I've been thinking of a similar framework about audio to what krab has been saying for a while, but I'd take what he's saying a step further. (Me being more militant than krab? Yikes, what is this world coming to?)I would go so far as to say that we've been a little too accepting and tolerant about this 16/44 issue for too long. A lot of people now - not even audiophiles - regularly denigrate Red Book as being a fundamentally inferior to vinyl/high res. That it is a less emotional experience, that a generation has been cheated out of good music, that (insert fallacious technical argument here), etc. Steven Van Zandt just claimed on an interview that CDs are "the biggest scam perpetrated on the public". Such people make Bob Dylan look like a beacon of reason.
Is part of listening to music which is both familiar to us and moves us not based to some extent on expectation - a bit like re-reading a book?
Quote from: Nick.C on 19 February, 2009, 07:03:31 AMIs part of listening to music which is both familiar to us and moves us not based to some extent on expectation - a bit like re-reading a book?Good point. <SNIP>(2) Over any longer periods of time, our memory is not of the sound. Instead we remember <SNIP> things like chords, shapes of tunes, key, instruments used, associations with otther muisic like tit, etc.
Steven Van Zandt just claimed on an interview that CDs are "the biggest scam perpetrated on the public".
Martin, could you try to abx the original 24.wav file vs this one?
Not completely clean results but enough to convince me that I hear a difference.
Greetings, found your forum recently, so here's my first post! Wanted to share another set of files that might be useful for listening tests. The source material is a 'raw' unprocessed master recording downsampled from 96kHz. Uploaded the files here:Digital audio resolution test files
...Here's the direct download link:http://www.mediafire.com/file/zaiiuyx4izd/...fb2k_dither.wavThat's the one to try to ABX against 24.wav from Martin....
No earthquakes, fires, or floods reported so far, nor anyone able to tell any difference in the music.
Quote from: AndyH-ha on 12 May, 2011, 12:38:02 AMNo earthquakes, fires, or floods reported so far, nor anyone able to tell any difference in the music.The 96k24b music file's spectrum shows minimal content > 24 KHz. That raises serious quesitons about whether or not it has been previously been low pass filtered by 48 KHz digital recording or legacy analog tape. In iether case it might have also been recorded with 16 bits or less, and/or had its dynamic range degraded by the analog recording technology that was possibly used.In short, I am very uncertain as to whether there is any signfiicant difference to hear when downsampled to 16/44.
While that is what I get as his point, the real question is whether it could possibly make any difference anyway. There is the issue of dishonesty and misrepresentation, of course, but the main concern for this thread is: can one make a "higher resolution" recording that loses something audible if it is (properly) down sampled to 16/44.1? All the multitude of recordings that are audibly indistinguishable are irrelevant, regardless of why they are indistinguishable.
the main concern for this thread is: can one make a "higher resolution" recording that loses something audible if it is (properly) down sampled to 16/44.1? All the multitude of recordings that are audibly indistinguishable are irrelevant, regardless of why they are indistinguishable.
If you have decent equipment and a quiet environment, it should be easy for you to distinguish this test file I created (source 48khz, 24-bit) to a 16-bit conversion.It's 5 seconds long, and under 100KB. Very low-level pure tone(sine wave) @ 3.5khz (since this is where our hearing is most sensitive).Test Tone File(48/24)Convert it to 16-bit using any method you choose, any dither type of any level, I could abx it easily. I have already tried using at least a few dozen combinations of noise shaping and dither levels, along with no dithering (which obviously sounds worse). Always ABX'able. When properly dithered, the tone is still audible at 16-bit, but the noise floor is much worse and the tone becomes more difficult to distinguish from the noise (where it sounds fine at 24-bit).You need fairly high output levels to do this, but since the file contains no peaks or anything that would resemble "loud", you wont risk damaging your hearing or equipment so long as no other "computer sounds" play during testing.[Edit: If anyone prefers, here is a 44.1khz version of the same file, created fresh, not via SRC]Test Tone File(44.1/24)
If the the theory (that one can make a "higher resolution" recording...) is to be proven correct, it's easy:
×wires I think: I wasn't trying to redefine the theory, only to avoid quoting it in full (hence the ellipsis!). Given that we're almost 3 years down the line, it seems that music that benefits from >16-bit is either non-existent or so rare and difficult-to-discern as to be inconsequential.