24bit vs 16bit, the myth exploded! - Page 69

 

Do you mean you can successfully tell 16-bit apart from 24-bit in a blind test in 60-70% of the attempts, but "not always" 60-70% ? That is not enough to prove you were not just guessing unless the number of trials was large.

There's no pleasing you folks.

I am, since you seem to be on the right track.

Can any of YOU hear differences?

 

Instead of attacking me, tell me what you hear. 

See this. The p value you want to get is < 0.05. Example: a positive ABX result would be 5 good guesses out of 5, or 9 out of 10, or 12 out of 16. It's not about pleasing anyone, it's just science.

We don't hear any difference, but we're not supposed to either.

Well, if you don't hear any differences, then be happy and move on. That's fine. 

 

I'll do more tests with source material I am more familiar with, and a system that does not up-sample and skew the output.

I don't think anyone's attacking you.

 

Except for the higher noise floor if you turn up the volume to unreasonable levels you're not supposed to hear a difference. On properly dithered files that is.

We react much better when people are honest with us about what they hear and don't insist on bending the facts to fit the argument.

I've been following this thread because I wanted to learn a thing or two about audio, which I did but somehow I think I got lost in it. I must say that I also feel very intimidated by all the technical stuff here, the reason I keep quiet because I can't keep up with the discussion. Someone could just throw in a technical jargon or question and I'm flat dead.

 

However as an 'outsider' I did start to observe and notice a pattern here and just want to share my 2 cents.

 

No matter the technical facts, won't we all say that at the end of the day we are the final filter whether we perceptually do or do not 'hear' the difference?

 

It's like the recent shootings. One event, one fact that happened, but there will always be many different and perhaps endless perception about it.

 

In the same way, there's probably a thousand scientific facts that may PROVE that there's actually no possible audible difference in a gear, but if someone says they still hear the difference and like it, who are we to tell them that they shouldn't or don't?

 

It's not only the equipment we hear, since our perception and placebo is always part of the equation. And I believe a smart and wise person would always acknowledge and accept it's presence because its impossible to be free from it.

 

If swallowing a piece of chalk actually helped you quit smoking, then its great. If a person have benefited from Hypnosis and said he had increased his happiness, why do we want to debate with that guy that hypnosis is not really the thing that help him but actually himself? It's pointless. The fact that he did, and that it worked for him, its great! It's all part of the equation, and at the end, its the perceived result that matters.

 

If it works for you, if you can HEAR the difference, then you do. Period. But if you don't, then you don't. Or if we decide to change our minds later, then sure, its up to us. What's the point of debating against someone's perception?

 

In a bigger picture, something that works or doesn't for you may not necessarily have to apply to others. And in most cases they don't. It's like religion. It's pointless to debate who's God makes a real difference or whether they don't. The fact that they all do at some way or another, spiritually, intrinsically, personally or whatever. Because we are the final filter, its so personal, there's no point debating it imo

 

Ok. I'm done. Now you can shoot and kill me now

 

 

[ cue wide-eyed innocent face ]

 

 

oh my goodness.

 

 

this couldn't possibly be interpreted to mean that there might be fact bending, misrepresentation and selective omission "to fit the argument" in the audio hobbyist and audiophile world?

 

heaven forbid such nefarious tactics in places ie perhaps

 

- the a/m xiph manifesto / positioning statement for a certain lossy coding implementation, timed and published by a principal of that technology in the face of pending commercial irrelevance;

 

- the OP's ... ahem,  interesting...  presentation of digital audio and signal processing basics in this thread;

 

- some of Those Audio Specialty magazines and a few "let's leverage the trend and most people's lack of the difficult technical knowledge" computer-audiophile-type websites with "well-known" and "highly-experienced" (and yes - very prolific in their posting and public self-promotion....errr, presence) -  writers and "founders" (holders of any actual technology background education and knowledge:  few; acquirers of clicks, pageviews, advertising revenue and high-end audio gear:  many) who coordinate with a small cabal of similar-intentioned (and often technically suspect) "specialty" equipment manufacturers.

 

 

[ cue image of Opus in mode of holding his chest for pain of disappointment rending his ever-pure heart ]

 

 

and as a public service reminder to all about the technical misinformation which started this entire thread:  if you'd like some reasonably-digestible and technically-correct resources about underlying theory wrt bit depth, resolution, dynamic range, sampling theory and digital signal processing in general, wander on over to check out the links in some posts earlier in this thread @ 463; 562 (incl links to references via thread "Bit depth and sampling frequency explained"; 651

 

 

 

now let's all go lie down in a field of Dandelions...

Except you don't, really. You're imagining it, period. Yes, placebo does make a difference, but unless it's a prescription from a physician, I'd rather people be informed about it.

False claims should be challenged, otherwise there's no point in anything, and there wouldn't be any actual progress. Also, there's money involved. Neil Young and Co. want you to buy your music all over again for all the wrong reasons.

 

We can design equipment that can perceive frequencies, light spectrums and vibrations FAR beyond what humans can perceive. Human perception is great, but there isn't much of anything there that we can't detect, measure and precisely quantify using machines. There's no reason to sweat stuff that measures on a machine, but we can't perceive, but there's no reason to think that there is anything our five senses can detect that we can't measure.

Kiteki made a point in another thread that we have no way to measure a driver's tone. For example a way to measure differentiation between a titanium driver and a carbon nanotube driver. They sound different in some way that isn't measurable.

It was also said that there is no way to measure the difference between a flute and a trumpet in way that would tell us which was which. They have different tone in a way that isn't measurable.

I'm not agreeing with this at all, but I'd like to know what more knowledgeable folks than me have to say about it.
Edited by gnarlsagan - 12/23/12 at 4:19pm

That's like saying a person that has never heard of either instrument cannot tell which is which just by listening to the sound.

 

Play some notes with each instrument, record that, look at the envelope and frequency spectrum for starters. That will show some clear differences.

Nope, perfectly aligned. The stereo separation is one of the weakest point of the format.