Can you truly make 16bit audio sound better by upping it to 32bit?

[coppice]

It's interesting how the "Sine" looks when zoomed in:

Why do you find a meaningless join the dots presentation in any way interesting? I suppose its slightly interesting that someone would produce software that creates such a meaningless image. Try joining the dots with a properly band limited curve, which meets the Shannon criteria for the sampled data, and you will have a nice sine wave.

[WastelandTek]

band limited

THIS is really important to grok

[kalel]

Watch the video by the xiph.org guy. Playing 'connect the dots' as audacity does it is the wrong way of rendering sampled signals. The correct way is to use sinx/x interpolation since this is what you'll get after putting the signal through a brick-wall filter that cuts off at nyquist frequency. Audacity can do this for you using Tracks->Resample and choosing a high sample rate.

When generating a 10kHz square wave, select "Square, no alias" and you'll get something that doesn't look like a square but is the correct band-limited approximation of a band-limited 10kHz square.

Thanks. Here's the sine after resampling:



And the square no alias:

[IanMacdonald]

As low as 6kHz you will be able to hear at least the second harmonic. Other point is, are you being influenced by relative loudness?  The tonal quality of sound is very dependent on apparent loudness, and it's not easy to get that the same for different waveshapes.

[Alex Nikitin]

On the topic:

You can make it sound different. In essence, a 16-bit 44.1kHz recording (even uncompressed) is quite dead as far as the sound quality is concerned. All kinds of voodoo around it it is just painting of that dead body with various colours so it somewhat better resembles a living thing. Guys just did design another way to sell that postmortem colouring, good luck to them!

Cheers

Alex

[EEVblog]

I followed a bit of the excitement for a while over high bitrate compressed audio files (.flac etc) thing. We mere individuals can now supposedly access what is as close if not a direct copy of the original studio mix by the recording artist. Some are released with the assurance you hear what the original mix which will always sound better being the studio recording, not some now-considered degraded version 16bit 44.1k music CD sold by the music industry that they adopted when vinyl records and cassette tapes went away...

And a good lot of studio recording a mixed with Yamaha NS10 studio monitor speakers which are actually not all that great (some say terrible), they are just "the standard". So unless you listen on the same speakers, you aren't getting the same mix anyway regardless of how perfect your file format is.
https://www.soundonsound.com/reviews/yamaha-ns10-story

[Gyro]

Ah, bring back the days when Tannoy Monitor Golds and HPDs were the standard (they still are for me.  ).

Edit: Yes, I know, they were more for mastering than mixing.

[DrGeoff]

I followed a bit of the excitement for a while over high bitrate compressed audio files (.flac etc) thing. We mere individuals can now supposedly access what is as close if not a direct copy of the original studio mix by the recording artist. Some are released with the assurance you hear what the original mix which will always sound better being the studio recording, not some now-considered degraded version 16bit 44.1k music CD sold by the music industry that they adopted when vinyl records and cassette tapes went away...

And a good lot of studio recording a mixed with Yamaha NS10 studio monitor speakers which are actually not all that great (some say terrible), they are just "the standard". So unless you listen on the same speakers, you aren't getting the same mix anyway regardless of how perfect your file format is.
https://www.soundonsound.com/reviews/yamaha-ns10-story

Not exactly. That's pushing the envelope a bit far.
NS10's (and Auratones) are there as reference check monitors, to check the translation of the mix on a number of other speaker systems which more closely resemble an average home 'hifi' style of speaker.

The mixing itself is done using a number of other monitors (near field usually, for critical close listening) that the engineer trusts and knows well enough to be able to discern the various frequencies and components that need attention and treatment.

And then it goes to Mastering, which use yet another style of monitoring system to hear the overall stereo mix.

[alexanderbrevig]

NS10 is best used as a sub microphone for the kick. If you use it for anything but one of many references, you're doing it wrong. I agree. It's not at all that great (except as a kick sub mic)

[b_force]

I followed a bit of the excitement for a while over high bitrate compressed audio files (.flac etc) thing. We mere individuals can now supposedly access what is as close if not a direct copy of the original studio mix by the recording artist. Some are released with the assurance you hear what the original mix which will always sound better being the studio recording, not some now-considered degraded version 16bit 44.1k music CD sold by the music industry that they adopted when vinyl records and cassette tapes went away...

And a good lot of studio recording a mixed with Yamaha NS10 studio monitor speakers which are actually not all that great (some say terrible), they are just "the standard". So unless you listen on the same speakers, you aren't getting the same mix anyway regardless of how perfect your file format is.
https://www.soundonsound.com/reviews/yamaha-ns10-story

I can name a lot of very $$$$ loudspeaker brands that are totally horrible. (as in really acoustically completely missing the point).

But you certainly have a point that the acoustics in the room are far more important!
Something that 90% of the people overlook, incl well respected "professionals". 

[ruairi]

And a good lot of studio recording a mixed with Yamaha NS10 studio monitor speakers which are actually not all that great (some say terrible), they are just "the standard". So unless you listen on the same speakers, you aren't getting the same mix anyway regardless of how perfect your file format is.
https://www.soundonsound.com/reviews/yamaha-ns10-story

Not anymore Dave.  My day job is Mastering and I work part time with a high end Pro Audio Speaker manufacturer here in L.A. so I've spent way too much of my life dealing with speakers.  A very small percentage of what you hear these days is mixed on NS10s.

Re the different speakers issue, the goal of a good mix is have it "translate", the same applies to a good master.  It is trivial to make things sound good in our rooms, making a mix or master that will work on an iPad, earbuds, a home theater and in the car is another matter altogether.  A good mix engineer is not only making things sound good in his or her space, they are creating a balance that will translate.



 

[ruairi]

In essence, a 16-bit 44.1kHz recording (even uncompressed) is quite dead as far as the sound quality is concerned. All kinds of voodoo around it it is just painting of that dead body with various colours so it somewhat better resembles a living thing. Guys just did design another way to sell that postmortem colouring, good luck to them!

I respectfully disagree.  44.1 kHz 16 bit audio can sound fantastic.

[Alex Nikitin]

In essence, a 16-bit 44.1kHz recording (even uncompressed) is quite dead as far as the sound quality is concerned. All kinds of voodoo around it it is just painting of that dead body with various colours so it somewhat better resembles a living thing. Guys just did design another way to sell that postmortem colouring, good luck to them!

I respectfully disagree.  44.1 kHz 16 bit audio can sound fantastic.

If it does for you, good! Doesn't for me though, even at its best (and I've designed some very decent CD-players and DACs).

Cheers

Alex

[dave_k]

I followed a bit of the excitement for a while over high bitrate compressed audio files (.flac etc) thing. We mere individuals can now supposedly access what is as close if not a direct copy of the original studio mix by the recording artist. Some are released with the assurance you hear what the original mix which will always sound better being the studio recording, not some now-considered degraded version 16bit 44.1k music CD sold by the music industry that they adopted when vinyl records and cassette tapes went away...

And a good lot of studio recording a mixed with Yamaha NS10 studio monitor speakers which are actually not all that great (some say terrible), they are just "the standard". So unless you listen on the same speakers, you aren't getting the same mix anyway regardless of how perfect your file format is.
https://www.soundonsound.com/reviews/yamaha-ns10-story

Mixing is different from tracking/recording (which is the part of the process where quality monitors are needed and used). Often NS-10's are used *because* they are ordinary and will give a good indication of how well the relative levels of each instrument/track/channel sound when mixed together.

[b_force]

In essence, a 16-bit 44.1kHz recording (even uncompressed) is quite dead as far as the sound quality is concerned. All kinds of voodoo around it it is just painting of that dead body with various colours so it somewhat better resembles a living thing. Guys just did design another way to sell that postmortem colouring, good luck to them!

I respectfully disagree.  44.1 kHz 16 bit audio can sound fantastic.

If it does for you, good! Doesn't for me though, even at its best (and I've designed some very decent CD-players and DACs).

Cheers

Alex

Than you're very talented, maybe not human.
Keep in mind that placebo is extremely strong, especially with audio & sound.
Humans don't only listen with their ears, also with their brains (= feelings, thoughts and judgements)
Second to that is that quality seldom has to do with the used techniques. Or in other words, they could spend more time and energy into higher samplerate recordings.
That's simply marketing, it definitely doesn't mean you can have top notch results otherwise.

So that simply means that you blame things for the wrong reasons.
If it can be done from a technological point of view, there is no reason why in practice it would be very different. Unless you think science is an hoax.

[Alex Nikitin]

Unless you think science is an hoax.

The science of human sound perception is to a large degree a hoax, as there are no reliable and correct tools and methods exist (and please don't start on DBT and ABX etc - these a flawed on so many points) . We are measuring what we can measure and not what we need to measure in the sound quality area, and we can not quantify the actual result of our listening to music - which is emotional and mostly subconscious. The majority of audio measurements is a little bit like checking the book contents change by it's weight change. We can detect a missing page but not a change in the text (at least if the amount of ink used stays the same).

Cheers

Alex

[b_force]

Unless you think science is an hoax.

The science of human sound perception is to a large degree a hoax, as there are no reliable and correct tools and methods exist (and please don't start on DBT and ABX etc - these a flawed on so many points) . We are measuring what we can measure and not what we need to measure in the sound quality area, and we can not quantify the actual result of our listening to music - which is emotional and mostly subconscious. The majority of audio measurements is a little bit like checking the book contents change by it's weight change. We can detect a missing page but not a change in the text (at least if the amount of ink used stays the same).

Cheers

Alex

I would suggest doing further reading, especially if you think everything can just (simply) be measured (with some tools).
Science is very clear about perception. That whole field is called psycho-acoustics.
Their are billions of papers and books written about the fact that our perception is heavily biased by what we think, see or smell.
It's already well known for many many years that what people claim to hear isn't in line at all with what they should hear.

The only gap we are talking about, is that most people don't want to admit it.
(which is a perfect oppertunity for market to keep using these fairy tale claims)

Personally I don't understand why people get so worked up about it? For some people it's almost like a religion. There is a lot of (angry) emotion involved.
Everybody makes decisions which are only based on subjective feelings, what's wrong with that??

As a scientist or researcher it should be a challenge to disprove or prove things instead?

[Alex Nikitin]

Unless you think science is an hoax.

The science of human sound perception is to a large degree a hoax, as there are no reliable and correct tools and methods exist (and please don't start on DBT and ABX etc - these a flawed on so many points) . We are measuring what we can measure and not what we need to measure in the sound quality area, and we can not quantify the actual result of our listening to music - which is emotional and mostly subconscious. The majority of audio measurements is a little bit like checking the book contents change by it's weight change. We can detect a missing page but not a change in the text (at least if the amount of ink used stays the same).

Cheers

Alex

I would suggest doing further reading, especially if you think everything can just (simply) be measured (with some tools).
Science is very clear about perception. That whole field is called psycho-acoustics.
Their are billions of papers and books written about the fact that our perception is heavily biased by what we think, see or smell.
It's already well known for many many years that what people claim to hear isn't in line at all with what they should hear.

The only gap we are talking about, is that most people don't want to admit it.
(which is a perfect oppertunity for market to keep using these fairy tale claims)

Personally I don't understand why people get so worked up about it? For some people it's almost like a religion. There is a lot of (angry) emotion involved.
Everybody makes decisions which are only based on subjective feelings, what's wrong with that??

As a scientist or researcher it should be a challenge to disprove or prove things instead?

At a risk of a serious off-topic here  .

As a scientist or researcher you should be able to smell pseudo-science when you see it. A large lot of these papers is exactly that. And as that pseudo-scientific stuff does not correspond to people personal experiences, it makes the reaction emotional (and even more so when as a "proof" they are called essentially delusional)  . I did design electronics for sound for many years, and if I would just follow that pseudo-scientific crap in my design work, I would end up designing just that - perfectly performing and crap sounding electronics. As I came from a purely engineering background it took me a while to learn that you should not blindly trust measurements only and that you should actually listen to the sound your equipment makes.

Cheers

Alex

[frozenfrogz]

That Bluetooth dongle does not even feature a 6.5mm headphone jack. What is the use case for that??
I would maybe consider a wireless hp amp IF it was able to properly drive my Sennheiser HD 424 with 2k ohms impedance or at least AKG K240DF / Beyerdynamic DT 770 pro (both 600 ohms).

[sibeen]

If it can’t be expressed in figures, it is not science; it is opinion.

[coppice]

If it can’t be expressed in figures, it is not science; it is opinion.

No analysis of perception is perfect, but double blind trials are certainly better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick.

[Richard Crowley]

It was inevitable that this thread would devolve into mysticism.
But I guess it actually started there, didn't it?

[Alex Nikitin]

It was inevitable that this thread would devolve into mysticism.
But I guess it actually started there, didn't it?

Started - perhaps. However mysticism is of no help whatsoever if you actually trying to design something for a serial production  . So no mysticism required (or even allowed) for me personally when I design electronics for sound. You learn to trust your ears and you learn how to hear problems in the sound. It is almost an unpleasant skill as it spoils the music and denies you the pleasure if the sound quality is flawed in certain respects which you can recognise . And you learn where to look, what to change and how to make a design which will sound consistently good in production, without hiring virgins and producing equipment only on completely moonless nights  .

Cheers

Alex

[dave_k]

If it can’t be expressed in figures, it is not science; it is opinion.

No analysis of perception is perfect, but double blind trials are certainly better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick.

That would be a poke in both eyes with 2 sharp sticks 

[A Hellene]

[...]
So no mysticism required (or even allowed) for me personally when I design electronics for sound. You learn to trust your ears and you learn how to hear problems in the sound. It is almost an unpleasant skill as it spoils the music and denies you the pleasure if the sound quality is flawed in certain respects which you can recognise . And you learn where to look, what to change and how to make a design which will sound consistently good in production, without hiring virgins and producing equipment only on completely moonless nights  .

Exactly, Alex! Exactly!

After our mastering of any field, whichever this could be, we cannot anymore enjoy any creations of these fields without subconsciously tearing those creations apart, every single time, in order to find out any possible flaws --either these flaws being deliberate or not...

Regarding the so-called 'psychoacoustics' I think it is amazing that no one can deny the fact that, the extremely low grade duplications of the songs that we were sharing with the aid of the Phillips-type portable battery-powered monophonic tape recorders of the seventies era, as we were kids, seemed to be sounding heavenly to our ears, in contrast with the currently available 'mastering-quality' reproduction of those same songs we can hear today...
And, I am afraid that, there is no T&M device to measure and classify this perceptual distinction...

As our forefathers used to say, «?? ?» (transliterated: 'gnothi seauton,' one of the 147 Delphic maxims being inscribed in the pronaos of the Temple of Apollo at Delphi, that the Romans called 'know thyself' half a millennium later).


-George


<EDIT>
Ah! Come on, Dave!
In 2017, why is your discussions board software still unable to display any Hellenic language characters?