Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: 24bit/96kHz playback (Read 26157 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

24bit/96kHz playback

Reply #25 –
Quote from: andy o on
I've been reading all this for years, and there is still some stuff (which usually require maths understanding) that I have to take on authority from the likes of some of you people.


Many of the statements you see around here about "It doesn't make a difference" can be clarified if you do your own DBTs using software-based ABX comparators like the one in Foobar.

24bit/96kHz playback

Reply #26 –
OBVIOUSLY 24 bit is better.  You know, for those situations where you need your sound to sound perfectly fine, and then have something else sound fine SIXTY FOUR TIMES LOUDER right next to it (arguably up to 255 times louder).

Hypothetical question, does it make sense that a 24Bit audio interface could sound better than a 16bit one in real-time mixing environments with lots of voices (like in video games?), or is most mixing done at a better than 16bit process regardless of the DAC?

24bit/96kHz playback

Reply #27 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Quote from: ohfour238 on
i play the FLAC files through Foobar2000 which recognizes they're 96000 hz and 3000+ kbps, but i really don't notice any difference in quality compared to having it set to 16 bit and 44100/48000 hz.  so i was wondering if 1)  i have the right equipment to properly play these files and 2) will the difference even be noticeable?


(1) Sounds like you do have things set up right.

(2) In general there are no audible differences or benefits due to the use of audio delivery formats above 16/44.  16/44 is actually an overkill format. If you chose 12/28 as your baseline format, then 16/44 might sound somewhat different and/or a little better.


?No way! 8bit ROCKS!!!! I don't need more than 10kHz either. Come on, get real! 16bit is overkill mate.......

24bit/96kHz playback

Reply #28 –
Quote from: doctorcilantro on
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Quote from: ohfour238 on
i play the FLAC files through Foobar2000 which recognizes they're 96000 hz and 3000+ kbps, but i really don't notice any difference in quality compared to having it set to 16 bit and 44100/48000 hz.  so i was wondering if 1)  i have the right equipment to properly play these files and 2) will the difference even be noticeable?


(1) Sounds like you do have things set up right.

(2) In general there are no audible differences or benefits due to the use of audio delivery formats above 16/44.  16/44 is actually an overkill format. If you chose 12/28 as your baseline format, then 16/44 might sound somewhat different and/or a little better.


?No way! 8bit ROCKS!!!! I don't need more than 10kHz either. Come on, get real! 16bit is overkill mate.......

what the hell are you talking?

24bit/96kHz playback

Reply #29 –
Someone is having an early christmas drink.

24bit/96kHz playback

Reply #30 –
Quote from: krabapple on
Quote from: Wombat on
Unfortunately the rumour about 24bit or high resolution material is superior to 16/44.1 in every respect has spreaded all over.
On many places you can read how much better the 24bit version sounds be it a DVD rip, a HD download or somewhere else sourced from.



Like this place , for example:

www.hdtracks.com  (David Chesky's new venture)

Quote
Q: Will I really hear the difference between the various formats?
A: You should hear a substantial difference when listening to the music on a home stereo. The music will sound cleaner, the bass will be tighter and you will notice a higher definition in all the instruments.
\

Is that a promise, Mr. Chesky? 


I never even checked this site out before. Over-the-top "promises" aside: I for one can appreciate an online source that sells lossless. Seems like a crappy selection by my standards and preferences though. I did see some Buckethead on there that I'd consider purchasing for the reasonable price here.

Is everything on here 24-bit or is some 16-bit as well? I can't tell...

I just read this crap about AIFF being superior in audio quality to FLAC.  It seems evident you just can't have a good thing without the audiophoolery to go along with it 
The Loudness War is over. Now it's a hopeless occupation.

24bit/96kHz playback

Reply #31 –
Quote from: SCOTU on
OBVIOUSLY 24 bit is better.  You know, for those situations where you need your sound to sound perfectly fine, and then have something else sound fine SIXTY FOUR TIMES LOUDER right next to it (arguably up to 255 times louder).


Obviously also, n bits are better than m with n > m, if you use the (n-m) plus bites to reduce quantisation error, but in real world applications I really don't think someone could ABX from a (24-16) bit linear quantisation noise.
... I live by long distance.

24bit/96kHz playback

Reply #32 –
Quote from: Engelsstaub on
I just read this crap about AIFF being superior in audio quality to FLAC.


I don't see that stated. About FLAC, it says "FLAC files are lossless, there is no quality loss", which is a more explicit quality statement than about AIFF. The article screws up the "compression" term though -- I'm making a guess that this error comes from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_Interchange_File_Format
 

24bit/96kHz playback

Reply #33 –
Check the description of AIFF with emphasis on the latter-half:

"Even though compression shrinks the file into a smaller size, therefore allowing for faster streaming, and less space being taken up on your hard disk, compression slightly affects the sound quality of the file. Compression eliminates certain parts of songs that are outside the normal hearing range of a human being, and therefore unidentifiable by the listener. However, some people can distinguish between compressed and uncompressed files even on cheap stereo systems, while others cannot tell the difference."

There's no qualification or distinction here between lossless and lossy compression. It states that compression "slightly effects the sound quality of the file." Compare that to the description of MP3: "MP3 files are compressed therefore eliminating any sounds that are outside the normal range of a human’s hearing ability." Pretty confusing or just contradictory nonsense?

Let me correct my statement to read "this crap about AIFF being superior to compressed formats (which include lossless codecs other than FLAC.) ...and I don't even know what they're talking about anymore by the time I get down to the MP3-description."

The Loudness War is over. Now it's a hopeless occupation.

24bit/96kHz playback

Reply #34 –
Quote from: SCOTU on
OBVIOUSLY 24 bit is better.  You know, for those situations where you need your sound to sound perfectly fine, and then have something else sound fine SIXTY FOUR TIMES LOUDER right next to it (arguably up to 255 times louder).


Not true. An obvious TOS 8 violation.

Quote
Hypothetical question, does it make sense that a 24Bit audio interface could sound better than a 16bit one in real-time mixing environments with lots of voices (like in video games?), or is most mixing done at a better than 16bit process regardless of the DAC?


Not true. Another obvious TOS 8 violation.

24bit/96kHz playback

Reply #35 –
Quote from: SCOTU on
Hypothetical question, does it make sense that a 24Bit audio interface could sound better than a 16bit one in real-time mixing environments with lots of voices (like in video games?), or is most mixing done at a better than 16bit process regardless of the DAC?


I think this a fair and interesting question, though the wording is problematic.  To reword the question, does the DAC facilitate the mixing of sounds in video games?  No, it doesn't.  There must be a final "mix" going into the DAC, and there doesn't seem to be evidence that output from a 24 bit input stream is going to sound different than the output from a 16 bit input stream.  This is what we're saying about audio in general, so it would apply to video games.

I don't know how video game audio is mixed, but I would like to know.  I would like to know what format the audio files are in.  Are they lossy?  Are they loaded into memory to facilitate close to realtime audio effects?

24bit/96kHz playback

Reply #36 –
Depending on the hardware and software that one has, mixing may be a software process, or a hardware process. Soundblaster AWE32/64, Live, Audigy and X-FI have all them had the ability to mix voices in hardware.
This hardware mixing was made available to games if they used DirectX (EAX and all those standards are APIS that may be implemented in software or in hardware). Also, this hardware mixing was also offered for MIDI playback, with the combination of soundfonts.
This is why, sometimes, you can find soundcard benchmarks for videogames.

The mixing is, of course, handled by a dedicated chip, with its own characteristics. ( the EMU10Kx and EMU20Kx chips ). It can be as good or as bad as any software mixing solution.

Some soundcards needed audio to be in the soundcard's memory, while others have had the ability to access the main computer memory (Just like Graphics cards have internal memory but can use a lot of bandwidth between the main computer memory and the card). Generally, it's a compromise depending on amount of dedicated memory, bus bandwidth allocation, desired latency and dynamism of the signal (i.e. how much it changes during the game).
Said that, music is usually just streamed aside of the game sounds. And both things have used compressed (lossy) formats for a long time. Not a necessity itself, but a way to pack more audio in the disc.

24bit/96kHz playback

Reply #37 –
Quote from: Engelsstaub on
Check the description of AIFF with emphasis on the latter-half:

SNIP

There's no qualification or distinction here between lossless and lossy compression. It states that compression "slightly effects the sound quality of the file." Compare that to the description of MP3: "MP3 files are compressed therefore eliminating any sounds that are outside the normal range of a human’s hearing ability." Pretty confusing or just contradictory nonsense?


True, but as I read it they're guilty of sloppy writing rather than believing in woo. I would guess that they first made the contrast between AIFF and MP3, and then remembered they had to put in FLAC, and didn't rewrite. They do better at https://www.hdtracks.com/index.php?file=sta...e=highdef_music

Of course, doubtless many of their customers believe in woo, so they won't work too hard to disabuse them, and I'm not sure what virtue could even be supposed to exist in releasing a 1975 live recording (Jarrett's Koeln Concert) in 24/96, but they wouldn't be the only outfit who do good work whilst having strange superstitions. Another example is MA Recordings; I have a few of their disks, and they are beautiful, but they believe in silver interconnects, and one of my disks was part of an audiophile edition that used a green carbonate substrate! Doubtless intended to save you the trouble of messing with a magic marker.

24bit/96kHz playback

Reply #38 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Quote from: SCOTU on
OBVIOUSLY 24 bit is better.  You know, for those situations where you need your sound to sound perfectly fine, and then have something else sound fine SIXTY FOUR TIMES LOUDER right next to it (arguably up to 255 times louder).

Not true. An obvious TOS 8 violation.

This would depend on the manner in which "better" is defined.

24bit/96kHz playback

Reply #39 –
Quote from: Engelsstaub on
Let me correct my statement to read "this crap about AIFF being superior to compressed formats (which include lossless codecs other than FLAC.) [...]


Well I think the appropriate correction is "this crap about what 'compressed' means".

24bit/96kHz playback

Reply #40 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Quote
Hypothetical question, does it make sense that a 24Bit audio interface could sound better than a 16bit one in real-time mixing environments with lots of voices (like in video games?), or is most mixing done at a better than 16bit process regardless of the DAC?


Not true. Another obvious TOS 8 violation.


Is it 'obvious' -- or even anything close to true -- that a question (phrased as such, not as a rhetorical question, but as a "Hypothetical question") is what the TOS refers to as a "statement"?

24bit/96kHz playback

Reply #42 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Quote from: SCOTU on
OBVIOUSLY 24 bit is better.  You know, for those situations where you need your sound to sound perfectly fine, and then have something else sound fine SIXTY FOUR TIMES LOUDER right next to it (arguably up to 255 times louder).


Not true. An obvious TOS 8 violation.


An obvious disrespect for picking up internet sarcasm set off by noobish language, over-emphatic capitalization and describing situations that never occur (especially in a loudness war driven marketplace) and aren't even that helpful anyways.  Please cool your jets and don't overreact to jokes meant to make a bit of humor out of this topic that's been beaten to death over and over.

Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Quote
Hypothetical question, does it make sense that a 24Bit audio interface could sound better than a 16bit one in real-time mixing environments with lots of voices (like in video games?), or is most mixing done at a better than 16bit process regardless of the DAC?


Not true. Another obvious TOS 8 violation.


I don't see how a question can possibly even be a TOS 8 violation, have you read the TOS lately?  I double checked, as I try to adhere to them that maybe I overlooked something.  In fact, the only thing that TOS 8 could apply to here is a response to my question that's very direct and un- or improperly supported.  Please try to think of helpful responses instead of jumping to blatantly invalid claims of TOS violations.

Quote from: LocrianGroove on
Quote from: SCOTU on
Hypothetical question, does it make sense that a 24Bit audio interface could sound better than a 16bit one in real-time mixing environments with lots of voices (like in video games?), or is most mixing done at a better than 16bit process regardless of the DAC?


I think this a fair and interesting question, though the wording is problematic.  To reword the question, does the DAC facilitate the mixing of sounds in video games?  No, it doesn't.  There must be a final "mix" going into the DAC, and there doesn't seem to be evidence that output from a 24 bit input stream is going to sound different than the output from a 16 bit input stream.  This is what we're saying about audio in general, so it would apply to video games.

I don't know how video game audio is mixed, but I would like to know.  I would like to know what format the audio files are in.  Are they lossy?  Are they loaded into memory to facilitate close to realtime audio effects?



Perhaps my wording was a bit off, I'll try to correct that to clarify the issue.  This is of interest to me because I'm about to get a BSE in Computer Science and go into the Game Development field.  I don't intend to contest any difference between sending a 24-bit mixed signal to the DAC and a 24-bit mixed signal downsampled(? not sure on the right term for this) to 16-bit sent to the same DAC.  What I was mostly interested in is that if using a 16-bit buffer as the mixing target has ever been shown to be worse than using a 24-bit one when mixing many samples.  It's my understanding that these mixings are done in place one at a time, accumulated one at a time (pre-dividing the amplitude or worse).  If you had a large number of voices being mixed (say, 64 to 127), this represents a a pre-division factor of 7 bits out of your 16, meaning all samples get downsampled(?) to 11 bits at most, assuming there's no HDR processing like is new in visuals.  Then you add a ton of these lower depthed samples together to get your completed 16-bit buffer.  My question is basically two part: 1) is how this mixing is done fundamentally different from how I guessed thus avoiding any potential problems? or 2) Is there any evidence that indicates that using a 24-bit buffer to mix into sounds any better (since all the signals should still have a pretty wide bit depth after pre-division)?

To answer answer your question about formats: game sound effects are frequently lossless, but don't have to be.  More than a decade ago it wouldn't be too uncommon for games to have completely lossless sound tracks, sometimes even being written to the disk as an audio cd playable in a cd player alongside the game.  This doesn't happen anymore, music is almost always compressed because games frequently have huge OSTs these days.  As for the formats: if a game uses DirectX for its audio, it likely uses ADPCM or a computationally cheaper version of WMA (xWMA).  If the game uses OpenAL for its audio, it most likely uses vorbis audio files.  MP3 is common in a lot of systems too as DirectX, OpenAL, and many of the other lesser used platforms either support it directly or allow custom format importing.  If you're looking at a console game, each console has only a few types of audio codecs it can give hardware support for decoding and games tend to use those.

24bit/96kHz playback

Reply #43 –
Quote from: SCOTU on
Hypothetical question, does it make sense that a 24Bit audio interface could sound better than a 16bit one in real-time mixing environments with lots of voices (like in video games?), or is most mixing done at a better than 16bit process regardless of the DAC?


There's nothing magic or special about mixing a lot of voices. Consider a choir.

All sounds are composed of the summation of a large number of enveloped sine waves.  It is possible to determine which combinations of waves are the most difficult to process without adding soloration and spurious responses. Once you have a system that processes the most difficult situations well, the rest is well, easier.

24bit/96kHz playback

Reply #44 –
I think he meant about noise adding up like when you do lower bit depth consecutive edits.

24bit/96kHz playback

Reply #45 –
Quote from: SCOTU on
What I was mostly interested in is that if using a 16-bit buffer as the mixing target has ever been shown to be worse than using a 24-bit one when mixing many samples.


I believe that I mentioned in an earlier post that > 16 bit samples and > 16 bit processing have and commonly obtain a legitimate place in certain audio production processes.  Mixing is one of them. Mixing is often done using floating point arithmetic that commonly involves a 24 bit mantissa. Fixed point mixing usually involves 24 bit integers that are accumulated in 48 bit accumulators.

Quote
It's my understanding that these mixings are done in place one at a time, accumulated one at a time (pre-dividing the amplitude or worse).  If you had a large number of voices being mixed (say, 64 to 127), this represents a a pre-division factor of 7 bits out of your 16, meaning all samples get downsampled(?) to 11 bits at most, assuming there's no HDR processing like is new in visuals.  Then you add a ton of these lower depthed samples together to get your completed 16-bit buffer.


First off, each one of your pre-divisions should be properly dithered.  Whether you dither the pre-divisions or not,  Your problem is that 7 bit audio has approximately 42 dB dynamic range. Assuming that the sources are uncorrelated and the dithering is uncorrelated then the sum of 2 sources with 42 dB dynamic range is a signal that has only 42 dB dynamic range. Both the signals and the noises add geometrically so their ratio remains the same. If there is an audible problem, then the problem would be a poor noise floor. But the psychoacoustic impact of that noise floor is not obvious for me to analyze.

I think that you ought to do an experiment using real world voices, etc. Do it once with a 16 bit accumulator, and do it again with a far larger (e.g. 24 of 32 bit) accumulator.  Matching levels and time-sync hing the files, do your own ABX tests.  If you are competent with the tools that are used to do this kind of production, you should be able to get a result within a day or less.

You seem to be unsure about exactly what is happening with the software that you are using today.  You should clear that up. Speculation based on speculation is garbage.



Quote
My question is basically two part: 1) is how this mixing is done fundamentally different from how I guessed thus avoiding any potential problems?


You just said an evil word - guessed. If you don't know how to ask a relevant question you should first sort that out.

Quote
or 2) Is there any evidence that indicates that using a 24-bit buffer to mix into sounds any better (since all the signals should still have a pretty wide bit depth after pre-division)?


Most of the software and hardware tools for mixing that I am aware of  use either 32 bit floating point or 32 bit (or larger) fixed point buffers to mix in.  You do know that the conputer accumulators that are used to do math with 16 bit operands are generally 32 bits long, right?