24/96 FLACs are a fraud

[kjf]

A 16-bit sample width can capture 96dBs of dynamic range
A 24-bit sample width can capture 144dBs of dynamic range

It's rare to find an album that has greater than 20db's of dynamic range.

It isn't just about dynamic range, it is also about the noise floor.

Having a greater range between absolute silence and FS allows the noise floor to be more easily buried.

[connor17]

Tuffgong, I've read the article you've posted, but I think that you didn't read what I posted.
" A digital recording takes snapshots of the analog signal at a certain rate (for CDs it is 44,100 times per second) and measures each snapshot with a certain accuracy (for CDs it is 16-bit, which means the value must be one of 65,536 possible values).
This means that, by definition, a digital recording is not capturing the complete sound wave. It is approximating it with a series of steps. Some sounds that have very quick transitions, such as a drum beat or a trumpet's tone, will be distorted because they change too quickly for the sample rate."
Reading this is shocking. Please, I beg you, watch this video:
http://xiph.org/video/vid2.shtml

All signals with content entirely below the Nyquist frequency (half the sampling rate) are captured perfectly and completely by sampling; an infinite sampling rate is not required.

"A vinyl record has a groove carved into it that mirrors the original sound's waveform. This means that no information is lost."
All this analogue=infinite bit depth is ridiculous. LP records rolled off frequencies at the top and bottom, because it wasn't able to reproduce them without problems, that's why vinyl sounds "warm".

"This means that the waveforms from a vinyl recording can be much more accurate"
If a signal is captured PERFECTLY (Nyquist), there is nothing "more accurate".

Vinyl is a dead tech fetish. Fetishism has good and bad things, but none of them are related to sound quality.

[cakemafia]

the vinyl simply accentuates the mid range registers so people think its better.. its not.. its the same.. its just that when u play a vinyl.. that material or something in the whole system ( i can't seem to recall what exactly) of the vinyl sound processing accentuates the mid range which makes them think their hearing something new... which is not the truth..

its simply cos the CD doesn't accentuate any frequencies.. its all there you just don't hear it.. and with the vinyl with the mid range being accentuated you start hearing things... that's it

"A vinyl record has a groove carved into it that mirrors the original sound's waveform. This means that no information is lost."
All this analogue=infinite bit depth is ridiculous. LP records rolled off frequencies at the top and bottom, because it wasn't able to reproduce them without problems, that's why vinyl sounds "warm".

that's a better way of putting what i said.. also i believe the term 'wet' was used in class to describe the vinyl sound

[tuffgong]

It isn't just about dynamic range, it is also about the noise floor.

Having a greater range between absolute silence and FS allows the noise floor to be more easily buried.

Of course, but pick a number. What is the noise floor of a typical recording studio? Or a home studio? 15db? 20db? Still allows plenty of headroom for most, if not all, instruments. The dynamic range of the source recording is typically far less than the capability of a 16-bit recording system..... set the levels correctly!

/off topic

Reading this is shocking. Please, I beg you, watch this video:
http://xiph.org/video/vid2.shtml

I listened to Monty bore me almost to sleep for 23:52. I am not an engineer who gets excited by playing sine waves through testing equipment. I’m a musician who gets excited by listening to music that sounds real. I did read your post and agree completely. Digital recording doesn't capture the space between the 0's and 1's. That space is where the magic lies in analog for me, and anybody who understands what it is to truly hear music (or cares)......

"This means that the waveforms from a vinyl recording can be much more accurate"
If a signal is captured PERFECTLY (Nyquist), there is nothing "more accurate".

Vinyl is a dead tech fetish. Fetishism has good and bad things, but none of them are related to sound quality.

I'm not quite sure why you end your post by saying, "Vinyl is a dead tech fetish." after stating, "vinyl captures the signal perfectly"

?????

"A vinyl record has a groove carved into it that mirrors the original sound's waveform. This means that no information is lost."
All this analogue=infinite bit depth is ridiculous. LP records rolled off frequencies at the top and bottom, because it wasn't able to reproduce them without problems, that's why vinyl sounds "warm".

A good analog rig has the ability to reproduce the entire frequency range rolling nothing off....PLUS reproduce all that good stuff between the 0's and 1's that digital can't

[connor17]

Hi.
You get it wrong, I didn't say "vinyl captures the signal perfectly", I meant a digital signal.
Anyway, vinyl is cool, I get it.
Neil Young said that 24/192 FLACs sound analogue, and that CDs are like being underwater, maybe he's right.

[tuffgong]

If I'm not mistaken all the stuff Neil is planning on releasing (again) is sourced from the original masters. It should sound good! Love Skrillex BTW...

[kjf]

It isn't just about dynamic range, it is also about the noise floor.

Having a greater range between absolute silence and FS allows the noise floor to be more easily buried.

Of course, but pick a number. What is the noise floor of a typical recording studio? Or a home studio? 15db? 20db? Still allows plenty of headroom for most, if not all, instruments. The dynamic range of the source recording is typically far less than the capability of a 16-bit recording system..... set the levels correctly!

Well, you are pretty much proving my point if we are going to focus on bit depth at recording.

We aren't talking about the analog noise floor of a studio.

96db of range makes it difficult to maintain a decent S/N ratio while leaving enough headroom for transients.

0dbFS doesn't change when going from 16 bit to 24 bit. The extra 8 bits are added at the bottom. So that means you can bury the noise down there while leaving plenty of headroom so as not to risk clipping during the recording and mixing process.

Also keep in mind that the bits are spread evenly over the whole range, so the reality is that while the entire dynamic range is represented by 16 or 24 bits, and the actual dynamic range of the program material is 3db to 24db at best. That means that the entirety of the material's dynamic range is being represented by 1 to 4 bits, while the rest are off somewhere playing with themselves.

At 16 bits, you get about 683 steps per db. At 24 bits, you get 116,508 steps per db. That is a substantial difference when it comes to accurately quantizing a sample. Because the steps are a lot closer together at 24 bits, the sample will be significantly more accurate and any artifacts produced by errors in the quantization process will by minimized.

Consider the above 3db scenario at 16 bits: you have 342 reference points to work with vs 58,254 points to accurately capture the dynamic range of the material.


Keep in mind, all the above is about bit depth during the recording and mixing process.

Getting back the to the original point of the thread: 24 bit is not fraud.

[tuffgong]

Getting back the to the original point of the thread: 24 bit is not fraud.

Not fraud, but just not necessary for most recordings.

[yossarian83]

I bet more of you can tell the difference between high quality music and even cd quality than realize.
If you want a trial, go to edu.bluecoastrecords.com and download the sample files. You may need audirvana or similar to play the high quality dds files.
I think you'll easily be able to discern a difference. I could tell a difference even on my relatively cheap system. It sounds like air, room space, and instrument response and is subtle but definitely discernible.

A recent study even showed that if you physically expose a person to the music (no sealed headphones) they could reliably tell the difference between hi def and other sources. It was hypothesized that this ability is due to other organs that CAN respond to frequencies outside the audible range.

[connor17]

Hi yoss.
Those blue coast records are overkill. They recommend DSD 5.6 (5 fucking MHz!!!).
Disadvantages: extremely limited catalog of music (no kidding !!!), 5 minute song file size is 401MB, A HUGE FILE!
Advantages: closest sound to analog tape (?????)

Back in the good old days I used to record radio broadcast concerts on cassette, I thought it sounded like crap, but now it turns out that I was an audiophile, go figure!

http://lavryengineering.com/pdfs/lavry-s...theory.pdf