Skip to main content

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Any recommendations for 24/96 => 16/44 => 24/96 for transparency (Read 22672 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Any recommendations for 24/96 => 16/44 => 24/96 for transparency

Reply #50
(abx report snipped)
Total: 12/12 (0.0%)[/code]
The files are the ones from the thought experiment I described above: 20kHz tone vs. silence.

Code: [Select]
 sox -r 44100 -n -b16 b.wav fade h .1 3 .1 gain -6 stats
sox -r 44100 -n -b16 a.wav synth sine 20k fade h .1 3 .1 gain -6 stats


The new version of the ABX component behaves differently: at the the leading edge ("Set start") it's much better, at the trailing edge ("Set end") it's much worse.


What is the nature of the better and worse performance?


Any recommendations for 24/96 => 16/44 => 24/96 for transparency

Reply #52
Both ABX plugins are making noises when I switch samples now so I cannot try to repeat the test. This was not the case when I did the previous ABX so I see it as valid.

If the ABX tool does not work well then the entire premise of this site is basically out the window so I suggest you guys fix it and at that time I would not mind trying to repeat the results!

I give up for now.

FLAC -> JDS Labs ODAC/O2 -> Sennheiser HD 650 (equalized)

Any recommendations for 24/96 => 16/44 => 24/96 for transparency

Reply #53
If the ABX tool does not work well then the entire premise of this site is basically out the window
There are other ABX tools. I'm not saying they're better (they have their own problems), but HA pre-dates fb2k (never mind fb2k's ABX component) by several years, and ABX itself pre-dates HA by decades.

Cheers,
David.

Any recommendations for 24/96 => 16/44 => 24/96 for transparency

Reply #54
Both ABX plugins are making noises when I switch samples now so I cannot try to repeat the test. This was not the case when I did the previous ABX so I see it as valid.

If the ABX tool does not work well then the entire premise of this site is basically out the window so I suggest you guys fix it and at that time I would not mind trying to repeat the results!

I give up for now.


"The ABX tool" is no longer a correct phrase (and hasn't been for decades) since there are literally dozens of different ABX  tools, both hardware-based and software-based.

This article directly or indirectly mentions about a half dozen different ones: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ABX_test

None of them are perfect, but many are highly useful.

Sorry about your frustration, I'm sure that this little dust up will pass...

 

Any recommendations for 24/96 => 16/44 => 24/96 for transparency

Reply #55
As the OP for this thread, I should mention that in the end I opted to use an easy to replicate file conversion and dithering methodology. I used SoX, with the following commands:
[blockquote]sox hirez.wav -b 16 temp_lowrez.wav -S rate 44100 dither -S

sox temp_owrez.wav -b 24 bottleneckedinhirezformat.wav -S  rate 96k[/blockquote]

My thanks go to Kees and other HA members for taking time to provide advice.

A short while ago I made a detailed post to AVS forum at #564 of AVS Forum > Audio > Audio Theory, Setup, and Chat > AVS/AIX High-Resolution Audio Test: Take 2. I provided download links for comparison files.


On the side topic, I personally find the design goal of the new (beta) ABX plug-in for foobar of permitting on-the-fly switching between A, B, X and Y, without producing a distinct interruption in the playback, a very desirable thing, provided it can be achieved without creating spurious clicks, etc.. I find it much easier to hear subtle differences if able to switch seamlessly.