steve_1979
Well-known member
- Jul 14, 2010
- 231
- 10
- 18,795
Pretty obviously, yes it does, that's what 'sampling-rate' means. The question is whether all that additional data makes audio within our hearing range sound better.Craig M. said:
EDIT: I see you corrected yourself on the previous page.
BenLaw said:
I wouldn't know where or how to start (technically)....and life is too short to try and figure it out.
I have the same track at different resolutions and I (and all but one of the people who listened) can hear the difference.
I don't have an insatiable desire to prove myself right.....I listen for myself and pass on what I hear. I have somehow struggled through life like this.
It's how I buy my equipment or any other kit or piece of music. I tell others to try it for themselves, and there's plenty of people out there saying the opposite, for my view to be taken over that of anyone else.
FWIW All my Hi-Res music came free when I bought my DS, and at it's current price at Linn records, I'm not sure it's worth the premium....unless it's for a very favorite piece of music.
Carrying through this logic, does it mean that HD sound from a BR player is no different to its DVD alternative?
When all is said and done, and there are differing viewpoints, I will always make up my own mind...and go with that.
[NOT PUBLISHED]
sorry CNO. but after reading a few lines of what the guy is saying I knew he doesn't know what he's talking about. he only thinks he know. (BTW I used to thing along those lines when trying to explain "superiority" of high-res over standard-res, until I actually took the effort to read and try to understand the Nyquist theorem).
24 bit resolution doesn't give you more discrete volume levels in between as the guy says. it gives you more ultimate volume levels.
also higher sampling rate has nothing to do with reproduction "quality" of of higher frequencies. it only defines the level of highest frequencies of analog signal being able to be captured and then reproduced.
oh well.... it's getting all too boring to write the same ol' stuff all over again and again. I'm taking Craig's approach on this topic. I let everyone to believe what they want if they don't want to find out the scientific truth on the matter by them selves. I guess believing is easier than finding the truth.
CnoEvil said:
sorry CNO. but after reading a few lines of what the guy is saying I knew he doesn't know what he's talking about. he only thinks he know. (BTW I used to thing along those lines when trying to explain "superiority" of high-res over standard-res, until I actually took the effort to read and try to understand the Nyquist theorem).
24 bit resolution doesn't give you more discrete volume levels in between as the guy says. it gives you more ultimate volume levels.
also higher sampling rate has nothing to do with reproduction "quality" of of higher frequencies. it only defines the level of highest frequencies of analog signal being able to be captured and then reproduced.
oh well.... it's getting all too boring to write the same ol' stuff all over again and again. I'm taking Craig's approach on this topic. I let everyone to believe what they want if they don't want to find out the scientific truth on the matter by them selves. I guess believing is easier than finding the truth.
I don't buy 'life's too short' - you've quoted from several pretty obscure forums to try and support your view, which at one point or another has taken a fair bit of searching, certainly more than the 20 mins Steve says it will take to do his test.
It's also hard to accept 'I make up my own mind' when there's an apprently simple test which would mean it is your own mind deciding, rather than the unknowns of different masters being used (as per the interesting harbeth quote on the previous page).
It's also hard to accept 'I make up my own mind' when there's an apprently simple test which would mean it is your own mind deciding, rather than the unknowns of different masters being used (as per the interesting harbeth quote on the previous page).
BenLaw said:
Googling, I can do......a couple of minutes at best.
The only reason I can rip my music, is because a RipNas does it all. I really am pretty hopeless regarding computers.
BenLaw said:
My simple test is good enough for me.
We are not going to agree on such matters, so it would be much easier just to accept this.
You should also make it clear to the WHF testers, that all their references to 24 bit sounding better, are also misguided.
As yet, I'm waiting for an answer to my BR vs DVD question.
CnoEvil said:
I'm sure if you put your mind to it you'd be able to do it, but clearly you have no inclination, I would suggest through fear of having to face the truth.
Except it's not a test of any sort unless you know for certain that the same masters are being used and, if they have been, if they've been downsampled properly. Do you know this? If not, do you accept the possibility that this has been clever marketing by the vendor?
Actually, I haven't put forward a personal opinion. My sonos doesn't play 24bit tracks and I have no DAC, so I can't carry out the test myself. But my leanings are towards the skeptics, precisely because it would be so bleedin easy for just ONE of the people for whom it is SO easy to tell the difference to take Steve's 20 minute test and pass and ABX test. But no...
Huh? By what, writing a letter? Relevance to discussion?
I have no idea, I'm sure someone who actually knows something will be able to tell you.
CnoEvil said:
CnoEvil said:
I don't really care about DVD vs. BD but I heard something about DTS being compressed vs. Master Something. That actually makes a lot of sense. 2 hours of uncompressed 24bit/96kHz audio (DTS) would take up some 3Gb of data space. and where's the movie going to fit in on the DVD disc then?... :?
so the superiority of BD audio over DVD is in that it's not compressed since BD disc can store much more data than DVD so there's no need to squash content onto the medium.
[NOT PUBLISHED]
the guy over there only thinks he knows what he's talking about. I was actually using quite similar explanation of "superiority" of hi-res over standard-res before I actually took the effort to read and try to understand the Nyquist theorem. but I can accept the fact that it's not so easy to understand the theory behind quantisation for a commoner so there you have it - loads of pseudo scientific explanations which have nothing to do with reality.
24 bits don't give you more discrete levels of volume within 16 bits. they only give you more volume levels on top of 16 bits.
high sampling rate doesn't give you better "quality" of reproduction of high frequency sounds. it only gives you a possibility to capture and recreate higher frequencies, which in case of 96kHz (or more) is waaaay beyond human hearing capability. no more, no less.
CnoEvil said:
the guy over there only thinks he knows what he's talking about. I was actually using quite similar explanation of "superiority" of hi-res over standard-res before I actually took the effort to read and try to understand the Nyquist theorem. but I can accept the fact that it's not so easy to understand the theory behind quantisation for a commoner so there you have it - loads of pseudo scientific explanations which have nothing to do with reality.
24 bits don't give you more discrete levels of volume within 16 bits. they only give you more volume levels on top of 16 bits.
high sampling rate doesn't give you better "quality" of reproduction of high frequency sounds. it only gives you a possibility to capture and recreate higher frequencies, which in case of 96kHz (or more) is waaaay beyond human hearing capability. no more, no less.
[NOT PUBLISHED]
the guy over there only thinks he knows what he's talking about. I was actually using quite similar explanation of "superiority" of hi-res over standard-res before I actually took the effort to read and try to understand the Nyquist theorem. but I can accept the fact that it's not so easy to understand the theory behind quantisation for a commoner so there you have it - loads of pseudo scientific explanations which have nothing to do with reality.
24 bits don't give you more discrete levels of volume within 16 bits. they only give you more volume levels on top of 16 bits.
high sampling rate doesn't give you better "quality" of reproduction of high frequency sounds. it only gives you a possibility to capture and recreate higher frequencies, which in case of 96kHz (or more) is waaaay beyond human hearing capability. no more, no less.
CnoEvil said:
the guy over there only thinks he knows what he's talking about. I was actually using quite similar explanation of "superiority" of hi-res over standard-res before I actually took the effort to read and try to understand the Nyquist theorem. but I can accept the fact that it's not so easy to understand the theory behind quantisation for a commoner so there you have it - loads of pseudo scientific explanations which have nothing to do with reality.
24 bits don't give you more discrete levels of volume within 16 bits. they only give you more volume levels on top of 16 bits.
high sampling rate doesn't give you better "quality" of reproduction of high frequency sounds. it only gives you a possibility to capture and recreate higher frequencies, which in case of 96kHz (or more) is waaaay beyond human hearing capability. no more, no less.
CnoEvil said:
the guy over there only thinks he knows what he's talking about. I was actually using quite similar explanation of "superiority" of hi-res over standard-res before I actually took the effort to read and try to understand the Nyquist theorem. but I can accept the fact that it's not so easy to understand the theory behind quantisation for a commoner so there you have it - loads of pseudo scientific explanations which have nothing to do with reality.
24 bits don't give you more discrete levels of volume within 16 bits. they only give you more volume levels on top of 16 bits.
high sampling rate doesn't give you better "quality" of reproduction of high frequency sounds. it only gives you a possibility to capture and recreate higher frequencies, which in case of 96kHz (or more) is waaaay beyond human hearing capability. no more, no less.
steve_1979
Well-known member
- Jul 14, 2010
- 231
- 10
- 18,795
CnoEvil said:
1. Download and install LAME from here: clicky
2. Download and install Foobar from here: clicky
3. Download and install the Foobar ABX add on from here: clicky
4. Convert a lossless WAV file to an 320kbps MP3 using LAME.
5. Compare the WAV and MP3 files using the Foobar ABX blind test. clicky
Like Craig sensibly did, I'm bowing out, as I can't make my position any clearer than I have already done.
chebby
Well-known member
- Jun 2, 2008
- 1,257
- 34
- 19,220
I found out for myself that 320k AAC (VBR) sounds as good, to me, as Apple Lossless for my purposes. My 'raw material' is rips from my own CDs (16bit 44.1khz) and I have no interest in 24/96 files (or higher) because there is so little choice and prices are so high.
What the rest of you get up to is of no matter to me.
However, the tone these debates take is toxic to the forum. The same characters 'parachuted in' every time to lay down the law and set tests (where do we hand in our homework sir?) as if they, personally, represent the only truth possible and should automatically hold some natural authority on the subject.
Of course they don't. 'The truth' in these matters is always what makes the individual happy.
Some people want to pay the premium and use higher resolution files in the same way that some have preferred SACDs to CDs or returned to vinyl LPs (or use valves or prefer active speakers or whatever else is on offer). Good luck and good listening to all of you. Keep buying the gear and keep the industry and the choices going.
I am stubbornly sticking to my autodidactic and selfish ways of using whatever I like in any way I choose that suits me. If your 320k MP3s sound better than my 320k AACs and someone else's 24/96 files sound even better than my Apple Lossless files then well done. You are probably as happy with your setup as I am with mine.
Stuff the homework, the links, the downloads the tests and the overbearing "this is for your own good, now put on these electrodes", tub-thumping acolytes of 'The One True Way'.
[Question to moderator... why is the word p-e-d-a-g-o-g-i-c-a-l edited by the obscenity software?]
What the rest of you get up to is of no matter to me.
However, the tone these debates take is toxic to the forum. The same characters 'parachuted in' every time to lay down the law and set tests (where do we hand in our homework sir?) as if they, personally, represent the only truth possible and should automatically hold some natural authority on the subject.
Of course they don't. 'The truth' in these matters is always what makes the individual happy.
Some people want to pay the premium and use higher resolution files in the same way that some have preferred SACDs to CDs or returned to vinyl LPs (or use valves or prefer active speakers or whatever else is on offer). Good luck and good listening to all of you. Keep buying the gear and keep the industry and the choices going.
I am stubbornly sticking to my autodidactic and selfish ways of using whatever I like in any way I choose that suits me. If your 320k MP3s sound better than my 320k AACs and someone else's 24/96 files sound even better than my Apple Lossless files then well done. You are probably as happy with your setup as I am with mine.
Stuff the homework, the links, the downloads the tests and the overbearing "this is for your own good, now put on these electrodes", tub-thumping acolytes of 'The One True Way'.
[Question to moderator... why is the word p-e-d-a-g-o-g-i-c-a-l edited by the obscenity software?]
Steve,
Thanks for the links, I'll download them and let you know what I find.
This is what the people here have to say about 24Bit:
"Traditionally when mastering for final production on CD, the 24/96 master will be “normalized” to 0dB as part of the mastering process. Normalizing the recording effectively introduces digital amplification to ensure the maximum dynamic range offered by the CDs 16bits is utilised. This normalisation is critical for a 16bit recording as any “headroom” in the recording will have a significant impact on the dynamic range. For example -6dB of headroom in a recording would only utilize 15 of the 16bits available.
Unfortunately the normalization process introduces quantization errors in the recording - i.e. some bits of the recording may be unintentionally rounded up or down as part of this process. However the balance between quantization noise and loss of dynamic range is an accepted part of the 16bit mastering process.
At 24bit resolution, the issues surrounding dynamic range are not applicable as a 24bit recording provides an additional 48dB of dynamic range over a 16bit recording.
With Kate’s high resolution downloads we have chosen to leave these recordings at the level they were mixed on the studio tape. We have deliberately chosen not to “normalize” these recordings to avoid introducing any quantization noise as described above. As a result, you may notice that the 24/96 files sound quieter when replayed on 16bit devices such as MP3 players or portable CD players"
Even if the above is an exaggeration, and CD is the paramount of digital reproduction, i.e Its impossible to be improved upon, it seems we would all be better off sound back 60 years are using reel to reel tapes!
Regardless of format, if you want better sounding albums, say so here
Thanks for the links, I'll download them and let you know what I find.
This is what the people here have to say about 24Bit:
"Traditionally when mastering for final production on CD, the 24/96 master will be “normalized” to 0dB as part of the mastering process. Normalizing the recording effectively introduces digital amplification to ensure the maximum dynamic range offered by the CDs 16bits is utilised. This normalisation is critical for a 16bit recording as any “headroom” in the recording will have a significant impact on the dynamic range. For example -6dB of headroom in a recording would only utilize 15 of the 16bits available.
Unfortunately the normalization process introduces quantization errors in the recording - i.e. some bits of the recording may be unintentionally rounded up or down as part of this process. However the balance between quantization noise and loss of dynamic range is an accepted part of the 16bit mastering process.
At 24bit resolution, the issues surrounding dynamic range are not applicable as a 24bit recording provides an additional 48dB of dynamic range over a 16bit recording.
With Kate’s high resolution downloads we have chosen to leave these recordings at the level they were mixed on the studio tape. We have deliberately chosen not to “normalize” these recordings to avoid introducing any quantization noise as described above. As a result, you may notice that the 24/96 files sound quieter when replayed on 16bit devices such as MP3 players or portable CD players"
Even if the above is an exaggeration, and CD is the paramount of digital reproduction, i.e Its impossible to be improved upon, it seems we would all be better off sound back 60 years are using reel to reel tapes!
Regardless of format, if you want better sounding albums, say so here
steve_1979
Well-known member
- Jul 14, 2010
- 231
- 10
- 18,795
chebby said:
I sincerely hope that I haven't come accross as being rude in this thread, that was not my intension at all. I am merely trying to help anyone who wants to to do a proper blind ABX comparison.
It's fine for people to claim that they can hear a difference between lossless audio and properly compressed MP3/AAC files. But if people aren't willing to use good scientific method to come to their conclusion then their claims are unreliable and their credibility is questionable.
This thread will only leave divided opinion with each poster thinking their view is correct. What I think we all can agree on is the loudness part of modern recordings which will hopefully be rectified in the not to distant future.
Was going to say I down loaded Bob Marley in 24bit from Linn and just did a comparison with the ripped CD version. The ones in the know – it’s recommended guy’s. The ones needing their ears syringed get it done or go change your equipment because your missing something good from the world of music. There you go that should keep the thread going for a few more pages.
Was going to say I down loaded Bob Marley in 24bit from Linn and just did a comparison with the ripped CD version. The ones in the know – it’s recommended guy’s. The ones needing their ears syringed get it done or go change your equipment because your missing something good from the world of music. There you go that should keep the thread going for a few more pages.
steve_1979
Well-known member
- Jul 14, 2010
- 231
- 10
- 18,795
sometimesuk said:
Glad to be of help.
sometimesuk said:
I would like to sign up to your 'Stop the loudness wars' petition but I have concerns about having to give too many personal details to sign it. I'm all for promoting well mastered music with good dynamic range and I have already signed up to the 'Turn me up' campaign at http://turnmeup.org/
sometimesuk said:
thanks for that input SUK. interesting read. so we find out that CD version was slightly compressed compared to 24/16. however, I really see no reason why they should be squashing dynamic peaks when normalising for CD version. if they set the reference level lower then all peaks would fit in without any problems. see here:
http://www.dr.loudness-war.info/index.php?search_artist=bush&search_album=+%0950+Words+for+Snow
as you can see even the hi-res version is not as dynamic as it is possible to capture on a CD. and by a big margin.
incidentally I have this album at home. and I admit it sounds very good (not the best in my collection though). however I also have other CD albums which are easily even more dynamic than Kate's "50 words..." in hi-res version. for instance Prokofief's "Romeo and Juliet" by LSO. so this means it's possible to record very dynamically demanding material on a CD without the need to revert to peak level slashing. let me put it this way; many people claim superiority of vinyl over digital but obviously few people realise that vinyl has only about 50dB of dynamic range. looks like 50dB of dynamic range is more than enough for music reproduction. if only recording studios cared to use dynamic range capability of available media without dynamically compressing recorded material I believe we wouldn't have this conversation here and now...
Aldric it’s most of what I have been saying further back in posts that CD is compressed further than 24bit. The listening is not huge but noticeable enough to notice ( maybe depending on your equipment. As for vinyl again we can look at graphs at dynamic range and so on. However the sound is warmer and softer to the ears over digital by quite a margin. Again going over old ground numbers and graphs can not replace the quality of playback. Our ears do that. The poster further back is right. If you enjoy what you have then there is no problem. Sometimes people try to analyze things too much.
chebby said:
Post of the thread, and quite possibly of all threads like these. Especially that bit in bold.
Just to let eveyone know if they haven't already seen it, Linn are giving away a free track every day leading up to Christmas. we are currently on day 2.
You can pick 16bit or 24bit whichever your heart desires.
Its free so grab them while you can and enjoy.
You can pick 16bit or 24bit whichever your heart desires.
Its free so grab them while you can and enjoy.
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
Bi-wiring my Cyrus 8.2 amplifier to my PMC Twenty.21 bookshelf speakers- Started by lucioso
- Replies: 20
-
-
-
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram