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 111879 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: More misinformation

Reply #550 –
Quote from: bennetng on
Quote from: jumpingjackflash5 on
Quote from: ajinfla on
Quote from: jumpingjackflash5 on
You know well that I do not have ABX test of 24/16 audibility "ready".
Right. Nor any remasters, or anything you've theorized, fabricated or believe.
Yep, 20+ pages worth. When you're "ready", get back with some evidence. No one's holding their breath here.


No need for me to continue discussion on this level. I do not owe you any evidence, I was thinking this is a discussion forum, not an examination or asylum admittance talk. That is all I can say to your offending posts!
I think ajinfla's post is very reasonable and polite this time. How can you say his post (at least this one) is offending simply because you cannot prove you are right?

And you haven't answered my "other question" yet.


Maybe not so offending as the previous ones. But he still (and you too) tries to force me to prove things I do not want (need) to prove. I know that 24-16 is audibly lossless. I do not question audibility in this thread ...

Re: More misinformation

Reply #551 –
Quote from: jumpingjackflash5 on
Quote from: bennetng on
Quote from: jumpingjackflash5 on
Quote from: ajinfla on
Quote from: jumpingjackflash5 on
You know well that I do not have ABX test of 24/16 audibility "ready".
Right. Nor any remasters, or anything you've theorized, fabricated or believe.
Yep, 20+ pages worth. When you're "ready", get back with some evidence. No one's holding their breath here.


No need for me to continue discussion on this level. I do not owe you any evidence, I was thinking this is a discussion forum, not an examination or asylum admittance talk. That is all I can say to your offending posts!
I think ajinfla's post is very reasonable and polite this time. How can you say his post (at least this one) is offending simply because you cannot prove you are right?

And you haven't answered my "other question" yet.


Maybe not so offending as the previous ones. But he still (and you too) tries to force me to prove things I do not want (need) to prove. I know that 24-16 is audibly lossless. I do not question audibility in this thread ...
Please answer my "other question" about lossy encoding directly, otherwise I assume you agree with me.

Re: More misinformation

Reply #552 –
Quote from: jumpingjackflash5 on
I know that 24-16 is audibly lossless.
Then your 24 bit "needs" have nothing to do with "audio" and everything to do with "belief", which is completely contrary to this forums existence. That also calls to question exactly what you are getting "ready"....unless of course, it's yet another ploy to extend the non-audio fishing trip.
Loudspeaker manufacturer

Re: More misinformation

Reply #553 –
Quote from: bennetng on
Quote from: jumpingjackflash5 on
Quote from: bennetng on
Quote from: GUTB on
Just because 99% of the music consumers don't have equipment that is able to render 24-bit audio without most / all of the extra information being lost to mediocre noise performance doesn't mean 24-bit audio isn't without value -- if nothing else, for the enjoyment of the 1% who DO have the equipment. Also, archiving in 24-bit opens the possibility for more consumers to enjoy high resolution audio in the future when they can afford higher end gear.
Do you have relevant citation about this 99% and 1% claim? Why it is not 98.5 or 99.3?
And this approach is one of the reasons the debates are going in circles here. The sense of that post is not to make exact quantification of shares.
When there is no reliable sources to prove the correctness of statistics, citing numbers are absolutely useless. It is not even needed to debate, since you can simply imagine any numbers.
It could just as easily be 100% and 0% unless our newest member is able to provide any reliable evidence to help tip the scales.

Re: More misinformation

Reply #554 –
Quote from: jumpingjackflash5 on
Quantization, dithering, generational loss when saving as 16 bit, ADC SNR higher than CD dynamic range .... but that does not have to change end-user audibility, I agree. But that is stated even there.
Well, exactly. What you seemingly want is material that is not made for the end-user, because you want to process it further. I don't see the point of that. Material that you buy from the usual sources is made consumer-ready, hence the mastering. The result of that is something that is meant to be played back as-is. You may of course alter the volume, or equalize it to your liking, but the dynamic range used is far less that what 16-bit allows, so you won't benefit in any way from more bits delivered to you. Hence there is no generational loss problem to speak of. Furthermore, if you would want to use the material in some form of processing chain, nothing prevented you from using 24 bit resolution in that chain, to keep generational loss down. For this, there's no need to feed 24-bit material in. You can just as well use 16-bit material and convert it to 24-bit right away. There's no loss associated with that.

I know that current converters outperform the CD format, but it would be foolish to buy music according to the capability of the converter used. The converters have long ceased to be the weakest link in a consumer chain, even when leaving the ear out of the equation.

The notion that consumer gear needs to be delivered audio material in a higher resolution that what it is able to process and render, is misguided. Well, at least as long as the point is to listen to it.

Re: More misinformation

Reply #555 –
And to those who think harddisks are cheap so why don't use 24-bit? Mechanical drives produce audible noise so I always prefer SSD. SSDs are more affordable nowadays but definitely not cheap. Don't tell me to buy expensive and bulky silent cases or put my machine in another room. I live in Hong Kong, real estate prices are insanely high that foreigners cannot imagine.

Also, those who familiar with MIDI/samplers/romplers and orchestral sequencing should know that symphonic libraries can easily over several hundred gigabytes and even up to terabytes large. Streaming these libraries require SSD due to huge disk I/O (over 200 16 or 24 bit audio streams simultaneously and <5ms ASIO latency and ultra fast switching between different instrument samples). I am actually a victim of this 24-bit nonsense since I need to pay more to buy larger SSDs and more RAM and I cannot hear any improvement over 16-bit at all.
http://www.soundsonline-forums.com/showthread.php?t=42110

Re: More misinformation

Reply #556 –
Quote from: bennetng on
Quote from: GUTB on
Just because 99% of the music consumers don't have equipment that is able to render 24-bit audio without most / all of the extra information being lost to mediocre noise performance doesn't mean 24-bit audio isn't without value -- if nothing else, for the enjoyment of the 1% who DO have the equipment. Also, archiving in 24-bit opens the possibility for more consumers to enjoy high resolution audio in the future when they can afford higher end gear.
Do you have relevant citation about this 99% and 1% claim? Why it is not 98.5 or 99.3?


....a figure of speech, if you will. Meant to illustrate a very large portion compared to a very small portion. Why did you single that, of all things, out to question?

Re: More misinformation

Reply #558 –
So without an audibility issue (all points refuted), what are you guys still arguing about? If he likes to buy 24 bits then that's what he likes.

Unless there are other factual points to debate the case is closed again.
"I hear it when I see it."

Re: More misinformation

Reply #559 –
Quote from: xnor on
If he likes to buy 24 bits then that's what he likes.
If that was all that was being discussed, but it wasn't.

Feel free to review the entire discussion before inserting your two cents next time.

Re: More misinformation

Reply #560 –
Quote from: jumpingjackflash5 on
But he still (and you too) tries to force me to prove things I do not want (need) to prove.

If you state something as if it was a fact then you need to prove it.

Otherwise it's just an unsupported belief and many here don't care what other people might believe for whatever mysterious reasons - whether it's my beliefs or yours or some authority's that is cited.



Regarding storage space - I don't think it makes sense to debate this point because as a delivery format I think for many people it's either already a solved problem or will be soon.

I don't think 24 bit is a "problem" as much as it's just pointless because after many pages we still haven't found any actual use for the stuff in the extra bits. There just seems a desire to preserve anything that might be stored there, despite no apparent intension to actually put it to use.

And I think one could hold the position that as a matter of policy they don't want to throw anything away if they don't absolutely have to - even if it's useless. But they shouldn't try and pretend it's useful if they can't articulate a use for it. Or pretend that in the real world lots of other people will be willing to spend money or other resources on something that is useless to them.

Re: More misinformation

Reply #561 –
Quote from: drewfx on
Or pretend that in the real world lots of other people will be willing to spend money or other resources on something that is useless to them.
Or support the idea that the money or other resources be required from everyone in order to prevent a problem that either doesn't exist or could be prevented through more reasonable means.

Re: More misinformation

Reply #562 –
Quote from: greynol on
If that was all that was being discussed, but it wasn't.

Feel free to review the entire discussion before inserting your two cents next time.
I've followed the discussion, hence my question. Btw I wasn't talking about the entire thread, if that's not clear.


@jumpingjackflash5 A nice Hitchens quote: 'That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.'
Also, the burden of proof is on the one making the claim. These are universal statements, not HA specific. Additional, the ToS do require you to support the claims you make.
"I hear it when I see it."

Re: More misinformation

Reply #563 –
Quote from: xnor on
Btw I wasn't talking about the entire thread, if that's not clear.
Well allow me to suggest that it is the person making continued attempts at justifying his opinion who owes the community an explanation.

In the meantime I see no reason why people shouldn't be allowed to object to these attempts, let alone demand evidence as support.  I also see no issue with calling a spade a spade as it is clear that the attempts at justification are not compatible with the guiding principle of this community.  You should ask yourself why the person attempting to justify his opinion persists despite his recognizing this principle.

Re: More misinformation

Reply #564 –
I think the whole discussion is out of touch now.

Re: More misinformation

Reply #566 –
Quote from: greynol on
It was never in touch, and that was before you hijacked it from the now banned multiple account user.

I really do not know about what multiple account user you are talking about. I login to HA only under one account, from my desktop and from mobile. No hijacking done.

maybe bad expression out of touch - I am not english native. Out of ... sense, better said.

Re: More misinformation

Reply #567 –
Were you the original poster?  Were your posts derived directly from the one that initiated the topic?  Are you banned?

These questions are all rhetorical.

Out of touch, out of sense, it doesn't matter. The vultures sensed your untenable position.  You never stood a chance. Maybe if you were a mummy and the forum had a mechanism to soak you in urine this could have ended by now.

Re: More misinformation

Reply #568 –
Quote from: greynol on
Were you the original poster?  Were your posts derived directly from the one that initiated the topic?  Are you banned?


Now I understand what you meant in previous post, OK. I was not the original (first) poster and up to now I am not banned.

The rest has gone too far. Stop.

Re: More misinformation

Reply #569 –
The second portion of my previous reply was having fun with the topic concerned about the mistreatment of newbies (though it should extend to the mistreatment of anyone). It was not to be taken seriously.

Re: More misinformation

Reply #571 –
ಠ_ಠ

Re: More misinformation

Reply #572 –
Sorry for more post in this thread but I do not wanna flood the forums with another one on this topic.

Considering the usability practice of 24 bit audio I got some additional experience about that, when I was making order in my digital archive and also getting some recordings done by local amateurs/music fans.

  • one of the "flaws" is that it is usually associated with 96 kHz sample rate (24/96), that is for sure not neccessary, I even "educated" this to my friend who does some recordings at home and he is now happy to record at 24/44.1 or 24/48 :). Although, to be correct, recording in 24/96 should not hurt (but then requires resampling to CD standard for delivery and the content above 20 kHz is very questionable), just wanted to point out that 24 bit audio "association" to higher sample rates for some people.
  • when there is a possibility to do any editing/resampling in the future on the record, it is better to have/keep 24 bit FLAC available. When I have that format available I also use it for playback (small portion of my records).
  • for 320 kB/s MP3 or 256 kb/s M4A conversion, using 24 bit source seems to be better as it does not have to encode any (inaudible) artifacts that would have been introduced with conversion to 16/44.1. Still, I have sometimes to create MP3 for portable use from a CD 16/44.1 FLAC (as majority of my music is on CDs), which I consider audibly transparent - cannot hear the difference from 16/24 bit sources.
  • when I get 16/44.1 tracks (from anywhere, majority comes from CDs) I treat them as "finished" (delivery) and thus I do not apply any additional processing to them, I treat them similar to superfine JPGs (or theoretically PNGs) from my camera

I think this practice shows how the (slightly advanced) end user can work with 24 bit audio today. If you have any hints how to do it better, you can add. No need to continue the flamewar about the audibility of 24 bit audio.

Re: More misinformation

Reply #573 –
Quote
  • one of the "flaws" is that it is usually associated with 96 kHz sample rate (24/96), that is for sure not neccessary, I even "educated" this to my friend who does some recordings at home and he is now happy to record at 24/44.1 or 24/48 :). Although, to be correct, recording in 24/96 should not hurt (but then requires resampling to CD standard for delivery and the content above 20 kHz is very questionable), just wanted to point out that 24 bit audio "association" to higher sample rates for some people.
  • when there is a possibility to do any editing/resampling in the future on the record, it is better to have/keep 24 bit FLAC available. When I have that format available I also use it for playback (small portion of my records).
No one in this thread against recording and archiving in 24-bit anyway.

Quote
  • for 320 kB/s MP3 or 256 kb/s M4A conversion, using 24 bit source seems to be better as it does not have to encode any (inaudible) artifacts that would have been introduced with conversion to 16/44.1. Still, I have sometimes to create MP3 for portable use from a CD 16/44.1 FLAC (as majority of my music is on CDs), which I consider audibly transparent - cannot hear the difference from 16/24 bit sources.
320/256kbps for any modern lossy format is completely overkill and the bitrate used to encode quantization noise will not make an originally transparent file become nontransparent. This reply simply means you acknowledge my earlier comment (point [2])
https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,111271.msg918328.html#msg918328

Quote
  • when I get 16/44.1 tracks (from anywhere, majority comes from CDs) I treat them as "finished" (delivery) and thus I do not apply any additional processing to them, I treat them similar to superfine JPGs (or theoretically PNGs) from my camera
I may apply postprocessing to files of any format when I think they don't sound good to my personal liking. That means mp3s are not necessarily bad and 24/96 files are not necessarily good to my ears.

Re: More misinformation

Reply #574 –
Alright, at least recording and archiving (means also storing/backup on home network) is accepted :) That is one more reason for me why I would like to buy 24/44.1 instead of/in addition to 16/44.1, ideally at the same price (as for the studio 24 bit is the source, actually CD conversion is more work for them :) ).

If I generally use FLAC lossless (even on one of my portables), 320 kbps MP3 is never overkill for me, considering space and no other aspects are significant for me on portable.

Of course when I want to do e.g. EQ on tracks with odd sound I can do it even on CDs playback, I meant primarily processing that changes the digital source.