You could have noise with exactly the same character (white, -90dB RMS), which has nothing to do with the original signal. It would be interesting to know if both can be ABXed against the 24-bit original, or if the latter cannot. That would determine whether what you can detect here is any old noise, or a specific type of noise.
Based on that statement, I've come to the conclusion that you're pushing some weird subjectivist agenda.
As no one with decent equipment can validate your results
I'm not gonna argue this any more, I'm just out.
There are thousands of examples of "obvious" differences that vanish in a double blind test. Thousands of examples of things that "everyone knows" which, when it comes to it, no one can actually prove. Sadly, the audio world is full of them.
Also sadly, many people who claim to hear such things refuse point-blank to do ABX tests.
As far as I know, you're the first person to ABX 24>16-bit conversion at a low level. That's kind of extraordinary.
Have you tried ABXing this sample with other forms of dither? I see one 5.5% result in the GS thread. If you'll look at this thread before you posted, Pio also perceived this difference. Yet without the appropriate dither, there's still no proof that 16-bit is not sufficient, just that this HPT dither is.
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on 09 February, 2009, 09:52:13 AMI would sincerily hope that *nobody* would try to do *anything* definitiive with these files. Based on my evaluaton of the 24/96 version...There are two completely different recordings on that page. I don't think anyone in this thread has shown any interest in the second one.
I would sincerily hope that *nobody* would try to do *anything* definitiive with these files. Based on my evaluaton of the 24/96 version...
The first file, a 24/48 file named 24.wav is even worse! It stands to reason that if you want to hear the benefits of 24 bits, the sample itself has to have some dynamic contrast.
I use CoolEdit 2000. This idea that quantization errors occur and thus can’t be nulled out seems logical to me. Where am I going wrong?
The latter.Would you be happier if I ran the 24-bit file through Cool Edit Pro to generate a 16-bit file and posted the result?
...there was still leftover after invert mixing.The file format is 32 bit 16.8 float (type 1 - 32 bit), which is, I believe, also CE2K’s working format.
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
That's the one to try to ABX against 24.wav from Martin.
Since you need to decide on the number before the test, if you are happy doing 25, that's how many you should do.
The 3kHz tone was chosen to be easy to distinguish the result of dithering vs non-dithering. Non-dithered conversion to 16 bit produces ample distortion, easily viewed and measured. Then, starting over,(1) Mix same 32 bit audio file with 32 bit white noise file, producing dithered audio.(2) Convert mixed file to 16 bit, no dithering. Produces non-distorted 16 bit.(3) Convert back to 32 bit. Nothing below 16 bit but zeros.(4) Convert white noise file 16 bit, no dithering. (5) Convert 16 bit white noise back to 32 bit. As always, this leave zeros below 16 bits.(6) Invert (5) and mix with (3).The second half of the resulting file, which was originally silence, is again complete silence. The first half of the file, the tone, is now the tone plus quantization noise.