24bit vs 16bit, the myth exploded!
Aug 29, 2013 at 2:43 PM Post #1,187 of 7,175
SACD does have a major advantage - for Sony  - multiple layers of copy protection
 
Aug 29, 2013 at 4:40 PM Post #1,188 of 7,175
And a way to sell you Dark Side of the Moon for the fifth time.
 
Sep 1, 2013 at 7:15 AM Post #1,189 of 7,175
Just read the whole thread.. very educational! Not only 24/16 bit but a lot of other interesting topics.
Thanks a lot Gregorio, it was great post, made me know a bit more about digital audio and saved some money for the family budget :wink: Also reminded university years and Kotelnikov theorem. Kotelnikov? Yes, that was actually the guy who first formulated and proven discussed here theorem in 1932. Shannon did it in 1949.. at least this is what Russian science and Russian wiki say :wink:
 
Talking about audiophile music. Why labels would not release 2 versions of music  - one for general market and one for audiophiles? Surely they would be able to charge premium for audiophile version and surely it would make them more money as also some of general public would get curious / aspirational and pay more just to own prestigious audiophile version or maybe even both.
Or is the audiophile market considered too small and making another master is just too much hassle for the Labels?
 
Sep 1, 2013 at 9:13 AM Post #1,190 of 7,175
Quote:
 
Talking about audiophile music. Why labels would not release 2 versions of music  - one for general market and one for audiophiles? Surely they would be able to charge premium for audiophile version and surely it would make them more money as also some of general public would get curious / aspirational and pay more just to own prestigious audiophile version or maybe even both.
Or is the audiophile market considered too small and making another master is just too much hassle for the Labels?

 
Some of them do.
 
http://www.waste.uk.com/Store/waste-radiohead-did-35-10198-tkol+rmx1+wavmp3+digital.html
 
I can post up many other examples of this, but I also notice that the major labels aren't that interested. It probably would lead to more issues than it's worth to offer up formats that aren't natively compatible in iphones and other devices. Let's face it, audiophiles are probably mostly nerds, me included. We know what to do with these files, but we're the minority.
 
Sep 1, 2013 at 10:06 AM Post #1,191 of 7,175
A better mastered version would not necessarily need a different format. Although it is obviously more marketable in 96/24, regardless of whether the format upgrade itself is actually useful.
 
Sep 1, 2013 at 10:46 AM Post #1,192 of 7,175
Quote:
A better mastered version would not necessarily need a different format. Although it is obviously more marketable in 96/24, regardless of whether the format upgrade itself is actually useful.

Maybe it is or it isn't, but the perception is that mp3s are lossy, and wav/flac files are lossless. That ties into the placebo effect and consumer confidence. If you're going to market to audiophiles just sell the version they're looking for. We will convert it if we want to.
biggrin.gif

 
Sep 1, 2013 at 11:43 PM Post #1,194 of 7,175
Quote:
I found this article on other forums here but havent seen it discussed in this relevant thread.
http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html
 
Interesting read, also says that "high definition" format might in fact damage sound of certain systems by introducing distortions in audible range.. 


I have to notice these portions:
 
"Double-blind listening tests are the gold standard; in these tests neither the test administrator nor the testee have any knowledge of the test contents or ongoing results. Computer-run ABX tests are the most famous example, and there are freely available tools for performing ABX tests on your own computer[19]. ABX is considered a minimum bar for a listening test to be meaningful; reputable audio forums such as Hydrogen Audio often do not even allow discussion of listening results unless they meet this minimum objectivity requirement [20].
 

I personally don't do any quality comparison tests during development, no matter how casual, without an ABX tool. Science is science, no slacking."
 
"First, confirmation bias does not replace all correct results with incorrect results. It skews the results in some uncontrolled direction by an unknown amount. How can you tell right or wrong for sure if the test is rigged by your own subconscious? Let's say you expected to hear a large difference but were shocked to hear a small difference. What if there was actually no difference at all? Or, maybe there was a difference and, being aware of a potential bias, your well meaning skepticism overcompensated? Or maybe you were completely right? Objective testing, such as ABX, eliminates all this uncertainty.
Second, "So you think you're not biased? Great! Prove it!" "
 
And once you prove it? Then what?
 
Sep 2, 2013 at 7:30 AM Post #1,195 of 7,175
Quote:
And once you prove it? Then what?

You post your bias-free sighted test results and also your double blind test results (which you did after the sighted one). Then others will try to reproduce your results.
 
If everything works out then we know ... for that one test.
 
Sep 2, 2013 at 7:18 PM Post #1,196 of 7,175
Quote:
You post your bias-free sighted test results and also your double blind test results (which you did after the sighted one). Then others will try to reproduce your results.
 
If everything works out then we know ... for that one test.


Let me just catch up on the terminology: I'm familiar with "single-blind" and "double-blind" (I regularly conduct reviews of others' research under double-blind conditions), but haven't come across "sighted test" before, and it doesn't seem to appear in the article. I infer it means "neither single nor double blind", but that's just my guess by implication.
 
This forum http://hddaudio.net/viewtopic.php?id=3341 purports to provide a definition. However, under the definition of "sighted" there, the terms "bias-free" and "sighted test" would have to be considered mutually exclusive--which I took to be one point among many of the article at http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html. Additions/corrections welcome.
 
I was also thinking about this quote:
   "Second, "So you think you're not biased? Great! Prove it!" The value of an objective test lies not only in its ability to inform one's own
    understanding, but also to convince others. Claims require proof. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."
 
I'm not sure where "extraordinary proof" applies here; I would not consider double-blind--as for example an ABX of the type described in the article--an extraordinary proof, but rather more like "minimum acceptable standard when experimental conditions allow double-blind testing" (as they do in the cause of audio formats testing). The quote in this form originated with a debunker of paranormal phenomena (Marcello Truzzi), which is sort of outside the normal bounds of audio testing.
 
Anyway, this just goes to the level of commitment (high) the article's author shows toward the results of double-blind testing (ABX) for audio comparisons.
 
Sep 2, 2013 at 8:33 PM Post #1,197 of 7,175
Yeah they are pretty much mutually exclusive - so the IF in my second sentence is a big one. I wouldn't expect anyone to get similar scores in both tests, except if he rigged the results/test setup.
wink.gif

 
Yeah, the extraordinary comes from the paranormal, but I think what he's talking about are claims like blatantly audible differences when all that's changed is somewhere above the human hearing range, or day/night differences between expensive cables etc.
Such claims are clearly a step above claims like: "I can ABX a +x dB boost with an EQ at 500 Hz" or being able to distinguish mp3 from lossless etc.
 
Yeah, (double) blind tests should be the standard. As J Gordon Holt said: "high-end audio lost its credibility during the 1980s, when it flatly refused to submit to the kind of basic honesty controls (double-blind testing, for example) that had legitimized every other serious scientific endeavor since Pascal."
 
Sep 2, 2013 at 9:13 PM Post #1,198 of 7,175
I have a 24/176.4 copy of Let It Bleed, as well as the same album on a regular CD.  Listening to them on my BD player (24/176.4 are WAV files), the only difference I can detect is that the 24-bit version runs a little more smoothly.  It doesn't sound as "digital."  Probably due to the higher sample rate.  But it isn't a night and day difference.  I don't think it's that much better sounding than a regular CD.
 
I know some people prefer their 24-bit stuff to a CD, but for me personally it isn't worth the extra cost or the extra space it consumes.
 
Sep 2, 2013 at 9:24 PM Post #1,199 of 7,175
There may be a very fundamental conceptual problem to address, which I'd say is the notion of transparency.
  The original source is the original live acoustic signal (and even that disappears when we go to electronically generated program material which never passed through the air to begin with).  After that, everything "distorts" it:
  1. the air in between (atmosphere attenuates)
  2. the mic capsule, mic circuitry, mic settings (multi-pattern, pad, hi-pass filter to take out cable/stand bumps, etc)
  3. the pre-amp, the mixing board (Neve now famous for their great "sound"), sucessive sub-busses and main bus, sends, mastering eng. and equip.
  4. distribution formats analog and digital--all with their own advantages and disadvantages
  5. all the playback stages discussed widely on this forum
 
In other words, there is ultimately no authoritative form of the signal. We don't even hear the same way at the every end of the playback change--everyone's room is different, everyone's physiological hearing equipment is different, everyone's music-decoding brain is different.
 
The closest we get to a reference standard form of the signal is what the mastering engineer delivers, and even then: how many of those who will purchase the product will have the same room/playback chain as the mastering engineer?--I'm guessing zero. The M.E. delivers what he hopes is a robust form of the signal, providing good music under many varying conditions (and thus containing his own judgments about tradeoffs and compromises).
 
Yeah, the signal is distorted, no matter what form it's in. The **only** way to get the real thing is to show up and hear Jon Vickers do it live. No comparison, then. (I was fortunate to hear him from 6 feet away, onstage, as a member of the opera chorus). Authority stops there. After that, it's just **which** form of 'distortion' one prefers (AND, can prove that one hears in double-blind, i.e. ABX).
 
Sep 2, 2013 at 9:27 PM Post #1,200 of 7,175
Quote:
I have a 24/176.4 copy of Let It Bleed, as well as the same album on a regular CD.  Listening to them on my BD player (24/176.4 are WAV files), the only difference I can detect is that the 24-bit version runs a little more smoothly.  It doesn't sound as "digital."  Probably due to the higher sample rate.  But it isn't a night and day difference.  I don't think it's that much better sounding than a regular CD.
 
I know some people prefer their 24-bit stuff to a CD, but for me personally it isn't worth the extra cost or the extra space it consumes.


"Let It Bleed" was released 1969, so it was mastered analog, and since then sampled/converted in many different forms. Rather than purchase a "high definition" copy, I think you should be able to get close to the same result upsampling it yourself for free.
 
There **might** be some advantage to hearing something originally recorded at 24/176.4, but I'm thinking it would be a very small difference indeed in anything except a live binaural recording of classical music in a near-acoustically-perfect venue.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top