Oh no worries. This is a long thread and it is easy to forget or miss a single post. I was happy to repost the results as there seemed to be so much focus on Arny's files where both sampling rate and bit depth were changed.
Conclusive "Proof" that higher resolution audio sounds different
- Thread starter amirm
- Start date
No, as I was listening using my laptop. And this was with headphones again so who knows the actual SPL level.Amir, I'm downloading the files right now and will give it a try. Do you have any idea about the spl you were monitoring at ? IME this is crucial for audibility of low level noise. Everyone has a hearing threshold
For the purpose of these discussions, I think it is useful to know if there is a difference even at max SPL. We can take that into consideration with respect to application to other situations. Whereas not trying that and assuming it is always transparent is a less good idea in my opinion.
Tony,
IMO that is taking it even further down the logical path and one I think that is too far (been discussed many times about what is a true PCM DAC or true DSD DAC/most are "not true" to PCM or DSD due to nature of the circuitry involved or integrated within the DAC, and to a certain extent wide-narrow editing)
If we take this as far as you do, then ANY test involving DACs must utilise multiple different DAC solutions, which at some point the investigation would need to go that far I appreciate; but that is a very complex subject tbh as can be seen by the 70+ page thread discussions we have had on that in the past.
For now I cannot see the issue with native being defined outside of the DAC itself; meaning the original sampling rate and bit depth recorded at and maintained (lets assume the correct hardware and setup is used, and as I mentioned earlier the PCM or DSD files can be analysed and validated to ensure they have not been upsampled/downsampled-decimated/transcoded from one format/spec to another.
Otherwise you are just doing a 24bit decimation to 16bit test (along with whatever dither/algorithms used).
So unfortunately that also invalidates the test if focus is specifically 16bit vs 24bit
As an example; lets say there is something different that Amir is picking up, well it can only be related to downsampling-decimation-dither because we only have an original 24-bit file that must be processed to 16-bit; assuming everything else is ok in terms of distortion/volume/synch offset/etc.
And that is why the linked blog is wrong to say 16bit VS 24bit, because in reality it is just 24bit decimated to 16bit, we never started with an original 16bit native recording to compare to a reiterated recording at 24bit (appreciate this has much complexity to it but then it is about the scope-context one is trying to present).
Anyway we are digressing from my OP a bit.
Cheers
Orb
Your original post raised the "native" issue. Perhaps I misunderstood your definition of "native" and why you think it important..
As I understand it, the topic is whether a given format is (or can be) transparent. We can easily show that the 24 bit PCM format is transparent to 16 bit material, as the bit perfect conversions involved are trivial. We can easily show that the 16 bit PCM format is not transparent to 24 bit material, as there can not be bit perfect conversions. This leads to the question of whether it can be "audibly" transparent for certain classes of program material, and here all we can do is to conduct listening tests. If they find differences, this doesn't prove that the format is not audibly transparent, just that we don't know how to make it audibly transparent yet, or possibly that the audible differences are the result of artifacts in the playback equipment.
BTW, I believe it wise to concentrate first on the bit depth question as this is vastly simpler than the sampling rate issue. No similar bit perfect transparency is possible where sampling rate conversions are involved, for subtle mathematical reasons.
The new audio tool RX4 from iZotope just came out. One of its new features is that its SRC no longer produces subsample delay in the output. This has no sonic advantages but it allows to use a null test to demonstrate the accuracy of the process. Default settings result in a difference signal around -150dBFS, which can be considered inaudible and proves that the SRC is of very high quality.
It might be interesting to separate wordlength (24vs16 bit) and sampling rate (96vs44.1kHz) in a new test. If anyone is interested I'll gladly create the SRC'd files from any hi-res source.
Suggestions for additional controls are welcome.
It might be interesting to separate wordlength (24vs16 bit) and sampling rate (96vs44.1kHz) in a new test. If anyone is interested I'll gladly create the SRC'd files from any hi-res source.
Suggestions for additional controls are welcome.
I would be interested. How about a source file that is actual music (not keys) recorded in in an actual acoustics space. Not recorded in an acoustically dead studio with acoustic effects added electronically.
Most of the advantages of higher resolution recordings are most evident in the spatial recovery aspects. At least that is my experience.
Female voice with a single instrument, perhaps a Celtic harp, dulcimer or other string instrument would be nice since they generate a lot of harmonics.
FWIW,
TAS has apparently dipped their toes into the objective / measurement realm.
See latest issue.
TAS has apparently dipped their toes into the objective / measurement realm.
See latest issue.
Although it's a RB CD and has an "eastern" flavor, check out Amina Alaoui / Arco Iris on ECM.
Stunning.
Thank you, I'll look it up. No need for apology for RB. Although our factory reference system is a hi-Rez media server system my home system is just an Audio Research CD8 i.e. RB. Thoroughly enjoyable and plays the music I want to hear as opposed to audiophile recordings that are good for testing purposes.
Thank you, I'll look it up. No need for apology for RB. Although our factory reference system is a hi-Rez media server system my home system is just an Audio Research CD8 i.e. RB. Thoroughly enjoyable and plays the music I want to hear as opposed to audiophile recordings that are good for testing purposes.
Great choice, particularly if you have an Audio Research preamplifier and amplifier.
Seems like Stereophile is still living rent-free in your consciousness, Mr. Krueger.
But seriously, that Stereophile performs sighted listening has no bearing on the issue at hand, which concerns significant flaws in the much-lauded blind tests "proving" the inaudibility of such things as digital audio with a sample rate greater than the CD's 44.1kHz.
It certainly has bearing, since sighted listening is 'much lauded' as a valid way of "proving" the audibility of anything, by Stereophile, and indeed the bulk of the 'audiophile'community, and the hi-end industry itself. It, and not DBT is, in fact, the standard operating procedure. Mike Lavigne even made that same point in this thread, though he seems to find it a point of pride.
The inherent unreliability of sighted listening is the ten-ton gorilla in the room, always. And you are one of its caretakers.
From the people here who spend so much energy rooting out and denigrating 'bad' DBTs, I'd like to know this:
how much evidentiary value, if any, do you place on the vastly more common method: sighted listening?
Last edited:
Allow me to quote, as I have before , what claims M&M made for their results in the final paragraph of their Conclusion
Tony Lauck for some reason refers to this as 'weasel wording', when it's actually pretty standard scientific paper practice. I've long since lost count of the number of papers in my own field (biology) whose conclusion sections end similarly. Authors generally do not claim their results to be all-encompassing and absolutely conclusive. They often call for more research, with good controls.
Apparently Meridian will be reporting something along those lines soon?
Last edited:
Hmmm, my read of the author's text as you quoted sure seem to imply all encompassing results: There is always the remote possibility that a different system or more finely attuned pair of ears would reveal a difference.
Remote possibility? I am not in the medical/biology field but I tend to think if they want to leave the door for other possibilities, they would not use such phrasing. But let's test that. Do you mind posting the conclusion of a few of your biology papers to see if they use such tone?
Dancing Man still playing his games, I see. This game is 'let's focus on two words'. Hoping to make it *all about those two words* from here on.
Anyway, there's a thing called Pubmed Central. Millions of nonpaywalled articles in life science, dating back decades. Go play with yourself.
Last edited by a moderator:
Wow, if you think that is worded like a final paragraph conclusion on any scientifically credible paper, I would be very interested in seeing a link.
That paragraph is seeded with the sort of ABX speak that we see on many audio forums & the irony of the paragraph is in their last sentence "must be supported by properly controlled double-blind tests."
I regularly review undergraduate dissertations in the science field & those showing such an inability for self-analysis & objectivity are an immediate fail.
Yes & have you read their two conclusions?
"Two main conclusions are offered: first, there exist audible signals that cannot be encoded transparently by a standard CD; and second, an audio chain used for such experiments must be capable of high-fidelity reproduction. "
So I'm not exactly sure why you are citing an upcoming paper that seems to contradict your argument? Maybe it's to ensure a balanced view?
In this forum we focus on the technical topic and not the person much less personal insults. Please be professional. And I am not making anything but asking you how what you quoted from M&M supported your conclusion:
Where is that call for more research with good controls in Meyer and Moran test? There isn't one, right?
I looked. It says there are 3.2 million papers online there. Did a search and read the first one. Did not see anything remotely resembling DIY type testing that is exhibited in Meyer and Moran. Which is a good thing. As heaven help us all if someone woke up one day and decided to make a "scientific" study in life sciences thinking they are qualified because of stuff they read online and their local hobby get together. Come back with an argument that at least passes the red face test.
Say what? This is a hobby. Don't lose sight of that and act so unprofessional. If you don't understand this concept, then I hope you understand this: any more foul language like this will cause your membership to be banned here. You are violating our terms of service: http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?1207-Terms-Of-Service
The words were 'weasel words' because there was no substance in the body of the paper to back them up. This is not science, this is BS. i am not going to rehash the arguments, they should be clear to anyone who has read and understood the thread. However, you are right, a lot of scientific papers put stuff in their conclusions that aren't justified by the meat of the work. Science is like any other human field, there are a lot of second raters, BS artists and a few outright scam artists. (The problem is often worse in engineering fields where there are likely to be commercial pressures involved as well.)
Amir, just for example, Ron Party has already questioned your (and Arny's) motivations and credibility once or twice on this very thread, in fairly blunt terms. You didn't rebuke him for it. Your rhetorical gamesmanship is practically legendary at this point. Aren't you proud?
You're playing games again. Anyone can read the quote I pulled and see for themselves (or not).
And again, I'm not going to play your clownish misdirection game, Amir. If you're unfamiliar with scientific paper boilerplate, that's not my problem, that's your ignorance. Fact is, bet-hedging language and the ever-popular 'mo' better studies will be needed...' are commonplaces in the conclusion sections of the literature.
(And maybe now you get why I used that 'foul language'....it was a play on words)
Last edited:
Similar threads
