Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › 320 kbps MP3 vs. normal audio CD listening Sound quality
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

320 kbps MP3 vs. normal audio CD listening Sound quality - Page 15

post #211 of 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by jvandyk View Post

Would you say the same if we just use 8 bits of info? And no, the mastering is not different always (they didn't remaster Gaucho for HD Tracks). One should wonder- Why, in the advent of digital audio way back when, did the recording engineers strive for superior resolution in their recordings? Why didn't they just forget everything and record in 8 bit audio? But in reality, using 20 bit masters was the first step for recording engineers, followed by 24 bit. According to your argument, this was all for nothing.

 

I wasn't talking about recording - there are obvious benefits to recording 24bit when you're recording individual tracks (namely again - noise floor).  

 

However - after the combining and mastering is complete, there is absolutely no audible benefit using 24bit over 16bit for playback if:

 - both originated from the same mastering

 - both are volume matched

 

You are the one claiming an audible difference.  So please provide proof.  It's easy to do.  Take your best 24bit source.  Resample using Sox down to 16bit.  Using Foobar2000's built-in abx tool (Foobar is free), abx the two tracks (after using replay gain to ensure the volume is matched).  Make sure the blind test box is checked.  Run 15 iterations (more if you want).  Post the log.

 

All this takes is time.  Everything else (all the software) is free.  Please note - I'm not trying to be difficult, or put you down, or anything like that.  As long as your resampling didn't introduce any audible artifacts, you really won't be able to tell the difference.  The great thing about learning this for yourself is that then you can make informed choices buying your music.

 

HD Tracks currently holds 16/44.1, 24/96 and 24/192 releases of Amber Rubarth's latest binaural album.  All appear to have come from the original master.  The 16/44.1 is the cheapest, smallest file size, and yet is still lossless.  Once you realise that you can't actually tell the difference via true blind test, you can then make an informed decision about future purchases.  All I'm suggesting is rather than sticking to your guns that you can tell the difference, and making suggestions that anyone who can't has inferior ears/gear - actually do the test yourself.

 

I think you will be very surprised at the results.

post #212 of 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by jvandyk View Post

Of course the compressed file size pictures are lower quality. Just use the zoom control. And a file size too small in any photo will result in poor quality professional prints. The only reason for compressing the image file sizes is to use them as lower quality proofs and to not crash their servers with data. A 4x5 negative is of higher quality than a 35mm negative to relate to analog.

I'm not sure you understood my analogy, or how digital photography works.

 

There is no discernible difference between a RAW image and a .png (lossless) image of the same resolution. None. The only difference is that the RAW image contains extra data (outside the visible range) that allows the exposure to be modified more accurately and the color to be corrected.

 

This is exactly like how a 24-bit audio recording cannot be discerned from 16-bit during playback, though there still is the advantage of a lower noise floor — and that's why audio engineers still record at that level. Your argument that 24-bit recording has benefits to audio engineers is sound (and nobody's challenging that). Your argument falls apart when you make the unfounded jump to the conclusion that those benefits extend into listening scenarios. 


Edited by MrHeuristic - 12/27/12 at 3:26pm
post #213 of 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrHeuristic View Post

I'm not sure you understood my analogy, or how digital photography works.

 

There is no discernible difference between a RAW image and a .png (lossless) image of the same resolution. None. The only difference is that the RAW image contains extra data (outside the visible range) that allows the exposure to be modified more accurately and the color to be corrected.

 

This is exactly like how a 24-bit audio recording cannot be discerned from 16-bit during playback, though there still is the advantage of a lower noise floor — and that's why audio engineers still record at that level.

Understood. But it also proves my point that compressing a file size(not using a lossless program) lowers quality (using the internet pic example).I know alot of professional photographers (I went to school at RIT in Rochester). Many use digital only for convenience and cost. Many feel the finest quality( for producing a professional print) still comes from 4x5 analog technology. But alas, large format photography is now a relic anyway. Just like using an offset 4 color press vs a digital press in printing. Every printer knows the analog offset technology beats the crap out of digital. But it also is a relic.

 

Perhaps your example(png) pertains to comparing a lossless algorithm for audio to an RAW or WAV file. There I agree.

 

Finally, doing a blind test is not needed when the differences are so obvious. I recommend checking out some 24 bit audio.

post #214 of 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by jvandyk View Post

Understood. But it also proves my point that compressing a file size(not using a lossless program) lowers quality (using the internet pic example).

Right, obviously lossy algorithms result in loss. You don't have to tell me that, I'm well aware. How does this relate to 24-bit vs 16-bit? 

 

If you're trying to say that going from 24-bit to 16-bit is a loss in quality, well, we have to define what quality means in this context. Are we talking about loss of quality beyond the discernible range? A raised noise floor that is irrelevant for any actual playback (and is beyond the actual range of the music)? With that definition, yes, I'd agree with you that there's a loss, but the loss doesn't matter as you can't discern it, and the loss is transparent to the actual music you're hearing. 

 

If by 'lowers quality' you mean a discernible and measurable loss in audible quality that actually affects the music you're hearing, I absolutely do not agree, and I'd ask that you back up your statements with an objective test. ABX. 

 

 

 

Quote:
Finally, doing a blind test is not needed when the differences are so obvious.

 

You are vastly underestimating the power of placebo and expectation bias. You also seem to be under the influence of both.


Edited by MrHeuristic - 12/27/12 at 3:35pm
post #215 of 516

Lots of "obvious" differences seem to vanish when the advantage of knowing which is which gets removed...

 

Anyway, you will hear the difference in 24 bits under the right circumstances (e.g. very quiet room, crank up the volume to ridiculous levels to make the noise floor apparent on the 16-bit playback); people aren't denying that. It's just for most any practical playback scenario and usage that the benefit doesn't seem like it should be audible when looking at the numbers, and doesn't seem to be audible based on actual testing.  Details that people actually notice don't appear in the 17th, 18th, etc. least significant bits.

post #216 of 516

post #217 of 516
It is amazing..the state of denial of the obvious that occurs in Sound Science. Especially with a bunch of people using a free media player proving wrong 30 years of recording technology. As King Stahlman (bail bondsman in San Diego) would say, "whatever you did in the past, have a nice life"!
Edited by jvandyk - 12/27/12 at 5:05pm
post #218 of 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrHeuristic View Post

Right, obviously lossy algorithms result in loss. You don't have to tell me that, I'm well aware. How does this relate to 24-bit vs 16-bit? 

If you're trying to say that going from 24-bit to 16-bit is a loss in quality, well, we have to define what quality means in this context. Are we talking about loss of quality beyond the discernible range? A raised noise floor that is irrelevant for any actual playback (and is beyond the actual range of the music)? With that definition, yes, I'd agree with you that there's a loss, but the loss doesn't matter as you can't discern it, and the loss is transparent to the actual music you're hearing. 

If by 'lowers quality' you mean a discernible and measurable loss in audible quality that actually affects the music you're hearing, I absolutely do not agree, and I'd ask that you back up your statements with an objective test. ABX. 




You are vastly underestimating the power of placebo and expectation bias. You also seem to be under the influence of both.
Your vastly underestimating the power of actually listening to the results.
post #219 of 516

Isn't that what an ABX test is, actually listening to the results?

post #220 of 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by jvandyk View Post

It is amazing..the state of denial of the obvious that occurs in Sound Science. 

That state appears to be populated only by you today..... 

post #221 of 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by sonitus mirus View Post

Isn't that what an ABX test is, actually listening to the results?

Why yes, I believe it is! 

post #222 of 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by Achmedisdead View Post

Why yes, I believe it is! 
Go ahead then. Talk about some a/b you've done with 24 bit masters vs 16 bit or 320k? I'm going to guess that, like the other posters, you will change the subject as fast as you can put the blindfold on for your foobar test. wink.gif
post #223 of 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by sonitus mirus View Post

Isn't that what an ABX test is, actually listening to the results?
No it isn't. If you trust foobar over 30 years of recording technology, then I guess it is for you. In the meantime, maybe talk about something you've actually listened to. And no links please with pie charts.
post #224 of 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by jvandyk View Post


Go ahead then. Talk about some a/b you've done with 24 bit masters vs 16 bit or 320k? I'm going to guess that, like the other posters, you will change the subject as fast as you can put the blindfold on for your foobar test. wink.gif

I won't even waste my time with 24 bit files. I find transparency with LAME V2 mp3 files, compared to 16/44.1 FLAC.....so why would I waste money and disk space buying 24 bit music? I'm living in the real world.

post #225 of 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by jvandyk View Post


No it isn't. If you trust foobar over 30 years of recording technology, then I guess it is for you. In the meantime, maybe talk about something you've actually listened to. And no links please with pie charts.

I think you're afraid to take the ABX challenge and be proven wrong......

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › 320 kbps MP3 vs. normal audio CD listening Sound quality