6 ms·

I'd like to point out the potentially non-obvious here. This is a test of delivery format. There still are benefits to using 24-bit audio in the recording and

by casion 12y ago

I'd like to point out the potentially non-obvious here. This is a test of delivery format. There still are benefits to using 24-bit audio in the recording and processing stages. This is in large part due to most recording systems expecting 0dbVU = -18dbFS and the subsequent processing that can bring the noise floor well into the audible range (dynamic range processors are notoriously effective at this, and heavily used in modern music). We could take a simple example of a snare drum being recorded at 16bit, being EQ'd with a +6db boost anywhere on the spectrum, then compressed with a reduction peaking around 10db (not uncommon). After brickwall limiting in the final mix, this track will easily have a noise floor (via quantization error only) > -68dbFS best case. (-96db starting. -12dbFs peaking snare, +6 + 10 to noise floor, assuming limiting with no gain reduction) -68dbFS is already audible in a critical listening scenario. With dozens (sometimes hundreds) of uncorrelated signals being subjected to similar processing, this noise floor raises well into the audible range for even a modest playback system. While I realize that delivery format is the only thing important to most people, it is important to differentiate since the article does make a point to separate out musicians, sound engineers and hardware reviewers. These are groups of people that _should_ be aware of the benefits of higher sample resolution. Since it's fairly obvious that most people in these categories are confused about their ability to discern delivery formats, it's not beneficial to confuse them even further about working formats. To be more succinct, the difference between 16bit and 24bit is largely inaudible when the source material is worked in a higher resolution format and properly converted.

mankyd 12y ago
> These are groups of people that _should_ be aware of the benefits of higher sample resolution. I don't think the author is necessarily dismissing the idea of high fidelity audio; especially for the reasons you point out. Rather, the author is claiming that if you're simply _listening_ to the playback, it won't make a bit of difference, regardless of how your ears are trained. Edit: Also note that several of the respondents were really confident that they heard a difference. This small study demonstrates that their confidence was misplaced. This, I believe, is what the author is trying to drive home.
shmerl 12y ago
That's true. But I understood this as talking about playback, not about mastering. The article linked below makes this distinction more clearly: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8727591 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8727591
zamalek 12y ago
> There still are benefits to using 24-bit audio in the recording and processing stages. An analogy of what you said: It's similar to HDR for audio[1] (but not exactly like it). HDR can be used for photography that, once composed and edited, will present more realistic information to our eyes. For example, with HDR you wouldn't have an overexposed sky - however the HDR is only used in order to get to that final 16 bit image (and even with 16 bit your eyes have a hard time discerning different colors). The same applies to audio. Listening to 24-bit is pointless, however, if you are editing something you want to retain as much information as possible until the final render so that you don't run into clamping issues as you described. Therefore, sites that provide 192/24 downloads are valuable. If I'm a DJ getting music for my gig I do want those production quality files, as I cross-fade between two songs I don't want artefacts popping (excuse the pun) up. On to my own opinion: 24-bit is still not good enough. DAWs should be working in floats. Audio needs to go true HDR, 24-bit is a cop-out. Why would you even used a 24-bit int when floats are there and ready to go? Imagery went floating point, what, 10 years ago? Why can't audio catch up? Being able to exceed the clip in my DAW in a channel, and then wrangle it back down in another would be awesome. Unrelated: That Xiph video really amazes in terms of what nature does. We rarely care about it (we do in terms of e.g. intercontinental fibre cables), but nature does all of this when we send a signal to a speaker. Even normal sound does actually have a band limit and does behave (albeit, far higher dynamic range) exactly the same way automatically. Shoot a signal down a fibre cable that can't handle it, and you'll get Nyquist. Too high frequency for RTP air? Expect distortion (that we can't hear). You don't even have to include electronics to get nature to impose these limitations for you, you have to do no extra work. Completely amazing - a deeper level of logic that is mind boggling. [1]: http://www.slideshare.net/DICEStudio/audio-for-multiplayer-beyond-mixing-case-studies-from-battlefield-bad-company-frostbite?from=ss_embed http://www.slideshare.net/DICEStudio/audio-for-multiplayer-b...
- aidenn0 12y ago
  I would guess it's because even really good DACs have trouble reaching noise as low as 24 bits, so capture is in 24 bits. I think most DAWs support floats as an intermediate format though.
- texel 12y ago

by casion 12y ago

mankyd 12y ago

> These are groups of people that _should_ be aware of the benefits of higher sample resolution. I don't think the author is necessarily dismissing the idea of high fidelity audio; especially for the reasons you point out. Rather, the author is claiming that if you're simply _listening_ to the playback, it won't make a bit of difference, regardless of how your ears are trained. Edit: Also note that several of the respondents were really confident that they heard a difference. This small study demonstrates that their confidence was misplaced. This, I believe, is what the author is trying to drive home.

shmerl 12y ago

That's true. But I understood this as talking about playback, not about mastering. The article linked below makes this distinction more clearly: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8727591 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8727591

zamalek 12y ago

> There still are benefits to using 24-bit audio in the recording and processing stages. An analogy of what you said: It's similar to HDR for audio[1] (but not exactly like it). HDR can be used for photography that, once composed and edited, will present more realistic information to our eyes. For example, with HDR you wouldn't have an overexposed sky - however the HDR is only used in order to get to that final 16 bit image (and even with 16 bit your eyes have a hard time discerning different colors). The same applies to audio. Listening to 24-bit is pointless, however, if you are editing something you want to retain as much information as possible until the final render so that you don't run into clamping issues as you described. Therefore, sites that provide 192/24 downloads are valuable. If I'm a DJ getting music for my gig I do want those production quality files, as I cross-fade between two songs I don't want artefacts popping (excuse the pun) up. On to my own opinion: 24-bit is still not good enough. DAWs should be working in floats. Audio needs to go true HDR, 24-bit is a cop-out. Why would you even used a 24-bit int when floats are there and ready to go? Imagery went floating point, what, 10 years ago? Why can't audio catch up? Being able to exceed the clip in my DAW in a channel, and then wrangle it back down in another would be awesome. Unrelated: That Xiph video really amazes in terms of what nature does. We rarely care about it (we do in terms of e.g. intercontinental fibre cables), but nature does all of this when we send a signal to a speaker. Even normal sound does actually have a band limit and does behave (albeit, far higher dynamic range) exactly the same way automatically. Shoot a signal down a fibre cable that can't handle it, and you'll get Nyquist. Too high frequency for RTP air? Expect distortion (that we can't hear). You don't even have to include electronics to get nature to impose these limitations for you, you have to do no extra work. Completely amazing - a deeper level of logic that is mind boggling. [1]: http://www.slideshare.net/DICEStudio/audio-for-multiplayer-beyond-mixing-case-studies-from-battlefield-bad-company-frostbite?from=ss_embed http://www.slideshare.net/DICEStudio/audio-for-multiplayer-b...

aidenn0 12y ago
I would guess it's because even really good DACs have trouble reaching noise as low as 24 bits, so capture is in 24 bits. I think most DAWs support floats as an intermediate format though.
texel 12y ago