5 ms·

You might be right, however 16-bit sounds really harsh to my ears, and 24-bits is the only widely used standard, better than 16-bit.

nseggs 6y ago
I think the bigger issue is likely to be a trash computer mic, a trash preamp/adc, trash dac, trash speakers, trash room. I don't care if at some point you're sampling and sending that signal at 1000-bit or whatever, it's still trash, just very accurately sampled trash.
- SomeoneFromCA 6y ago
  I disagree, I do not own trash equipment. Every time I install Linux, i switch Pulseaudio settings from 16-bit to 24-bit; the difference is immediate, although subtle. Everyone I know who tried to do this, noted that listening fatigue is a lot lower with the new settings.
  - sneak 6y ago
    In my direct experience, everyone who claims this to me, so far, is unable to distinguish 16 bit and 24 bit recordings in an ABX. The audiophile world would do well to adopt the concept of double-blind study.
    - SomeoneFromCA 6y ago
      I am talking about listening fatigue, first of all, which is a long-term effect. Second, I think double-blind test are worthless, if they are done in isolation; first, you need to run non-blind tests, let people play with audio equipment as much as they want, in any combination, completely open; only after that, when people have figured out what to look for, run the double blind test. Forcing unprepared people to go through very subtle test surely won't give useful results.
      - sneak 6y ago
        If you can’t distinguish A from B reliably, none of the rest matters at all. The idea that you have to “figure out what to look for” is nonsense if you cannot distinguish the two reliably. “Listening fatigue” when you know which is which is simply placebo.
        SomeoneFromCA 6y ago
        You should probably read more attentively. I did not say you do not need double blind test.I said, once you learn what to look for, only that there is a point to do the blind test.
ruuda 6y ago
Do you mean “the expression ‘16-bit’ sounds harsh to my ears”, or do you mean that you can hear the difference between 16 and 24 bits per sample? The effect of bit depth has little to do with how you perceive the sound; what adding more bits does is allowing for more dynamic range, i.e. more difference between the loudest possible and the quietest possible sound. More bits brings down the noise floor. This means that for example the final part of a fade-out retains more detail at 24 bits than at 16, but this difference is not something that you would be able to observe in normal listening conditions. If you like to learn more about the effects of bit depth, I would recommend “Digital Show & Tell” by Xiph Mont at https://www.xiph.org/video/ https://www.xiph.org/video/.
- SomeoneFromCA 6y ago
  Is there any difference between those two expressions. Overall - yes you are right, 24 do sound better. Loss of details and replacement of them with digital (aggressive, non-random, correlated) noise indeed sounds harsh.
masklinn 6y ago
> 16-bit sounds really harsh to my ears, and 24-bits is the only widely used standard, better than 16-bit. That really doesn't make any sense. The bit depth provides for a dynamic range, meaning the difference between the loudest and quietest sounds which can be encoded. 16 bits is enough to go from "mosquito in the room" to "jackhammer right in your ear". Congratulation, 24 bits let you go up to "head in the output nozzle of a rocket taking off" with room to spare, that's… not very useful? Now what might make sense — aside from plain placebo — is a difference in mastering. For instance lots of SACD comparisons at the time were really comparing differences in mastering, with the SACD converted to regular CDDA turning out way superior to the CD version because the mastering of the CD was so much worse. The "Loudness Wars" is an especially bad period of horrible mastering, and it went from the mid 90s to the early-mid 2010s (which doesn't mean that regular-CD has gone back to "super awesome", just that you're unlikely to have clipping throughout a piece these days).
- SomeoneFromCA 6y ago
  What I said actually does make sense. First of all, if you are digitally lowering loudness of audio (say 4 times), you actually are losing precision, and if you later amplify again - you will never return these bits back. This is what is called headroom. So your typical multiply-by-a-floating-point volume control actually kills dynamic range of the sound. I for example never run my OS volume control and players volume knob at 100% (which would preserve the range), because the gain of my amp is simply to high, and even slightest movement of the amp knob will cause dramatic change in loudness. Therefore, I keep the digital volume controls at 25% (losing 2 bits on the way, but the audio is recorded at 16-bit - losing nothing), and then amplify with my amp. Voila - nothing lost in the process. Secondly, empirically, every time I switch sound cards to 24 bits it sounds better. I have noticeably less fatigue. Of course, someone may want to gaslight me (not deliberately, of course), attempting to force me to think it is a placebo, but I tried with many people, and all of them noted the difference.
  - andrewzah 6y ago
    > but I tried with many people, and all of them noted the difference. Unless this was a double-blind study and the audio levels were exactly the same between runs, this is useless data. Even a 0.1dbSPL difference between runs is noticeable (people gravitate to louder sounds as better). > every time I switch sound cards to 24 bits This may be related to the sound card. I use an external DAC, not a soundcard, as most soundcards that come with computers are not up to par. Changing 16 bits to 24 bits should not change the audio in a way that is discernible to the human ear.

nseggs 6y ago

I think the bigger issue is likely to be a trash computer mic, a trash preamp/adc, trash dac, trash speakers, trash room. I don't care if at some point you're sampling and sending that signal at 1000-bit or whatever, it's still trash, just very accurately sampled trash.

SomeoneFromCA 6y ago
I disagree, I do not own trash equipment. Every time I install Linux, i switch Pulseaudio settings from 16-bit to 24-bit; the difference is immediate, although subtle. Everyone I know who tried to do this, noted that listening fatigue is a lot lower with the new settings.
- sneak 6y ago
  In my direct experience, everyone who claims this to me, so far, is unable to distinguish 16 bit and 24 bit recordings in an ABX. The audiophile world would do well to adopt the concept of double-blind study.
  - SomeoneFromCA 6y ago
    I am talking about listening fatigue, first of all, which is a long-term effect. Second, I think double-blind test are worthless, if they are done in isolation; first, you need to run non-blind tests, let people play with audio equipment as much as they want, in any combination, completely open; only after that, when people have figured out what to look for, run the double blind test. Forcing unprepared people to go through very subtle test surely won't give useful results.
    - sneak 6y ago
      If you can’t distinguish A from B reliably, none of the rest matters at all. The idea that you have to “figure out what to look for” is nonsense if you cannot distinguish the two reliably. “Listening fatigue” when you know which is which is simply placebo.
      - SomeoneFromCA 6y ago
        You should probably read more attentively. I did not say you do not need double blind test.I said, once you learn what to look for, only that there is a point to do the blind test.

ruuda 6y ago

Do you mean “the expression ‘16-bit’ sounds harsh to my ears”, or do you mean that you can hear the difference between 16 and 24 bits per sample? The effect of bit depth has little to do with how you perceive the sound; what adding more bits does is allowing for more dynamic range, i.e. more difference between the loudest possible and the quietest possible sound. More bits brings down the noise floor. This means that for example the final part of a fade-out retains more detail at 24 bits than at 16, but this difference is not something that you would be able to observe in normal listening conditions. If you like to learn more about the effects of bit depth, I would recommend “Digital Show & Tell” by Xiph Mont at https://www.xiph.org/video/ https://www.xiph.org/video/.

SomeoneFromCA 6y ago
Is there any difference between those two expressions. Overall - yes you are right, 24 do sound better. Loss of details and replacement of them with digital (aggressive, non-random, correlated) noise indeed sounds harsh.

masklinn 6y ago

> 16-bit sounds really harsh to my ears, and 24-bits is the only widely used standard, better than 16-bit. That really doesn't make any sense. The bit depth provides for a dynamic range, meaning the difference between the loudest and quietest sounds which can be encoded. 16 bits is enough to go from "mosquito in the room" to "jackhammer right in your ear". Congratulation, 24 bits let you go up to "head in the output nozzle of a rocket taking off" with room to spare, that's… not very useful? Now what might make sense — aside from plain placebo — is a difference in mastering. For instance lots of SACD comparisons at the time were really comparing differences in mastering, with the SACD converted to regular CDDA turning out way superior to the CD version because the mastering of the CD was so much worse. The "Loudness Wars" is an especially bad period of horrible mastering, and it went from the mid 90s to the early-mid 2010s (which doesn't mean that regular-CD has gone back to "super awesome", just that you're unlikely to have clipping throughout a piece these days).

SomeoneFromCA 6y ago
What I said actually does make sense. First of all, if you are digitally lowering loudness of audio (say 4 times), you actually are losing precision, and if you later amplify again - you will never return these bits back. This is what is called headroom. So your typical multiply-by-a-floating-point volume control actually kills dynamic range of the sound. I for example never run my OS volume control and players volume knob at 100% (which would preserve the range), because the gain of my amp is simply to high, and even slightest movement of the amp knob will cause dramatic change in loudness. Therefore, I keep the digital volume controls at 25% (losing 2 bits on the way, but the audio is recorded at 16-bit - losing nothing), and then amplify with my amp. Voila - nothing lost in the process. Secondly, empirically, every time I switch sound cards to 24 bits it sounds better. I have noticeably less fatigue. Of course, someone may want to gaslight me (not deliberately, of course), attempting to force me to think it is a placebo, but I tried with many people, and all of them noted the difference.
- andrewzah 6y ago
  > but I tried with many people, and all of them noted the difference. Unless this was a double-blind study and the audio levels were exactly the same between runs, this is useless data. Even a 0.1dbSPL difference between runs is noticeable (people gravitate to louder sounds as better). > every time I switch sound cards to 24 bits This may be related to the sound card. I use an external DAC, not a soundcard, as most soundcards that come with computers are not up to par. Changing 16 bits to 24 bits should not change the audio in a way that is discernible to the human ear.