How good are your ears?

Fryguy8 said:
mage, I understand this.

At least 44.1 means that 96 works too. I never said it doesn't, just that it doesn't do anything better.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how much you understand. Reconstruction of an analog signal with 20Hz-20kHz bandwidth will be more precise and less susceptible to conversion error (aliasing) at 96kHz than at 44.1kHz.

CD-audio suffers from a combination of low sampling rate that barely exceeds the Nyquist frequency for the audible frequency range, an a low sample depth (16-bit). When samples are taken close to zero crossing for high frequencies, this may result in audible reconstruction errors.
 
BillR said:
You are confusing the audible spectrum of the human ear to the audible spectrum that can be recorded. Two very different things entirely.

No one will argue that humans can’t hear much about 17 or 18k. The fact remains however that musical instruments produce sound out past 100k in the form of harmonics and those harmonics bounce around and return to the audible spectrum as part of any performance. Anyone who produces music knows this.

When you record at 44 you instantly lose virtually all of those harmonics whereas when you record at 96 and above they are preserved and as such are included in the end product.

Please stop confusing the two issues, they are not one and the same. ;)
Click to expand...


Very good post.

At least one other person here realizes harmonics are half of music...not just simple single frequency sound waves.
 
Chair said:
I've gone through professional ear exams and my hearing scored some of the highest they've ever seen.
Click to expand...

I'm happy for you.
 
Talonz said:
For those who argue digital vs. analog, it's pretty simple the way I see it. For systems at a similar level, analog may sound better (preference), but digital will be more accurate.
Click to expand...

Not when it loses harmonics.
 
Talonz said:
For those who argue digital vs. analog, it's pretty simple the way I see it. For systems at a similar level, analog may sound better (preference), but digital will be more accurate.
Click to expand...

The very concept of digital and accurate when it comes to music is almost an absurd idea.

No digital format available today can reproduce the sound of a simple piano “accurately” and that is a fact. Even Sony admits that to be a “truth”

What digital does is give us a convenient format to listen to, edit and play with and in a few cases, SACD for one, a very close approximation of the original analog sound.

Try to keep in mind you hear in ANALOG, instruments play in ANLAOG.

When you find the person who can hear numbers please let me know.

Also keep in mind that D to A (digital to analog) conversion, (no matter how many bits) is only as good as the money spent on the output (read ANALOG) stage.
 
BillR said:
No digital format available today can reproduce the sound of a simple piano “accurately” and that is a fact. Even Sony admits that to be a “truth”
Click to expand...
Ah, but how accurate do you want to be? Even analog isn't "accurate"; if we had a magic machine that recorded *exactly* what it heard, and compared it to an analog recording of the same source, there'd be differences. Granted, with digital, you're guaranteeing that there will be differences, but that's the nature of the universe. You can't measure something without effecting it. Putting a mic in the room changes how you sound, literally.

So is anyone taking the test, or is this just one big OT now? Negative results are okay; I can admit that I can't tell the difference, you can too.

 
unhappy_mage said:
Ah, but how accurate do you want to be? Even analog isn't "accurate"; if we had a magic machine that recorded *exactly* what it heard, and compared it to an analog recording of the same source, there'd be differences. Granted, with digital, you're guaranteeing that there will be differences, but that's the nature of the universe. You can't measure something without effecting it. Putting a mic in the room changes how you sound, literally.

So is anyone taking the test, or is this just one big OT now? Negative results are okay; I can admit that I can't tell the difference, you can too.

Click to expand...

I agree absolutely. My point was just as you stated, with digital you always change something even with the best intentions.

I’m still amazed that Dark Side of The Moon came out so well on SACD considering the recording was done over 30 years ago. Just think of all the information that has been lost through normal deterioration of the tape, not to mention how many people have actually owned the original master.

As I have said before, the “Audiophile Holy Grail” is to reproduce “Live” in the home.

And as another song said, “It don’t come easy” ;) :D
 
Fryguy8 said:
Considering it's been mathematically proven that there is 0 difference between 44.1khz and 92khz for playback, I'm going to call BS on this. Have you ever done ABX testing to verify this? If so I would like to see the test data. Even --V0 or --V1 to a CD is very hard if not impossible to tell.

>95% of people can't tell the difference between APS fast-vbr and a CD, let alone 320kbps and an actual CD. I want to see test data to back this up.
Click to expand...

you have no proof.

I can tell the difference between 24 bit audio and 16 bit audio on my Pioneer SX-950 receiver (I use just the amp section), Audigy 2, and Mission M32 speakers, while my computer is on. And its a noisy bitch.

I can tell the difference, but I don't prefer one or the other.

that receiver is 30 years old by the way. it's pretty slick.
had it hooked up to some Mission 774 speakers a while ago. it sounded better than the fairly recent NAD amp hooked up to them.







and to the people talking about the SACD version of dark side of the moon... i don't know for sure, but it was probably digitized 25 years ago, and just recently released on SACD.

i have a really good digital recording from september 1978, on CD. it's probably the best recording i own. it is of the 1812 overture. telarc did it.

they had to downsample it from 20 bit down to 16 bit. i want the original :drool:
 
mike_6289 said:
I can tell the difference between 24 bit audio and 16 bit audio on my Pioneer SX-950 receiver (I use just the amp section), Audigy 2, and Mission M32 speakers, while my computer is on. And its a noisy bitch.
Click to expand...
Post ABX log, please! :D

 
mike_6289 said:
you have no proof.

I can tell the difference between 24 bit audio and 16 bit audio on my Pioneer SX-950 receiver (I use just the amp section), Audigy 2, and Mission M32 speakers, while my computer is on. And its a noisy bitch.

I can tell the difference, but I don't prefer one or the other.

that receiver is 30 years old by the way. it's pretty slick.
had it hooked up to some Mission 774 speakers a while ago. it sounded better than the fairly recent NAD amp hooked up to them.







and to the people talking about the SACD version of dark side of the moon... i don't know for sure, but it was probably digitized 25 years ago, and just recently released on SACD.

i have a really good digital recording from september 1978, on CD. it's probably the best recording i own. it is of the 1812 overture. telarc did it.

they had to downsample it from 20 bit down to 16 bit. i want the original :drool:
Click to expand...

True on the first part of your quote.

On the second part Sony now owns the original ANALOG master. It was that they used to remix the SACD. Sony was and has been proving a point with SACD, with response out to 100kHZ and unlimited bits digital can work well.
 
How come whenever the subject of ABX is brought up, those that can hear differences in the music disappear?

Don't get me wrong, I believe that harmonics are important and that mastering music at least at the level of 24/96 is essential to producing a quality recording. In fact, I got my soundcard for these capabilities and could care less about XFi or Crystallizers or the latest and greatest echo effect for games.

But, it amazes me that whenever blind tests are mentioned, logs never materialize and people's amazing auditory capabilities are not substantiated. The thing is, I also believe in the placebo effect.
 
I'd be willing to do an ABX test with my setup. What do you want me to do and which tracks do I play?

Give me the whole shabang and I'll do it to the best of my ability - both as a listener and in making sure that I get the ABX running as smoothly as possible. I can have my friend man the tracks while I remain blindfolded.

Let me know.

JOey
 
I've tested some of those hybrid dvd-audio / cd audio flip disks. one side dvd-audio and then other side regular cd audio.

i can hear a difference. the dvd-audio side sounds 'bigger,' the cd audio side in comparison sounds 'muffly'

i was quite impressed when i just learned about sa-cd. guess the ps3 is sporting sacd and 'sacd hd' whatever that is.

of course any comparison is totally based on the user. people have a hearing IQ did you know that? i was tested when I was about 7-8 I think (for learning difficulties) but don't have any of the test results. best way is to buy yourself and see i guess.
 
unhappy_mage said:
Audio posted here.

Suggested test procedure: use Foobar2000's ABX comparator. Select the two files to be compared (I'd suggest starting with test-16 and the original), right-click->utils->ABX two tracks->uncheck all->ok. From there, it should be pretty obvious how to go about it. If anyone can hear the difference between the original @ 24 bit depth and the chopped at 16 (or even 12!) bits, please post ABX logs. I can't tell on my equipment, but it's less than $100 counting the amp I'm not using. I have an excuse, what's yours? ;)
Click to expand...
Test procedure re-posted for those who missed it. You don't even need a real blindfold to do this ;)

 
unhappy_mage said:
Test procedure re-posted for those who missed it. You don't even need a real blindfold to do this ;)

Click to expand...

K, I'll try to run my system through its paces sometime tomorrow. We'll see if $11K can resolve this mess.
 
BillR said:
I agree absolutely. My point was just as you stated, with digital you always change something even with the best intentions.

I’m still amazed that Dark Side of The Moon came out so well on SACD considering the recording was done over 30 years ago. Just think of all the information that has been lost through normal deterioration of the tape, not to mention how many people have actually owned the original master.

As I have said before, the “Audiophile Holy Grail” is to reproduce “Live” in the home.

And as another song said, “It don’t come easy” ;) :D
Click to expand...

Have you heard the bootleg DVD-A copy of DSOTM that's floating out on the net? Of the 4 copies of the album I currently have, I thought it was the best by far. There is more tape hiss in that version, but it sounds incredible. I'll be interested to compare it to the LP version in a few days, since my turntable will be here tomorrow. Now I just need to find a version on LP.

I prefer analog to digital most of the time myself, but I have to admit that high quality SACD and DVD-A music sounds incredible.
 
Try with more dynamic music : Carmina Burana.
12-bit on low level is disastrous. You will get a lot of noise.
 
If you have a sample at 96k I'll be glad to chop it. But I can't generate them out of thin air.

 
i don't have any 24 bit recordings on my computer

so i'm going to abx 16 bit to 12 bit.

and post them.
if i can figure it out :/

keep in mind that my computer is about 40db :)
 
and 14 bit, but i don't know how that'll work out.

and where can i get this abx.dll file?
 
yeah, i can't do it right now, i don't have the abx dll or whatever i need.

i can tell you right now i can definitely tell the difference between 12 bit and 16 bit. night and day. 14 and 16 bit is harder to tell the difference, the only difference seems to be a bit more noise. it doesn't sound as crappy as 12 bit.

i'll still do the abx test, just at a later time. when someone posts the dll.
 
Select the two tracks in Foobar and right-click. Go to the Utils submenu and select "ABX two tracks". It'll do some preparation, then you attempt to tell the difference.

Where'd you get a 14 bit cut from?

 
Haha, why didn't I think of that? I went and wrote a program to chop off the extra bits, and Foobar does it out of the box. Well, 0.8.3, anyways; I just checked and 0.9.1 doesn't seem to do that.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top