16-bit... It really is enough!

[MusicNBeer]

Currently listening to the old 80s CD of Sting's Nothing Like the Sun. Fabulous recording and wonderful sounding CD. The CD has excellent dynamic range and even in the quietest parts, there's absolutely zero audible hiss.

The basic point is that 16-bits provides massive dynamic range. Unless you're hearing the quantization noise from your 16-bit digital source, there's zero reason to need higher bit depth. I guess it is possible to hear this quantization noise with headphones blasting and the right source material. With loudspeakers, I cannot see how you'd ever hear this quantization noise.

In addition, harmonic distortion can be almost completely eliminated with dithering, so really lower quantization noise level is really the only benefit of higher bit depth.

If you're not hearing quantization noise hiss, HIGHER BIT DEPTH DOES NOTHING!!!

I'll stick with my 16-bit/44.1KHz bliss.

 

[dc655321]

harmonic distortion can be almost completely eliminated with dithering

How might that work?

 

[MusicNBeer]

How might that work?

I mean quantization created intermodulation products, wrong wording.

...and not applying dither does add a small amount of harmonic distortion as well, when the signal frequency is a simple fraction of the sampling frequency.

 

[Chromatischism]

quantization created intermodulation products

That's not this, is it? https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/that-noise.18949/

 

[brimble]

Currently listening to the old 80s CD of Sting's Nothing Like the Sun. Fabulous recording and wonderful sounding CD. The CD has excellent dynamic range and even in the quietest parts, there's absolutely zero audible hiss.

The basic point is that 16-bits provides massive dynamic range. Unless you're hearing the quantization noise from your 16-bit digital source, there's zero reason to need higher bit depth. I guess it is possible to hear this quantization noise with headphones blasting and the right source material. With loudspeakers, I cannot see how you'd ever hear this quantization noise.

In addition, harmonic distortion can be almost completely eliminated with dithering, so really lower quantization noise level is really the only benefit of higher bit depth.

If you're not hearing quantization noise hiss, HIGHER BIT DEPTH DOES NOTHING!!!

I'll stick with my 16-bit/44.1KHz bliss.

I want this on a t-shirt.

 

[Apesbrain]

I want this on a t-shirt.

 

[digitalfrost]

Maybe you're right, but who uses CDs anymore? Given the bandwidth movies require, especially in 4k, simply going to 24bit to be on the safe side is a no-brainer.

 

[dc655321]

I mean quantization created intermodulation products, wrong wording.

...and not applying dither does add a small amount of harmonic distortion as well, when the signal frequency is a simple fraction of the sampling frequency.

Again, how does that work?
Genuinely curious...

 

[MakeMineVinyl]

16 bit/44.1k is just good enough as a final release format. Original recording sessions need higher resolution such as DXD to avoid artifacts through later mixing/processing operations.

More to the point, resolutions beyond CD standard are easy and dirt cheap on to implement with advances in high density storage etc., so why the hell not do it?

A guy who I used to work for was an old engineering type who was still stuck in the DOS mentality. He used and forced me to use old DOS eight character file names. Needless to say, naming or searching for a file on a modern computer was almost useless; how many names can you come up with when there are only 8 characters? Technology marches on.

 

[andymok]

try record a 24-track blank loop 16-bit master, every track added is a +3dB in noise floor

 

[RayDunzl]

try record a 24-track blank loop 16-bit master, every track added is a +3dB in noise floor

The sum is not 24 x 3dB, though.

Maybe 16.8dB

 

[Sal1950]

Maybe you're right, but who uses CDs anymore?

Who doesn't use CD's might be the more correct question, at least who isn't listening to 16/44 ripped files on their hard drives or streaming?
I've got a couple thousand RB files and I'm not going to run out and replace them with hi rez just for bragging rights. I've got more than enough hirez, dsd, and multich hirez files for those braggin rights.
It's the quality of the recording, not the bit rate that matters.
Today you can get just about anything you want in hirez from the streamers for free, at least for a very low monthly fee, so who really cares anymore.
The biggest fad today is listening to low rez, super noisy vinyl LP's.
Why? Don't ask me, I can't finger it out.

 

[brimble]

View attachment 106131

Wow!

 

[MusicNBeer]

Again, how does that work?
Genuinely curious...

An example would be when you're reducing bit depth from 24 bit to 16 bit with no dithering.

Here's the process for each sample FYI:
1) Express 24-bit value in 16-bit integer range (two's complement), which is 1 sign bit, 15 integer bits, and 8 fractional bits.
2) Round the 8 fractional bits to the nearest integer. This is done by simply adding 128 (which is 0.5 with the sample expressed as indicated in step 1) to each 24 bit value.
3) Take the upper 16-bits of the 24-bit value to use as your 16-bit sample.

So for periodic signals with frequency components at divisors of the sampling frequency (Fs/4, Fs/5, ...) this same rounding will occur each period of the signal. This adds non-random errors which will be non-white noise and has the property of having most it's energy at signal harmonics and intermodulation frequencies.

This generally isn't much of an issue with music which is not simple periodic signals, but it theoretically does add distortion along with the noise.

Best of all, dithering eliminates this problem. You just add a small amount of random noise energy to each 24-bit sample before doing the rounding procedure above. An RMS of half a bit (so 128 on average) completely eliminates the issue. Even 0.25 (64) works really well.

 

[MusicNBeer]

try record a 24-track blank loop 16-bit master, every track added is a +3dB in noise floor

I'm not arguing for mixing and mastering in 16-bit, only final product playback.

 

[MusicNBeer]

The biggest fad today is listening to low rez, super noisy vinyl LP's.
Why? Don't ask me, I can't finger it out.

Well for me, my reasons are nostalgia, some 70s and early 80s records are mastered really good, and the CD loudness war.

Loudness war is a damn shame and people think it's CDs fault.

 

[andreasmaaan]

I'm not arguing for mixing and mastering in 16-bit, only final product playback.

I agree dithered 16 bit is fine for playback. 44.1kHz is cutting it a bit fine, though, and definitely (strictly speaking) won't reproduce the full audible range for some, mostly younger, listeners (if this is captured in the recording in the first place).*

Personally, I see 16/44.1 as perfectly adequate for my own ears, which don't hear much beyond 17kHz.

*EDIT: and requires very steep anti-aliasing and reconstruction filters, even for listeners with just average hearing.

 

[MusicNBeer]

I agree dithered 16 bit is fine for playback. 44.1kHz is cutting it a bit fine, though, and definitely (strictly speaking) won't reproduce the full audible range for some, mostly younger, listeners (if this is captured in the recording in the first place).

Personally, I see 16/44.1 as perfectly adequate for my own ears, which don't hear much beyond 17kHz.

I agree on that. I personally wish they picked 48K for Redbook sampling rate. This makes the mixdown from 96K 24-bit really simple and super accurate.

 

[Lorenzo74]

I agree on that. I personally wish they picked 48K for Redbook sampling rate. This makes the mixdown from 96K 24-bit really simple and super accurate.

Indeed it is the quality of the recording that really matter.
have any of you make a double blind test between
16/44
24/48
24/96
...
?

I did with speakers and headphones and couldn’t find appreciable results.
for sure much less rewarding than add rug carpet to absorb floor reflections.
Really curious to know, I have 46 years old ears.
My Best

 

[Raindog123]

Personally, I see 16/44.1 as perfectly adequate for my own ears, which don't hear much beyond 17kHz.

Not to kick a dead horse, but while I totally agree with 44.1 (48) kHz for sampling, I think 24 bit still makes practical sense. While 16bit is perfectly adequate dynamic range for "from below-audible noise floor to the loudest", it does not leave much room for mastering error/sloppiness. While the 24bit dynamic range is much more forgiving... IM-audio-amateur-HO.