Why are we not releasing 24 bit audio files yet?

We are releasing 24-bit audio, just not on CDs. That's necessary to retain backward compatibility with millions of existing disks and players.

A totally separate topic is whether or not we actually need 24-bit audio at the consumer level. I don't believe we do.

bitflipper


We are releasing 24-bit audio, just not on CDs. That's necessary to retain backward compatibility with millions of existing disks and players.

A totally separate topic is whether or not we actually need 24-bit audio at the consumer level. I don't believe we do.

Bit:
Somewhere there is a presentation George Massenberg did (In New Zealand I think) on 24 bit consumer products - I tried to find a link to post in this message - it's pretty interesting but possibly too late to consider a reality now despite the OP's relevant observations that it could be viable given the state of tech now. 

Found it : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzJbjHc6bRE


-D

10Ten

DonM


Good question - I get this a lot in my classes.  Primarily, playback systems are not prevalent enough to tip the scale.  For instance, In my surrounding neighborhood, no one could play a 24 bit file anywhere in their house with the exception of their laptop or desktop computer - both of which are connected to either $9 plastic speakers or internal speakers - The point is almost no one can play a native 24 bit audio program in consumerland.  Even DVD-A and hi res audio in DVD formats haven't really opened up the market.  

Computers aren't integrated into most people's entertainment environment and the CD can't change.

-D

Regular DVD is 24 bit. Movie soundtracks are generally 24/48. Everyone has one of those and BD has that and the storage size as well. AV receivers also are fully 24 bit capable.

10:
I agree and as you can imagine know that.  My point is that - audio only product developed for DVD is practically non-existant and Hybrid dual layer HD CD's haven't made enough money for any commercial success - Yes - technically it can be done and in fact it isn't.  Physical media stores are gone - stream 24 bit audio to computers - yes technically possible - but not integrated into .01% of the homes where the money is.  I get your point and the OP - but I am saying follow the money it is in low res right now.  


98% of what I do is classical, chamber music, baroque and sacred choral - believe me I could use a 24 bit audience.  I'm not knocking it - I just live in the (lossy) real world right now. 

Edit: I should add, the lossy real world for me is 16/44.1 - so I would love the 24/48 world George is talking about in the video I linked above  


-D

I thin HDTV is capable of 24 bit and up to 192 K rates. But that's the capability...What each set is capable of, or what the stations or progams contain can be from that, downwards.

In consumer products, price is the denominator..When technology advances, most likely the audio quality will also go up.

But it seems to me most of the audio advances in TV are for the surround experience...More speakers and woofers.

What no one except Frank has noted is that 24 bits only buys you a greater dynamic range. That's it. When most commercial records have less than 6db of dynamic range, no one is going to notice if it's 24-bit audio or not. Don't confuse the desirability of 24 bits within your DAW with the needs of consumer playback systems.


Don, that's a great presentation by George M - I've seen it before and it contains some wonderfully brutal truth. He's railed for years against the myth that quality concerns only apply to audiophile genres. I buy into that concept 100%. But he hasn't convinced me yet that moving to a 48KHz standard for all recorded music would result in a noticeable improvement. Or to make people start buying records again. After all, as he stresses himself, the real problem is crappy assembly-line music, much more so than the format.

Because it all end up on youtube anyway and people are happy listening to it that way...  


The majority of them don't actually listen to the music - they dance along, they sing along or over it, they use it to create an ambiance, they talk while listening...  They love to hear the song, not to listen to it. Worst - more often than not they love to hear it again. Popular music is also eminently repetitive, and songs are usually short w/ pointless lyrics and interchangeable verses and choruses - so I guess we appreciate it as such. 


Movies and pictures you have to watch, not just to see (putting all sarcasms aside for a second here), which is why, I think visual medias standard evolve faster - you have to stand still and actually pay attention... The dumbest movie still requires you to follow a certain story line from a to z -you have to focus. Music (pop) doesn't require that much.  People watching movies will ask you to shut up while they're watching. People listening to music usually have the attention span of a goldfish. Compare a rock concert w/ a theatre just for fun...

I don't think the next step will be a matter of physical medium as much as a matter of bandwidth/storage. Make it as available as the lo fi version and people will choose Hi Fi, be it out of principle.... Good news is that, we're (slowly) moving in that direction anyway. 

Seeing what bands like Nine Inch Nails and Radiohead did, I'm actually hoping that sometime soon, audiophiles get access to those mixes as they are heard in the studio, before they get ruined by the poor mastering engineer who's probably been told to just make it louder than the loudest record out there....

24 bit and 32 bit play on windows media player fine for me, it's a matter when all consumer audio/media go 24 bit full stop, then we might have 24bit cd's on the shelf, or downloads of 24 bit audio files from i-tunes or what ever, not that the average joe public really gives a **** about bit depths, at least we can all use it (lol)

Ok cool, got it, still it's time for a revoloution.  I'm starting to like you bitflipper and no not in that way.  I'm sorry to all who think and this maybe is my fault, that i am an electronic troll.  Getting the hang of all this.
I dont know what the solution is but i do know we have to out there and shake the tree so to speak, thats why i come accross as an electronic troll.
 
"Wasn't the last twenty years crap,
let's make the next twenty great"
Viva La Revolution
Sonar Forever, Pro Tools Never
Ben B.CT (Bachelor Of Creative Technology)
http://www.myspace.com/audiomystics

In my humble opinion, increasing the sampling frequency would be better than bit depth. 

I think the problem with this discussion is that it is occurring between people who can hear the difference.  We seem to forgot that the vast majority of the people for whom music is made can't hear it.  The fact is that the most music buyers (the generators of revenue) don't give a toss about sound quality.  I remember when the CD format first arrived in the very early 80s.  Once the small number of audiophiles had paid the big bucks for CD players and prices started to drop, the thing that attracted the consumer market to CDs wasn't sound quality, it was the marketing hype that convinced people that CDs couldn't get scratched the way vinyl could.

Back then, the punters were buying CDs and copying them to cassettes for their cars stereos and Walkmans.  Now, they buy CDs and rip them to low bitrate mp3s.  Either way, they didn't/don't notice the loss of quality.

It's part of the reason why DVD-audio never took off.  The audiophiles sang its praises but the consumer market just couldn't see the point of it.  Why buy a new player when there's no discernible advantage?

Perhaps if DVD players had been DVD-audio compatible it might have taken off by convincing consumers that they wanted their music in surround sound.  But, that didn't happen - as far as I have seen, very few surround DVD video players are compatible with DVD-audio.

Searchfinger

If you can't hear it then it's not worth it. 

As others have pointed out, 24-bit is about dynamic range and even the punters can hear that.  However, others have also pointed out that dynamic range is out of vogue with popular music.


The summary: consumers can't hear most of the differences associated with improving digital resolution and the ones they can hear, they don't want to hear.

If 24-bit audio became the norm for consumer listening, then mixing styles would need to change accordingly.

Yeah, I really hope so. It's a shame that 16 bit CD quality is not really fully utilized nowadays with the heavily compressed mixes.  It would be disheartening if 24 bit CD will become the norm and the music we play on it are all brickwalled,  coz there's really no point.

Heavy limiting to 24-bits is not going to sound any different (better) than heavy limiting to 16-bits.

+1

I'm no expert but I do agree. A bigger file with the same audio quality (squashed as usual).  The listening environment will not change even though 24 bit will be the norm.

pjl

Searchfinger

Heavy limiting to 24-bits is not going to sound any different (better) than heavy limiting to 16-bits.

+1

I'm no expert but I do agree. A bigger file with the same audio quality (squashed as usual).  The listening environment will not change even though 24 bit will be the norm.

People like DonM, who work a lot with orchestral music, may argue this isn't the case for them because dynamic range is appreciated in those genres.  It's certainly true of many (most?) engineers and producers in that area but I wonder if the same is true of the consumers.  I have no idea but I wouldn't be surprised if there were a significant  number of orchestral music consumers who are annoyed about not being able to hear the quiet bits properly.  Just a thought.

Good point!  
 
I mentioned using some compression on a few instruments in a classical piece recorded at my studio and they accused me of ruining their art. Excuse me for trying to make a uniform product! hah

pjl

Searchfinger

Heavy limiting to 24-bits is not going to sound any different (better) than heavy limiting to 16-bits.

+1

I'm no expert but I do agree. A bigger file with the same audio quality (squashed as usual).  The listening environment will not change even though 24 bit will be the norm.

People like DonM, who work a lot with orchestral music, may argue this isn't the case for them because dynamic range is appreciated in those genres.  It's certainly true of many (most?) engineers and producers in that area but I wonder if the same is true of the consumers.  I have no idea but I wouldn't be surprised if there were a significant  number of orchestral music consumers who are annoyed about not being able to hear the quiet bits properly.  Just a thought.

P:


Great post.  I love dynamic range but I am also a realist.  I engineered and participated in the mastering of a chamber ensemble CD last year that was one of the widest crest ratio recordings I've ever done.  Some folks loved it and at least one I know of did not like the wide range for the very reasons you mentioned.  I am one of those old fashioned types that actually listens to a CD all the way through in a dedicated listening room - so I love dynamic range - but as I said I am also a realist.  


As I recall Bob Katz and some others have proven 83db is a wide enough range for most to experience realism - unfortunately audio music recordings do not have realism as a metric.


-D