[bfreedma]

Is it New Years Eve or April Fools day?

Al, you know you’re in the Sound Science subforum, right? Just checking because you don’t seem to based on your posts. The notion that AES papers and related research are all wrong and your subjective opinions are some sort of validation is comical. As is your statement that you “don’t have a dog in this fight” - you clearly do based on your insistence that your investment in high res somehow equals audiblity. It’s also interesting that you describe your room based on what’s in it down to power supplies and the OS on your computers (seriously? as if the operating system has any impact) but make no mention of room treatments and/or room eq solutions.

 

[TheSonicTruth]

I am out of ny it's New Year's Eve. I'll post it some time tomorrow I promise
My place
Room built for purpose 20/9/55 ft
speakers cust infinity IRS V , new caps and LPS , magnets etc.
mark levivson pre no 26 Amps no 33
mogami gold mic interconnects , new soon
digital three cust servers , win ser 2016 , AO 2.20 and cust Linux Kernal for NAS
player roon server , dac PC HQ player USB power cut at main board
network isolators cat 7a shielded , LPS for all pcs and network switches and routers. Audio network ips dedicated nas is music and network switch and router. Dacs lampi various

20x9x55'??? 55' deep?
The economy class section of a 747?

 

[castleofargh]

by the comment your not trying either it's amazing how much can be done on paper with no real-time hearing
cheers to your ignorance in this.
So on paper bits are bits right
Jitter does not exist
Flabby bass or schilling highs it's the System or recording. Such little actual knowing and so much more on a parrots level and repeat. If I posted it it's real try it or shut up about how it can be.
I will upload soon as I can to push for anyone who can take the time to hear it.

he's reacting this way because you wouldn't be the first one to come here with total certainty and no fact. over the years, it takes more and more patience and willpower to receive overconfident people with no proof, because it usually turns out to be a waste of everybody's time and we have all become painfully aware of it.
I see that you plan to try and upload some samples, thank you for that. it at least suggests that you're honestly trying to demonstrate something and that's a nice change for us.
please upload short samples of songs instead of a full song so that you're not doing anything illegal by sharing it.and if you have issues with that, let us know and someone will surely offer to help.

by the comment your not trying either it's amazing how much can be done on paper with no real-time hearing

now that's just weird. do you really expect that people staying on audio forums for years and roaming this specific subsection, focused on blind listening and controlled data, would have never tried to compare various formats and resolutions? most people around here have done it many times casually and in blind tests(ABX or other). that's why several of us suggested to check that you're not talking about different mastering of the same album(something that will be answered once you share a sample of both tracks). because it's more likely to get an audible difference from remastered tracks, than it is to get one from a change in resolution between CD and something bigger. so obviously that's was the first suggestion, and the second was that something in your system isn't transparent when playing one of the formats. only when such obvious possibilities have been cleared out, can we start considering that some audible difference is coming from the resolution itself. it's a simple process of eliminating the potential causes.

 

[stonesfan129]

Still waiting for the files to be shared.

 

[71 dB]

Hahaha no man no dog in the fight. It's about proving your claim wrong based on databases papers that all. No disrespect in any way.
Here is one is dsd 128 better then dsd 64 ? What's your view plesee no bull

I don't claim deep knowledge of PDM encoding, but I think my knowledge of it makes it safe to say both DSD128 and DSD64 are capable of producing transparent audio for human ears. DSD128 might offer some marginal advantage (reduced distortion?) over DSD64 in the recording process that I am unware of, but I think for human ears it doesn't make a difference. DSD data is the differential of PCM data. Integrating DSD gives PCM. That's why all you need to decode DSD bitstream to analog signal is an analog intergrator, a low pass filter. Anyway, this thread is about PCM format and specifically the significance of bit depth.

 

[gregorio]

[1] by the comment your not trying either it's amazing how much can be done on paper with no real-time hearing ... [1a] cheers to your ignorance in this.
[2] So on paper bits are bits right. [2a] Jitter does not exist.
[2b] Flabby bass or schilling highs it's the System or recording. [2c] Such little actual knowing and so much more on a parrots level and repeat.

1. Yes it is. Digital audio was invented "on paper", one specific paper to be precise. However, you need to be careful here, there's an old English saying, "those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones". How much "real-time" hearing/listening do you have? Almost certainly less than me or some others here!
1a. No, cheers for yours! Again, you need to be careful, you don't know who you're talking to, some of the people here know far more than you and calling others ignorant when you are the one with far less knowledge will just make you look foolishness!

2. On paper AND in a digital audio system.
2a. Where did you get that from? Jitter always exists but today's technology reduces jitter to such low levels that amps/speakers cannot reproduce it and even very cheap modern DACs can do this. If you have a jitter issue that's actually audible, then as already stated, you must have an incredibly poor/faulty system.
2b. Correct, it must be either the system or the recording. If you're getting a flabby bass or shilling highs on all your recordings, then either you ONLY listen to poor examples of certain music genres or you have a poor system (or a good system very poorly setup).
2c. You are the one "parroting", you're parroting audiophile myths and clearly have little actual knowledge. Did you read the OP? If so, what part of it didn't you understand?

Any same track at 24 shows a much lower noise floor ...

Sure, under certain circumstances some tracks will show a lower noise floor with 24bit when viewed on a spectral analysis. However, you should take your own advice and try listening; the noise floor of 16bit is below the noise floor of almost all recordings, below audibility at any reasonable listening level and your system cannot reproduce anywhere near 24bits anyway. Did you not read the OP?

If I posted it it's real try it or shut up about how it can be.

Firstly, you obviously have little idea of what's real and what isn't, if you did then you wouldn't be listening to music recordings in the first place! And secondly, the "glass houses" saying applies again, some of us HAVE tried it, many more times, for many more years and under more stringent conditions than you. So you're making yourself look foolish as in comparison YOU haven't tried it and you should "shut up"!

[1] Did you read my post of my room so I sound like I'm nuts hahaha
[2] An open mind is nice it's about hearing it not a paper telling us it's perfect.

1. Yes, unfortunately you do sound like you're nuts. Why would you built a room with such poor dimensions for sound reproduction?

2. Firstly, an open mind is nice but only about certain things. Surely it's only "nice" to have an open mind about things that are not already quite certain? For example, is it it "nice" to have an open mind that the Earth is flat or that gravity doesn't exist? Secondly, having an open mind should surely apply to you too, shouldn't it? Shouldn't you have an open mind to well known and demonstrated facts, even if they conflict with your beliefs?

Time and again we have audiophiles come here, try to tell us what's real and what isn't and that they have better hearing and better equipment than us, ALL of which is FALSE! I am used to a system that's almost certainly far better than yours, I have trained listening skills and I listen to recordings far more than you do (and so do ALL my colleagues), so those parts of your typical audiophile argument are false! As to what's "real", there are people here whose job is to make the unreal seem real (to human hearing perception), so who is the person demonstrating ignorance here?

G

 

[stonesfan129]

We are still waiting for the files to be posted. This is just getting silly. Please post the files or stop claiming to hear a difference.

 

[Slaphead]

We are still waiting for the files to be posted. This is just getting silly. Please post the files or stop claiming to hear a difference.

I’ve been reading this thread development with anticipation, however I fear that the relevant files will never appear.

There’s no doubt that Mr Rainbow’s system is impressive - certainly able to reproduce music with a large dynamic range. However assuming the electronics are pretty much the best possible then we’re talking only 19 to 20 bits of dynamic range, not the 24 bits Mr Rainbow is talking about. And then we have the transducers and they’re going to knock the dynamic range back quite a bit.

The other thing to consider is that Mr Rainbow’s system cost an arm and a leg and probably another limb as well, so there is almost certainly a large expectation bias coming into play as well.

 

[bfreedma]

I’ve been reading this thread development with anticipation, however I fear that the relevant files will never appear.

There’s no doubt that Mr Rainbow’s system is impressive - certainly able to reproduce music with a large dynamic range. However assuming the electronics are pretty much the best possible then we’re talking only 19 to 20 bits of dynamic range, not the 24 bits Mr Rainbow is talking about. And then we have the transducers and they’re going to knock the dynamic range back quite a bit.

The other thing to consider is that Mr Rainbow’s system cost an arm and a leg and probably another limb as well, so there is almost certainly a large expectation bias coming into play as well.

It's a nice list of gear, but without an in room response plot (and other measurements), who knows what it sounds like. I've seen plenty of expensive systems in bad rooms and/or poorly configured and EQed which are outperformed by systems costing a fraction of the price.

 

[Slaphead]

It's a nice list of gear, but without an in room response plot (and other measurements), who knows what it sounds like. I've seen plenty of expensive systems in bad rooms and/or poorly configured and EQed which are outperformed by systems costing a fraction of the price.

And that's why I don't buy expensive systems - I simply don't have the house for them . For speaker listening I've always bought pro audio monitors for nearfield listening in the hope that my proximity to the speakers counters the room acoustics to some degree - so far I'm happy.

 

[sonitus mirus]

And that's why I don't buy expensive systems - I simply don't have the house for them . For speaker listening I've always bought pro audio monitors for nearfield listening in the hope that my proximity to the speakers counters the room acoustics to some degree - so far I'm happy.

I got the calibrated measurement mic out earlier today to see if those nasty SBIR cancellations magically disappeared with the start of the new year. No such luck.

Sadly, I can only move the dips slightly up or down in frequency with speaker placement, and the frequencies impacted are generally much too low for typical and affordable room treatment to do much of anything to help.

 

[71 dB]

It's funny how telling high resolution formats do not offer sonic advantage over normal redbook is being ignorant. No, it's the other way around. When you don't know anything you go with the common sense which tells "more is better". I studied digital audio in university and even that level of knowledge and understanding made it a "process" for me to gradually accept the fact that in consumer audio high resolution formats don't have anything to offer (SACD offers multichannel support, but that's a different issue). That's how strong the "more is better" mentality is in us. More is better to a point. 24 bits is clearly better than 8 bits, but in consumer audio it's not better than 16 bits, because the point of "good enough" is around 13 bits.

 

[bigshot]

So on paper bits are bits right
Jitter does not exist
Flabby bass or schilling highs it's the System or recording. Such little actual knowing and so much more on a parrots level and repeat. If I posted it it's real try it or shut up about how it can be.
I will upload soon as I can to push for anyone who can take the time to hear it.

Two files with the same bits should sound the same. If they don't, it is probably an error in testing procedure.
Jitter in the levels it occurs in even the cheapest home audio components is below the threshold of audibility.
Response imbalances are created by transducer error. You correct it by EQ and if that doesn't work, you get better transducers.
I'm happy to do a test to check the accuracy of your findings. Just let me know.

 

[bigshot]

There’s no doubt that Mr Rainbow’s system is impressive - certainly able to reproduce music with a large dynamic range. The other thing to consider is that Mr Rainbow’s system cost an arm and a leg and probably another limb as well.

I don't think there's any reason to assume either of those things. If he actually had a very good system, he might know more about how digital audio works. This seems to have less to do with audio fidelity than it does argumentative thread crapping. Some people believe audiophile sales pitch without any personal knowledge at all. Who knows what kind of system he has? And ultimately, it doesn't matter because I think he's just here to rattle the bars on our cage. People who take positions like this in Sound Science talk through their hats and use bluff and bluster and obfuscation to make their points. I give them a chance and if they don't pony up to prove their point, I dismiss them and don't look back. They just want attention. I don't have time to feed their delusional ego.

 

[ILikeMusic]

And ultimately, it doesn't matter because I think he's just here to rattle the bars on our cage. People who take positions like this in Sound Science talk through their hats and use bluff and bluster and obfuscation to make their points. I give them a chance and if they don't pony up to prove their point, I dismiss them and don't look back.

This. It's a simple fact of physics that in any practical instance no one is going to hear, casually or otherwise, the difference between a properly-mastered recording of 16 and 24-bit depth, nor is anyone going to produce magical test tracks that demonstrate otherwise. I don't know if the poster is trolling or simply and honestly confused as to the actual cause of what he thinks he's hearing, but it's clear no one is going to be able to convince him of anything so why are we all contributing to crapping on the thread for multiple pages? Maybe let's give it a rest.