IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

16bit vs 24bit, Rubbish or Truth?
Bourne
post Mar 27 2007, 04:02
Post #1





Group: Banned
Posts: 735
Joined: 19-March 06
Member No.: 28599



-

This post has been edited by Bourne: Apr 2 2008, 19:26
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies
sld
post Jul 5 2008, 17:56
Post #2





Group: Members
Posts: 1017
Joined: 4-March 03
From: Singapore
Member No.: 5312



So it IS possible for people who get their Theory wrong to still excel in Practice. Very interesting.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
[JAZ]
post Jul 5 2008, 19:12
Post #3





Group: Members
Posts: 1787
Joined: 24-June 02
From: Catalunya(Spain)
Member No.: 2383



QUOTE (sld @ Jul 5 2008, 18:56) *
So it IS possible for people who get their Theory wrong to still excel in Practice. Very interesting.


That depends... you know... sometimes to excel in something is related to the money put into it. (or in this case, the amount of bits)

There are several small errors around the document, like "4-bit recording would have 16 discrete possible amplitude levels.". a 4bit recording just have 8 amplitude levels, because a signal has a positive and a negative part. This one is done several times.
(And what about "Perhaps many are more familiar with 8-bit audio from real-time internet sources like RealAudio". that was audio compressed at 16kbit/s, not just "8-bit" !)

But one of the things that made me wonder is how 24bits (as opposed to 16bits) actually makes vinyl lovers happier. AFAIR the SNR of a vinyl is lower (i.e. less range) than that of a CD.
Either one doesn't like digital audio (and argues that just analog media can store the signal in enough detail), or accepts the way digital works, and compares what is comparable (i.e SNR)

The problem with the document, from my point of view is: It says something that is acceptable for its use (recording), with some correct information, but also with other that are mistakes, misunderstandings or erroneous concepts.
I am not implying that the latter are more prominent than the former. Just that they are there.

QUOTE (ccryder @ Jul 5 2008, 08:31) *
P.P.S. David, if you'd like to discuss this further, please keep it to email, so I can ignore your emails you while other kind folk here are likewise spared the drivel.


If i'm reading that right... It is *plain* arrogance.

This post has been edited by [JAZ]: Jul 5 2008, 19:16
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ccryder
post Jul 6 2008, 10:43
Post #4





Group: Members
Posts: 12
Joined: 5-July 08
Member No.: 55311



QUOTE
' date='Jul 5 2008, 13:12' post='575121']

There are several small errors around the document, like "4-bit recording would have 16 discrete possible amplitude levels.". a 4bit recording just have 8 amplitude levels, because a signal has a positive and a negative part. This one is done several times.
(And what about "Perhaps many are more familiar with 8-bit audio from real-time internet sources like RealAudio". that was audio compressed at 16kbit/s, not just "8-bit" !)

But one of the things that made me wonder is how 24bits (as opposed to 16bits) actually makes vinyl lovers happier. AFAIR the SNR of a vinyl is lower (i.e. less range) than that of a CD.
Either one doesn't like digital audio (and argues that just analog media can store the signal in enough detail), or accepts the way digital works, and compares what is comparable (i.e SNR)

The problem with the document, from my point of view is: It says something that is acceptable for its use (recording), with some correct information, but also with other that are mistakes, misunderstandings or erroneous concepts.
I am not implying that the latter are more prominent than the former. Just that they are there.


Please See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_bit_depth
and
http://www.wikirecording.org/Bit_Depth

Perhaps you take issue with my use of the phrase "amplitude levels," which for the purposes of the discussion, I considered synonymous with sample values (levels describing amplitude of a waveform, which may be positive or negative numbers, but are still discrete values representing amplitude).

Regarding the Real-Audio reference, never did I mention the phrase "bit-rate". I said 8-bit. As in 8 bits per sample representing a maximum of 8 significant bits required to quantify dynamic range, *not* 8 bits per second. Bits per sample was the topic. My experience with Real Audio by the time the doc was written was that Real Audio was played back using 8 *significant bits* per PCM sample (regardless of word lengths > 8-bits) once decompressed from Real Audio format and having been fed to a D/A converter. If that has changed since then (I don't mess with Real Audio, so I don't know how far they've pushed its dynamic range losslessly), then any inaccuracies with respect to bits per sample of the Real Audio product would be a function of the information I believed accurate at the time it was written.

One might get a greater appreciation for what it is that makes audiophiles (and "vinyl lovers") prefer 24-bit audio by reading either some sections of my doc (if you dare), or reading more about how PCM vs. DSD represents sound, especially low level signals. Simply put, the attraction to either high resolution 24 PCM digital audio, or analog audio is a more accurate representation of lower level signals--DSD having its own argument in that regard.

Might have been nice to hear some of your suggestions for corrections over the past 7 years, especially if you were around back when the doc was written in 2001. The doc is currently officially unhosted (it was my specific request to 3rd parties hosting a copy of the doc to do so solely with my permission--to date I've granted none), so that point is moot.

I do look forward to reading a publicly hosted pioneering educational document my "critics" here might produce in the future, as I'm always eager to learn more and improve my knowledge on topics that have yet to gain mainstream awareness, and it would appear a few here have much to say.

Bottom line to anyone who doesn't think the FAQ is accurate, or you don't agree semantically with some of my word choices used to describe a complicated topic in a document specifically geared toward newbie high resolution field recordists, don't read it... It's that simple.

For reasons of personal economy, personal feelings of fulfillment of the original goal to educate new recordists on the use of new technologies, and relevance given the availability of capable standalone high-res recording devices, I pulled the hosting of the doc long before I found this thread 2 days ago, even though the thread is a year old. If anyone here had really cared about the accuracy of the document a year ago (or longer), you had a year to contact me and propose your corrections. I received no such propositions, which shows me that there are a few folks that would rather pretend to care about "misinformation being disseminated" rather than actually do something to prove they care (like emailing me about it) beyond classlessly bashing me behind my back on a public board on which I wasn't even a member (much less a reader) until yesterday.

At this point, I consider the doc out of print, anyway, so perhaps my few detractors might consider themselves to have won some kind of bizarre year-long battle I never knew I was in... hey, whatever gets you through the night.

-DH
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
MLXXX
post Jul 6 2008, 12:50
Post #5





Group: Members
Posts: 172
Joined: 25-February 08
From: Australia
Member No.: 51585



QUOTE (ccryder @ Jul 6 2008, 19:43) *
Might have been nice to hear some of your suggestions for corrections over the past 7 years, especially if you were around back when the doc was written in 2001.


Yes it may be a little harsh to criticize in 2007 & 8 an article that contained the following qualification and request for input/feedback:

While the contents of this document are specifically targeted to the needs and concerns of field recordists, some of the content can be applied to home recording as well. The submission of additions, corrections, and comments, is requested and encouraged ...

I imagine many people would have noticed the odd academic error in passing, but would have been content to read the article broadly; for its practical guidance, in using what was new technology at the time.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Posts in this topic
- Bourne   16bit vs 24bit   Mar 27 2007, 04:02
- - DigitalMan   Hmm, very long article. Seems to be a collection ...   Mar 27 2007, 04:20
- - Bourne   the very topic of the link... he is claiming that...   Mar 27 2007, 04:25
- - greynol   This has been covered to death on this forum alrea...   Mar 27 2007, 09:56
- - 2Bdecided   It's a load of pseudo science. The guy has a h...   Mar 27 2007, 10:00
|- - ccryder   QUOTE (2Bdecided @ Mar 27 2007, 04:00) It...   Jul 5 2008, 07:31
|- - Canar   QUOTE (ccryder @ Jul 4 2008, 23:31) Belie...   Jul 5 2008, 19:11
- - Bourne   @greynol I'm not starting a topic on that sub...   Mar 27 2007, 23:31
|- - Woodinville   QUOTE (Bourne @ Mar 27 2007, 15:31) @grey...   Mar 28 2007, 20:45
|- - chelgrian   QUOTE (Bourne @ Mar 27 2007, 23:31) I...   Mar 28 2007, 21:23
- - benski   It appears the site (and the article) are oriented...   Mar 28 2007, 22:08
- - 2Bdecided   Hang on a second benski, There's no argument ...   Mar 29 2007, 11:48
- - Filburt   Hmm, I just skimmed the first part, but the argume...   Mar 29 2007, 20:51
- - AndyH-ha   Who, believing in the gods, and their work in the...   Mar 29 2007, 21:02
- - Pandabear   Bourne - everyone's ears develop at their own ...   Mar 30 2007, 03:12
|- - pdq   QUOTE (Pandabear @ Mar 29 2007, 22:12) No...   Mar 30 2007, 15:45
|- - Synthetic Soul   QUOTE (Pandabear @ Mar 30 2007, 02:12) No...   Mar 30 2007, 16:43
- - AndyH-ha   I suspect most of us who visit here are capable of...   Mar 30 2007, 05:49
- - pdq   Let's see, I could believe David Robinson, or ...   Jul 5 2008, 15:52
|- - krabapple   QUOTE (pdq @ Jul 5 2008, 10:52) Let's...   Jul 7 2008, 18:41
- - Mike Giacomelli   I was curious what got Dan Heend so upset after al...   Jul 5 2008, 16:07
- - pdq   "A passage that is 6dB louder than another pa...   Jul 5 2008, 16:22
|- - Mike Giacomelli   QUOTE (pdq @ Jul 5 2008, 11:22) "A p...   Jul 5 2008, 16:31
||- - pdq   QUOTE (Mike Giacomelli @ Jul 5 2008, 11:3...   Jul 5 2008, 16:35
|- - ccryder   QUOTE (pdq @ Jul 5 2008, 10:22) "A p...   Jul 6 2008, 09:04
|- - SebastianG   QUOTE (ccryder @ Jul 6 2008, 10:04) http:...   Jul 6 2008, 11:17
||- - MichaelW   Cursed are the peacemakers, for they shall be beat...   Jul 6 2008, 12:11
|- - pdq   QUOTE (ccryder @ Jul 6 2008, 04:04) QUOTE...   Jul 6 2008, 12:21
- - sld   So it IS possible for people who get their Theory ...   Jul 5 2008, 17:56
|- - [JAZ]   QUOTE (sld @ Jul 5 2008, 18:56) So it IS ...   Jul 5 2008, 19:12
|- - ccryder   QUOTE ' date='Jul 5 2008, 13:12' post=...   Jul 6 2008, 10:43
|- - MLXXX   QUOTE (ccryder @ Jul 6 2008, 19:43) Might...   Jul 6 2008, 12:50
||- - ccryder   QUOTE (MLXXX @ Jul 6 2008, 06:50) QUOTE (...   Jul 6 2008, 13:35
|- - Mike Giacomelli   QUOTE (ccryder @ Jul 6 2008, 05:43) Regar...   Jul 6 2008, 17:05
- - AndyH-ha   QUOTE One might get a greater appreciation for wha...   Jul 6 2008, 20:23
- - Roseval   The question of sampling rate and bit depth are a ...   Jul 6 2008, 21:11
|- - ccryder   QUOTE (Roseval @ Jul 6 2008, 15:11) The q...   Jul 6 2008, 23:19
|- - Dynamic   Edit: I started typing this before ccryder's r...   Jul 7 2008, 00:34
- - hellokeith   QUOTE (ccryder @ Jul 6 2008, 17:19) There...   Jul 7 2008, 01:49
- - AndyH-ha   Aside from the fact that it is almost always easy ...   Jul 7 2008, 05:55
|- - ccryder   QUOTE (AndyH-ha @ Jul 6 2008, 23:55)...   Jul 7 2008, 08:13
|- - MichaelW   QUOTE (ccryder @ Jul 7 2008, 20:13) #2, t...   Jul 7 2008, 10:38
||- - ccryder   QUOTE (MichaelW @ Jul 7 2008, 04:38) QUOT...   Jul 7 2008, 11:58
|- - krabapple   QUOTE (ccryder @ Jul 7 2008, 03:13) The r...   Jul 7 2008, 18:51
|- - euphonic   QUOTE (ccryder @ Jul 7 2008, 00:13) #2, t...   Jul 7 2008, 23:56
|- - ccryder   OK, Gonna try once more to get some of you to unde...   Jul 8 2008, 05:31
||- - krabapple   QUOTE (ccryder @ Jul 8 2008, 00:31) Is my...   Jul 8 2008, 17:29
|- - ccryder   QUOTE (euphonic @ Jul 7 2008, 17:56) This...   Jul 8 2008, 05:46
|- - ccryder   The actual realized signal to noise ratio of the r...   Jul 8 2008, 06:27
|- - Nick.C   QUOTE (ccryder @ Jul 8 2008, 05:46) Reall...   Jul 8 2008, 07:54
|- - knutinh   QUOTE (ccryder @ Jul 8 2008, 06:46) QUOTE...   Jul 8 2008, 09:27
- - cabbagerat   QUOTE (ccryder @ Jul 6 2008, 14:19) a) ...   Jul 7 2008, 08:05
|- - ccryder   QUOTE (cabbagerat @ Jul 7 2008, 02:05) QU...   Jul 7 2008, 08:51
|- - SebastianG   QUOTE (ccryder @ Jul 7 2008, 09:51) That ...   Jul 7 2008, 10:14
|- - ccryder   I never said a word about dither in my last post. ...   Jul 7 2008, 11:47
|- - SebastianG   QUOTE (ccryder @ Jul 7 2008, 12:47) I nev...   Jul 7 2008, 13:15
- - AndyH-ha   Expectation and belief can, and have repeatedly be...   Jul 7 2008, 12:24
- - AndyH-ha   There is a lot of (mostly one-sided) talk about ra...   Jul 7 2008, 22:31
- - SebastianG   QUOTE Simply put, just about every noise shaping a...   Jul 8 2008, 09:49
- - MLXXX   QUOTE (ccryder @ Jul 8 2008, 14:31) Botto...   Jul 8 2008, 13:50
- - AndyH-ha   “properly noise shaped dither” (what I wrote) is n...   Jul 9 2008, 12:42
|- - SebastianG   Hi Andy! QUOTE (AndyH-ha @ Jul 9 20...   Jul 9 2008, 14:07
- - AndyH-ha   Here is my ignorance showing. How does one “bit sh...   Jul 9 2008, 22:08
- - Nick.C   If a signal with an amplitude of less than or equa...   Jul 9 2008, 22:12
|- - MichaelW   QUOTE (Nick.C @ Jul 10 2008, 10:12) If a ...   Jul 10 2008, 07:16
|- - Nick.C   QUOTE (MichaelW @ Jul 10 2008, 07:16) Doe...   Jul 10 2008, 08:00
- - Chromatix   Let's inject some common sense in to this, sha...   Jul 10 2008, 13:52
|- - SebastianG   QUOTE (Chromatix @ Jul 10 2008, 14:52) .....   Jul 10 2008, 15:47
- - Axon   Just to throw another log on the fire: My phono pr...   Jul 10 2008, 16:52
|- - Canar   QUOTE (Axon @ Jul 10 2008, 08:52) Just to...   Jul 10 2008, 17:12
|- - pdq   QUOTE (Axon @ Jul 10 2008, 11:52) Just to...   Jul 10 2008, 17:28
- - Axon   About 10, but still.   Jul 10 2008, 17:33
- - hellokeith   QUOTE (Chromatix @ Jul 10 2008, 07:52) I ...   Jul 10 2008, 19:25
- - greynol   C'mon now. This can be handled via PM. Let...   Jul 10 2008, 19:30
- - cabbagerat   QUOTE (hellokeith @ Jul 10 2008, 10:25) H...   Jul 10 2008, 21:08
- - Chromatix   Those in-car numbers look vaguely sensible to me. ...   Jul 11 2008, 11:31
- - 2Bdecided   The very best psychoacoustic experiments aim for 2...   Jul 14 2008, 16:07


Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 23rd October 2014 - 01:59