[bigshot]

I spoke to Castle too. Either he is a troll, or as you say... and I'm not allowed to say it or I'll be the one in trouble.

 

[gregorio]

I would say 16 bits 48khz works best for listening to music and 24 bits 41khz works best for watching movies.

Firstly, there is no 24bit 41kHz format, I presume you mean 24bit 48kHz and if so, on what platform are you watching movies that actually provides 24/48 sound?

[1] On youtube I went from 16 bits 44 Khz to 48 Khz (in Window sound) and I preferred the latter.
[2] Then I found this video :
[2a] As for the 24 bits 44 Khz it is my window setting of choice for live recorded music that was not transfered to CD, DVD Bluray !

1. It's NOT possible to "prefer the latter" because they are exactly the same! Youtube uses AAC lossy compression, converting that into 16/44 or 16/48 gives identical results. If you had a completely full 2 litre water container and you transferred all that water into a 5 litre water container, how much water would you have? Now repeat the experiment but transfer all the water from the 2 litre container into a 6 litre container, how much water do you have now and how would it be possible to prefer the amount of water in the 6 litre container over the exact same amount of water in the 5 litre container?

2. Generally pretty accurate, although he'd get the same result if he used 16/44 instead of 16/48.
2a. Why, when you've just cited a video showing there's no audible difference using 16 bit?

[1] It is just better to leave the audio in the format it is originally in.
[2] It was reported that Window resampling was measured and result was not good.

1. How can it be "better" if it's impossible?

2. IF this assertion were true, then why are you resampling your audio in Windows?

[1] My current theory is that you want to receive at the same bitrate than the import work.
[2] For video, it seems that most video editors will import in 44Khz (not 41khz my mistake)
[2a] hence why window sound seems better at 24 bits 44Khz for this purpose.
[3] For music, I think uploaders import at 16 bits 48 Khz, but it is just a guess.
[4] At the end of the day, use what works best for your ears.
[5] One thing is sure though, this industry has complicated things and should be blamed for that.

1. This isn't the "ScareDe2 Current Theory" subforum, it's the Sound Science subforum. And, why do you want to "receive at the same bit rate than the import work"?

2. No, your mistake again! The worldwide commercial standard for audio import by video editors is 24 bits 48kHz, although there are a very few cases where a higher sample rate is employed. And, the audio import format used in the video industry is almost never the final export/distribution format. For example, the audio import format for HDTV is 6 channels of 24/48 but HDTV is never broadcast in that format, typically it's broadcast as Dolby Digital but some countries use multi-channel MP3 or AAC format.
2a. Hence why 24/44 would never be better, it would be the same!

3. Again, this is the Sound Science subforum, not the "Just a guess" subforum. And unfortunately, it's a very bad guess because "music uploaders import" a wide variety of audio formats, from lossy formats such as MP3 to 24/192 or even higher on rare occasions but you've guessed just about the one format (16/48) that is pretty much NEVER used!

4. Agreed, and that's WHY we use double blind/ABX testing! So we can actually determine "what works best for your ears" as opposed to simple A/B sighted testing which does NOT determine what works best for your ears, it determines what works best for your perception biases!

5. Oh dear, the "one thing" you're sure of, is also wrong! Firstly, it's not especially complicated compared to many other industries, it's fairly easy for the average person to learn/understand in layman's terms, if they wish to. And Secondly, these "things" have been created by the industry for good reasons: To provide artistic options in the creation of music/sound products, to provide the best storage of audio information in terms of quality and ease of use and to provide the best fidelity for distribution to consumers. And of course, as consumer technology has changed/improved over the decades, so too has audio information storage and consumer distribution formats. What other option is there and how is all this not obvious? I agree with you though in terms of the distribution formats available to consumers, some of which exist purely for audiophile marketing purposes rather than for any audible benefit, which of course is what this thread is about in the first place!

If the original work is published in hi-res format, then you should use hi-res playback. Simple.

Do you mean "Simple" in terms of a "simple" self-contradiction? You stated that 24/44 was your "setting of choice" AND posted a video proving there is no audible difference using/converting to 16bit. And, you can't playback anything more hi-res than 16bit audio anyway, did you not read the OP before posting?

G

 

[castleofargh]

I would say 16 bits 48khz works best for listening to music and 24 bits 41khz works best for watching movies.

It is just better to leave the audio in the format it is originally in. It was reported that Window resampling was measured and result was not good.

Ah yes, of course. Most movies have 44.1kHz audio tracks while most of the music albums are encoded at 48kHz. Makes sense. Guys you were wrong, you don't need moderation. You need to call Fringe division. He's giving away more and more evidence that he's from the other side.



Seriously @ScareDe2, what are you doing? Even if it rarely looks like it, this section should be reliant on fact based knowledge. Not on "I feel like I'm right so I'm gonna make claims on a subject I know almost nothing about". The rules of this forum tell you to join this section when discussing biases, placebo and the best ways to limit their impact on our understanding of audio stuff. It doesn't tell to join as a case study. We have more examples of cognitive bias than we care to see already, thank you very much.
For an objective approach(which this section is more or less dedicated to), the role of personal opinions from sighted impressions is usually to be targeted and eliminated from our testing methods and discussions about objective facts. All your empty statements so far have been deeply rooted in your personal feelings of some anecdotal experience done sighted. Once again, it's the wrong section to do that. It simply is.
This section, for so many legitimate reasons demonstrated many times, is very skeptical of sighted impressions and will not accept them as evidence of something objective.

You know how mad some people get in the rest of the forum when someone keeps bringing up blind testing to contest what the other guy is saying? You know how that person bringing blind tests ends up with his posts moved here or most likely deleted and him locked out of the thread if he doesn't stop? Well it's the same situation but reversed. Making empty claims(mostly false ones so far!) and posting sighted impressions disguised as objective facts, that disturbs and annoys the members of this section. As you can very well see from the previous posts.

 

[ScareDe2]

44.1Khz and 48Khz samplerate are used for both audio and video and it is up to you to find what works best depending on the web site and content you watch/listen.

The video is just a complement to the information discussed in this topic.

One of my other theory is that we actually hear above the human audible limit. It is just that the brain/ear stops processing the pitch, but the higher frequency can still be detected (perhaps even way higher than 20Khz), and so can the noise created by window resampling.

 

[bigshot]

You make stuff up and then declare it to be true. You’re a random falsehood generator. Go away.

 

[KeithPhantom]

One of my other theory is that we actually hear above the human audible limit. It is just that the brain/ear stops processing the pitch, but the higher frequency can still be detected (perhaps even way higher than 20Khz), and so can the noise created by window resampling.

We don't even have the biology required for that, also you would have to show evidence and not just create conjectures about what you think, show facts.

 

[taffy2207]

His 'theories' would give an Aspirin a headache.

 

[jlawler]

I must admit that given some of the reception my post got I do doubt you will accept my evidence, but I went ahead and did it anyways. I created the 16/44 from the 24bit version using sox -V3 -v 0.99 -G -b 16 rate -v -L 44100.

https://gofile.io/d/7BUuGQ

foo_abx 2.0.6d report
foobar2000 v1.5.1
2020-07-16 17:49:45

File A: 09 Don't Bring Me Down.flac
SHA1: a19b2743680e319eaee3c8bcc08867e475848723
Gain adjustment: -3.06 dB
File B: 1644 Don't Bring Me Down.flac
SHA1: 26ce5826ba2caa06c68042789bb8ba1ac5a7a179
Gain adjustment: -2.97 dB

Output:
WASAPI (event) : DENON-AVR (2- NVIDIA High Definition Audio), 24-bit
Crossfading: NO

17:49:45 : Test started.
17:50:12 : 01/01
17:50:41 : 02/02
17:50:54 : 03/03
17:51:08 : 04/04
17:51:23 : 05/05
17:51:44 : 06/06
17:52:00 : 07/07
17:52:52 : 08/08
17:52:52 : Test finished.

----------
Total: 8/8
p-value: 0.0039 (0.39%)

-- signature --
9b3537e98ce7e7ad2dbdbbf2008e3829bab2f373

 

[jlawler]

As I said, not every source is discernibly different (16 vs 24), so I do not doubt that you could possibly find one in which I cannot differentiate, but I am sure I could redo the test with a proper 16/44 conversion from the source I sent & I could provide more sources where the differences are evident if you believe there is something wrong with that source.

 

[bigshot]

The first problem is your files. You compared 16 to 24. That introduces a slight bump on many computers when it switches to 24. If one file is 24 and the other is 24 to 16 and back up to 24 again, you won't have that problem. You can send your 24 bit source and we will send you back test files made from it.

The second problem is that you chose an analogue recording to test with. Analogue tape isn't capable of noise floors lower than 16 bit. So there's no way you could tell the difference anyway. You might want to find a native 24 file to work with rather than a legacy title.

I'm happy to help you do a good test if you are sincere. But it's a waste of everyone's time if you just want to try to fool us.

 

[ScareDe2]

We don't even have the biology required for that, also you would have to show evidence and not just create conjectures about what you think, show facts.

With bone conduction, a deaf person can detect the 25 Khz frequency. Normal hearing persons can detect ultrasonic frequencies around 50 Khz and I have read young healthy subjects can hear as far as the 150 Khz frequency. I am surprised this have not been discussed, or it has and I did not see it anywhere on headfi. There is a lot to read about this topic and I just give this random link here:

http://www.tinnitusjournal.com/arti...dy-implications-for-highfrequency-therapy.pdf

Bone conduction transmission occurs constantly as sound waves vibrate bone - Wikipedia

 

[KeithPhantom]

With bone conduction,

Didn't know, thanks for this.

Normal hearing persons can detect ultrasonic frequencies around 50 Khz

This is what I don't think is possible, I am only 21 and can hear 20 kHz from my left ear and this is pretty hard. 150 kHz is what I don't think is possible, you would have to show evidence fo this. Also remember, I am saying "I do not think", I am not saying it could be otherwise, just show the evidence.

 

[Davesrose]

With bone conduction, a deaf person can detect the 25 Khz frequency.

No, a person with profound deafness can't detect anything (inner ear and/or nerves completely compromised). Your linked study is hardly a definitive sample (5 normal hearing people and one "deaf" person...and only focusing on 25khz and 62.5 samples).

This is what I don't think is possible, I am only 21 and can hear 20 kHz from my left ear and this is pretty hard. 150 kHz is what I don't think is possible, you would have to show evidence fo this. Also remember, I am saying "I do not think", I am not saying it could be otherwise, just show the evidence.

The only main studies I'm aware of that have shown ultra-high frequency hearing are divers (where the medium is no longer air). https://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=60632

 

[ScareDe2]

I was not there to witness God writing the tablets of stones but you have enough evidences to find the Truth by yourself now, like a full grown up lady.

That being said, we are surrounded by noise interferences and it can be a good idea to filter that noise. I like capacitors, ferrite choke, same samplerate as the published work or at least what works best for my listening situation, and a bit of luck.

 

[KeithPhantom]

No, a person with profound deafness can't detect anything (inner ear and/or nerves completely compromised). Your linked study is hardly a definitive sample (5 normal hearing people and one "deaf" person...and only focusing on 25khz and 62.5 samples).



The only main studies I'm aware of that have shown ultra-high frequency hearing are divers (where the medium is no longer air). https://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=60632

Also thanks for the information.