[bigshot]

It seems like we are a long, long away from being able to confidently claim that ultrasounds are having any real affect on the listener, positively or negatively.

Much less improve the perceived sound quality of music! If you can't even perceive it, how is it going to make Mozart sound better in your living room?

 

[StanD]

It seems like we are a long, long away from being able to confidently claim that ultrasounds are having any real affect on the listener, positively or negatively.

Too much of an ultrasonic power level and you have a weapon. I guess that's a negative.

 

[Don Hills]

Too much of an ultrasonic power level and you have a weapon. I guess that's a negative.

How about 145 to 155 dB SPL at 60 KHz, as proposed for a wireless cellphone charging system?

 

[StanD]

How about 145 to 155 dB SPL at 60 KHz, as proposed for a wireless cellphone charging system?

You could kill every bat for miles with that.

 

[castleofargh]

How about 145 to 155 dB SPL at 60 KHz, as proposed for a wireless cellphone charging system?

I instantly went to buy 2 "I only give negative feedback" shirts online. it's like finding my spirit animal.

 

[gregorio]

[1] Oh dear, a triumph of belief over reality.
[2] There are many other such references, try Google, knock yourself out. They all say the same.

1. That's just funny. Such a typical audiophile response, accuse others of exactly what you're guilty of!

2. Yes, they do all say the same. How on earth can you quote something you've obviously failed to read or understand? Let's look at that quote and read to the end of it:
"Dither should be added to any low-amplitude or highly periodic signal before any quantization or re-quantization process, in order to de-correlate the quantization noise from the input signal and to prevent non-linear behavior (distortion)." - It prevents non-linear behavior, which means the system is linear with dither and there is NO error/distortion. Your transients and everything else is L-I-N-E-A-R with dither! Instead of telling everyone else they don't know what dither is and to go and look at graphical representation of digital data, take your own advice and go and learn something. Instead of arguing from a position of ignorance and being rude to those who aren't so ignorant, why don't you ask if there's something you don't understand? That approach will serve you much better in this sub-forum.

G

 

[Cutestudio]

2. Yes, they do all say the same. How on earth can you quote something you've obviously failed to read or understand? Let's look at that quote and read to the end of it:
"Dither should be added to any low-amplitude or highly periodic signal before any quantization or re-quantization process, in order to de-correlate the quantization noise from the input signal and to prevent non-linear behavior (distortion)." - It prevents non-linear behavior, which means the system is linear with dither and there is NO error/distortion.
G

Oh dear, you really missed the point there, again.
You merely highlighted what dither does for long and periodic signals, which we all know already. Duh.

What you keep failing to acknowledge, either deliberately or via some form of denial or mental block is that dither doesn't fix short transient events, it merely reduces correlated quantisation artifacts over time in a statistical manner. You have a basic but only partially formed knowledge of dither: a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing'!

You are assuming it magically converts a low bit depth waveform into a higher bit depth waveform in all cases, but it's a statistical method and can therefore only do that over time. What do you think dither actually is? Think about the mechanism!! It's adding a sub-bit noise to a waveform before quantisation to a lower bit depth to statistically knock some values up to the next integer level, instead of the zero dither option that truncates them all flat.

This statistical method can only work over time and that is why it can't fix the shape of individual wavelets, it merely de-correlates the quantization artifacts. Of course the artifacts are non-linear, what did you think was linear about truncating certain values??

I suggest you learn a little about digital signal processing, the dither technique is not magic, it's a trade off, like a PWM signal it's making sure enough hops between the quantised levels occur over time so the errors appear as random noise rather than correlated noise: it's a trade, not a cure, and in no way makes the waveform more 'accurate', it just hides the error in a pleasant noise.

The very facts that:

1) People can hear the effect of different dithers
2) Many people post process digital sound before it's played

tells us that 16bit is inadequate for many, even it you think it's perfect for your car. Even the dither is wrong for post processing, mathematically TPDF dither is best for accuracy of long and continuos waveforms but many CDs and downloads are mastered with a final shaped dither (because they sound better), which is not ideal for any digital post processing like room EQ etc.

I'm still not sure why you keep pushing 16bit, 24bit is clearly a better format - even if you can't tell the difference - and is widely used outside of audio (DVD videos for instance often use 24 bits), your insistence that we all remain listening to a format that was barely adequate 30 years ago shows that you are living in the past and need to embrace the technology of today, not the 'good enough for me' 16bit format.

We don't all listen to church organ recitals.

 

[WoodyLuvr]

I'm still not sure why you keep pushing 16bit, 24bit is clearly a better format - even if you can't tell the difference - and is widely used outside of audio (DVD videos for instance often use 24 bits), your insistence that we all remain listening to a format that was barely adequate 30 years ago shows that you are living in the past and need to embrace the technology of today, not the 'good enough for me' 16bit format.

Barely adequate thirty (30) years ago?! So does that mean you believe CDs were already inferior when consumers were just beginning to afford them in the late-80s?

We don't all listen to church organ recitals.

We also don't need flippant remarks that have absolutely no bearing on the conversation at hand. It's uncalled for and unneeded and comes across childish and pity. Why not just simply argue your point well and politely? Let's all be nice.

 

[gregorio]

[1] Oh dear, you really missed the point there, again. You merely highlighted what dither does for long and periodic signals, which we all know already. Duh.
[2] You have a basic but only partially formed knowledge of dither: a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing'!
[3] I suggest you learn a little about digital signal processing ... [3a] it's a trade, not a cure, and in no way makes the waveform more 'accurate' ...
[4] The very facts that:
1) People can hear the effect of different dithers
2) Many people post process digital sound before it's played ... mathematically TPDF dither is best for accuracy of long and continuos waveforms but many CDs and downloads are mastered with a final shaped dither (because they sound better), which is not ideal for any digital post processing like room EQ etc.
[5] I'm still not sure why you keep pushing 16bit, 24bit is clearly a better format - even if you can't tell the difference - and is widely used outside of audio (DVD videos for instance often use 24 bits), your insistence that we all remain listening to a format that was barely adequate 30 years ago shows that you are living in the past and need to embrace the technology of today, not the 'good enough for me' 16bit format.

1. What point, the point you've just invented to support your ridiculous argument? YOU are the one who quoted that dither "prevents non-linear behavior", where's the addendum or caveat to that quote which states: "except in the case of transients"? There isn't one, you've just made it up! Dither prevents non-linear distortion period, nothing excluded, Duh!

2. Not nearly as dangerous as a delusion instead of ANY knowledge!

3. It's way past time to take your own advice. Some 101 basics will do you for the time being! You really, really need to learn what dither is and to give you a starting clue, it's NOT just masking quantisation error in noise!
3a. You do know what "linear" means? As dither prevents non-linear behavior, then with dither we have linear behavior and therefore the waveform is perfectly accurate, so duh, dither obviously makes the waveform more accurate. Unless you're saying the quote you posted and all the countless similar ones you mentioned are all wrong? Also, you do realise that a transient is also a waveform that occurs over time?

4.1. Of course you can hear it, just apply dither to a low level signal, increase the gain by 70dB or so and it's easy to hear.
4.2. So? ... What are you doing with your EQ'ing, boosting 17kHz by 50dB? And yes, TDPF is best for audio waveforms, hurah, I think you're getting it. Now all you need to get is that a transient is also an audio waveform, duh! You do realise that all sound occurs over time, duh?

5. Right, you can't tell a difference but it's better anyway? Anyone else for a big dose of audiophile Koolaid? Secondly, as you've been told, DVD videos typically have a per channel bit rate which is about a tenth of the bit rate for 16/44.1 (as indeed does HDTV)! Thirdly, how on earth can you describe having 40 - 100 times more dynamic range than ever required as "barely adequate"? You keep avoiding this question, which leads to the conclusion that you recognise this huge logical hole in your argument and therefore refuse to address it, presumably to suit your agenda which, I can only assume, must be either; trolling, shill'ing or a fierce determination to maintain your audiophile myth/delusion?

G

 

[pinnahertz]

I'm still not sure why you keep pushing 16bit, 24bit is clearly a better format - even if you can't tell the difference - and is widely used outside of audio (DVD videos for instance often use 24 bits), your insistence that we all remain listening to a format that was barely adequate 30 years ago shows that you are living in the past and need to embrace the technology of today, not the 'good enough for me' 16bit format.

Sooo many problems here. I'm just picking this one, because...well, frankly, I'm exhausted.

DVD videos and 24 bit audio?? Nope. Yes, the capability is there, but the disk only holds 8 gig, and if you did a 2 hr movie in 24 bit 6 channel PCM, that's over 6 gig. So, no, they don't.

Blu-ray did someone say? Yes, there is 24 bit audio on BD. Considering lossless PCM only, it's about 10% of all releases. Considering all codecs, even the lossy ones, we bump up to 22%. So, yes, it's there, not it's not all, or most. All and most is 16 bits. (statistics taken from blu-raystats.com)

Why do you think that is? Do you think it's because it's a lousy outdated audio format "barely adequate 30 years ago"? Or is it fully adequate to convey the creative intentions, and they're using the bandwidth for other content (like multi-language/multi-channel tracks, extras, etc.), especially so in multichannel audio?

One more thing, I take exception to your "barely adequate 30 years ago" statement. Some of us were actually around then, working in pro audio, and even for a decade or so before that. Adequate? Lemme tell you. Analog...anything...was not really adequate. We had to jump it through hoops to get it to be acceptable. Tape running fast, add-on noise reduction, re-alignment of the recorder with every tape batch....no, it really kinda sucked, but that's all we had so it was "adequate"...in really big quotes. Then along comes 16 bits. You cannot even imagine the improvement in every single aspect of audio storage and reproduction. It's not a small difference, it' was huge. We went from adequate (because it's all we had) analog, to blowing it's doors off with humble 16 bit digital.

I don't call that "barely adequate 30 years ago". And it's not "barely adequate" now either.

Your world is very different, clearly.

 

[Cutestudio]

We also don't need flippant remarks that have absolutely no bearing on the conversation at hand. It's uncalled for and unneeded and comes across childish and pity. Why not just simply argue your point well and politely? Let's all be nice.

Now now, that was an example of music that responds well to dither, did you actually read my reply?

1. What point, the point you've just invented to support your ridiculous argument? YOU are the one who quoted that dither "prevents non-linear behavior", where's the addendum or caveat to that quote which states: "except in the case of transients"? There isn't one, you've just made it up! Dither prevents non-linear distortion period, nothing excluded, Duh!

I'm sensing you're all riled up about this for some reason and didn't actually read my post properly.
Perhaps you should have a think about the mechanism, dither can only span those quantisation gaps over time, time a transient may not have.
You appear to be disputing a mathematical fact.

3a. As dither prevents non-linear behavior, then with dither we have linear behavior and therefore the waveform is perfectly accurate.

You see this is where I'm disagreeing with you, dither can only work over a number of samples because it's a statistical method.

I suspect the problem is that you haven't reviewed many digital waveforms close in and seen how much each point counts. Take the old Genesis 'Lamb Lies Down' album, very dynamic, plenty of very quiet parts where dither is really important for 16bit due to the inherent lack of resolution. The 'perfectly accurate' you speak of is a statistical measure than cannot apply to the exact shape of one-off transient events, only in general will the waveform be considered accurate. E.g. in a periodic waveform you can look at a dithered digital cycles, superimpose all the cycles and averaged together they are indeed accurate, but individually they still have to obey the quantising levels. If therefore you only have one of them you have no idea of knowing the true shape.

And yes, TDPF is best for audio waveforms, hurah,

Well no, again you simplify, mastering doesn't just use TPDF, shaped dither is a popular way to get a better sound from the CD format: your declaration that is 'is best' disagrees with all those mastering engineers who use a shaped dither.
He's some useful posts discussing that.
https://www.gearslutz.com/board/mastering-forum/434950-noise-shaping-dither.html

5. Right, you can't tell a difference but it's better anyway?

Who can't tell the difference?

http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00093/full
http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=18296

how on earth can you describe having 40 - 100 times more dynamic range than ever required as "barely adequate"? G

How on earth? Less hysteria, more thought please.
What makes you think 96dB covers all possible cases? I know you think it's more with dither, and for many music styles it is, especially church organ music, but as explained above it's rather debatable if dither helps short transient events.

How can you re-create a live concert sound in your house or headphones with 96dB? Or even the sound of a well hit snare drum? It seems to me you are arguing for Mid-Fi, not Hi-Fi. There are many obstacles to Hi-Fi, the ability to go to 24bit is not one of them, except perhaps here in this thread for a reason I have yet to fathom.

You also keep ignoring the fact that some people post process their digital music as which point 24bit would be rather more useful: mastering sometimes doesn't stop on release of the digital file.
And you keep refusing to explain your reasons for not liking 24bit as a 'consumer' medium, what's the deal with that? 'Because you don't think other people need it' wasn't registering here as a reason BTW.

Sooo many problems here. I'm just picking this one, because...well, frankly, I'm exhausted.

DVD videos and 24 bit audio?? Nope. Yes, the capability is there, but the disk only holds 8 gig, and if you did a 2 hr movie in 24 bit 6 channel PCM, that's over 6 gig. So, no, they don't.

Your generalisation from a single example is noted.
Yes, the capability is there would have been sufficient.
Outside the HiFi box 24bit and high sample rates are common place, as they are in any pro-audio gear (obviously), which is often IME cheaper and better than the niche 'audio' gear.

I bought a cheap USB to S/PDIF converter the other day with coax and optical out for a project, you know what, even that goes to 24bit / 96kHz.
Yet here we are, double teaming the heretic who suggests 24bit has benefit over 16bit. Doh!

 

[Whazzzup]

I can tell the difference, matter of fact, I'm a 32 bit man 384 or 786 fr to boot.

 

[WoodyLuvr]

@Cutestudio your antics and tone are too silly and childish for my tastes and time; too bad you couldn't behave and be civil as you did have some interesting points and arguments... but alas you are now set on "IGNORE". Goodbye.

 

[Guidostrunk]

Never run from a debate! Regardless!

Anyway....... I've never really paid attention to bit rates and whatnot. FWIW, I've downloaded stuff from HDtracks("lossless") , in the past, and have been a Spotify premium account holder for 3 years now. Listening to the same song , with my back turned to my laptop , and my wife randomly switching between foobar, and Spotify. I could not accurately tell which one was lossless , or Spotify. Almost every time I guessed , my wife said nope, you're wrong.
And yes , I was literally guessing because I could hear no discernible difference whatsoever.
Thank God, because I haven't downloaded anything from there since, which in turn, saved me some cash.

Who knows. Maybe I'm not a "Critical listener", or have "Golden ears".
I'm content with that though.

 

[headdict]

Did you by any chance use tracks consisting of more than one sample for your comparisons? That would perfectly explain why you were not able to discern HD from the lossy format. Sorry to tell you you did it all wrong.