Flac 16 bit or 24 bit Qobuz

[BS5711]

Again. I have no frame of reference as to what "Amir" is hearing or not hearing.
On my very finely tuned "Audiophile" system, a 2 year old can spot the differences.
It's not subtle, it's a very clear night and day difference.
Unlike you, I have no use for "Amir" and his theories, I've done the work.
I'm speaking from years of personal experience.

Scientific theories are subservient to observation, not the other way around.

Have you actually done the blind test with your equipment that you are confident a two year old would pass or is that supposition because you clearly perceive a difference ?

The video content isn’t theory it is the facts about how digital audio works. He had to manipulate a tiny portion of a song to highlight the difference in noise floor between 16 and 24 bit then crank the volume up to hugely exaggerate the difference in that tiny portion of very quiet music.

In normal listening such tiny differences are inaudible, that is the very premise by which the bit depths exist, they were designed that way for a reason.

You seem to dismiss the science remarkably quickly seemingly without understanding that it was audio science that developed digital audio in the first place and it was developed in the manner it was for a specific reason.

Subjectivists like yourself seem to think you have stumbled on something that science doesn’t explain when science developed every part of the technology you are using to listen to your music from the digital file to the transducers.

The science that is having the biggest influence on your listening experience is however psychology.

 

[Diet Kokaine]

Yes, I've done all the testing that was needed to satisfy my curiosity.
I was being DEAD SERIOUS when I said "On my very finely tuned "Audiophile" system, a 2 year old can spot the differences."

You guys are stuck in theories and text books. Your psychology is more at play here than mine.

I am playing 16 bit and 24 bit files on my system as we speak, and I just did a blind test with my girlfriend to see which one she prefers.
She was able to pick the 24/192 resolution 5 out of 5 times.
On this particular track 24/192 has a clearer presentation, with better instrument separation and soundstage depth.
16 bit sounds fuzzy and unfocused in comparison.

 

[BS5711]

Well that proves it thank you.

It seems on the face of it that you have out-scienced science.

If what you say is accurate, and I am not for a moment saying it isn't, do you not wonder where some other difference might originate from when your listening experience isn't consistent with the science that also designed the music files you are comparing ?

Small anecdote - I accidentally stumbled on a 96kbps AAC file on Tidal and the fact that it still sounds like the song is incredible to me, I mean it has one percent of the data of a 24/192 file. Sure the CD or Hi Res version was crisper but it was very much the same song with very little data available to make the song from. How does that work ? How do you make a recognisable song with so little data ...... that's right, science and its understanding of human perception of audio, the same science that developed 16/44.1 for a specific reason.

Anyway, I had my say, thanks for at being polite.

 

[Diet Kokaine]

You keep using this word science...I don't think it means what you think it means.

anyways... like I said.
For people that don't have a theology, bit size matters in High end Audio.

If you don't have systems that can make use of the higher resolutions, stick to MP3s.

No sense playing 4K files on 720p TV sets.

 

[BS5711]

You keep using this word science...I don't think it means what you think it means.

anyways... like I said.
For people that don't have a theology, bit size matters in High end Audio.

If you don't have systems that can make use of the higher resolutions, stick to MP3s.

No sense playing 4K files on 720p TV sets.

Could you explain for me what (audio) science means then, I thought at the surface level that I was talking about it seems reasonably obvious. That being in this instance the technical development of digital audio and its relationship to normal human auditory limitations and the reason why the formats were established at the bit depth and sampling frequency that they were.

Since you infer you understand this stuff better, which wouldn't be hard frankly because my knowledge is very much surface level, could you explain for me how you hear a night and day difference between file types that "digital audio design technology" indicates should sound identical in all but the deepest of dives to highlight an otherwise inaudible subtle difference that would only happen in certain circumstances that highlight the noise floor difference.

Like I said, my limited understanding is that 16/44.1 was developed because it is all that humans can use in normal music listening because of our auditory limitations, yet you appear to have a level of hearing that defies scientific understanding if 16 bit versus 24 bit is genuinely night and day for you.

Your highly revealing system might replicate tiny nuances better than something more modest but that doesn't alter the design philosophy of 16/44.1 being all that humans can use. 16/44.1 wasn't designed around cheap systems that were not very revealing, it was designed around human hearing limitations.

Are you (and your girlfriend) both incredibly gifted or has "science" got it wrong and they screwed up badly and 16/44.1 isn't enough after all ?

Feel free to repeat the mantra about you can't help it if others can't hear it and our systems are not resolving enough, that would be your prerogative, but it wouldn't go far towards explaining what seems to be a very obvious disconnect between the technlogy that designed the files you are listening to and your experience listening to them.

 

[Diet Kokaine]

Think of it like 4K and 720p. The higher resolution of 4K doesn't mean that you're now able to see in Ultra Violet.
Human hearing has obvious limitations (Upper and lower frequencies) , but resolution is something different.
How do you quantify resolution? How do you quantify timbre? Soundstage? etc etc etc

If you play 4k files on 720p TV sets, the extra information is useless. Same principle applies here. It's not a mantra, it's a fact.

Most off the shelf audio equipment is designed for the lowest common denominator. People generally don't care about sound quality, so most music is overproduced loud garbage meant to sound appealing on cheap mass produced equipment.
So if you're listening to Beyoncé on your iPods, stick to mp3s.

Good Science is always subservient to observation.
Science is a cogent way to explain observation. If Scientific theories and observation are in contradiction, the observation takes precedence.

 

[BS5711]

Think of it like 4K and 720p. The higher resolution of 4K doesn't mean that you're now able to see in Ultra Violet.
Human hearing has obvious limitations (Upper and lower frequencies) , but resolution is something different.
How do you quantify resolution? How do you quantify timbre? Soundstage? etc etc etc

If you play 4k files on 720p TV sets, the extra information is useless. Same principle applies here. It's not a mantra, it's a fact.

Most off the shelf audio equipment is designed for the lowest common denominator. People don't care about sound quality, most music is overproduced loud garbage meant to sound appealing on cheap mass produced junk equipment.
So if you're listening to Beyoncé on your iPods, stick to mp3s.

Good Science is always subservient to observation.
Science is a cogent way to explain observation. If Scientific theories and observation are in contradiction, the observation takes precedence.

I think it might be you that doesn't understand the science of digital audio and I don't believe the video analogy stands technical scrutiny.

Certainly in respect of music file versus system quality what you are saying is correct to a point, if one is listening to SBC bluetooth devices then CD isn't necessary because it is not the limiting factor, the transmission is.

I don't believe that in your case the system that you are playing the files through is being held back by 16/44.1 files, I don't mean to be rude but I think that is a bit of ego stroking on your part.

The trouble with your last two lines is that audio observation is woefully inconsistent and unreliable when talking about you or me sitting at home having a listen. Yes listening is critical to overall assessment but at a development level it is highly controlled blind listening with groups of listeners.

Beyond that I will leave that to others that have a better understanding of the details if they care to comment.

Again, thanks for remaining polite

 

[Diet Kokaine]

I disagree.
I'm backed by years of experience that I have in Building Audio Systems.
I've spent a considerable amount of time modifying and listening to every kind of component in Amplifiers, speakers, cables, DACS etc, and yes...even desktop computers.
Most of this Audio Science that you keep referring to, in my estimation is useless junk.
Not worth the paper it's written on.

Again.

I value my observations over other people's theories.
Outside of this tiny "Science" section, most people on these audio forums also report the same experiences as I've had.
My girlfriend, my family, my friends...the list is long.

No amount of esoteric Nerd theory is going to convince me to disregard my own lying ears

 

[danadam]

Small anecdote - I accidentally stumbled on a 96kbps AAC file on Tidal and the fact that it still sounds like the song is incredible to me, I mean it has one percent of the data of a 24/192 file.

Well, 85% of that 24/192 is just useless ballast, so... But yes, even when compared to 16/44 is quite an achievement.

 

[oakparkmusicguy]

I've been in the Tokyo Opera City Concert Hall, in the Konzerthaus in Beriln and many others and high fidelity (or the better word is high quality) is the last thing that comes into mind when listening to music in there.

Calling classical music the highest quality music is a bit a snobby and elite opinion and nothing objective that you could measure. As a big fan of double bass, i never heard a really good double bass in any concert hall recording. Never, ever. But i heard a lot of absolutely amazing double bass in studio recordings. If an Instrument turns into mush and muddiness because the room and the constellation and the constant fight against tons of other instruments doesn't allow it too, then where is the high quality/fidelity.

Which recordings?

 

[BS5711]

I disagree.
I'm backed by years of experience that I have in Building Audio Systems.
I've spent a considerable amount of time modifying and listening to every kind of component in Amplifiers, speakers, cables, DACS etc, and yes...even desktop computers.
Most of this Audio Science that you keep referring to, in my estimation is useless junk.
Not worth the paper it's written on.

Again.

I value my observations over other people's theories.
Outside of this tiny "Science" section, most people on these audio forums also report the same experiences as I've had.
My girlfriend, my family, my friends...the list is long.

No amount of esoteric Nerd theory is going to convince me to disregard my own lying ears

It is the "nerd theory" that developed the digital audio that you have based your systems around and yet you poo poo it as nonsense.

It is the very basis of what you listen to and yet your perceptions of its performance differ from its design intent.

Do you not see the disconnect of that regardless how convinced you are of what you are hearing ?

 

[oakparkmusicguy]

This statement is pretty crazy. Double bass is an instrument descendant of bass violin originating from the 15th century. Double bass continued developing before the 20th century, time when treated recording rooms didn't exist anywhere, before there was technology to record anything. How does it make sense to say an instrument that was developing hundreds of years before the era of recorded music and treated recording rooms has the highest fidelity in treated recording rooms and low fidelity in concert halls where it was developped for?

...

 

[oakparkmusicguy]

Someone (mostly the company who makes the double bass) has an intention on how this double bass should sound. They have to test and verify, that it sounds correct. They can only verify that, if they have a reference on how it should sound.

Ok hang on right there. What ‘company’? If you mean the the individual that carved it then maybe. But advanced level classical bassists are using hand carved instruments. (exceptions exist somewhere). Test and verify that is sounds correct? Not until it’s done. Until then it’s math, measurements and quality / consistency / age of wood. And more hoping that wolf tones have been minimized - can be more of a concern than tone.

 

[Diet Kokaine]

It is the "nerd theory" that developed the digital audio that you have based your systems around and yet you poo poo it as nonsense.

It is the very basis of what you listen to and yet your perceptions of its performance differ from its design intent.

Do you not see the disconnect of that regardless how convinced you are of what you are hearing ?

Again, if it was just me hearing it, that would be one thing.
Everyone I know is hearing the same thing... so yes, It's stubborn nerd theory junk.
Science is subservient to observation, not the other way around.

 

[BS5711]

Again, if it was just me hearing it, that would be one thing.
Everyone I know is hearing the same thing... so yes, It's stubborn nerd theory junk.
Science is subservient to observation, not the other way around.

Sure .... but do you not see the disconnect that I mentioned ?

More than one person has been wrong at one time, usually when strong psychological factors are at play.

Anyway, clearly there is no convincing you to even consider the logic of the theory and science.

We are obviously of different mindsets, if I hear something that doesn't fit scientific design and understanding I don't believe I am right, I assume I am wrong and go looking for what might be happening for my perception to be at odds with theory and inevitably there is a reason and it is usually in my head.

Anyway ... enjoy regardless