3 ms·

Openmindedness isn't the same thing as being open to accepting a mistaken belief. If no one can tell the difference between 24-bit and 16-bit, then 24-bit simp

Openmindedness isn't the same thing as being open to accepting a mistaken belief. If no one can tell the difference between 24-bit and 16-bit, then 24-bit simply doesn't matter. The only way to know is with a controlled experiment that checks whether the people can detect no better than chance whether music is 24-bit.

nkurz 12y ago
Openmindedness isn't the same thing as being open to accepting a mistaken belief. Perhaps not, but I think it's very close. I'm not advocating for noncritical acceptance of anything, but making the point that any jump from "X is a physical law" to "Y is impossible" depends critically on the assumption that the only way to achieve Y is through X, and that there is no possibility of a back door that entirely sidesteps X. This not be openmindedness exactly, but failing to account for this possibility strikes me as an example of closedmindedness. The only way to know is with a controlled experiment that checks whether the people can detect no better than chance whether music is 24-bit. Which people, which music, under what circumstances? And whose results do you trust? I feel safe guessing that many companies selling high-end audiophile quackery claim to have done tests showing that their equipment makes a positive difference to sound quality. Some of them are simply lying, some are misinterpreting their data, others have something real too small to be reliably measurable, and a tiny remainder might have a genuine breakthrough because they are approaching an unsolvable problem in a way that sidesteps the previous barriers. The question is how much openmindedness is right to account for this probability without being overwhelmed by the garbage. If no one can tell the difference between 24-bit and 16-bit, then 24-bit simply doesn't matter. I'd probably make the bet that there exist certain 24-bit sound files that certain listeners can discern from the same sound file that has been downsampled to 16-bit. While the difference may well be too small to be actually considered "better", I don't think that any physical laws that prevent this. I think it would be fun to see such a test. This Youtube video on "overtone singing" might offer insight on the sorts of effects that might be enhanced by the greater bit depth: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHTF1-IhuC0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHTF1-IhuC0
- aidenn0 12y ago
  > I'd probably make the bet that there exist certain 24-bit sound files that certain listeners can discern from the same sound file that has been downsampled to 16-bit. I would take you up on that bet. This has been tried before, and no difference was found, even when dithering wasn't used! The noise floor on 16 bit audio is around -96dB. There are very few HiFi systems that can manage that. Even in the highly unlikely event that there are listeners that can distinguish it, it's likely any difference will end up eliminated by noise in the analog components.
  - nkurz 12y ago
    I probably should have written 16/44.1 vs 24/192, since I was thinking mostly of the waveform 'beat' interactions as shown in the linked video. Do you feel those are also indistinguishable? I can't afford an actual bet on it, but I'm interested enough to explore a bit and see what I can find.
    - harshreality 12y ago
      Unless your listener can hear frequencies above 22.05kHz, it's theoretically impossible because the sampling theorem says 44.1kHz sampling can perfectly reproduce all frequencies below 22.05kHz. Any differences within normal human audible frequency ranges must be caused by imperfect DAC. Agreed? (No, I don't have a perfect DAC, but if the audible artifacts are because of a DAC that produces less perfect analog waveforms below 22kHz when fed a 44kHz source rather than a 192kHz source, isn't that squarely the DAC's fault? It should also be made abundantly clear that this is a hypothetical. Is this actually a problem? Has anyone simulated an analog waveform from 44.1kHz sample, compared it to oscilloscope readings from a decent quality DAC, and noticed theoretically audible differences?)
      - TheOtherHobbes 12y ago
        Do you have a perfect DAC we can use as a reference?
    - 12y ago
jeangenie 12y ago
> being open to accepting a mistaken belief. This is odd. Do you think "mistaken beliefs" are clearly labeled so you can reject them without examination or experimentation?
- chc 12y ago
  A belief that relies on known falsehoods is plainly mistaken.
  - jeangenie 12y ago
    I understand your meaning but that's not what I'm asking.
storrgie 12y ago
I think the main argument was that 192Khz sampling does not matter, where as 24-bit can provide some benefit (albiet might be in your ability to implement filters).

nkurz 12y ago

Openmindedness isn't the same thing as being open to accepting a mistaken belief. Perhaps not, but I think it's very close. I'm not advocating for noncritical acceptance of anything, but making the point that any jump from "X is a physical law" to "Y is impossible" depends critically on the assumption that the only way to achieve Y is through X, and that there is no possibility of a back door that entirely sidesteps X. This not be openmindedness exactly, but failing to account for this possibility strikes me as an example of closedmindedness. The only way to know is with a controlled experiment that checks whether the people can detect no better than chance whether music is 24-bit. Which people, which music, under what circumstances? And whose results do you trust? I feel safe guessing that many companies selling high-end audiophile quackery claim to have done tests showing that their equipment makes a positive difference to sound quality. Some of them are simply lying, some are misinterpreting their data, others have something real too small to be reliably measurable, and a tiny remainder might have a genuine breakthrough because they are approaching an unsolvable problem in a way that sidesteps the previous barriers. The question is how much openmindedness is right to account for this probability without being overwhelmed by the garbage. If no one can tell the difference between 24-bit and 16-bit, then 24-bit simply doesn't matter. I'd probably make the bet that there exist certain 24-bit sound files that certain listeners can discern from the same sound file that has been downsampled to 16-bit. While the difference may well be too small to be actually considered "better", I don't think that any physical laws that prevent this. I think it would be fun to see such a test. This Youtube video on "overtone singing" might offer insight on the sorts of effects that might be enhanced by the greater bit depth: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHTF1-IhuC0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHTF1-IhuC0

aidenn0 12y ago
> I'd probably make the bet that there exist certain 24-bit sound files that certain listeners can discern from the same sound file that has been downsampled to 16-bit. I would take you up on that bet. This has been tried before, and no difference was found, even when dithering wasn't used! The noise floor on 16 bit audio is around -96dB. There are very few HiFi systems that can manage that. Even in the highly unlikely event that there are listeners that can distinguish it, it's likely any difference will end up eliminated by noise in the analog components.
- nkurz 12y ago
  I probably should have written 16/44.1 vs 24/192, since I was thinking mostly of the waveform 'beat' interactions as shown in the linked video. Do you feel those are also indistinguishable? I can't afford an actual bet on it, but I'm interested enough to explore a bit and see what I can find.
  - harshreality 12y ago
    Unless your listener can hear frequencies above 22.05kHz, it's theoretically impossible because the sampling theorem says 44.1kHz sampling can perfectly reproduce all frequencies below 22.05kHz. Any differences within normal human audible frequency ranges must be caused by imperfect DAC. Agreed? (No, I don't have a perfect DAC, but if the audible artifacts are because of a DAC that produces less perfect analog waveforms below 22kHz when fed a 44kHz source rather than a 192kHz source, isn't that squarely the DAC's fault? It should also be made abundantly clear that this is a hypothetical. Is this actually a problem? Has anyone simulated an analog waveform from 44.1kHz sample, compared it to oscilloscope readings from a decent quality DAC, and noticed theoretically audible differences?)
    - TheOtherHobbes 12y ago
      Do you have a perfect DAC we can use as a reference?
  - 12y ago

jeangenie 12y ago

> being open to accepting a mistaken belief. This is odd. Do you think "mistaken beliefs" are clearly labeled so you can reject them without examination or experimentation?

chc 12y ago
A belief that relies on known falsehoods is plainly mistaken.
- jeangenie 12y ago
  I understand your meaning but that's not what I'm asking.

storrgie 12y ago

I think the main argument was that 192Khz sampling does not matter, where as 24-bit can provide some benefit (albiet might be in your ability to implement filters).