AudioAficionado.org - What The Matrix can teach us about “resolution” in digital audio

AudioAficionado.org (https://www.audioaficionado.org/index.php)

- General Audio Discussion (https://www.audioaficionado.org/forumdisplay.php?f=54)

- - What The Matrix can teach us about “resolution” in digital audio (https://www.audioaficionado.org/showthread.php?t=19460)

Quote:

Originally Posted by o0OBillO0o (Post 692955)

Another one..

Why (Almost) Everything You Thought You Knew About Bit Depth Is Probably Wrong | SonicScoop - Creative, Technical & Business Connections For NYC

Yes, another article that sports the same jist as the one in the OP. But, it did have this interesting paragraph included:

Quote:

To give a proper explanation of the mechanics of just how the relationship between bit depth and noise floor works (and why the term “resolution” is both technically correct and so endlessly misleading for so many people) would be beyond the scope of this article. It requires equations, charts, and quite possibly, more intelligence than I can muster.

It appears that this is another link you've provided that contradicts the link in the OP. Specifically, this thread is based on learnings from The Matrix, and that there is no resolution. This latest link states plainly that resolution is indeed technically correct (and thus implies it exists).

I get that because the concept of resolution is "so endlessly misleading for so many people" that such articles must be written. The first article goes so far as to spread misinformation to make its point. Is this the sort of article we should parade about as being 'good clean thinking'?

Quote:

Originally Posted by House de Kris (Post 693013)

It seems to me that you are now changing the intent of the thread from discussing merits of the carrier (an objective discussion) to what sounds best to the listener (a subjective discussion). I believe these to be two independent and unrelated topics. I'm not sure anyone has suggested that what sounds best to someone can be determined by the number of bits or the number of samples per second.

I believe the industry will continue to offer new options as time goes on. Just as I believe the buying public has the right to ignore such options, or to embrace them. No one's got a gun to their head here.

@Kris.. there is always a "So What?" What does this mean to us?-Which is subjective, but worth discussion because both objective and subject are important. The other statement is "Who cares?" -it's not sarcasm it's something to ask every time there is some concept of polarization.

Case in point. Your subjective answer here (below). Side note:So if you're not poking the bear here, then please help this discussion by going back to "objective."

Quote:

Originally Posted by House de Kris (Post 692249)

Contrary to your beliefs, I don't feel that noise is part of the art of music. I can listen to live music, and noise of the venue is part of the package, that's a given. But, noise of the venue is not necessarily part of the art. When listening to a symphony and a large truck drives by the hall, I don't consider that part of the art. I consider that an unfortunate accident. Likewise, when that performance is recorded, any additional noise added to the performance is not part of the art. It, again, is an unfortunate accident. Noisey mic preamps, noisey random particles on tape, surface noise in grooves, quantization noise in digitization, noise in amplifiers driving speakers, noise from my neighbor's lawn mower when listening all come after the fact of creating the art and not part of the the art of music at all - in my opinion.

Oh, and all of these noises after the fact reduce the resolution.

That's a great opinion. I am sure if we could control everything there would be no need for discussion anywhere here on the forum.

See Beck's Morning Phase for a album where the artist purposely puts noise in the recording.

Quote:

Originally Posted by House de Kris (Post 693015)

Yes, another article that sports the same jist as the one in the OP. But, it did have this interesting paragraph included:

It appears that this is another link you've provided that contradicts the link in the OP. Specifically, this thread is based on learnings from The Matrix, and that there is no resolution. This latest link states plainly that resolution is indeed technically correct (and thus implies it exists).

I get that because the concept of resolution is "so endlessly misleading for so many people" that such articles must be written. The first article goes so far as to spread misinformation to make its point. Is this the sort of article we should parade about as being 'good clean thinking'?

This is getting ridiculous. ^^ I am done here.

Whoa, hold on. It was not my intent to annoy or piss-off you or anyone. My only issue with the first article of this thread was the author's proclomation that there is no resolution. Further links seem to support the notion that resolution does indeed exist. If my harping on the existance of resolution is what you find ridiculous, then I'm sorry and I should be the one that is done here. Really, didn't mean to annoy you. Please continue.

Quote:

Originally Posted by o0OBillO0o (Post 466888)

http://alltheragefaces.com/img/userc...733ac25cce.png

I dig the photo. New Avatar? LOL

Quote:

Originally Posted by Still-One (Post 464429)

Everyone has their own perspective and many times it is colored by ones business relationships.

I love the interview of Mark Waldrep, President of AIX Records in the April 13 issue of The Absolute Sound.

"I've been advocating for a clear distinction between standard definition and high-definition audio for years. There continues to be a lot of confusion regarding what is and isn't an HD track. Analog tape is a standard definition format, plain and simple. The same holds for vinyl. Lovers of these formats have every right to enjoy the particular flavor of sound that they produce but that doesn't change the fundamental specifications. They are simply not HD audio any more than 8mm movies from the 1950's are HD video. When an author writes that a particular recording is almost as good as "analog" , it perpetuates the myth that analog is the ultimate goal. It is frustrating that labels, mastering engineers, and consumers are not given the opportunity to hear what artists and engineers/producers create in the studio. .........................Thankfully for audiophiles and music lovers, improvements in recording didn;t end with analog tape and vinyl despite the resurgence of those formats."

Amen

Jim, thanks for posting this. This is an easy read and makes total sense - I didn't have look up words in the dictionary! I'm still learning from all of you, so these posts are of enormous help to a beginner such as myself.

Quote:

Originally Posted by o0OBillO0o (Post 464447)

...robot band/orchestra/ensemble with real instruments . :laughin:

:laughin: :laughin: :laughin: :laughin: :laughin: :laughin: :laughin:

Very interesting discussion of dither. Thanks.

Of course there is resolution. The "noise" that is being referred when using a lower
bit conversion is actually errors, i.e. assigning more sound samples to one byte
(in the case of a ADC). That is why a four bit ADC will be a poor sounding ADC.
When getting back that signal back to analog with a (4-bit) DAC, that byte is fixed
so it will map to one sound and one sound only. You won't find the degree
of variations (a tiny little more amplitude of the same tone for example) and thus
it'll sound like an approximation of the real sound.

The more bits you have the less "errors", again called noise, so you get a greater
ratio between the real signal and the difference between the original and the converted
one, this is the SNR. The bigger the SNR the better. That is why many new digital
recordings are going directly to multi-track DSD -- all channels with the highest
resolution and sampling frequency that exists today.

Why are CDs 16-bits only? Partly because of the technology at the time when
the format started and partly because I don't think it was perceived that more
was needed at the time. There is also the physical media limits. The sampling
frequency was defined by Nyquist, so combining all these was believed to be sufficient.

Below is an excellent example of what dithering can do to reduce quantization noise.
Yes, it is a form of noise, but works extremely well. Even in mechanical systems*.

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8308/7...ee0f79730f.jpg

*Wikipedia - nice example of early dither -
"…[O]ne of the earliest [applications] of dither came in World War II. Airplane bombers used mechanical computers to perform navigation and bomb trajectory calculations. Curiously, these computers (boxes filled with hundreds of gears and cogs) performed more accurately when flying on board the aircraft, and less well on ground. Engineers realized that the vibration from the aircraft reduced the error from sticky moving parts. Instead of moving in short jerks, they moved more continuously. Small vibrating motors were built into the computers, and their vibration was called dither from the Middle English verb "didderen," meaning "to tremble." Today, when you tap a mechanical meter to increase its accuracy, you are applying dither, and modern dictionaries define dither as a highly nervous, confused, or agitated state. In minute quantities, dither successfully makes a digitization system a little more analog in the good sense of the word."

— Ken Pohlmann, Principles of Digital Audio[1]