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

[fr0g]

You are totally right of course fr0g. But this has been done to death and I fear that you're banging your head against a brick wall trying to explain to someone who doesn't understand Nyquist-Shannon theory why CD quality 16/44 is already past the limit of what humans can can hear and anything higher than that doesn't make any difference to the sound.

:wall:

...and we're back to where we started on page one of this thread, :wall:

I'm off out to see some of the real world now. Have a nice weekend everyone. See 'you guys' later. :wave:

....yeah right, until next week or thereafter when either you and fr0g get bored and start a thread like this all over again. I can still see your wave...just a bit farther now...

If you read the original post, you will see it is nothing to do with boredom, but rather a genuine request for links to anywhere where the theorum has been disproved, as Mr Dalethorn seemed to be claiming was the case.

If so, I would be delighted to see it. If it was verifiable then I would be happy to change my current belief. Science is exactly that. There is no preaching, no "faith". It needs to be empirically repeatable and at any time, if it is disproved, then it is no longer the accepted science.

So, it would be nice if you refrained from the insinuations and insults and maybe posted something positive...Is that at all possible?

 

[NHL]

Double blind testing anyone?

Could THIS, yes check it out, actually be repeated in a blind test???

http://www.hificritic.com/colloms/cdplayers.aspx

 

[basshound]

It's the lies and subterfuge I resent.

+1

 

[fr0g]

Double blind testing anyone?

Could THIS, yes check it out, actually be repeated in a blind test???

http://www.hificritic.com/colloms/cdplayers.aspx

Quite literally bonkers. There is not a hope in hell they could do it if all the players were put in identical cases.

I'd bet my house on it.

 

[fr0g]

No, you can't request that people understand something, in that sense.

True.

But what I fail to understand is why people try to debate a subject if they don't understand how it works?

And you're fully qualified to talk about this stuff then Steve, yes? From an audio engineering perspective, a relevant degree, etc...?

That's a totally unfair and irrelevant post RS. Steve has obviously read and understood the concept of Nyquist-Shannon.

Or do we all need masters degrees in anything we discuss?

N-S is the current "accepted" science. Just like we currently believe that nothing can travel faster than light, and that time goes slower the faster we move...

I don't need to fully understand Einstein's theories, or have received an education in such in order to repeat that as fact...

 

[CJSF]

. . . :? You know what I recon Fr0gie is winding you all up . . . otherwise he is inferring, if you dont have the boffin knowledge, dont have the kit to test the theories, you have not got good enough ears, then you cant hear and appreciate decent music . . . :shame:

 

[fr0g]

. . . :? You know what I recon Fr0gie is winding you all up . . . otherwise he is inferring, if you dont have the boffin knowledge, dont have the kit to test the theories, you have not got good enough ears, then you cant hear and appreciate decent music . . . :shame:

Can you let me know which chemist you shop at? Is it available without prescription?

 

[The_Lhc]

. . . :? You know what I recon Fr0gie is winding you all up . . . otherwise he is inferring, if you dont have the boffin knowledge, dont have the kit to test the theories, you have not got good enough ears, then you cant hear and appreciate decent music . . . :shame:

No, CJ, he isn't saying that at all.

 

[The_Lhc]

I would happily pay a bit more if they released 2 versions of a CD...One loud one for the Beats generation, and one high dynamic range, uncompressed one for "audiophiles".

I would well understand them charging extra for the "audiophile" version as it would almost certainly sell in far fewer quantities...

Isn't this exactly what Paul McCartney did with the latest reissue of Band on the Run and NIN did with their latest album? Ok, not on CD, you had to buy the 24bit versions but there were two versions available, one with full dynamic range, one with more usual levels of compression.

 

[matt49]

The whole point of this thread by the way was for any actual scientific debunking of Nyquist-Shannon to come forward, after a "discussion" I had on a thread the other day...

Apparently there isn't any...

If it's "scientific debunking of Nyquist-Shannon" you're after, then may I ever so polietely suggest you're in the wrong place. Forgive me if I'm offending anyone, but I'd wager no-one here has the expertise even to understand the maths behind Nyquist-Shannon, let alone attempt to disprove the theorem. In any case, as has been pointed out, N-S is now part of "normal" science; it's not even near the current cutting edge. There's no debate to be had.

What may be at issue -- and this is the point I was trying to make earlier, before everyone started to say I was boring them -- is the implications of N-S for digital audio, especially for mastering.

Matt

 

[fr0g]

The whole point of this thread by the way was for any actual scientific debunking of Nyquist-Shannon to come forward, after a "discussion" I had on a thread the other day...

Apparently there isn't any...

If it's "scientific debunking of Nyquist-Shannon" you're after, then may I ever so polietely suggest you're in the wrong place. Forgive me if I'm offending anyone, but I'd wager no-one here has the expertise even to understand the maths behind Nyquist-Shannon, let alone attempt to disprove the theorem. In any case, as has been pointed out, N-S is now part of "normal" science; it's not even near the current cutting edge. There's no debate to be had.

What may be at issue -- and this is the point I was trying to make earlier, before everyone started to say I was boring them -- is the implications of N-S for digital audio, especially for mastering.

Matt

Don't worry, you aren't boring me. And it was me searching for info, so the cling-ons can go and find another thread to throw pointless posts at.

Yes, I get what you said (I missed the post first time around...(this thread has a very high noise floor...))

I am not in the slightest bit able to argue the topic. Like Steve, I have read and (think) I understand it, but I am always willing to change my mind if the right information crops up.

As for your post, I highly doubt any aliasing in the 20 KHz region would be audible. Certainly not to me. I have tested myself to 16 KHz...that is it. There isn't anything I can sense much above that. Which as a mid-40s bloke, I reckon is fine.

Anyway. While I write I am listening to some rather lovely music* on my ADMs and just now, science is irrelevant (bliss)

*Joby Talbot - Tide Harmonic.

 

[the record spot]

That's a totally unfair and irrelevant post RS. Steve has obviously read and understood the concept of Nyquist-Shannon.

Or do we all need masters degrees in anything we discuss?

N-S is the current "accepted" science. Just like we currently believe that nothing can travel faster than light, and that time goes slower the faster we move...

I don't need to fully understand Einstein's theories, or have received an education in such in order to repeat that as fact...

Hardly.

If I'm not mistaken, Steve has an interest in the subject. He may well be qualified. But if not, he's gone to Google and done some background reading. Personally, I couldn't give two hoots. To me, it's just one degree of armchair experts spouting off to another. Steve's read a bit, good for him, but like most of the other objectivists, they're passing on the rote.

In the context of this post, the mastering is most important, the format less so. Some hi-res reissues have their own mastering, hence the greatest likelihood of an audible difference.

 

[NHL]

So, when everyone has "upgraded" to DSD in a couple of years time,

what will be the NEXT "problem" which has to be solved and HOW?

Upsampling to 768 kHz!

 

[the record spot]

So, when everyone has "upgraded" to DSD in a couple of years time,

what will be the NEXT "problem" which has to be solved and HOW?

DSD has been with us for years. The Stones SACDs sound fantastic through my stereo going via HDMI. That's gives me the DSD playback. Sounds great, but they're brilliantly mastered anyway. Most DSD playback is converted to PCM I'd have thought.

 

[matt49]

As for your post, I highly doubt any aliasing in the 20 KHz region would be audible. Certainly not to me. I have tested myself to 16 KHz...that is it. There isn't anything I can sense much above that. Which as a mid-40s bloke, I reckon is fine.

You may be right about audibility, though it does beg the question why (at least on my imperfect understanding of the subject) anti-aliasing is employed at all. And remember we're talking about mastering here, not about supposed foo-merchants trying to sell us a supposedly unnecessary new format for playback.

Matt

 

[CnoEvil]

Here are a few links:

http://tweakheadz.com/16-bit-vs-24-bit-audio/

and: http://www.thewelltemperedcomputer.com/KB/Bit1624.htm

and (post No. 4): http://www.thetradersden.org/forums/showthread.php?t=98769

I am not commenting on how valid these are, as I'm not qualified.......though I mistrust "absolutes" when it comes to hifi, as imo, things are not as black and white as some would have you believe,

Using "science" as a "catch all" blunt instrument to win an argument is far too simplistic, and is often used by those not qualified to do so.

BTW. I'm talking very generally here and not pointing my finger in a particular direction.

FWIW. I think mastering is far more important than bit rate/depth.....though, when it comes to DVD vs Blu-Ray, I have found the sound noticeably better on the latter.

 

[fr0g]

That's a totally unfair and irrelevant post RS. Steve has obviously read and understood the concept of Nyquist-Shannon.

Or do we all need masters degrees in anything we discuss?

N-S is the current "accepted" science. Just like we currently believe that nothing can travel faster than light, and that time goes slower the faster we move...

I don't need to fully understand Einstein's theories, or have received an education in such in order to repeat that as fact...

Hardly.

If I'm not mistaken, Steve has an interest in the subject. He may well be qualified. But if not, he's gone to Google and done some background reading. Personally, I couldn't give two hoots. To me, it's just one degree of armchair experts spouting off to another. Steve's read a bit, good for him, but like most of the other objectivists, they're passing on the rote.

There is a difference. If you take the side of the accepted science, the accepted "facts", whether you understand it or not, then in my opinion, you have the high ground. It matters not if both sides are "googling".

I accept the science and I will use that as my basis for "facts". If the science is proved wrong, then I will change my own stance. I hope I am not presuming too much to say I believe Steve would say the same thing.

Steve may not be an expert, but he has the high ground, certainly compared to people who say "just listen", which is not really what I was after from this thread, and certainly not such irrelevance as "provided" by the trolls who have joined in simply to pout.

 

[NHL]

Double blind testing anyone?

Could THIS, yes check it out, actually be repeated in a blind test???

http://www.hificritic.com/colloms/cdplayers.aspx

Quite literally bonkers. There is not a hope in hell they could do it if all the players were put in identical cases.

I'd bet my house on it.

The grades seems exponential. Speaking of Golden Ears.

 

[Phileas]

Forgive me if I'm offending anyone, but I'd wager no-one here has the expertise even to understand the maths behind Nyquist-Shannon

You're wrong. (But I'm not offended 8) )

 

[the record spot]

That's a totally unfair and irrelevant post RS. Steve has obviously read and understood the concept of Nyquist-Shannon.

Or do we all need masters degrees in anything we discuss?

N-S is the current "accepted" science. Just like we currently believe that nothing can travel faster than light, and that time goes slower the faster we move...

I don't need to fully understand Einstein's theories, or have received an education in such in order to repeat that as fact...

Hardly.

If I'm not mistaken, Steve has an interest in the subject. He may well be qualified. But if not, he's gone to Google and done some background reading. Personally, I couldn't give two hoots. To me, it's just one degree of armchair experts spouting off to another. Steve's read a bit, good for him, but like most of the other objectivists, they're passing on the rote.

There is a difference. If you take the side of the accepted science, the accepted "facts", whether you understand it or not, then in my opinion, you have the high ground. It matters not if both sides are "googling".

I accept the science and I will use that as my basis for "facts". If the science is proved wrong, then I will change my own stance. I hope I am not presuming too much to say I believe Steve would say the same thing.

Steve may not be an expert, but he has the high ground, certainly compared to people who say "just listen", which is not really what I was after from this thread, and certainly not such irrelevance as "provided" by the trolls who have joined in simply to pout.

"High ground"? Seeing as this is a non debate, the moral ground, high, low or otherwise was departed long ago. I'd direct you to the Meyer and Moran paper from 2007 for the AES for one reference.

 

[NHL]

That's a totally unfair and irrelevant post RS. Steve has obviously read and understood the concept of Nyquist-Shannon.

Or do we all need masters degrees in anything we discuss?

N-S is the current "accepted" science. Just like we currently believe that nothing can travel faster than light, and that time goes slower the faster we move...

I don't need to fully understand Einstein's theories, or have received an education in such in order to repeat that as fact...

Hardly.

If I'm not mistaken, Steve has an interest in the subject. He may well be qualified. But if not, he's gone to Google and done some background reading. Personally, I couldn't give two hoots. To me, it's just one degree of armchair experts spouting off to another. Steve's read a bit, good for him, but like most of the other objectivists, they're passing on the rote.

There is a difference. If you take the side of the accepted science, the accepted "facts", whether you understand it or not, then in my opinion, you have the high ground. It matters not if both sides are "googling".

I accept the science and I will use that as my basis for "facts". If the science is proved wrong, then I will change my own stance. I hope I am not presuming too much to say I believe Steve would say the same thing.

Steve may not be an expert, but he has the high ground, certainly compared to people who say "just listen", which is not really what I was after from this thread, and certainly not such irrelevance as "provided" by the trolls who have joined in simply to pout.

"High ground"? Seeing as this is a non debate, the moral ground, high, low or otherwise was departed long ago. I'd direct you to the Meyer and Moran paper from 2007 for the AES for one reference.

From the mentioned paper:

"They sound like it, label after label.

High-resolution audio discs do not have the overwhelming

majority of the program material crammed into the top 20

(or even 10) dB of the available dynamic range, as so

many CDs today do.

Our test results indicate that all of these recordings

could be released on conventional CDs with no audible

difference.", i.e. no need to switch HW.

Smart testing, they DOWNSAMPLE from SACD (DSD) to CD with not difference in sound.

 

[matt49]

Forgive me if I'm offending anyone, but I'd wager no-one here has the expertise even to understand the maths behind Nyquist-Shannon

You're wrong. (But I'm not offended 8) )

Thank goodness I didn't bet any cash on it then.

I don't really know how difficult the maths are: Fourier, Poisson etc. Can you give us a sense of what level of mathematical knowledge is needed? I know this is entirely academic, but I like entirely academic stuff.

:cheers:

Matt

 

[steve_1979]

To answer Mr Lemon. The tests you link are irrelevant.

And I disagree with Steve on this. It is entirely possible that a higher res file will sound different. If you play back a file with 40 KHz and higher frequecies contained in it and one that has been limited to 22 KHz, they "may" sound different. It depends on how your speakers (which are likely unable to reproduce those frequencies, reacts to them.

And there lies the crux of my argument against the link that AL posted. When converting a high res file into 16/44.1 you need to remember that a sample rate of 44.1kHz is only able to pefectly reproduce a wave upto 22.05kHz.

There are two basic ways to convert high rez to 16/44.1. The first way is to just do a straight convertion while keeping the information contained above 22.05kHz. But this method will lead to anti-alaising of the higher frequencies above 22.05kHz which will have a distorting effect below that frequency.

But if you remove all of the infomation above 22.05kHz first (which is inaudiable to humans anyway) before doing the convertion, then using a 44.1kHz sample rate can pefectly reproduce absolutely any wave shape upto 22.05kHz without any anti-aliasing or other distortions.

Why do some people doubt that a well understood mathematical theorem like Nyquist–Shannon works? To say that it doesn't is like saying that πr2 doesn't equal the area of a circle.

 

[NHL]

To answer Mr Lemon. The tests you link are irrelevant.

And I disagree with Steve on this. It is entirely possible that a higher res file will sound different. If you play back a file with 40 KHz and higher frequecies contained in it and one that has been limited to 22 KHz, they "may" sound different. It depends on how your speakers (which are likely unable to reproduce those frequencies, reacts to them.

And there lies the crux of my argument against the link that AL posted. When converting a high res file into 16/44.1 you need to remember that a sample rate of 44.1kHz is only able to pefectly reproduce a wave upto 22.05kHz.

There are two basic ways to convert high rez to 16/44.1. The first way is to just do a straight convertion while keeping the information contained above 22.05kHz. But this method will lead to anti-alaising of the higher frequencies above 22.05kHz which will have a distorting effect below that frequency.

But if you remove all of the infomation above 22.05kHz first (which is inaudiable to humans anyway) before doing the convertion, then using a 44.1kHz sample rate can pefectly reproduce absolutely any wave shape upto 22.05kHz without any anti-aliasing or other distortions.

Why do some people doubt that a well understood mathematical theorem like Nyquist–Shannon works? To say that it doesn't is like saying that πr2 doesn't equal the area of a circle.

My teacher told the story of someone using silos to check the value of PI, in case it needed to be corrected.

 

[John Duncan]

Forgive me if I'm offending anyone, but I'd wager no-one here has the expertise even to understand the maths behind Nyquist-Shannon

You're wrong. (But I'm not offended 8) )

Thank goodness I didn't bet any cash on it then.

I don't really know how difficult the maths are: Fourier, Poisson etc. Can you give us a sense of what level of mathematical knowledge is needed? I know this is entirely academic, but I like entirely academic stuff.

:cheers:

Matt

I struggle with it somewhat, but my degree in mathematics was a long time ago.

The conclusion is straightforward enough though.