Taperssection.com

Gear / Technical Help => Playback Forum => Topic started by: sygdwm on June 17, 2005, 03:23:29 AM

Title: article on dithering 24>16 in this months stereophile
Post by: sygdwm on June 17, 2005, 03:23:29 AM

made my head hurt, but some of you guys may be able to "keep it simple stupid" for me. please discuss.

Title: Re: article on dithering 24>16 in this months stereophile
Post by: Daryan on June 17, 2005, 06:56:42 AM

The jist of it to me, was essentially that the dude was able to prove, at least using his measurements and ears, that a simply truncated signal, without sithering, compared to the same waveform, dithered down, sounded better.  That's what i got out of it at least, though I will admit, I haven't yet had time to finish the entire thing.

Daryan

Title: Re: article on dithering 24>16 in this months stereophile
Post by: noahbickart on June 21, 2005, 08:56:37 PM

That's what I got out of it. It seems strage given that all those ad2k+ users out there really seem to prefer one scheme over another.

Perhaps we could do a few listening tests around here. People with 24bit files could upload short samples of truncated vs. UV22 (or whatever)- and we can judge.

-Noah

Title: Re: article on dithering 24>16 in this months stereophile
Post by: MattD on June 21, 2005, 08:58:57 PM

Didn't the dither test webpage also have a truncated version posted to that site for comparison purposes? On that site, MegaBitMax pretty much blew away the competition.

Title: Re: article on dithering 24>16 in this months stereophile
Post by: BobW on June 22, 2005, 12:09:33 AM

I'd be very skeptical of one writer's opinion and I have VERY little faith in his discrimination method.
What he calls "white noise" may VERY well be spatial information taken out of context.

I'd love to hear the audio intelligencia have their way with the article.

Anyone down for writing Mike Grace, Doug Oade, a handful of recording engineers, and the techies at Sony and Apogee ?