[elrod-tom]

At the moment, I use a Wadia 830 and balanced markl-modded Denon D5000's right off the back balanced outs, or same with a Fisher 500C amp (the headphone jack taps the main amp section). I've had all sorts of stuff, from a Headroom Airhead through a Headroom Balanced Desktop (which is a hell of a bargain btw). I just keep playing around with stuff to find the best value.

OT - sorry...

 

[mbd2884]

Thanks, very cool.

 

[Pio2001]

Quote:

Originally Posted by gregorio /img/forum/go_quote.gif AFAIK, there has never been a DBT between 16bit and 24bit (under controlled conditions) using the same sample frequency, where anyone has been able to tell the difference with any more accuracy than would be expected from chance.

In 44.1/16 vs 24/96 tests, the audibility of the quantisation noise have been reported, but at unusual listening levels. The fact is mentionned in Meyer and Moran's paper : Double-blind test of SACD and DVD-A vs. Redbook 16/44 in JAES Septembe - Hydrogenaudio Forums

I have myself reproduced the result with closed headphones, with a high definition recording that I myself converted to 44.1/16, and at a listening level that I would evaluate around 90 dB RMS / 112 dB for the highest peak. But I did not listen to music at all. Just to the noise during the beginning of the fade-in.
The conversion was done with Voxengo R8brain. Playback with Foobar2000 v0.8 (the ABX module equalizes the Replaygain levels). Score 10/10.

 

[wnmnkh]

I had not bothered to read all of previous posts, but I am sure that this topic has been discussed to death in Hydrogen forum.

Frequently Asked Questions - Hydrogenaudio Forums

 

[wnmnkh]

Some quote from Hydrogen Forum.

Lyx
Quote:

We dont need it. It's just virtual useless number-games to give people the incentive to buy new equipment and then re-buy all our music. There are some *technical* arguments for using 48khz instead of 44khz.... but the actual benefit for normal endusers is zero.

Garf
Quote:

Well, the advantage of DVDA and SACD is exactly that they are multichannel. And have DRM, which is obviously a big advantage to some people.

These two are the conclusions of the topic IMO.

 

[gregorio]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pio2001 /img/forum/go_quote.gif In 44.1/16 vs 24/96 tests, the audibility of the quantisation noise have been reported, but at unusual listening levels. The fact is mentionned in Meyer and Moran's paper : Double-blind test of SACD and DVD-A vs. Redbook 16/44 in JAES Septembe - Hydrogenaudio Forums I have myself reproduced the result with closed headphones, with a high definition recording that I myself converted to 44.1/16, and at a listening level that I would evaluate around 90 dB RMS / 112 dB for the highest peak. But I did not listen to music at all. Just to the noise during the beginning of the fade-in. The conversion was done with Voxengo R8brain. Playback with Foobar2000 v0.8 (the ABX module equalizes the Replaygain levels). Score 10/10.

AFAIK, the Voxengo R8brain does not apply noise-shaped dither, just standard distribution (wide band) dither. So if you turn your amp right up, you should hear the dither noise louder than on the 24bit version, although you shouldn't hear it a normal listening levels. Using a noise-shaped dither should make the dither noise much less dectable, very close, if not identical to the noise on the 24bit original, even at very high listening levels.

G

 

[Pio2001]

Voxengo uses gaussian dither with slight noise shaping. Strong noise shaping would have been less, or not audible, I must admit.

 

[leeperry]

Quote:

Originally Posted by CDBacklash /img/forum/go_quote.gif you'd be lying if you said you can perfectly recreate bits that should have been there from nothing (because what is lost will vary). Keep your opinions all you want

agreed, whatever recordings I did when I was working at a studio, my own masters or some 24/96 recording floating around(Depeche Mode "Violator"/Marvin Gaye "The Marvin Gaye Collection" in lossless 24/96 from the SACD, compressed losslessly from MLP w/ a Lynx2 soundcard).....16/44.1 will NEVER sound as good as 24/96, I don't care what that Nyquist guy said

it's always funny to see very smart ppl explaining you that 16/44.1 & 24/96 sound absolutely identical

just like reverb trails on properly decoded HDCD sound more natural than the same track converted to 16/44.1

Rupert Neve has always called the "16/44.1" foolish, and I'd guess that he's sorta aware of the tricks of the trade

from If 44.1 digital is imperfect, are audio engineers doomed t.. :

Quote:

First, the statement that digital doesn't deliver as competely as analog doesn't necessarily have to do with frequency response, it has to do with the emotional reation in the listener. Whether one delivers hypersonic content that the other doesn't or adds a pleaseing distortion and any other technical difference is irrelevant to the point I'm trying to make. Here's the relevant section: Fletcher: There has been some measure of debate about bandwidth including frequencies above 20kHz, can we hear them, do they make a difference, etc. Rupert Neve: OK, Fletch, pin your ears back...back in 1977, just after I had sold the company, George Martin called me to say that Air Studios had taken delivery of a Neve Console which did not seem to be giving satisfaction to Geoff Emmerick. In fact, he said that Geoff is unhappy.... engineers from the company, bear in mind that at this point I was not primarily involved, had visited the studio and reported that nothing was wrong. They said that the customer is mad and that the problem will go away if we ignore it long enough. Well I visited the studio and after careful listening with Geoff, I agreed with him that three panels on this 48 panel console sounded slightly different. We discovered that there was a 3dB peak at 54kHz Geoff's golden ears had perceived that there was a difference. We found that 3 transformers had been incorrectly wired and it was a matter of minutes to correct this. After which Geoff was happy. And I mean that he relaxed and there was a big smile on his face. As you can imagine a lot of theories were put forward, but even today I couldn't tell you how an experienced listener can perceive frequencies of the normal range of hearing. And following on from this, I was visiting Japan and was invited to the laboratories of Professor Oohashi He had discovered that when filters were applied to an audio signal cutting off frequencies of 20 kHz, the brain started to emit electric signals which can be measured and quantified These signals were at the frequencies and of the pattern which are associated with frustration and anger. Clearly we discussed this at some length and I also would forward the idea that any frequencies which were not part of the original music, such as quantisizing noise produced by compact discs and other digital sources, also produced similar brain waves.

 

[CDBacklash]

Undithered 16bit sound has actually been ABXed many times on HAF with test tones, and 16bit dithered and 24bit has also been abxed a few times on HAF with test tones.
Telling the difference with music is a different story.

 

[gregorio]

Quote:

Originally Posted by leeperry /img/forum/go_quote.gif agreed, whatever recordings I did when I was working at a studio, my own masters or some 24/96 recording floating around(Depeche Mode "Violator"/Marvin Gaye "The Marvin Gaye Collection" in lossless 24/96 from the SACD, compressed losslessly from MLP w/ a Lynx2 soundcard).....16/44.1 will NEVER sound as good as 24/96, I don't care what that Nyquist guy said ... it's always funny to see very smart ppl explaining you that 16/44.1 & 24/96 sound absolutely identical.

I never said that 16/44.1 & 24/96 always sound identical. This thread was origianlly about 16 vs 24bit. At any sensible hearing level, they cannot be told apart. Under some test conditions is possible to hear the difference but you need very high levels, which precludes listening to material at a normal level as it would be way too loud. It is possible that 96kFs/s could make a difference as mentioned earlier but no one has successfully been able to identify a difference in DBT.

The work of Professor Oohashi has caused no end of trouble. He produced an infamous paper with DBT proof that frequencies higher than 20kHz could be heard through measuring brain wave activity. This paper has been quoted and used many times. However, it was shown that his methodology was flawed. Using the correct methodology Professor Oohashi's experiments have been repeated many times in various countries but never have the results been repeatable.

Rupert Neve is one of the most respected manufacturers of studio equipment in the business but his reputation was for analogue products, more than digital. I've heard the story you posted about him in Air Studios but I don't know it's accuracy nor what exactly was heard or what was tested. As I mentioned before, there is some anecdotal evidence for greater than 20k perception.

Of course perception is very different to hearing. Anyone could percieve 200dB of 30kHz signal, they would percieve a great deal of pain or death!!! Unless we can actually hear beyond 20k though is it really relevant? The question is; how much program material is present at 20kHz+, how much of it can we record and how much can be heard above the noise floor. The answer in my opinion is none and testing would bare this out. Again though, with respect, we got into a discussion with sample rates of 192kFs/s, which is even further outside what is plausible.

You might think "it's always funny to see very smart ppl explaining you that 16/44.1 & 24/96 sound absolutely identical" but then thousands of smart people professionals and consumers have taken place in number of DBT with higher sample rates in controlled conditions and there has never been a significant result (that wasn't flawed). So I would say "it's funny to see very smart people saying that 16/44.1 sounds worse than 24/96" when all the considerable proof which exists contradicts this statement.

G

 

[CDBacklash]

Quote:

Originally Posted by gregorio /img/forum/go_quote.gif Under some test conditions is possible to hear the difference

Thanks for clearing this up

 

[HeadLover]

I have a question if you may.

In today digital area, we have no problems of storage, so putting a media in a "studio quality" like LINN has on their site (24/96 or even 24/192) isn't a problem.

I mean, now days we have HD of even up to 2-4 tera byte, I guess that this number will be more like 16 Tera in some years from now.

So even if a 70-80 minutes of music take up to 4GB of data, isn't a problem any more (FLAC with 24/96 of 70 minutes is something like 900MB)

So, why not using 24/96 as the new standard ?!
I mean, it can only bring good things to us, even if the different is less than 0.0001%, still why not ?

I am sure that if now days someone will have the ability to plan his on RED CD, it will be like 24/96 or even more, why?
Because we can

 

[ILikeMusic]

Quote:

I mean, it can only bring good things to us, even if the different is less than 0.0001%, still why not ?

Would it still be a good idea at 0.000001% difference or are you drawing a line?

 

[ThePredator]

Quote:

Originally Posted by HeadLover /img/forum/go_quote.gif I have a question if you may. In today digital area, we have no problems of storage, so putting a media in a "studio quality" like LINN has on their site (24/96 or even 24/192) isn't a problem. I mean, now days we have HD of even up to 2-4 tera byte, I guess that this number will be more like 16 Tera in some years from now. So even if a 70-80 minutes of music take up to 4GB of data, isn't a problem any more (FLAC with 24/96 of 70 minutes is something like 900MB) So, why not using 24/96 as the new standard ?! I mean, it can only bring good things to us, even if the different is less than 0.0001%, still why not ? I am sure that if now days someone will have the ability to plan his on RED CD, it will be like 24/96 or even more, why? Because we can

Same reason we will never store video as raw data, there is no point. Not only are you increasing data requirements, you are increasing the time taken to move the data (across the internet, optical to magnetic, magnetic to magnetic, etc) and you are also increasing the processing time to play it back. It introduces even more complexity because most people don't have DACs that can do 24/96, much less 24/192.

 

[gregorio]

Quote:

Originally Posted by CDBacklash /img/forum/go_quote.gif Thanks for clearing this up

Yes, but the test conditions are quite strict otherwise a difference will not be detectable. Very low amplitude test tones need to be used rather than music and noise-shaped dither should not be used. Careful editing is also required otherwise editing clicks could cause damage (to equipment and/or ears).

Quote:

Originally Posted by HeadLover /img/forum/go_quote.gif I have a question if you may. In today digital area, we have no problems of storage, so putting a media in a "studio quality" like LINN has on their site (24/96 or even 24/192) isn't a problem. I mean, now days we have HD of even up to 2-4 tera byte, I guess that this number will be more like 16 Tera in some years from now. So even if a 70-80 minutes of music take up to 4GB of data, isn't a problem any more (FLAC with 24/96 of 70 minutes is something like 900MB) So, why not using 24/96 as the new standard ?! I mean, it can only bring good things to us, even if the different is less than 0.0001%, still why not ? I am sure that if now days someone will have the ability to plan his on RED CD, it will be like 24/96 or even more, why? Because we can

CD will never have hi-rez because the data rate is beyond the capabilities of the media. The only possible way around this would be quite strong data compression.

The difference between 16bit and 24bit, if done properly, is 0%. So if you want to completely waste an extra third of your storage space for no reason whatsoever, it's your choice. The problem isn't only the storage space, it's the whole concept that many consumers think that 24bit makes a difference (however small) when it does not. Sooner or later, if it's not already happening, companies are going to start charging more for hi-rez than they do for 16bit, on the basis that 24bit is better quality and worth more than 16bit. The rip-off will be self re-inforcing as it's much easier to sell the idea that more data is better, than it is to sell the idea that it makes no difference. At that point, the truth of digital audio and hi-rez will be even worse off than $2,000 power cables because the majority of people will believe it makes a difference.

It makes little difference to me, I've used 24bit for recording and production for well over a decade, it's not like I'm going to have to change the way I work to fullfill the demand.

If consumers want to get the very highest digital audio quality format possible under any circumstances, currently (in theory) that would be 16bit 88.2kFs/s. But the difference between this and standard CD format has never been reliably differentiated by listeners. Instead, I would much rather see a consumer demand for high quality recording, production and mastering. If audiophiles spent as much time learning and understanding what makes a good recording, rather than trying to prove something exists beyond the science behind cables (for example), the quality of the music you listen to would improve dramatically.

There appears to me to be a great deal of snake oil in the audiophile world. Why spend so much time, effort and money on areas of digital audio which are going to make either no difference or differences which border on the impossible to detect, when you could be concentrating your efforts on areas which make the most dramatic of all differences. This to me seems like a much more logical avenue to persue because it would lead to an obvious quality improvement which everyone could benefit from rather than some miniscule difference which is undetectable by human beings.

It's not like it would even be difficult, just start making note of the producer, studio and possibly engineer of those tracks which sound good quality to you. Then buy more music created by those people and/or that studio. Then you will create a demand for higher quality productions which will drive the industry to create better quality. It's no use blaming the record companies, the formats or the engineers, it's you the consumer who drive the market. If the demand is for low quality mp3s, why would a company spend extra money to make a higher quality product for less profit? So effectively, the marketplace seems to want the same old rubbish only in higher data formats?! Free downloads and digital file exchange is having a serious impact on the industry. It's simple economics, if there is less income available there is going to be less investment in the product. Make a real difference to audio quality, don't argue about ridiculous $1,000 power cables or 24/192 format digital, argue about the quality of the recording and demand and pay for better!

Sorry for the rant but this message really needs to be driven home to the audiophile community, if you really are interested in high quality audio.

G