or Connect
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Why would 24 bit / 192 khz flac sound any better than 16 bit / 44.1 khz flac if both are lossless (if at all)?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Why would 24 bit / 192 khz flac sound any better than 16 bit / 44.1 khz flac if both are lossless (if at all)? - Page 8

post #106 of 385
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brooko View Post
 

 

Check that link that Riverlethe left (http://www.mixonline.com/recording/mixing/audio_emperors_new_sampling/)

 

This sort of testing has been done on a large scale.  That's why I was so interested in your result.  If you can consistently identify the differences using different samples - then your results are important.  But it would have to be redone with independent verification (which is why I suggested contacting Ethan).  At the very least - contact him.  I'd imagine he would be interested .......

 

When was the last time you tested?

 

I see...

 

I glanced at the testing method in the article.  There are bunch of test conditions that seem different.   For one,

- Using headphone set up  (Centrance DACMini ->  Beyer T1)  rather than speakers

- Exactly same analog chain in all cases rather than switching different D/As

 

I must have done this around last October or so.

 

By the way, I don't have hearing that of a dog.  These days my "bandwidth" rolls off just shy of 17.5KHz when subjected to sines, including this headphone setup.

post #107 of 385

Premise is the same though - even if method is different.

 

If you can still tell the difference consistently, and across different samples - then you should let someone independently test you.  What your claiming (to my knowledge) has never been shown before (ie consistently and across differing samples).  That makes this a special case.

 

Question is will you do it?  Like I suggested - contact Ethan (http://www.head-fi.org/u/160148/ethanwiner).  I'm sure he would be interested. 

post #108 of 385

Why can't we confine the sample to what he mentioned?  I'd be impressed at any positive result.

post #109 of 385

Sorry I'll clarify - not sample as in sample bit-rate.  But sample as in example.  If he can consistently show positive results using 2 or 3 examples (so it's not just one track) - then this is pretty impressive, and worth pursuing.  He'd have to have it independently tested though.  Then it's believable.

post #110 of 385
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brooko View Post
 

Sorry I'll clarify - not sample as in sample bit-rate.  But sample as in example.  If he can consistently show positive results using 2 or 3 examples (so it's not just one track) - then this is pretty impressive, and worth pursuing.  He'd have to have it independently tested though.  Then it's believable.

 

I know, but why not just one track?  Use his source and headphones with his choice of track(s).  Of course, make sure that the chosen track is carefully downsampled and level-matched, etc.  I'll put up $10. :P

post #111 of 385

:popcorn:

post #112 of 385
Quote:
Originally Posted by riverlethe View Post
 

I know, but why not just one track?  Use his source and headphones with his choice of track(s).  Of course, make sure that the chosen track is carefully downsampled and level-matched, etc.  I'll put up $10. :P

 

Well whatever the test is - it makes naff all difference if he doesn't take it somewhere that it can be independently verified as being a valid test.  Again - the skeptic in me suggests that as much as I'd like to see it, Digitalchkn probably won't go through with it.  Love to be proven wrong though.  I'll bow out now.  Have made the suggestion.

post #113 of 385
Quote:
Originally Posted by riverlethe View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Digitalchkn View Post

I am a bit younger (35) but I can tell my hearing isn't what it used to be either.

I used the ABX foobar2000 plug in to do double blind tests I think maybe 10 comparisons. The volumes were kept identical -- the difference is only related to the sampling rate/bit depth conversion.

I don't recall exactly my source material but remember chosing some acoustic material with wide spectrum (harmonics in some passages close to 30KHz), large dynamic range, (read: little or no compression) and very pronounced 3D soundfield (in other words, not point sources with synthesized reverb but naturally captured acoustics).

The effect was that more of 3D perception of the soundstage. In other words, the 16/44 slightly flattened the soundstage.  24/48 made it more 3-dimensional.  The difference is very subtle, of course.

On the material I used, the difference between "truncated" 16/44 and 24/48 was more noticeable.The dithered version of 16/44 was much more of a challenge, just on the border of being barely noticeable.  Note that both versions were upscaled first.

I didn't test 16/44 vs 24/96 in this case because I thought that to be an unfair comparison.

Ten comparisons of 16/44 "truncated" vs 24/48 and 16/44 dithered vs 24/48? And you got 7/10 right in each run?

Here's a study with dozens of participants and 554 trials:

http://www.mixonline.com/recording/mixing/audio_emperors_new_sampling/
That's between DSD and down-sampled PCM though. It's not exactly the a fair comparison to say higher sampling rates provide no audible benefits. XD
post #114 of 385
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brooko View Post
 

 

Well whatever the test is - it makes naff all difference if he doesn't take it somewhere that it can be independently verified as being a valid test.  Again - the skeptic in me suggests that as much as I'd like to see it, Digitalchkn probably won't go through with it.  Love to be proven wrong though.  I'll bow out now.  Have made the suggestion.

 

Now I am intrigued. I'll try to recreate my test (too bad I sold my T1s) and post my files for others to review.

post #115 of 385
i can say only:

*When i hear my 24/192 vynil Rips , they sound just briliant
*when i compare them to actual mastered cd , vynil rip sounds to me lot better


but

*if i downconvert my own source to 16/44.1...i hear a difference
*it doesnt sound smooth enough for me and everything lacks some kind of extension
*when too much instruments get together on same time interval...more resolution makes it very clear sounding

actually i woul say, if i convert my recordings to 24/48Khz and compare them to 24/192, i would hear nearly no difference
but if i downconvert it to 16/44.1 then hell yeah i hear the difference


it depends on source, music art , the audio technic you use for that and hearing ability
i dont mean with hearing ability that somebody has bat ears
what i mean, that some people have trained and sensitive ears, they hear separations and most of the people just dont hear it,m because they never gave their ears enough time to train for it

the first touch with good quality audio on good equipment feels strange
it needs some time to get on..but once you start sensing details and separations, you would never ever go back


so my answer is, it depends on....
and of course nobody can hear 96Khz smily_headphones1.gif


dont mix apples and melons, guys

16bit and 24bit give resolutions
but 192Khz ist way too much...you just dont need that
i use that only because i have lot of HDD space and i really dont care about
i want that last 0.0001% quality ...een if i use extra 10GB for that


16 bit can be on its limits when you hear complex music with lots of instruments at the same time
24 bit indeen over covers all the needed possibilities
you would never ever need 32 bit audio
because 24 bit is far more then needed , but 16 bit ist just a lil bit on its limit when it comes to detalisation
Edited by utmelidze - 3/21/14 at 1:21am
post #116 of 385

So much wrong here I don't really know where to start ^^^

 

The maximum effective bitrate you're going to get from vinyl is really only 12-14 bits (note I said maximum effective, not maximum possible).  Actually - rather than me regurgitating what is available on the net already - here are a couple of topics from over at hydrogenaudio that deal with it .....

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=93998

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=35530

 

I won't go into the blind testing between different formats.  Too much debate - but in all of the properly controlled blind tests that I know of (ie actually reported independently), no-one so far has been able to successfully abx 16/44.1 from 24/96 (from the same master) unless there was issues with the hardware or transoding errors.

 

You can prefer vinyl - many do - but ripping at anything above 16/44.1 for personal listening (ie no post processing) is really just wasting space.

 

If it keeps you happy though - go for it ;)

post #117 of 385
As far analog signal has infinite possibilities
You can never code it effective with any amount of buts
post #118 of 385
It doesnt matter what dynamic range are you coding
More bits mean fine step ups and downs
And thats on xyz

I know.what do u mewn with that
And that happens very often
You are right in most way
But...:-)...16 bit steps arent fine enough for some worst case scenarios
Its not accident they choose 16 bit
It is good in most situationts snd for nearly everybody

16 bit has worse steps as i said
It means you need lil bit more capacity infouence to clean the stepy wave to wavy signal
More bit means less step level so less infouence on compensating
Its not some audio tech but just digital basics
post #119 of 385
Quote:
Originally Posted by utmelidze View Post

As far analog signal has infinite possibilities
You can never code it effective with any amount of buts

Absolutely not true. When we speak of the bits in the digital realm, we're really talking about dynamic range, signal-to-noise ratio - ~96dB for Red Book (16 bit). SNR on vinyl, due to inherent, physical limitations, is considerably lower, optimistically around 70dB. A 12 bit PCM signal would be ~72dB. 

post #120 of 385
Quote:
Originally Posted by miceblue View Post

That's between DSD and down-sampled PCM though. It's not exactly the a fair comparison to say higher sampling rates provide no audible benefits. XD

The article I linked to talks about a comparison between SACD and DVD-a vs those same sources down sampled through an analog-digital-analog loop. The 554 trials they performed demonstrate that it's a perfectly fair comparison.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Why would 24 bit / 192 khz flac sound any better than 16 bit / 44.1 khz flac if both are lossless (if at all)?