16-bit vs. 24-bit - Less noise or more detail?
Comments on this video
You can comment on this video at YouTube
You can comment on this video at YouTube
Thursday January 4, 2024
David Mellor
David Mellor is CEO and Course Director of Audio Masterclass. David has designed courses in audio education and training since 1986 and is the publisher and principal writer of Adventures In Audio.
Can you say that a 16 bit is similar to sitting in the balcony (of a concert hall) and a 24 bit is sitting on the front row? May be that is the reason why concert ticket prices are so different.
@GregStudio01: Oh dear, I’m afraid you’ve completely screwed this one up and not just for one reason but two! 1. What is the dynamic range of the music we’re distributing digitally? 99.99% of the time it’s 60dB or less, in a very few extreme cases it’s up to about 70dB. So 16bit giving us 96dB is NOT “just good enough” it’s way, way beyond just good enough. In the worst case scenario it’s around 20 times more than good enough and in the case of the 99.99% it’s over 60 times more than good enough! 2. In order to hear the dither noise (at roughly -92dB) it must obviously be roughly the same or higher in level than the noise floor of your listening environment. A typical home sitting room will have a noise floor around 40dB, a particularly quiet one about 30dB. Taking that best case scenario, then the dither noise would have to be around or above 30dB (SPL) to be audible, in which case the 16bit peak level would be 122dB (SPL), 92dB above the 30dB environment noise floor. The safe exposure time to 122dB is less than 7 seconds (before permanent hearing damage is likely to occur), so that’s nonsense. An audiophile will not be able to hear the dither noise as you suggest they might, no human could!
Sorry, you’re plain wrong this time around.
@AudioMasterclass replies to @GregStudio01: If I’m wrong, according to your arguments, then dithering a 16-bit recording is pointless. Damn - So many experts, some possibly even more expert than you, have been so wrong for so many years.
@GregStudio01 replies to @GregStudio01: @AudioMasterclass Now you’re just compounding your error, the reason for dithering is to randomise the quantisation error, effectively resulting in a perfectly accurate signal plus an amount of de-correlated (white) noise. As this is digital audio theory 101, there is no need to be an expert, just like there’s no need to be a mathematical expert in order to explain 1+1=2 ! However, I am in fact an expert and any other expert or even just an undergrad in audio engineering will give you the same explanation. Rather than going full defensive because you’ve made an error, you could far more productively spend that time learning/understanding the actual facts.
@AudioMasterclass replies to @GregStudio01: Haha we have a real expert here. In my quite long experience I’ve found that anyone who claims to be an expert just wants to shut up everyone else. I’m not going to reply further but if Sir Expert wants to boost my engagement statistics he is very welcome.
@GregStudio01 replies to @GregStudio01: @AudioMasterclass In “your quite long experience” you haven’t even understood digital audio 101? That’s shocking but I can see that spewing out ad hominems helps your fragile ego more than actually addressing your ignorance. Clearly, helping your algorithm is more important to you than any concept of honestly or integrity.
@calypatra: theres something very paul about you
@AudioMasterclass replies to @calypatra: Am I Paul McCartney? Related to him? Or am I even Eric Idle? Find out here - https://youtu.be/aB3JNivlMnI
@CapricanDRJ: Recall reading the reviews on an accuracy the manufacturer stated that if it was used with a certain product would cause ringing and distortion. Then I read the reviews of a person praising the extra detail when used in exactly that way. Some people will praise ringing and love the detail.
@michaeltaylor5451: 6:33 No, no one I ever knew ripped a vinyl recording onto cassette tape, maybe reel-to-reel. I just think that conjecture is reaching a bit.
@michaeltaylor5451: 6:05 Wait a moment...lots of modern equipment is capable of processing 24bit streams and lots of content is captured in bit rates higher than 16. "Audiophile" listening scenarios are far more available today then they ever have been, it just takes someone looking to make sure the source and the playback gear aren't junk.
@ABeauEsq: This creepy AI slop at the end was unnecessary and almost ruins it all.
@AudioMasterclass replies to @ABeauEsq: Hahahahahaha! AI is here, not going away, and anyone who declines to engage should probably learns how to plumb or install fencing how.
@sylvainbiensur7370: Agree on this one 100%. 16 bits on a final product is enough for not 99 % of people but 100 %. For recording if you know know what your doing and carefully adjust levels 16 bits should be enough.
@bab008: 24 bits gives you more headroom on the high signal level end not just lower noise on the low level end. Need to focus on both ends, not just the quiet end of things. While it can't raise the absolute ceiling it gives you more room below it to reproduce transients. Having played both 16 bit guitar rigs and later 24 bit rigs it is night and day. You simply can't get the slam and punch out of the 16 bit that you can out of the 24 bit rig, even when playing at lower non-lease breaking levels. The 16 bit is just flatter at any volume and the 24 bit punchier like a guitar amp, at any volume, not just super loud.
@b.hornetiii.6771: For today's average listener, the 16 bit audio recording (with a little noise added) is not just good enough but out of this world quality ... Everthing can be put to use nowdays, especially noise; we live in a sterile, pure world, full of perfection; we need a little noise in a recording to feel alive. 😄😄
@nothingelse1520: Recently some cassette tapes from the 1990s were ripped in a studio and uploaded online in FLAC. I noticed they were 24-bit FLAC files. Someone actually argued they needed to be 24-bit because "tapes can be loud". Best case scenario, tapes don't get close to 16-bit. The 24-bit FLAC files were just wasting space. For fun I converted the FLAC to a 24-bit WAV file, then made a copy and converted it to 16-bit. In Foobar I ran a plugin that checks loudness 4 different ways including RMS. Both files were identical down to 1.00, so hundreds place. Zero difference. Then I used a program to examine the 16-bit file and it said less then 1% of the data in the file was above 90db. Note I said DATA, could be music, could be tape noise. No way to know. Less then 1% above 90db and 16-bit hit 96db. I kept the 16-bit FLAC and deleted the 24-bit saving some space on my phone and SSD.
@CATLITmusic: I work in a 24-bit space when mixing and mastering, because when you're compressing the hell out of everything and boosting the overall gain, it's nice to have that lower noise floor.
@beornthebear.8220: Sixteen bit is good enough for me.
@TheFlutecart: I wish all my music files were 24 bit. I do hear more details in the sounds. But it has to be good enough recording first of all to need the 24 bit. Sadly, many modern recordings are trashy to begin with and won't even benefit from an upgraded format without being re-mixed or even re-recorded.
@wvideoyahoodk: hate AI Why do you use it in the end ?
@markthomas7263: Brilliant !!!
@kevinu.k.7042: All of a sudden the rustling and coughing at the beginning of a classical music concerts has purpose. I thank those eating their crisps and mumbling to each other.
Audio Phil is excellent. The dog in the flat below is the best under floor woofer available here. Would a noise cancelling shotgun work?
Great video - Cheers
@Percy-k3f: Why not make a blind test ? A very simple one: Take the best "clean" audio file in 24 bit and then output its samples to a DAC with the 8 LSB On & Off. On = with the 8 LSB, Off = some random bits in place of the LSB. My money than nobody will hear the difference as it would be like hearing a mosquito when you are at less than one metre of a Rolls-Royce Olympus 593 turbojet.
@AudioMasterclass replies to @Percy-k3f: Good idea. It’s on my list. With a twist.
@gerardoromano3436 replies to @Percy-k3f: OK, but to be fair you should add dither whenever you suitch off the 8 LSB of the 24bit file.
@pinnacleexpress420: Ok boomer. You really spend all this time yapping about how nobody should care because nobody's good enough, just to blast through the details of what's really going on as if you don't even know what you're talking about. You're just like "oh yeah, that least significant bit is just gonna flip, so. That's a problem. Dither. We love dithering, the end."
Like what the hell are you talking about? I sat through 4 minutes of yapping to get that far just for you to skip over everything that matters. Like are you here to explain stuff or just yap about how snobby you think everyone is. Its possible that you do know what you're talking about but it doesn't seem like it when you gloss over all the details
@AudioMasterclass replies to @pinnacleexpress420: Pro tip - If your first two words are to insult me for my age it shows that nothing else you say is worth reading.
@pinnacleexpress420 replies to @pinnacleexpress420: @AudioMasterclassNot even true. I just opened my comment with the same disrespectful vibe you give off. You talk like just because we want to know more about what it means for audio to be high fidelity that we're ultra snob morons, and I wanted to make it clear how unhelpful this video is. I did it by trying to match your energy.
@analogue33: Don't make fun of us that can hear the difference! I'm not really an audiophile just a person who loves a good sound experience! It doesn't take an audiophile to hear the difference, and I don't buy that it's only 1% that hear the difference! That difference brings you closer to the music with the way it "feels"! We take on frequencies through our bodies, and those higher frequencies affect the other frequencies! Just because you don't hear or understand something, doesn't mean someone else doesn't! 99% ? No way, it's about 90 %!
@Vanflowne: It's so simple. NOT DIFFERENCE SOUND. 24 bits or 32 Bit floating are using only for work on mixing and Mastering.... Stop MARKETING DISCUSSIONS or study engineering please
@BatsyBatsy1939: i can't believe i actually understood this stuff i wish every teacher was like you
@chrisaustin4261: I was just pondering this while using Cockos Reaper, which has an internal bit rate of 64 bit floating point. Good lord, is that really necessary? Meanwhile I was mastering a song in it with the Weiss DS1 MK3 plugin which is 40 bit.
@AudioMasterclass replies to @chrisaustin4261: Given that the dynamic range of 32-bit is already monstrous it’s hard to see why more would be necessary. I’m all for progress though so if it helps in some way then why not. If it ever gets out into the wild though, i.e. the public, then we’re all doomed.
@MichaelW.1980: Don‘t let an audiophile tell you why or what. Just don‘t. I was on the fastest path to become one. That is until I met my first audio engineer, who separated myths from facts. Thanks to him, I became a hobbyist audio engineer. And I still learn.
Judging by what I know now, I say, with 16 Bith files, and dithering, there will be a discrepancy between dynamic range and SNR. The dynamic range will in fact be higher, than 96dB. It will likely go anywhere between 108dB and 120dB. And while the dynamic range is enough for most recordings, with the SNR in mind, you waste potential by recording in 16 Bit.
Talking about 24 Bit recordings and dithering, i like to quote Dan Worral, who said: „If you have to boost a signal by over a 100dB to hear the problem, its not really a problem.“
Lastly, when it comes for playback, But when it comes to playback, that is any kind of export after mastering a file, you just don‘t need 24 Bits. A 16 bit recordings with dithering will be enough for anyone of you to get a perfectly noiseless signal, with no distortion whatsoever. That is, unless you regularly hear your music with more than 106dB of Sound pressure. And If you do, good riddance. And no, this is not an insult. Because I was talking about your hearing abilities. Your hearing will not be good enough to tell the difference for long at that kind of noise.
If a 16 Bit export was crappy, in the sense, that you could hear distortion, it would be the fault of the guy who did the mastering. Case closed.
@MichaelW.1980 replies to @MichaelW.1980: Even if we talk about the detail of dynamics, like, how small a step in between two loudnesses can be, we are below 0.001dB With 16 Bit and that is way below any reasonable limits of human hearing.
@AudioMasterclass replies to @MichaelW.1980: So I mathed the maths... If we consider that 16-bit has 65,536 levels, a change of 0.001 dB occurs at 8686. Anything lower will be more dB, anything higher less. Fun wot?
@synthet7: Thank you!
@stanleesiele6028: Those chairs were made for me 😂
@MartijnSpits: I don’t usually hear a clear difference, but 24-bit audio somehow puts me in a deeper state of relaxation. It’s like I can pick out the subtle ambient details even when the music gets loud. It's the difference of listening to the song vs listening to the room it was recorded in. I often just play random tracks on Qobuz and end up playing the ‘can you hear the difference?’ game muself, since their library mixes standard CD quality with high-res tracks
@d0Q0b: That ending 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 Great sense of humor 👌
@bryanjones9952: I think I would agree with some people that it might depend on the device playing the file. I would suggest people play the same file with their audio out set at 16bit/48000Hz and 24bit/48000Hz through audio device on a Windows PC and see if you can hear the difference...I can. Sound is louder keeping all volume settings the same and can be measured using a SPL or frequency response app like Spectroid. This is not an audiophile device test, so don't come at me, stating you would never listen to audio through a PC...😅
@lese774: Please help-
Question:
If I have a Rotel RCD-02 18 bit and 8 X oversampling verses an Onkyo 24 bit CD-7030. Which player should I choose?
The 'soundstage offered by the famous Rotel RCD-02, or the 'airyness' of the Onkyo CD-7030. I want the soundstage and would the oversampling of 8X not remove any folded signals and make the sound super clean? verses the detailed airness of the Onkyo?...whatever that is supposed to be. Please think about my question and help me choose.
In 16 bits there's less, in 24 bits there's more, but only bitwise when considering soundstage dynamics, no? And 18 bit? where would that sit if the sound stage is highly regarded, and as such, highly rated when one is determining which unit has a better soundstage, perhaps 24 bit having more might result still in less...satisfaction than the 18 bit mentioned above???
@MicrophonicFool: We use 24 bits when recording live or in studio for the extra dynamic range and more available headroom on the levels. When EVERYONE was making CDs from the material, I would often still deliver them in 24 bit so that the guy mastering the product would retain that headroom. We left it up to them to dither or noise shape for the final delivery to CD manufacturer in 16 bit. To a well recorded session, I doubt very much anyone will hear the difference.
@shitmandood: The Replica Eames used to be $650 just a couple years ago. 😦. Probably have to order one from Ali Express instead
@AudioMasterclass replies to @shitmandood: I'm so poor I have to manage with my secondhand Ikea Poäng.
@jondu-sud274: Leather seat covers, oh quelle catastrophe from a noise reflectivity point of view right behind my ears
@sjors01: high RES is CD quality, higher quality has no added value compared to CD, because the hearing cannot perceive it. the ear is limited to 20-20k in young people (babies) who do not yet have hearing damage? Is that correct? I am glad I still have my CD collection. done sigh I ripped them in flac instead of wave because of metadata and covers on NAS. and the CD are in constant temperature for backup.
@sjors01 replies to @sjors01: your conclusion for streaming services? (spotify+ hifi) which will never come))or Tidal would be sufficient. the only difference between spotify and Tidal is that spotify has more bass and sounds a bit more restless in direct comparison. and Tidal gives a bit more peace. is that worth the higher price? please comment on this👍?
@PresidentialHighness: your video is better than your speech
@ThreadBomb: I imagine that audiophiles also insist they can see the ultraviolet and infrared frequencies emitted by their over-large TVs.
@btudrus replies to @ThreadBomb: Those must be videophiles...
@genesmith4019: In photography 8 bit looks the same as 16 bit. Try and edit an 8 bit image and noise and artifacts ruin the work. It is especially noticeable in gradients . 16 bit overcomes this problem.
@charliecerutti4171: Here is my question. Can all this have to do with the why I hate remastered recordings? It started when I joined Spotify years ago and then I would put on an old recording and halfway through a song I would be annoyed and then find that the recording would say " Rush Moving Pictures remastered 201" Or I would buy the remastered CD and record and hate it. I would Then pull out my original record and CD and love it again. And this is all on the say system and speakers. Please help me understand this. And I ask all to stop remastering your recordings. I want to hear the recording I loved from 1981 and others. I want to hear it the way it was when it was best record of the year. Help
@AudioMasterclass replies to @charliecerutti4171: This is a massive issue, as many have noticed. One can only hope that the record labels realise that they can make a killing by re-releasing the old masters.
@svendvd: The end killed me 😂
@josephblue4135: I have a Sony CD/DVD player. It allows you to change from 16 bit to 24 bit playback.. If CD's are 16 bit, does the 24 bit setting do anything? I really feel i could hear more detail @ 24 bit. Is it real or the placebo effect?
@AudioMasterclass replies to @josephblue4135: Either the eight least significant bits are just zeros or the data is being invented somehow. It's difficult to see how 24-bit could be better in this instance.
@SYQmusic: Why mix up the domains of recording audio and the domain of end consumer music playback, regarding the choice of 16 or 24 bit? Of course 24 bit can make sense for recording, although the "16 bit adds distortion" argument is misleading, since 24 bit also adds distortion to the signal - it's DIGITAL. It is mathematically impossible to capture an analog signal with infinite precision.
This brings us to the "audiophiles". The human is who is able to identify a 16 or 24 bit audio medium in a blind test has yet to come forward. Maybe a test will end up like an experiment in the 2000s, which resulted in audiophiles being unable to tell even the lousiest mp3 from lossless audio on their high end speakers, while everyone being convinced to pass the challenge beforehand. Perhaps an experienced mastering engineer is actually able to get in the proximity of identifying some aspect of bit depth in certain audio signals. However, the opinion of "audiophiles" is mostly not relevant for a scientific debate (or any serious debate at all), since those people are more concerned with playing back some crappy vinyl orchestra recording from the 60s (!) on their 5000$ turntable or polishing their CDs for better audio quality. While insisting, that the record has more emotional depth this way, of course.
@molotulo8808: Great video. I'm 65 and enjoyed your video and technique very much. Some people tell me that at my age, 16bit should be fine. So, I recorded the same karaoke song twice. Once at 16 and once at 24bit. I then parted during a pause in the music. People listening to the recordings only noticed that I parted at 24 bit. Since farts are funny, I no longer record in 16bit!
@ericgonzales854: Love your videos...I'm a cd listener and love it.soumds good to me😊
@jefferysmith5921: I am going with my 150.00 desk chair ;) And, I only listened to cassettes once... and only for a friend.lmao!
@johnrohdejensen1218: I record location sound for TV/Video and getting the recording levels right is neigh impossible, so I have be very defensive and usually record with peaking at -12dBFS to -18dBFS. Thus I loose a lot of the potential dynamic range. Therefore I record in either 24bit or 32float to keep at least 96dB of dynamic range.
After mixing and mastering I can utilize the full dynamic range of the output media and then 16bit is fine. But for some strange reason 24bit 48kHz have become some sort of standard in the video world.
@gsf5882: My brother is a professional DJ. He can absolutely tell the difference playing them loud through decent club systems.
@toddmodem: I always cleaned my heads and demagnetized them. Cassettes sucked and were pretty cool at the same time
@oldgoody1: Depends on the dynamic range of the source. Not everything has 1812 overture dynamic range.
@ko1453: What about 32bit for gaming?
@poseidonss2: https://music.youtube.com/watch?v=4v3zyPEy-Po&list=RDAMVM4v3zyPEy-Po at the beginning of this song with 16 bit I can hear a noise, but at 24 bit I cant. maybe that is what he is talking about. is that it?
@VariantAEC: We should target 196,608-bit audio because anything above that can't even be calculated easily by most calculators. So obviously it must be detailed enough that we should be good. I'm not sure what PCs could decode one second of such high bit depth audio or what media could store such detailed audio... but that isn't what matters to audiophiles, right?
Music should be mastered at 108,638,937,224,608 Hz because... reason: that should be reasonable for the four or so audiophiles that exist on planet Earth.
@alexandreserainshuvaloff6640: Hi there, Thanks a lot for your instructive videos. I wonder to know as the CDs are still 16bit/44.1kHz, is it worth to record raw files with 32bit/96kHz ? Thanks for your feedback. Greetings
@AudioMasterclass replies to @alexandreserainshuvaloff6640: Yes record in 96 kHz 32-bit float. 24-bit for delivery though.
@alexandreserainshuvaloff6640 replies to @alexandreserainshuvaloff6640: @AudioMasterclass Thank you for your kind feedback. The CDs are still 16 bit. So I have to convert files 96/32bit to 44.1/16 bit. Why I hear people advising to record at 88.2kHz as the multiple of 44.1kHz ? I am still asked for to produce CDs which are still 16bit/44.1kHz... It's a jungle. Thanks again...
@Tortuosit: Disk size is cheap, BUT STILL, with often 192/24 disk space goes out of control. I decided, based on quality or importance of the material to bring the flacs down to 96/64/48 or redbook, also some to 19-22 bits via dithering.
@MrM4Mus1c: Love your presentation style: it's entertaining and informative :)
@madMARTYNmarsh1981: To add to this conversation:
I recently listened to Houdini by Enimen on Tidal and Qobuz.
Both were playing at the same 'quality' 96.0kHz.
The Tidal version sounds markedly different to me, better.
@ConorHanley: Phil was less convincing then I've seen him before , he was just too ridiculous even for an audiophile.
@sonny3854: When I was 10 years old, I enjoyed watching Terminator 2 from a VHS tape on an old TV more than the remastered 4K blu-Ray version now.
I'm sure when musicians make music, they intended it for audiophile people with 1000000 $ sound systems. Other wise you're going to miss out on their music's intention.
@goodbyepolarbears172: Oh it was worth hanging on through all of this JUST for that ending. 😂
You brightened my day and lessened my DAW worries both at the same time with this video. Most grateful for your simplified explanation. It's pretty much all I needed.
Now to chase down what the heck is causing my glitchy pops and crackles in mixdowns. Now I know it can't be my 16bit 44.1kHz limitations. Processing power maybe? Just bad software?
@audiononsense1611: 1:30 in, You make cutting through the BS one of my most enjoyable listens on YouTube. The fact that these chairs all have headrests make it the joke of the century...
@aaronganga6630: i told A Dj Friend About It, He Said It Dosent Matter People Dont Hear The Differnce But I Could Hear The Differnce Between Mixes
The High And The Low Quality
@aaronganga6630: 16 BIt Is Like Have A Car Without Steering wheel Just Noy Good Enough
@martinfarrer8764: Good that you mentioned this, I have a dire straits boxed set which I play through a Marantz CD75, the sound quality is much better than all the others I wondered if it was in 24 bit Quality is amazing
@markushoffsten: So what is best for me on a Computer PC. i have a sound card that can play 16-bits or 24-bits and betwen 44.1 Khz - 48 Khz - 88.2 Khz - 96 Khz - 176.4 Khz - 192 Khz ... Witch one is best do you think? Thx for a good video. / Sweden!
@johnchildress8707: what do you think of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cD7YFUYLpDc
@AudioMasterclass replies to @johnchildress8707: I prefer this - https://xiph.org/video/vid2.shtml
@johnchildress8707: Is Audio Phil mocking the Audiophiliac?
@AudioMasterclass replies to @johnchildress8707: Phil might be a bit outspoken but he is very polite and wouldn't mock anyone. He even chats with Debbie about her Crosley from time to time.
@mariokrizan399: Criteriously human, scientific and simple. 👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏
@jcook3986: It's about how many bits are being used as well as how many are used in the system. Low level signals use less bits, this adds distortion. This is more noticable when using smaller word sizes.
@SandbarFilmsCA: It's kobe's number so I'm going 24. Thnx dude
@AudioMasterclass replies to @SandbarFilmsCA: I had to look that one up. A little disappointed it's not a maths thing, but comment readers may like to shout it out loud. Go 24!
@mikaeldangelis3062: idk why i have 16 and 24 bit files but 24bit sounds lower volume than 16 bit.
@memcdm: With all the tools available now for recording i find that many "pop" recordings just don't sound very good. I listen to these recordings because the music is still wonderful. All the processing and especially the compression used, can degrade the listening experience. The so-called "audiophile " recordings often sound better because the sound engineers at every step in the process were meticulous in their attention to detail regardless of the bits used. A strong esthetic sense by the engineers in tune with what the artists had in mind makes for great listening experiences. Great recordings sound just fine on today's modest audio products. They can sound very fine on every level of gear .. provided the listening space is reasonable good. Bad recordings sound bad on every system and worse on systems with better resolution. The esthetic sense of the recording engineers sensitive to what the artists were trying to communicate can't be measured. Yet, when great musicians and great recording engineers work together the results can truly be magical. I am very happy when the tools available for recording are improved but in the end, the human beings producing the music is the most critical factor.
@AudioMasterclass replies to @memcdm: I would argue that in the 'olden days' the cream of every musical and audio profession rose to the top, congregated in the best recording studios, and learned from each other. Now everyone has their own home studio and top producers work in a fancy shed in their garden, thus isolating themselves from useful outside influences. Of course this is simplifying, but I suspect that it has been good for neither music nor recorded sound.
@matuskocambo8741: there is a diffrence in music 16 bits sound boxy 24 bits is still in some kind of box feeling but with 32 bits it dissappear the noise cliping is gone basically
@bikeman7982: 1 bit = 6.020599913279624 dB of dynamic range.
@AudioMasterclass replies to @bikeman7982: When you have equipment that can resolve to that last 0.000000000000004 dB of dynamic range, you are truly an audiophile.
@bikeman7982 replies to @bikeman7982: @AudioMasterclass 🙂Of course, that would be hard to achieve due to a practical things like thermal noise. But, I thought true audiophiles don't care about measurements 🙂.
@MonTadas: Noise floor doesn't matter to an audiophile if his/her tinnitus overpowers any possible noise
@anatomicallymodernhuman5175: Close enough for most practical purposes in light of consumer product. For a more nuanced understanding, I recommend Digital Audio Explained for the Audio Engineer, by Aldrich. Technically, bit depth contributes nothing to detail above the bit in question. That is, 24-bit is more detailed than 16-bit — below about -100 dB full scale. Above that level, everything is identical. You can prove this to yourself with a null test. Take the best 24-bit file you can find, apply 16-bit dither to a copy. Compare the original and a copy in a 24-bit DAW with one channel phase flipped. There will be no signal AT ALL above the 16-bit dither noise. If you understand how digital audio works, that result and its meaning will be intuitive.
@carterwilliamhumphrey3373: Since you asked, here's a demonstration of Dither used on 16 bit and 24 bit (draw your own conclusions): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2iDrbgfPjPY
@AudioMasterclass replies to @carterwilliamhumphrey3373: Comment readers can hear my demonstrations at https://youtu.be/tKuqAuDsnUc
@noturnleftunstoned72: 16/44.1 or 48 to 24/44.1 or 48 no, you won't. but from16bit to DSD or 24/192....hell yes.
@blerblybliggots9801: I have spent many hours comparing 16 bit to 24 bit when using the same DAC, and same sample rate. The difference is often very significant when listened to on good gear.
I am currently using a MOTU M4 to 2 hafler dh220s to drive kefXq9s.
Most albums that were recorded in 24 bit will sound substantially dryer and less rich when played at 16 bit. There is also usually a lot of information from the decay of sounds that is chopped off with 16 bit. So, the the difference in 24bit is that it is not only less dry, more spacious, and richer, but there is more information about the echo and natural decay of sounds in the recording. The increased dynamic range is not always noticeable, but the attack of something both natural and abrupt, like a snare, for example -- will sound slightly different at dynamic ranges above 96 db, even at low volumes.
@blerblybliggots9801 replies to @blerblybliggots9801: @nicksterj based on what? Have you actually taken time to compare this on proper gear with all other variables controlled?
If you are confident that I am wrong, I am happy to meet to do a blind test that you administer. And I will bet you whatever amount you want that I can identify them correctly in an A to B test 10/10 times. And I won't even be paying attention to the noise floor.
I'm also willing to bet that you would hear it, too.
@blerblybliggots9801 replies to @blerblybliggots9801: @nicksterj the data is lost once you convert it to 16 bit.
Have you actually just found a song that is recorded in 24 bit, and then toggled a setting on your system or the app handling it and listened to the change?
@deepakbains7920: Good explanation,thanks
@St3aua86: How about 32 bit? I have the option to select on my sound card an output of up to 32bit @96Khz.
@AudioMasterclass replies to @St3aua86: 32-bit floating point is commonly used in production. I wouldn't recommend it for finished product though and I may cover this in a future video.
@lancewood1410: i'm not an audiophile....i'm an enthusiast....hahahahahaha........ok i'm going by that description from today onwards.
@barlow2976: I look forward to the return of Betty and Debbie. Have they had their toenails painted, I wonder?
@AudioMasterclass replies to @barlow2976: That's very personal. Who knows what went on on their recent spa break?
@tomstickland: There are advantages of24 bits for the mixing etc, but for a perfectly set gain, aren't the extra bits just recording the noise in more detail?
@ClaytonMacleod: You’re wrong. You still don’t understand digital audio properly. You think you do. But you don’t. The number of bits moves the noise floor, and that’s all it does. That you think there’s more detail indicates your understanding is still incorrect. You still need to rewatch Monty’s video a few more times.
@AudioMasterclass replies to @ClaytonMacleod: Since you put it so plainly, I'll put it plainly too. You are wrong. I won't bother to explain further, you can watch the video again.
@ClaytonMacleod replies to @ClaytonMacleod: @AudioMasterclass I’m not the one that needs an explanation. More bit depth doesn’t provide more detail. It lowers the noise floor, and that’s it. Literally nothing else. That you think it provides more detail shows you do not understand digital sampling theory. Like I already told you, go watch Monty’s Digital Show & Tell video over and over until you actually understand. That video contains the correct information regarding the digital sampling theory. Yours does not, because you are wrong. Nyquist and Shannon knew more than you. And Monty actually understands what they shared. You do not understand. You only think you do. Classic Dunning-Krueger. Seriously, you need to go watch that video again. Badly.
@AudioMasterclass replies to @ClaytonMacleod: Well I'll just say it again. If you think you're right, you're not.
@ClaytonMacleod replies to @ClaytonMacleod: @AudioMasterclassI don't think I'm right. It has nothing to do with me. I think Nyquist and Shannon were right, because they were right. And Monty's video, which you've either never seen or do not understand, shows you visually why that is the way it is. If you're too stubborn to actually learn something, go ahead and continue being as ignorant as you want to be. You're not right, dude. Nyquist/Shannon's theorem is correct, not your misinterpretation of it. 8-bit data is just as "detailed" as 24-bit data when the signal is within the working 8-bit region. A -18 dB signal would be well within 8-bit's capability. And that -18 dB signal would be just as "detailed" as the 24-bit data of the same signal because the only difference would be the noise level. I don't know how or why you cannot grasp that. It isn't that hard to understand. There is no resolution in digital audio. it either fits within the constraints of your sampling or it doesn't. You're just packing up "stairsteps" in a different wrapper and saying the 24-bit example has smaller stairsteps, whether you realize that or not. But there are no stairsteps. There is no detail. Bit depth just dictates how much noise there is, just like sample rate dictates the highest frequency you can reproduce. Just like a 1 kHz signal is not "more detailed" with a 192 kHz sample rate vs a 22.05 kHz sample rate, a -18 dB signal is not "more detailed" with a 24-bit depth than it is with an 8-bit depth. "But the quantization steps!" It doesn't work that way. I don't know how many times you have to be told, but it does not work that way. That's like saying you can only adjust the volume by a full bit. "If you're using an 8-bit sample depth you can only adjust the volume in 256 discrete steps." Wrong. 8 bits tells you how much noise there is, not how finely you can adjust the volume. There is no resolution in digital audio, no matter how much you believe there is. It either works, or it doesn't. There is no level of detail.
@AudioMasterclass replies to @ClaytonMacleod: Well thank you for that. I disagree.
@gwine9087: Just watched a video by an audio engineer for a record company. He stated that the only difference between 16-bit and 24-bit is dynamic range and you would have to hear the music at insanely high volumes to notice any difference.
@blerblybliggots9801 replies to @gwine9087: With respect to noise floor, yes. But increased dynamic range preserves more detail and tonal separation at reasonable volumes. Just compare it for yourself.
Those myths are ubiquitous, but they are based on misunderstandings. For example, no one is seeking 24 bits for the 48 extra dB of noise floor unless they are misinformed, or playing concerts.
@duroxkilo replies to @gwine9087: @blerblybliggots9801 i'm not sure how one could hear that sort of dynamic range. the louder sound masks the quieter one well before the bit limitation.
it would be like trying to hear if the fridge is running while operating a chainsaw :)
@analogue33 replies to @gwine9087: @duroxkilo. Spoken like someone who doesn't understand and thinks they know everything!
@ScratchAlex replies to @gwine9087: There are multiple other issues to consider and contend with. 24 bit, but can't be resved due to the limitations of the AD/DA process. Most converter chips have dither present and analogue circuit side can achieve about 120db dynamic range at best. Any recording made using real instruments will contain noise. Depending on the situation, the this could be microphone noise, microphone pre noise, the noise of the instrument or amplifier, musician noise, (breathing, moving) and most likely, but room noise, yes even a supposedly quiet studio will likely be 20db or more. Factor in that our ears can't handle more than about 60db because of the way our ears "window" our audio dynamic range.
@michaeltaylor5451 replies to @gwine9087: Well, that's false. It's actually the opposite of that. Playing a higher bitrate recording on a system at or below reference level will reveal massive dynamic revelations over the same lower bitrate at the same reference levels.
@Tyco072: In the modern world of mp3, loudness war, music played on smartphones, I consider myself an audiophile, but 16/44,1KHz is enough for me, because the background noise present on the master recordings is always higher than the ground noise of the 16bit. Than why should I bother with 24/48 or 24/96Khz tracks, sacrificing more storage space? Not to mention that it is already difficult to find records that exploit correctly the entire 16 bit range. Maybe the difference can be heard on 24bit files of some classic or jazz music, but they are not my genre.
@artysanmobile: 16 bits are adequate to make noise-free recordings. 24 bits gives us ‘slack’. For example, an engineer on a live date doesn’t get the opportunity to set gain before the converter and notes the channel is peaking at minus 30. No problem!! Feeding a 24 bit converter at -30 or even -40 is perfectly valid. Just leave it and enjoy the song. 16 bit would be deep into the noise at -40, completely unacceptable. That’s pretty much it.
Detail doesn’t really enter the equation as long as you are not in the noise. A perfectly set 14 bit converter captures the same detail as a 24 bit converter because we can’t hear more than 85dB of dynamic range on a single channel contributing to a stereo mix. This isn’t just theory, this is memory. I recall those days when success was tracking at -2. It was stressful and resulted in overloads nobody needed.
@landongeorge5257: Cactus sorbet sounds wonderful
@AudioMasterclass replies to @landongeorge5257: Yes, and that prickly aftertaste.
@innovationsinm: This was fantastic when you consider that the Audiophiles will in the same breath say that vinyl sounds far better than 24bit audio. So about half the detail of their 24bit sound file,, that they will say FLAC sounds worse than WAV as there is some form of data compression in haw it’s encoded, but that’s a separate comment. Glad we didn’t take into consideration the noise generated from not using medical grade electric plugs, and how we skimped out with consumer usb cable to our DAC we bought off Amazon.
@analogue33 replies to @innovationsinm: It does! Nothing can touch good analogue! Especially LP and reel to reel! We don't think it, we KNOW it!
@kartoffelbrei8090: ah yes the master baiter
@jpdj2715: If we stay in the analogue domain first, before addressing the video's question, then let's first wonder what "bandwidth" is needed for a 440Hz music note. That's a loaded question, though. Play that central A note on a piano, violin, flute, clarinet, saxophone, etc. Each time it is 440Hz, right? But none of these have perfect sines as wave shape. So there is information on the 440Hz that we can analyse so as to recognize the instrument (voice, kind of sound), and we can place it somewhere in space.
But to recognise individual voices/instruments must be learned and that takes many learning moments. If you never went to a live classical concert, then you don't know what is wrong with a recording of that (if there is something wrong).
Imagine the clarinet produces a block wave and the flute sine wave, but a cello has a sone wave with a couple simple spikes in them.
Here we have left the 440Hz as each of the deviations are in a much higher frequency range.
Our ears are physically limited to about 20kHz, when measured in sine waves, but that is a coarse abstraction.
Whatever the point of the 20 kHz, in electronic recording and playback, the question is not what we can hear - assuming an exceptionally well trained listener - but what bandwidth is needed in an amplifier, cross-over filter or speaker to play a perfect 440Hz block wave, or to get the two tiny spikes that make a cello sound like cello, sound like a cello in playback, because the tiny spikes are at the right place and in the right form. Because - phase fault, if the spike shifts it's no longer a cello we hear, and if the shape distorts, it's no longer a cello too.
And the same applies to aunt Lucy's voice, or uncle Stephen's.
I saw a pianist in a Steinway grand piano parking room of a concert building - 5 model D grand pianos. She had to select one that best matched her music in character and best matched her touché in its action. She played all five and about number 2 said, "I played this one last year".
I saw a blind person in a new large room that asked, are there windows there, pointing at windows, and is there an open door over there, pointing at one.
The auditive brain is much faster than the visual and it relies on wave shape processing in an acoustically relevant to human survival band. Electrical engineers underestimate how good it is. Listeners accept electronically mixed recordings that have "micro-dynamics" for left right but conflicting phase information. This all goes back to wave shape. If you ever saw how good an amplifier can play back a block wave at 20 kHz then may be aware to never have seen a block wave, but spiked versions with over/under shoot, or saw tooth, or sine approximations based on a perfect block wave input.
My pre-amplifier as a bandwidth of 1MHz. The power amp "only" of 150kHz with peak current delivery capability of 60A per channel.
An electrical engineer once responded to my reasoning about wave shape that Fourier analysis could create a block wave with only five sine waves. Well, you need five half sines each of different frequency to fill the positive block and there is no amplifier in the world that can do that. I guess. And, what signal source does the Foerier transformation?
How many bits do I need? What sample rate?
Lets go to the bandwidth requirement first. You tell me.
Oh, a big problem in life and science is that people think something is not true when they cannot imagine it to be true.
Remember the geocentric model of the cosmos?
The problems are all over the place and humans are very capable of filtering the message out of the noise, but that doesn't mean it sounds nice or correct. If we throw speakers into the debate then it becomes hopeless almost. With lousy amplifiers and loudspeakers we do not need a lot.
@NameyNames: Good content, and Audio Phil had me laughing really hard. Well done, good sir!
@RetroKid: I feel so sorry for audio plebs. I as an audiophile have the luxury of hearing the musician's thoughts as they play. Their thoughts are a little on the warm side, but sometimes they can be crispy or brittle but always warm.
@georgeperez4231: I love your perspective on audiophiles
@risingtide_official: 32bit is next!
@lepidoptera9337: Definitely less distortion with 24 bits. Listen to the pianissimo passages on a 16bit classical CD with the highest gain your system is capable of. If you can't hear the distortions, then you need a new set of ears. Why is that so? Because pianissimo gives us at most 8-11 bits of actual resolution and that's just not enough for high quality audio. So why does it usually not matter? Because the distortion on that pianissimo falls below the hearing threshold of the human ear. The only way one can actually perceive it is by amplifying it. In other words: 16bit PCM is plenty good enough AT ONE GAIN setting. It is not nearly good enough for professional use with high dynamic range signals.
@lepidoptera9337 replies to @lepidoptera9337: @nicksterj There is no resolution limit if you are oversampling, which you aren't with a 44.1kHz sampling rate. You need to read the fine print of the theory.
@lepidoptera9337 replies to @lepidoptera9337: @nicksterj I don't need you to prove to me again that you don't understand the theory. I got it the first time around. :-)
@lepidoptera9337 replies to @lepidoptera9337: @nicksterj I never believe bullshit put out by random people without sufficient knowledge. You simply don't know what you don't know and, what's worse, you don't want to learn because that would hurt your ego. ;-)
@vietvooj: Dither is noise. Sure you can hear noise, when you increase the volume enough. But this does not mean that there is person on earth that can hear (or feel) that noise. No one can hear the rustling of leaves in the distance while a Boing is taking off nearby. At the end the blood in your ears produce more noise than the flipping of the bits during the dithering.
@lepidoptera9337 replies to @vietvooj: That is only true as long as you don't adjust the dynamic range of the signal. It's not true any longer if you apply any form of post-gain or dynamic compression.
@exitar1: If the music is good then you only need 16 bits 🙃
@AudioMasterclass replies to @exitar1: @lanla6838z There’s a word for this kind of facetiousness but I can’t quite think what it is.
@AudioMasterclass replies to @exitar1: Neither can I.
@jean-xavierbardant1082: I don't think I’d make the difference when I listen to music. On the other hand when I play (digital) piano I’m using an acoustic simulation program named PianoTeq that uses high resolution (32 bits 92000 Hz) which I listen with a 24/96 audio interface and headphones. When playing it’s important to forget that your instrument isn’t real so any realistic detail has its importance, be it the tiny reveberation of the sound once you’ve released the keys, or sympathetic vibrations of loose strings (PianoTeq allows you to adjust the wear of you piano to make it sound bit less brilliant and a bit more convincing, so there may be loose strings). I should try to downsample a recording and see what it does to those tiny details that have no importance for the listener but have some for the performer. Maybe there is a placebo effect or something.
@taperpowell558: I've just recently discovered your channel within the last week and after several of your videos, I'm really enjoying the don't-take-it-so-seriously attitude you bring to your posts. Dispassionately examining the rhetoric is very helpful in dialing back the outrage on a topic like 16-bit vs. 24-bit. Even if I can hear the difference in bit rate, I'm more likely to hear glaring differences like room noise or poor mic placement, even when I'm listening analytically. Not to say there isn't a difference, but as you point out, there are some differences that don't make that much difference to the end user. But besides that, no single parameter on its own (bit rate, sampling rate, noise floor, etc.) is the silver bullet that provides the end-all definition of what makes a good recording. (To be fair, the misuse and abuse of some parameters can indeed yield a definitively bad recording, but that's not the same as the hair-splitting between 'near-perfect' and 'nearer-than-that-to-perfect'.)
That said, from time to time I still listen to -- and enjoy -- CD's, LP's (to a lesser extent 45 and 78 RPM singles), cassettes, open reel tape and even 8-track cartridges. I call it the 'fidelity-to-what?' principle. Music is such a subjective topic when it comes to nailing down what makes it enjoyable for you, and it's mainly an emotional aspiration rather than intellectual. So if I'm willing, perhaps even prefer, to listen to a cassette from the 1980's or a cartridge from the 1970's, I may not be in pursuit at that moment of 'absolute fidelity to the original sound', I may be seeking the same feeling I felt the first time I heard that song, and remembering the people I was in company with at the time. Thinking of the car I drove or the place I lived. Or in the case of media that predates my own life, experiencing the sound the way contemporaries of that technology did. Fidelity to a memory or emotion, if you will.
For example, I remember hearing certain songs on CD in the 1980's that didn't sound quite 'right' to me, because they didn't match my memory of hearing them the first time on AM radio in the early 1970's. Expanding from mono to stereo, losing the noise and static, and widening the frequency range emphasized different sounds in the recordings, but often the speed was off, seemed slow. I later learned that some Top 40 stations had a habit of running their turntables slightly faster, perhaps 46 or 47 RPM, so the music would sound a bit livelier (and by gaining a few seconds per song, you might have another minute or two per hour of advertising time to sell). But the point is, better audio fidelity actually interfered a bit with my enjoyment of some songs until I understood what was going on, simply because they didn't match my emotional memory. (I expect this generation may come to feel that way about 128K MP3's.)
By the same token, as an audio engineer (and enthusiast), I'm not against creating and listening to the best we can possibly muster in the sonic arts; in fact, I think we should. Right now I work in a small studio that produces mainly podcasts and audiobooks, and I'm always looking for ways to eliminate audio distractions, especially noise. But I take the view that while we should obviously tend to the technical parameters, we should do so in service to the content we are recording without getting distracted into making the technology the main thing.
Yet, in all things, charity. Whatever format a person likes and what they are willing to spend on it is fine with me. If I had elephant bucks to spend, I would likely purchase more classic gear, because it's fun! But I will also admit that even then, the grail for me would not be ALL about the sound alone...some of it would be visual, tactile, nostalgic, and again, emotional.
@joseademarrebelo4968 replies to @taperpowell558: I couldn't agree more, excellent text
@Beatsbasteln: I do not disagree with your axioms. There will always be people who want a good quality and they are really passionate about it, so why would I wanna disappoint them?
Edit: But I do not agree that audio needs to be 24bit. My audio interface for example only supports 16bit, so I never listen to 24bit audio at home. That in turn also means I make music in 16bit. I'm fine with that for now. The music can sound great and if it was designed with this bitdepth, then it was also meant for that bitdepth. Only if someone converted a 24bit audio file to a 16bit one, while being able to listen to 24bit audio, I'd maybe feel like I might be missing out on something subtle
@lepidoptera9337 replies to @Beatsbasteln: @nicksterj It depends what you want to do with the signal. 16 bits is not primarily more noise. It's mostly more distortion for low amplitude signals. 16 bit is worth roughly 96dB of dynamic range. 8 bits are only 48dB, so if you are listening to signals that are -40dB or less on a 16bit system, then you are getting the distortions of a 8-9 bit system... and they are awful. We are talking less than telephone quality awful. This is usually masked by the low volume, but if you want to run audio with 16 bit quantization through a compressor, then you are in for a nasty surprise. When would you want to do this? A typical application would be extended sustain on guitar samples by using a digital compressor effect. Not much of a problem at 24bit, but a serious challenge at 16bit quantization.
@lepidoptera9337 replies to @Beatsbasteln: @nicksterj And I didn't argue that a dithered 16 bit system isn't useful as a distribution medium. It just doesn't work for much else in the audio chain. For that we need to do a lot better. I even gave you an example for which it does not suffice.
@lepidoptera9337 replies to @Beatsbasteln: @nicksterj "Detail" is not an engineering criterion. Harmonic distortion, in particular intermodulation distortion is. 8bit quantization has absolutely horrible IM components, so every time you get down to the -40-50dB level your 16bit system is going to hurt your signal audibly and not just a little. If you don't believe me... just try it.