[spagetka]

forgot to attach report file...
 
 

 

[scuttle]

Quote:

Soooo, if, as others have mentioned in different threads, they cannot hear a difference between 320 mp3 and .wav and now in this thread people are saying there is no discernible difference between 16 or 24 bit then it stands to reason there is no difference in sound quality between 320mp3 and 24bit studio quality? 

 
I think the "soooo" is supposed to indicate that you think you have a clever point; this was a mistake....
 
Studio files are inputs for mixing and EQing, which is why 24 bits are useful - not because as you seem to think that more bits equal more quality (they don't) but because they given more volume range, which makes it easier to mix sources with different volumes together.

 

[scuttle]

Quote:

With modern dithering techniques, you would need to crank up the volume to that of a jet engine in all but the quietest of environments.  Besides, what music has a dynamic range approaching 96dB?  I know my pathetic AC/DC CDs are probably pushing 10dB max range.

 
Out of any reasonably well-known band, the Pixies are probably the dynamic range champions with a 14db range on boutique pressings: http://www.dr.loudness-war.info/details.php?id=23683

 

[spagetka]

 
 
 
 
   
 
 
 
 

 

[JoelMC]

Scuttle pretty well nailed it. 24bit is used in recording to give you as much headroom as possible. With 16bit you really have to record right in the sweet spot to get maximum resolution, but with 24bit you can be a little more conservative with levels without having to worry about clipping. This is especially important with dynamic sources, like a soprano for instance, who will light up the clip light before you knew what happened. Audio processing within a DAW is also done at or above 24bit as well. 24bit is a tool to give audio engineers more room to work.

 

[scuttle]

Quote:

Scuttle pretty well nailed it. 24bit is used in recording to give you as much headroom as possible. With 16bit you really have to record right in the sweet spot to get maximum resolution, but with 24bit you can be a little more conservative with levels without having to worry about clipping. This is especially important with dynamic sources, like a soprano for instance, who will light up the clip light before you knew what happened. Audio processing within a DAW is also done at or above 24bit as well. 24bit is a tool to give audio engineers more room to work.

 
It's really simple: the extra cost of recoding in 24 bits is peanuts is compared to the alternatives of more careful miking and more repeat performances. 24 bit recordings mean that you spend less technician time miking, and need fewer repeat performances, saving on musician costs and studio time.

 

[jaddie]

It's really simple: the extra cost of recoding in 24 bits is peanuts is compared to the alternatives of more careful miking and more repeat performances. 24 bit recordings mean that you spend less technician time miking, and need fewer repeat performances, saving on musician costs and studio time.

No bit depth compensates for proper micing. 24 bits gets you fudge room if you get levels wrong, but that's it.

Since it hasn't been mentioned here lately, there are no affordable 24bit ADCs that offer true 24bit performance. The noise floor usually stands at a solid 18-20 bits.

 

[scuttle]

No bit depth compensates for proper micing. 24 bits gets you fudge room if you get levels wrong, but that's it.

 
Yes, that was my point. If only because what the rest of proper miking is beyond getting the levels right I have no idea. Probably a good idea not to have the cables immersed in water - or is that the wrong way around and the cables should be immersed? Whatever.

 

[stv014]

Quote:

I have to say, it is pretty hard
 
test done (nb dell e6420 + AKG K701) - no external dac or amp

 
Have you also tried comparing the resampled files to the original one ?

 

[jaddie]

Yes, that was my point. If only because what the rest of proper miking is beyond getting the levels right I have no idea. Probably a good idea not to have the cables immersed in water - or is that the wrong way around and the cables should be immersed? Whatever.

Immerse the artist and the mic. Oh, wait, only if you're John Lennon. Level adjustment is the final step and the result of proper micing, which is different for each instrument, perspective and music style. RE-20 3" from a kick drum is good, so is a spaced pair of KM-183's flown for choral ambience.

 

[spagetka]

Quote:

 
Have you also tried comparing the resampled files to the original one ?

No, because I preferred totally random tests and based on logic you have described I thought that all files are more or less equivalent... But of course I can do that next week.  

 

[stv014]

Quote:

No, because I preferred totally random tests and based on logic you have described I thought that all files are more or less equivalent...

 
Well, the scores you have posted so far do not really prove otherwise, since the probability of guessing needs to be under 5% for a positive result, and you got 5.5% and 17.2%. However, your total score of 19/28 (all three tests combined) does give a 4.4% result, although I do not know if you had any other unsuccessful attempts, and only posted the best ones, or these 28 trials were really all ?

 

[Speedskater]

Let's not co-mingle what equipment is appropriate for recording and what is audible in playback.
 
Decades ago, I did some recording using the Soundstream.  We could have used some more bits, yes we had some overs!  But the session cost $175 per minute so we couldn't do a lot of level adjusting.

 

[spagetka]

Look, it is only about the concentration. Of course I had unsuccessful attempts before because I am not the robot and which is more important I try to find the weak point in random part of the test track and of course it takes a while to have ears adapted.
 
I do not want to prove anything. I just know that there is a difference.
 
8/10 is definitely not guessing and even 7/10 quite enough in ABX test.
 
Could you do me a favour? Please let me know (PM) if you have time - I have a small part of the track I would like to know what is there. Thank you for your time.
 
M.
 
Quote:

 
Well, the scores you have posted so far do not really prove otherwise, since the probability of guessing needs to be under 5% for a positive result, and you got 5.5% and 17.2%. However, your total score of 19/28 (all three tests combined) does give a 4.4% result, although I do not know if you had any other unsuccessful attempts, and only posted the best ones, or these 28 trials were really all ?

 

[stv014]

Quote:

Look, it is only about the concentration. Of course I had unsuccessful attempts before because I am not the robot and which is more important I try to find the weak point in random part of the test track and of course it takes a while to have ears adapted.

 
That is fine, but cherry picked results are not suitable for calculating an overall score (like combining the two "good" tests into 15/20).
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by spagetka /img/forum/go_quote.gif
 
8/10 is definitely not guessing and even 7/10 quite enough in ABX test.

 
7/10 is surely not enough, and 8/10 is still above the p-value of 0.05 which is the "standard" threshold for a statistically significant result. Given that for the "7/10" test you also had an aborted 4/8 score, I do not think that one is good enough. 8/10 is marginal, and needs more testing for a more definite result either way.
 
Did you find some artifact in any of the files that you specifically listen for when performing the test ?