Hacker News Reader

Comment by davesims | Hacker News Reader

Heh, it's funny to see this late-nineties debate get re-hashed here. Also kind of fun.

If it were true that there's no audible difference between 16 and 24 bit, companies like Alesis, Otari, ProTools, etc. wouldn't have spent the last 15 years ditching 16 bit like an old pair of smelly sneakers. (better metaphors welcome).

Seriously, anyone who has sat down in a real listening environment for 5 minutes A/Bing 16 vs 20 bit, 16 vs 24, etc. hears the difference immediately. There's no question. This is why you can buy ADAT 16 bit 'blackfaces' for $100, down from their original $4,000.

View on HN

Sure, moving up from 16bit recording was an improvement, but having done engineering for a company listed above for over a decade, I can tell you that we went 24bit/192kHz because of market demand, not for any real technical reasons. We thought it was fairly unnecessary ourselves. It was also kind of an arms race with other companies, much like the megapixel arms race for digital cameras.

Bigger numbers are better. Right?

It's all marketing, baby!

...And the new Pro Tools 10 just added the ability to record in 32-bit floating point. http://www.avid.com/US/products/Pro-Tools-Software

Yes, and anyone who has ever sat down infront of an LCD flatscreen watching their favorite movie on DVD/BD using gold-plated $200 HDMI cable instead of $4.99 Walmart HDMI cable see the extra sharpness immediately. This is why non-gold plated non-OFC HDMI cables are down to $4.99 a piece from their original $49.99 during introduction.

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not.

I’m going to go ahead and say yes, that seems to be blatant sarcasm, or at least, reference to placebo effect / being a sucker.

The difficulty I had is that the same person claimed they could hear the difference between 44 kHz and 96 kHz, when the article (and all other comments which cited outside sources) claims that is well outside of human capability.

That's cute. Obviously you've never recorded a rock band while riding the pre to compensate for 16bit's terrible noise floor and horribly limited headroom. You've never had the joy of ruining a perfectly good take because of that wonderful sound it makes when the volume spikes into digital distortion despite compressing the wazoo out of the input source. Glorious sound, digital distortion. Run a dentist drill through an old Speak & Spell and you'd just about have it.

You've never rented an expensive tube EQ during a mix to cover up 16bit's grating harshness from 10k to 15k. Or tried like mad to make the bass drum sound like a freaking bass drum and not a pie pan slamming against the back of a plastic trash can. And yes, we had good mics and pres, all standard studio stuff. Decent, not brilliant, converters, but it was the 16bit that was the problem. Getting those 20bit XTs for the first time was like walking into the Promised Land.

Sure, there's lots of marketing ploys out there, lots of snake oil. Moving up from 16 bit was not one of them.

Did you read the original article at all?

> Professionals use 24 bit samples in recording and production [11] for headroom, noise floor, and convenience reasons.

...snip...

> Modern work flows may involve literally thousands of effects and operations. The quantization noise and noise floor of a 16 bit sample may be undetectable during playback, but multiplying that noise by a few thousand times eventually becomes noticeable. 24 bits keeps the accumulated noise at a very low level. Once the music is ready to distribute, there's no reason to keep more than 16 bits.

The original article does say that yes, during recording and production, 24 bit audio gives you a lot more room to play with. That doesn't mean that you can hear the difference between 16 and 24 bits for the final recording; just that 24 bits give you more room to keep out of trouble during production.

Did you read the comment thread at all? I wasn't responding to the article, I was responding to a comment:

...snip...

>Same goes for 16/24 bit, however, the difference between 16 and 24 bit is actually audible

No, the difference is not audible at all.

...snip...

It looks like you are jumping in without actually having read the article in question. That's ok, but you are wasting space building a straw man proceeding to vigorously demolish him.

The original article explicitly mentions how 24bit is useful for recording.

Speaking of jumping in without reading...I wasn't responding to the article. I was responding to the commenter that said you couldn't tell the difference between 16 and 24 bit.

And you cannot tell the difference. The reason to record using 24 bits is so you don't have to be as precise centering the recording level. If that level is centered then you can capture fine with 16 bits (by the way that is also explained in the article).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com