Better mastered music could be on the way!

[Neuphonix]

So everyone is wrong and you are right ?

I have three versions on the current Muse album. Vinyl – 24bit down load – My daughters CD put on to the Naz

Vinyl – By far away the best sounding of all the formats , just sounds deeper and warm.

24bit down loaded FLAC to bppoweramp which automatically transfers to the NAZ – Good sounding with a wider stereo image than the CD throws up thus giving better separation to the instruments.

CD – Has a harsher overall sound in the highs and not as wide stereo imaging. Still crystal clear just not as good as the other formats. That’s back to back test in my own system. Funnily I mentioned nothing to my daughter who also sat throw the three formats , her conclusion was the same as mine.

As I wrote further back het yourself out to a hi fi shop for an audition on the latest streamers with back to back tests with CD and and 24bit. Or do you live in tunnel vision meaning your way or no way ?

Oh my. Do you know what? I don't care to go through this argueing with each point because it's clear you haven't a clue what I've been saying. Epic fail.

You write about converting this and that. Yes your right I might not be catching onto your IT jargon. Me I’m trying to say straight listening tests with the latest streamers a difference can be heard. Though in what hifi terms back in 2010 proves a blind test noticed a mark difference on 16-24bit. You go on to call a poster as telling porky pies. You don’t believe him. That was my point in writing your way or no way. I’m not being abusive here. I certainly take people at face value. Clearly as I keep typling go along and listen to a streamer set up in a hifi shop and do your own back to back. Maybe just maybe you will notice a difference than what’s going through your own system. I’m no expert on computers. Have you tried FLAC dppoweramp.Try a Linn studio master? As you know I don’t think 24bit is the be all for listening pleasure, it dose offer a listening experience over the quality of CD. Why on earth would I go and change the whole hifi set up if I heard no difference. Anyway this time it is time out unless someone can bring something new to the subject.

Could it possibly be that the difference that you are hearing is the signature of DAC in the streamer rather than the file itself? Or the factthat it has no moving parts like a CDP.

Not that this makes the enjoyment less valid, just wondering?

 

[CnoEvil]

Oh my. Do you know what? I don't care to go through this argueing with each point because it's clear you haven't a clue what I've been saying. Epic fail.

Welcome to my world......frustrating, isn't it!

 

[Craig M.]

OK I'm not sure what you are trying to say...because the science says otherwise then it cant be so?

I'm only going by what I can hear, and the difference that I described is pretty obvious to me. There is no argument, just assimilate into the data set. If you are trying to discredit my ears simply because your science doesnt fit, well figure where that will end up.

My post asked if the 24/48 and 16/44 that you mentioned in your post are the same master, and if they are how did you downsample the 24/48? Downsampling needs to be done properly if it is not to introduce audible errors/noise, there is lots of information available about it. And given how unreliable sighted listening tests and human perception are, yes the science is more reliable. Oh, and it's not MY science and I have no idea what "figure where that will end up." is supposed to mean, but I suspect I won't care.

 

[Craig M.]

Oh my. Do you know what? I don't care to go through this argueing with each point because it's clear you haven't a clue what I've been saying. Epic fail.

Welcome to my world......frustrating, isn't it!

It's like swimming through treacle.

 

[CnoEvil]

Oh my. Do you know what? I don't care to go through this argueing with each point because it's clear you haven't a clue what I've been saying. Epic fail.

Welcome to my world......frustrating, isn't it!

It's like swimming through treacle.

Or a pot full of Black Ravioli! :silenced:

 

[Andrew17321]

I have not heard bit rates higher than those on CD, so I shall not take sides here. However, I will point out something that is overlooked in the arguments above.

When an analogue signal is converted into digital it involves errors. Suppose we had analogue voltages in the range 0 to 3 volts and we were doing two bit sampling. The sample values would be 0, 1, 2 and 3 volts. So 2.3 volts would be read as 2 volts digitally, and 0.4 volts as 0 digitally. Sizeable errors, especially on low analogue signals. Clearly with 16 bits the errors will be much smaller, and with 24 bits, smaller still. (The error size using 16 bits is 256 times that using 24 bits.)

When a digital signal is converted back to analogue there will be similar errors. So the analogue signal out of a DAC will not be identical to the recorded analogue signal (with frequencies up to 20KHz). That is assuming that the DAC outputs the voltage steps perfectly, which they don't.

Andrew

 

[sometimesuk]

2) You can not overstate the power of expectation. If you know that a file is 24bit before you listen to it then it must be really difficult to not think that it must be better (subjectively). I'm not saying that it isn't, who's to say anyone is more right or wrong, but it is a factor for sure. So to take Cnos challenge, you would have to get someone else (or fubar? havnt used this) to play the tracks for you in a random order, other wise you will hear what you expect to hear. Or at the very least you cant completely rule this possibility out of the equation.

Exactly, or to put it another way "If you have been told 24Bit should not sound any different in the text book, you already have expectation that it won’t sound any different"

If someone who listens to the different formats and hears a difference, then surely this has to be what we should be going on. I have tried listening to the different 16/24 bit tracks on the Society of Sound service. I hide the file size, drag and drop into a memory stick, randomly rename each pair of songs, go out on the pop, come back a few days later, forget what I've done, and had a listen. I can still tell the difference, although I will say that its easier to tell with certain types of music, and the differences isnt always night and day.

The "loudness war" problem has to be won first. Once that is done, if the different formats don’t make a difference, then the word would soon spread. People won’t spend money on something that is not going to make a difference.

I think the problem here is, this is exactly like a "cable" debate, in as people on both sides are firm in their opinions. I'm of the opinion that cables and 24Bit files do sound better (I'm not in favour in spending a fortune on cable though, so let’s leave the cable debate there!). I also believe though that to get the full benefit your system needs to be of good enough quality to reveal the differences.

Perhaps it’s also a case of our understanding of the science, influencing factors and the measuring instruments is not good enough to explain why people say one format sounds better than another. I do think it’s very arrogant for anyone not even to consider that there may be factors outside our current understanding, and just say to other people they are hearing things.

 

[CnoEvil]

When an analogue signal is converted into digital it involves errors. Suppose we had analogue voltages in the range 0 to 3 volts and we were doing two bit sampling. The sample values would be 0, 1, 2 and 3 volts. So 2.3 volts would be read as 2 volts digitally, and 0.4 volts as 0 digitally. Sizeable errors, especially on low analogue signals. Clearly with 16 bits the errors will be much smaller, and with 24 bits, smaller still. (The error size using 16 bits is 256 times that using 24 bits.)

When a digital signal is converted back to analogue there will be similar errors. So the analogue signal out of a DAC will not be identical to the recorded analogue signal (with frequencies up to 20KHz). That is assuming that the DAC outputs the voltage steps perfectly, which they don't.

Andrew

Is that the same as saying that sound-waves by their nature are analogue, so they can only be turned into digital with a series of "snapshots"...and sounds that have very quick transients, such as a drum beat or trumpet tone, can be distorted as they may change too quickly for the sample rate to capture ie. The more snapshots you take, the greater likelihood of capturing the sound accurately.

....or is that b*!!*x?

 

[Craig M.]

b*!!*x.

A higher sampling rate ( which I think is what you are getting at?) doesn't capture more 'snapshots' per second (or whatever), it merely extends the captured frequency range, so a 96khz sampling rate will capture sounds upto 48khz - I'm sure I don't need to point out that no-one can hear these sounds. Neuphonix posted a link earlier that explains it all. I believe it also covers Andrew17321s post? What I do know is that a test carried out some time ago (back in 1984 actually) by the Boston Audio Society showed a digital loop inserted into an analogue system was inaudible - even to Linns Ivor Tiefenbrun!

They also conducted a test into the audibility of a CD standard A/D/A loop inserted into a high-res playback system (Clicky) and found it could not be reliably detected, unless the volume was turned up very high with no music playing and listening for the slightly higher noise floor. This link explains how that test was carried out using high-end kit in rooms that were much quieter than the average room.

 

[pauln]

The quotes below from Alan Shaw (designer & MD Harbeth) sum it up for me. He should know what he's talking about?

Source: http://www.harbeth.co.uk/usergroup/showthread.php?1274-Hi-Def-Recordings-Are-they-worth-it

'...Having exhausted every opportunity to wring the last drop of cash from the mass market CD consumer, our brainstorming session has focused on draining the last dregs from the consumer sump. We've identified a tiny, cash-rich sub-sub-sector of the CD market who are susceptible to buzz words like 'high definition', '96k recording', '32 bit' and similar terminology words that they barely understand. Obviously we can't justify (and won't be making) investment of a cent in new technology or artist or recording costs. For virtually zero cost we can fiddle about with the already recorded material and/or find unknown artists/music that are hungry for exposure and package that up under the High Definition banner. What a brilliant wheeze! And the audiophiles will get all excited when in fact we're using the same tired old microphones with all their defects. To be sure there is an audible difference we'll master the CD to guarantee that it does sound different. We may even make the CD with a gold layer to really convince them. We'll increase the price! Then we'll give away gratis copies to everyone in the music review arena with a glossy Press Pack full of quasi techno-mumbo jumbo and job done ...'

'How often do we have to mention that the human ear is just not the precision instrument that audiophiles think it is. It just cannot hear to the degree of precision that justifies 96k etc.. Why do people have this ludicrous self-belief in the super-human ability of their hearing when they can be fooled in seconds with a carefully constructed test? My ears can be as easily fooled as yours. I can absolutely guarantee that properly constructed audio tests will fool all of the listeners 50.00% of the time.'

'by far the best investment you can make for your listening pleasure is room acoustics. The room has the dominant influence on what you hear. Improve the room and then attend to exotic micro-improvements.'

 

[stevebrock]

Kate Bush 50 words for snow in 24/96 sounds far superior to the red book CD, a lot smoother with plenty of detail - I love it, just damn cant afford it!

You could afford to buy your stereo, but you can't afford the 15 quid for that?

Think I misquoted myself, I bought the 24/96 50 words for snow download......

I meant I cant afford it every time I want to buy an album!

Anyway worth every penny imho

 

[BenLaw]

Good quote pauln.

 

[CnoEvil]

b*!!*x.

A higher sampling rate ( which I think is what you are getting at?) doesn't capture more 'snapshots' per second (or whatever), it merely extends the captured frequency range, so a 96khz sampling rate will capture sounds upto 48khz - I'm sure I don't need to point out that no-one can hear these sounds. Neuphonix posted a link earlier that explains it all. I believe it also covers Andrew17321s post? What I do know is that a test carried out some time ago (back in 1984 actually) by the Boston Audio Society showed a digital loop inserted into an analogue system was inaudible - even to Linns Ivor Tiefenbrun!

Here is (imo) a balanced view, that in some ways, finds some middle ground: http://tweakheadz.com/16_vs_24_bit_audio.htm

 

[Craig M.]

b*!!*x.

A higher sampling rate ( which I think is what you are getting at?) doesn't capture more 'snapshots' per second (or whatever), it merely extends the captured frequency range, so a 96khz sampling rate will capture sounds upto 48khz - I'm sure I don't need to point out that no-one can hear these sounds. Neuphonix posted a link earlier that explains it all. I believe it also covers Andrew17321s post? What I do know is that a test carried out some time ago (back in 1984 actually) by the Boston Audio Society showed a digital loop inserted into an analogue system was inaudible - even to Linns Ivor Tiefenbrun!

Here is (imo) a balanced view, that in some ways, finds some middle ground: http://tweakheadz.com/16_vs_24_bit_audio.htm

I have to admit to making an error (I was trying to simplify the purpose of a higher sampling rate), there are more snapshots but this doesn't lead to greater accuracy. Read the SoS article that Neuphonix posted, specifically the "Joining the dots" part. The tweakheadz argument for greater bit-depth is entirely correct but is only relevant for recording and mixing, not the final playback. And then read the article the B.A.S. presented to the AES in 2007 - it doesn't matter what the numbers say, when care is taken to remove variables and bias the difference is inaudible. And that is what really matters.

I'm going to bow out now because this is just flogging a dead horse.

 

[Phileas]

Here is (imo) a balanced view, that in some ways, finds some middle ground: http://tweakheadz.com/16_vs_24_bit_audio.htm

I much prefer Neuphonix's link. That tweakheadz article seems a bit confused.

 

[steve_1979]

....when I listen to the converted MP3, there's absolutely no question that it does not sound as good as the original uncompressed file, no matter what LAME encoder I use. No ifs, no buts, and no ABX test needed.

No ABX test needed?

So I take it from this statement that you haven't actually tried converting a lossless WAV file to a 320kbps MP3 using LAME to do the encoding and then using Foobar with the ABX plugin to test yourself to see if you can hear any difference between the original WAV file and the MP3 file.

Go on give it a go. It's a simple test that only takes about 20 minutes to do. People can write anything on forums but I urge everyone reading this to prove it to themselves at home. See for yourself if you can pass this blind ABX test 10 times in a row.

 

[CnoEvil]

I have to admit to making an error (I was trying to simplify the purpose of a higher sampling rate), there are more snapshots but this doesn't lead to greater accuracy. Read the SoS article that Neuphonix posted, specifically the "Joining the dots" part. The tweakheadz argument for greater bit-depth is entirely correct but is only relevant for recording and mixing, not the final playback. And then read the article the B.A.S. presented to the AES in 2007 - it doesn't matter what the numbers say, when care is taken to remove variables and bias the difference is inaudible. And that is what really matters.

I'm going to bow out now because this is just flogging a dead horse.

According to this article there are advantages with recording ie. Head room, Noise floor and DSP.

With Playback, the headroom argument is no longer valid. Apparently 24 bit does capture more soft tiny details, so it depends how much of them get buried in the noise floor your equipment. http://www.thewelltemperedcomputer.com/KB/Bit1624.htm

Been interesting, and it's far from straight forward.

 

[oldric_naubhoff]

CNO, maybe you should read the source of this digital revolution for a change - the Nyquist theorem. maybe then you'll understand that there's only one digitisation principle! for instance for a 1kHz it's really irrelevant how much bit depth you're using (only as much as to capture the volume of the sound) or what sampling frequency is (provided in this case it's at least some 2500 Hz).

24 bit depth will not give you more definition in the audible spectrum. higher frequency sampling rate will not give you more better approximation of the analog waveform. all data there is needed to digitize analog signal within 20 - 20 kHz is contained within 44.1 kHz sampling rate. 16 bit bit depth gives you enough dynamic range to capture without any clipping just about every musical event. 24bit/96 Khz (or whatever else) does not offer better sound quality! and certainly there's no reason for hi-rez content to be charged at a premium. hi-rez is just a more convenient tool to use in studio environment.

as I said before, what we need is music recorded with a generous dynamic range (about 40 - 45dB total and some 25dB loudness to peak ratio). you don't need 24bit to get this level of dynamic range.

so my point is, it's not wider availability of hi-rez content that's supposed to be a rescue for plummeting recording industry but good recording and mastering practise. just imagine, if mainstream lays their hands on hi-rez you'll get just as much compressed music as you get now on CD. Red Book is not a bad medium, it never was. at the beginning DACs were not up to the job and now most of the recent recordings are a disgrace. if you want to know what I'm talking about put yourself on on your modern gear a Dire Straights CD from the beginning of 80-ties.

 

[BenLaw]

I'm confused as to why none of the people who can definitely hear a difference will take up Steve's challenge. Mirren Boy possibly genuinely fails to follow the simple arguments that are being made, but everyone else appears to have the understanding and capability.

 

[oldric_naubhoff]

According to this article there are advantages with recording ie. Head room, Noise floor and DSP.

With Playback, the headroom argument is no longer valid. Apparently 24 bit does capture more soft tiny details, so it depends how much of them get buried in the noise floor your equipment. http://www.thewelltemperedcomputer.com/KB/Bit1624.htm

Been interesting, and it's far from straight forward.

your amp will definitely have worse SNR to even show full potential of CD, let alone hi-rez.

24bit does not capture more soft, tiny details. if anything it captures more loud details. 96dB dynamic range is enough to capture sounds from 120dB loud (way too loud for you to listen to without fatigue for a few minutes) down to 30dB (which is about the level of natural noise floor of your home during the day).

 

[DocG]

as I said before, what we need is music recorded with a generous dynamic range (about 40 - 45dB total and some 25dB loudness to peak ratio). you don't need 24bit to get this level of dynamic range.

so my point is, it's not wider availability of hi-rez content that's supposed to be a rescue for plummeting recording industry but good recording and mastering practise.

When I first heard "Just a little lovin'" by Shelby Lynne (http://open.spotify.com/track/4aw3fSvZdrmapQvPTklwqw), I swore that had to be SACD... Nope, just Red Book, well recorded and well engineered!

 

[steve_1979]

I'm confused as to why none of the people who can definitely hear a difference will take up Steve's challenge.

It's a simple test to do and all the software needed to do it is free.



Rip a CD track to a lossless WAV file.

Convert the WAV file to a 320kbps MP3 using LAME.

Use Foobar with the ABX plugin to test yourself to see if you can hear any difference between the original WAV file and the MP3 file.

 

[BenLaw]

Steve, all the bold type in the world won't make them try it.

 

[CnoEvil]

The more you look into it, the more opinions you get, and someone with a little more technical knowledge can tie you in knots.

Here is another view which is well put (post 4):
http://www.thetradersden.org/forums/showthread.php?t=98769

....at least it ties in with what (I think) I'm hearing

 

[BenLaw]

Why won't you take Steve's challenge Cno?