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: Why 24bit/48kHz/96kHz/ (Read 399756 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Why 24bit/48kHz/96kHz/

Reply #325 –
I'm sure Dan will candidly answer all the technical questions posed for him by posting on his forums.

Why 24bit/48kHz/96kHz/

Reply #326 –
Quote from: knutinh on
I guess this has been said before, but what the heck... Along the chain of sound propagation:

1. I do agree that many sound sources produce a good deal of energy at infra-sound frequencies. This is a necessary condition for hirez audio to make sense, but not enough on its own.


Infra actually means 'below' or 'low' , so you probably mean 'ultra'.

Why 24bit/48kHz/96kHz/

Reply #327 –
Quote from: putanik on
Quote from: Axon on

Quote from: putanik on
I do not understand your question. At the moment, I am not aware of any A2D/D2A having more that 19 TRUE bits. 20 bits -> 122 dB ~ .7e-4% IMD/linearity error. nobody claimed it - yet. AKM's AK4394 claims only 100 dB THD, and that's quite typical now. Could you please explain yourself?


Lavry AD122-96MKIII claims 126dB THD (0.00005%), and 127dB SNR unweighted.


very interesting... do they have data sheet detailed description how and what they measured, like BurrBrown has for pcm4202 http://focus.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/pcm4202.pdf and pcm1792a http://focus.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/pcm1792a.pdf? a minor problem ... front sheet for those specifies "marketing" specs of 118/132 dB dynamic range, but when you look inside, you find numbers like 0.0004% (-107 dB) and -105 for THD+N (which both mean 17.5...18 true bits). I have no problems coming up to our CFO asking for 1792 /4202 EVMs so that I can analyze them myself in whatever details i please... but I can't come to him asking for this Larvy ADC bearing pricetag of $7500.


NI also makes industrial ADCs that are rated for >120dB over the entire 0 to .45 fs range.  They're a pleasure to work with.

Why 24bit/48kHz/96kHz/

Reply #328 –
Quote from: SirChristof on
Since the only high-res formats I am aware of (SACD & DVD-Audio) have iron chains everywhere---I will stick with redbook CD for the forseeable future.


There are two new ones -- Dolby True HD lossless and DTS HD.  You can bet they are chained. 

Why 24bit/48kHz/96kHz/

Reply #329 –
Quote from: knutinh on
I agree. The difference between CD, DVD-A and SACD are minor and the effects are unshure.

My view is that a system that try to revolutionise the industry by effectively changing all the rules, should have a clear benefit. Sony and Philips are asking everyone (producers as well as consumers) to change all of their gear to gain some obscure benefit. While giving Sony and Philips a new income source after they lost the CD hegemony to Toshiba. They blatantly ignore all of the critical voices from the tech world. "We are stronger than you, our propaganda division will crush any scientific evidents against us, any needed proofs will be made up if we cant find them, either you are with us or against us"

Kind of reminds me of a certain other "CEO"...


1). SACD vs DVDA. look at http://focus.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/pcm1792a.pdf. this is a typical modern DAC. supports both PCM-24 and DSD. look at the fig 19 (PCM) ans 22 (DSD). i fail to see why DSD is better than PCM. what do you think? re CD: we are going in circles.

2) imho, recording industry does not consists of idiots, nor sony/phillips. toshiba has been a part of both SACD and DVD-A consortium's, if i am not mistaken, as well as sony/etc.

best regards,
putanik.

Why 24bit/48kHz/96kHz/

Reply #330 –
Quote from: putanik on
Dear K, most people will not distinguish the sound of the music sampled at 192 and it, filtered with 12 kHz LPF.


Yes, but some people can, and can document the results with an ABX test.  That's a key difference.

Why 24bit/48kHz/96kHz/

Reply #331 –
Quote from: Mike Giacomelli on
NI also makes industrial ADCs that are rated for >120dB over the entire 0 to .45 fs range.  They're a pleasure to work with.


which one? i am not very familiar with NI products. I found pxi4461 and alike. yes, they claim 120 dynamic range, but the same -107 dB for THD.
 

Why 24bit/48kHz/96kHz/

Reply #332 –
Quote from: SirChristof on
Simply that, all other things being equal, a 96/24 recording is closer to the analog source than 44.1/16.


How are they any different, if the total dynamic range of the input is limited to 90dB, and the bandwidth in a practical sense to 15kHz to 20kHz by the capture arrangements?

Quote from: putanik on
o-o.


Sorry, that's not an answer.

Now, what's the noise level of the actual, STP atmosphere, at your ear drum. Let's start there, ok?
-----
J. D. (jj) Johnston

Why 24bit/48kHz/96kHz/

Reply #333 –
Quote from: Woodinville on
Sorry, that's not an answer.
Now, what's the noise level of the actual, STP atmosphere, at your ear drum. Let's start there, ok?


Dear Woodinville, you are asking good questions - but not here, please. I am already tired of going in circles on this forum. sometimes i come south to seattle area to meet friends. whereabout can we meet there? or, do you came to vancouver often? I'll be glad to meet you and discuss things in a normal way.

best regards,
icassp1996@yahoo.ca

PS> btw, are you with mackie, headquartered in "you"? :-)))

Why 24bit/48kHz/96kHz/

Reply #334 –
Quote from: ImAlive on
The catch about this diagram is that, due to the way our hearing works, the neat 10k square-wave will sound exactly the same as the 10k sine. If you could hook an oscilloscope at the acoustic nerve, you would get exactly the sine, no matter which signal was fed. There is no way for energy beyond 20kHz to be coupled into the 'human sum signal', because there are no perception cells for above this frequency.

But yeah, in terms of signal processing, the 10k square is reproduced more exactly. It's just that a human will hear a 10k square as a 10k sine.

The filters needed for 44k can be a problem, as this is the point where manufacturers tend to 'save money', especially with crappy soundcards (non-flat frequency response, ripple, and aliasing may be the consequences, but even this will be near unaudible).

My reason for showing this diagram was to show how Sony/Philips was counting on people being simple-minded.

The funny thing is, those that claim that measurements does not count, only perceptual experience... Those are the first to claim "hah! look at that diagram, SACD can reproduce 0.00000001myS rise-time" :-)

-k

Quote from: krabapple on
Quote from: knutinh on

I guess this has been said before, but what the heck... Along the chain of sound propagation:

1. I do agree that many sound sources produce a good deal of energy at infra-sound frequencies. This is a necessary condition for hirez audio to make sense, but not enough on its own.


Infra actually means 'below' or 'low' , so you probably mean 'ultra'.

Ahh.. :-)

-k

Why 24bit/48kHz/96kHz/

Reply #335 –
Quote
I am already tired of going in circles on this forum.


You're not the only one. Really.

Why 24bit/48kHz/96kHz/

Reply #336 –
Quote from: m0rbidini on
Quote
I am already tired of going in circles on this forum.


You're not the only one. Really.


Well I haven't been here since before Christmas, so can I circle just one more time please?


You haven't said anything that hasn't been said before putanik. Let's be bluntly clear, there are two dead simple questions...

1. Is there an audible difference between 44.1kHz/16bits and "higher resolution" formats in a fair test?
2. If so, why?

This is Hydrogen Audio. If you're not willing to accept ABX tests as a way of determining whether a difference is audible or not, you probably shouldn't have joined!

An ABX test of this possible difference is dead easy: Take a hi-res master, convert it to 44.1/16, and convert it back to the orginal format. Then simply compare the original with the double conversion.


You said, very provocatively, that the difference was so obvious that it wasn't worth ABXing. What a silly thing to say. If it was possible (never mind easy - just possible!) to reliably ABX the difference with a test budget of, say, $1,000,000, don't you think Sony or Philips would have done so, and published the results?


(I do have MATLAB, that's not a great example you provided with 0.84dB total passband ripple! I took the point anyway...)

You made a sensible suggestion about IMD and ultrasonic ringing. That's clearly possible with some content, and has been proposed already. It's more of a problem with bad anti-image filters, but the ringing of an ideal filter could have an audible impact if the following equipment adds distortion.

_If_ a difference was detected in a fair test, I think this would be the most likely explanation. _If_ a difference was detected in a fair test, you could investigate this by changing the transducers. IMD is easily measurable, and you could see if it correlated with the audibility of the difference.


These are all great, real world experiments that could be carried out. Yet hi-fi magazines are too scared of revealing the Emperor's new clothes to jump in and make some sense of the explanation.


Two other points in recent pages caught my eye...

The first was "if we can capture and deliver audio at 24/96 (or whatever) why not?". Why not go to the effort of doing something that (may) make absolutely no audible improvement? Because time, money, effort, marketing, and consumer cash could be better expended on things with real benefits! It's a distraction. Just like most other things in the audiofool world.

To be clear: if we were talking about 24/96 _and_ great multichannel (for example), I'd be all for it. Yet largely we're talking about 24/96 stereo or really mediocre 5.1. It's no wonder consumers aren't interested.


The second was "people can feel a difference (with hi-res), just like 12kHz low pass, so don't dismiss it". People don't "feel" a difference with a 12kHz low pass filter. They either don't hear a difference (due to age or hearing damage) or they do hear a difference. If they don't have the vocabulary to express what that difference is, they may, just, say that the music "feels" different - but the reality is a very clear audible difference which can be picked up in an ABX test, even by those without the language to explain what it is.

This is a world away from the placebo "feels" different experience which vanish as soon as blind testing is invoked.


Finally, you might like this post...

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....ost&p=96338

...where you see I'm not anti-hi-res - I'm just (increasingly) frustrated at the lack of ABX evidence and scientific explanation. And the (I believe related) decline in the "hi-fi" audio industry as a whole. The part of the industry that concentrates on difference that people can actually perceive (today: convenience!) is doing a damn site better than the part of the industry that concentrates on what people have to image for themselves. As someone who loves music, and recorded music, I think it's a crying shame that the hi-fi industry is all but dead, and the chances of the quality reproduced music increasing further in my lifetime seem to have died with it.

I don't blame the 90% of people who don't give a damn. I blame the snake oil salesmen who have all but taken over the industry and driven away the 10% of people who care about what they listen to.

Cheers,
David.

Why 24bit/48kHz/96kHz/

Reply #337 –
Quote from: putanik on
Quote from: Light-Fire on

Quote from: putanik on



...SACD vs. CD difference is so apparent that I smile at requests of measuring it with statistics...


Dear putanik

How do you know the contents of the SACD and CD compared were originally the same and not treated differently in the studio?

If you can't be sure about that your test is not valid.

...As a pragmatic mathematician ... I can't imagine a reason why anybody would spend his/her time on altering CD version vs stereo SACD, especially in classical music, where profits are 0.


I can think of a couple:

Pushing a new format where you have copy protection.

Pushing a new format that people will believe has a better audible quality and will be encouraged to upgrade their collections.

Why 24bit/48kHz/96kHz/

Reply #338 –
Is feeling the music a placebo response?

Part of the the original question, '...is there any real need for the higher bit depth and sampling rate?', could be answered in how & what we do 'feel' about the music we're listening to and not just hearing. Those hairs on the back of you neck and arms standing up aren't just down to how the music is encoded, compressed, digitised or even the lyrics and harmonies etc... it could be down to those impercetpible aritfacts that do that 'cetain something' to the music. Call it the X-factor if you will.

This is something that can't be quantified, measured, analysed or ABX'd. Maybe those inaudible higher frequency artifacts and harmonics are subtly vibrating & affecting parts that simply make you feel good.

Don't get me wrong, I like detailed technical analysis as much as the next man or woman, but I believe we're trying to analyse this to the nth degree where analysis can't or doesn't work. Could the extended dynamic range, depth or colouring that comes with higher order encoding just make it 'feel' good?

Surely this is the beauty of music that simply can't be put on a chart. But puts a smile on your face...

Thanks for reading my first post after several motnhs of 'lurking'.

Why 24bit/48kHz/96kHz/

Reply #339 –
Quote from: PKI on
Is feeling the music a placebo response?

Part of the the original question, '...is there any real need for the higher bit depth and sampling rate?', could be answered in how & what we do 'feel' about the music we're listening to and not just hearing. Those hairs on the back of you neck and arms standing up aren't just down to how the music is encoded, compressed, digitised or even the lyrics and harmonies etc... it could be down to those impercetpible aritfacts that do that 'cetain something' to the music. Call it the X-factor if you will.

This is something that can't be quantified, measured, analysed or ABX'd. Maybe those inaudible higher frequency artifacts and harmonics are subtly vibrating & affecting parts that simply make you feel good.

Don't get me wrong, I like detailed technical analysis as much as the next man or woman, but I believe we're trying to analyse this to the nth degree where analysis can't or doesn't work. Could the extended dynamic range, depth or colouring that comes with higher order encoding just make it 'feel' good?

Surely this is the beauty of music that simply can't be put on a chart. But puts a smile on your face...

Thanks for reading my first post after several motnhs of 'lurking'.
Neurologists will say: Your 'feelings' depend on the inputs of your sensory organs and your previous memory(-ies) of the situation involved.

So, with regards to 'feeling a music', there are some conjectures.

* If you can't hear, you can't 'feel' music.
* If you can 'feel' music, you can hear.
* If you 'feel differently' for a music, then you *are* hearing differently.

Now, those "inaudible high frequency artifacts" you're saying... if they are inaudible, by the previous conjectures they are also incapable of inducing any 'feeling' in you.

Other possible sources for 'feeling': vision, memory, and ambient emotion (i.e. emotions you are having while you're listening to a music).

For instance, listening to "I Swear" gives me warm feeling... as it is the 'theme song' of my relation with my very first girlfriend back in highschool.

Some songs did sound 'warmer' (whatever that's supposed to mean) when I listened to them while my current girlfriend was sitting right beside me, reading her book, leaning on my shoulder.

Some songs may sound 'scarier' when played alongside a horror movie (though I have to admit I have lost all sense of 'scare' nowadays. I'm not a fun guy to take to a horror movie... OTOH girls will cling to me hiding their faces behind my arm, while I just sit straight-backed there, being cool  )

Why 24bit/48kHz/96kHz/

Reply #340 –
Quote from: pepoluan on
Now, those "inaudible high frequency artifacts" you're saying... if they are inaudible, by the previous conjectures they are also incapable of inducing any 'feeling' in you.


I'm aware that this is a scientific forum so I'm going to stay away from the tenuous 'I can feel something' argument, but we are talking about sonic resonances that may be having an affect on certain people, that when mixed with other stimuli you mention (memory, smell, touch etc), creates that feeling.

Just because we can't hear these (super, infra) artifacts, it doesn't mean that they're not there playing their part in the overall signature of what you're experiencing.

Why 24bit/48kHz/96kHz/

Reply #341 –
Quote from: putanik on
Quote from: Woodinville on

Sorry, that's not an answer.
Now, what's the noise level of the actual, STP atmosphere, at your ear drum. Let's start there, ok?


Dear Woodinville, you are asking good questions - but not here, please. I am already tired of going in circles on this forum. sometimes i come south to seattle area to meet friends. whereabout can we meet there? or, do you came to vancouver often? I'll be glad to meet you and discuss things in a normal way.

best regards,
icassp1996@yahoo.ca



Dear Putanik, the questions I'm asking you are very germane to what you could actually experience in a real venue.

The answers are actually rather surprising.

And, no, I don't work for Loud Technologies.
-----
J. D. (jj) Johnston

Why 24bit/48kHz/96kHz/

Reply #342 –
Quote from: PKI on
Quote from: pepoluan on
Now, those "inaudible high frequency artifacts" you're saying... if they are inaudible, by the previous conjectures they are also incapable of inducing any 'feeling' in you.
I'm aware that this is a scientific forum so I'm going to stay away from the tenuous 'I can feel something' argument, but we are talking about sonic resonances that may be having an affect on certain people, that when mixed with other stimuli you mention (memory, smell, touch etc), creates that feeling.

Just because we can't hear these (super, infra) artifacts, it doesn't mean that they're not there playing their part in the overall signature of what you're experiencing.
Since we are arguing the difference of a specific method of sampling to audio quality, all other stimuli except the audio itself must be removed. Unfortunately, we can't really remove other stimuli (e.g. smell; suppose my gf juuuuust making me a nice pancake and I smell the nice aroma wafting through the door). Hence, ABX. It randomizes the hidden track. Do it often enough (e.g. 16 run) and the effect of other stimuli is averaged, and for practical reasons nullified. (e.g. I may start smelling the smell of pancake from run #5 and onwards, thus affecting the rest of the session uniformly). Furthermore, the concentration necessary to carry out the ABX test might mask inputs from other stimuli.

Now let's see. The difference between higher sampling rates will be only the existence of ultrasonic frequencies in the recording. These frequencies will be pumped out via either (1) headphones or (2) speaker sets.

With (1), the energy pumped into your ears are low enough that your ear's skin will not be able to discern them. Thus, only the sound received by your ears is registered as stimulus. Your cochlea is finely tuned by nature to discern only up to 20kHz, and most people can only discern up to 16kHz. All higher frequencies are lost.

With (2), the ultrasonic frequencies can be regenerated only by the small tweeters. The larger midranges and woofers (and also subwoofers) just don't have the physical characteristics required to reproduce them. Further, such multispeaker setup uses crossovers (either passive or active), ensuring that higher frequencies go into the tweeters only. Due to its size, there is just not enough energy coming out of the tweeters to induce other stimuli other than hearing.

So as you can see, from a practical P.O.V., there is no way for ultrasonic frequencies to affect your 'feeling', as sound waves can only be detected as input stimulus via the ears, which already perform a physical (not to mention physiological) Low Pass Filter.

On a lighter note, I think I can intuit why 96kHz sampling rate might give me a *worse* experience than a 44.1kHz sampling rate: My dogs may start howling or barking madly, thus totally ruining my audio enjoyment

Why 24bit/48kHz/96kHz/

Reply #343 –
In my opinion, the fact that even modern recording and playback gear tends to filter out frequencies above 20khz renders this debate useless.  Most of the 96khz tracks I've seen have steep fallout above 20khz, and the shape of the curve suggests filtering (mechanical filtering from the microphone, analog filtering from the circuits).

Perhaps a testing using Earthworks mics (they claim flat frequency response up to 50khz) and their corresponding mic pre-amp recording the cymbals or hats of a drum set (which have significant energy past 20khz) and listening on a good set of headphones (beyerdynamics dt 880 claims response to 35khz) would be a better test than some 96khz "remaster" that was likely recorded with SM57's and condensor vocal mic

Why 24bit/48kHz/96kHz/

Reply #344 –
Quote from: PKI on
This is something that can't be quantified, measured, analysed or ABX'd. Maybe those inaudible higher frequency artifacts and harmonics are subtly vibrating & affecting parts that simply make you feel good.

Don't get me wrong, I like detailed technical analysis as much as the next man or woman, but I believe we're trying to analyse this to the nth degree where analysis can't or doesn't work. Could the extended dynamic range, depth or colouring that comes with higher order encoding just make it 'feel' good?

Surely this is the beauty of music that simply can't be put on a chart. But puts a smile on your face...

Thanks for reading my first post after several motnhs of 'lurking'.



I was posting earlier in this thread but have been lurking ever since.

I agree entirely.

Without meaning any disrespect, nor to direct this at anyone in particular, the whole point of trying to scientifically examine the listening of a musical recording is like trying to digitally sample the aesthetics (for want of a better word) of a good mature glass of wine.

Those of you who appreciate wine will know that this simply cannot be done, and computer equipment must be at least 3 decades to a century short on development for this particular application (wine).

While the wine experience has more dimensions than audio frequencies, the audio frequencies interact in ways which are far more than simply mathematical in the same way as the flavour of a wine develops as your buds respond etc.....

I should know, I have a PRS (guitar), with a 1980-something marshall guvnor, running through a JCM900 valve head, all plugged into a 1960 Marshall 4*12 which i bought off Genesis' ex-roadie, who "acquired" it from the band.

And i can tell you, no amount of technical jiggery pokery can reproduce that sound, nor explain it, not the best mic or the most powerful amplifier - or the flattest speaker response. As of 2007 - it still cant be done. ABX is not the be all and end all of audio comparisons. To form an analogy, ABX is to sonic comparison, what a postcode is to an address - an engineering necessity, but with wholly inaccurate results.

It gets a general result, but does it actually answer the question....? I think its time to chat with some audiophiles, who would concur with my wine analogy.....again no disrespect, i know this is an engineers forum.......but science, is now. The answer, comes from tomorrow. Tomorrows engineers break the rules, break new ground and create the new rules......
Gone.

Why 24bit/48kHz/96kHz/

Reply #345 –
Quote from: PKI on
Just because we can't hear these (super, infra) artifacts, it doesn't mean that they're not there playing their part in the overall signature of what you're experiencing.


If you experience something, you can measure it, at least qualitatively 
I don't understand why this something can't be abxed. If you "feel" better (happier, colder or whatever), then there should be some effect, and you should be able to test and reproduce them... maybe for some subconscious effects it is more difficult, and it requires a bit of statistic, and maybe is impossible to measure the effects of listening "hi-res" audio to the destiny of the soul after the death...

Luckily we are speaking about a way to store the information carried by an electrical signal (this is what the sound becomes after a mic) and I don't think this can have any religious implication.

Do you think you have a better experience when you listen hi-res audio, PKG? Why do you think it is an effect of 24 bit/96khz? Maybe it can be an effect of the light in your room ^^

btw I can't help in this discussion, since my not-so-untrained ears can't listen any difference (feeling or whatever) between a 44khz and a 32khz sampled song  . I want to try again that test with better equipment, and then, maybe, I will start to think about 96khz and other mythical resolutions.

Why 24bit/48kHz/96kHz/

Reply #346 –
Quote from: crimsontide on
Without meaning any disrespect, nor to direct this at anyone in particular, the whole point of trying to scientifically examine the listening of a musical recording is like trying to digitally sample the aesthetics (for want of a better word) of a good mature glass of wine.

Your example is improper. We drink the wine, there is nothing to encode. There is no transmission method, unless you include the bottle and the glass.

And, we all know that formal wine tastings are done blind, so we can't see the bottle, and the glasses are all the same.

"digitally sample the aesthetics of ... wine" is a meaningless statement.

Whereas, in audio, we record the audio, be it digitally or not, for later delivery.  When we record it, we radically change the aesthetic value just by the act of recording it into a few channels.
Quote
Those of you who appreciate wine will know that this simply cannot be done, and computer equipment must be at least 3 decades to a century short on development for this particular application (wine).

Your argument is completely invalid. Wine is not conveyed by computer. Music is.

What's more, we can analyze wine, we can tell what flavour constituants go with what chemicals, we can tell what aging does, we can (and do) do various kinds of analysis from vapor spectroscopy through mass spectrometry that can directly guide the knowledgeble modern winemaker as to what kind of product they are making, how the aging is going, and so on.

This kind of analysis is testable, verifiable, material, and repeatable.

In audio, we do not have any verification of the alleged artifacts in the first place, so:

1) We can not repeat the test, since we have not yet verified it.
2) We have no evidence of a material difference
3) We have yet to even understand a way to verify the alleged phenominon.
Quote
While the wine experience has more dimensions than audio frequencies, the audio frequencies interact in ways which are far more than simply mathematical in the same way as the flavour of a wine develops as your buds respond etc.....

None the less, how wine is tasted, how it tastes, etc, is in fact reduced to a rather analytical science. The "target taste" varies from place to place, simply because different people prefer different tastes, hence we have a Hedges 3-vineyard, a Terra-Blanca Cab, and a DeLille Harrison Hill, all of which are different, acknowledged to be different, and built to different tastes.
Quote
I should know, I have a PRS (guitar), with a 1980-something marshall guvnor, running through a JCM900 valve head, all plugged into a 1960 Marshall 4*12 which i bought off Genesis' ex-roadie, who "acquired" it from the band.

Indeed, and in fact the differences between this and a Stratocaster running through a 1970's Peavey solid state head are easily measured. Your point?
Quote
And i can tell you, no amount of technical jiggery pokery can reproduce that sound, nor explain it, not the best mic or the most powerful amplifier - or the flattest speaker response.

Nonsense. Stuff and nonsense. In fact, the characteristics of that system can be measured to a what-for, but in fact the easiest way to "synthesize" that is probably to build it. Particular kinds of signal-dependent nonlinearities (which is what you're on about) are hard to synthesize. No doubt about that, but they can be measured, evaluated, etc.

ABX testing, done properly, especially used as part of a signal-detection test design, has been shown to provide auditory thresholds right on down to the levels possible from physics. There is no doubt that a proper double-blind test, ABX or not, can detect anything that the human organism can detect.  Adding things like test controls ensures this, as the sensitivity can be verified in-situ.

Something that many people, including musicians for sure, do not realize, is that what is a "subtle" musical effect is actually very large in terms of what human beings can detect.

Sorry, but there is more than a century of work behind this, starting with Helmholtz if not earlier, and the results are plain as day.

Now, people can run an insensitive ABX test. People can drive their car poorly. People can sink boats, and crash airplanes, too, but we don't argue they are ineffective at their purpose because people make mistakes.

But the good news is that if the insensitive ABX test includes proper controls, the insensitivity will stand out like a 1kw search light in an otherwise dark cave.
-----
J. D. (jj) Johnston

Why 24bit/48kHz/96kHz/

Reply #347 –
Quote from: 2Bdecided on
This is Hydrogen Audio. If you're not willing to accept ABX tests as a way of determining whether a difference is audible or not, you probably shouldn't have joined!


Dear David, I came in to answer a question of 22049 sine wave perfect reconstruction, and said that this kind of reconstruction exists only on paper. a filter getting from 0 to -98 in 1Hz shall be at least 5s long, what means 44.1^2*1e6*5 Flops ~ 10 G flops, and my gut feeling is that double precision is not enough for all sinewaves from 1hz to 22049 with amplitudes from -80 dBm and up. but people here are completely sure it's a piece of cake. I saw no evidence that anybody having such opinion actually did filters of the kind and is familiar with accompanying difficulties - yet they talk with confidence reminding of an anecdote:"what is the difference between a lawyer and a G-d?". "G-d does not think he is a lawyer".

you are definitely right about "you probably shouldn't have joined"!

that's all, folks.

Why 24bit/48kHz/96kHz/

Reply #348 –
I play the Hammond organ, and I can tell you that it is a great experience. It weighs about 200kg, makes all kinds of noises and smells like old sewing machine oil and hot tubes. Oh, and you need a loan as well as hefty, frequent repairs. No digital simulator has ever given me the same feeling as playing the Hammond organ. Does this mean that those simulators cannot recreate the sound with sufficient accuracy for my ears and abilities? Does that mean that Nyquist, Shannon, ABX etc is all B.S.?

Of course not. Just that we are comparing apples with... something else. The experience of playing that instrument consists of sound as well as all kinds of sensatory and emotional influences. It would be correct to say that no digital simulator can recreate the entire package leading to my positive subjective response. But that is no guarantee that the sound itself is lacking. The sound _could_ be proven to be inferior if an ABX test was done by removing all other influences. If this is not done (properly), then it might as well be that the digital simulators are lacking in simulating burned sewing-machine oil, something that the designers never tried to simulate in the first place.

One could argue that the smell and looks of an instrument never appears on a record and therefore are "luxury" stuff. On the other hand, the musician will probably perform differently if he is satisfied with the sound (even if it is all in his head), and that will most certainly change what is recorded. In much the same way, the listener experience in practical hifi is intertwined with sound, vision, knowledge etc. So why would we want to tell a hifi-listener that his experience is based on superstition and that he cant hear anything at below -80dBFs, or above 22kHz? I feel no need for doing this, but I think that when discussing these matters it is important to get the facts as right as possible.

Most people will state - directly or indirectly that their children are the smartes, prettiest children to ever walk on the face of the earth. Does this make it an undisputable fact? If so, how can every child be "best"? Isnt it a positive thing that we as humans are constructed to be subjective, even if that makes us bad measurement devices? It is just a problem for discussing "the fact" in web forums and courts and a few other fora. For the most important facets of life, "subjectivity" is probably highly beneficial and necessary to lead a good life and have offspring.

-k

Why 24bit/48kHz/96kHz/

Reply #349 –
Quote from: putanik on
Dear David, I came in to answer a question of 22049 sine wave perfect reconstruction, and said that this kind of reconstruction exists only on paper. a filter getting from 0 to -98 in 1Hz shall be at least 5s long, what means 44.1^2*1e6*5 Flops ~ 10 G flops, and my gut feeling is that double precision is not enough for all sinewaves from 1hz to 22049 with amplitudes from -80 dBm and up. but people here are completely sure it's a piece of cake.


I think you made a great service for hydrogenaudio  providing these data, putanik.

However it is more interesting to calculate also how much is the error - and if this affect the sound quality -, not only what you need to have a perfect reconstruction. I think i will start to do it in my spare time ^^

Do you think people need a perfect reconstruction of a wave sampled at 16bit/44khz?

(as I said I can't express opinion about this topic, I'm still trying to discover the limits of 32khz)