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

[bigshot]

Of course I can only make anecdotal. However, it’s still an empirical data between than just making stuff up lol

Says the person who admits he can’t tell the difference blind. LOL LOL Har-de-har-har Laugh all you want at others, but you’re not just making it up, you’re making up “evidence” to “prove” it to yourself. Your opinions are valueless because of that.

Colonel is right. You should find a forum that will entertain your nonsense.

 

[danadam]

Speaking of the devil: I knew my hunch about square waves is CORRECT. I now have an ANECTDOAL correlation of a poorly measuring square wave to poor sound quality:

https://superbestaudiofriends.org/i...pro-measurements-the-horror-the-horror.15113/

You realize they're talking about SPDIF output, not DAC output?

 

[theveterans]

You realize they're talking about SPDIF output, not DAC output?

Now you're correlating the importance of upstream sources affecting DAC to the point that the output is measuring horribly. I provided on the cable thread about the same phenomenon where ethernet quality can affect the phase noise of a DAC and when it goes really bad like the one from the Wiim, it can distort the output so bad that it's 100% audible that's beyond doubt. However, with the Ethernet example, I can still hear some subtle differences that I can loosely correlate to the phase noise of the DAC clock being affected by Ethernet quality

Why are you here?

I don't like ASR and SBAF is a forum that emphasizes SNR whereas HF is a lot looser in this SNR regard aka more fun to interact

 

[71 dB]

It makes a slight difference to my ears A/Bing with filters (which are automatically volume matched through HQPlayer's headroom management). I wouldn't necessary say TPDF is worse than 5th order noise shaper, but the 5th order noise shaper NS5 (at 768 KHz sample rate) sounds more pleasing to my ears than the TPDF (playing at 44.1 KHz)

I don't hear 16 bit dither, no matter what type it is. Maybe it is my ears, but it makes my life a lot easier. It would suck if dither type mattered!

 

[BS5711]

................ I can still hear some subtle differences that I can loosely correlate ....................

That pretty much sums up everything you talk about.

Loose correlation with no evidence of causation at all.

I don't think you actually grasp how powerful psychological influences are on audio perception, at least you give nothing to indicate that you do.

If you think something will sound different it almost certainly will, if you listen for a sonic difference you nearly certainly will hear one. Of course that is perception not genuine hearing.

Even your buddy Mr. K said people should avoid reading specifications because they will forever affect the perception of listening with that equipment. In some respects he was dead right, yet at the same time conveniently ignored the effect of psychology on other listening experiences.

 

[theveterans]

That pretty much sums up everything you talk about.

Loose correlation with no evidence of causation at all.

I don't think you actually grasp how powerful psychological influences are on audio perception, at least you give nothing to indicate that you do.

If you think something will sound different it almost certainly will, if you listen for a sonic difference you nearly certainly will hear one. Of course that is perception not genuine hearing.

Even your buddy Mr. K said people should avoid reading specifications because they will forever affect the perception of listening with that equipment. In some respects he was dead right, yet at the same time conveniently ignored the effect of psychology on other listening experiences.

I can't claim anything that it's 100% correlation to a specific objective parameter to that's because there's literally no incentive to perform multiple Gage R&R with thousands of participants with multiple events for those type of comparison.

If you think something will sound different it almost certainly will, if you listen for a sonic difference you nearly certainly will hear one. Of course that is perception not genuine hearing.

I had one instance with cable with ZMF Atrium Open where no matter the cable I use, I genuinely cannot tell a difference, but literally just switching headphones to Susvara then it's "night and day" relative to Atrium Open where I can confidently say there's no difference in headphone cables using that headphone, no matter how much I try to bias myself to believing there is. If the difference is easily perceived, literally I don't even need to concentrate, it's very, very obvious like swapping headphone cables with Susvara as the headphone of choice. Also, changes in power cord, Ethernet setup, dither/noise shaper and DAC filter differences, etc. were all done using Susvara as my headphone of choosing since it's very receptive to the changes I make in the system

 

[BS5711]

Come on mate, you don't even do robust comparisons with you as the sole participant, that would be a starting point at least.

Perhaps you have such a strong belief that the Susvara is so revealing that your brain invents differences when that headphone is involved.

Who would know exactly what is going on but when you rely on sighted (and therefore bias influenced) listening with no attempt at controls you have no way to separate fact from fiction and your observations are nothing more than just that, observations and all but worthless as data points despite that that sh...t would be lapped up elsewhere in Head Fi land.

Have you ever done a proper blind volume matched comparison to even get a sense of the magnitude of perceptual errors that might be present in your observations ?

 

[bigshot]

He makes things up then says it’s too much work to verify if his guesses have any validity. He doesn’t know what he’s talking about and he doesn’t want to know.

 

[BS5711]

Unfortunately I think that is closer to truth than not.

Hey, everyone is entitled to do what they like, it is just a hobby to most, but what on earth is the motivation to conduct multiple conversations in Sound Science all with only subjective observations as the basis.

The point of the banter is lost on me, maybe our man just has a bunch of spare time on his hands and likes to natter about audio sh...t with anybody that will listen/read.

 

[bigshot]

I don’t find any need to discuss details with him when he’s got the overall all wrong.

 

[gregorio]

Proper in digital means (NOT analog) aka bandwidth limited to 768 KHz

No, it doesn’t, you just made that up. Even at 768kHz you can’t get a “proper” square wave, however, no one creates square waves at 768kHz anyway, plus a “proper” square wave cannot exist in the analogue domain or the acoustic domain and even if they could, your ears could not respond to them anyway!

If you use a more exact (not 100% exact since that's impossible) reconstruction filter than standard filters that hi-res allows, you can get a more exact response in timing and frequency domain on a given bandwidth

No you can’t, that’s also complete BS you just made-up! By definition a linear-phase filter reproduces an “exact response in timing” “on a given bandwidth”, that’s the whole point of a linear-phase filter in the first place! And how don’t you get exact freq response “on a given bandwidth” with a standard filter at 16/44.1? Reliable evidence please, not just more BS you made-up!

False. Without increasing the sample rate beyond 48KHz you don't have the headroom for more complex noise shaping!

That is hilarious; you state “false” and that you need a “sample rate beyond 48kHz” but then you post a graph demonstrating what you call “more complex noise shaping” that occurs between 5kHz-10kHz which of course is well within the frequency spectrum covered with a sample rate of just 44.1kHz, thereby disproving your own assertion. That’s brilliant, you’re a genius! lol

I reference those who are knowledgeable in audio science that support my biased narrative

Cherry picking out of context to support a biased narrative is NOT “referencing” and is pretty much the opposite of science, it’s pure BS!

When you oversample, you essentially create hi-res files on the fly! Standard DACs have their own built in filters that ALSO oversample so that the computational power to remove the imaging artifacts are down to minimum. However, my point is you NEED hi-res whether it’s on-the-fly or created as LPCM file (wave) for more complex noise shaper to actually achieve their purpose which is to gain more SNR while pushing the noise far away from 20KHz and into ultrasonics

Yes, I get what your point is, but it’s BS, in fact it’s the exact opposite of the actual facts. You don’t seem to have even a basic understanding of what noise shaping even is!
1. The whole point of noise shaping is for use when reducing bit depth, NOT when increasing resolution (hi-res). “Complex” noise shaping was introduced in the mid 1990’s to reduce the bit depth of 20bit recordings down to the 16bit/44.1kHz of CD and by the end of the 1990’s was standard procedure. Prior to that it was used in SD converters when reducing bit depth to 1bit.
2. The use of noise shaping does NOT “gain more SNR”, it has NO effect on the recording’s SNR.
3. Noise shaping actually adds more noise than standard TDPF dither, as your own posted graph demonstrates. The point is that it redistributes that dither noise but it’s ONLY acting on the dither noise, not on the SNR of whatever recording you’re reproducing!
Although I’m pretty sure you have zero interest in what noise shaping actually is, for anyone else interested this paper is a good resource: “Psychoacoustically Optimal Noise Shaping” - Wanamaker JAES 1992. The original theorem on the subject in 1989 appears to be behind a paywall.

At the end of the day, we all cherry pick to support our own narratives

What do you mean “we”, speak for yourself! The “narrative” is dictated by the science, NOT the other way around, that’s what science is, that is why science was invented, that is what we’re taught as children in school and that is what we can look up in encyclopaedias. Although my “we” seemingly does not include you! What you’re doing, cherry picking to support your own narrative, is the opposite of science, what we’re doing is picking references that support science’s “narrative”, not our own. How could you get this so backwards?

If the difference is easily perceived, literally I don't even need to concentrate, it's very, very obvious like swapping headphone cables with Susvara as the headphone of choice.

Huh, how does this and your other examples of potential perceptual error demonstrate you’re not suffering from perceptual error? It’s like saying: “Here’s an example that demonstrates the Earth might be a sphere, therefore the Earth is flat”. How does that make any sense to you?

Speaking of the devil: I knew my hunch about square waves is CORRECT. I now have an ANECTDOAL correlation of a poorly measuring square wave to poor sound quality:
https://superbestaudiofriends.org/i...pro-measurements-the-horror-the-horror.15113/

Oh dear lord! Firstly, that is not a square wave, it’s an “eye pattern”. Secondly, it is a data signal, an “eye pattern” in the MegaHertz range, that has nothing to do with a “proper square wave” audio signal. How is it even possible that you don’t know the difference between a data signal and the audio represented by the data but argue about it in a science discussion forum anyway? And lastly, you do NOT “now have an anecdotal correlation of a poorly measuring square wave to poor sound quality” there was anecdotal evidence of poor sound quality but not of a correlation with the “eye pattern” (which is not a square wave anyway), you’ve just made that up yourself, so you don’t even have any anecdotal evidence and that’s regardless of the fact that anecdotal evidence is not reliable/valid evidence in the first place! How many levels of wrong is it possible to be in just one sentence?

It’s just all unbelievably ridiculous and then you argue it in a science discussion forum, it’s … it’s … there’s not even a word for it, what is way beyond “unbelievably ridiculous”, “FUBAR” doesn’t even do it justice?!

G

 

[JamoBroGuy]

No, it doesn’t, you just made that up. Even at 768kHz you can’t get a “proper” square wave, however, no one creates square waves at 768kHz anyway, plus a “proper” square wave cannot exist in the analogue domain or the acoustic domain and even if they could, your ears could not respond to them anyway!

No you can’t, that’s also complete BS you just made-up! By definition a linear-phase filter reproduces an “exact response in timing” “on a given bandwidth”, that’s the whole point of a linear-phase filter in the first place! And how don’t you get exact freq response “on a given bandwidth” with a standard filter at 16/44.1? Reliable evidence please, not just more BS you made-up!

That is hilarious; you state “false” and that you need a “sample rate beyond 48kHz” but then you post a graph demonstrating what you call “more complex noise shaping” that occurs between 5kHz-10kHz which of course is well within the frequency spectrum covered with a sample rate of just 44.1kHz, thereby disproving your own assertion. That’s brilliant, you’re a genius! lol

Cherry picking out of context to support a biased narrative is NOT “referencing” and is pretty much the opposite of science, it’s pure BS!

Yes, I get what your point is, but it’s BS, in fact it’s the exact opposite of the actual facts. You don’t seem to have even a basic understanding of what noise shaping even is!
1. The whole point of noise shaping is for use when reducing bit depth, NOT when increasing resolution (hi-res). “Complex” noise shaping was introduced in the mid 1990’s to reduce the bit depth of 20bit recordings down to the 16bit/44.1kHz of CD and by the end of the 1990’s was standard procedure. Prior to that it was used in SD converters when reducing bit depth to 1bit.
2. The use of noise shaping does NOT “gain more SNR”, it has NO effect on the recording’s SNR.
3. Noise shaping actually adds more noise than standard TDPF dither, as your own posted graph demonstrates. The point is that it redistributes that dither noise but it’s ONLY acting on the dither noise, not on the SNR of whatever recording you’re reproducing!
Although I’m pretty sure you have zero interest in what noise shaping actually is, for anyone else interested this paper is a good resource: “Psychoacoustically Optimal Noise Shaping” - Wanamaker JAES 1992. The original theorem on the subject in 1989 appears to be behind a paywall.

What do you mean “we”, speak for yourself! The “narrative” is dictated by the science, NOT the other way around, that’s what science is, that is why science was invented, that is what we’re taught as children in school and that is what we can look up in encyclopaedias. Although my “we” seemingly does not include you! What you’re doing, cherry picking to support your own narrative, is the opposite of science, what we’re doing is picking references that support science’s “narrative”, not our own. How could you get this so backwards?

Huh, how does this and your other examples of potential perceptual error demonstrate you’re not suffering from perceptual error? It’s like saying: “Here’s an example that demonstrates the Earth might be a sphere, therefore the Earth is flat”. How does that make any sense to you?

Oh dear lord! Firstly, that is not a square wave, it’s an “eye pattern”. Secondly, it is a data signal, an “eye pattern” in the MegaHertz range, that has nothing to do with a “proper square wave” audio signal. How is it even possible that you don’t know the difference between a data signal and the audio represented by the data but argue about it in a science discussion forum anyway? And lastly, you do NOT “now have an anecdotal correlation of a poorly measuring square wave to poor sound quality” there was anecdotal evidence of poor sound quality but not of a correlation with the “eye pattern” (which is not a square wave anyway), you’ve just made that up yourself, so you don’t even have any anecdotal evidence and that’s regardless of the fact that anecdotal evidence is not reliable/valid evidence in the first place! How many levels of wrong is it possible to be in just one sentence?

It’s just all unbelievably ridiculous and then you argue it in a science discussion forum, it’s … it’s … there’s not even a word for it, what is way beyond “unbelievably ridiculous”, “FUBAR” doesn’t even do it justice?!

G

I wouldn’t bother arguing with them anymore. They’re clearly in their own bubble.

 

[gregorio]

I wouldn’t bother arguing with them anymore.

I know I won’t get anywhere but it’s entertaining because using the Dunning-Kruger graph:

It’s funny watching them at the “peak of mount stupid” flapping their arms to get even higher than stupid, pointing out that fact and then watching them flap their arms even harder, ad infinitum! lol

G

 

[Ryokan]

Audiophools huh? makes you wonder what they'll come out with next

 

[bigshot]

Is that Leonard Rossiter?