[chewy4]

Quote:

Yes. Altering 8 bits of information from the 24 bit file in order to do a so called blind test is a flawed test IMO. One has to assume all 8 bits of that truncated info is not audible for it to be a valid test. Not going to waste my time with that. In the Harley article I linked earlier, Bob Stuart from Meridian said comparing 16 bit masters to 24 bit was like turning on a light switch. Not different mastering, just different bits. Most subjective writers agree with Stuart. Of course, this thread is really about comparing low bit rate 320 to 16 bit. Again, one has to assume the roughly 75% of data removed from the 320 is not audible to honestly say they are the same.

But like I said earlier, I do think 320 sounds surprisingly good considering. 256k is clearly audibly worse than lossless in my opinion.

You're not changing anything in one of the files.
 
You're just making a copy of the 24 bit, converting it to 16 bit, and then converting it back to 24. Compare that to the unconverted one.
 
The removal of the bits on one of the files is the entire point... that's how you get it to be a 16 bit file... I really don't know what the problem is here.

 

[bigshot]

I know what the problem is.

 

[jvandyk]

Yes. Altering 8 bits of information from the 24 bit file in order to do a so called blind test is a flawed test IMO. One has to assume all 8 bits of that truncated info is not audible for it to be a valid test. Not going to waste my time with that. In the Harley article I linked earlier, Bob Stuart from Meridian said comparing 16 bit masters to 24 bit was like turning on a light switch. Not different mastering, just different bits. Most subjective writers agree with Stuart. Of course, this thread is really about comparing low bit rate 320 to 16 bit. Again, one has to assume the roughly 75% of data removed from the 320 is not audible to honestly say they are the same.

But like I said earlier, I do think 320 sounds surprisingly good considering. 256k is clearly audibly worse than lossless in my opinion.

You're not changing anything in one of the files.

You're just making a copy of the 24 bit, converting it to 16 bit, and then converting it back to 24. Compare that to the unconverted one.

The removal of the bits on one of the files is the entire point... that's how you get it to be a 16 bit file... I really don't know what the problem is here.

The problem is nothing is native. And your relying on a free program to truncate and re convert one of the files. If the test did indeed result in sonic differences, I wouldn't trust foobar to have not done damage to that file. The proper way to do this test, if you believe in blind tests, would be to feed a 24 bit capable dac an unaltered 16 bit file, played back at 44.1 from the same master tape and a 24 bit file, played back at 96k or higher from the same source while switching digital inputs. And if was played back via PC, to use the same program in WASAPI exclusive mode with no dsp.

 

[chewy4]

If you're worried about it being free you can send me the file and some money and I'll do it for you.
 
The file isn't going to be mangled though. Just try it and see for yourself.

 

[jvandyk]

I know what the problem is.

Over priced $16 radio shack speaker cable?

 

[jvandyk]

If you're worried about it being free you can send me the file and some money and I'll do it for you.

The file isn't going to be mangled though. Just try it and see for yourself.

So you like to play back the 16 bit file(converted to 24/96) at 24/96? That test has nothing in common with a proper comparison of 16 bit playback to 24 bit. Have you done this Chewy? . What files if you did?

 

[xnor]

The problem is that either jvandyk has absolutely no clue what he's talking about (basic concepts of digital audio) or he's just trolling.
 
Either way, stop it. Btw, all of this nonsense is completely off-topic.

 

[chewy4]

Yeah, I don't know why I didn't listen to myself two weeks ago when I said this was going to just keep going in circles. I'm gonna get out of here now.

 

[jvandyk]

Something else that is interesting to think about. Any believer in blind testing must assume every single subjective listener in history has been under the placebo effect 100% of the time if they ever heard a difference beyond science. Since a large majority of the audio industry and media are subjective reviewers, each of them (including Bob Stuart of Meridian) must be wrong 100% of the time. I can see why the folks here in SS have such a dislike of subjective opinions.

Xnor . Subjective opinions are trolls I guess. I will not bother you any longer.

 

[xnor]

Oh man, even a triple facepalm wouldn't be adequate.
Yeah, when we're dealing with facts your wrong subjective opinion is trolling.
 
Outta here as well, the ignorance meter's clipping led is bright red.

 

[bigshot]

This guy is trolling. Even if he isn't, he's proven that he is incapable of listening to anything anyone tells him, much less understand it. There really isn't much point to engaging with him. The signal to noise factor is dipping dangerously low.
 
Quote:

I can see why the folks here in SS have such a dislike of subjective opinions.

 
Boy you can say that again! But please don't.

 

[mikeaj]

This has gone way beyond audio, where somebody with no opinions and prior knowledge about audio would be baffled as well.  Even if you don't really know about statistics or experimental design, this amount should be common sense.
 
hm I think the quote got borked, so spacing it out below manually with the *s
**********
Quote:
 

Yes. Altering 8 bits of information from the 24 bit file in order to do a so called blind test is a flawed test IMO. One has to assume all 8 bits of that truncated info is not audible for it to be a valid test. Not going to waste my time with that. 

**********
 
Regardless of whether or not you can hear the difference there, the mechanics of the test are the same.  If those 8 bits make an audible difference (to you, in the testing), then with high probability the test results should indicate that you showed a statistically-significant ability to identify them correctly.  
 
If you pass there, that is a valid result from a valid test, and you can shut up all the naysayers for whatever little that's worth and probably even get some to apologize to you.  Even if it doesn't seem like a valid test to you, it is.  Even if you're not convinced, do it anyway, as it obviously means something to at least some people.
 
For the record, you have it backwards.  It's a more meaningful, stronger (valid?  a weird choice of words, but sure) result if the "truncated" (technically, truncation is not the proper method) bits are audible.  It is less meaningful if they are not audible.

 

[gnarlsagan]

Quote:

The problem is nothing is native. And your relying on a free program to truncate and re convert one of the files. If the test did indeed result in sonic differences, I wouldn't trust foobar to have not done damage to that file. The proper way to do this test, if you believe in blind tests, would be to feed a 24 bit capable dac an unaltered 16 bit file, played back at 44.1 from the same master tape and a 24 bit file, played back at 96k or higher from the same source while switching digital inputs. And if was played back via PC, to use the same program in WASAPI exclusive mode with no dsp.

 
How do studios convert 24 bit files to 16 bit files to put on CD? Is that process better somehow than what foobar or another consumer software program could do? Is there is difference in 16 bit-ness? Since audio in the digital domain is zeros and ones, it seems to me to be a simple math calculation. Would you prefer if a recording engineer did the conversion? Or let's find out what software they use and then just use that software. Then we can proceed with the comparison.
 
Also I don't understand how you could not believe in comparing two things without seeing them. I'm reading your argument thusly: people can only hear the difference between things if they see what they are listening to; if they can't see what they're listening to then they can't hear any differences; and so therefore there must be differences in what they're hearing? In other words, people can only hear differences when they see what they're listening to? That makes no sense so clearly that it's hard to believe you're genuine about your stance here. Or maybe I'm missing a step in your argument. 

 

[jcx]

studio digital mastering is done at higher sample rate and bit depth, since the producer in in control they can vary their choices of filter type for the decimation, dither algorithm for the depth reduction, and excuse any result as "artistic license"
 
for stand alone SW you only want "transparency" - and with no prior knowledge of the music so generic choices are used, such as simple additive dither, which actually isn't usually bad only applied once or twice in your playback system
 
but there are different dither algorithms -  much better noise shaped dither can be used on a DAW

 

[Ragncajn]

As a long time guitar gear head, it's easy for me to tell digital vs. analog. the problem is the industry has made everything smaller and easier by killing quality. So unless you are ready to give up space, cash, and go see some live music, settle for the thin processed digital sounds. Mp3 vs cd???? Both are sharp, tiny, distorted pieces of the original, but you can't fit a full analog band in your car or pocket. Think I'm gonna put on the Red Hot Chiili Peppers latest 24 bit xrcd remaster. It sounds great, dare I say better than mp3 but not analog.