What The Matrix can teach us about “resolution” in digital audio

[ellisr63]

Very interesting read... It completely changes what I had thought was true from previous reads. Thank you for posting it.

[o0OBillO0o]

Also you can read the articles Mark Waldrep publishes. He is truly a character in the industry.

Dr. AIX’s POSTS | Real HD-Audio

and

the original Ian Shepherd newsletters can be subscribed or viewed here

Free Production Advice !

They've even crossed swords a few times.. seen here

Loudness and Normalization | Real HD-Audio

and.. in my opinion, the guy who just knocks it out of the park and makes real HD recordings.

Bob Ludwig
Gateway Mastering & DVD

[Mr_Sukebe]

I did think the walkthrough on the playback of the square wave was a particularly interesting point, i.e. that it tries to convert that into sine waves too, and clearly doesn't do a perfect job.
Back to music, I struggle to believe that real music (which tends to be very complex) is nice and easily seen sine waves. Rather, I'm assuming that it's a combination of sine waves. Implications being that the DAC won't have an nice and easily produced sine wave to playback. So when it tries to draw those little sine waves to describe a complex combination of input signals, doesn't that mean that the higher sampling rate WILL be more accurate?

[o0OBillO0o]

You a read more about dither through the software that Ian Shepherd was using. They even published a guide for all to read.

https://www.izotope.com/en/support/s...guides/ozone-6

[House de Kris]

I checked this thread out because I'm a fan of The Matrix films. Alas, I don't quite get the point the author of the linked article is trying to make. Is it just that he doesn't want us to use the word "resolution" any more? Or, at least not in his presence? I admit I am a bit thick with grasping the intent of others sometimes, but I really just don't get it. While his supporting arguments are pretty weak, I do get the technical points he's attempting to make. It just seems like this is another pedestrian attempt to change the long standing definitions of terms used to convey ideas. Then again, like I said, I don't get his point.

[o0OBillO0o]

Can you spell out for us what you think the point is? (I want to answer, your response is sorta vague to me..)

What are the arguments/points that are controversial to you?

[House de Kris]

I believe the attempted point being made is that redbook distribution of music is good enough, and that these new-fangled hi-res downloads are nothing more than a thinly veiled ploy to separate the buying public from more of its money. Am I anywhere close to your interpretation of the article? I am not necessarily disagreeing with this premise at all.

His hand-in-front-of-the-face example seemed rather bizzare at best, to me. With the staionary hand's fingers blocking out some of the light, he states, "this is sampling." Mmmkay, fair enough, I'll play along in spite of my inability to see this as sampling. Continuing on, he then describes playing back these samples of visible image, and proclaims this to be quantizing. Quantizing and sampling are two different things. You can have sampling without quantizing, but it makes little sense to quantize without sampling.

Ignoring the silly examples, the controversial point, to me, is the claim that there is no such thing as resolution. Let's say we have File A, which is a 16-bit PCM file. And, File B, which is a 24-bit PCM file. If we are forbidden from using the word resolution, because "there is no resolution," how do we differentiate between them? "File A and File B are the same, I just don't know why File B is 50% bigger in size than File A." Or, for another example, let's say Device A is an 8-bit DAC, Device B is a 12-bit DAC, Device C is a 16-bit DAC, and Device D is a 24-bit DAC. Without the word resolution, all these DACs are the same? Should they be making CD players with 8-bit DACs because it has the same resolution as a 16-bit (and for that matter, a 24-bit) DAC? Why stop there? A 4-bit DAC has all the resolution that you'll find in a 24-bit DAC. Heck 2-bit PCM has exactly the same resolution as 24-bit PCM - because there is no resolution. If the goal is to come up with silly examples, I can swim with the best of them.

My point is that there is such a thing as resolution, and that's what I'm having difficulty in understanding the author's point, since he seems to go to great lengths to try and convince us that there is no resolution.

[o0OBillO0o]

Audio bit depth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Read that..

[Formerly YB-2]

My wife likes digital. Nuff said.

[House de Kris]

Thanks for the Wiki link. I read through it, and it seems like a good synopsis of what goes on in PCM. Couldn't help but notice it (the Wiki article) is filled with that taboo term of resolution. This seems to directly contradict the claim in the linked article which is the basis of this sticky thread.

So, is resolution real, or is there no resolutuion?