[jlawler]

If I find I like the taste of rat poison in my morning coffee, I hope someone deprives me of the joy by giving me a clue!

true, but 24bit will not kill anyone (at least not volume matched)

 

[KeithPhantom]

There are many examples listed in this thread

Science gave us the flat earth and many fallacies in history. It is not perfect and only explains a very small fraction of the knowledge of the universe. Of course it is important, but it is also limited. It's also important to understand why there are outliers rather than dismissing them.

Error, science changes with evidence and proposing that science is always wrong because past mistakes or misunderstandings is fallacious. Also, you have to provide evidence that the status quo is wrong.

EDIT: I forgot that outliers are +-1.5 times the IQR (actually, add the 1st and subtract the 3ed quartile) and that previous assumptions are based in a lack of experiments that were formalized by science when means were obtained.

Another definition of outlier is 3 times the standard deviation in a normal and t distribution).

 

[bigshot]

There are many examples listed in this thread

Do you mean like this test a few posts before you? It is the subject of the posts you were replying to!

https://www.realhd-audio.com/?p=6993

If you bothered to read it, you'd know that the well known engineer Mark Waldrep who writes a regular column in Real HD-Audio conducted a rigorous listening test and concluded: "Hi-Res Audio or HD-Audio provides no perceptible fidelity improvement over a standard-resolution CD or file."

DID YOU EVEN READ THIS THREAD?

Honestly, I started out to be nice to you, but if you're going to spout nonsense and dismiss me with a wave of your hand, I'm not going to bother.

 

[gregorio]

[1] As I listened, my mind became open to the idea that perhaps there was something better than redbook. There was no positive bias towards analog / 24bit for me ...
[2] I have certainly heard recordings that are indistinguishable 16bit / 24bit. I have also heard drastic differences in quality of the 16bit / 24bit sound.
[2a] Perhaps that is due to the care which goes into the preparation.
[3] I do know that highly compressed music causes me listening fatigue. That may be a factor for others as well.
[4] What I do not understand why some wish to deprive others of the joy of listening to something that sounds better to them.

1. I'm sorry but that doesn't make sense, because "your mind becoming open to the idea that there was something [EG. 24bit] better than redbook" IS pretty much the definition of a positive bias!

2. As explained in the original post, it is NOT possible that you've heard even tiny "differences in the quality of 16bit/24bit sound", let alone "drastic" differences, because there is NO difference in sound quality, the sound quality is identical! The ONLY difference between 16 and 24bit is the noise floor, which in both cases is inaudible at any reasonable listening level.
2a. No, "the care which goes into the preparation" must be the same because there is only one recording/mix. We do NOT make one recording at 16bit, another at 24bit, and then create two separate mixes and masters from them. There is just one 24bit recording which is mixed, mastered and recorded to both 24bit and 16bit. However, there can be different edits of the mix and different masters (a "radio edit" was not uncommon for example) and at some later date there may also be a "re-mix". In these cases though, more "care"/work has to go into the preparation, not less, and there can be "drastic differences" but of course that's due to a different master, edit or remix, NOT the difference between 24bit and 16bit!

3. But converting from the master's bit depth (which is typically 64bit) to either 24bit or 16bit does not introduce any compression. It is possible to add more compression to either the 16bit or 24bit versions if desired/required, but then of course there's effectively two different masters.

4. As effectively mentioned by others, this is NOT the "Joy of listening" subforum, it's the Sound Science subforum, where we discuss the actual facts/science of sound/audio, REGARDLESS of how or whether that might affect any individual's "joy"!

[1] Science gave us the flat earth and many fallacies in history.
[2] It is not perfect and only explains a very small fraction of the knowledge of the universe.
[2a] Of course it is important, but it is also limited.
[3] It's also important to understand why there are outliers rather than dismissing them.

1. You seem to have that backwards! Science gave us the spherical Earth well over 2,000 years ago, it was myth/superstition/propaganda that gave us the flat earth and modern science was developed specifically to separate myth, superstition, propaganda and fallacies from the actual facts. How is it possible NOT to know or understand this?

2. This is obviously NOT true, science explains ALL (100%) of our knowledge of the universe! However, ...
2a. Of course our (human) knowledge is limited, we obviously don't yet have all the potential knowledge, which is why we still have research scientists and theoreticians. However, science not having all the knowledge obviously doesn't mean that it doesn't have any. The reason we teach science in school, starting even at an early age, is to understand what science is: For example, what is a "hypothesis" and what is a "theory". Leading to an understanding of where science is "limited" and may not yet be perfect and where it is. For example, "1 + 1 = 2" is probably about the oldest science known, what subsequent or other knowledge demonstrates or even hints that it's "not perfect" and who in their right mind would dispute it? Due to a great deal of false marketing, this is where so many audiophiles fail. Many appear to believe that the science of digital audio is some new cutting edge hypothesis/theory, that is not fully understood and/or has a good probability of being incorrect/imperfect. This is simply untrue, it's a nearly century old theory that was proven over 70 years ago and pretty much nothing in human history has been as thoroughly researched or demonstrated in practice. If it were incorrect/imperfect, there would be no digital devices and no "digital age"!

3. No, it is not! This is the Sound Science forum and therefore we obviously adhere to the basic tenets of science, which is a logical, ordered process. The FIRST step of the process would be to ascertain if there really are any outliers, using scientific/controlled testing. OBVIOUSLY, only then, if there are actually any outliers, would it be important to understand why there are. However, given the obvious conditions of reasonable normalisation (IE. All commercial music and sound recordings) and reasonable listening volumes, there has NEVER been any outliers in the tens of thousands of controlled tests performed over the course of nearly three decades. Therefore, it is obviously not important to understand why some people claim to be an outlier and entirely correct that they be dismissed, unless they have a significant amount of reliable evidence to support their claim!

G

 

[pinnahertz]

Honestly, I started out to be nice to you, but if you're going to spout nonsense and dismiss me with a wave of your hand, I'm not going to bother.

Don't bother. He just mentioned "flat earth" as a result of science when it was, in fact, a cultural belief that had nothing to do with science. Just like his audio beliefs.

Again, don't bother. Just not worth it. And my previous post has just been proven true.

 

[castleofargh]

What I do not understand why some wish to deprive others of the joy of listening to something that sounds better to them.

It's something you made up, so if someone can understand it, it's you.

Science gave us the flat earth and many fallacies in history. It is not perfect and only explains a very small fraction of the knowledge of the universe. Of course it is important, but it is also limited. It's also important to understand why there are outliers rather than dismissing them.

Your example is about popular beliefs, not science.

There is indeed no need for things to turn into false dilemmas. So how about you stop trying to create some?

 

[bigshot]

Joined a little over a week ago. Nickname of a championship wrestler, 5 posts, all in Sound Science in cables and 24 bit... I think what we are seeing here is a troll who got spanked and sent on his way in the past, so he created a nice new nick and started again fresh. This guy isn't very good at it though. He could only get to five posts before being roundly dismissed.

 

[71 dB]

1. I used to love the sound of CDs and chuckle to myself at people that listened to vinyl. One day I had the chance to sit and listen to a quality 24bit recording. As I listened, my mind became open to the idea that perhaps there was something better than redbook.

2. There was no positive bias towards analog / 24bit for me (in fact quite the opposite) but my position shifted. I have certainly heard recordings that are indistinguishable 16bit / 24bit.

3. I have also heard drastic differences in quality of the 16bit / 24bit sound. Perhaps that is due to the care which goes into the preparation. I do know that highly compressed music causes me listening fatigue. That may be a factor for others as well.

4. What I do not understand why some wish to deprive others of the joy of listening to something that sounds better to them. If one listens and doesn't hear something better - great, move on. You saved some money for the future. No one is forcing anyone to listen to 24bit. I listen to what I like because I enjoy it. Others may find a "premium product" increases their satisfaction level. Perhaps there are certain people who have better hearing capabilities than the majority of the population which are more sensitive to 16bit / 24bit differences. I just don't understand why this has to be ideological polarizing. I don't think it would hurt me to let others be wrong in this case. My advice is let the people enjoy the music how they choose.

Peace

1. The obvious question here is: How does a downmixed 44.1/16 version sound compared to the 24 bit version? To avoid expectations bias you can ask your friend to play them so that you don't know which one is which. Do you hear a difference or not?

2. This should tell you when the 16 bit version is downmixed from the 24 bit they are indistinguishable.

3. It is a known fact sometimes there are difference in the master between 16 bit and 24 bit versions. In these cases the 24 bit version IS better, but not because it's higher resolution, but because it is from a better master. Listening to the 24 bit version for this reason is totally ok, but it's good to know why it's better so that you don't reject 16 bit stuff needlessly. Sellers of hi-res audio benefit from the faulty beliefs of audiophools. They can charge more for hi-res versions or make people "upgrade" their favorite albums yet again. You said you used to love the sound of CDs. Ask yourself why this warm relationship has been compromized?

4. I am not telling you to not listen to 24 bit audio. It's not my business to tell you what to do. This is just a discussion about what the facts are and to be aware of them. If you tell others you listen to 24bit versions because they are from better masters then great! Thumps up! Way to go! Well done! If you tell us you listen to 24 bit versions, because it's perceptually better format than 16 bit then we do have an issue with it, because science tells otherwise.

 

[KeithPhantom]

The obvious question here is: How does a downmixed 44.1/16 version sound compared to the 24 bit version? To avoid expectations bias you can ask your friend to play them so that you don't know which one is which. Do you hear a difference or not?

I just decimated all my 24 and 32 bit downloads to 44.1/16(I kept the original files in an external hard drive just in case) and did an ABX, I found no difference (by the way I'm only 21 and I can still hear 20 kHz from my left ear). .

 

[bigshot]

I think most of us have done that. It isn't hard to do. I honestly don't understand why people keep talking nonsense when a simple test would put them on the right track.

By the way, here is a photo of Jerry Lawler for those who aren't familiar with his wrestling career...

 

[71 dB]

Of course I know legendary Jerry "The King" Lawler and I am a Finn!

I just decimated all my 24 and 32 bit downloads to 44.1/16(I kept the original files in an external hard drive just in case) and did an ABX, I found no difference (by the way I'm only 21 and I can still hear 20 kHz from my left ear). .

Exactly!

 

[jlawler]

1. The obvious question here is: How does a downmixed 44.1/16 version sound compared to the 24 bit version? To avoid expectations bias you can ask your friend to play them so that you don't know which one is which. Do you hear a difference or not?

2. This should tell you when the 16 bit version is downmixed from the 24 bit they are indistinguishable.

3. It is a known fact sometimes there are difference in the master between 16 bit and 24 bit versions. In these cases the 24 bit version IS better, but not because it's higher resolution, but because it is from a better master. Listening to the 24 bit version for this reason is totally ok, but it's good to know why it's better so that you don't reject 16 bit stuff needlessly. Sellers of hi-res audio benefit from the faulty beliefs of audiophools. They can charge more for hi-res versions or make people "upgrade" their favorite albums yet again. You said you used to love the sound of CDs. Ask yourself why this warm relationship has been compromized?

4. I am not telling you to not listen to 24 bit audio. It's not my business to tell you what to do. This is just a discussion about what the facts are and to be aware of them. If you tell others you listen to 24bit versions because they are from better masters then great! Thumps up! Way to go! Well done! If you tell us you listen to 24 bit versions, because it's perceptually better format than 16 bit then we do have an issue with it, because science tells otherwise.

I do get what you are saying here.

There are a couple of other benefits of 24bit that I didn't delve into. When you conduct processing on music it generally sounds less artificial & develops less artifacts when using 24bit sources. Some recordings improve drastically to my ears when processed. I also enjoy listening to some recordings in multichannel which requires processing on sources where true multichannel mixes are not available. Also, when I compare 24/192 to 16/44, the overall presentation of the sound to my ears is much less harsh. For example, cymbals, trumpets and saxophones are much more lifelike & pleasing to my ears. I can abx a difference in these rates with foobar2000.

 

[sonitus mirus]

I do get what you are saying here.

There are a couple of other benefits of 24bit that I didn't delve into. When you conduct processing on music it generally sounds less artificial & develops less artifacts when using 24bit sources. Some recordings improve drastically to my ears when processed. I also enjoy listening to some recordings in multichannel which requires processing on sources where true multichannel mixes are not available. Also, when I compare 24/192 to 16/44, the overall presentation of the sound to my ears is much less harsh. For example, cymbals, trumpets and saxophones are much more lifelike & pleasing to my ears. I can abx a difference in these rates with foobar2000.

Foobar2000 ABX tool has a validation component with an sha1 checksum for each file and a final digital signature that can be validated. If you find a section of a song where you can easily identify a difference, cut this sample down to 30 seconds so it can be shared with the group without risk of copyright infringement. Test again with these 30-second samples and then send the full log of the test results with the 2 files used.

If you are statistically able to identify a difference between the files, and you provide the file samples, we can analyze the files and explain what you did wrong when converting them for testing, identify that these are completely different masters, or perhaps find that the files provided were not the actual files used in your ABX test.

 

[KeithPhantom]

Also, when I compare 24/192 to 16/44, the overall presenta

Provide the files and the log of your ABX since I did the same and didn't find any difference p=0.194.

 

[miksu8]

Sort of! DSD does have a great deal more noise than say 16/44 PCM. However, given the far larger audio bandwidth of DSD/SACD, all that noise can be spread over a far wider band. You can easily see this in a spectrogram, the dither noise typically reaches it's peak around 25kHz and continues throughout the rest of the spectrum. This amount of ultra-sonic noise can potentially cause an IMD (inter-modulation distortion) issue with downstream equipment, amps and/or headphones/speakers, which is why Sony implemented a 50kHz analogue filter in it's SACD players and REQUIRED an analogue filter at 30kHz - 50kHz in it's licence agreement for third party manufacturers. This fact obviously makes a nonsense of audiophile claim that SACD contained important/useful information up to 100kHz.

In practice, as far as audibility is concerned, SACD (1bit DSD) and CD are pretty much identical when it comes to noise. In the critical hearing band 1bit DSD provides roughly 120dB of dynamic range and 16/44 (that also has noise-shaped dither applied), in the critical hearing band provides roughly .... 120dB of dynamic range!!

Btw Rob Watts, who I think also knows something about this, says there is also an issue with transients with DSD.