Any text file is subject to misinterpreted. I am open for suggestions. I try to be as detailed as possible as you can tell by the super lengthy text file included. At the core of the controversy with the text file and the recording is this..."I did not upsample either source to 24 bit. The multitrack mixdown was done in 24 bit and the 'new source' is now 24 bit". Or some crazy variation, thereof. That's what were are looking into. I don't want to confuse or mislead anyone and I don't think I am.
Thanks for stopping in, Dan. FWIW, I don't feel you were intentionally confusing or misleading, but I do believe the info nonetheless confuses a lot of people. The "no upsampling" comment in particular. I've traditionally seen - mostly in the playback world - the term "upsampling" used to apply to both increasing the sample rate
and/or bit-depth. Thanks to luvean's post, it seems the proper term for changing the bit-depth, either up or down, is dither. I think we all knew about down, but didn't know dither could also apply to upping the bit-depth (though it makes sense now that I think about it). At any rate, my point: the confusion / discussion over converting two 16-bit files to 24-bit has more to do with the general level of knowledge (or lack thereof) around converting 16-bit to 24-bit. End result: good discussion all around!
I've put out all info I have on this and we are trying to see if it is worth it. That what was done and I think we all know that. Better description I can include on the text file anyone??
In hindsight - given how often the playback industry uses "upsampling" to apply to both sample rate and bit-depth - I find the "no upsampling" comment a bit misleading, though obviously not intentionally.
I think that is at the heart of what we are trying to get at, no? That's all I am interested in. At the end of the technobabble rainbow, which sounds better. Right?
It's not gonna hurt my feeling if the debate lends itself to the common consensus that saving, distributing and most importantly listening to this 24 bit version is a waste, or possible worse than the same mixdown at 16 bit. I am very concerned that the extra bit are just noise even if ambient agreeable noise. Are the extra bits desirable, useful, the opposite? I feel like we still don't know. I don't trust my "real world" listening comparison enough and hope someone can do their own. I think we still don't know the answer here and curiosity is tweaked. One thing is true. I can save allot of time, money and bandwidth by staying with 16 bit.
You may be interested in Nick's personal experiences on true 24-bit sources (not upsampled/dithered) v. playback upsampling from 16- to 24-bit:
http://www.taperssection.com/yabbse/index.php?topic=21376.0Unfortunately, I've not yet done any testing myself - either similar to Nick's or comparing your 16-bit v. up-dithered 24-bit - as I haven't entered the 24-bit playback world. One of these days...