• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Is there any music that actually requires 24 bits for replay?

manisandher

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Nov 6, 2016
Messages
803
Likes
810
Location
Royal Leamington Spa, UK
Take a 24-bit track. Convert to 16 bits. Convert back to 24 bits. Use DeltaWave to compare original 24-bit track with converted track.

I'm getting results such as the following:

1735296259715.png


I understand that it might be useful sticking to 24 bits in the studio (for further processing), but what's the point of using 24-bit tracks for replay?

FWIW, good ol' redbook has always sounded perfectly fine to me.

Mani.
 
No point whatsoever. Even 16 bit is more than strictly needed for transparency. Ditto for sampling rates much higher than 44.1. 48k makes sense as it's a standard for video, indeed the BBC now stream all content at 48k, but any more than that is just pandering to the technically illiterate.

S.
 
And give us 24 bit, and we STILL won't use most of it! Or in some cases (loud "high-res" remasters) - use less of the dynamic range than 16 bit CD!

As mentioned, 24 bit is a great "penalty free" safety for conservative levels while recording (prevent unpredictable overs by hovering in the -20dBfs range at the ADC) and processing (oversampling can also help there) - but for the playback format, 16 bits will get 'er done every time IMO...
 
Try asking this question on various audio forums and see what variety of answers you get.

My view is that red book sounds perfectly acceptable and if your sources are at this quality or higher then you can not give it a second thought. No need to worry or be concerned that higher resolution/rates are unnecessary. It’s there so enjoy the music.

Lossy compression is undesirable in my opinion although there’s much evidence that the better examples of it are audibly transparent.

We should aim for lossless PCM of at least 16/44 for peace of mind*

*audiophile OCD satisfaction guaranteed, lol!
 
One bit isn't enough, but still legible, if amplified...

1735298174988.png


Unzip the attachment and play the WAV.
 

Attachments

  • OneBitPaul.zip
    52.9 KB · Views: 49
I understand that it might be useful sticking to 24 bits in the studio (for further processing), but what's the point of using 24-bit tracks for replay?

Like @sergeauckland says, no point whatsoever.

The best of the best DACs we've seen so far can resolve roughly 20 bits. I don't think most people have any idea of how crazy big a span 120dB dynamic range gives you.

You'd need a listening room with a ridiculously low noise floor + a set of speakers that can play brutally loud without compression to get there, and it won't be pleasant.

Yes, the loudness wars went way too far, but there's a reason why it started. A truly huge dynamic range will have you contantly reaching for the volume control, every time it switches between unintelligible soft and painfully loud. More realistic, but also really annoying.

I bet most of the audiophiles, who waffle on about dynamic range, have never heard the real thing. Their prime examples of such a playback situation probably doesn't equate to much more than 10 bit when you do the actual math.
 
Take a 24-bit track. Convert to 16 bits. Convert back to 24 bits. Use DeltaWave to compare original 24-bit track with converted track.

I'm getting results such as the following:

View attachment 416729

I understand that it might be useful sticking to 24 bits in the studio (for further processing), but what's the point of using 24-bit tracks for replay?

FWIW, good ol' redbook has always sounded perfectly fine to me.

Mani.
I'm surprised the result is that clean, I'd have thought noise would have made it messier. Its hard to find tracks that use all 16 bits, @Blumlein 88 was looking for tracks a while ago that did.
 
Even if you forget about technical feasibility no sane record company would release recordings which 99.9% of their customers do not have the equipment to replay and if they did it would risk damaging their hearing.

Even if you take the nominal 96dB dynamic range of CD if you used it all and set levels for the just audible bits to be above background noise in a quiet room of 35dB (which few people have, the loud bits would be 131dB, if your amp and speakers could do it, and then you wouldn't worry too much about the quiet bits any more because it would be a while, maybe forever, before you could hear them again.

So no, as long as record companies belong to sane humans 16-bit is more than enough.

Film soundtracks seem to be susceptible to high levels of bonkers effects but most video systems can't reproduce them either.
 
I'm surprised the result is that clean, I'd have thought noise would have made it messier. Its hard to find tracks that use all 16 bits, @Blumlein 88 was looking for tracks a while ago that did.

I think it surprises a lot of people. Hence why Montgomery's video is so insightful.

I doubt even the '1812' in its most dynamic guise stresses redbook.
 
For me personally, I use digital volume control, therefore I like to use 24-bit transmission path to give myself comfort that the original 16-bits are more or less preserved, doesn’t matter if the lowest bits are audible or not. :)

And for 24bit content, I comfort myself that bits 25++ are not audible :) :)
 
For me personally, I use digital volume control, therefore I like to use 24-bit transmission path to give myself comfort that the original 16-bits are more or less preserved, doesn’t matter if the lowest bits are audible or not. :)

And for 24bit content, I comfort myself that bits 25++ are not audible :) :)
If the volume control is properly dithered, it won't affect resolution.

S.
 
It's a good moment to meditate on this chart from Amir's deck for AES.

Screenshot 2024-12-27 at 7.00.59 AM.png


All the fussing over and debating the just-measurable microscopic differences in the blue and green is kinda like our version of listening to the differences between power cables, except with an AP instead of ears.
 
It's a good moment to meditate on this chart from Amir's deck for AES.

View attachment 416742

All the fussing over and debating the just-measurable microscopic differences in the blue and green is kinda like our version of listening to the differences between power cables, except with an AP instead of ears.
There are those who have the opinion that the audio system should be able to record the entirety of the dynamic range of heathy young human ears.
As somebody who has made music recordings (amateur) for decades I consider this pointless unless you want to make an environmental noise recod without adjusting level.
On every music recorder you can adjust levels and music uses WAY less of our ears theoretical range than all of it, thankfully - who wants, or could physiologically cope with, music that goes all the way from just audible to deafening?
As I wrote earlier the record industry has a good idea what they can sell.
IMO all the blue, green an yellow DACs perform better than 100% of all music recordings any sane person would sell as do half the red ones.

This chart is more a scoreline of engineering capability than an indication of audible differences in my personal opinion.
 
This website derides dynamic compression, but in fact the marketplace rewards it.

Two things make it good: old ears, and listening at low levels.

Recorded music is not reality; it is like a photograph, painting, or sculpture. A thing unto itself.

I spent thousands of hours in Photoshop, and what I’ve learned is that dynamically squeezed photographs “pop” and are more likely to be considered good or exciting.

This is a playback issue. We do not want highlight or shadow detail eliminated. We want it made visible in the presentation medium.

The flip side of this is, all other things being equal, we prefer media having wide dynamic range. Light emitting monitors are more vivid than projection screens; both are more punchy than paper.
 
Last edited:
No point whatsoever. Even 16 bit is more than strictly needed for transparency. Ditto for sampling rates much higher than 44.1. 48k makes sense as it's a standard for video, indeed the BBC now stream all content at 48k, but any more than that is just pandering to the technically illiterate.

S.
We music enthusiasts in the UK used to revere BBC live concert broadcasts (not the compressed pop ones, but those on Radio 3). Not sure what the venue to Broadcasting House stream rate used to be, but from the BBCs transmitter to local transmitter, was 13 bit, brickwalled at 15kHz I remember, so a 'noise floor' of what, 75dB or so? The 'sound' of so many of these broadcasts was sublime, I remember.
 
Is it not the case that 24 bit has advantages when using DSP?
Sure I read it somewhere, and would be most grateful if someone could remind me why?
Thanks in advance!
 
This website derides dynamic compression, but in fact the marketplace rewards it.
That's really a different conversation about disproportionate escalation and collective punishment in the loudness war.

Two things make it good: old ears, and listening at low levels.
And in noisy environments such as vehicles, outdoors and in public spaces.
 
Back
Top Bottom