16-bit... It really is enough!

[Prep74]

The only quad CD's I'm aware of are the DTS encoded ones. I don't believe there's enough room on a CD for uncompressed quad

I recall reading an article some time ago by one of the project developers at Phillips at that time. While the specs for quad allowed flexibility on how it would be utilised, the thinking was that it would be the same bit rate but with 40 minutes content, ie the same as a quad LP. As to why it was never utilised, I'm guessing that there wasn't a big enough market for quad recordings to justify the effort and developing a capable CD player. Also, around the time it was removed from IEC specs, SACDs and DVD audio had greater capability than four channel, eg 5.1.

DTS, as far as I'm aware, never met redbook specs and those releases were not able to display the compact disc logo.

 

[nimar]

Monty already did it best 7 years ago:

Late to this party, great video. Watching this and reading https://troll-audio.com/articles/time-resolution-of-digital-audio/ the only conclusion I can draw is there is zero purpose to sample rates > 44.1. For all those saying storage is cheap, etc, why should we record frequencies we can't hear. And while there is an argument for > 16 bits in recording / mastering its of limited value in playback.

So much for hi-res.

 

[waynel]

Late to this party, great video. Watching this and reading https://troll-audio.com/articles/time-resolution-of-digital-audio/ the only conclusion I can draw is there is zero purpose to sample rates > 44.1. For all those saying storage is cheap, etc, why should we record frequencies we can't hear. And while there is an argument for > 16 bits in recording / mastering its of limited value in playback.

So much for hi-res.

More that 16 bit DACs are useful when using digital volume control.

 

[AnalogSteph]

More that 16 bit DACs are useful when using digital volume control.

So much so, in fact, that they are increasingly obviating the need for a separate preamplifier stage.

16 bit is quite enough for a distribution format though.

 

[nimar]

Late to this party, great video. Watching this and reading https://troll-audio.com/articles/time-resolution-of-digital-audio/ the only conclusion I can draw is there is zero purpose to sample rates > 44.1. For all those saying storage is cheap, etc, why should we record frequencies we can't hear. And while there is an argument for > 16 bits in recording / mastering its of limited value in playback.

So much for hi-res.

Replying to myself, the only caveat is that perhaps you should get a version in a 1/2 step from the original recording. So if it was recored in 24/96, get yourself a 24/48 or 16/48 version instead of 16/44.

And I guess Amir's argument here https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/high-resolution-audio-does-it-matter.11/ is that a market for hi-res ensures that there is a master for something other than phone/ear pod listening.

 

[ebslo]

Didn't read the whole thread so apologies if someone already pointed this out, but down-sampling and rounding to 16/44.1 is the worst, most naive way to lossily compress the original 24/96 master. The quality is poor compared to what could be done by a modern lossy compression algorithm targeting 24/96 with an output bitrate comparable to flac-encoded 16/44.1.

 

[sal]

As said 100 time already...everything depends on the recording...

That being said, I do find it humorous how people cling to a 40 year old standard that was chosen for multiple reasons, one of which was the capabilities of electronics at the time.

The more bits the better

(coincidentally, the same people saying a 40 year old standard is all you need are the same people saying vinyl is stupid, go figure)

 

[watchnerd]

The more bits the better

This makes me think you don't understand what bit depth is for and how that translates to dynamic range in playback equipment, speakers, and human hearing.

 

[sal]

This makes me think you don't understand what bit depth is for and how that translates to dynamic range in playback equipment, speakers, and human hearing.

I do understand it. If we say that 115dB is the target dynamic range for the limits of human hearing, then 16/44 doesn’t cut it. Does it?

 

[sal]

This makes me think you don't understand what bit depth is for and how that translates to dynamic range in playback equipment, speakers, and human hearing.

At around 1khz, human beings can consciously discern about a 2hz difference, excluding amplitude. You tell me how many bits we could use to accurately represent a 2hz difference including amplitude. My answer is more

 

[sal]

This makes me think you don't understand what bit depth is for and how that translates to dynamic range in playback equipment, speakers, and human hearing.

A nerve attached to the inner hair cell can fire on average once every 2 milliseconds. Each inner hair cell has hundreds of such nerves. At what rate do these nerves fire all together? We still don't know, cuz nobody is willing to have probes stuck in there ears to find out.

There are nerves in the ear whose purpose is still unknown. Shall I continue?

Do you you know how human hearing works?

 

[dmac6419]

Yup

 

[watchnerd]

I do understand it. If we say that 115dB is the target dynamic range for the limits of human hearing, then 16/44 doesn’t cut it. Does it?

It does for music, yes.

And even in your example, 115 needs no more than 20 bits.

So, no, it's not more bits is better.

 

[watchnerd]

A nerve attached to the inner hair cell can fire on average once every 2 milliseconds. Each inner hair cell has hundreds of such nerves. At what rate do these nerves fire all together? We still don't know, cuz nobody is willing to have probes stuck in there ears to find out.

There are nerves in the ear whose purpose is still unknown. Shall I continue?

Do you you know how human hearing works?

Yes, please continue.

I'm curious how this relates to bit depth of reproduced music in any way.

 

[sal]

115 needs no more than 20 bits

Is 16 somehow greater than 20?

Is it not bit depth times sample rate = #bits...
I'm confused has math changed?

 

[watchnerd]

Is 16 somehow greater than 20?

Is it not bit depth times sample rate = #bits...
I'm confused has math changed?

No, it's your belief that 115dB dynamic range for music is actually better than 96dB that is confused, when there is no recorded music with 96dB dynamic range to begin with.

For music playback, 20 bits is not better than 16 bits. It's just waste.

 

[Beave]

At around 1khz, human beings can consciously discern about a 2hz difference, excluding amplitude. You tell me how many bits we could use to accurately represent a 2hz difference including amplitude. My answer is more

I don't understand what you wrote here. Can you elaborate?

 

[sal]

No, it's your belief that 115dB dynamic range for music is actually better than 96dB that is confused when there is no recorded music with 96dB dynamic range to begin with.

For playback, 20 bits is not better than 16 bits. It's just waste.

I see. I was confused. We should just settle for 96dB even though we're capable of more. Carry on

 

[sal]

I don't understand what you wrote here. Can you elaborate?

Not tonight. I'm done for the evening. Have fun folks

 

[watchnerd]

I see. I was confused. We should just settle for 96dB even though we're capable of more. Carry on

We don't need to waste storage bits and wifi network bandwidth on stuff that doesn't matter at all.

In fact, the unnecessarily fatter files are going to cause more bandwidth consumption for no increase in sonic quality, but an increase in network congestion and increased chance of dropped streams.

You're shoving empty bits of nothingness over the air with that extra bit depth. A stream of null data that does nothing to improve sonic quality.

Over-engineering can be bad engineering.