Originally Posted by jonbernard
Originally Posted by ab initio
Just to clear things up a bit. This test was not designed to determine whether or not people could tell a difference between 16 and 24 bit PCM files with 96kHz sample rates. This was a test of whether or not people could identify which of the files was which of the bit depths. This is a subtle but important difference. In this test, we can conclude that the listeners could not correctly identify a which of the audio tracks were which bit depth.
I asked Mark Waldrep (Dr. AIX), a proponent of 96K/24bit, what he thought of the test, and he responded
More of the same. If the samples that are played don’t exhibit any differences for the quality (in this case dynamic range) that you’re trying the test for, then how can you claim it’s a valid test? In this case, I downloaded the files and the largest dynamic range present was about 60 dB…just 10-12-bits of PCM would more than cover that.
That said, I'm still a big fan of Archimago's blog.
but that's exactly the point here right? before asking if some people could actually hear the benefits of sounds at least 96db under the loudest recorded instrument, let's start with the fact that albums don't even use that much dynamic. what is the point of trying to demonstrate something by using music that isn't what's available to public? I'm not recording a whale, I'm listening to my favorite albums.
in my collection the good stuff I've found was around 60-70db of dynamic, so it does look like archimago tried to use some of the most dynamic samples he owned.
what was done in this test was overall the right call IMO. nothing new, that's right, but multiplying those tests is obviously a necessity when so many people keep being purposedly misled. he probably started this himself because he was bored of reading false claims(something I can really relate to).
I'm not really against 24bit, at least not as much as I am against 96khz or more. because at least 24bit doesn't hurt the sound or forces to use architectures that are best for wide frequency range instead of using what's best for the actual audible range. but even to use the volume of foobar at -60db like a crazy person, I just need to tell foobar to output 24bit so my music stays safe. no need for an original 24bit album right?
I liked the article a lot, lot of information but not at all boring, I see this as an actual success even if the conclusion was indeed obvious from the start. a bigger number of people would always be better for specific readings but it's hard to blame him for that ^_^. it was a good call and I enjoyed reading it thanks.