CD Quality Is Not High-Res Audio

[TBone]

kinda, wasn't a DVD ... rather a 16 bit CD.

 

[garylkoh]

Todd also makes CD samplers to give away. I think the same bunch of tracks. Anyway, if it comes from MA Recordings, it should sound great.

 

[Groucho]

Here's a page all you hi res enthusiasts should have a look at:
http://www.trustmeimascientist.com/...ave-golden-ears-take-the-scientist-challenge/

The guy wants to be the first person ever to demonstrate that anyone can hear a difference between CD quality (or even 320kbps encoded) and a hi res format. It's never been done, and he'd like to hear from anyone who can hear a night and day difference, or even a subtle one. It sounds as though almost everyone at WBF could do it with their eyes shut (well, that's kind of the point).

...it appears there are some differences that no one has ever heard under properly controlled conditions. We’re talking about reportedly “huge” differences in sound quality for which no clear evidence exists.

The unproven claim that comes up the most often is that there is a clear audible difference in sound quality between a super-high-resolution format like 24/192, and either standard full-resolution audio at 16/44.1, or a high-resolution mp3 at 320kbps.

That these claims are in fact, unproven, may surprise some people. If you’re one of them, don’t worry, you’re not alone.

When I first started to look into the claims about the sound quality of super-high resolution formats, I, like many others, instinctively believed that they must sound better. I mean, just look at the numbers! They’re so much bigger! Duh!! But the more I went looking for evidence, the more that I found there was none to report.

In the end, I was unable to find any reliable evidence that anyone, trained listeners included, could hear or appreciate a difference between these formats when listening blind. I did however, find mountains of studies that pointed the other way. (We even did one of our own, just be sure.)

All this was a genuine surprise to me, especially when I thought back on all the anecdotes and impassioned testimonials I had heard to the contrary....

...Take The Challenge!

If you’re not convinced and you believe that you can hear these differences, I want to hear from you. All you have to do is prove that you can reliably hear a difference between CD, 320kbps mp3, and any higher resolution format, and we will write a glowing, feature-length article about you. That’s a promise.

The only stipulations are that it has to be double-blind, under normal listening conditions, and you have to get it right enough times that the result is statistically significant (i.e. greater than chance.) You can even pick the music, the environment and the playback system. We’ll provide the files, and have them independently verified by a third party if you like. And you can even practice as much as you want....

...I will admit that I’m skeptical anyone will even take this challenge, much less succeed at it. I’ve already offered this opportunity to dozens of comers in the past few months alone and have had no takers so far.

Still, despite this healthy skepticism, I’d be damned if anyone in the world can reliably hear these differences, and I’m not the one to document it first! I want you to succeed.

He'd find a lot of those anecdotes and impassioned testimonials in these very pages. So who will be the first person from WBF to step up and make history?!

 

[Groucho]

Another link from the Trust me I'm a Scientist pages. This makes the point that half the disputes between audiophiles and 'pragmatists' may simply be to do with understanding the terminology of digital audio. For example, it never occurred to me that the word "resolution" could be misconstrued when it came to audio bit depth. But of course, it could.

things start to go a little haywire when people start thinking about bit depth in terms of the “resolution” of an audio file. In the context of digital audio, that word is technically correct. It’s only what people think the word “resolution” means that’s the problem. For the purpose of talking about audio casually among peers, we might be even better off abandoning it completely.

When people imagine the “resolution” of an audio file, they tend to immediately think of the “resolution” of their computer screen. Turn down the resolution of your screen, and the image gets fuzzier. Things get blockier, hazier, and they start to lose their clarity and detail pretty quickly.

Perfect analogy, right? Well, unfortunately, it’s almost exactly wrong.

All other things being equal, when your turn down the bit depth of a file, all you’ll get is an increasing amount of low-level noise, kind of like tape hiss. (Except that with any reasonable digital audio file, that virtual “tape hiss” will be far lower than it ever was on tape.)

http://www.sonicscoop.com/2013/08/2...t-you-knew-about-bit-depth-is-probably-wrong/

This is an excellent article, including this gem:

24-bit consumer playback is such overkill, that if you were able to set your speakers or headphones loud enough so that you could hear the quietest sound possible above the noise floor of the room you were in (let’s say, 30db-50dB) then the 144 dB peak above that level would be enough to send you into a coma, perhaps even killing you instantly.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

How's he going to conduct the DBT I wonder?

Tim

 

[mep]

Another link from the Trust me I'm a Scientist pages. This makes the point that half the disputes between audiophiles and 'pragmatists' may simply be to do with understanding the terminology of digital audio. For example, it never occurred to me that the word "resolution" could be misconstrued when it came to audio bit depth. But of course, it could.



http://www.sonicscoop.com/2013/08/2...t-you-knew-about-bit-depth-is-probably-wrong/

This is an excellent article, including this gem:

24-bit consumer playback is such overkill, that if you were able to set your speakers or headphones loud enough so that you could hear the quietest sound possible above the noise floor of the room you were in (let’s say, 30db-50dB) then the 144 dB peak above that level would be enough to send you into a coma, perhaps even killing you instantly.

That's pure nonsense of course. The dynamic range capability of a given source doesn't get to start above your noise floor. Second of all, nobody is capturing anything close to 144dB of dynamic range.

 

[Johnny Vinyl]

Here's a couple of quotes from another forum:

Actually, nothing above red book 16/44.1 sounds any different. The purpose of 24 bit audio is to provide digital overhead for recording engineers. It allows for less digital filter loss when they mix and master recordings.

What you have encountered is specification gamesmanship. It is like claiming some advantage of .01% harmonic distortion over .05% in an amplifier when neither is audible.

The word length and sample rate of a DAC means has nothing at all to do with sound quality. In this day and age literally all DACs are free of any affect on sound. I recommend you ignore DACs completely. What your equipment has is just fine. As always, if you want an improvement in sound, work with speakers and room acoustics. The other stuff really doesn't affect sound quality in any meaningful way.

Yes, really. Strangely, they got it right way back in the early 80's. Everything beyond that is specification marketing - at least in the home audio world. In fact it is possible to compress red book digital quite a bit before the process becomes audible. When I digitized my CD collection, I was careful to conduct bias controlled blind tests to determine how far I could go personally with data compression. My 290 MP3's are indistinguishable from the original CD.

 

[mep]

Here's a couple of quotes from another forum:

Can the author of those quotes hear any difference between DSD and his beloved MP3s recorded at 290 Kbps or is he totally deaf?

 

[Johnny Vinyl]

Todd also makes CD samplers to give away. I think the same bunch of tracks. Anyway, if it comes from MA Recordings, it should sound great.

It was a CD and the tracks were:

MA - Woo Audio-Toronto Audio Sh\01 Sera una Noche - Malena.flac
MA - Woo Audio-Toronto Audio Sh\02 Maria Ana Bobone - Jose embala o menino.flac
MA - Woo Audio-Toronto Audio Sh\03 V. Stefanovski and M. Tadic - Ajde dali znaes pametis Milice.flac
MA - Woo Audio-Toronto Audio Sh\04 Ravid Goldschmidt + Silvia Pere - Gitana.flac
MA - Woo Audio-Toronto Audio Sh\05 Martin Zeller - J. S. Bach Cello Suite 1_mvts1-.flac
MA - Woo Audio-Toronto Audio Sh\06 Sera una Noche - La Roca.flac
MA - Woo Audio-Toronto Audio Sh\07 Mathias Landaeus Trio - What a Wonderul World.flac
MA - Woo Audio-Toronto Audio Sh\08 Out of Time and Country - Organum.flac
MA - Woo Audio-Toronto Audio Sh\09 Puente Celeste - A.flac
MA - Woo Audio-Toronto Audio Sh\10 D. Baroni and D. Boerner - Bach Flute SonatasE minor Flute.flac
MA - Woo Audio-Toronto Audio Sh\11 Eduardo Eguez - Suite D. la re majeur by Robert.flac

 

[TBone]

and his beloved MP3s

Does he actually claim that he "loves" MP3, or are you putting words in his mouth?

 

[Groucho]

Another fabulous article, where the author makes this great point about the music industry hyping up vinyl:

The problem is that music marketers have effectively been lying to listeners by telling them that modern digital doesn’t sound good. And we’ve got to stop. Now.

Perception affects enjoyment more than anything else. That’s where the failure is. Right now, by any objective standard, we have the best listening formats and equipment ever made, and at prices that are mind-bogglingly low.

In reality, modern digital actually sounds f*ing great. A 320kbps stream from Spotify, eMusic or MOG sounds indistinguishable from a CD when heard by the ear. This has been confirmed in countless blind tests. Meanwhile, within the spectrum of human hearing, a CD is unquestionably closer to the original master than vinyl is. We can prove that with measurements and we can prove it with listening tests. There is no doubt. Zero.

In terms of raw sound quality, what’s available today is provably higher-fidelity than vinyl, cassette, 8-track, reel-to-reel, wax cylinder, AM/FM radio, and just about any other consumer format ever invented. But we’re failing to tell that story.

At this point, we don’t need to convince the engineers to design better digital. They’ve already done their jobs. The technology is there. Now we’ve gotta do our jobs and convince people to start paying for it again!

http://www.trustmeimascientist.com/2013/08/08/why-vinyl-is-not-going-to-save-the-music-industry/

In other words, by spinning the meme that says digital audio is crap, it affects everyone's perception negatively, devaluing the medium that most people listen to, thereby helping to kill the music industry. This is one of the reasons why it is necessary to pick people up on their subjective anecdotes concerning expensive cables, hi res formats, vinyl etc. rather than letting it all pass unchallenged.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

That's pure nonsense of course. The dynamic range capability of a given source doesn't get to start above your noise floor. Second of all, nobody is capturing anything close to 144dB of dynamic range.

Sometimes it is a good idea to actually read something before you dismiss it based on what you think is being said:

http://www.sonicscoop.com/2013/08/2...t-you-knew-about-bit-depth-is-probably-wrong/

Tim

 

[mep]

Does he actually claim that he "loves" MP3, or are you putting words in his mouth?

You tell me...

In reality, modern digital actually sounds f*ing great. A 320kbps stream from Spotify, eMusic or MOG sounds indistinguishable from a CD when heard by the ear. This has been confirmed in countless blind tests.

Sounds like love to me for those who can't connect the dots themselves.

 

[TBone]

It works both way ... the truth being somewhere in the middle ...

Meanwhile, within the spectrum of human hearing, a CD is unquestionably closer to the original master than vinyl is. We can prove that with measurements and we can prove it with listening tests.

In those terms, they're equally close, something I can prove simply by playing a 16 bit original CD and comparing it to the accompanying LP in which they'll sound literally identical, as they should given the circumstances. Again, this is not a simple analog vs digital debate, or some silly format war. I consider analog the best musical medium within my system simply because, given great mastering, it shines above all else. I'm not going to debate that as fact, because in my system, it's readily apparent to anyone with ears. Doesn't mean my digital sucks in comparison, or such utter nonsense.

I luv analog with a passion, I really do, but I don't like the obvious hypocrisy surrounding analogs "superiority" to all things digital, which IMO was proven wrong decades ago.

tb1

 

[TBone]

You tell me...

I didn't make the comment, you did.

If I did, I'd be accountable ...

 

[mep]

Sometimes it is a good idea to actually read something before you dismiss it based on what you think is being said:

http://www.sonicscoop.com/2013/08/2...t-you-knew-about-bit-depth-is-probably-wrong/

Tim

I read it and I stand by what I said. If you believe everything this guy is saying, why do you need 96dB or greater dynamic range when he says popular dynamic music rarely exceeds 24dB of dynamic range? Maybe he listens to heavily compressed digital music along with the other guy that is being quoted above and that's why they don't hear any difference between MP3s and CDs and they want to convince everyone how wonderful digital with 24dB of dynamic range is and to quit complaining about any perceived shortcomings. I find it all a bit strange.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I read it and I stand by what I said. If you believe everything this guy is saying, why do you need 96dB or greater dynamic range when he says popular dynamic music rarely exceeds 24dB of dynamic range? Maybe he listens to heavily compressed digital music along with the other guy that is being quoted above and that's why they don't hear any difference between MP3s and CDs and they want to convince everyone how wonderful digital with 24dB of dynamic range is and to quit complaining about any perceived shortcomings. I find it all a bit strange.

I haven't concluded that I believe everything the guy says (this is the first time I've read him), and I don't need 96db of dynamic range. Neither do you. And he's not trying to convince everyone that 24db is wonderful, nor is he asking you to stop complaining. He's teaching you the basics of bit depth and the realities of dynamic range and human hearing, which should be telling you that much of what you believe is wrong.

Tim

 

[mep]

I haven't concluded that I believe everything the guy says (this is the first time I've read him), and I don't need 96db of dynamic range. Neither do you. And he's not trying to convince everyone that 24db is wonderful, nor is he asking you to stop complaining. He's teaching you the basics of bit depth and the realities of dynamic range and human hearing, which should be telling you that much of what you believe is wrong.

Tim

And that would be what?

 

[Groucho]

And that would be what?

That 24 bit sounds any different from 16 bit, for example.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

That 24 bit sounds any different from 16 bit, for example.

A good example. That analog is superior to digital is also a good one. That bit depth = resolution and digital creates a ragged waveform with missing information would be another. I don't recall which of these you've said personally, mark, but they are common anti-digital errors. The list is long. The conversation is old. I see no point, really, in repeating it, though you were able to get past tube and tower fixations; I remember well when the suggestion that 2-ways and subs, powered by SS, could compete with your big floor standers would have brought your attack, so I consider you more open than some.

Tim