Below you can see a quick ABX result I got using my laptop and a pair of Beyerdynamic DT250 headphones.
I know I can convert properly; possible audible differences with other conversions to 16 bit are of no value. Tests based on them on very suspect. I understand most anyone can do a proper conversion, given the necessary software, but a fuller specification of the particular process employed is desirable.
Blue printing on a black background is extremely difficult to read.
It would be helpful if Martin Kantola could describe the differences he heard, where in the file he heard them, and most importantly can verify that his laptop plays back 16-bit and 24-bit digital audio correctly.
While I understand that this is slightly controversial, we have to remember that most professional audio is done in 24 bit today, probably for good reason. So we could at least suspect an audible difference.
As an engineer, I never expect any audible difference between 16-bit and 24-bit for a compressed master.
While the hardware of my laptop is 24bit/192kHz capable, the specs are not exactly impressive:
I think your assumption that there's a likelihood of hearing a difference is very wide of the mark. There's a possibility, yes - but there's a stronger possibility that the sound from your laptop, like most other laptops, isn't all it's cracked up to be.
My own algorithm (lossyWAV) says you can. (But I can't!).
Found it...http://www.gearslutz.com/board/so-much-gea...ot-audible.html...interesting thread. Some amazing miscomprehension in there, but still interesting.I'm not saying you can't hear it. My own algorithm (lossyWAV) says you can. (But I can't!). It's just that 90%+ of people who come to HA claiming to hear a difference between 16-bits and 24-bits, or 44.1kHz and 96kHz, are really hearing problems with their equipment.Potential equipment "problems" aside, would you be willing to try another ABX or two?Cheers,David.
But Martin K can't successfully ABX two files made using Chris Johnson's superspecial dither?
Here you go...http://rapidshare.de/files/43321357/16-hpt-24-n.wav.htmlYour 16 bit file, converted back to 24-bits, with a little high-pass noise added to make sure the bottom 8 bits are moving.Is it better or worse than your 16-bit version?(where better = closer to the 24-bit original!)
I'm not implying nefarious intent on Martin K.s part, but to me these data suggest an obvious control: someone here needs to replicate the sample pairs (take the original 24-bit .wav and convert to 16 bit with TPDF dither; take the 24-bit file and convert it to 320 mp3), and see how those guys 'over there' do at ABX'ing them.
Quote from: krabapple on 23 January, 2009, 07:01:51 PMBut Martin K can't successfully ABX two files made using Chris Johnson's superspecial dither?My result for the "avd" dither was 8/10, as posted in the thread. And yes, I really want to see more people trying this too! Regardless of outcome. But so far many many posts, but very few ABX results.
An 8/10 result does not support the hypothesis of 'audible difference' at a p<0.05.
My result for the "avd" dither was 8/10, as posted in the thread. And yes, I really want to see more people trying this too! Regardless of outcome. But so far many many posts, but very few ABX results. You are welcome scrutinize my conversions, I'd be happy to correct any mistakes I might have made, but these are very basic operations on a DAW, honestly think I can handle them. Martin
The effort required for ABX testing can be considerable. In my own case, my ears/brain are most responsive the first time I am presented an AB comparison. If the passage is repeated, my hearing discrimination rapidly diminishes. So to commit myself to an ABX comparison of very similar files I have to set aside a fair stretch of time, to allow my hearing to regain its sensitivity to fine differences.
Is it the repetition of A/B comparison itself, or the repetition of the same music in a series of A/B comparisons, that you find fatigueing?