Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › 24bit vs 16bit, the myth exploded!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

24bit vs 16bit, the myth exploded! - Page 71

post #1051 of 1937
Quote:
Originally Posted by AstralStorm View Post

I wonder how Lavry came to the conclusion that human ear can actually hear anything at 25 kHz.

 

 

My thought, and what I have heard from some others, is that has more to do with the filtering involved rather than how high the sampling. Higher sampling rates get the advantage of being able to use less of sloped filter adding less phasing and combing artifacts at lower frequencies. 

 

The same idea can be said of better A/D converters. Better ones have better, more accurate filtering with fewer effects. As well as better beter input sections and power supplies and overall components. Just saying that filtering is a big part of a good A/D filter vs great ones.

 

Isn't it also legend of Rupert Neve making mic preamp's sounding better by removing the 20k filter cap. Not because it was restricting anything, but because of the artifacts it was creating at lower frequencies and overall quality of sound.

 

I am not trying to say this explains everything, but something I have not seen discussed in this thread. I know I can't hear anything past 15k. Some people like to talk about psychoacoustics and perception, like "your eardrum hears it, but the rest of your ear can't." Or, "eventhough you can't hear above 15k, you CAN perceive it." I don't subscribe to this, but scientifically there is more evidence in filtering artifacts. This might explain at least some of it.

post #1052 of 1937
Quote:
Originally Posted by rtaylor76 View Post

My thought, and what I have heard from some others, is that has more to do with the filtering involved rather than how high the sampling. Higher sampling rates get the advantage of being able to use less of sloped filter adding less phasing and combing artifacts at lower frequencies. 

 

Can you hear the difference ? Phasing or combing artifacts ? Try it with the foobar2000 ABX comparator:

 

c.flac

d.flac

 

One file is the 96/24 format original, and the other has been converted to 44.1/16, and then back to 96/24. The upsampling used a linear phase FIR filter that approximates what you would find in a decent real DAC.


Edited by stv014 - 1/7/13 at 6:08am
post #1053 of 1937
Quote:
Originally Posted by stv014 View Post

 

Can you hear the difference ? Phasing or combing artifacts ? Try it with the foobar2000 ABX comparator:

 

c.flac

d.flac

 

One file is the 96/24 format original, and the other has been converted to 44.1/16, and then back to 96/24. The upsampling used a linear phase FIR filter that approximates what you would find in a decent real DAC.

I don't know what is what, but the d.flac file sounds much better to my ears. More space and more detail. The c.flac file sounds comparatively compressed.

post #1054 of 1937
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kees View Post

I don't know what is what, but the d.flac file sounds much better to my ears. More space and more detail.

 

It is the one degraded to CD quality. normal_smile%20.gif

post #1055 of 1937

Son of Xnor?

post #1056 of 1937
Test after test and they're still surprised and dismayed by the results when they finally get around to doing the test themselves.
post #1057 of 1937

I still think there is some truth to the correlation of sound to bit/sampling based on the mastering and production (not the ears) but that is just my extreme layman's opinion.

 

I'd like it if Xnor or someone would do that test at least quarterly.

 

Heck, then it can be written up in some journal very_evil_smiley.gif

post #1058 of 1937

Do other people here hear a difference? 

If so, how did it get there?

post #1059 of 1937

Of course, those who claim to hear a difference hopefully did use an ABX comparator, and can post the (not fake) logs ?

post #1060 of 1937

I tried really really hard for a long time, with and without headphones......I can not discern even a placebic difference.  triportsad.gif

post #1061 of 1937

thanks for sharing...

post #1062 of 1937
Quote:
Originally Posted by skamp View Post


Christopher Montgomery (Monty, creator of Ogg Vorbis) > Bob Katz, Dan Lavry

LOL. 

 

So some software programmer is more credible than Bob Katz (whom Monty regards as THE authority in digital mastering) when it comes to digital audio? OK, sure. 

 

 

Lavry chose 75KHz as the sampling frequency because it's slightly more than double the 35KHz that he thinks some people can hear. The Nyquist theorem calls for sampling rates at twice the audible frequency range. I would certainly trust Lavry over a software programmer who has very paranoid worldviews in general (see his website).
 
It's interesting that Monty lumps 192KHz into all encompassing category for anything about 44.1Hz, even taking Lavry out of context in attempt to back up his proposition that higher frequencies are inherently worse. Many 24-bit supporters opt for 96KHz, not 192.
 
Anyway, I do empathize with a lot of people in regards to the 192KHz and 24-bit DAC trend. Since the popularity of the Benchmark DAC-1 - which I owned for years with lots of components, including Qualia, K1000, OMEGA II, $5000 speakers, etc. - every manufacturer has gone with 24/192 upsampling, which in many cases, make 16-bit recordings sound worse, not the same but worse. There are exceptions, but generally I prefer NOS. My favorite DAC is the CIAudio VDA-2 because it doesn't upsample 16-bit signals and simply sounds more natural, without artificial enhancement. 16-bit can be pretty good after all.  
post #1063 of 1937
Quote:
Originally Posted by stv014 View Post

 

It is the one degraded to CD quality. normal_smile%20.gif

He shouldn't be able to hear ANY difference though, right? 

post #1064 of 1937
Quote:
Originally Posted by AstralStorm View Post

I wonder how Lavry came to the conclusion that human ear can actually hear anything at 25 kHz.

Scientific consensus is that the extreme is 21 kHz. (actually something right beyond 20 kHz)

 

I'd like to know as well because most people cannot hear clearly above 18KHz. 

 

However, the human ear can definitely distinguish dynamic range above the 16-bit threshold. The sonic effects are small, but remember that to true audiophiles, even a 5% difference is enormous. People like Monty probably consider 5% to be nothing --thus their dogmatic conclusions. 

post #1065 of 1937
Quote:
Originally Posted by applebook View Post

He shouldn't be able to hear ANY difference though, right? 

 

If it's a sighted test and he believed an audible difference exists, then yeah he should be able to. Expectation bias is a real thing, proven time and time again.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by applebook View Post

LOL. 

 

So some software programmer is more credible than Bob Katz (whom Monty regards as THE authority in digital mastering) when it comes to digital audio? OK, sure. 

 

 

Lavry chose 75KHz as the sampling frequency because it's slightly more than double the 35KHz that he thinks some people can hear. The Nyquist theorem calls for sampling rates at twice the audible frequency range. I would certainly trust Lavry over a software programmer who has very paranoid worldviews in general (see his website).
 
It's interesting that Monty lumps 192KHz into all encompassing category for anything about 44.1Hz, even taking Lavry out of context in attempt to back up his proposition that higher frequencies are inherently worse. Many 24-bit supporters opt for 96KHz, not 192.
 
Anyway, I do empathize with a lot of people in regards to the 192KHz and 24-bit DAC trend. Since the popularity of the Benchmark DAC-1 - which I owned for years with lots of components, including Qualia, K1000, OMEGA II, $5000 speakers, etc. - every manufacturer has gone with 24/192 upsampling, which in many cases, make 16-bit recordings sound worse, not the same but worse. There are exceptions, but generally I prefer NOS. My favorite DAC is the CIAudio VDA-2 because it doesn't upsample 16-bit signals and simply sounds more natural, without artificial enhancement. 16-bit can be pretty good after all.  

People can hear up to 35KHz now???

 

I'm sorry, but you have to be insane to believe that.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › 24bit vs 16bit, the myth exploded!