Unless you can verify that the CD and the 24-bit tracks were transferred under comparable conditions, you cannot assert that any differences you observe are due more to the resolution than differences in the settings, levels, etc. used during the mastering process. In my experience, when the CD and high res tracks are mastered under the same conditions, the differences are not "VERY" noticeable. If anything, my A-B listenings illustrate just how far general mastering practices have strayed away from the CD format's optimal capabilities.
You are asking the impossible. Most of the 16 bit CDs that have been on the market were done years ago compared to the newer 24 Bit masters, so you asking for something that's almost impossible to verify. the only comparison I can do is listen to a 16 Bit CD vs a 24 Bit version on the same stereo side by side at the same volume level. If it's noticeable, then it's noticeable and every one I've compared so far has been noticeably better sounding. Most of the time it's DRASTICALLY better sounding. Some of the recordings I can hear the buzz coming from the guitar amps in the faint background right before a song starts. They aren't using hardly any compression. I asked one of the mastering engineers that has done HD Tracks and he told me his process. He said there was very little, if any compression used, almost no eq, he was very careful as to not tarnish the transfer. Bob Ludwig also has been interviewed as he did the entire Rolling Stones 24 Bit remasters. A lot of these mastering studios have been upgrading the converters with much better dynamic range, S/N ratios, etc. etc. But I look at the final end result from a consumer's standpoint. Does the 24 bit AIFF sound better than a 16 AIFF from CD? If so that's all I need to compare and the differences I've heard is so noticeable from the first couple of seconds. Some blew me away at how much better they sound. Cymbals aren't harsh and distorted, transients are much clearer, it's like a whole new experience. Obviously, how much better will sometimes depend on how good your DAC, speakers, amps, etc. are, but my current system I've been listening on for the past 6 months is nothing special. Just a decent DAC running through Shift A2's with decent RCA interconnect cables and this is in my bedroom/office. I also listen to recordings in the 80 dB to 90dB range with peaks at around 95dB on occasion. Some of the 16 bit recordings sound horrible when played at the higher volume levels whereas the 24 bit don't. But I generally don't crank my system up, most of the time it's hovering around 78 to 85dB, which is normal listening levels.
And again, you're ascribing a lot of importance to 24-bit, when you have no basis of comparison other than CDs that were likely mastered under completely different conditions. A remastered CD can produce the exact same results that you describe. Lower frequencies depend the least on high resolution, so any differences you observe with bass performance can almost assuredly originate with differences in EQ or other processing used in the mastering.
The true basis of comparison is when you can find a CD and high res track that were transferred at the same time or under very similar conditions. I've done those comparisons and it's not a "night and day" difference. Yes, I have observed differences when doing these comparisons, but they pale by comparison with the mastering and other post production steps.
That's all I CAN compare. I'm not in the mastering studio sitting right next to the mastering engineer. I'm looking at this from a consumer level. What I have is what i have, I can't get anything other than what I have unless I am in the studio with the original masters. Seriously, I have CDs that I purchased, I convert them to AIFF on my computer, I download the 24 Bit version from HD Tracks and sit and listen AB each track and each track sounds better with 24 bit than 16 bit both using AIFF. What more can I even do? NOTHING. That's all that's available other than various MP3's, etc. So again, you are asking for the impossible scenario.
Both recordings were taken from the original analog tapes on different occasions sometimes using different mastering studios, engineers, equipment, and they engineers have only whatever notes that were left behind. Not much else I can say other than I hear what I hear and they are noticeable. Every single time.
And again, you're ascribing a lot of importance to 24-bit, when you have no basis of comparison other than CDs that were likely mastered under completely different conditions. A remastered CD can produce the exact same results that you describe. Lower frequencies depend the least on high resolution, so any differences you observe with bass performance can almost assuredly originate with differences in EQ or other processing used in the mastering.
The true basis of comparison is when you can find a CD and high res track that were transferred at the same time or under very similar conditions. I've done those comparisons and it's not a "night and day" difference. Yes, I have observed differences when doing these comparisons, but they pale by comparison with the mastering and other post production steps.
Let me ask you a couple of questions.
1. Are you trying to compare in a studio environment just the difference between 16 bit and 24 bit with everything else the same?
2. If so, what speakers are you using?
3. What AD and DA converters are you using?
4. What other equipment that you are routing everything through are you using?
Why do I ask? The reason is that some equipment limits what you can hear and you might have some equipment that's not allowing you to hear any differences. I've seen studios (even famous ones) use something in the food chain that masks those results. poor monitor speakers, converters that aren't really that great (even though they think they are), not using a good master clock, etc. Heck, just the monitor speakers alone can be enough to mess up anything in a comparison test. Some of the most popular studio monitors (Yamaha NS-10's specifically) are horrific monitors and the only reason people started to use those was because they were crappy speakers. But some people think they are flat, colorless and top quality reference monitors, which couldn't be further from the truth. Those speakers are probably the worst single piece of gear a studio could ever have in their studio. A lot of engineers are waking up to this fact, unfortunately they've been used for 20+ years and they've already been involved on tracking and mixing of a lot of pop recordings and they are just awful speakers.
Both recordings were taken from the original analog tapes on different occasions sometimes using different mastering studios, engineers, equipment, and they engineers have only whatever notes that were left behind. Not much else I can say other than I hear what I hear and they are noticeable. Every single time.
That's the critical aspect to comparing audio formats. If they aren't two formats from the exact same mastering session, going through the same hardware and/or software, identical except for the format difference then they will sound different anyway.
And "remastered" 24 bit files are guaranteed to sound different from the 10 year old CD version, but it's not due to the difference between 16 and 24 bits as a delivered playback. Even if it's not actually remastered but simply transferred from the same mastered analog tapes it will sound different.
That's the critical aspect to comparing audio formats. If they aren't two formats from the exact same mastering session, going through the same hardware and/or software, identical except for the format difference then they will sound different anyway.
And "remastered" 24 bit files are guaranteed to sound different from the 10 year old CD version, but it's not due to the difference between 16 and 24 bits as a delivered playback. Even if it's not actually remastered but simply transferred from the same mastered analog tapes it will sound different.
Most CDs, not all, have various levels of compression on them. A lot of these HD Tracks that I have, I don't hear much if any compression being used. That alone will make a HUGE difference, but we can't go back and have them remaster the 16 bit without compression. One thing I have been noticing is that most of the top studios that are doing a lot of the mastering of things I own have been going through drastic upgrades of equipment. Most top studios have replaced their converters within the last 2 to 5 year with super nice converters compared to what they used 20 years ago. Some studios have completely changed their cabling going from run in the mill Mogami cabling to super expensive cabling, new monitors, even redoing the room acoustics to their control room. So, I highly doubt there is a single studio that's in use that hasn't done some form of upgrade to their equipment within the last 20+ years since they spit out the original CD. Yeah, I've heard remasters recently and over the course of the last decade or so that didn't sound much different and some that did sound drastically different and these were all 16 bit Redbook CDs. It all depends on what label, what mastering studio/engineer, etc. But I personally have found a lot of 16 bit remasters to actually be better, but I have heard some that sucked, but they were on more cheesy labels. But the majors like Sony, and other larger or more reputable labels seem to be doing a better job even with remastering 16 bit. But with the 24 bit, I'm noticing much less, if any, compression, which makes a HUGE difference to me. I hate audio compression, which is common on more pop/commercial recordings than they are on classical and acoustic jazz recordings from the 60's and early 70's.
Yes, I have observed differences when doing these comparisons
What difference have you heard? What difference could there be? The only thing those extra bits do is push the noise floor down another 48 dB or so. When it's already at least 30 dB below audiblity at 16 bits (without even considering masking!), how will making the noise "more inaudible" make any difference to what you hear?
I contend that similarly transferred source material should sound identical at 16 and 24 bit unless the level is very low.
You are asking the impossible. Most of the 16 bit CDs that have been on the market were done years ago compared to the newer 24 Bit masters, so you asking for something that's almost impossible to verify
Yet you claimed the difference was in the word length. See the problem here?
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank
Some of the recordings I can hear the buzz coming from the guitar amps in the faint background right before a song starts. They aren't using hardly any compression
So it's very obviously a very different product than the CD, yet you state that the difference must be the extra bits. Do you honestly not see the painfully flawed reasoning there?
That's the critical aspect to comparing audio formats. If they aren't two formats from the exact same mastering session, going through the same hardware and/or software, identical except for the format difference then they will sound different anyway.
And "remastered" 24 bit files are guaranteed to sound different from the 10 year old CD version, but it's not due to the difference between 16 and 24 bits as a delivered playback. Even if it's not actually remastered but simply transferred from the same mastered analog tapes it will sound different.
I don't know if you can make the statement that 16 bit and 24 bit are equal. It all depends on the converters. Some aren't that much different between different bit levels, some are. So, i don't like those kinds of generalities. But if the converter is designed properly, clocked properly, etc. etc. 24 bit will generally sound better, but again, the converters have a LOT to do with it. Converters have been getting MUCH better and it's not just the conversion, it's better clocking, better noise isolation, better power supplies, input and output stages. So, it's hard to really make a generality when it comes to conversion. These engineers know a LOT more know about conversion than they did 20+ years ago. In fact, one of the first designers of one of the first mastering converters said publicly that he changed his attitude towards 16 bit vs 24 bit. He first said 16 bit was all we would need and then years later admitted he was wrong. That person was Bob Stuart of Meridian. They had one of the first digital converters used in Mastering studios. He also said initially that 24/96 was all that was needed, now he changed his attitude towards 24/192 and a lot of this has to do with new ways to improve their product designs that there weren't aware of before. Meridian is also the company behind MLP, which is used in DVD-A, and True HD from Dolby, so he kind of knows a little bit about converters and file compression. He's still up in the air towards DSD vs PCM though. But there is another camp that swears by DSD over PCM recordings. Personally, I haven't compared the two, so I can't comment on that.
Yet you claimed the difference was in the word length. See the problem here?
So it's very obviously a very different product than the CD, yet you state that the difference must be the extra bits. Do you honestly not see the painful flaw of reasoning there?
No, I didn't even mention word length. I think you misinterpreted what I said.
No, I never said extra bits. But if you want to go down that road, then we have to sit in a studio with the highest quality converters, monitoring studio and do our own comparisons, but I've read many articles by various experts over the years and some of them came forward after their initial thoughts and changed their mind between 16 bit and 24 bit. Who currently that designs converters says that there is no difference between 16 bit and 24 bit? Several years ago I asked an engineer at Dolby labs if they could even hear any difference between 24/96 and 24/192 as 24/192 was more talk at the time and he indicated that they could hear the difference in listening tests and this was right around when True HD was about to get released. But the problem was a lot of engineers didn't want to get converters and work with bigger file sizes when doing large multitrack recordings for audio and movie soundtracks, which is why most movies only go to 24/96.
if the converter is designed properly, clocked properly, etc. etc. 24 bit will generally sound better
Well, all I can say is that Nyquist and Shannon disagree with you. There are arguments for using longer words during production, but as a delivery format, unless the level is very low, all else being equal there will be NO difference between 16 and 24 bit versions at all. None. Period.
In fact, one of the first designers of one of the first mastering converters said publicly that he changed his attitude towards 16 bit vs 24 bit. He first said 16 bit was all we would need and then years later admitted he was wrong. That person was Bob Stuart of Meridian. They had one of the first digital converters used in Mastering studios. He also said initially that 24/96 was all that was needed, now he changed his attitude towards 24/192 and a lot of this has to do with new ways to improve their product designs that there weren't aware of before.
Please forgive my skepticism, but I consider such statements at least suspect and perhaps completely disingenuous. All that story says to me is that a vendor of Mastering products, a very small market, discovered after reaching market saturation that "changing his mind" created a reason for all of his clients to buy new equipment from him.
Please forgive my skepticism, but I consider such statements at least suspect and perhaps completely disingenuous. All that story says to me is that a vendor of Mastering products, a very small market, discovered after reaching market saturation that "changing his mind" created a reason for all of his clients to buy new equipment from him.
I think you guys need to go to a forum that has experts on hand to answer your questions regarding 16 bit vs 24 bit in terms of recording and playback systems. I think it's better to figure out what equipment you are going to compare as well, because there are top end converters and low end converters with completely different specs and differences, so what applies to one might not apply to another.
There are plenty of forums that you can discuss this that have actual top recording engineers and maybe actual engineers that design the actual product on hand to clarify all of the differences. But I strongly urge you to discuss specific equipment because not all 16 bit and 24 bit converters are the same. I did recently read an article at Sound On Sound that discussed some aspects but it was a 4 year old article.
Instead of comparing the quality of recordings with other recordings, shouldn't the real comparison be with the actual performance of the music that is being recorded?
Absolutely not. Live performance and recorded performance are completely different art forms. With the possible exception of some classical recordings, and frequently not even then, there is no attempt to replicate the sound of a live performance in a recording. Effects, double-tracking, level compression, panning and countless other tools are used to create a recording. Think of the Beatles. One of the reasons they stopped touring is because they couldn't perform live what they were creating in the studio (although the technology is there to to be able to do it today and groups like the Fab Faux do an amazing job of replicating those recordings live).
If anything, the opposite is true. Live sound attempts to replicate the sound of the recording. Go to any Broadway show. The mix is so perfectly balanced, it sounds like a recording, not like live instruments. But in order to accomplish that, they have to drive the levels way up.
Yet you claimed the difference was in the word length. See the problem here?
So it's very obviously a very different product than the CD, yet you state that the difference must be the extra bits. Do you honestly not see I didn't mention specifics as to why, it could be 5 different reasons as to why, word length could be only one reason. the painfully flawed reasoning there?
I didn't mention specifics as to why, it could be 5 different reasons as to why, word length could be only one reason.
It could be the converters are better, no compression, 24 bit being better than 16 bit, better cables used throughout the chain, better computer hardware, better mastering software, etc. etc. There are a variety of reasons WHY, but I never specifically said what the ONLY reason was. You are putting words in my mouth. See the flawed reasoning on your part here?
OK, here it goes. I'll be EXTREMELY specific. 24 bit is better than 16 bit with everything else equal. PERIOD. Show me a RECENT article written by a expert in A/D and D/A converters that disagrees with that statement.
Yet you claimed the difference was in the word length. See the problem here?
So it's very obviously a very different product than the CD, yet you state that the difference must be the extra bits. Do you honestly not see the painfully flawed reasoning there?
No, I never said anything as to the reasoning behind it. I only mentioned one was 16 bit and one was 24 bit to give a distinction on the different versions. If I was going to list the actual reasons why, then I would have stated it specifically. But 24 bit is better than 16 bit. Whether you have a good enough system to hear the differences, or hearing abilities that can differentiate the differences, then that's another topic of discussion.
Have you heard a DTS Master soundtrack vs a Dolby Digital Soundtrack? One is 24 bit and one is 16 bit. Obviously, there other differences, but these newer BluRay versions with 24/96 soundtracks are FAR better than the previous 16 bit sound tracks. Hopefully they didn't have complete idiots running the board when they did the mastering. But I'm sure there are plenty of other considerations as to the improvement of sound quality beyond just 16 bit vs 24 bit by itself.
If Apple does release 24-bit audio that is equivalent of the 24-bit 96 KHz sampling rate audio encoding used on Dolby True HD and DTS-HD Master Audio sound tracks used on Blu-ray disc, I'm all for it.
Here's the reason why: it means vastly clearer treble frequency sounds. The biggest shortcoming of the current Compact Disc format, which uses 16-bit 44.1 KHz sampling rate audio encoding, is the fact when it tries to playback the sound of cymbals, a flute or piccolo or the higher octave notes on a piano, the sound quality can be unpleasantly harsh, even on HDCD mastered Compact Discs. With 24-bit 96 KHz sampling rate, higher frequencies are encoded far more faithfully, and that means cymbals, violins, flutes and piccolos actually sound natural with just about no harshness in sound.
In short, the biggest beneficiaries would be a real symphonic orchestra or a jazz band--the string section actually sounds like a string section, and the various instruments of a jazz band actually sound good.
Improvements in recording technologies primarily benefit styles that feature a wide sonic range. By definition, that is classical music and to a lesser degree jazz.
If you listen to contemporary music (rock, pop, rap, country, whatever), the benefits are nearly non-existent.
With 24-bit 96 KHz sampling rate, higher frequencies are encoded far more faithfully
To be clear, increasing the sample rate has one and only one effect: It extends the highest frequency the system can record. It does NOT, contrary to some opinions, make any difference whatsoever to lower frequencies. It's not a "resolution enhancer." Increasing the sample rate does not magically make stuff at 5 KHz sound better, or even any different at all.
Comments
Quote:
Unless you can verify that the CD and the 24-bit tracks were transferred under comparable conditions, you cannot assert that any differences you observe are due more to the resolution than differences in the settings, levels, etc. used during the mastering process. In my experience, when the CD and high res tracks are mastered under the same conditions, the differences are not "VERY" noticeable. If anything, my A-B listenings illustrate just how far general mastering practices have strayed away from the CD format's optimal capabilities.
You are asking the impossible. Most of the 16 bit CDs that have been on the market were done years ago compared to the newer 24 Bit masters, so you asking for something that's almost impossible to verify. the only comparison I can do is listen to a 16 Bit CD vs a 24 Bit version on the same stereo side by side at the same volume level. If it's noticeable, then it's noticeable and every one I've compared so far has been noticeably better sounding. Most of the time it's DRASTICALLY better sounding. Some of the recordings I can hear the buzz coming from the guitar amps in the faint background right before a song starts. They aren't using hardly any compression. I asked one of the mastering engineers that has done HD Tracks and he told me his process. He said there was very little, if any compression used, almost no eq, he was very careful as to not tarnish the transfer. Bob Ludwig also has been interviewed as he did the entire Rolling Stones 24 Bit remasters. A lot of these mastering studios have been upgrading the converters with much better dynamic range, S/N ratios, etc. etc. But I look at the final end result from a consumer's standpoint. Does the 24 bit AIFF sound better than a 16 AIFF from CD? If so that's all I need to compare and the differences I've heard is so noticeable from the first couple of seconds. Some blew me away at how much better they sound. Cymbals aren't harsh and distorted, transients are much clearer, it's like a whole new experience. Obviously, how much better will sometimes depend on how good your DAC, speakers, amps, etc. are, but my current system I've been listening on for the past 6 months is nothing special. Just a decent DAC running through Shift A2's with decent RCA interconnect cables and this is in my bedroom/office. I also listen to recordings in the 80 dB to 90dB range with peaks at around 95dB on occasion. Some of the 16 bit recordings sound horrible when played at the higher volume levels whereas the 24 bit don't. But I generally don't crank my system up, most of the time it's hovering around 78 to 85dB, which is normal listening levels.
And again, you're ascribing a lot of importance to 24-bit, when you have no basis of comparison other than CDs that were likely mastered under completely different conditions. A remastered CD can produce the exact same results that you describe. Lower frequencies depend the least on high resolution, so any differences you observe with bass performance can almost assuredly originate with differences in EQ or other processing used in the mastering.
The true basis of comparison is when you can find a CD and high res track that were transferred at the same time or under very similar conditions. I've done those comparisons and it's not a "night and day" difference. Yes, I have observed differences when doing these comparisons, but they pale by comparison with the mastering and other post production steps.
That's all I CAN compare. I'm not in the mastering studio sitting right next to the mastering engineer. I'm looking at this from a consumer level. What I have is what i have, I can't get anything other than what I have unless I am in the studio with the original masters. Seriously, I have CDs that I purchased, I convert them to AIFF on my computer, I download the 24 Bit version from HD Tracks and sit and listen AB each track and each track sounds better with 24 bit than 16 bit both using AIFF. What more can I even do? NOTHING. That's all that's available other than various MP3's, etc. So again, you are asking for the impossible scenario.
Both recordings were taken from the original analog tapes on different occasions sometimes using different mastering studios, engineers, equipment, and they engineers have only whatever notes that were left behind. Not much else I can say other than I hear what I hear and they are noticeable. Every single time.
And again, you're ascribing a lot of importance to 24-bit, when you have no basis of comparison other than CDs that were likely mastered under completely different conditions. A remastered CD can produce the exact same results that you describe. Lower frequencies depend the least on high resolution, so any differences you observe with bass performance can almost assuredly originate with differences in EQ or other processing used in the mastering.
The true basis of comparison is when you can find a CD and high res track that were transferred at the same time or under very similar conditions. I've done those comparisons and it's not a "night and day" difference. Yes, I have observed differences when doing these comparisons, but they pale by comparison with the mastering and other post production steps.
Let me ask you a couple of questions.
1. Are you trying to compare in a studio environment just the difference between 16 bit and 24 bit with everything else the same?
2. If so, what speakers are you using?
3. What AD and DA converters are you using?
4. What other equipment that you are routing everything through are you using?
Why do I ask? The reason is that some equipment limits what you can hear and you might have some equipment that's not allowing you to hear any differences. I've seen studios (even famous ones) use something in the food chain that masks those results. poor monitor speakers, converters that aren't really that great (even though they think they are), not using a good master clock, etc. Heck, just the monitor speakers alone can be enough to mess up anything in a comparison test. Some of the most popular studio monitors (Yamaha NS-10's specifically) are horrific monitors and the only reason people started to use those was because they were crappy speakers. But some people think they are flat, colorless and top quality reference monitors, which couldn't be further from the truth. Those speakers are probably the worst single piece of gear a studio could ever have in their studio. A lot of engineers are waking up to this fact, unfortunately they've been used for 20+ years and they've already been involved on tracking and mixing of a lot of pop recordings and they are just awful speakers.
Both recordings were taken from the original analog tapes on different occasions sometimes using different mastering studios, engineers, equipment, and they engineers have only whatever notes that were left behind. Not much else I can say other than I hear what I hear and they are noticeable. Every single time.
That's the critical aspect to comparing audio formats. If they aren't two formats from the exact same mastering session, going through the same hardware and/or software, identical except for the format difference then they will sound different anyway.
And "remastered" 24 bit files are guaranteed to sound different from the 10 year old CD version, but it's not due to the difference between 16 and 24 bits as a delivered playback. Even if it's not actually remastered but simply transferred from the same mastered analog tapes it will sound different.
That's the critical aspect to comparing audio formats. If they aren't two formats from the exact same mastering session, going through the same hardware and/or software, identical except for the format difference then they will sound different anyway.
And "remastered" 24 bit files are guaranteed to sound different from the 10 year old CD version, but it's not due to the difference between 16 and 24 bits as a delivered playback. Even if it's not actually remastered but simply transferred from the same mastered analog tapes it will sound different.
Most CDs, not all, have various levels of compression on them. A lot of these HD Tracks that I have, I don't hear much if any compression being used. That alone will make a HUGE difference, but we can't go back and have them remaster the 16 bit without compression. One thing I have been noticing is that most of the top studios that are doing a lot of the mastering of things I own have been going through drastic upgrades of equipment. Most top studios have replaced their converters within the last 2 to 5 year with super nice converters compared to what they used 20 years ago. Some studios have completely changed their cabling going from run in the mill Mogami cabling to super expensive cabling, new monitors, even redoing the room acoustics to their control room. So, I highly doubt there is a single studio that's in use that hasn't done some form of upgrade to their equipment within the last 20+ years since they spit out the original CD. Yeah, I've heard remasters recently and over the course of the last decade or so that didn't sound much different and some that did sound drastically different and these were all 16 bit Redbook CDs. It all depends on what label, what mastering studio/engineer, etc. But I personally have found a lot of 16 bit remasters to actually be better, but I have heard some that sucked, but they were on more cheesy labels. But the majors like Sony, and other larger or more reputable labels seem to be doing a better job even with remastering 16 bit. But with the 24 bit, I'm noticing much less, if any, compression, which makes a HUGE difference to me. I hate audio compression, which is common on more pop/commercial recordings than they are on classical and acoustic jazz recordings from the 60's and early 70's.
What difference have you heard? What difference could there be? The only thing those extra bits do is push the noise floor down another 48 dB or so. When it's already at least 30 dB below audiblity at 16 bits (without even considering masking!), how will making the noise "more inaudible" make any difference to what you hear?
I contend that similarly transferred source material should sound identical at 16 and 24 bit unless the level is very low.
You are asking the impossible. Most of the 16 bit CDs that have been on the market were done years ago compared to the newer 24 Bit masters, so you asking for something that's almost impossible to verify
Yet you claimed the difference was in the word length. See the problem here?
Some of the recordings I can hear the buzz coming from the guitar amps in the faint background right before a song starts. They aren't using hardly any compression
So it's very obviously a very different product than the CD, yet you state that the difference must be the extra bits. Do you honestly not see the painfully flawed reasoning there?
That's the critical aspect to comparing audio formats. If they aren't two formats from the exact same mastering session, going through the same hardware and/or software, identical except for the format difference then they will sound different anyway.
And "remastered" 24 bit files are guaranteed to sound different from the 10 year old CD version, but it's not due to the difference between 16 and 24 bits as a delivered playback. Even if it's not actually remastered but simply transferred from the same mastered analog tapes it will sound different.
I don't know if you can make the statement that 16 bit and 24 bit are equal. It all depends on the converters. Some aren't that much different between different bit levels, some are. So, i don't like those kinds of generalities. But if the converter is designed properly, clocked properly, etc. etc. 24 bit will generally sound better, but again, the converters have a LOT to do with it. Converters have been getting MUCH better and it's not just the conversion, it's better clocking, better noise isolation, better power supplies, input and output stages. So, it's hard to really make a generality when it comes to conversion. These engineers know a LOT more know about conversion than they did 20+ years ago. In fact, one of the first designers of one of the first mastering converters said publicly that he changed his attitude towards 16 bit vs 24 bit. He first said 16 bit was all we would need and then years later admitted he was wrong. That person was Bob Stuart of Meridian. They had one of the first digital converters used in Mastering studios. He also said initially that 24/96 was all that was needed, now he changed his attitude towards 24/192 and a lot of this has to do with new ways to improve their product designs that there weren't aware of before. Meridian is also the company behind MLP, which is used in DVD-A, and True HD from Dolby, so he kind of knows a little bit about converters and file compression. He's still up in the air towards DSD vs PCM though. But there is another camp that swears by DSD over PCM recordings. Personally, I haven't compared the two, so I can't comment on that.
Yet you claimed the difference was in the word length. See the problem here?
So it's very obviously a very different product than the CD, yet you state that the difference must be the extra bits. Do you honestly not see the painful flaw of reasoning there?
No, I didn't even mention word length. I think you misinterpreted what I said.
No, I never said extra bits. But if you want to go down that road, then we have to sit in a studio with the highest quality converters, monitoring studio and do our own comparisons, but I've read many articles by various experts over the years and some of them came forward after their initial thoughts and changed their mind between 16 bit and 24 bit. Who currently that designs converters says that there is no difference between 16 bit and 24 bit? Several years ago I asked an engineer at Dolby labs if they could even hear any difference between 24/96 and 24/192 as 24/192 was more talk at the time and he indicated that they could hear the difference in listening tests and this was right around when True HD was about to get released. But the problem was a lot of engineers didn't want to get converters and work with bigger file sizes when doing large multitrack recordings for audio and movie soundtracks, which is why most movies only go to 24/96.
Well, all I can say is that Nyquist and Shannon disagree with you. There are arguments for using longer words during production, but as a delivery format, unless the level is very low, all else being equal there will be NO difference between 16 and 24 bit versions at all. None. Period.
Please forgive my skepticism, but I consider such statements at least suspect and perhaps completely disingenuous. All that story says to me is that a vendor of Mastering products, a very small market, discovered after reaching market saturation that "changing his mind" created a reason for all of his clients to buy new equipment from him.
Please forgive my skepticism, but I consider such statements at least suspect and perhaps completely disingenuous. All that story says to me is that a vendor of Mastering products, a very small market, discovered after reaching market saturation that "changing his mind" created a reason for all of his clients to buy new equipment from him.
I think you guys need to go to a forum that has experts on hand to answer your questions regarding 16 bit vs 24 bit in terms of recording and playback systems. I think it's better to figure out what equipment you are going to compare as well, because there are top end converters and low end converters with completely different specs and differences, so what applies to one might not apply to another.
There are plenty of forums that you can discuss this that have actual top recording engineers and maybe actual engineers that design the actual product on hand to clarify all of the differences. But I strongly urge you to discuss specific equipment because not all 16 bit and 24 bit converters are the same. I did recently read an article at Sound On Sound that discussed some aspects but it was a 4 year old article.
Here's a link to it. http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/jun08/articles/qa0608_2.htm
Instead of comparing the quality of recordings with other recordings, shouldn't the real comparison be with the actual performance of the music that is being recorded?
Absolutely not. Live performance and recorded performance are completely different art forms. With the possible exception of some classical recordings, and frequently not even then, there is no attempt to replicate the sound of a live performance in a recording. Effects, double-tracking, level compression, panning and countless other tools are used to create a recording. Think of the Beatles. One of the reasons they stopped touring is because they couldn't perform live what they were creating in the studio (although the technology is there to to be able to do it today and groups like the Fab Faux do an amazing job of replicating those recordings live).
If anything, the opposite is true. Live sound attempts to replicate the sound of the recording. Go to any Broadway show. The mix is so perfectly balanced, it sounds like a recording, not like live instruments. But in order to accomplish that, they have to drive the levels way up.
Yet you claimed the difference was in the word length. See the problem here?
So it's very obviously a very different product than the CD, yet you state that the difference must be the extra bits. Do you honestly not see I didn't mention specifics as to why, it could be 5 different reasons as to why, word length could be only one reason. the painfully flawed reasoning there?
I didn't mention specifics as to why, it could be 5 different reasons as to why, word length could be only one reason.
It could be the converters are better, no compression, 24 bit being better than 16 bit, better cables used throughout the chain, better computer hardware, better mastering software, etc. etc. There are a variety of reasons WHY, but I never specifically said what the ONLY reason was. You are putting words in my mouth. See the flawed reasoning on your part here?
OK, here it goes. I'll be EXTREMELY specific. 24 bit is better than 16 bit with everything else equal. PERIOD. Show me a RECENT article written by a expert in A/D and D/A converters that disagrees with that statement.
Yet you claimed the difference was in the word length. See the problem here?
So it's very obviously a very different product than the CD, yet you state that the difference must be the extra bits. Do you honestly not see the painfully flawed reasoning there?
No, I never said anything as to the reasoning behind it. I only mentioned one was 16 bit and one was 24 bit to give a distinction on the different versions. If I was going to list the actual reasons why, then I would have stated it specifically. But 24 bit is better than 16 bit. Whether you have a good enough system to hear the differences, or hearing abilities that can differentiate the differences, then that's another topic of discussion.
Have you heard a DTS Master soundtrack vs a Dolby Digital Soundtrack? One is 24 bit and one is 16 bit. Obviously, there other differences, but these newer BluRay versions with 24/96 soundtracks are FAR better than the previous 16 bit sound tracks. Hopefully they didn't have complete idiots running the board when they did the mastering. But I'm sure there are plenty of other considerations as to the improvement of sound quality beyond just 16 bit vs 24 bit by itself.
If Apple does release 24-bit audio that is equivalent of the 24-bit 96 KHz sampling rate audio encoding used on Dolby True HD and DTS-HD Master Audio sound tracks used on Blu-ray disc, I'm all for it.
Here's the reason why: it means vastly clearer treble frequency sounds. The biggest shortcoming of the current Compact Disc format, which uses 16-bit 44.1 KHz sampling rate audio encoding, is the fact when it tries to playback the sound of cymbals, a flute or piccolo or the higher octave notes on a piano, the sound quality can be unpleasantly harsh, even on HDCD mastered Compact Discs. With 24-bit 96 KHz sampling rate, higher frequencies are encoded far more faithfully, and that means cymbals, violins, flutes and piccolos actually sound natural with just about no harshness in sound.
In short, the biggest beneficiaries would be a real symphonic orchestra or a jazz band--the string section actually sounds like a string section, and the various instruments of a jazz band actually sound good.
Improvements in recording technologies primarily benefit styles that feature a wide sonic range. By definition, that is classical music and to a lesser degree jazz.
If you listen to contemporary music (rock, pop, rap, country, whatever), the benefits are nearly non-existent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist%E2%80%93Shannon_sampling_theorem
With 24-bit 96 KHz sampling rate, higher frequencies are encoded far more faithfully
To be clear, increasing the sample rate has one and only one effect: It extends the highest frequency the system can record. It does NOT, contrary to some opinions, make any difference whatsoever to lower frequencies. It's not a "resolution enhancer." Increasing the sample rate does not magically make stuff at 5 KHz sound better, or even any different at all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist%E2%80%93Shannon_sampling_theorem
I think i was talking word length between 16 bit and 24 bit, not sample rate.