>Here's a double-blind A/B/X test that indicated no >one could hear the difference between 16 and 24 bit. >24-bit is better than 16-bit with dithering so maybe >you can extrapolate.
I'd strongly prefer a direct test. For one thing, it's not clear to me whether it is possible to extrapolate any conclusions about dither from those results, for the simple reason that they do not specify whether the 16 bit D/A they used employed dither or not. Which isn't to say that I disagree with the paper's conclusions about the appropriateness of 16 bit for consumer distribution. But it doesn't really speak to the question of dither. >Wait, are you saying that you would then introduce >an even greater dithering noise, to mask possible >dynamic range reduction in the playback chain? No, I'm simply pointing out a use case where the noise floor of a 16 bit recording ends up more audible. If you compress the dynamic range in the playback chain, then spurs that were sitting at -90dB end up louder (for a given peak volumes). At some point it becomes noticeable, and without anybody's ears bleeding. Let me emphasize that I agree with the general consensus that dither for 16 bit is worthwhile, but not necessarily noticeable on most recordings or playback systems. It's kind of the boundary of where dither is still generally indicated, at higher resolutions it becomes silly. E -- 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
