Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Audible limitations of 16/44

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Lets stay on topic please
    no up sample compares it's simple redbook playback
    I'll try to post songs each will have 16/24 bit depth
    and I'll also put up formats
    flac
    aiff.
    speakers cust infinity IRS V , new caps and LPS , magnets etc.
    mark levivson pre no 26 amps no 33
    digital three cust servers , win ser 2016 , AO
    Dacs lampi various

    Comment


    • Tech7738
      Tech7738 commented
      Editing a comment
      Please realize there are significant differences between down sampled 24 > 16 vs early redbook native pre over sampling filters.

  • #32
    Originally posted by Alrainbow View Post

    Tech lets remove the tech of 24 bit in a math conclusion.
    Yes no dacs do 24 bit. But the observation remains the same
    My point was ADCs (not DACs) can’t perform to real 24 bit.

    I’m not challenging your validity of observation, though I question the root cause.

    Comment


    • #33
      Correct there is. And the CD player we use has various filters. Better ones detect and apply the best one
      some older dacs had filters to pic too. Always came down to one being better and the rest bad lol.
      Now play back software has many options too.
      But for this purpose it does not matter it's a rip to various formats only.
      The down samples are owned or are sacd conversations
      a
      speakers cust infinity IRS V , new caps and LPS , magnets etc.
      mark levivson pre no 26 amps no 33
      digital three cust servers , win ser 2016 , AO
      Dacs lampi various

      Comment


      • Tech7738
        Tech7738 commented
        Editing a comment
        You always have a reconstruction filter of some sort. Unfortunately it must be a different filter for different sampling frequencies, so to be valid for a bit depth comparison only you’d need to change only bit depth not sampling frequency. Your source would have to be 24/44 or 24/48 truncated to 16/44 or 16/48. Bit rate down sampling comparisons include too many other variables.

    • #34
      Tech 7738 said earlier on this thread: "I know this will blow up in my face, but, oh well, it had to happen sooner or later....we already have all the measurement capabilities we need to explain all aspects of sound, but applying measurements to audibility is a bit of a blind spot. We can easily, and do so regularly, measure aspects that are completely inaudible. It's about data correlation. There are things we can directly correlate, and others that take a bit of digging. For example, we haven't talked about why early Red Book did have issues that didn't initially show up in measurements. But those measurements can be done, and do explain it, and could have been done even then. You won't see them published in a spec sheet, not now, not ever, but that doesn't mean they don't exist."

      I find this fascinating. I have always thought and was always told we do not have all the measurements the human ear can discern. I know instruments can quantify things we can't hear, but that is another discussion. What I did not know is measurements do or can cover all of what an ear discerns. Even depth or sound stage? Presence of instruments in their own space? Warmth and fatness of instruments? I'm seriously curious about this.
      JLH

      Comment


      • mep
        mep commented
        Editing a comment
        You might not be the one with questions, but you appeared to have the answers.

      • jonathanhorwich
        jonathanhorwich commented
        Editing a comment
        I went to other techs on it and a site I highly respect for the vast tech talent on it and got my answer which did not agree with the above, "we already have all the measurement capabilities we need to explain all aspects of sound..." Not at all. But let's leave this for another thread if at all because most of us on the site go by our ears for our own enjoyment. I only use limited measurements for tuning up my decks, etc.

      • Tech7738
        Tech7738 commented
        Editing a comment
        What question did you ask?

    • #35
      Originally posted by jonathanhorwich View Post
      I went to other techs on it and a site I highly respect for the vast tech talent on it and got my answer which did not agree with the above, "we already have all the measurement capabilities we need to explain all aspects of sound..." Not at all.
      What's going on here is precisely why this will become an illegal topic here. There is now an attempt at discrediting me, but the other techs/site is not stated, the question asked of them not stated, their reply not stated, other than it was in alleged disagreement.

      If you asked them "Can we measure soundstage?" then the only correct answer would be "no". If you asked "Can we measure "presence of instruments in their own space", the only correct answer would be "no". And so on.

      Wrong questions! Of course there is no Soundstage-O-Meter, etc. Those aspects are psychoacoustic and exist only in the mind of the listener as a result stimulii of their ear-brain systems. Until someone installs an RG45 jack in the back of the skull with network node behind it, we're not doing those measurements. But we can measure all aspects of a wave, and that includes the aspects that cause alteration in soundstage, etc.

      And, I made that plain in my first statement about this. I said, "...we already have all the measurement capabilities we need to explain all aspects of sound, but applying measurements to audibility is a bit of a blind spot. We can easily, and do so regularly, measure aspects that are completely inaudible. It's about data correlation. There are things we can directly correlate, and others that take a bit of digging. "

      Does that sound like "I can measure sounstage"? It shouldn't, and that was not the intention. But there...it happened, and I got shot at for it. Predictable, though I wish it weren't.

      We can measure all aspects of a physical wave, electrical or acoustic. We can see in measurements things that are both audible and inaudible. The problem is correlation with audibility, because it's so darn complex. We cannot directly measure a lot of perceptual qualities, but that doesn't mean we cannot measure the root causes and mechanisms, and use that information to improve those qualities.

      I hope that is clear.

      Originally posted by jonathanhorwich View Post
      But let's leave this for another thread if at all because most of us on the site go by our ears for our own enjoyment. I only use limited measurements for tuning up my decks, etc.
      Yeah, right, "we go by our ears", and the corollary to that "I know what I hear". You can ignore this if you want, but it's been proven, long ago, you can present a listener with identical stimulii on two different occasions and the subjective judgment can be different. What does that tell us? Not that our ears are wrong, though that's what some audiophiles will think. Our ears cannot BE wrong. Our perception cannot BE wrong so long as we accept what our perception is telling us. But it also clearly says that you do Not know what you hear, though you DO accept it fully. And those ears are the same ones we trust implicitly?

      But then there's the reality. Perception is a combination of ear-brain hearing and a lot of other factors all input to the brain and out pops the subjective judgement. Does it matter if it's detached from measurable reality? No, because that's not the goal in the first place. All audio reproduction is illusion. There's not a bit of reality to it, only the strong suggestion of an unexperienced reality, one we have never had and can never have. So our subjective perception cannot be wrong. That doesn't mean we can't measure aspects of sound that, when taken into isolation from other factors, have predictable, repeatable, and quantifiable impact on subjective perception.

      Yes, we all use our ears for our own enjoyment. Do we always enjoy what we hear? Heck no. Anybody wonder why? Isn't there a quest for Audio Nirvana? Wouldn't that quest be most achievable if we knew what rocks we are climbing on, how high they are, and where the path lies? Do you believe everything you see...and hear? I doubt it, we've been fooled too many times. So then why not question...just a bit...that your ears may be not quite the precision instruments we'd like them to be?

      Now, if you don't ask these questions, and don't care about anything but what you hear and never ask why, then we are on different quests. Enjoyment can be had either way. However, nothing achieved in audio thus far was accomplished without objective study. Nothing.

      Here's why I think this happens: When our perception is challenged, our ego is too. And we just can't have that. "What do you mean I'm not hearing reality?" "Are you saying I can't hear?" Oh man, you might as well toss in a grenade. But believing only our ears takes us down a very crooked (and expensive) path that is always shy of reaching the goal. We cling to that path with a vise-like grip because to abandon it might just take a degree of humility we don't have in reserve.

      So you use "limited measurements for tuning up" your decks, huh? What do you do past the limits, ear-ball it? And that's better than those evil test instruments? Yeah, that's not me. I recognized I can't hear certain things that analysis reveals. I recognized that if you don't dive in deep and analyze and measure, the combination of inaccuracies will add up to a huge compromise. That's not ok if you want the best sound, especially out of your tape decks. Bias-by-ear? EQ-by-ear? Azimuth-by-ear? Ok, maybe that last one, but not the others.

      So, I'm not starting another thread about measurement, because I already know that "measurements are evil", and "we can't measure everything". Dead wrong, but it's just not worth the fight. Even the elusive and erratic subjective and perceptual qualities, like "soundstage", can be quantified and objectively evaluated using compiled and controlled subjective testing. What it gets down to is, some would rather preserve their ego than move forward on the quest to Audio Nirvana. Go for it, don't let me stop you.

      But if I'm going to engage in a debate of hearsay from another vaporous forum and argue with virtual experts, I'm out. Bring them on directly, and we'll maybe deal with it.

      If these are real questions, and not just bait, start that thread and I'll decide if it's worth my time.

      Comment


      • Tech7738
        Tech7738 commented
        Editing a comment
        "16/44.1 vs 24/192. I believe there is a measurable difference between the two format ."

        Yes, easily measured. Measured differences are not subtle.

        "I assume a decent stereo will be able to reveal a sonic difference ? Right or wrong?"

        The short answer is "probably not", but it's not that simple. Audible differences between 16/44 recordings and 24/192 recordings depend far more on factors other than bit rate and bit depth. Those other factors confuse the comparison significantly.

        The sonic difference confined solely to bit-rate and bit-depth between 16/44 and 24/192 has not been well established. However, what little work has been done on this tends to support that the differences are either extremely small, audible only under extreme conditions, or not audible at all. The bulk of controlled comparisons seem to support not audible at all.

        The sector that advocates 24/192 or other high res formats falls into two camps: those who swear there's a clear difference but are fully aware that they are listening to one or the other, and those who don't know if there's a difference but feel better capturing and reproducing a wider range of signals. The thing that is missing in both opinions is comparative controlled testing.

        To make things worse, the material we as consumers have access to for these comparisons include far too many uncontrolled variables. We would like to think the differences are only bit-rate and bit-depth, but it's usually far more different than that, negating the comparison. Frustrating, to be sure.

      • Kingrex
        Kingrex commented
        Editing a comment
        Are there any published auditory test you can share with us. Test between CD resolution to high resolution files. Also Trials of CD to vinyl or tape. It would be great if there were a website that contain a whole host of these type of test. Thanks

      • Tech7738
        Tech7738 commented
        Editing a comment
        The one published study from a few years ago has been widely criticized for it's test methods. Google Meyer and Moran, you'll find a ton written about it, the good, bad and ugly.

        Think about how one would go about performing this sort of test. The test material would start with original recordings made with identical ADCs, with similar filter technology but running at different sampling frequencies (with filters adjusted accordingly). No up-sampling or down-sampling. The test material would have to be varied in genre and content sufficiently to cover the gamut of styles and technical demands. The resulting files would have to be compared in a double-blind ABX test setup. The number of testers would have to be between 30 and 50 minimum, and more is much better. They would have to represent wide age ranges, as well as backgrounds. The test system and room would have to be stable and consistent for the duration of the test, and ideally several rooms and test systems would be used. The systems would have to have acceptable characteristics, hopefully with at least some ultrasonic capability (that's a tough one!). In all comparisons, a synchronized play-out system would be needed, as would a true ABX switching system. The data compiled would then show an indication of the ability to differentiate between two recordings of the same music, changing only in sampling frequency, bit depth and filter characteristics.

        This is not a small study, and it cannot be done casually. And that means time and resources ($$). And ideally a neutral researcher in academia, not a manufacturer.

        Simply providing files to download and have individuals test them is seriously flawed because they can be examined and their nature revealed quite easily, corrupting the test control. This has, of course, been tried in other forums with mixed results, but one clear outcome was the temptation to know which file was which is irresistible. Thus data corruption is not controlled.

        Informal and private tests have been done, and though not published (because they are not fully scientific or complete) the trend seems to be as I've alluded to. What we do not see is overwhelming positive discrimination of high-res files.

        Publishing less than unassailable studies with regard to topics as hot as this is obviously folly. Meyer and Moran would certainly attest to that.

        Comparing CDs, vinyl and tape is simply not possible without identical input signals, and that's pretty much impossible to do or even verify. However, in a private study I conducted in the mid 1980s, CD vs Vinyl vs master digital tape was compared using identical input signals to each, with the entire production process of the CD and vinyl closely monitored, with no "mastering" EQ or level changes permitted to either. While reliable discrimination between vinyl and CD was shown, it was based on noise and peak distortion only. The overall character was a surprising match for the CD. In other words, no digital harshness, no analog warmth. The CD matched the master, but then, it was a bit-perfect clone. I chose not to publish this as a "study" because the tester group was too small, and the collected data set too small. Thus, the "noise floor" of the collected listener subjective data was a bit on the high side.

        So, unfortunately, we are probably still stuck at anecdote, especially if we choose ignore what little trends seem to be visible. But again, what we do not see is anything even close to a 60% discrimination ratio of CD to high-res, once mastering changes have been eliminated. 50% is, of course, the equivalent of random guessing.
    Working...
    X