Therefore, subtracting the converted-to-16-bit-dither from the dithered-and-converted-to-16-bit audio should completely remove the dither -- except for those tiny values that are the quantization errors of converting the mix of audio and dither to 16 bit. I don’t see why one would call it anything other than the conversion quantization error, or why one would expect it to be any more arbitrary than any other quantization error.
Could not do the same with either Chris J's special dither or the 24_16_fb2k_dither.wav provided in this thread. So I take it that this is borderline territory. If HPTPDF is audible on this file, better dither may be audible on another file.
Are you concentrating on the quiet part of the file? Or, to put it another way, can you hear the difference on the loud part of the file?
Another question is, would a very good D to A converter produce better 16 bit audio too (and not only better 24 bit) so that the differences would in fact be smaller on a good system?
Most definitely. The better the DAC, the better the signal.
You appear to be hearing a difference, though there is still a reasonable chance that you are not.
Even if you are, that just means that the two signals are differentiable on your hardware. Improving (or worsening) your hardware may remove the differentiability.
Oh c'mon... Look at the results, the probability of guessing was down to less than 3% during the second run. I'm not that lucky :-)
Remember that I was listening on my crappy laptop setup with very low level on the phones, so had to listen to changes in timbre and not in low level detail or similar.
I can try ABX:ing with this shitty setup, but I'd much rather get deeper into the testing when I'm back in my studio with proper gear, where I'll be able to measure the SPL used too.
Will do some testing with my favourite DACs when I'm back in my studio. Of course, the rest of the system will have better resolution too. ... Obviously I can't try all brands and models of hardware... But how likely is it that it's only on this specific Sony laptop with these headphones that one can hear a difference?
Don't think the 24 bit standard is only a result of clever marketing. There must have been a lot of testing at low (or normal) level among people who developed all these converters and software.
Quote from: Martin Kantola on 15 February, 2009, 08:38:06 PMOh c'mon... Look at the results, the probability of guessing was down to less than 3% during the second run. I'm not that lucky :-)It doesn't work like that. Those percentages are the stats for that point in the test if that was the point you pre-decided you were going to stop before the test commenced.
It will be quite an important result if you can also report an ABX verified result using equipment other than the "crappy laptop setup".
It would be useful too if you could comment on where in the file the difference is most noticeable, and what the difference sounds like.
There is plenty of evidence 24-bits are useful for recording and mixing. That is not in dispute.
Oh c'mon... Look at the results, the probability of guessing was down to less than 3% during the second run. I'm not that lucky :-) But it sure was difficult with this dither.
It doesn't work that way, sorry.
As things stand, you haven't yet breached the p<0.05 threshold, much less the p<0.01 threshold that some would argue is more appropriate for this phenomenon.
What I listened for was the upper, 'air' region of the frequency response. The 16 bit seems to be slightly rounded off and lack detail. The highest frequencies produced by the strings is a good thing to focus on. In general I thought the 16 bit sounded a bit dampened and maybe even grainier, but not enough to help me with the ABX.
Martin, did you say you were going to use studio gear for your comarison? Would that mean speakers?
I've just posted something in another thread but I think it's relevant here too.I'd love to see some ABX results. A lot of the listening tests that people refer to here are done on headphones - because it's easier to spot artifacts that way - but most music is not mastered with headphone listening in mind. I'm more interested in finding out if somebody can spot differences over speakers that aren't evident over headphones. Martin, did you say you were going to use studio gear for your comarison? Would that mean speakers?I look forward to seeing some results
If anything, I'd expect loudspeaker listening to be less conducive to discriminating differences than headphone listening...not more. What differences might be evident over them that wouldn't be evidence over loudspeakers ? (Assuming loudspeakers and headphones of comparable FR.)
1. Where perceived differences are very small, suspicion develops that the playback equipment may be solely responsible.
2. If the higher frequencies of the strings is where the difference is most noticeable, perhaps another recording of strings can be found to show the effect more obviously, permitting others to hear it.
4. The effort required to hear the difference apears to be considerable. Even if people other than Martin end up hearing differences, if that is only through intense concentration then the differences may not be "material". It might be that money would be better spent on things such as replacing recording microphones with more advanced microphones, or using better loudspeakers, than releasing recordings at 24-bits rather than 16-bits dithered.
The two files are for practical purposes, for myself, identical.