High resolution audio. The science, or lack of...?

[andyjm]

More a question of boredom at these endless circular threads, in which the same old Googled 'evidence' is trotted out.

Can't we just say 'good for you' to those who are happy they can hear the difference between CD quality and 'hi-res' music, and are happy to spend more for that difference, and 'good for you' to those who can't, won't or don't believe there's any difference, and are thus saving their money.

All this self-righteous battling for justice, accusing people of con-tricks, delusion or stupidity, and general cox and box is getting very tiresome. Surely there are more important issues in the world to contemplate while enjoying some good music, whatever the file format?

Best post on this thread and relevant other bilge, cringe-inducing, post building threads. Lock the thread.

You seem rather opinionated for a man with 10 posts who has been on the site for less than a week.

 

[John Duncan]

I'll bet you wouldn't say that if he agreed with you.

 

[manicm]

Because that is the normal practice, and we are trying to see if there is a difference between them, ie is it worth paying out more money for 24 bit.

No offence, but that's just idiocy. All you're proving is that 16/44 is as good as, wait for it, 16/44. And whose 'normal practice'?? Oh sorry fr0g's and Dave's.

 

[manicm]

You are being very illlogical.

If YOU get a 24/96 track and resuce it to 16/44.1yourself then you know it is the same recording.

And if the 24/96 genuinely sounds better, if the same recording?? You then still reduce it to 16/44 to prove it sounds the same as....16/44?? So you'll cut your nose to spite your face to prove equality???? Yes very illogical.

 

[manicm]

Not sure I understand this but why do 2 recordings, will they be the same? It usual to record in 24 bit now and then reduce to 16bit for cd.

For this (very long) argument's sake, the only sure way would be a simultaneous 16 and 24 bit recording/mastering of a studio performance, and then compare the two and decide which sounds better.

But I don't get Dave's and others' reduction of a high-res file to 16/44 and then deciding it sounds no different! It's this kind of obfuscation I can't stomach.

You are being very illlogical.

If YOU get a 24/96 track and resuce it to 16/44.1yourself then you know it is the same recording. Not hearing any differences in this case will confirm to YOU that they are audibly the same.

Take many people doing the same test and you get a statistically larger result.

ALL recordings are done at the higher bit rate these days. When recording is makes sense as there is room for adjustments to be made.

Just to clarify Fr0g's response:

1. Get a 24/96 track that you think is super

2. Downsample it yourself (many packages will do this) to 16/44.1

3. You now have 2 tracks, the original 24/96 track and a downsample of the same track at 16/44.1

4. Compare the two tracks using an ABX method (I believe foobar allows you to do this)

5. As the two files have exactly the same source, the only difference is sample rate and bit depth. If you can't tell the difference, then this would indicate that there was no extra 'magic' in the 24/96 track that couldn't be captured in 16/44.1.

This is exactly right and as far as I know the only way to ensure that everything is, as it should be, under the control of the experimentor.

Relying on a third part to supply the test material is simply 'not on'.

In reality we are comparing the original hi-res master with the downsampled version, a version that has also undergone another stage if digital manipulation, in this case sample/bit rate conversion. If digital processing is as invasive as some suggest, this should make the differences easier to hear.

Now I have tried this experiment myself, in an informal manner with a third party doing the switching and through a decent playback system. Getting the playback levels identical was quite difficult but once done neither I, nor several colleagues could tell the difference. We even tried the usual 'tricks' changes in noise floor, listening to extended decay of individual notes, none of this helped.

Of course this 'proves' nothing, real experimental proof in a subjective matter of this kind can only be achieved statistically, ie test enough (random) people enough times to give a result that is as close to fact as it is possible to get.

By doing this you prove hogwash. The truth is you'll never know the true circumstances of the 24-bit mastering unless you were at the recording liaising with the producer, engineer et al. If the high-res file sounds better then what do you put it down to????

Like I said, obfuscation.....

 

[davedotco]

You are being very illlogical.

If YOU get a 24/96 track and resuce it to 16/44.1yourself then you know it is the same recording.

And if the 24/96 genuinely sounds better, if the same recording?? You then still reduce it to 16/44 to prove it sounds the same as....16/44?? So you'll cut your nose to spite your face to prove equality???? Yes very illogical.

Manicm, I really do not understand your point at all.

The excersise is to compare a good 24/96 track at it's native resolution and downsampled to 16/44.1.

The only thing that has changed is the resolution of the track being played, just the one variable. How is that not logical.

 

[manicm]

Davedotco, do I need to repeat myself? If for argument's sake a 24bit master of a same recording sounds genuinely better than the 16-bit version, be it down to the bits or mastering - whatever, and you reduce the 24 bit file to a 16 bit file and then say it sounds exactly the same as the original 16 bit file what the hell are you proving if anything??? That 16 bit sounds the same.....as 16 bits????!!!!!!!

Your argument has more holes than a good swiss cheese and is, pun intended, reductionist.

 

[davedotco]

Not sure I understand this but why do 2 recordings, will they be the same? It usual to record in 24 bit now and then reduce to 16bit for cd.

For this (very long) argument's sake, the only sure way would be a simultaneous 16 and 24 bit recording/mastering of a studio performance, and then compare the two and decide which sounds better.

But I don't get Dave's and others' reduction of a high-res file to 16/44 and then deciding it sounds no different! It's this kind of obfuscation I can't stomach.

You are being very illlogical.

If YOU get a 24/96 track and resuce it to 16/44.1yourself then you know it is the same recording. Not hearing any differences in this case will confirm to YOU that they are audibly the same.

Take many people doing the same test and you get a statistically larger result.

ALL recordings are done at the higher bit rate these days. When recording is makes sense as there is room for adjustments to be made.

Just to clarify Fr0g's response:

1. Get a 24/96 track that you think is super

2. Downsample it yourself (many packages will do this) to 16/44.1

3. You now have 2 tracks, the original 24/96 track and a downsample of the same track at 16/44.1

4. Compare the two tracks using an ABX method (I believe foobar allows you to do this)

5. As the two files have exactly the same source, the only difference is sample rate and bit depth. If you can't tell the difference, then this would indicate that there was no extra 'magic' in the 24/96 track that couldn't be captured in 16/44.1.

This is exactly right and as far as I know the only way to ensure that everything is, as it should be, under the control of the experimentor.

Relying on a third part to supply the test material is simply 'not on'.

In reality we are comparing the original hi-res master with the downsampled version, a version that has also undergone another stage if digital manipulation, in this case sample/bit rate conversion. If digital processing is as invasive as some suggest, this should make the differences easier to hear.

Now I have tried this experiment myself, in an informal manner with a third party doing the switching and through a decent playback system. Getting the playback levels identical was quite difficult but once done neither I, nor several colleagues could tell the difference. We even tried the usual 'tricks' changes in noise floor, listening to extended decay of individual notes, none of this helped.

Of course this 'proves' nothing, real experimental proof in a subjective matter of this kind can only be achieved statistically, ie test enough (random) people enough times to give a result that is as close to fact as it is possible to get.

By doing this you prove hogwash. The truth is you'll never know the true circumstances of the 24-bit mastering unless you were at the recording liaising with the producer, engineer et al. If the high-res file sounds better then what do you put it down to????

Like I said, obfuscation.....

I am genuinely trying to understand your point.

Are you suggesting that because we do not 'know' the veracity of the 24/96 file that the test is invald?

Linn (for example) claim to produce the best possible 24/96 files from hi-res masters, are you suggesting this is not the case?

To answer your final point, if I was to do the test as described and the hi-res file sounded better, then providing the results are repeatable then you have proved the superiority of hi-res files.

 

[manicm]

Look to put it bluntly, your testing by reducing a 24bit file to 16bits is unadulterated drivel.

 

[davedotco]

Davedotco, do I need to repeat myself? If for argument's sake a 24bit master of a same recording sounds genuinely better than the 16-bit version, be it down to the bits or mastering - whatever, and you reduce the 24 bit file to a 16 bit file and then say it sounds exactly the same as the original 16 bit file what the hell are you proving if anything??? That 16 bit sounds the same.....as 16 bits????!!!!!!!

Your argument has more holes than a good swiss cheese and is, pun intended, reductionist.

But we are not doing this comparison.......!

The comparison is to compare the downsampled file (16/44.1) to the original hi-res file (24/96) from which it has been derived.

In this case we are 'proving' that 16/44.1 sounds the same as 24/96, or not as the case may be.

 

[davedotco]

Look to put it bluntly, your testing by reducing a 24bit file to 16bits is unadulterated drivel.

Please explain, I really don't get it....... :?

 

[manicm]

Look, testing a 24bit file by itself and reducing it to 16bits and comparing the two is still meaningless, I maintain. Yes it may prove that it's a fake hi-res file as has been the case sometimes from HD Tracks. But if you're buying high-res you'd want to do your homework that it's genuine yes???

So why the hell waste such time anyway when you can knowingly do it with a genuine hi-res file from say a Linn Studio Master file. Yes we know have there are some caveats with Linn's high-res audio where Steve proved they master 16 and 24 a bit differently, but still why knowingly 'experiment' with what could be rubbish, doubtable material???

If you're going to do anything right, then do it right. Which is not what you're doing.

Isn't that what a thread like this should be about - if a genuine hi-res recording sounds better than its 16-bit counterpart? Otherwise why bother???? Do it right or go home. Don't waste time and energy on the useless.

 

[davedotco]

Look, testing a 24bit file by itself and reducing it to 16bits and comparing the two is still meaningless, I maintain. Yes it may prove that it's a fake hi-res file as has been the case sometimes from HD Tracks. But if you're buying high-res you'd want to do your homework that it's genuine yes???

So why the hell waste such time anyway when you can knowingly do it with a genuine hi-res file from say a Linn Studio Master file. Yes we know have there are some caveats with Linn's high-res audio where Steve proved they master 16 and 24 a bit differently, but still why knowingly 'experiment' with what could be rubbish, doubtable material???

If you're going to do anything right, then do it right. Which is not what you're doing.

Isn't that what a thread like this should be about - if a genuine hi-res recording sounds better than its 16-bit counterpart? Otherwise why bother???? Do it right or go home. Don't waste time and energy on the useless.

So your objection is that we do not know the veracity of the original file, is that correct?

What would be your objection to the test if the original hi-res file was "a genuine hi-res file from say a Linn Studio Master File"?

 

[manicm]

Then I'd love to know your results....

 

[fr0g]

Not sure I understand this but why do 2 recordings, will they be the same? It usual to record in 24 bit now and then reduce to 16bit for cd.

For this (very long) argument's sake, the only sure way would be a simultaneous 16 and 24 bit recording/mastering of a studio performance, and then compare the two and decide which sounds better.

But I don't get Dave's and others' reduction of a high-res file to 16/44 and then deciding it sounds no different! It's this kind of obfuscation I can't stomach.

You are being very illlogical.

If YOU get a 24/96 track and resuce it to 16/44.1yourself then you know it is the same recording. Not hearing any differences in this case will confirm to YOU that they are audibly the same.

Take many people doing the same test and you get a statistically larger result.

ALL recordings are done at the higher bit rate these days. When recording is makes sense as there is room for adjustments to be made.

Just to clarify Fr0g's response:

1. Get a 24/96 track that you think is super

2. Downsample it yourself (many packages will do this) to 16/44.1

3. You now have 2 tracks, the original 24/96 track and a downsample of the same track at 16/44.1

4. Compare the two tracks using an ABX method (I believe foobar allows you to do this)

5. As the two files have exactly the same source, the only difference is sample rate and bit depth. If you can't tell the difference, then this would indicate that there was no extra 'magic' in the 24/96 track that couldn't be captured in 16/44.1.

This is exactly right and as far as I know the only way to ensure that everything is, as it should be, under the control of the experimentor.

Relying on a third part to supply the test material is simply 'not on'.

In reality we are comparing the original hi-res master with the downsampled version, a version that has also undergone another stage if digital manipulation, in this case sample/bit rate conversion. If digital processing is as invasive as some suggest, this should make the differences easier to hear.

Now I have tried this experiment myself, in an informal manner with a third party doing the switching and through a decent playback system. Getting the playback levels identical was quite difficult but once done neither I, nor several colleagues could tell the difference. We even tried the usual 'tricks' changes in noise floor, listening to extended decay of individual notes, none of this helped.

Of course this 'proves' nothing, real experimental proof in a subjective matter of this kind can only be achieved statistically, ie test enough (random) people enough times to give a result that is as close to fact as it is possible to get.

By doing this you prove hogwash. The truth is you'll never know the true circumstances of the 24-bit mastering unless you were at the recording liaising with the producer, engineer et al. If the high-res file sounds better then what do you put it down to????

Like I said, obfuscation.....

I am genuinely trying to understand your point.

Are you suggesting that because we do not 'know' the veracity of the 24/96 file that the test is invald?

Linn (for example) claim to produce the best possible 24/96 files from hi-res masters, are you suggesting this is not the case?

To answer your final point, if I was to do the test as described and the hi-res file sounded better, then providing the results are repeatable then you have proved the superiority of hi-res files.

It isn't worth it Dave.

It's pretty simple logic and after all this time he is either refusing to understand it, or he simply doesn't understand it,.

In either case he warrants no further attention. It is in the first instance trolling, and in the second, not worth the effort, unless you are feeling very charitable.

 

[fr0g]

Ra

Sn

Pb

Na

H

B

O

B ->M

 

[busb]

Worth a read:

http://www.trustmeimascientist.com/2013/02/04/the-science-of-sample-rates-when-higher-is-better-and-when-it-isnt/

he seems to suggest that any percieved benefits which people may be hearing in higher bit recordings could be due to unintended distortions caused by higher sampling rates. I think? :?

The author is also suggesting that using greater than 88.2k gives a little extra wiggle room. He's saying that using 96k for the consumer makes designing DACs easier than for 44.1k by using a shallower filter. This also suggests that some DACs will sound inherently better at 96k than at 44.1k!

So, downsampling 96k to 44.1k may sound different but for the wrong reasons! If you want to compare the original to the downsampled version, make sure you DAC is a good with few design compromises at 44.1k. When you compare versions, the only thing in common maybe your DAC's output stage!

My take is that the N-S theorem truly describes the theoretical minimum. Engineering the entire chain may make more sense at 96k but goes backwards at 192k due to unnecessary out of band products potentially intermodulating in-band music. Whether or not this is audible, I just don't know. If the author is correct, it's ironic that designing DACs to work their best at 44.1k is harder than at 96k!

For those who find this thread boring: don't bloody read it!

 

[davedotco]

Worth a read:

http://www.trustmeimascientist.com/2013/02/04/the-science-of-sample-rates-when-higher-is-better-and-when-it-isnt/

he seems to suggest that any percieved benefits which people may be hearing in higher bit recordings could be due to unintended distortions caused by higher sampling rates. I think? :?

The author is also suggesting that using greater than 88.2k gives a little extra wiggle room. He's saying that using 96k for the consumer makes designing DACs easier than for 44.1k by using a shallower filter. This also suggests that some DACs will sound inherently better at 96k than at 44.1k!

So, downsampling 96k to 44.1k may sound different but for the wrong reasons! If you want to compare the original to the downsampled version, make sure you DAC is a good with few design compromises at 44.1k. When you compare versions, the only thing in common maybe your DAC's output stage!

My take is that the N-S theorem truly describes the theoretical minimum. Engineering the entire chain may make more sense at 96k but goes backwards at 192k due to unnecessary out of band products potentially intermodulating in-band music. Whether or not this is audible, I just don't know. If the author is correct, it's ironic that designing DACs to work their best at 44.1k is harder than at 96k!

For those who find this thread boring: don't bloody read it!

This is only relevant if a difference can be heard.

If no difference is heard then not only does 16/44.1 sound the same as 24/96 but the downsampling software is essentially transparent too.

 

[BigH]

Because that is the normal practice, and we are trying to see if there is a difference between them, ie is it worth paying out more money for 24 bit.

No offence, but that's just idiocy. All you're proving is that 16/44 is as good as, wait for it, 16/44. And whose 'normal practice'?? Oh sorry fr0g's and Dave's.

What I meant was it mastered at 24bit and then converted to 16bit for cds, nothing to do with frogs or daves. What we want to know is 24bit better than 16bit with the same recording and mastering.

Also most recordings are done at 24bit now anyway, so I don't understand your arguement.

 

[spiny norman]

You seem rather opinionated for a man with 10 posts who has been on the site for less than a week.

Perhaps he didn't realise you'd mandated a probationary/qualifying period before he was allowed to express an opinion.

 

[steve_1979]

Ra

Sn

Pb

Na

H

B

O

B ->M

I'd to thank manicm for his confused posts. Even though I rarely bother to reply to them anymore, they've been a great source of entertainment for me over the past three years.

:cheers:

 

[Tonestar1]

More a question of boredom at these endless circular threads, in which the same old Googled 'evidence' is trotted out.

Can't we just say 'good for you' to those who are happy they can hear the difference between CD quality and 'hi-res' music, and are happy to spend more for that difference, and 'good for you' to those who can't, won't or don't believe there's any difference, and are thus saving their money.

All this self-righteous battling for justice, accusing people of con-tricks, delusion or stupidity, and general cox and box is getting very tiresome. Surely there are more important issues in the world to contemplate while enjoying some good music, whatever the file format?

I'm pretty sure there are many, many, more important issues in the world today far worthy of discussion than any of the topics on this forum. Hi-Fi is a first world problem. If contemplating the world's more serious dilemmas is your primary interest perhaps another ,non-hi-fi, forum would be of more interest to you. How about "Voice your opinions on the proposed boycott of The Winter Olympics due to the homophobic policies of Putin's government whilst enjoying some good music" or "Debate and discuss the Syria crisis while listening to some good music" …. I'm sure such forums must exist somewhere on the interweb.

However, If you would like to discuss hi-fi on a hi-fi forum I don't think complaining about how boring and circular a thread may be is very constructive, it just exacerbates the issue , neither is belittling other forum members for posting information they may think is a genuinely new contribution to the discussion. If you find a thread dull, worthless or past it's sell by date then don't comment on it, simple as that.

I have read this thread with interest as I once heard a top end Linn system playing Hi-Res which sounded fantastic, far better than the cd played back to back. I'm intigued by the fact there is solid science disputing that it couldn't sound any better through sampling and also interested that mastering may be a major contributing factor. I do not however want to wast my hard earned on Hi-Res music just becasue it is Hi-Res so I am enjoying the discussion.

 

[shadders]

Hi,

I have not read all the posts, but from an engineering perspective, the higher number of bits and higher sampling rate will be a benefit.

As long as the engineering process to record and then replay is as accurate as possible - then higher bits and higher sampling rate will be a benefit.

So, a higher sample rate and greater number of bits per sample is always a benefit, but whether they have been implemented correctly is another issue.

Regards,

Shadders.

Er no. Not done much engineering then I guess, Shadders.

Hi,

Surely if you increase the number of bits it will reduce the quantisation noise ?? (which is a benefit)

If you increase the sample rate, you will ensure that the actual waveform output from the DAC approaches the original signal values and less reliant upon interpolation by the output filter - hence more accurate - therefore a benefit.

Please can you explain why these statements are incorrect or not a benefit ?

Thanks and regards,

Richard.

 

[spiny norman]

However, If you would like to discuss hi-fi on a hi-fi forum I don't think complaining about how boring and circular a thread may be is very constructive, it just exacerbates the issue , neither is belittling other forum members for posting information they may think is a genuinely new contribution to the discussion. If you find a thread dull, worthless or past it's sell by date then don't comment on it, simple as that.

Ah, the old 'no-one's forcing you to read it' argument, huh?

Yes, I'd love to discuss hi-fi on a hi-fi forum. Do you know of any I could try? ;-) The personal combat here is taking things further and further away from that.

Seriously, though, this isn't a discussion about hi-fi, just like the endless threads about cables, active/passive speakers and other topics have little to do with the music and how it's played. Like those threads, this one has far too much w1lly-waving, far too much backstory for that, and that's a bit sad.

 

[Paul.]

Please can you explain why these statements are incorrect or not a benefit ?

Thanks and regards,

Richard.

the gist of the thread is as follows:

approx 60% combatants believe Nyquist Shannon prooves hd music is unnessesary

approx 20% combatants believe in their ears

approx 20% combatants believe NS is correct, but cannot be accurately applied to audio due to variables I'm still trying to absorb.