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 19

post #271 of 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by jvandyk View Post

Uhm. Wrong. He works for DCS. But that's OK...cheers.

 

It's unusual that a google search on him pulls up absolutely no reference to that. In fact, there's a linked in page and a facebook page for him that say otherwise.  He's worked as a "data manager" at the Institute for Safety Research in the Netherlands and he had a job at a movie theater once. He graduated from college two years ago.


Edited by bigshot - 12/28/12 at 3:49pm
post #272 of 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by jvandyk View Post

Patronizing again. it's so common in this forum. But I guess, based on your response, that you admit 24 bit can sound alot better than 16 bit using your example of digital volume control or EQ without losing resolution.

I guess not in the way you think. I was talking about playing 16-bit tracks through a 24-bit DAC.

 

Quote:
In fact, the better software available uses 64 bit floating processors and can effectively provide digital volume control without loss of resolution. Digital EQ can also be done with larger bit depths with loss of resolution. All of this, controllable by the end user in playback.

 

BTW, Foobar cannot do the above. You'll need at least JRiver or better.

You're mixing up processing and playback formats and you're also wrong about foobar2000. I have developed fb2k plugins that use 64-bit floats for processing. But that's just a detail compared to the more basic things like dynamic range and quantization.


Edited by xnor - 12/28/12 at 4:22pm
post #273 of 516

modern digital audio playback of 16 bit source can effectively use 24 bit DACs, which are pretty universal now

 

modern software will take 16 bit source, calculating any local digital EQ, volume at least with 32 bit intermediates, and the top 24 sent to the 24 bit DAC

 

people really should at least poke through Lukin's dither site for the 8-bit examples to understand "correlated quantization noise" and hear fades below the noise floor with truncation, rounding and dither - dither really works - extends linearity, noise shaping can even improve weighted noise floor

http://audio.rightmark.org/lukin/dither/index.html

 

practical music listening doesn't reach human noise floor thresholds - it takes many minutes of accommodation in a anechoic chamber to hear at the lowest SPL threshold 

 

and just wearing headphones increases our hearing noise threshold - through microphonics - by ~10 dB

 

but few have even NC20 listening rooms - and most audiophile phones are open back with negligible attenuation

 

and of course there is the noise floor of the recording

 

there's not a very good case for even the 93 dB of flat tpdf 16-bit being a music listening limitation

post #274 of 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by jvandyk View Post

Because then you're not using the original file.

 

The original high resolution file is not changed at all. Processing the low resolution file will not restore the high frequency and low level information that was lost in the downsampling and quantization, that is mathematically impossible. The purpose of the test is to find out whether the 44.1/16 format inherently limits sound quality in an audible way. After the audio signal is passed through a 96/24 -> 44.1/16 -> 96/24 loop, it suffers from all the inherent bandwidth and dynamic range limitations of the low resolution format, but the chance of a false positive result solely because of the flaws of the playback equipment is minimized (it is still not zero, but nothing more can be done on the software side). If you think the upsampling unfairly "improves" the sound and makes the test too difficult, remember that we are only interested in the limitations of the format, not the equipment, and it is easily possible to upsample 44.1/16 playback in software anyway if doing so is of any practical advantage.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jvandyk View Post

Because then you're not using the original file. Upsampling 16 bit tracks often results in a different sound ( I know, not in this forum it doesn't). But in the rest of the audiphile world, upsampling is often desired to improve the sound of 16 bit collections. It has been reviewed by every major audio mag as a way to improve quality.

 

Most subjective reviews of electronics in "major audio mags" are nonsense. But upsampling can indeed be useful to work around the flaws of bad quality (e.g. NOS) DACs. Some of the most pathetically poor measured DAC performance is found in expensive boutique audiophile products. It should not be necessary or useful with a good oversampling DAC that has a high quality digital reconstruction filter, though. There is no upsampling, however, that can recover the high frequency content that was lost while sampling the signal at a low sample rate, just like you cannot resize a 2048x1536 pixel picture to 320x240 resolution, and then resize it again to 2048x1536 and get back the original amount of details.

post #275 of 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by jvandyk View Post

As long as we're having so much fun, here is a good link from one of the most respected DAC Enginneers in the industry. It backs up the debate against me and also my own points.

http://www.thewelltemperedcomputer.com/KB/Bit1624.htm

 

Interestingly, all this business about decay and noise floor is pretty relevant. If one listener thinks the 24 bit audio sounds more natural, but they cannot put their finger on it, it is because they are hearing the finest details of decay and the audible sound spectrum. And todays audio equipment does reproduce all of this.

 

24 bit audio is superior technically during playback..at least in the very fine details.

http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

post #276 of 516

Very nice read!  

 

Thank you!

 

A very pertinent quote from the link.

 

"No peer-reviewed paper that has stood the test of time disagrees substantially with these results. Controversy exists only within the consumer and enthusiast audiophile communities."

post #277 of 516
Hi guys,
Everybody that thinks 256 (or 320k) sounds as good as 24 bit, please reply! Then we'll have a list of the pie charts vs the listeners!
post #278 of 516

HA! TROLL! Good try. Move on to another forum now.

post #279 of 516

I dont understand how you can ask if we think various sample rates will sound as good as a bit depth...  that's a meaningless question

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jvandyk View Post

Hi guys,
Everybody that thinks 256 (or 320k) sounds as good as 24 bit, please reply! Then we'll have a list of the pie charts vs the listeners!
post #280 of 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by El_Doug View Post

I dont understand how you can ask if we think various sample rates will sound as good as a bit depth...  that's a meaningless question

Let me rephrase then, how about 4600kbps vs 320kbps. Why is it so hard for the SS forum to answer this without calling me a troll?
post #281 of 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post

HA! TROLL! Good try. Move on to another forum now.

Coming from a member who thinks 90kbps sounds just fine, your answer is expected.
post #282 of 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by jvandyk View Post

As long as we're having so much fun, here is a good link from one of the most respected DAC Enginneers in the industry. It backs up the debate against me and also my own points.

http://www.thewelltemperedcomputer.com/KB/Bit1624.htm

 

Interestingly, all this business about decay and noise floor is pretty relevant. If one listener thinks the 24 bit audio sounds more natural, but they cannot put their finger on it, it is because they are hearing the finest details of decay and the audible sound spectrum. And todays audio equipment does reproduce all of this.

 

24 bit audio is superior technically during playback..at least in the very fine details.


Funny the article you mention is using pictures as an example of using bit depth. Thing is, the human eye can distinguish about 10 million colors, and 24bit gives us 16 million colors, hence the use of 24bit color.

 

So here's what I'm getting at. Its the limit of human perception that defines the resolution of any medium. Not the other way round. If we cannot hear better than 16 bits of audio, it doesn't really matter whether we use 24 or 96bits. In the digital processing domain it may matter because audio equipment *can* distinguish between these bit depths, but not once its produced for listening.

 

The same can be said for resolution in terms of number of pixels per unit length, or sampling rate in terms of audio. If you've seen the high resolution displays you'll notice a 5" 1280x720 px makes it almost impossible to see the pixels, and truly impossible for a 4" screen with the same resolution, or higher PPI. The fact that we can cram in 1920x1080 px in the same size doesn't mean its better, because we can't notice it.

post #283 of 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by jvandyk View Post


Let me rephrase then, how about 4600kbps vs 320kbps. Why is it so hard for the SS forum to answer this without calling me a troll?

 


4600kbps contains more data, whether this extra data is all meaningful or not is another question.

320kpbs MP3 compressed by a good encoder like LAME has gotten really quite good over the years.

It is compressed "cherry-picked" audio data, and it does the picking well.

 

Oh, I shouldn't forget that subjective bias and placebo WILL make something that is considered better really perceived as being better by those who believe.

So if you believe 4600kbps (of what?) is better than CBR 320kbps MP3, it will likely sound better in your ears.

Doctors can prescribe placebo medications to patients upon informing that what they are receiving is placebo, and it helps with symptoms to some degree...

 

[SARCASM]I enjoy my 32-bit float, 192khz of silence generated in Audacity every bit as much its 96kbps lossy compressed counterpart, I REALLY DO![/SARCASM]


Edited by hoshiyomi - 1/6/13 at 7:40pm
post #284 of 516

I believe that, so long as storage media is getting more abundant and cheaper, we should have 800-bit 400 kHz audio. biggrin.gif

 

Considering that I can't hear vast differences between many mediums (I think I notice HDR more than increased quality), I don't see the need to do battle over Mp3s vs. CD for the rest of my life. I can say that, between mp4, DVD, and Blu-Ray editions, I would rather watch the Blu-Ray for maximum impact. For music, I am noticing that I mainly like CDs because, in my car environment, they do sound the best - my USB input is a little noisier. At home, bring on the Mp3s all day.

 

You can't distinguish in an A-B test so, why not relax and enjoy?

post #285 of 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by jvandyk View Post


Let me rephrase then, how about 4600kbps vs 320kbps. Why is it so hard for the SS forum to answer this without calling me a troll?

 

I haven't found a FLAC that I can reliably differentiate from v0 mp3 yet, so it stands to reason that I wouldn't be able to tell the difference between v0 and some higher lossless bitrate either. But I might try this today just to see what happens.  

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