Question re Hi-Res Audio

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the What HiFi community: the world's leading independent guide to buying and owning hi-fi and home entertainment products.

shadders

Well-known member
Nov 19, 2009
448
301
19,270
steve_1979 said:
shadders said:
Agreed, I do not have the links or proof that professional people in the industry can hear the difference.
Of course not. They don't exist.

shadders said:
With regards to understanding the mathematics, reading the abstract allows one to determine the papers details from a top level approach, but unless you understand the detail, the true meaning will not be understood.
I do understand the concept of how dithering works and I also have a basic understanding of the mathematical theory involved even though I wouldn't be able to perform any of the calculations myself. The basic theory is actually fairly simple and most people can easily understand it. You don't actually need to know the precise calculations involved to understand how dithering works.

shadders said:
Your quotation of abstracts and admission that you do not understand the mathematics indicates that you cannot understand the impact of what you have read in the abstract.
Not true.

Academic papers like the ones I mentioned are written by experts who do fully understand all of the maths and everything else that's involved. In the 'abstract' section of academic papers these experts tell us what the tests are, what the results of the tests were and the conclusions that they draw from these results. The abstract is usually quite easily to understand without needing to know every little detail of the process that led the experts to their conclusions.

Besides all that really matters at the end of the day is the results. Can humans hear anything higher than 16/44 resolution or not? It's the accepted fact that we cannot. Unless of course you can point us to any credible evidence that says otherwise?

shadders said:
With regards to dithering, again, you have not answered the question.

I am asking you specifically to state why dithering is used within the audio industry.

Again, if -96dB is below human hearing, and dithering affects only the LSB, why does the industry use it?

What effect is being negated by dithering?

All you are quoting is that human hearing cannot hear signal levels at -96dB based on abstracts of papers.

Please answer the question - WHY is dithering added to audio, not what the effect is of applying dithering.
Ahh I understand. So you actually do want me to re-word what I've read about dithering and post it here (rolls eyes and sighs).

Basically it has the effect of lowering the audiable noise floor by removing truncation distortion. Music is created in 24 bit or higher resolution at the recording/mixing/mastering stages because it has a lower noise floor than 16 bit. This allows the sound engineers to make changes to the music while keeping the low noise distortions quiet enough to be inaudble. Dithering is then applied when converting from 24 bit to 16 bit for the final release version.

Sorry but I just can't be bothered writing a more detailed explanation than that. It's 4am in the morning and I can't be arsed as it will take several paragraphs (and ideally diagrams too) to do the answer justice. But to save the hassle here's a link which answers your question: Clicky

There are thousands more like this on the net and Google is your friend if you want to read about how dithering works in more detail.
Hi,

You still have not answered the question as to WHY dither is used. You have quoted truncation error but failed to see WHY it is important.

Dither is applied to the LSB of a 16bit sample. If as you have claimed, 16bits is sufficient and exceeds human hearing, then WHY apply dither to the LSB?.

Again, truncation error is a stated problem and you have repeated the text and linked to the website, but you have not stated WHY dither is applied to the LSB of a 16bit sample.

If you do not know WHY, then please state so and I will not request further explanation.

Regards,

Shadders.
 
K

keeper of the quays

Guest
tonky said:
keeper of the quays said:
I used to procrastinate but now i just dither! Lol..
Now I've got the jitters!

tonky
im sorry to hear this..i suggest homeopathy..it works! Bio chemic tissue salts..nat mur and cali sulph..in jiffy fixed you be!..i used to suffer from wolfson cirrus syndrome! But bracing sea air and loose women sorted me out...
 

shadders

Well-known member
Nov 19, 2009
448
301
19,270
steve_1979 said:
Digital audio has been very well developed and thoroughly tested for decades. 16/44 is all you will ever need. Any analogue input can be converted to 16/44 and it will sound identical to the orginal signal. This has been tried and tested to death.

There is no need for anything higher than 16/44 unless you want to record noises that are impossible for humans to hear. I'm sorry that some people seem to be unable to understand the technical stuff which explains why this is the case. But it certainly is the case and has nothing to do with different peoples opinions. It is a simple 100% scientifically proven fact.
steve_1979 said:
16 bit because that allows enough dynamic range to go from the queitest noise that anyone can hear right upto being so loud that it will deafen you within a few seconds all whilest also providing a noise floor (SNR) that is too low to be audible at this volume level.

This is also backed up by decades worth of listening tests too.
steve_1979 said:
This is getting a bit silly now. You seem to think I'm saying that 16 bit is has enough dynamic range to convert the whole human range even without using dithering. I have not said that at any point. What I've been saying is:

WITH DITHERING APPLIED 16 bit gives enough dynamic range to cover the whole of the human range while also having a low enough noise floor for it not to be noticed.

To answer your question as to why dithering is applied to the LSB (least significant bit) of a 16 bit sample? Here's another link which explains it: Clicky (again I'm not going to waste an hour of my time re-wording what's written elsewhere just because you're demanding it. That link contains the answer as to why dithering is applied to a quantised wave and why it removes distortion that's audiable at low volume levels).
Hi,

As above (1st quotation, and 2nd quotation), you have stated 16bit/44.1kHz is sufficient since any higher resolution (than 16bit) and you will be recording noise that people cannot hear. At no time did you mention dithering.

Dithering does not provide extra dynamic range. This is the reason i have stated you do not understand what you are quoting. Whatever happens, the FSD of the ADC and the subsequent quantisation levels are FIXED. You do not gain extra bits by dithering, to reduce the noise floor. You still have exactly the same +/- 1/2 LSB quantisation noise. If you did, you could USE those bits to be accurate in your quantisation process. (Hmmm, that does sound like (no pun intended) that 24bits is a good idea)

Again, why if you cannot hear the LSB at the assumed -96dB level, does dithering need to be implemented if as you have stated - you cannot hear at these low levels ?

Regards,

Shadders.
 

steve_1979

Well-known member
Jul 14, 2010
231
8
18,795
shadders said:
As above (1st quotation, and 2nd quotation), you have stated 16bit/44.1kHz is sufficient since any higher resolution (than 16bit) and you will be recording noise that people cannot hear. At no time did you mention dithering.
Nor did I say that dithering wouldn't be applied. It wasn't mentioned because it's a given that it would be applied (it almost always is).

shadders said:
Dithering does not provide extra dynamic range. This is the reason i have stated you do not understand what you are quoting. Whatever happens, the FSD of the ADC and the subsequent quantisation levels are FIXED[/b]. You do not gain extra bits by dithering, to reduce the noise floor. You still have exactly the same +/- 1/2 LSB quantisation noise.
I have not said that dithering gives you extra bits or provides more dynamic range. As has been explained in the links that I provided dithering alters the low level distortion caused by quantisation and makes that distortion much harder to hear. Simple. It doesn't give you more dynamic range but it does effectively lower the audible noise floor.

shadders said:
You still have exactly the same +/- 1/2 LSB quantisation noise. If you did, you could USE[/b] those bits to be accurate in your quantisation process. (Hmmm, that does sound like (no pun intended) that 24bits is a good idea)
No 24 bit audio isn't necessary for the final replay stage of music. As you have already admitted there aren't any credible studies which show evidence that people can hear higher than 16/44. There aren't any because people can't hear higher than what 16/44 provides (although if you do manage to find a credible study that shows otherwise I will be very interested to read it).

shadders said:
Again, why if you cannot hear the LSB at the assumed -96dB level, does dithering need to be implemented if as you have stated - you cannot hear at these low levels ?
As I have (repeatedly) said. With dithering appied[/b] 96dB dynamic range is enough to cover the entire volume range that humans can hear while simultaneously having a low enough noise floor for it not to be noticed.

If you didn't use dithering then yes during the very quietest sections of music, usually during the decay of notes, 16 bit quantization would be audible. But that's irrelevant because dithering can be used. If fact dithering almost always is used. Why would it not be used when it's such an effective method of making the noise floor distortion unnoticable?
 

steve_1979

Well-known member
Jul 14, 2010
231
8
18,795
spiny norman said:
steve_1979 said:
It's worth reading jcburm's comments in the latter half of the thread.
Not really: jcburm was just doing what Trec V does these days.
Fair point. JC can be unnecessarily rude to people. But he does have a very high level of technical knowledge and knows what he's talking about.
 

shadders

Well-known member
Nov 19, 2009
448
301
19,270
steve_1979 said:
shadders said:
As above (1st quotation, and 2nd quotation), you have stated 16bit/44.1kHz is sufficient since any higher resolution (than 16bit) and you will be recording noise that people cannot hear. At no time did you mention dithering.
Nor did I say that dithering wouldn't be applied. It wasn't mentioned because it's a given that it would be applied (it almost always is).

shadders said:
Dithering does not provide extra dynamic range. This is the reason i have stated you do not understand what you are quoting. Whatever happens, the FSD of the ADC and the subsequent quantisation levels are FIXED. You do not gain extra bits by dithering, to reduce the noise floor. You still have exactly the same +/- 1/2 LSB quantisation noise.
I have not said that dithering gives you extra bits or provides more dynamic range. As has been explained in the links that I provided dithering alters the low level distortion caused by quantisation and makes that distortion much harder to hear. Simple. It doesn't give you more dynamic range but it does effectively lower the audible noise floor.

shadders said:
You still have exactly the same +/- 1/2 LSB quantisation noise. If you did, you could USE those bits to be accurate in your quantisation process. (Hmmm, that does sound like (no pun intended) that 24bits is a good idea)
No 24 bit audio isn't necessary for the final replay stage of music. As you have already admitted there aren't any credible studies which show evidence that people can hear higher than 16/44. There aren't any because people can't hear higher than what 16/44 provides (although if you do manage to find a credible study that shows otherwise I will be very interested to read it).

shadders said:
Again, why if you cannot hear the LSB at the assumed -96dB level, does dithering need to be implemented if as you have stated - you cannot hear at these low levels ?
As I have (repeatedly) said. With dithering appied 96dB dynamic range is enough to cover the entire volume range that humans can hear while simultaneously having a low enough noise floor for it not to be noticed.

If you didn't use dithering then yes during the very quietest sections of music, usually during the decay of notes, 16 bit quantization would be audible. But that's irrelevant because dithering can be used. If fact dithering almost always is used. Why would it not be used when it's such an effective method of making the noise floor distortion unnoticable?
Hi,

Again, WHY is dithering applied, if the 16bit/44.1kHz is perfect for humans - WHY did the audio industry implement dithering. Quite simply, the 16bit resolution was insufficient. The audio industry never implemented dithering for the first CD's produced - only later did the audio industry realise that people could hear the quantisation noise at low levels.

Therefore, the 16bit/44.1kHz standard is insufficient. You did not repeatedly stated "With dithering applied" - only later when challenged. The fact that the audio industry NOW applies dithering does not make 16bit/44.1kHz acceptable. If 16bit/44.1kHz was so perfect for humans - there would be NO dither.

This is a perfect reason for moving to 24bit. No dither, since it is not required, and the 24bit noise floor IS sufficiently low for quantisation artefacts not to be heard (or at least reduced).

steve_1979 said:
As you have already admitted there aren't any credible studies which show evidence that people can hear higher than 16/44. There aren't any because people can't hear higher than what 16/44 provides (although if you do manage to find a credible study that shows otherwise I will be very interested to read it).
This statement is not logical. Of course people can hear better than the 16bit/44.1kHz standard else we would not use dither. The fact i have not provided a link to a web site or publication stating we can hear higher does not mean it is not proven. Dithering as you have stated resolves the issue of the LSB quantisation noise people can hear - so, you have in fact discredited your own statement above.

Regards,

Shadders.
 

shadders

Well-known member
Nov 19, 2009
448
301
19,270
steve_1979 said:
shadders said:
Again, WHY is dithering applied
I have just answered that in my last post. I repeat:

"As has been explained in the links that I provided dithering alters the low level distortion caused by quantisation and makes that distortion much harder to hear. Simple. It doesn't gives you more dynamic range but it does effectively lower the audible noise floor."

shadders said:
This statement is not logical. Of course people can hear better than the 16bit/44.1kHz standard else we would not use dither.
But we can and do use dithering. With dithering applied 16/44 does cover the full range of human hearing.

shadders said:
The fact i have not provided a link to a web site or publication stating we can hear higher does not mean it is not proven.
Well it kind of does actually. It shows that there's no evidence anywhere suggesting that people can hear above 16/44 (with dithering used of course ;) ).

Does the fact that there's not a single credible study anywhere in the world showing that people can hear above 16/44 not tell you something? What this tells us is that people can't hear anything above 16/44. If they could there would be lots of evidence showing it but there isn't, not a single study anywhere in the world.

I'm guessing that the magazine article that you refered to last night was about being able to hear better than 16/44 if dithering wasn't used? Because that would make sense.

shadders said:
Dithering as you have stated resolves the issue of the LSB quantisation noise people can hear - so, you have in fact discredited your own statement above.
What? Really? Oh come on now! How many times do I need to repeat this?

I HAVE NOT AT ANY TIME SAID THAT DITHERING IS NOT NECESSARY

But I am saying that with dithering used 16/44 does cover the full range of human hearing.

shadders said:
Again, WHY is dithering applied, if the 16bit/44.1kHz is perfect for humans - WHY did the audio industry implement dithering. Quite simply, the 16bit resolution was insufficient. The audio industry never implemented dithering for the first CD's produced - only later did the audio industry realise that people could hear the quantisation noise at low levels.

Therefore, the 16bit/44.1kHz standard is insufficient. You did not repeatedly stated "With dithering applied" - only later when challenged. The fact that the audio industry NOW applies dithering does not make 16bit/44.1kHz acceptable. If 16bit/44.1kHz was so perfect for humans - there would be NO dither.

This is a perfect reason for moving to 24bit. No dither, since it is not required, and the 24bit noise floor IS sufficiently low for quantisation artefacts not to be heard (or at least reduced).

This statement is not logical. Of course people can hear better than the 16bit/44.1kHz standard else we would not use dither. The fact i have not provided a link to a web site or publication stating we can hear higher does not mean it is not proven. Dithering as you have stated resolves the issue of the LSB quantisation noise people can hear - so, you have in fact discredited your own statement above.
I do understand the point that you're making and yes I do agree that in extreme cercumstances without dithering 16 bit isn't enough on it's own but 24 bit would be. But as we both have said dithering can and is used and with dithering used 16 bits is sufficient even in the most extreme cercumstances. As this is the case there's no point in using a much larger undithered 24 bit data steam if a dithered 16 bit one is sufficent.

shadders said:
You did not repeatedly stated "With dithering applied" - only later when challenged.
As I said in my last post: It wasn't mentioned at first because it's a given that dithering will be applied because it always is. It goes without saying that with 16/44 dithering will be used. It's standard procedure.

Why are you so determing to make out that I think 16/44 is sufficient without dithering used? At no point have I ever said that.
Hi, you neglected to state dithering at the beginning of responses. The fact that dithering is required for the CD Red Book standard proves the original standard is not sufficient. Standard procedure (applying dither) does NOT prove 16bit/44.1kHz is acceptable - it is an add on to a flawed standard in this regard. We therefore need an improved standard such as one that encompasses 24bit resolution as a minimum.

Regards,

Shadders. .
 

steve_1979

Well-known member
Jul 14, 2010
231
8
18,795
shadders said:
Hi, you neglected to state dithering at the beginning of responses. The fact that dithering is required for the CD Red Book standard proves the original standard is not sufficient. Standard procedure (applying dither) does NOT prove 16bit/44.1kHz is acceptable - it is an add on to a flawed standard in this regard. We therefore need an improved standard such as one that encompasses 24bit resolution as a minimum.
Repeating myself (again). It wasn't mentioned at first because it's a given that dithering will be applied because it always is.

Also (repeating myself again now) there's no point in using a much larger undithered 24 bit data steam if a dithered 16 bit one is sufficent.
 

manicm

Well-known member
May 1, 2008
1,439
423
19,570
steve_1979 said:
shadders said:
Hi, you neglected to state dithering at the beginning of responses. The fact that dithering is required for the CD Red Book standard proves the original standard is not sufficient. Standard procedure (applying dither)  does NOT prove 16bit/44.1kHz is acceptable - it is an add on to a flawed standard in this regard. We therefore need an improved standard such as one that encompasses 24bit resolution as a minimum.?
Repeating myself (again). It wasn't mentioned at first because it's a given that dithering will be applied because it always is.

Also (repeating myself again now) there's no point in using a much larger undithered 24 bit data steam if a dithered 16 bit one is sufficent.
So removing dithering application, 24 bits could sound better than 16/44?
 

tonky

New member
Jan 2, 2008
36
0
0
keeper of the quays said:
tonky said:
keeper of the quays said:
I used to procrastinate but now i just dither! Lol..
Now I've got the jitters!

tonky
im sorry to hear this..i suggest homeopathy..it works! Bio chemic tissue salts..nat mur and cali sulph..in jiffy fixed you be!..i used to suffer from wolfson cirrus syndrome! But bracing sea air and loose women sorted me out...
Wolfson Cirrus Syndrome - it gets me every full moon!

But Im alright - nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

loup garou tonky
 

steve_1979

Well-known member
Jul 14, 2010
231
8
18,795
manicm said:
So removing dithering application, 24 bits could sound better than 16/44?
Yes but what would be the point of not using dithering? That would be stupid.

With dithering used (and it almost always is used) a 16 bit audio stream sounds identical to a 24 bit audio stream.

Using a large none dithered 24 bit audio file for replay purpose is inefficient and pointless. Why use a high bandwidth 24 bit audio stream when a much smaller dithered 16 bit audio stream will sound identical but only uses a fraction of the bandwith? It's inefficient and pointless to use more bandwith than necessary.
 

steve_1979

Well-known member
Jul 14, 2010
231
8
18,795
shadders said:
Agreed, I do not have the links or proof that professional people in the industry can hear the difference.
Of course not. They don't exist.

shadders said:
With regards to understanding the mathematics, reading the abstract allows one to determine the papers details from a top level approach, but unless you understand the detail, the true meaning will not be understood.
I do understand the concept of how dithering works and I also have a basic understanding of the mathematical theory involved even though I wouldn't be able to perform any of the calculations myself. The basic theory is actually fairly simple and most people can easily understand it. You don't need to know the precise calculations involved to understand how dithering works.

shadders said:
Your quotation of abstracts and admission that you do not understand the mathematics indicates that you cannot understand the impact of what you have read in the abstract.
Not true.

Academic papers like the ones I mentioned are written by experts who do fully understand all of the maths and everything else that's involved. In the 'abstract' section of academic papers these experts tell us what the tests are, what the results were and the conclusions that they draw from these results. The abstract is usually quite easily to understand without needing to know every little detail of the process that led the experts to their conclusions.

Besides all that really matters at the end of the day is the results. Can humans hear anything higher than 16/44 resolution or not? It's the accepted fact that we cannot. Unless of course you can point us to any credible evidence that says otherwise?

shadders said:
With regards to dithering, again, you have not answered the question.

I am asking you specifically to state why dithering is used within the audio industry.

Again, if -96dB is below human hearing, and dithering affects only the LSB, why does the industry use it?

What effect is being negated by dithering?

All you are quoting is that human hearing cannot hear signal levels at -96dB based on abstracts of papers.

Please answer the question - WHY is dithering added to audio, not what the effect is of applying dithering.
Ahh I understand. So you actually do want me to re-word what I've read about dithering and post it here (rolls eyes and sighs).

Basically it has the effect of lowering the audiable noise floor by removing truncation distortion[/b]. Music is created in 24 bit or higher resolution at the recording/mixing/mastering stages because it has a lower noise floor than 16 bit. This allows the sound engineers to make changes to the music while keeping the low noise distortions quiet enough to be inaudble. Dithering is then applied when converting from 24 bit to 16 bit for the final release version.

Sorry but I just can't be bothered writing a more detailed explanation than that. It's 4am in the morning and I can't be arsed as it will take several paragraphs (and ideally diagrams too) to do the answer justice. But to save the hassle here's a link which answers your question: Clicky

There are thousands more like this on the net and Google is your friend if you want to read about how dithering works in more detail.
 

steve_1979

Well-known member
Jul 14, 2010
231
8
18,795
shadders said:
Hi,

You still have not answered the question as to WHY dither is used. You have quoted truncation error but failed to see WHY it is important.

Dither is applied to the LSB of a 16bit sample. If as you have claimed, 16bits is sufficient and exceeds human hearing, then WHY apply dither to the LSB?.

Again, truncation error is a stated problem and you have repeated the text and linked to the website, but you have not stated WHY dither is applied to the LSB of a 16bit sample.

If you do not know WHY, then please state so and I will not request further explanation.

Regards,

Shadders.
This is getting a bit silly now. You seem to think I'm saying that 16 bit is has enough dynamic range to cover the whole human range even without using dithering. I have not said that at any point. What I've been saying is:

WITH DITHERING APPLIED 16 bit gives enough dynamic range to cover the whole of the human range while also having a low enough noise floor for it not to be noticed.

To answer your question as to why dithering is applied to the LSB (least significant bit) of a 16 bit sample? Here's another link which explains it: Clicky (again I'm not going to waste an hour of my time re-wording what's written elsewhere just because you're demanding it. That link contains the answer as to why dithering is applied to a quantised wave and why it removes distortion that's audiable at low volume levels).
 

manicm

Well-known member
May 1, 2008
1,439
423
19,570
steve_1979 said:
manicm said:
So removing dithering application, 24 bits could sound better than 16/44?
Yes but what would be the point of not using dithering? That would be stupid.

With dithering used (and it almost always is used) a 16 bit audio stream sounds identical to a 24 bit audio stream.

Using a large none dithered 24 bit audio file for replay purpose is inefficient and pointless. Why use a high bandwidth 24 bit audio stream when a much smaller dithered 16 bit audio stream will sound identical but only uses a fraction of the bandwith? It's inefficient and pointless to use more bandwith than necessary.

 
Well then it's possible a 24 bit recording could sound better than a modern CD, dithering applied or not. That they sound the same would be subject to testing, but technically the higher resolution recording would be superior.

It fits in to my theory that Redbook CD may have been the best of its time and the period's technological limitations, but not the best full stop.
 
K

keeper of the quays

Guest
tonky said:
keeper of the quays said:
tonky said:
keeper of the quays said:
I used to procrastinate but now i just dither! Lol..
Now I've got the jitters!

tonky
im sorry to hear this..i suggest homeopathy..it works! Bio chemic tissue salts..nat mur and cali sulph..in jiffy fixed you be!..i used to suffer from wolfson cirrus syndrome! But bracing sea air and loose women sorted me out...
Wolfson Cirrus Syndrome - it gets me every full moon!

But Im alright - nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

loup garou tonky
i find when there is a 'r' in the month music seems to have more 'air' cds sound more vinyl? Hifi forums seem friendlier! Im ok to may..then its transistor radio..
 

shadders

Well-known member
Nov 19, 2009
448
301
19,270
Hi,

Yes, 24bit is significantly more accurate than 16bit samples. You will not need dithering to mask the inadequacies of 16bit. Data storage is so cheap, that bandwidth aspects are not an issue. If one increases the sample rate, then the analogue filter used to sample the original waveform can be a reduced order and reduce any effects at this stage.

Regards,

Shadders.
 

CnoEvil

New member
Aug 21, 2009
556
9
0
shadders said:
Hi,?

Yes, 24bit is significantly more accurate than 16bit samples. You will not need dithering to mask the inadequacies of 16bit. Data storage is so cheap, that bandwidth aspects are not an issue. If one increases the sample rate, then the analogue filter used to sample the original waveform can be a reduced order and reduce any effects at this stage.?

Regards, ?

Shadders.
I don't know the "ins and outs" of this debate, but very much appreciate your patient, knowledgeable and quietly respectful approach.

I have several tracks from Linn Records at 3 different resolutions and can hear differences between them. What I don't know, is how much of the improvement is due to the resolution and how much is due to the Mastering. Linn have admitted that their 24 bit stuff is from a different Master.
 

steve_1979

Well-known member
Jul 14, 2010
231
8
18,795
shadders said:
Again, WHY is dithering applied
I have just answered that in my last post. I repeat:

"As has been explained in the links that I provided dithering alters the low level distortion caused by quantisation and makes that distortion much harder to hear. Simple. It doesn't gives you more dynamic range but it does effectively lower the audible noise floor."

shadders said:
This statement is not logical. Of course people can hear better than the 16bit/44.1kHz standard else we would not use dither.
But we can and do use dithering. With dithering applied 16/44 does cover the full range of human hearing.

shadders said:
The fact i have not provided a link to a web site or publication stating we can hear higher does not mean it is not proven.
Well it kind of does actually. It shows that there's no evidence anywhere suggesting that people can hear above 16/44 (with dithering used of course ;) ).

Does the fact that there's not a single credible study anywhere in the world showing that people can hear above 16/44 not tell you something? What this tells us is that people can't hear anything above 16/44. If they could there would be lots of evidence showing it but there isn't, not a single study anywhere in the world.

I'm guessing that the magazine article that you refered to last night was about being able to hear better than 16/44 if dithering wasn't used? Because that would make sense.

shadders said:
Dithering as you have stated resolves the issue of the LSB quantisation noise people can hear - so, you have in fact discredited your own statement above.
What? Really? Oh come on now! How many times do I need to repeat this?

I HAVE NOT AT ANY TIME SAID THAT DITHERING IS NOT NECESSARY

But I am saying that with dithering used 16/44 does cover the full range of human hearing.

shadders said:
Again, WHY is dithering applied, if the 16bit/44.1kHz is perfect for humans - WHY did the audio industry implement dithering. Quite simply, the 16bit resolution was insufficient. The audio industry never implemented dithering for the first CD's produced - only later did the audio industry realise that people could hear the quantisation noise at low levels.

Therefore, the 16bit/44.1kHz standard is insufficient. You did not repeatedly stated "With dithering applied" - only later when challenged. The fact that the audio industry NOW applies dithering does not make 16bit/44.1kHz acceptable. If 16bit/44.1kHz was so perfect for humans - there would be NO dither.

This is a perfect reason for moving to 24bit. No dither, since it is not required, and the 24bit noise floor IS sufficiently low for quantisation artefacts not to be heard (or at least reduced).

This statement is not logical. Of course people can hear better than the 16bit/44.1kHz standard else we would not use dither. The fact i have not provided a link to a web site or publication stating we can hear higher does not mean it is not proven. Dithering as you have stated resolves the issue of the LSB quantisation noise people can hear - so, you have in fact discredited your own statement above.
I do understand the point that you're making and yes I do agree that in extreme cercumstances without dithering 16 bit isn't enough on it's own but 24 bit would be. But as we both have said dithering can and is used and with dithering used 16 bits is sufficient even in the most extreme cercumstances. As this is the case there's no point in using a much larger undithered 24 bit data steam if a dithered 16 bit one is sufficent.

shadders said:
You did not repeatedly stated "With dithering applied[/b]" - only later when challenged.
As I said in my last post: It wasn't mentioned at first because it's a given that dithering will be applied because it always is. It goes without saying that with 16/44 dithering will be used. It's standard procedure.

Why are you so determined to make out that I think 16/44 is sufficient without dithering used? At no point have I ever said that.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts