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: First Impression (Read 6537 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

First Impression

First I really like the idea: Best sound quality. 

After few tests, the sound is really great and seems to be better than winamp (with MAD in 24 bit). 

Because u can change some settings during playback, I v intensively test 16/24 (I v 24/96 DAC). It's very interesting. 16 is a little bit louder but 24 is more natural, detailed and less fatiguing. B)

The resampling does not convince me (without fast mode)  . The resampling in 96 done by XP seems to be better for me. But the test is little more difficult because this version freeze when I cut the resampler. Is there more information or feeling about that?

Sure, the interface could be improved, but I think that the focus should stay on the sound quality.

Another question, what about 5.1?

Congratulations buddies and definitely this is my new player.

First Impression

Reply #1 –
Sorry, but unless there's something broken in Foobar2000, your considerations about the different sound qualities are very likely to be just due to placebo effect.

First Impression

Reply #2 –
Quote
Sorry, but unless there's something broken in Foobar2000, your considerations about the different sound qualities are very likely to be just due to placebo effect.


KikeG,  you are talking about resampling or bit depth (or both)?

First Impression

Reply #3 –
Both.

First Impression

Reply #4 –
So, there are no differences between 16 and 24 bit playback?

First Impression

Reply #5 –
Quote
So, there are no differences between 16 and 24 bit playback?

It is if you lower the volume in foobar a lot (and raise it on your amplifier).
When I set the volume on my amplifier to maximum and lower the volume in foobar to an acceptable level (but in the reverse order  ) I can easily hear a difference. So if this is the way you use your equipment then 24 bit is better. 
 

First Impression

Reply #6 –
Differences between 16 and 24 bits are very, very difficult  to hear even with the best equipment, because they are really tiny in practice. If the 16 bits are well used (proper dither used), I think it is impossible to hear a difference with music and normal listening conditions.

Also, you say that 16 bit was louder, and that that seems quite a gross difference not attributable to a bit depth difference.

First Impression

Reply #7 –
Quote
So if this is the way you use your equipment then 24 bit is better.

I always do that! I like the shock I get when I switch source from the computer to the tv...

First Impression

Reply #8 –
KikeG, did you challenge me? 

First Impression

Reply #9 –
No, but if you want... 

First Impression

Reply #10 –
KikeG, I made a blind test with a friend.

Here is the material:
Emagic emi 2|6, 24/96 DAC converter (thru USB). The conversion rate is forced at 96 khz.
http://www.emagic.de/english/products/hard...ware/emi26.html

Monsoon MM-2000 for the medium and high frequencies
http://www.monsoonaudio.com/index_mmedia.htm

Vandersteen speakers + Harman / Kardon amplifier for bass and sub bass.

Sony Vaio with XP Pro SP1+ several updates.
Audio quality conversion sets to optimal.

We used Foobar v 0.29c.

We tested the bit depth because it’s easy to change it on the fly.

Here is the test
One person is listening (closed eyes is better). The other decide to start the track in 16 or 24 without disclose it to the tester. The tester can ask to change the bit depth as many as needed. The tester can’t see the screen of the PC…

We made the test 5 times x 2 (for him and me).
4/5 I could distinguish 16 to 24
My friend could do it 5/5 (  I began as tester, so I think he trained himself during my test).

So unless you can prove that there is a paranormal communication between my friend and me  B) , WE CAN HEAR THE DIFFERENCE!!!

Mainly in 24 bits the definition is better and you have less listening fatigue on loud track.

First Impression

Reply #11 –
Quote
So unless you can prove that there is a paranormal communication between my friend and me  B) , WE CAN HEAR THE DIFFERENCE!!!

24bit is handled differently from 16bit by both software and hardware, so it's possible to hear *the difference* (for example, the volume level could be different). the question is: does it really give better *quality*?

First Impression

Reply #12 –
Quote
We made the test 5 times x 2 (for him and me).
4/5 I could distinguish 16 to 24
My friend could do it 5/5 (  I began as tester, so I think he trained himself during my test).

4/5 (pval=0.190) is hardly an achievement in blind testing.
http://ff123.net/abx/abx.html

Generally, we require pval<0.050. Preferably, we want to see at least 12/16.

First Impression

Reply #13 –
Quote
...the question is: does it really give better *quality*?

I think we arrive at a subjective point and all I can say is "I prefer 24 bit output".

Actually, I think that the combination with 24 bits decoder and 96 khz resampling really brings something but it’s very difficult to test it because if I want change the sample rate on my DAC I have to stop the sound during more than 5 sec…

So if somebody could theoretically or practically confirm this ...

First Impression

Reply #14 –
Quote
4/5 (pval=0.190) is hardly an achievement in blind testing.
http://ff123.net/abx/abx.html

Generally, we require pval<0.050. Preferably, we want to see at least 12/16.

Yes but with 9/10 (= (4+5)/(5+5)) pval=0.011, so it's <0.05  . But honestly, I don't know if I can combine the same test with 2 persons (me and my friend).

First Impression

Reply #15 –
afaik, the difference between 16/24 bits and 48/96 kHz is beyond 'average listener' abilities. at least, it's true for me

also, the difference could be more noticeable, if *decoders* operated in 16/24 bits, depending on the output mode, but most of them operate in 32 bits.