8 vs 16 bit (was Scott G. vs Reality...)

[nathan@visi.com (Nathan Mates)]

In article <5mhmp5$25jk@uni.library.ucla.edu>,
 <pubpc1@library.ucla.edu> wrote:
>You may be right in the technical aspect, but you neglect some
>physiological aspects of the human ear.  I would venture to say that
>8-bit resolution is very near the limits of human hearing and any
>thing higher will only make token differences.  At least to my ears.

   Scott Gamon, this is another technical issue where you've taken
an illogical, indefensible, and WRONG position, only to claim "I
notice nothing different." 

   Showing this posting of yours to the head of the audio dept where I
work, the response was "Tell him [Scott] he's stupid." There is a vast
world of difference between 8 and 16 bit samples; most of the audio
folks at work can usually guess frequency and sampling rate spot-on
off a second or two's listen with a pair of speakers more powerful
than the ones Radio Shack throws in the dumpster.

   Why don't you go write to all the major audio equipment
manufacturers and audio software developers telling them that since 8
bits is good enough for you, it's good enough for the world, and they
should all switch down. I bet your post would become the lunchroom
bulletin board laughingstock for months.

>Put in another way, the returns of increasing resolution
>diminish with increasing resolution.  There is still a difference,
>however slight, between 8 and 16, but between 16 and 24?  That's
>overkill.  If I weren't expecting it, I wouldn't even be able to
>pick out 8-bits.

   And good audiophiles can tell the difference between 16 bit CDs and
the 20+ bit remastering techniques. I don't care if you're tonedeaf
and unable to tell the difference between a Speak-and-spell and an
opera off CD, but what you're describing is *subpar* for humans. Most
people can tell the difference, and you can't. Don't project the
entire human race in terms of the genetic structure and synapse
attangements of "Scott Gamon", as they seem to be better than you in
terms of hearing.

>It is the same way with vision.

   No it ain't; your comparison is null and void. You're taking fps
(i.e. sampling rate) in vision and trying to compare it to levels of
gradation (i.e. bit depth) in vision. Humans can hear 16 bits worth of
difference in audio. Humans can see ~24 bits (8 each RGB) of
difference in video. 256 levels of audio doesn't cut it any better
than 256 levels (~2.4 bits of RGB) of video would cut it.

>You can increase the fps
>further to 60fps, but you will see absolutely no difference in
>smoothness compared to 30fps. 

   Humans peak out about 24-28 fps visually. For an equivalent
sampling rate in audio, they peak out at 22Khz and down (depending on
gender, age, exposure to excessive noise, etc). [Thanks to lack of
motion blur (i.e. compensation for limited sampling rate and *added*
bit depth), videogames are visibly smoother at 60fps vs 30fps.]

   Compare apples to apples, and oranges to oranges if you want to be
taken seriously in any type of discussion. Especially, don't think
that reality is wrong when it doesn't agree with your limited
perceptions of audio differences, WPGS status, DMA speed, or anything
else. 

Nathan Mates
--
<*> Nathan Mates http://www.visi.com/~nathan/      <*>
# What are the facts? Again and again and again-- what are the _facts_?
# Shun wishful thinking, avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors
# think-- what are the facts, and to how many decimal places?  -R.A. Heinlein