Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: AES 2009 Audio Myths Workshop (Read 166870 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

AES 2009 Audio Myths Workshop

Reply #426 –
Quote from: Canar on
Quote from: googlebot on
Do you have a link? I find this somewhat questionable. Except when you turn up the volume so high, that it would damage your ears during full scale passages.
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....st&p=610558

I was quite skeptical at first as well. My friend (and fellow member) Case succeeded as well, and I trust him, so I accept their claims. The thread is long, but we get it sorted out in the end.



Looks like some questions still remain at the end there as to proper dithering.

And I forget, were Case's results obtained exclusively with headphones?

AES 2009 Audio Myths Workshop

Reply #427 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Quote from: 2Bdecided on
Files are here:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....st&p=626692

Please post any results in that thread, not here.


The 24/96 file has such low maximum peak levels that it nets out to be a comparison of less than 13 bits to more than 20 bits.  It's a little bit more relevant than the recent proposal of 10 bits versus 16, but not much.

The 24/48 file has almost 20 seconds of music where the average RMS level is more than 35 dB down.  Given that we have ABX tools that allow the listener to select subsets of test files, this file is too easy to mistakenly slip into a comparison of less than 10 bits to more than 17.  So now we do have a comparison of 10 bits versus 16 (or more)!

I agree with all you say here Arny. Mayer and Moran have already proved (if any proof were needed) that 16-bits is insufficient if you let people do silly things with the gain that mean you're boosting the noise by 10-20dB above "deafening" level for full scale, and hence effectively testing 14, 13, or even 12-bit, rather than 16.

Three thoughts though:
1. It shows 16-bit is just enough for final delivery - arguably any less would be insufficient in a tiny amount of cases (though with optimum noise shaping I'm not convinced there's any case where this is true)
2. 16-bits may be insufficient if you are going to pass the signal through a subsequent stage of dynamic range compression
2. Most people arguing for greater than 16-bits claim it benefits all material, not just that which "almost" needs those extra bits - so any source material (which peaks above -1dBFS) is a fair (or at least, arguably potentially useful) test.

Cheers,
David.

AES 2009 Audio Myths Workshop

Reply #428 –


There seems to be a lot of confusion about the difference between bit depth and intensity. 

Then again, previous posts have SWORN that multiplication operations within digital systems are linear.  Are you suggesting that they are mistaken?

If linear, then a series of up/down intensity changes (gain changes) within the digital realm, will null.  If not linear, then it will not null.

AES 2009 Audio Myths Workshop

Reply #429 –
Quote from: dwoz on
There seems to be a lot of confusion about the difference between bit depth and intensity. 

Then again, previous posts have SWORN that multiplication operations within digital systems are linear.  Are you suggesting that they are mistaken?

If linear, then a series of up/down intensity changes (gain changes) within the digital realm, will null.  If not linear, then it will not null.

As long as no rounding/truncation takes place then yes, complementary changes in gain will null.

If you round or truncate then you have introduced an inaccuracy, whether or not the operation was linear.

AES 2009 Audio Myths Workshop

Reply #430 –
Quote from: pdq on
Quote from: dwoz on
There seems to be a lot of confusion about the difference between bit depth and intensity. 

Then again, previous posts have SWORN that multiplication operations within digital systems are linear.  Are you suggesting that they are mistaken?

If linear, then a series of up/down intensity changes (gain changes) within the digital realm, will null.  If not linear, then it will not null.

As long as no rounding/truncation takes place then yes, complementary changes in gain will null.

If you round or truncate then you have introduced an inaccuracy, whether or not the operation was linear.


If you introduce an inaccuracy, then the operation is not linear.

Can you, say, attenuate the level by .775 percent, or any other arbitrary percent, and NOT round or truncate?

AES 2009 Audio Myths Workshop

Reply #431 –
Quote from: dwoz on
There seems to be a lot of confusion about the difference between bit depth and intensity. 

Then again, previous posts have SWORN that multiplication operations within digital systems are linear.  Are you suggesting that they are mistaken?


I don't know that any such posts actually exist. Why don't you quote one?

Of course, multiplication is  not a linear operation. High school algebra, no?

I suspect that multiplication was not what was being talked about.

AES 2009 Audio Myths Workshop

Reply #432 –
Quote from: dwoz on
If you introduce an inaccuracy, then the operation is not linear.


If you wish to unrealisitically demand absolute perfection, then everything in the real world is crap.

Analog, being generally more imperfect and inherently less perfectible than digital, is thus according to you even worse crap.

Quote
Can you, say, attenuate the level by .775 percent, or any other arbitrary percent, and NOT round or truncate?


In the digital domain we can attenuate in the real world with whatever level of precision we choose to pay for. For example, there are such things as arbitrary precison numerical processors where you can do digital arithmentic with a thousand or perhaps even a million decimal places.  But according to the standards you demand, it isn't good enough because it is fatally flawed by being nonlinear. There is a little rounding in the millionth decimal place!

In the analog domain there are hard limits rooted in the laws of physics. In the digital domain I can easily attenuate a signal by 0.00001 dB. Show me how to do that in the analog domain.

AES 2009 Audio Myths Workshop

Reply #433 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
In the digital domain I can easily attenuate a signal by 0.00001 dB. Show me how to do that in the analog domain.
Never mind that - show me how I can be sure that I don't do that by accident in the analogue domain!

Cheers,
David.

AES 2009 Audio Myths Workshop

Reply #434 –
Quote from: 2Bdecided on
2. 16-bits may be insufficient if you are going to pass the signal through a subsequent stage of dynamic range compression

How I wish we'd get to a place where this was necessary for commercial music. I'll point out that it is something that is commonly done by the AVR when people watch movies at home.

AES 2009 Audio Myths Workshop

Reply #435 –
Quote from: dwoz on
You have such a nice tone, Arny.  Smooth.  Makes your partner feel warm and loved.  I bet you have to turn women down on a regular basis.

Multiplication is PERFECTLY linear, except for that pesky thing, the irrational numbers...which happen to be a bit of a mutt in the purebred show, when you're talking about discrete intervals.


Yes, multiplication is a linear operation. And personal attacks have no place in a technical and/or civilized discussion, no matter who starts them. They just dilute the information content of the forum.

AES 2009 Audio Myths Workshop

Reply #437 –
Quote from: aclo on
Multiplication is PERFECTLY linear, except for that pesky thing, the irrational numbers...which happen to be a bit of a mutt in the purebred show, when you're talking about discrete intervals.

Yes, multiplication is a linear operation. .


Multiplication is either linear or nonliner in terms of its effects on audio.

If you multiply the signal by an independent number, such as setting gain, then the effects of multiplcation is linear.

If you multiply the signal by the signal itself, such as hat happens when there is amplitude modulation distortion, then the effect of multiplication is nonlinear.

People have been talking about the signal modulating itself here lately, and this is of course an example of nonlinear distoriton.

AES 2009 Audio Myths Workshop

Reply #438 –
linear + a bit of noise

(and in audio, it's useful to think that way - rather than to say any system which adds noise is non-linear - even though mathematically this is the case)

Cheers,
David.

AES 2009 Audio Myths Workshop

Reply #439 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Quote from: aclo on
Multiplication is PERFECTLY linear, except for that pesky thing, the irrational numbers...which happen to be a bit of a mutt in the purebred show, when you're talking about discrete intervals.

Yes, multiplication is a linear operation. .

Multiplication is either linear or nonliner in terms of its effects on audio.
If you multiply the signal by an independent number, such as setting gain, then the effects of multiplcation is linear.
If you multiply the signal by the signal itself, such as hat happens when there is amplitude modulation distortion, then the effect of multiplication is nonlinear.

Well I won't enter into a contest of word redefinition, but let it be known that the first quoted line is most definitely not mine! Only the second is...

AES 2009 Audio Myths Workshop

Reply #440 –
Quote from: aclo on
Well I won't enter into a contest of word redefinition, but let it be known that the first quoted line is most definitely not mine! Only the second is...
Indeed. Please don't be so disingenuous, Arnold.