>Yes, because that's the only thing 16bit audio applies to, the end listener.
??? They have absolutely no control over it. The decision to dither or not was made before they hear it. My advice is not to them. I get asked questions about dither from the people who do the reduction to 16-bit, not your average music listener. I have another video that explains what dither is and how it works, for the curious, but I get asked for my opinion, so I made this video. (Often, the people who ask already have their own opinion, and want to see if I’m on their side. And often, what follows is a spirited debate about 24-bit dither, not 16-bit.) >Talking about this, in a world where the end listener almost always listens in >lossy encoded formats, the 16bit quantization problem isn't even a shrimp in >the whole universe. Sure, or FM radio in a car on a cheap system. But a mastering engineer isn’t going to factor in the lowest common denominator, any more than a photographer is going to assume that his photo will end up in black and white newsprint, or a movie director will assume that his work is going to be cropped to fit an old tube set and broadcast for pickup on rabbit ears. :-) If you tell a recording or mastering engineer that nobody can hear this stuff, they’ll crank the monitors and say, “you can’t hear THAT crap?” End of story. Of course, they’ll often “hear” it when it isn’t really there too, which is why I showed a more objective way of listening for it. Several people have told me that they can hear it, consistently, on 24-bit truncations. I don’t think so. I read in a forum, where an expert was using some beta software and mentioned the audible difference with engaging 24-bit dither and not via a button on the GUI, and the developer had to tell him that he was mistaken on the function of that button, and that it did not impact audio at all. (I’m not making fun of the guy, and I admire his work, it’s just that anyone who does serious audio work fools themselves into thinking they hear something that is not, occasionally—fact of life.) But at 16-bit, it’s just not that hard to hear it—an edge case, for sure, but it’s there, so they will want to act on it, and I don’t think that’s unreasonable. > On Feb 5, 2015, at 3:15 PM, Didier Dambrin <di...@skynet.be> wrote: > > But the key here is *bits*. If you're listening at normal levels, those parts > in music that "don't use all 16bits" (which is obvious, you can find parts of > all levels in a song) will be quieter, & thus the noise will be less audible. > > Put a sine wave in the lowest 1 or 2 bits of a 16bit piece of audio, it > should be horrible noise, right? If you crank up your volume until you hear > that sinewave, obviously it will. But at normal listening level, are you > really gonna hear that sinewave or worse, its horrible noise? My bet would be > *maybe*, in an anechoic room, after a couple of hours of getting used to > silence. > > >>> he cost is virtual nothing > > I will certainly not disagree with that, it doesn't hurt & costs (almost) > nothing. But it's still snake oil. > > > >>> Our biggest difference is that you are looking at this from the >>> end-listener point of view. > > Yes, because that's the only thing 16bit audio applies to, the end listener. > Ok, apparently some still need to publish 16bit audio files for pro's because > not every tool out there (I guess) supports 24 (& I would still advise > against storing in integer format at all) or 32bit formats - this is most > likely not gonna last very long. > Talking about this, in a world where the end listener almost always listens > in lossy encoded formats, the 16bit quantization problem isn't even a shrimp > in the whole universe. > > > > > > > > -----Message d'origine----- From: Nigel Redmon > Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2015 7:13 PM > To: A discussion list for music-related DSP > Subject: Re: [music-dsp] Dither video and articles > > Music is not typically full scale. My level was arbitrary—where the mixer > knob happened to be sitting—but the note is relatively loud in a musical > setting. > > You don’t get to use all 16 bits, all the time in music. So, to complain that > it might as well be 13-bit…well, if we had 13-bit converters and sample size, > we’d be having this discussion about 10-bit. The bass note is LOUD, compared > to similar bits in actual music, as I’m playing from iTunes right now. > > OK, I’m not trying to convince you—it was obvious that we’d have to agree to > disagree on this. And, as you know, I’m not overstating the importance of > dithering 16-bit audio, as many others do. I’m simply saying that it’s worth > it—the cost is virtual nothing (it’s not even don’t in real time, but just > for the final bounce to disk), doing it doesn’t harm the music in any way (if > you can hear the distortion, I don’t think you’ll hear 16-bit flat dither). > > Our biggest difference is that you are looking at this from the end-listener > point of view. But why would I be giving advice to the listener? They aren’t > the ones making the choice to dither or not. The advice is for people in the > position of dithering. And these people do hear it. If my advice were “Don’t > bother—you can’t hear it anyway”, these people would think I’m an idiot—of > course they can hear it. Their business is to look for junk and grunge and > get rid of it. I can envision Bob Katz, Bob Olson, and Bruce Swedien knocking > at my door, wanting to beat me with a microphone stand and pop screens for > telling them that they can’t hear this stuff. (Just kidding, they seem like > really nice guys.) > > The funny thing is that I’m arguing in favor of 16-bit dither with you, and > having a similar exchange with a mastering engineer, who is sending me > examples of why we really must dither at 24-bit ... > > >> On Feb 5, 2015, at 9:49 AM, Didier Dambrin <di...@skynet.be> wrote: >> >>>> If you mean that the peak loudness of the synth isn’t hitting full scale >> >> Yeah I mean that, since, to compensate, you crank your volume up, making it >> 13bit worth (from 14bit, after your extra -6dB gain) >> >> I mean it's always the same debate with dithering, one could demonstrate >> exactly the same with 8bit worth of audio in a 16bit file. To me a 16bit >> file is 16bit worth of audio, for the whole project, thus with the loudest >> parts of the project designed to be listened to. If the entire project peaks >> at -18dB, then it's not designed to be listened to at the same level as >> other 16bit files, and thus it's not 16bit worth of audio. One could go >> further & store 1 bit worth of audio in a 16bit file and point out how >> degraded it is. >> Quantization & loss is everywhere in a computer (obviously) and magnifying >> it doesn't make a point, because you always can bring the imperceptible back >> to perception. To me it's all about what's perceptible when the project is >> used as intended, otherwise, even 64bit float audio should be marked as >> "lossy". >> >> >>>> I could have had a louder sound with a similar tail that would have >>>> produced the same distortion. >> >> yeah, except that louder sound would have killed your ears, so you would >> have cranked your listening level down, and not heard the noise anymore >> >> >> >> >> >> -----Message d'origine----- From: Nigel Redmon >> Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2015 6:22 PM >> To: A discussion list for music-related DSP >> Subject: Re: [music-dsp] Dither video and articles >> >> Oh, sorry about the 6 dB. I made the 16- and 32-bit versions, then noticed I >> had the gain slider on the DP mixer pushed up. I pulled it back to 0 dB and >> made new bounces, plus the residual and dithered version subsequently, but >> must have grabbed the wrong 32-bit version for upload. >> >> I have no idea what you’re implying about "IMHO this is 13bit worth of audio >> inside a 16bit file”. I took care to have no gain after the truncation >> (except the accidental 6 dB on the 32-bit file). If you mean that the peak >> loudness of the synth isn’t hitting full scale, then, A) welcome to music, >> and B) it’s immaterial—I could have had a louder sound with a similar tail >> that would have produced the same distortion. >> >> I’m not surprised you couldn’t hear it, as I said it required fairly high >> listening levels and I don’t know what your equipment is. It can be heard on >> a professional monitoring system. I’m monitoring off my TASCAM DM-3200, and >> it does not have a loud headphone amp—I can’t hear it there. But it’s right >> on the edge—if I boost it +6 dB I have no problem hearing it. But my >> monitoring speakers get louder than the headphones, so I can hear it there. >> And I know engineers who routinely monitor much louder than my gear can get. >> >> >>> On Feb 5, 2015, at 4:55 AM, Didier Dambrin <di...@skynet.be> wrote: >>> >>> I couldn't hear any difference (through headphones), even after an insane >>> boost, and even though your 16bit truncated wav was 6dB(?) lower than the >>> 32bit wav >>> >>> But even if I could hear it, IMHO this is 13bit worth of audio inside a >>> 16bit file. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Message d'origine----- From: Nigel Redmon >>> Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2015 9:13 AM >>> To: A discussion list for music-related DSP >>> Subject: Re: [music-dsp] Dither video and articles >>> >>> OK, here’s my new piece, I call it Diva bass—to satisfy your request for me >>> to make something with truncation distortion apparent. (If it bother you >>> that my piece is one note, imagine that this is just the last note of a >>> longer piece.) >>> >>> I spent maybe 30 seconds getting the sound—opened Diva (default “minimoog” >>> modules), turn the mixer knobs down except for VCO 1, set range to 32’, >>> waveform to triangle, max release on the VCA envelope. >>> >>> In 32-bit float glory: >>> >>> http://earlevel.com/temp/music-dsp/Diva%20bass%2032-bit%20float.wav >>> >>> Truncated to 16-bit, no dither (Quan Jr plug-in, Digital Performer), saved >>> to 16-bit wave file: >>> >>> http://earlevel.com/temp/music-dsp/Diva%20bass%2016-bit%20truncated.wav >>> >>> You’ll have to turn your sound system up, not insanely loud, but loud. (I >>> said that this would be the case before.) I can hear it, and I know >>> engineers who monitor much louder, routinely, than I’m monitoring to hear >>> this. My Equator Q10s are not terribly high powered, and I’m not adding any >>> other gain ahead of them in order to boost the quiet part. >>> >>> If you want to hear the residual easily (32-bit version inverted, summed >>> with 16-bit truncated, the result with +40 dB gain via Trim plug-in): >>> >>> http://earlevel.com/temp/music-dsp/Diva%20bass%2016-bit%20truncated%20residual%20+40dB.wav >>> >>> I don’t expect the 16-bit truncated version to bother you, but it does >>> bother some audio engineers. Here's 16-bit dithered version, for >>> completeness, so that you can decide if the added noise floor bothers you: >>> >>> http://earlevel.com/temp/music-dsp/Diva%20bass%2016-bit%20dithered.wav >>> >>> >>> >>>> On Feb 4, 2015, at 1:10 PM, Didier Dambrin <di...@skynet.be> wrote: >>>> >>>> Yes, I disagree with the "always". "Not always needed" means "it's >>>> sometimes needed", my point is that it's never needed, until proven >>>> otherwise. Your video proves that sometimes it's not needed, but not that >>>> sometimes it's needed. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Message d'origine----- From: Nigel Redmon >>>> Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2015 6:51 PM >>>> To: A discussion list for music-related DSP >>>> Subject: Re: [music-dsp] Dither video and articles >>>> >>>>> I totally understood the point of your video, that dithering to 16bit >>>>> isn't always needed - but that's what I disagree with. >>>> >>>> Sorry, Didier, I’m confused now. I took from your previous message that >>>> you feel 16-bit doesn’t need to be dithered ("dithering to 16bit will >>>> never make any audible difference”). Here you say that you disagree with >>>> "dithering to 16bit isn't always needed”. In fact, you are saying that >>>> it’s never needed—you disagree because “isn’t always needed” implies that >>>> it is sometimes needed—correct? >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Feb 4, 2015, at 5:06 AM, Didier Dambrin <di...@skynet.be> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>> Then, it’s no-win situation, because I could EASILY manufacture a bit >>>>>>> of music that had significant truncation distortion at 16-bit. >>>>> >>>>> Please do, I would really like to hear it. >>>>> >>>>> I have never heard truncation noise at 16bit, other than by playing with >>>>> levels in a such a way that the peaking parts of the rest of the sound >>>>> would destroy your ears or be very unpleasant at best. (you say 12dB, >>>>> it's already a lot) >>>>> >>>>> I totally understood the point of your video, that dithering to 16bit >>>>> isn't always needed - but that's what I disagree with. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -----Message d'origine----- From: Nigel Redmon >>>>> Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2015 10:59 AM >>>>> To: A discussion list for music-related DSP >>>>> Subject: Re: [music-dsp] Dither video and articles >>>>> >>>>> Hi Didier—You seem to find contradictions in my choices because you are >>>>> making the wrong assumptions about what I’m showing and saying. >>>>> >>>>> First, I’m not steadfast that 16-bit dither is always needed—and in fact >>>>> the point of the video was that I was showing you (the viewers) how you >>>>> can judge it objectively for yourself (and decide whether you want to >>>>> dither). This is a much better way that the usual that I hear from >>>>> people, who often listen to the dithered and non-dithered results, and >>>>> talk about the "soundstage collapsing" without dither, “brittle” versus >>>>> “transparent" , etc. >>>>> >>>>> But if I’m to give you a rule of thumb, a practical bit of advice that >>>>> you can apply without concern that you might be doing something wrong in >>>>> a given circumstance, that advice is “always dither 16-bit reductions”. >>>>> First, I suspect that it’s below the existing noise floor of most music >>>>> (even so, things like slow fades of the master fader might override that, >>>>> for that point in time). Still, it’s not hard to manufacture something >>>>> musical that subject to bad truncation distortion—a naked, low frequency, >>>>> low-haromic-content sound (a synthetic bass or floor tom perhaps). >>>>> Anyway, at worst case, you’ve added white noise that you are unlikely to >>>>> hear—and if you do, so what? If broadband noise below -90 dB were a >>>>> deal-breaker in recorded music, there wouldn’t be any recorded music. >>>>> Yeah, truncation distortion at 16-bits is an edge case, but the cost to >>>>> remove it is almost nothing. >>>>> >>>>> You say that we can’t perceive quantization above 14-bit, but of course >>>>> we can. If you can perceive it at 14-bit in a given circumstance, and >>>>> it’s an extended low-level passage, you can easily raise the volume >>>>> control another 12 dB and be in the same situation at 16-bit. Granted, >>>>> it’s most likely that the recording engineer hears it and not the >>>>> end-listener, but who is this video aimed at if not the recording >>>>> engineer? He’s the one making the choice of whether to dither. >>>>> >>>>> Specifically: >>>>>> ..then why not use a piece of audio that does prove the point, instead? >>>>>> I know why, it's because you can’t... >>>>> >>>>> First, I would have to use my own music (because I don’t own 32-bit float >>>>> versions of other peoples’ music, even if I thought it was fair use to of >>>>> copyrighted material). Then, it’s no-win situation, because I could >>>>> EASILY manufacture a bit of music that had significant truncation >>>>> distortion at 16-bit. I only need to fire up one of my soft synths, and >>>>> ring out some dull bell tones and bass sounds. Then people would accuse >>>>> me of fitting the data to the theory, and this isn’t typical music made >>>>> in a typical high-end study by a professional engineer. And my video >>>>> would be 20 minutes long because I’m not looking at a 40-second bit of >>>>> music any more. Instead, I clearly explained my choice, and it proved to >>>>> be a pretty good one, and probably fairly typical at 16-bit, wouldn’t you >>>>> agree? As I mentioned at the end of the video, the plan is to further >>>>> examine some high-resolution music that a Grammy award-winning engineer >>>>> and producer friend of mine has said he will provide. >>>>> >>>>>> ...and dithering to 16bit will never make any audible difference. >>>>> >>>>> If you mean “never make any audible difference” in the sense that it >>>>> won’t matter one bit to sales or musical enjoyment, I agree. I imagine >>>>> photographers make fixes and color tweaks that will never be noticed in >>>>> the magazine or webpage that the photo will end up in either. But I >>>>> guarantee you, there are lots of audio engineers that will not let that >>>>> practically (using the word in the original “practical" sense–don’t read >>>>> as “almost") un-hearable zipper in the fade go. If they know it’s there, >>>>> and in some cases they CAN actually hear it, with the volume cranked, you >>>>> can tell them all day and all night that they are wasting there time >>>>> dithering, because listeners will never hear it, but they will want to >>>>> get rid of it. And the cost of that rash action to get rid of it? >>>>> Basically nothing. Hence my advice: Dither and don’t worry about it—or >>>>> listen to the residual up close and see if there’s nothing to worry >>>>> about, if you prefer. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Feb 3, 2015, at 10:24 PM, Didier Dambrin <di...@skynet.be> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Sorry, but if I sum up this video, it goes like this: >>>>>> you need dithering to 16bit and I'm going to prove it, then the video >>>>>> actually proves that you don't need it starting at 14bit, but adds "it's >>>>>> only because of the nature of the sound I used for demo". >>>>>> >>>>>> ..then why not use a piece of audio that does prove the point, instead? >>>>>> I know why, it's because you can't, and dithering to 16bit will never >>>>>> make any audible difference. >>>>>> It's ok to tell the world to dither to 16bit, because it's nothing >>>>>> harmful either (it only mislays people from the actual problems that >>>>>> matter in mixing). But if there is such a piece of audio that makes >>>>>> dithering to 16bit any audible, without an abnormally massive boost to >>>>>> hear it, I'd like to hear it. >>>>>> >>>>>> Andrew says he agrees, but then adds that it's important when you >>>>>> post-edit the sound. Yes it is, totally, but if you're gonna post-edit >>>>>> the sound, you will rather keep it 32 or 24bit anyway - the argument >>>>>> about dithering to 16bit is for the final mix. >>>>>> >>>>>> To me, until proven otherwise, for normal-to-(not abnormally)-high >>>>>> dynamic ranges, we can't perceive quantization above 14bit for audio, >>>>>> and 10bits for images on a screen (debatable here because monitors >>>>>> aren't linear but that's another story). Yet people seem to care less >>>>>> about images, and there's gradient banding all over the place. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -----Message d'origine----- From: Andrew Simper >>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2015 6:06 AM >>>>>> To: A discussion list for music-related DSP >>>>>> Subject: Re: [music-dsp] Dither video and articles >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Nigel, >>>>>> >>>>>> Isn't the rule of thumb in IT estimates something like: "Double the >>>>>> time you estimated, then move it up to the next time unit"? So 2 weeks >>>>>> actually means 4 months, but since we're in Music IT I think we should >>>>>> be allowed 5 times instead of 2, so from my point of view you've >>>>>> actually delivered on time ;) >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks very much for doing the video! I agree with your recommended >>>>>> workflows of 16 bit = always dither, and 24 bit = don't dither. I >>>>>> would probably go further and say just use triangular dither, since at >>>>>> some time in the future you may want to pitch the sound down (ie for a >>>>>> sample library of drums with a tom you want to tune downwards, or >>>>>> remixing a song) then any noise shaped dither will cause an issue >>>>>> since the noise will become audible. >>>>>> >>>>>> All the best, >>>>>> >>>>>> Andrew >>>>>> >>>>>> -- cytomic -- sound music software -- >>>>> -- >>>>> dupswapdrop -- the music-dsp mailing list and website: >>>>> subscription info, FAQ, source code archive, list archive, book reviews, >>>>> dsp links >>>>> http://music.columbia.edu/cmc/music-dsp >>>>> http://music.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/music-dsp >>>> >>>> -- >>>> dupswapdrop -- the music-dsp mailing list and website: >>>> subscription info, FAQ, source code archive, list archive, book reviews, >>>> dsp links >>>> http://music.columbia.edu/cmc/music-dsp >>>> http://music.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/music-dsp >>>> >>>> ----- >>>> Aucun virus trouvé dans ce message. >>>> Analyse effectuée par AVG - www.avg.fr >>>> Version: 2015.0.5645 / Base de données virale: 4281/9056 - Date: 04/02/2015 >>>> -- >>>> dupswapdrop -- the music-dsp mailing list and website: >>>> subscription info, FAQ, source code archive, list archive, book reviews, >>>> dsp links >>>> http://music.columbia.edu/cmc/music-dsp >>>> http://music.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/music-dsp >>> >>> -- >>> dupswapdrop -- the music-dsp mailing list and website: >>> subscription info, FAQ, source code archive, list archive, book reviews, >>> dsp links >>> http://music.columbia.edu/cmc/music-dsp >>> http://music.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/music-dsp >>> >>> ----- >>> Aucun virus trouvé dans ce message. >>> Analyse effectuée par AVG - www.avg.fr >>> Version: 2015.0.5645 / Base de données virale: 4281/9059 - Date: 05/02/2015 >>> -- >>> dupswapdrop -- the music-dsp mailing list and website: >>> subscription info, FAQ, source code archive, list archive, book reviews, >>> dsp links >>> http://music.columbia.edu/cmc/music-dsp >>> http://music.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/music-dsp >> >> -- >> dupswapdrop -- the music-dsp mailing list and website: >> subscription info, FAQ, source code archive, list archive, book reviews, dsp >> links >> http://music.columbia.edu/cmc/music-dsp >> http://music.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/music-dsp >> >> ----- >> Aucun virus trouvé dans ce message. >> Analyse effectuée par AVG - www.avg.fr >> Version: 2015.0.5645 / Base de données virale: 4281/9059 - Date: 05/02/2015 >> -- >> dupswapdrop -- the music-dsp mailing list and website: >> subscription info, FAQ, source code archive, list archive, book reviews, dsp >> links >> http://music.columbia.edu/cmc/music-dsp >> http://music.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/music-dsp > > -- > dupswapdrop -- the music-dsp mailing list and website: > subscription info, FAQ, source code archive, list archive, book reviews, dsp > links > http://music.columbia.edu/cmc/music-dsp > http://music.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/music-dsp > > ----- > Aucun virus trouvé dans ce message. > Analyse effectuée par AVG - www.avg.fr > Version: 2015.0.5645 / Base de données virale: 4281/9062 - Date: 05/02/2015 > -- > dupswapdrop -- the music-dsp mailing list and website: > subscription info, FAQ, source code archive, list archive, book reviews, dsp > links > http://music.columbia.edu/cmc/music-dsp > http://music.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/music-dsp -- dupswapdrop -- the music-dsp mailing list and website: subscription info, FAQ, source code archive, list archive, book reviews, dsp links http://music.columbia.edu/cmc/music-dsp http://music.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/music-dsp
