16bit vs 24bit, Rubbish or Truth? Options

[Bourne]

-

This post has been edited by Bourne: Apr 2 2008, 19:26

[sld]

So it IS possible for people who get their Theory wrong to still excel in Practice. Very interesting.

[[JAZ]]

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.

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

[ccryder]

' 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

[MLXXX]

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.