What is Digg?Sponsored by HowLifeWorks
How Much Are You Over-Paying For Your Auto Insurance view!
howlifeworks.com - Car insurance rates have dropped leaving many people paying far more than they need to...
36 Comments
- Snyder, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I challenge any one of you to successfully pick out a 24bit/96kHz or 24bit/192kHz file from a 16bit/44kHz file in a blind listening test. Do a few rounds and you'll see what any true audio enthusiast would tell you, you can't reliably do it beyond luck. Thus proving that the quality differences are a complete placebo to the overwhelming majority of humans. Only the 1337 few with impeccable hearing and clear understanding of the differences are are truly able to hear a difference. Let's just say that the
The main point of recording at 24bit/96kHz or 24bit/192kHz is simply to have a more accurate initial recording as a master copy, with the added benefit of a 24bit/96kHz to 16bit/44kHz conversion creating a better mix-down than had all audio been recorded in 16bit/44kHz from the start.
You also have to understand that a many dual discs that are released now (with dvd-audio on one side and cd-audio on the other) have the cd side purposely altered ever so slightly so as to make the dvd-audio side actually have a different enough sound that more people can notice it. It's a clever trick to make you think you actually hear the difference that people have been talking about all along.
Take part in a properly set up blind listening test and you'll cry when you realize it's all marketing/placebos and even your 600 dollar pair of headphones, 200 dollar dedicated headphone amp, and 300 dollar soundcard, still can't help you pick out a 24bit source from a 16bit source. - Snyder, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3P.S. This website is misleading and provided no actual intelligent or meaningful information about 24bit. If you want an actually informative website on all things audio technology, check out Hydrogenaudio.org . The creator of "--alt-preset standard", the most widely used preset for the LAME mp3 encoder (the best mp3 encoder in the world), created the Hydrogenaudio forums a few years back and it quickly became a major center point for audio technology advancements and analysis. The makers of the LAME mp3 encoder, Nero's AAC division, OGG's creators, and some of the best listening test organizers all post and contribute to the site on a regular basis. And they don't tolerate people coming in making claims like "this sounds better than this" without that person bringing proof or examples.
- Erukian, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I tend to agree with the guys saying 24/96 24/192 has no real practical advantage for the home listener.
You can throw 2 or 3 thousand into your headphone setup, or 10 thousand into a stereo, and never hear the difference. Try ripping your dvd-audio, then downsampling it to 16/44.1 then using foobar to ABX it. I'm TELLING you, you can't. And if you can, then you did something wrong in the conversion down.
Don't believe all those golden-ear audiophiles who say "just because i hear a difference, you should too, otherwise you have bad ears"
It's just BS, perpetuating placebo.. the idea that we need better than what we can hear, which is exactly why people buy Monster cables.
-Joe - crvernon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The typical home audio setup isn't even qualified to operate at 16-bit/44.1KHz so 24-bit audio isn't much of an advantage to the average user.
Dynamic "range" is the ONLY thing that is affected by bit word length in a NORMAL audio file.*
The 16-bit word offers 65,536 distinct dynamic levels.
The 24-bit word offers 16,777,216 distinct dynamic levels.
The frequency range is determined ONLY by the sampling rate.*
They Nyquist Theorem implies that the sampling rate must be twice as high as the heard frequency to record it. Thus, the highest frequency that can be recorded on 96KHz equipment is 48KHz (a frquency 24KHz above the normal human hearing range.)
If a unique 24-bit word is presented to your DA** converter 96,000 times every second (as it is with 24/96)
then
that converter is telling the magnet in your speaker to move the diaphragm (speaker cone) to one of 16,777,216 places each 96,000th of a second.
And ... assuming that place 0 is 0 dB
then
place 16,777,216 would be around 145.8 dB.***
Almost no consumer amplifiers have a signal-to-noise ratio of over 100 dB, which means that almost no consumer amplifier has a dynamic range of 0 - 100 dB.
Check this out:
http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-6462_7-6333607-1.html?tag=prmo1
See? Only 1 of the best of the best is rated at 110dB. None come near 145dB.
But the truth is that these products don't need to have great dynamic range
because most commercial recordings are mastered to be extremely loud at all points. Movie soundtracks get a little bit more range, but not much.
*Variable bitrate files, normally measured in kbps, excluded here.
**Digital/Analog converters interpret digital (distinct) information and relay them to any analog (continuous) speaker.
***some assumptions are happening here, but generally to calculate the dynamic "range" you would use [6(N) + 1.8 dB] where N is the bit word length. With this equation, a 16 bit recording would have a dynamic range of around 0 - 97.8 dB - Peptis, on 11/11/2007, -0/+1fujofly: Your example comparing the audio sampling rate to the visual sampling rate (dpi of a picture) is misleading.
When you take a picture of something, you are "sampling" at a *much* lower rate than the information contained in the original --- A picture taken through a microscope would reveal more detail about my skin than would your typical camera. That is, the more closely you take your picture, the more detail you will get.
Audio on the other hand is generally bandlimited. That means that after a certain point you can't get any more detail from sampling more finely.
The reason for sampling audio higher than 44.1 kHz is because of advantages it offers in digital signal processing. Some people may be able to hear slightly higher than 22.05 kHz (= 1/2 * 44.1 kHz), but there's no way anybody can hear up to 96/2 or 192/2 kHz. Furthermore, what rustez says about frequencies harmonizing is ridiculous, and is not believed by serious people. - armbo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1honeycut - i could be wrong (but pretty sure i'm right) that when you burn audio to a cd so that it is playable in a cd player, it re-samples it to 16/44.1 so that the average consumer has the equipment to play that format. this is also true when you have a lower quality piece of audio - when you burn it to 'cd format', it'll upsample it to 16/44.1 to maintain compatibility.
- Snyder, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@jarrod.
I'm not spreading fud. If I am one thing, I am a lover of audio. If you consider someone to be their job, then who I am is a music producer. I record in 24bit, so to answer your question, yes, I've heard 24bit. - honeycut, on 11/11/2007, -0/+1I'm confused dimwell, the first point on the linked FAQ says:
*******************************
"Can I burn 24 bit files to a CD?
No. CD's are limited to 16-Bit, 44.1 kHz. (that's 44,100 samples per second, with each sample being 16 bits long). 24 Bit recordings are generally recorded at 48 kHz, 96 kHz, or even 192 kHz."
*******************************
So how are you doing it? - underbiteman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1okay, I think some of you are confusing bit depth with sample rate. 24 bit gives you more dynamic range i.e. how strong the signal is, than 16 bit. If you are doing audio recording, you want to do it in 24 bit for the headroom (S/N ratio). But for the end product, there really is no significant advantage of 24 bit, because most of all commercial music are very heavily compressed/limited, never really utilizing the dynamic range advantage of 24 bit.
As for the sample rate, that's a very hotly debated topic but for the 99.9% of consumer, their equipment is not going to have enough fidelity to allow them to discern the difference between 44.1 and 96, given that the person listening can actually tell the difference between the two (also less than 99.9%). So it's pretty much a mute point. - TeleCarlos, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I guess that's the whole point of blu-ray & hd-dvd... graduating to a better standard (not just video , audio too), a lot more space to store all that data. Do love my pod but... wish was better audio quality. Anyway, in the future, mp3's will be just like 8-tracks or cassettes, a thing of the past.
- NickelSax, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0The faq is refering to maiking a music cd, that you can pop in your cd player and listen to compared to a data cd which can hold the files but your cd-player is not going to play, but your computer can play the files.
- jsobel, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I'd like to comment on this topic.
as far as sample rate. While many people only focus on the frequency response, the frequency rate is also very important for the reproduction of accurate spacial information. While the human ear can't hear past 20kHz, and therefore, in theory, 44.1kHz should be enough to cover the audible range. but, also consider this, the human ear can hear time differences less than 1/44100th of a second. Because of this, using a higher sampling rate (96 or 192kHz), will allow the recording to more accurately define *when* something happens, like a drum beat or whatever. and because much of the soundstaging and spacial information that we hear is so dependent on the time scale, a higher frequency rate allows for more natural and realistic recordings.
Also, let me just say that I am the one who created the basic FAQ (24bit.turtleside.com). Obviously, I didn't intend for it to be an exhaustive FAQ. I made it with a focus on live recordings, which I mostly post on bt.etree.org. each time I would post a 24 bit show for downloading, I'd get the same couple of questions. So I created a small FAQ to answer the very basic stuff. - HaroldHupmobile, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Honeycut-
Audio CD's, like those you might play in your car, are set at 16-bit, 44.1 kHz. You can burn in a .wav file at the higher rate. You'd only be able to play it on a computer, though. - honeycut, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0In fact I''m going in to a studio today to record an EP. That's why I was curious. Thanks again.
- J_Omega, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0armbo is correct - normal audio CD players REQUIRE 16-bit 44.1kHz recordings. The 24/96 stuff just relates to how much audio data can be stored (unplayable in regular CD players)
- honeycut, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Thanks for the feedback folks. I just thought dimwell was inferring he was already doing 44 on CD.
Thanks again. - anti_hax0r, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0honeycut, Redbook CD is 44.1/16bit. I suspect what dimwell is saying, is that if they (the powers that be) are to use (create) an uncompressed 24/96 standard for CD, there would fewer minutes available on a 700MB CD, which is logical. I assume that they would make this new format on DVD instead, but I think for now they are happy with Red Book standard until a format is decided upon. HDCD was a step closer, but not exactly.
- vaudor, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Hello
I would like to ask a question to composers or music engineers out there. I make music based on samples (micro-samples I take out of cd or even mp3 pieces). I use Acid mostly as my host.
Now, I used to have my acid projects in 16/44.1. Is there any benefit on starting a project with 24 bit depth, even if the original samples are in 16 bit ? My thinking is that it leaves mores bit depth fot the effects (reverb, compressor, etc). Knowing that I will have to mixdown to 16 bit in the end as this is for cd mastering.
Any opinion will be appreciated. Also, if anyone knows acid, is there a way to convert a 16 bit project to 24...
Thanks - MikeZ, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0what does 16bit and 24bit mean? i know 24bit is better
- YamahaSteve, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Actually, 24bit audio is more of a "marketing" feature than a technological feature. At a nominal 6db of signal to noise ratio for each bit of resolution you would mathematically have 144db of signal to noise from the DAC (or ADC if you are recording it). You would be EXTREMELY hard pressed to build a device capable of that SN ratio... what does this mean? It means that the lower resolution bits are useless probably to around the 95-105 db signal to noise region, or about the 16 bit to 17.5 bit range.
It would take a serious peice of equipment to actually have a measureable difference between a 16 and 24 bit recording; if possible at all. - longofest, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0YamahaSteve: Just because you don't hear the difference doesn't mean it isn't there. 24bit makes a TON of difference to those of us who are blessed/cursed with a discerning ear (i.e. Audiophiles or Recording Engineers/Producers like myself as a side job).
24bit/192khz seems to be the standard now adays in the big studios (aka HD-Audio). Snyder... while I agree that the main purpose of 24bit/192khz is to get a better base recording to then apply effects, etc to, I'm not sure I buy the whole screwing up the CD-quality version to make the DVD-quality version sound better. - Peptis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0kindrobot: You need to take more care when converting to 16 bit. If it is done properly you won't be able to tell the difference. You cannot simply save it to a 16 bit file without doing anything else.
- Peptis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Provided that the recordings are mastered properly, not many people can tell the difference between 16 bit and 24 bit audio. Especially not in everyday listening environments where ambient noise will mask any gains in resolution.
Most people listen to music on cheap equipment. They certainly won't hear the difference. - mixermike, on 12/12/2007, -0/+0heres my question. whats the point in recording in 24 bit if cd quality is 16 bit?
- tempusrob, on 10/12/2007, -1/+124-bit is indeed awesome. I'm really kind of disappointed by its sluggish reception. I suppose in an age where most mainstream/popular music is mastered to bleeding-ear levels it's not as necessary, but for anything with a semblance of dynamics, it's essential.
- kindrobot, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0I record all my individual audio tracks in 24 bit. The final mix is saved as well to both 24 bit and 16 bit wav. I CAN tell the difference between the 2, and it is not all dynamic range, although it is the most noticeable advantage. But it is NOT.. NOT the only difference. The difference is audible, even with compression/limiting.
- kabukie, on 10/12/2007, -1/+024 bit is definatly better....however as soon as someone encodes this type of file to MP3 its quality can never be recovered.
Also, if moving to 24 bit, you should also pay close attention to sampling frequecies...
The industry standard for studio / live / broadcast etc is 24 bit 96 kHz sampling - underbiteman, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0My thoughts exactly!
- dimwell, on 11/11/2007, -3/+124/96 sounds a lot better, but only because it uses a lot more data than 16/44.1.
For example, an hour of 16/44.1 (16 bits @ 44.1 kHz, which is standard CD audio) uses approximately 5MB per minute, whereas 24/96 audio (24 bits @ 96 kHz, which is often used in recording studios) uses approximately 16MB per minute.
This means that a standard 700MB CD no longer holds 80 minutes of music, but now holds a little more than 26 minutes of music. Then you have to find the average consumer with a system that can properly demonstrate the difference between 16/44.1 and 24/96. - schotty, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0to ambro:
I havent seen that occur ever. All of my players (except maybe since I havent tested it, my 2 new DVD-R/W drives) will play the data as if the data was in 16/44.1. Now that means lower sampling or bitrates sound like the chipmunks and higher sounds like God is talking to me in a deep booming voice.
Perhaps its just the age of my equipment that is of quality, and the lesser standard of others (car stereo, DVD player, etc). - z0rz, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0Uh oh kevinrose effect! Anyways, this is great to know. I have been looking into 24bit sound recording a little and had some questions pertaining to them. Anyone know what hd-dvd/blue-ray will support?
-z0rz
Visit my blog: z0rz.com/blog - fujofly, on 11/11/2007, -2/+0Recording at higher sampling levels IE: 24bit/96khz gives you more information to mix with and a more accurate picture of the actual waveforms being sampled. Where this can really be noticed is in the quality of a reverb sounding more natural at higher resolutions, and the overall dynamic qualities of the audio source.
The way to think of it is the difference between 72dpi and 150dpi in picture resolution. Both show the details of the picture, the 150dpi image shows the details and the nuances of the image better than the 72dpi image when finally printed.
Record at a higher bit rate and mix down to low. But if you don't have a good pre's, mic's, or converters, or technique along the way a higher sampling rate won't fix any of your problems and it will only magnify them. - rustez, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0The difference has very little to do with s/n ratios. It has everything to do with dynamic range. 16 bit digital audio was developed within the range of human hearing,(20-20,000hz)under the assumption that if you cant hear outside that range there was little reason to reproduce it. it turns out that even though you cant hear outside that range some of those frequencies harmonize and have an influence on what you can hear. this is why audiophiles have always had record player and shunned CD audio for so long. I promise you I can hear the difference on my equipment witch is good but not top end.
- Jarrod, on 11/11/2007, -3/+0Snyder:
Have you ever heard a 24-bit recording or are you just hypothesizing and spreading FUD? I can tell a big difference between even a 16-bit recording made with a 44.1khz vs. a 48khz sampling frequency. - sahaskatta, on 10/12/2007, -5/+0if anyone has used any of those programs listed which one do you reccomend?
thanks
OpenOffice v2.0 Relased
http://digg.com/software/OpenOffice_v2.0_Officially_Released_(October_20,_2005) - kyle133, on 10/12/2007, -5/+0Have a look at this...
http://www.milliondollarhero.com
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is