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: More misinformation (Read 111859 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: More misinformation

Reply #475 –
Quote from: ajinfla on
Quote from: jumpingjackflash5 on
No point to continue like this.
I enjoy dodge ball. ;)

Quote from: jumpingjackflash5 on
But this does not change my opinion (or approach) to the size of the container for end user audio.
Right, we established long ago your opinion had nothing to do with audio. On Hydrogen Audio no less!


Ok, I have summarized the benefits of 24 bit audio above.

Re: More misinformation

Reply #480 –
Quote from: jumpingjackflash5 on
So the benefits of 24 bit container are

- obsolete dithering

Dither is either a relevant concern in the real world with 16 bit or it isn't.

Quote

- better room for mastering, higher dynamic range available


Dynamic range that is higher than is useful is useless.  And the input format puts no restrictions on the format and room used for processing.

Quote
- better conversion to MP3/other lossy (as described by Apple)

Is there any actual evidence of this or are we playing the "someone said it so it must be true" game? IMO, finding some good evidence here would probably be your best bet for making some headway in your arguments.

Quote
- possibility of transparent saving the results of DSP/volume/resampling changes

Transparent how? If you change something then it's different.

One more time: unless you amplify the existing 16 bit noise vs. the signal - and I haven't seen you present any example where this is true - how does it become audible? And if it doesn't ever become audible, what's the point?

Re: More misinformation

Reply #481 –
Quote from: drewfx on
Quote from: jumpingjackflash5 on
So the benefits of 24 bit container are

- obsolete dithering

Dither is either a relevant concern in the real world with 16 bit or it isn't.

Quote

- better room for mastering, higher dynamic range available


Dynamic range that is higher than is useful is useless.  And the input format puts no restrictions on the format and room used for processing.

Quote
- better conversion to MP3/other lossy (as described by Apple)

Is there any actual evidence of this or are we playing the "someone said it so it must be true" game? IMO, finding some good evidence here would probably be your best bet for making some headway in your arguments.

Quote
- possibility of transparent saving the results of DSP/volume/resampling changes

Transparent how? If you change something then it's different.

One more time: unless you amplify the existing 16 bit noise vs. the signal - and I haven't seen you present any example where this is true - how does it become audible? And if it doesn't ever become audible, what's the point?

Yes, we can live well with 16 bit playback at no audible loss when properly done. The benefits of 24 bit come above the framework of this statement and appeal to minority of end users. No need to discuss them over and over.

Re: More misinformation

Reply #483 –
Quote from: lvqcl on
Quote from: jumpingjackflash5 on
The benefits of 24 bit
You still failed to prove that they exist in reality, not just in someone's imagination.


I am OK with that. If they do not exist, the studios and vendors like Apple would not use 24 bit mastering format. I think I clearly stated that it does not dismiss the CD format for pure playback.

Re: More misinformation

Reply #484 –
Quote from: jumpingjackflash5 on
If they do not exist, the studios and vendors like Apple would not use 24 bit mastering format.
Red herring. Tell us what went wrong with your remasters. Specifics,, not frantic hand waving, dodge ball, word games, dancing, etc.
Track and results please. For the 50th time.
Loudspeaker manufacturer

Re: More misinformation

Reply #485 –
...and the logical fallacies of goalpost shifting and argument from authority persist.

...and like so many other pieces of "evidence" that sacred PDF* grail by Apple has been discussed here before.  Xnor made mention of what lossy does to SNR, and I'm left wondering why it was ignored.

(*) That it's a codified acrobat document and not a news article somehow makes it infallible?!?

Re: More misinformation

Reply #486 –
Alright, i have some 24/96 files from ProStudioMasters.com and i'm considering converting them to 16/44.1 to save space. I'm playing back from computer and will have room correction in my playback chain before the audio hits my soundcard.

Is there any reason to believe that keeping them at 24bit will make the DSP for the room correction (or any dsp) more accurate? If so, would that ever be audible?

Any reason not to convert these down to 24/44.1?
Music lover and recovering high end audiophile

Re: More misinformation

Reply #487 –
Quote from: BearcatSandor on
Alright, i have some 24/96 files from ProStudioMasters.com and i'm considering converting them to 16/44.1 to save space. I'm playing back from computer and will have room correction in my playback chain before the audio hits my soundcard.

Is there any reason to believe that keeping them at 24bit will make the DSP for the room correction (or any dsp) more accurate? If so, would that ever be audible?

Any reason not to convert these down to 24/44.1?

There will be no audible difference, no.  Feel free to convert down to 16/44.1, but, as discussed previously, you should apply dithering in the conversion process.

Re: More misinformation

Reply #488 –
Quote from: BearcatSandor on
Is there any reason to believe that keeping them at 24bit will make the DSP for the room correction (or any dsp) more accurate?
Based on objective evidence (qualitative or quantitative) provided in this discussion? Absolutely not.

Quote from: BearcatSandor on
If so, would that ever be audible?
I guess an answer isn't needed, but I'll tell you no anyway. ;)

Quote from: BearcatSandor on
Any reason not to convert these down to 24/44.1?
Your hardware might do a better job with 48kHz or could even be resampled to this rate without your knowledge.  Aside from countless pages of unsubstantiated voodoo, there is no reason even to keep the depth at 24 bits.
 

Re: More misinformation

Reply #489 –
As I have written much has been said and no need to search for fallacies, paranoia and other disorders ....

The logic of "minimum possible audibly lossless container" (being now a CD) could be applied even to 14 bit music in the same way Philips/Sony debate was in the 1980 (then triggered by the real capacities of ADCs at that time, however). Or it could be applied even for 320 kbps MP3 for some types of music/tracks if we firmly take into account psychoacoustics (also scientific approach).

I have no doubt that as a audibly lossless container for pure playback CD serves very well.

But I was talking also about "digital audio losslessness" and tried to explain what I mean under this - not losing digitally audio relevant or "sonically correlating" information to the original recording, of course not adding new "artificial" information like a (inaudible) dither. For that purpose I see benefits of 24 bit format in accord with some big players on the market (not Hi-Res cravers).

This defines the space for bigger container and its usefulness. For majority of scenarios and users, this container is too big and that is also why it is not justified for general usage now. But at the same time it does not screw up anything, complies with the performance level of todays ADCs and DACs and provides advantages for some scenarios I tried to describe.

If we stay at this framework of a problem we can understand it better.

Re: More misinformation

Reply #490 –
Quote from: BearcatSandor on
Alright, i have some 24/96 files from ProStudioMasters.com and i'm considering converting them to 16/44.1 to save space. I'm playing back from computer and will have room correction in my playback chain before the audio hits my soundcard.

Is there any reason to believe that keeping them at 24bit will make the DSP for the room correction (or any dsp) more accurate? If so, would that ever be audible?

Any reason not to convert these down to 24/44.1?

If you do not have space constraints (quite easily remedied with todays NASes and HDDs), you can keep your 24/96 file as is, use them even for playback and forget about it.
If you do have them, you can make 24/44.1 by pure resampling, or 16/44.1 with proper dithering. When doing the latest (16/44.1) I suggest you backup the 24/96 source somewhere for future use.
In all cases you will almost certainly achieve audibly lossless results on playback.

Re: More misinformation

Reply #491 –
In regards to digital audio, it is lossy by nature simply by nature that the air pressure movements imperfectly translates to 1s and 0s, and will remain that way until we can accurately gauge the interaction of individual molecules (the frequency model is just an imperfect way to generalize the phenomena into a useful, measurable format). Furthermore, PCM is a particularly poor form of digital audio. Digital loss is on top of the losses already induced by imperfect recording equipment.

So, when we discuss digital music, we are really talking about different grades of inferior sound reproduction. So, since digital sound is bad, how much can we get away with destroying the original signal and remain within the bounds of a poor standard (16/44.1) -- perceptually, anyway? Some, who don't really care about quality will be very happy with modern compression techniques -- the results, to them, are so close to 16/44.1 that it may as well be indistinguishable to 99% of the people with 99% of the gear on the market. Of course, those people also feel 16/44.1 is the quality standard by which everything must be judged, and, as discussed above, is in fact a poor standard for audio fidelity. Those 1% who have invested significant sums into their equipment don't want to stuck with any loss of fidelity, even if it would be virtually invisible due to the poor mastering techniques of popular music and/or various filtering techniques mask the losses. Yes, the filtering techniques used by various decoding engines are putting "lipstick on a pig".

Re: More misinformation

Reply #492 –
Quote from: GUTB on

So, when we discuss digital music, we are really talking about different grades of inferior sound reproduction. So, since digital sound is bad, how much can we get away with destroying the original signal and remain within the bounds of a poor standard (16/44.1) -- perceptually, anyway? Some, who don't really care about quality will be very happy with modern compression techniques -- the results, to them, are so close to 16/44.1 that it may as well be indistinguishable to 99% of the people with 99% of the gear on the market.

Yes, true. One could defend 320 kbps MP3 in the similar way for some types of music as the CD standard is defended here for all the music. And it is (logically) OK. That is what is call "audible lossness" vs "digital audio lossness".

Re: More misinformation

Reply #493 –
Quote from: jumpingjackflash5 on
But I was talking also about "digital audio losslessness"
A term you made up on the fly.

Quote from: jumpingjackflash5 on
and tried to explain what I mean under this - not losing digitally audio relevant or "sonically correlating" information to the original recording, of course not adding new "artificial" information like a (inaudible) dither.
You so far have been unable to demonstrate a single instance of commercially available content where anything greater than 16 bits is relevant, so why should this be taken with any seriousness?  An appeal to the Apple PDF authority isn't going to cut it.

Quote from: jumpingjackflash5 on
For majority of scenarios and users, this container is too big and that is also why it is not justified for general usage now.
Repeating yourself doesn't make the implication that there exists some non-zero quantity of scenarios and users any more true.

Re: More misinformation

Reply #494 –
Quote from: greynol on
Quote from: jumpingjackflash5 on
But I was talking also about "digital audio losslessness"
A term you made up on the fly.

Quote from: jumpingjackflash5 on
and tried to explain what I mean under this - not losing digitally audio relevant or "sonically correlating" information to the original recording, of course not adding new "artificial" information like a (inaudible) dither.
You so far have been unable to demonstrate a single instance of commercially available content where anything greater than 16 bits is relevant, so why should this be taken with any seriousness?  An appeal to the Apple PDF authority isn't going to cut it.

Quote from: jumpingjackflash5 on
For majority of scenarios and users, this container is too big and that is also why it is not justified for general usage now.
Repeating yourself doesn't make it any more true.

Yes, kind of new term. But I think it shows something.
I do not strive to prove 16 bit being "audibly lossy", but for digitally accurate preserving (as far as todays ADCs allow and they allow more than 96 dB - usually about 110-120 dB) what can be heard (recorded) in the actual performance.


Re: More misinformation

Reply #495 –
Thanks for the answers.  My 24/44.1 was a typo. I meant 16 of course. Great to know there's no reason to keep them, aside from saving a few CPU cycles.
Music lover and recovering high end audiophile

Re: More misinformation

Reply #496 –
To sum up, jumpingjackflash5's obsession in 24-bit lossless distribution for listening purpose is not based on any audible reasons. He has a lot of disk space to waste as well.

While he is obsessed with 24-bit lossless in distribution, he also prefers lossy formats converted form 24 or 32-bit sources, ignoring the objective in lossy encoding is transparency, not data integrity.

Re: More misinformation

Reply #497 –
Quote from: jumpingjackflash5 on
for digitally accurate preserving (as far as todays ADCs allow and they allow more than 96 dB - usually about 110-120 dB) what can be heard (recorded) in the actual performance.
That's yet another large and unsubstantiated leap you've made.  That two others have already called you out on it be damned.

Re: More misinformation

Reply #498 –
Quote from: BearcatSandor on
Thanks for the answers.  My 24/44.1 was a typo. I meant 16 of course. Great to know there's no reason to keep them, aside from saving a few CPU cycles.

For pure playback and if you choose dither well (e.g with low-shibata or modified-e-weighted one), none. Still if you paid for them I suggest to back them up somewhere. Maybe you'll need to do another conversion sometimes ....

Re: More misinformation

Reply #499 –
Quote from: jumpingjackflash5 on
For pure playback and if you choose dither well (e.g with low-shibata or modified-e-weighted one)
We're now experts at recommending dither all of a sudden?