16bit vs 24bit, Rubbish or Truth? Options

[Bourne]

-

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

[AndyH-ha]

Aside from the fact that it is almost always easy to tell live from a recording, no matter how good the recording, comparison of live vs recording of any particular bit depth is not only unnecessary, it is completely irrelevant to the question of whether there is any audible difference between a 24 bit recording and the same properly converted to 16 bits.

The question is simply can anyone actually tell the difference, merely by listening -- when they have no information except what they hear to tell them which is which. We are not talking about difference in equipment or listening environment, these have to be identical while listening to both versions. We can certainly consider the question of how good the equipment and environment need to be to allow a difference to be perceived, if such perception is possible, but that is not the issue itself.

The claim that only raw 24 bit recordings are clearly different is an interesting one. Just why a difference, audible when recorded at 24 bits, would disappear once the tracks are mixed, etc. (still at 24 bit) is unclear, unless you are talking about the mistreatment most pop and rock music is subjected to on it way from recording to distribution. Quite a few people have pointed out that SACD and DVD-A releases sometimes receive mastering that makes them better, and clearly distinguishable from, the CD version of the same recording. However, as the tests in the paper demonstrated, those differences are not lost or altered when that SACD/DVD-A recording is converted to CD specs.

For five years or so, whenever this subject comes up, in this and a number of other audio oriented forums, I have issued the challenge for anyone championing >16 bits and/or >44.1kHz, to provide a sample: something I can convert or resample (properly) and then identify in a correctly done blind ABX test. Only a real music recording is applicable; it isn’t as hard to make up a sample with test tones.

I don’t say that such recordings do not exist, only that I, and at least most of the other people on the planet, have yet to hear one. So far, every time I’ve made this request, the people arguing in favor of greater bit depth and/or sample rate have just gone away. (There is one thread, in this forum, where a poster claimed to be able to ABX just about any change whatsoever to some 24/96 samples, but I don’t believe anyone else heard what he claimed to hear. (There were also some questions raised about his equipment) The thread got so convoluted that I stopped following it, but I don’t think he convinced anyone.) (Also, that was just about sample rates, not bit depths).

Now I acknowledge that my inability to hear a difference, should a test file become available, does not mean no audible difference exists. The sample has to be available for wide ABX testing, to find out if everyone is as deaf as me. Many people who visit this forum are experienced in doing ABX testing.

Three to ten seconds should be adequate, I see no need for an entire track, but will consider any reasoned argument as to why a greater duration might be necessary to reveal a difference. My preference is for 24/44.1 since even a few seconds of audio is tedious to download over my dial-up line, but a restriction to CD spec sampling rate isn’t a requirement. I, and probably most people, can handle 48kHz, 88.2kHz and 96kHz.

This post has been edited by AndyH-ha: Jul 7 2008, 06:00