from the eyes' physical constraints (especially dynamic range).

Vinyl vs Digital and 24 bit vs 16 bit from vinyl.

Reply #195 –
Quote from: 2Bdecided on
Assuming you don't want to change the existing noise spectrum by more than 0.1dB at any point, the second noise source needs to be at least 38dB below the first at every frequency.

Are you sure about that calculation? I only get 16 dB.

Vinyl vs Digital and 24 bit vs 16 bit from vinyl.

Reply #196 –
Quote from: pdq on
Quote from: 2Bdecided on
Assuming you don't want to change the existing noise spectrum by more than 0.1dB at any point, the second noise source needs to be at least 38dB below the first at every frequency.

Are you sure about that calculation? I only get 16 dB.


+1

This assumes uncorrelated noise sources, so when you add the noise sources, you do a square root of sum of the squares thing.

It also assumes that the power spectral density of the two noise sources are the same, which rarely happens in the real world.

From a perceptual standpoint, the noise source is usually random or pseudo-random, but the signal is coherent. Since coherent sources are more 10-20 dB more audible at equal levels, the noise source is usually less noticable perceptually than it is numerically.

The simplest way to work this out for me has been to create two noise sources with the desired PSD in CEP, and then add them together in CEP. This gives me the extra option of actually listening to the result.

Vinyl vs Digital and 24 bit vs 16 bit from vinyl.

Reply #197 –
Quote from: Hanuman on
Quote from: lvqcl on
So, 24-bit signal with nothing but noise in least significant 8 bits is undoubtedly better than 16-bit signal?


A parallel can be drawn to the field of archival feature film restoration where the minimum scanning requirement seems to be 4K now and will probably be 6K & 8K soon. Combine this with the 16-bit quantizing and internal processing pipeline of the scanner and you're definitely working towards beautifully recorded grain! This kind of over-engineering is most certainly encountered in professional applications.



If the spectral contents of the noises are the same, then a 24-bit signal with nothing but noise in least significant 8 bits is exactly the same as a properly-dithered 16-bit signal. In practice, we usually over-dither a tad.

But, you're not going to hear any difference between music with a 99 dB dynamic range, and 93 dB dynamic range, unless you play silly games like listen to fade outs or attenuate the signal by 40 dB and listen with the gain turned up by 40 dB.  Most music has a noise floor that is 65-75 dB down, and that's actually pretty high quality music compared to the average.

Vinyl vs Digital and 24 bit vs 16 bit from vinyl.

Reply #198 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Quote from: pdq on
Quote from: 2Bdecided on
Assuming you don't want to change the existing noise spectrum by more than 0.1dB at any point, the second noise source needs to be at least 38dB below the first at every frequency.

Are you sure about that calculation? I only get 16 dB.

+1

+2

10 x log10, not 20 x log10   

Which means you need to be ~6dB down for 1dB change.


Good - I thought that -38dB number looked silly.

Cheers,
David.

Vinyl vs Digital and 24 bit vs 16 bit from vinyl.

Reply #199 –
Quote from: rpp3po on
Film makers actively worked with different film materials to exploit certain visual effects. It makes a lot of sense to preserve this character and grain, especially since it is clearly visible on a big screen. In contrast to film grain, sub 96db audio noise is not clearly audible underneath a signal, if at all only between tracks, and in the case of vinyl it wasn't even specifically selected by an artist but is a result of the manufacturing process and the record's physical condition. In contrast to audio, visual reproduction is today also still far away from the eyes' physical constraints (especially dynamic range).


All fair enough points and it is true that visual analogies are only partially applicable to aural. I don't agree, though, with the implication that visible film grain is necessarily there by artistic choice. Obviously we've seen plenty of grain-for-effect and a cinematographer will be be mindful of grain characteristics when selecting a stock (and a speed) but for most shots in most films, grain just comes along for the ride, just like noise. Sometimes other creative decisions in the colour correction process raise the grain to levels that were never expected and aren't actually wanted. So, it goes out like that and ends up on the print and in the historical record (for some future archivist to perfectly preserve!).