Why 24 bit audio and anything over 48k is not only worthless, but bad for music.

[bigshot]

I think it's more a matter of solipsism. He thinks *his* listening is all that matters. If what he hears changes, *he* hasn't changed. The thing he's hearing has. Then he can start thinking up theories about why it's changed based on ignorance about how any of it works and post them in a forum about science, along with an argument claiming that everyone has the God given right to be solipsist.

 

[Maxx134]

It just goes to show how easily many audiophiles can be “convinced”, all it needs is a bit of suggestion in some marketing and ignorance of the actual facts!

Great rebuttal! Haha.
But of course I disagree!

What I do have, which I feel is similar to those here, is a bias against anything sounding better, especially of name or price. This is a good perspective to have. So I find it a rare but good standpoint to have.

I have noticed many can get swept away with the trends & bias and hype of new stuff, and namebrands, but I have an opposite view from having experience with that stuff.

How did you determine there was an actual/real reduction in noise, rather than just an assumption or your imagination/perception?

Time and again, we see people posting assumptions or perceptions, claiming that they’re real audio/sound phenomena. This is a fallacy and it should be obvious that fallacies are not a valid basis for science or factual claims but for some bizarre reason we don’t just keep getting this but we keep getting people actually arguing on this basis. It really is weird, you’d expect it from a 5 year old who hasn’t yet been taught what science is, but not from adults who’ve completed compulsory education

Unfortunately your not seeing the reality that they are two different inputs, so although all the data can be the same, the performance of the input stages are totally different, thus invalidating any comparative "blind" testing because they aren't using same input stage.

To sides to every coin can also be two extremes.
The issue should be how to get the majority of listeners to become more knowledgeable, instead pushing them away by spouting extremes.

The wealth of information I read from you guys, in just a few pages here, is just impressive and I whish there was an easier way to get the knowledge across.

Of course a simple blind, line level matched, direct A/B switched comparison with multiple trials would have shown you they both sound identical

There are two totally different input stages so this is a variable that would make the difference. Whole different boards and electronics going into play from the optical VS hdmi.
So in this case it would be like having two sources.




This is the big elephant in the room. Everyone talking about the digital theoretical bits, and not taking into account the different electronic amplification stages involved which are happening even in buffer stages.
I see even in the same dac, it is using separated & different electronics stages and chips used for the DSD files, than for other files using main chips and board.

 

[bigshot]

Level matching and direct switching occurs in the analog domain. You simply take the line out of two DACs with the same response (which is drop dead easy to find) and level match with an amp and run them into a switcher.

This is basic stuff.

edit: reworded for clarity

 

[redrol]

It would be more basic if DACs actually had the same output voltages. (they don't in general because THINGS)

 

[71 dB]

There are two totally different input stages so this is a variable that would make the difference. Whole different boards and electronics going into play from the optical VS hdmi.
So in this case it would be like having two sources.

This is the big elephant in the room. Everyone talking about the digital theoretical bits, and not taking into account the different electronic amplification stages involved which are happening even in buffer stages.
I see even in the same dac, it is using separated & different electronics stages and chips used for the DSD files, than for other files using main chips and board.

It is the analog circuitry that can create differences, but that has nothing to do with bit depth and sample rate. This thread doesn't say analog output buffer can be poorly designed. Instead what is said is if the analog circuitry is good, 16 bit 44.1 kHz is all that is needed in consumer audio.

 

[gregorio]

Unfortunately your not seeing the reality that they are two different inputs, so although all the data can be the same, the performance of the input stages are totally different,

I am not seeing that reality because it is NOT the reality! Sure, the inputs are different and the performance of DACs obviously MUST be different, even exactly the same DAC with the same input must be different because DACs, by definition, must have an analogue stage and according to the laws of physics there will always be at least some Johnson/Nyquist (thermal) Noise and as thermal noise is random, it will be slightly different every single playback, even with ALL other variables remaining identical.

There is no question there will be measurably different performance but that is IRRELEVANT! The relevant question isn’t whether there are differences but whether those differences are audible and this is where we get to what is truly “Unfortunate”: The actual reality is that a great deal of audiophile marketing is based on the falsehood that pretty much every different component is different, will have different performance and will therefore sound (audibly) different. Without this falsehood, audiophile power, audio and digital cables wouldn’t exist, neither would audiophile fuses or capacitors, nor many audiophile DACs, amps, sources, streamers or DDCs, for example. In fact, a large portion of audiophile products do not exist in the pro-audio/commercial studio world because that false audiophile marketing doesn’t fool the engineers.

Your assertion that “the performance of input stages are totally different” is FALSE! The performance is NOT “totally different”, it’s actually very similar and in many cases, where those input stages have been implemented competently, the differences are well below audibility!

thus invalidating any comparative "blind" testing because they aren't using same input stage.

How does that invalidate blind testing?

This is the big elephant in the room. Everyone talking about the digital theoretical bits, and not taking into account the different electronic amplification stages involved which are happening even in buffer stages.

Again, a typical and very old audiophile BS tactic! Take invisible pollen or bacteria in a room, falsely claim it’s a “big elephant in the room”, incentivise some shills and reviewers to support that false marketing and a portion of the audiophile community will actually believe and therefore “experience” a bacteria as big as an elephant. The reason this tactic is very old and very typical, is because it works so well on gullible, poorly informed audiophiles!

The actual fact is that it was very publicly proven/demonstrated, with some of the most respected, “golden eared” reviewers of the day, that even entire power amplifiers (using completely different electronic components/designs) could not be audibly differentiated. And that was 40 years ago, so not even using the latest/modern components! It’s NOT a coincidence that all the false audiophile criticism of blind testing which we still regularly see even in this subforum, started shortly after that demonstration, because those “most respected, golden eared” reviewers obviously had to come up with something to save their reputations and livelihoods.

The only thing “not taken into account” here is this actual history!

G

 

[eq1849]

I am not seeing that reality because it is NOT the reality! Sure, the inputs are different and the performance of DACs obviously MUST be different, even exactly the same DAC with the same input must be different because DACs, by definition, must have an analogue stage and according to the laws of physics there will always be at least some Johnson/Nyquist (thermal) Noise and as thermal noise is random, it will be slightly different every single playback, even with ALL other variables remaining identical.

There is no question there will be measurably different performance but that is IRRELEVANT! The relevant question isn’t whether there are differences but whether those differences are audible and this is where we get to what is truly “Unfortunate”: The actual reality is that a great deal of audiophile marketing is based on the falsehood that pretty much every different component is different, will have different performance and will therefore sound (audibly) different. Without this falsehood, audiophile power, audio and digital cables wouldn’t exist, neither would audiophile fuses or capacitors, nor many audiophile DACs, amps, sources, streamers or DDCs, for example. In fact, a large portion of audiophile products do not exist in the pro-audio/commercial studio world because that false audiophile marketing doesn’t fool the engineers.

Your assertion that “the performance of input stages are totally different” is FALSE! The performance is NOT “totally different”, it’s actually very similar and in many cases, where those input stages have been implemented competently, the differences are well below audibility!

How does that invalidate blind testing?

Again, a typical and very old audiophile BS tactic! Take invisible pollen or bacteria in a room, falsely claim it’s a “big elephant in the room”, incentivise some shills and reviewers to support that false marketing and a portion of the audiophile community will actually believe and therefore “experience” a bacteria as big as an elephant. The reason this tactic is very old and very typical, is because it works so well on gullible, poorly informed audiophiles!

The actual fact is that it was very publicly proven/demonstrated, with some of the most respected, “golden eared” reviewers of the day, that even entire power amplifiers (using completely different electronic components/designs) could not be audibly differentiated. And that was 40 years ago, so not even using the latest/modern components! It’s NOT a coincidence that all the false audiophile criticism of blind testing which we still regularly see even in this subforum, started shortly after that demonstration, because those “most respected, golden eared” reviewers obviously had to come up with something to save their reputations and livelihoods.

The only thing “not taken into account” here is this actual history!

G

Hi can you let us know what gear you use?

 

[bigshot]

The differences in sound signatures of DACs due to manufacturing tolerances are barely measurable, but decent DACs are calibrated to be audibly transparent. They are manufactured with the intent of all sounding the same- balanced and clean. If they sound different, either the unit is defective, or it's been designed to be deliberately colored. I've been searching for DACs and players that sound different from each other for about a decade, and I yet to find one that has been proven to sound different... just lots and lots of anecdotal, subjective impressions colored by validation bias. (The DAC everyone has just bought usually sounds better than the one they used to have!)

 

[redrol]

Well I can hear differences in DACs. I prefer AKM when implemented well. It's not a big deal but it is when you want a certain thing out of your expensive in ears.

 

[bigshot]

Well I can hear differences in DACs.

In a properly conducted ABX test? If so, I've got some questions for you, and I'd like to be able to try to replicate your results.

 

[gregorio]

Hi can you let us know what gear you use?

Not easily. I’ve got a professional studio/mix room + an edit suite, so two complete studio monitoring setups where I use 4 different pro audio ADCs/DACs (and 6 different HPs and IEMs), I regularly work in other studios for recording or final mix, I still occasionally do live sound (and have a live sound setup) and I’ve had several home systems. I also worked at a university for about 6 years, until several years ago, where we had 12 different studios (including a “retro” purely analogue one) and about 70 DAW workstation setups with HPs (pretty much all the main ones on both win and Mac). For many years before that I had a different studio, often worked at some of the top music and sound studios in the world and did live gigs at many of the world’s famous concert venues. I’ve also had quite a few friends and acquaintances over the years whose equipment and/or entire setups I’ve tested, including a few who were audiophiles.

None of the above matters here though because this isn’t a personal experience subforum, it’s the sound science forum so just the science/facts matter here, such as: There are only a handful of ADC and DAC chip manufacturers in the world and it became impossible (with controlled listening tests) to tell them apart during the 1990’s. There are various sites (ASR for example) that objectively measure the performance of many/most of the consumer DACs (and some other audio equipment) on the market. Almost without exception, the differences between them are below audibility or way below audibility, although there are a few rare, pathological exceptions; some NOS DACs under certain conditions and some DACs/Amps that employ tubes for example.

G

 

[Lexxie]

"objectively measure performance", how?

"below audibility", as defined by whom, with what group of subjects, and was it consciously or unconsciously measured? I mean 85 out of 100 people can't audibly tell that they're singing "Happy Birthday to You" with heinous flat notes.

 

[Joe Bloggs]

"objectively measure performance", how?

"below audibility", as defined by whom, with what group of subjects, and was it consciously or unconsciously measured? I mean 85 out of 100 people can't audibly tell that they're singing "Happy Birthday to You" with heinous flat notes.

with... measurements?

"below audibility", as in any deviation between their decoded output and what the theoretical ideal output should be is measured in over 100dB below the signal level, so you would literally have to blast yourself deaf and then somehow turn off everything you were listening to other than the error signal before you start hearing the error as the tiniest of whispers?

 

[Elegiac]

Heinous birthday to you. I can tell I'm typing this in dulcet tones.

 

[gregorio]

"objectively measure performance", how?

By using a null test is the obvious answer. Although we can of course measure individual aspects of performance, such as noise, distortion, phase, freq response, etc., and how we do that is obviously with test/measuring equipment.

"below audibility", as defined by whom, with what group of subjects,

As defined by countless audibility threshold tests going back to the late 1800’s, performed by scientists, telecom companies, the military and sound/music engineers and of course by the millions of people who’ve had their hearing tested over the last 70 years or more. So pretty much every group of subjects.

and was it consciously or unconsciously measured?

How do you unconsciously measure something?

G