Skip to main content

Topic: Why 24bit/48kHz/96kHz/ (Read 311014 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
  • smz
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Why 24bit/48kHz/96kHz/
Reply #225
With respect to this link, I must point out that it's a non commercial free website. Webcindario offers a free web hosting service, in exange for including publicity in your web pages; therefore you may find pop-ups and banners in that web site.

Regards.

So how do you explain that ZoneAlarm lists your domain as a "Spy Site"?

EDIT: Maybe now I understand. webcindario is *not* your domain but a hosting service on which you have hosted your pages. If this is the case, my best advice is to move your pages somewhere else because your host is blacklisted at least by ZoneAlarm (a very well known and diffused firewall) and those using it will not get to your pages. As for those that do not use it and get to your site... maybe they will be get caught by some malware and they will give you all their blessings!

Sergio
  • Last Edit: 05 September, 2006, 09:00:23 AM by smz
Sergio
M-Audio Delta AP + Revox B150 + (JBL 4301B | Sennheiser Amperor | Sennheiser HD430)

  • Hollunder
  • [*][*][*]
Why 24bit/48kHz/96kHz/
Reply #226
well, you should read the T.O.S. anyways:

8. All members that put forth a statement concerning subjective sound quality, must -- to the best of their ability -- provide objective support for their claims. Acceptable means of support are double blind listening tests (ABX or ABC/HR) demonstrating that the member can discern a difference perceptually, together with a test sample to allow others to reproduce their findings. Graphs, non-blind listening tests, waveform difference comparisons, and so on, are not acceptable means of providing support.

Why 24bit/48kHz/96kHz/
Reply #227
So how do you explain that ZoneAlarm lists your domain as a "Spy Site"?

Make that question to Miarroba Networks, S.L., that is the owner of Webcindario.

well, you should read the T.O.S. anyways:

8. All members that put forth a statement concerning subjective sound quality, must -- to the best of their ability -- provide objective support for their claims. Acceptable means of support are double blind listening tests (ABX or ABC/HR) demonstrating that the member can discern a difference perceptually, together with a test sample to allow others to reproduce their findings. Graphs, non-blind listening tests, waveform difference comparisons, and so on, are not acceptable means of providing support.

OK, but I haven't done a statement concerning subjective sound quality, but objective sound quality. If that type of statements lacks of interest in this forum I apologize.
  • Last Edit: 05 September, 2006, 08:56:50 AM by dvda-sacd
Leo F. L.

  • smz
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Why 24bit/48kHz/96kHz/
Reply #228

So how do you explain that ZoneAlarm lists your domain as a "Spy Site"?

Make that question to Miarroba Networks, S.L., that is the owner of Webcindario.

Sorry, I was editing my post while you were answering. Understood. My considerations (in the "Edit") still holds, anyway.

Cheers

Sergio
Sergio
M-Audio Delta AP + Revox B150 + (JBL 4301B | Sennheiser Amperor | Sennheiser HD430)

Why 24bit/48kHz/96kHz/
Reply #229


So how do you explain that ZoneAlarm lists your domain as a "Spy Site"?

Make that question to Miarroba Networks, S.L., that is the owner of Webcindario.

Sorry, I was editing my post while you were answering. Understood. My considerations (in the "Edit") still holds, anyway.

Cheers

Sergio

OK, thank you.

Cheers!
Leo F. L.

  • 2Bdecided
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Developer
Why 24bit/48kHz/96kHz/
Reply #230
DSD and PCM 24/192 increase the resolution of music by more closely following the original waveform of the music.
A picture is worth a thousand words:

With DSD, you can have a filter on the DAC, or not. Some consumer devices offer a choice between filtering at 50kHz or 100kHz.

When capturing scope screen shots, you have the choice to average (few or many times), or not at all.

Before we discuss them in detail, you must understand that no single filter and scope setting could produce all of the pictures you've posted. For each picture, the filter (or not) and averaging (or not) has been chosen to make DSD "look good". Whether this is a reasonable thing to do (or not!) requires at least some understanding - the graphs you have posted suggest little or no understanding, and they're hardly new!

Quote

And what is the impulse response of the human ear? It's non linear, asymmetric, and more widely spread than the widest of those.

Given that we are targeting the human ear, this means there is a level of accuracy beyond which it is pointless to strive. Things may be objectively better, but they may also be pointless!

For example, we can easily make systems with a frequency response flat up to 130MHz (which means an impulse response with a rise time of 0.004us - a little better than the "best" graphs on your link). I could make a similar graph to show how such a system is vastly superior to DSD. Does it sound better? Of course not - all the extra information is irrelevant to the human ear! (But is very useful for clear sharp HD video signals).

As for "the impulse response of analogue" - analogue what? What they've shown isn't tape or vinyl, that's for sure. Maybe it's an analogue "piece of wire"(!).


Finally, to get a clean plot like that, the DSD response must have been averaged or carefully filtered. DSD itself has so much intrinsic noise, that you can't even see the impulse response without these measures. So even as a claim of objective superiority, these plots are flawed.

(It is reasonable to correctly filter the signals, so I'm not arguing that the plot is misleading in that sense - just that, as we move through these plots, we'll get to some that aren't filtered. You can't have it both ways!)


Quote

And why would you have a linear PCM system without dither? It's like having a car engine without lubrication! i.e. broken! With dither, you'll have a noisy sine wave. Noisier than below, but it is "only" 16-bits, running at the limit of 16-bits (i.e. ~ -90dB).


Quote
DSD -> http://stereophile.com/images/archivesart/esEX1FIG5.jpg[/li][/list]

24-bit PCM would look even better

Quote

Correctly titled: "One specific analogue approximation to an ideal square wave" - a genuine ideal square wave has an infinite rise time. As mentioned above, engineers routinely do 1000 times better in an HD video system!

Quote
10 kHz square wave sampled using 44.1 kHz PCM -> http://www.smr-home-theatre.org/surround20...s/image_052.jpg

Yes, that is the only audible component of a 10kHz square wave, and will sound identical to the "analogue" one. Therefore, storing any more is pointless. (Disagree? ABX please!)

Quote
10 kHz square wave sampled using 192 kHz PCM -> http://www.smr-home-theatre.org/surround20...s/image_054.jpg

That is a clear 10kHz square wave with a low pass filter around 100kHz, but...


Quote
10 kHz square wave sampled using DSD -> http://www.smr-home-theatre.org/surround20...s/image_055.jpg

...that is a noisy 10kHz square wave with a low pass filter around 100kHz. i.e. inferior!


Of course, if you read this thread (and similar threads - see the FAQ), you would know all this before posting.

Cheers,
David.
  • Last Edit: 05 September, 2006, 09:19:43 AM by 2Bdecided

Why 24bit/48kHz/96kHz/
Reply #231
2Bdecided, you can make all the objections you want (I've read all them before), but I haven't found any graphic that shows a clearly better performance (except noise floor) of LPCM over DSD.
Leo F. L.

  • smz
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Why 24bit/48kHz/96kHz/
Reply #232
2Bdecided, you can make all the objections you want (I've read all them before), but I haven't found any graphic that shows a clearly better performance (except noise floor) of LPCM over DSD.

Your problem is not finding a graphic that shows better performance of LPCM over DSD, but to find ears that confirms (ABX) better performance of DSD over LPCM!

Sergio
Sergio
M-Audio Delta AP + Revox B150 + (JBL 4301B | Sennheiser Amperor | Sennheiser HD430)

Why 24bit/48kHz/96kHz/
Reply #233

2Bdecided, you can make all the objections you want (I've read all them before), but I haven't found any graphic that shows a clearly better performance (except noise floor) of LPCM over DSD.

Your problem is not finding a graphic that shows better performance of LPCM over DSD, but to find ears that confirms (ABX) better performance of DSD over LPCM!

Sergio

No, that's not my problem. I do prefer DSD because it's the most analogue-like digital system and my ears do confirm it to me. I don't need more tests.

Cheers!
Leo F. L.

  • stephanV
  • [*][*][*][*]
Why 24bit/48kHz/96kHz/
Reply #234
But you are not willing to back your statements up, so what value do they have?

I think there is more than enough anecdotal evidence in the audio world, and too little real.
  • Last Edit: 05 September, 2006, 10:06:02 AM by stephanV
"We cannot win against obsession. They care, we don't. They win."

  • Axon
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Members (Donating)
Why 24bit/48kHz/96kHz/
Reply #235
What he said. You started off on claiming that DSD is numerically superior and requires no explanation, then when that is shot down - or just when somebody competent chimes in - you claim it always sounds better to you so you require no actual evidence that it's better? Make up your mind.

It sounds to me like you've been suckered into the marketing speak of DSD and you have no knowledge of digital audio besides the fluff pieces you've read. "analogue-like"?

  • smz
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Why 24bit/48kHz/96kHz/
Reply #236
No, that's not my problem. I do prefer DSD because it's the most analogue-like digital system and my ears do confirm it to me. I don't need more tests.

It is not a problem for you if this is just your personal preference, but yes, it is your problem if you come here to tell the rest of the world that things are like you think they are.

In a previous post you said that you:
Quote
... haven't done a statement concerning subjective sound quality, but objective sound quality

You can't say that. You, at most, can say that you have pictures showing a better signal quality. How this relate to sound quality as perceived by the human ear is a matter of discussion and if you say that there is a correlation, then it's up to you to prove that.

Cheers.

Sergio
Sergio
M-Audio Delta AP + Revox B150 + (JBL 4301B | Sennheiser Amperor | Sennheiser HD430)

  • jlt
  • [*][*]
  • Banned
Why 24bit/48kHz/96kHz/
Reply #237
back to the center of the topic...

@ 2Bdecided

Quote
Why 24bit/48kHz/96kHz/, If 16bit/44.1kHz is good enough?


...pay atention 2B  (kiddin),you answered the question(again) :

Quote
And why would you have a linear PCM system without dither? It's like having a car engine without lubrication! i.e. broken! With dither, you'll have a noisy sine wave. Noisier than below, but it is "only" 16-bits, running at the limit of 16-bits (i.e. ~ -90dB).


you're right.

  • legg
  • [*][*][*]
Why 24bit/48kHz/96kHz/
Reply #238
I've been reading this thread since the beginning and it has become a loop since a few pages back.

  • 2Bdecided
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Developer
Why 24bit/48kHz/96kHz/
Reply #239
2Bdecided, you can make all the objections you want (I've read all them before), but I haven't found any graphic that shows a clearly better performance (except noise floor) of LPCM over DSD.


Try Stanley P. Lipshitz & John Vanderkooy, "Why Professional 1-Bit Sigma-Delta Conversion is a Bad Idea".

I especially like the graph which shows 20dB (!!!!) of noise modulation (in the audio band!) in DSD systems.


That graph isn't a reason to avoid DSD in the real world, no more than your graphs are reasons to use it.


I do prefer DSD because it's the most analogue-like digital system and my ears do confirm it to me. I don't need more tests.


You've done double blind testing of the same source material direct, via LPCM 24/96, and via DSD?

Didn't think so.

What you mean is that you like the mastering on the DSD discs which exist. It's often very good. It still sound good when copied onto CD! (Not the CD layer of DSD, which is often taken from a different master).

Cheers,
David.


I've been reading this thread since the beginning and it has become a loop since a few pages back.


Yes, because the same false arguments get put forward again and again - they're bound to draw the same rebuttals.


If DSD, 24/96 PCM or whatever does sound better than CD, let's see the proof and figure out why.

Anyone who simply spouts marketing nonsense to back up their uninformed claims does their cause no good at all.


It make me wonder why such people bother to register at HA - they can't all be troll, surely?!

Cheers,
David.

(P.S. - it's great for me though - I have toothache - explaining the old arguments yet again takes my mind off it - you don't think I'd bothered otherwise, do you?!)

  • TBeck
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Developer
Why 24bit/48kHz/96kHz/
Reply #240
Sorry, nothing really substantial, but i couldn't resist:

I am wondering, if there would be a need to increase the frequency range of visual digitalization. Wouldn't it be nice to have DVD's with infrared content?

Reviewers could tell you about extended warmth of the new remastered infrared version of some well known DVD. And indeed, after some extended ABX-ing the reviewer definitely will have got another teint...

  • krabapple
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Why 24bit/48kHz/96kHz/
Reply #241

No, that's not my problem. I do prefer DSD because it's the most analogue-like digital system and my ears do confirm it to me. I don't need more tests.

It is not a problem for you if this is just your personal preference, but yes, it is your problem if you come here to tell the rest of the world that things are like you think they are.


It *always* the same problem from the audiophile camp: trying to 'prove' why they hear what they hear, and getting it wrong.  IT's never enough to stop at "I like SACD/DVD-A/LP better than CD', they always make that fateful leap into 'because....'. Though unlike this guy, usually they state their preference first and *then* make the quixotic attempt to justify the preference on objective ground...often with the SAME DAMN BOGUS SQUARE WAVE graphs that have been debunked over and over again.

It's like scientists dealing with creationists -- you shoot one down in an argument, and up pops another throwing the *same* agruments at you. It's like they *never* read anything but their own arguments, never do any research beyond their own limited circle of references, so they always think they're packing heat, and  counterarguments are always new and surprising to them.
  • Last Edit: 05 September, 2006, 02:39:30 PM by krabapple

Why 24bit/48kHz/96kHz/
Reply #242
That graph isn't a reason to avoid DSD in the real world, no more than your graphs are reasons to use it.

We are all agreed. 

I know how it works, I know how it sounds, and DSD is definitely my personal preference. 

I don't mind if you prefer LCPM, MP3 or whatever you want.  That's your business.

Kind regards.
Leo F. L.

  • dekkersj
  • [*][*][*]
Why 24bit/48kHz/96kHz/
Reply #243
Hi,

It has been a while but I see that some discussions will never end...

For those who want to find out for themselves what kind of dynamic range and frequency range is applicable for you, they can download a EAC image here: Logaritmic sweep (EAC) or a Nero version: Log sweep (Nero)

After burning it to an audio cd, one can find 3 tracks. All three are sweeps from a few Hertz up to 20 kHz or so. The difference is the amplitude and they are at -89 dBFS, -99 dBFS and -109 dBFS.

The files are created in MatLab and at a resolution of 32 bits. In Audition, I dithered them correctly to 16 bits.

The test is as follows:
Set your listening level to normal and play track 1. If it remains silent, 16 bits is good enough for you. Otherwise, you need more.
Then put up the volume to somewhat louder to hear the sweep, I expect it to be in the order of 10 dB for the best hearable frequencies. If the track stops and you were able to hear frequencies up to that point in time, you need more than 44k1. Otherwise, you don't.

In my listening environment, 44k1/16b is sufficient.

Regards,
Jacco
Logical reasoning brings you from a to b, imagination brings you everywhere.

Why 24bit/48kHz/96kHz/
Reply #244
It pitches better.

  • KikeG
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Developer
Why 24bit/48kHz/96kHz/
Reply #245
In my opinion DSD is a contrived format that is very inneficient bitrate-wise, and such a pain to process that currently nearly all SACDs are mastered from a PCM source.

The 2 "tricks" of SACD are the high sampling frequency and the high noise shaping. In practice, DSD frequency response hardly reaches 100 KHz if lots of ultrasonic noise want to be avoided:

http://www.stereophile.com/digitalsourcere...ony/index4.html
http://stereophile.com/hirezplayers/814/index6.html
http://www.stereophile.com/digitalsourcere...180/index7.html
http://www.stereophile.com/digitalsourcere...inn/index4.html
http://www.stereophile.com/digitalsourcere...515/index5.html

The response looks similar to that of a 192KHz PCM device. In fact, 16-bit 192 KHz PCM with agressive noise shaping would be much better that DSD in terms of noise, similar in terms of effective frequency response, could be perfectly dithered (as opposed to DSD), and would take much less space (Edit: wrong, it would would take similar space, see what I meant in my next post).
  • Last Edit: 06 September, 2006, 06:48:43 AM by KikeG

Why 24bit/48kHz/96kHz/
Reply #246
The response looks similar to that of a 192KHz PCM device. In fact, 16-bit 192 KHz PCM with agressive noise shaping would be much better that DSD in terms of noise, similar in terms of effective frequency response, could be perfectly dithered (as opposed to DSD), and would take much less space.

Much less space? Explain this, please.
  • 16 bit x 192 kHz = 3,072 bit per second
  • 1 bit x 2,822.1 kHz = 2,822.1 bit per second

Regards.
Leo F. L.

  • KikeG
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Developer
Why 24bit/48kHz/96kHz/
Reply #247
  • 16 bit x 192 kHz = 3,072 bit per second
  • 1 bit x 2,822.1 kHz = 2,822.1 bit per second
Regards.


OK, it seems my memories betrayed me, sorry. To be precise, quoted from this paper http://sjeng.org/ftp/SACD.pdf

Quote
Finally, consider 8-bit, four-times-oversampled PCM with
noise shaping. This is also a data rate one-half that of DSD and
double that of CD, with a sampling rate of 4 × 44,100 =
176,400 Hz. It can achieve a noise floor 120 dB below full
scale up to 20 kHz, using 96 dB of noise shaping, and a total
noise power of –19 dBFS. Its frequency response would be
flat to 80 kHz. This example is perhaps the most instructive of
the lot. For a data rate one-half that of DSD, it achieves a
comparable signal bandwidth, with a similar noise power
density up to 20 kHz, but much lower power above this
frequency, and 28 dB lower total noise power. It is fully
TPDF-dithered, and so is completely artefact free. At one-half
the data rate it outperforms DSD on every count! DSD is a
profligate wastrel of capacity.

Why 24bit/48kHz/96kHz/
Reply #248
  • 16 bit x 192 kHz = 3,072 bit per second
  • 1 bit x 2,822.1 kHz = 2,822.1 bit per second
Regards.


OK, it seems my memories betrayed me, sorry.

It's all right.

Regards.
Leo F. L.

  • krabapple
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Why 24bit/48kHz/96kHz/
Reply #249
classic stuff from the Linn Unidisc universal player measurements in Stereophile

Quote
The occasional low-level clicks [produced on CD playback only] may well be specific to our review sample, but the Unidisk's somewhat disappointing measured performance on CD playback compared with SACD and DVD caused my eyebrows to rise a little


If the manufacturers can't be trusted to give all formats a fair shake in their 'uni-players' , it's not reasonable to assume audible differences are due to *the formats*

And this was a pricey ($11,000) 'high-end' player!