Good article: There is no point to distributing music in 24-bit/192kHz format....

[905shmick]

A good read!

http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

[Perry]

And Bob smiles big! :-) (and rightfully so) ;)

Thanks for the link... I scanned through and it seems intelligently written, enough so that I plan to read it all soon as I have the time.

Back when the whole 'high resolution' thing started I argued (errrr..... debated?) that we didn't need to get too deeply into 92k and all that. But my argument (errrr.... debate ;-) was that the general audience didn't care and would never go for it.

If I recall correctly, for that someone said that I was 'resisting the technology' which is still funny to me. And soon after that discussion it was very apparent that what I wrote was indeed what the future held. Oh well... I would rather have been wrong.. for sure. :)

This is of course a different argument. What I would have voted for if I'd have had a vote... back when... would have been 16 bit @48k for the final storage. That was at the dawn of the digital era. Oh well. :)

In which case I would record @ 48k and just stay there... and dither to 16 bit.

But hey... We're still stuck mostly with MP3 audio as a standard really. Oh well! :)

Nice read though. Thanks again for the link!

Added: I've read a bit more... pretty darn interesting read.... believe it or don't (your choice) but do read. :)

[tomasino]

Great read.. I have to share this with some friends.
Good rule is do the work at 48K/24Bits n' move on. (I used to say 96K.. but then mp3...)

Wonder what Neil Young was thinking..? Go to the max because we can..?
Maybe it's about surround sound and DVD audio..? There's gotta be some info. out there describing/supporting his position.

Great stuff.
Thanks!

[demodoc]

I'm sorry. 24 bit simply DOES sound better than 16 bit any day. I record a live acoustic music radio show (Folkscene). Of course, I track it using SAWstudio at 24 bit, 44.1Khz . I mix and edit at 24 bit, then truncate and dither to 16 to burn the CD that will air. There is ALWAYS a noticeable loss of separation and depth as well as less bloom in the low end and some loss of reverb tails, since that is very low level information. I regularly do some compensation for these effects in mastering. No one will ever convince me that their is no benefit to recording 24 bit over 16 bit.

As far as higher sampling rates go, the article may be right, I don't know. I do know that I have read accounts of blind tests that were done with super tweeters being turned on and off and listeners brainwaves changing as this was done. So, we are perceiving the higher frequencies on some level. Whether it makes any difference in our enjoyment of the music is another matter. I simply don't know.

My real world experience tells me that recordings made at higher bit depths sound better. And the ones I have heard at both higher bit depth and higher sampling rates also sound better. Your mileage may differ.

[RBIngraham]

I'm sorry. 24 bit simply DOES sound better than 16 bit any day. I record a live acoustic music radio show (Folkscene). Of course, I track it using SAWstudio at 24 bit, 44.1Khz . I mix and edit at 24 bit, then truncate and dither to 16 to burn the CD that will air. There is ALWAYS a noticeable loss of separation and depth as well as less bloom in the low end and some loss of reverb tails, since that is very low level information. I regularly do some compensation for these effects in mastering. No one will ever convince me that their is no benefit to recording 24 bit over 16 bit.

As far as higher sampling rates go, the article may be right, I don't know. I do know that I have read accounts of blind tests that were done with super tweeters being turned on and off and listeners brainwaves changing as this was done. So, we are perceiving the higher frequencies on some level. Whether it makes any difference in our enjoyment of the music is another matter. I simply don't know.

My real world experience tells me that recordings made at higher bit depths sound better. And the ones I have heard at both higher bit depth and higher sampling rates also sound better. Your mileage may differ.

Go back and re-read the article. It specifically talks about the difference of audio production using 24 bit recordings and why you want that. What the article is talking about is the final format used for delivery.

There was no argument being made that one shouldn't bother to use 24 bit recordings for audio production tasks. In fact many folks use 32 bit for the actual file storage.

[Ian Alexander]

Very interesting article. I don't know anything about the site or the author, but I'm impressed that he insists on double-blind testing before considering any results. I have not done any listening tests with higher bit depth or sample rates. While I would be interested in doing so, I know that I could not base any qualitative statements on those tests if they were not double-blind.

A few thoughts:

I have never wished that 44.1/16 sounded better.

I have wished that mp3 sounded better.

I have used 24 bit to make setting levels safer and easier for live recordings.

It's not surprising that different mastering is sometimes used for higher sammple rate and bit depth releases. I assume that the loudness wars are less important, and perhaps unwelcome, there.

[Grekim]

There was no argument being made that one shouldn't bother to use 24 bit recordings for audio production tasks. In fact many folks use 32 bit for the actual file storage.

32 bit would make sense only if you were storing something that has some digital processing happening before it gets to the hard drive. Otherwise you're storing a bunch of zeros.

[Butch Bos]

Just something to think about
ADA8K A-D 64X oversampling 48K X 64 actual sampling at 3,072,000
D-A 128 X oversampling 48K X128 6,144,000

Butch

[RBIngraham]

This is from another email list:

(Posted by Alex French, just to give proper credit)
".... the author is Monty Montgomery.

He's the President of the Xiph.Org Foundation, folks responsible for a Ogg, Vorbis, and a bunch of other codecs/container formats/related bits.
He also used to spend a lot of time as a sound guy in community theatre."


So I would just add that he is hardly a nuetral party in that case and now it makes sense about why he talks so much about Ogg and such.

Not that I think we really need 96K sample rates either. I'd much rather have well designed 48K units than cheap 96K units any day. As I've said before, the best sounding convertors I own are a set of old Korg 880AD and 880DA. And they are 48K, 20 bit convertors. :)

Just saying, that to me, it is like when wine distributors tell you they did a study that finds a glass of wine every day is good for your health, or the same when Budweiser says something similar about a glass of beer everyday. :rolleyes:

[905shmick]

This is from another email list:

(Posted by Alex French, just to give proper credit)
".... the author is Monty Montgomery.

He's the President of the Xiph.Org Foundation, folks responsible for a Ogg, Vorbis, and a bunch of other codecs/container formats/related bits.
He also used to spend a lot of time as a sound guy in community theatre."


So I would just add that he is hardly a nuetral party in that case and now it makes sense about why he talks so much about Ogg and such.

Not that I think we really need 96K sample rates either. I'd much rather have well designed 48K units than cheap 96K units any day. As I've said before, the best sounding convertors I own are a set of old Korg 880AD and 880DA. And they are 48K, 20 bit convertors. :)

Just saying, that to me, it is like when wine distributors tell you they did a study that finds a glass of wine every day is good for your health, or the same when Budweiser says something similar about a glass of beer everyday. :rolleyes:

The only time that Ogg is discussed in the article is under the Lossless formats section.

Overall the article seems quite non biased and a lot of pushing of doing A/B/X tests of the actual audio to see if you can tell the difference.

[RBIngraham]

The only time that Ogg is discussed in the article is under the Lossless formats section.

Overall the article seems quite non biased and a lot of pushing of doing A/B/X tests of the actual audio to see if you can tell the difference.


OK, maybe so. But sorry, still not exactly a neutral 3rd party either. There is still an interest involved.

It's just like me saying that I like SFX over some of it's competitors and here is why.... blah,blah, blah.....

And I even if I am being completely honest and upfront in my assessments, which I usually do attempt to accomplish, I'm still biased because I helped to design and create the interface and how it works. Even though I have no financial incentive with regards to SFX (or won't at the end of this month anyway), there is still no way I couldn't be at least a bit biased.


Also another good point that was brought up on the Show Control email list is that when running at 96KHz, you system latency is cut in half. That may or may not be important to some, but for some applications it is important (and not just In Ear users either) and sometimes that jump to running at 96K can make the difference. (but that belongs in the SAC forum I guess... ) :)

[Craig Allen]

OK, maybe so. But sorry, still not exactly a neutral 3rd party either. There is still an interest involved.
What interest? I don't see the main point of the article pushing Ogg, but 16 bit 44.1kHz. Just because the guy is a programmer doesn't mean he can't write an objective article about a topic that is related to what he programs.

[RBIngraham]

What interest? I don't see the main point of the article pushing Ogg, but 16 bit 44.1kHz. Just because the guy is a programmer doesn't mean he can't write an objective article about a topic that is related to what he programs.

Well if 24 bit/192 KHz really did sound better then using a compressed format wouldn't exactly fit the bill now would it? Which would make his work worth what?

At least that is how I see it. I'm not saying the guy is insincere nor that he is wrong. Honestly, I don't really give a ****. I will use whatever sample rate and bit depth I damn well please thank you very much. :) (hard drive space is cheap after all... so who really cares...)

But I don't think he is exactly 100% impartial either. There are some knuckleheads out there that think they can hear artifacts in the lossless compressed formats as well. I think they are nuts. But that is just my opinion.

In the end to me it really doesn't matter. It's like debating which vocal mic is best, whether the ADA800s are good, bad or ugly, or whether it should be called the phase or polarity switch.... The "industry" will always find some way to sell us all the same damn catalog over again anyway, whether that be some hi-def audio, or surround sound or free peep shows or what have you...

And obviously you are free to disagree with me... :)

Or maybe I'm just being more cynical and curmudgeonly than usual since it's an election year and even though I don't have cable (and hence don't watch network TV) I still get to hear plenty of political BS. :rolleyes:

[Craig Allen]

Well if 24 bit/192 KHz really did sound better then using a compressed format wouldn't exactly fit the bill now would it? Which would make his work worth what?
I though the article was 24/192 v/s 16/44.1. I see a small mention to Ogg (and AAC and mp3), but most of it is CD v/s high sample rates.


At least that is how I see it. I'm not saying the guy is insincere nor that he is wrong. Honestly, I don't really give a ****. I will use whatever sample rate and bit depth I damn well please thank you very much. :) (hard drive space is cheap after all... so who really cares...)
I've always done 24/44.1, but that's me. Mostly because of my hardware limitation.


But I don't think he is exactly 100% impartial either. There are some knuckleheads out there that think they can hear artifacts in the lossless compressed formats as well. I think they are nuts. But that is just my opinion.
Or how a $100 power cord makes an amp sound better.... I always liked those.


In the end to me it really doesn't matter. It's like debating which vocal mic is best, whether the ADA800s are good, bad or ugly, or whether it should be called the phase or polarity switch.... The "industry" will always find some way to sell us all the same damn catalog over again anyway, whether that be some hi-def audio, or surround sound or free peep shows or what have you...
True, but I did like some of the information in the article - it presented some ideas I haven't thought about before. And I don't think it warrants dismissing it because the author wrote some audio software.


And obviously you are free to disagree with me... :)
I have before and will again... :D


Or maybe I'm just being more cynical and curmudgeonly than usual since it's an election year and even though I don't have cable (and hence don't watch network TV) I still get to hear plenty of political BS. :rolleyes:
Yeah, if you watch anything on YouTube, it's already on. I'm already sick of the presidential race and the republicans don't even have a nominee.... :mad:

[RBIngraham]

I think you are reading much more into my comments than what is there. Or at least more than what I intended anyway. I just thought that was an interesting point and to me at least there is a small conflict of interest that doesn't make him completely neutral in my opinion. I don't remember ever dismissing his article?

It is a good article and I agree with it for the most part. Not sure why pointing out something means I think the entire thing should be dismissed?

Things are not so black or white to me.... sorry, I don't believe in absolutes like you're either with us or against us....:)

[Craig Allen]

I mis-understood your original position as the wine and beer comment made it sound more like you were dismissing the article due to who the author was. No big deal.

[tomasino]

All a reasonably good review of the issue.. n' one I actually haven't revisited in a long while. Doesn't really seem like much has changed.
So good to know.

N' IIRC SawStudio can handle 'em all on the same track!

Also, I finally used the Google to get more background on Neil Youngs' position ..n' it sounds like it's really just a Blu-Ray thing...because it can.

[jcgriggs]

Well - if you want to talk about bias on this issue, look no further than Mr. Young. He bought heavily into digital tape, very early on, for Broken Arrow (his private studio) and was less than happy with the result. He's been vocal about the issue ever since. Initially he rejected digital audio out right (there are a couple of rants about it in the biography "Shakey" - which I highly recommend, even if you're not a fan of Neil Young's music, 'cause he's an interesting character and the book is well written) - it's only in the last while that he's allowed that higher resolutions are better.

BTW, I'm a fan of Mr. Young - I just think he's got a bit of an ax to grind when it comes to digital audio and therefore his pronouncements on the topic should be taken with a grain of salt.

My $0.02 (Canadian Tire),
John

[RBIngraham]

His book should be called, "just keep on whining and complainin..."

Sorry, never did get very excited about most of his solo work.

[jcgriggs]

Boy, you are just a ray of sunshine, aren't you? :D

[RBIngraham]

Boy, you are just a ray of sunshine, aren't you? :D


You know it

[Bill Park]

So some years ago there was a dustup between Lavry and Mytek. Dan says there is no reason to sample higher than 60, while Michal was supporting 96. I was in Micheal Wageners place outside of Nashville. The room was full of famous people known throughout the industry: designers, engineers, etc. And George Massenburg asked a very pertinent question: (and I'm paraphrasing. It was years ago. I'm not going to remember word for word.)"Okay, if we aren't hearing what we think that we are hearing, then what is it that we are hearing? Because too many reputable people are hearing it for us to discount it." Which ever side of the discussion you end up supporting, that question deserves an answer.

I think that it is fairly academic, as only a handful of people want high def audio, and an even smaller handful have the system to support it.

This has been brought home to me in a meaningful way. I recently moved to a smaller home. Not that long ago I retired. I am used to hearing music on a fabulous system in the well treated studio, and in my decent surround system in my 'great room'. Now I have a small converted den for a music writing room (which will never be a proper studio no matter what I do...) and a living room designed for views of the pool and lake rather than audio.

I can't accurately set up a surround system in the living room. I've been through three sets of monitors trying to get a coherent sound in the den. I've got a Real Traps room kit, and I've gotten an amazing boost from the new ATC SCM-25A monitors... but it will still never sound like my studio.

So I know what good audio sounds like, and I miss it. But trying to convince someone who has never heard it that there is value there... that is definitely trying to teach a pig to dance.

[tomasino]

Great story.. :)

N' happy retirement to you!
I hope there's a hound dog involved.

[Bill Park]

Great story.. :)

N' happy retirement to you!
I hope there's a hound dog involved.

Thanks for the good thoughts.

There -was- a dog involved. We got a pure-bred yellow lab puppy. But we could not keep it. First, there is a big old alligator in our lake. He started hanging out near my shoreline, trying to get the dog. This could lead to him grabbing the Rock'N'Roll GirlFriend, who likes to hang out by the water and might be easy to sneak up upon. And we discovered that we are retired... we don't want to have to hang around the house with the dog, or run home after a short time to let the dog out... we want to go and do and see and play, and that is what we are doing. We passed the dog off to a fellow with more dogs and kids, and though we miss our dog a lot, he probably has a better home where he is now than he would have had with us.

file:///C:/Users/Bill/Pictures/2010%20pictures/Willy/W08-18-2010/w08-18-2010lores/PICT0818s.JPG

[RBIngraham]

Now I have a small converted den for a music writing room (which will never be a proper studio no matter what I do...) and a living room designed for views of the pool and lake rather than audio.



What a drag.... I feel so bad for you... :p

Although I'll pass on the alligator thanks! and the humidity as well.... come to think of it... I'll stick to my beach club on one of the largest bodies of fresh water on the planet... snow and all... :)

[Dave Labrecque]

Boy, you are just a ray of sunshine, aren't you? :D

LOL! :p

[RBIngraham]

Not sure what happened to this post from Dave:

---Quote (Originally by RBIngraham)---
It's just like me saying that I like SFX over some of it's competitors and here is why.... blah,blah, blah.....
---End Quote---
Actually, you said you were impartial. Methinks you just argued against yourself. ;)


End of previous post...

But that was my point. Even if I say I am being impartial, when I express an opinion about audio playback and/or show control software I am going to be at least a little bit biased, because I consulted on the creation of a couple different pieces of software over the years.

[Dave Labrecque]

Not sure what happened to this post from Dave:

---Quote (Originally by RBIngraham)---
It's just like me saying that I like SFX over some of it's competitors and here is why.... blah,blah, blah.....
---End Quote---
Actually, you said you were impartial. Methinks you just argued against yourself. ;)


End of previous post...

But that was my point. Even if I say I am being impartial, when I express an opinion about audio playback and/or show control software I am going to be at least a little bit biased, because I consulted on the creation of a couple different pieces of software over the years.

Dave deleted his post because he realized after the fact that he'd mis-read what you'd said. There were too many negatives in a sentence for my feeble brain to follow. Turns out you weren't contradicting yourself at all. :o I don't think you ever claimed impartiality, though I thought you had.