"Dithering" over reducing the bitrates of my collection, Should i reduce my 24/96 surround material to 16/44.1? |
"Dithering" over reducing the bitrates of my collection, Should i reduce my 24/96 surround material to 16/44.1? |
May 2 2012, 09:27
Post
#1
|
|
![]() Group: Members Posts: 145 Joined: 18-May 10 From: Montana, USA Member No.: 80732 |
Folks,
I've got quite a bit of 24/96 material on my computer that is in 5.1 surround. Given that most of us accept it as true that 16/44.1 vs 24/96 makes no audiable difference, is there any reason not to dither these files down to 16/44.1 in 5.1 channels? It would save me disc space, reduce my network activity and also reduce my CPUs cock cycles. Thanks -------------------- Music lover and recovering high end audiophile
|
|
|
|
![]() |
May 2 2012, 12:19
Post
#2
|
|
![]() ReplayGain developer Group: Developer Posts: 4589 Joined: 5-November 01 From: Yorkshire, UK Member No.: 409 |
If it's lossy, don't touch it.
If it's uncompressed, use lossless compression. If it's already lossless, you could save a surprising amount of space by remove the last four bits (i.e. making it 20-bit). It's hard to imagine any scenario (measurement, analysis, compression, never mind normal listening) where this would be detectable. While 48kHz/20-bit, 48kHz 16-bit, and 44.1kHz 16-bit should all also be safe, I wouldn't do it, except for compatibility. I like having 24/96 content around to demonstrate that it sounds the same as 44.1kHz/16 With lossless compression, the difference in bitrate between 20/96 and 20/48 won't be as great as 2:1. Cheers, David. |
|
|
|
May 2 2012, 13:01
Post
#3
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 3083 Joined: 1-September 05 From: SE Pennsylvania Member No.: 24233 |
|
|
|
|
May 2 2012, 14:33
Post
#4
|
|
![]() ReplayGain developer Group: Developer Posts: 4589 Joined: 5-November 01 From: Yorkshire, UK Member No.: 409 |
With lossless compression, the difference in bitrate between 20/96 and 20/48 won't be as great as 2:1. Yes, but wouldn't you expect the savings going from 24 bit to 16 bit to be more than a third? However, if someone releases a 24/96 5.1 mix with buckets of headroom, I wouldn't feel 100% confident saying that converting 24-bits to 16-bits would be inaudible in every possible circumstance. I'd struggle to find any content that I could ABX, but it's not impossible that something somewhere is recorded/mixed so quietly that the difference can be heard. If anyone mixes 5.1 at the final Dolby reference level (dial norm -31dB), that's obscenely quiet by CD standards. Cheers, David. |
|
|
|
BearcatSandor "Dithering" over reducing the bitrates of my collection May 2 2012, 09:27
phofman I think the best is to try yourself, if you can he... May 2 2012, 10:16
dhromed QUOTE (BearcatSandor @ May 2 2012, 09:27)... May 2 2012, 11:06
Nessuno QUOTE (dhromed @ May 2 2012, 12:06) Forgi... May 2 2012, 11:41
onkl If the source files are lossless you just need to ... May 2 2012, 11:09
Porcus QUOTE (2Bdecided @ May 2 2012, 15:33) QUO... May 2 2012, 17:58
BearcatSandor ..cock cycles.. Yeah, that's what i get for po... May 2 2012, 17:48
skamp QUOTE (BearcatSandor @ May 2 2012, 18:48)... May 2 2012, 18:41
BearcatSandor QUOTE (skamp @ May 2 2012, 11:41) caudec ... May 4 2012, 05:32
bryant QUOTE (BearcatSandor @ May 3 2012, 20:32)... May 4 2012, 06:30
pdq How about keeping the 24 bits but reencoding to wa... May 2 2012, 18:52
BearcatSandor Thank you Bryant. I'll play with it and see wh... May 6 2012, 00:00![]() ![]() |
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 25th May 2013 - 21:51 |