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: High resolution audio vs. CD: A null-test (Read 791 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

High resolution audio vs. CD: A null-test

I've made a video where I do null-tests between high-res and the same material down-sampled to standard CD specs, as I found this particular test to be missing in the available information.

This video probably won't be anything new for most people on this forum - I mainly made it for people who didn't know so much about this particular aspect of audio.

In any case, here's the link:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcmSfFCJZy4

P.S. I most likely won't be taking part in any discussions, whether in the comments on Youtube or in any responses to this thread.
"What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence"
- Christopher Hitchens
"It is always more difficult to fight against faith than against knowledge"
- Sam Harris

Re: High resolution audio vs. CD: A null-test

Reply #1
P.S. I most likely won't be taking part in any discussions, [nor] any responses to this thread.
Here are two sentences that have probably never been seen combined this way before in the whole English language, so pointless they sound - not by any OP's of any forum thread, at least.
Listen to the music, not the media it's on.
Wavpack -hb4.3

Re: High resolution audio vs. CD: A null-test

Reply #2
P.S. I most likely won't be taking part in any discussions, whether in the comments on Youtube or in any responses to this thread.
I'm certain the other members here will accord this thread the same consideration.

Re: High resolution audio vs. CD: A null-test

Reply #3
I am only 25 minutes in the video and I can already see some problems...

1. You went from 24-bit > 32-bit float > 16-bit without dithering. Why?
2. Meter is not showing any movement. Of course it doesn't. It is configured for 10-bit. Noise is way below that.
3. You can save it as 24-bit. Are you using older version of Audacity?

I am all against audiofools, but claiming there is no difference between 16-bit and 24-bit is not true.
I can easily hear the difference (with this test) using more sensitive headphones. I even posted abx log.

The truth is that you really need 24-bit* for these tests - for real music 16-bit is more than enough.

Edit:

Maybe a little better explanation:

Check some of Amir's reviews on audiosciencereview.
You will see that there are a lot of DACs (some are pretty "cheap", under $150) that have over 120 dB of dynamic range.
By using 16-bit files, we have noise around -85 dB according to Audacity. That is in audible range.
By using 24-bit files, we have noise around -138 dB according to Audacity. That is in inaudible range.
(Based on my own test, this depends on dithering...)

So by using 16-bit you will hear noise created by the file itself, not by DAC.
By using 24-bit, there is no way to hear noise created by file itself.

This is all nice and cool, but it means absolutely nothing in normal listening situation...
gold plated toslink fan

Re: High resolution audio vs. CD: A null-test

Reply #4
P.S. I most likely won't be taking part in any discussions, whether in the comments on Youtube or in any responses to this thread.
I'm certain the other members here will accord this thread the same consideration.
First impression perhaps... but with such uninviting rude erm, 'disclaimer' I can only see it as a gross attempt at advertising one's own YT channel.
Listen to the music, not the media it's on.
Wavpack -hb4.3

Re: High resolution audio vs. CD: A null-test

Reply #5
P.S. I most likely won't be taking part in any discussions, whether in the comments on Youtube or in any responses to this thread.

 So why post this on a forum?

Re: High resolution audio vs. CD: A null-test

Reply #6
So he can claim he posted on HA?
The test method is not good, and also, video is too long for something that can be done in 10 minutes. I certainly won't be watching hour and a half.
Error 404; signature server not available.

Re: High resolution audio vs. CD: A null-test

Reply #7
I am only 25 minutes in the video and I can already see some problems...

1. You went from 24-bit > 32-bit float > 16-bit without dithering. Why?
2. Meter is not showing any movement. Of course it doesn't. It is configured for 10-bit. Noise is way below that.
3. You can save it as 24-bit. Are you using older version of Audacity?

I am all against audiofools, but claiming there is no difference between 16-bit and 24-bit is not true.
I can easily hear the difference (with this test) using more sensitive headphones. I even posted abx log.

The truth is that you really need 24-bit* for these tests - for real music 16-bit is more than enough.

Edit:

Maybe a little better explanation:

Check some of Amir's reviews on audiosciencereview.
You will see that there are a lot of DACs (some are pretty "cheap", under $150) that have over 120 dB of dynamic range.
By using 16-bit files, we have noise around -85 dB according to Audacity. That is in audible range.
By using 24-bit files, we have noise around -138 dB according to Audacity. That is in inaudible range.
(Based on my own test, this depends on dithering...)

So by using 16-bit you will hear noise created by the file itself, not by DAC.
By using 24-bit, there is no way to hear noise created by file itself.

This is all nice and cool, but it means absolutely nothing in normal listening situation...


Where’s your ABX? Show me that -85dB is audible to you. Show me that you can hear dithered from non dithered.

We have standards here, please adhere to them

Re: High resolution audio vs. CD: A null-test

Reply #8
The test method is not good, and also, video is too long for something that can be done in 10 minutes. I certainly won't be watching hour and a half.
Then don't. Nobody's forcing you to watch something you're not interested in :) . I'm not trying to be antagonistic with that remark at all, but if you're not interested then you're free to do something else with your time :).
As I mentioned in the very beginning of the video, it's going to be a long and boring video, and not 10 minutes, because I wanted to explain and show all the processes of how a null-test works, converting the files, etc., so there would be no doubt that I hadn't used any trickery. As I tried to convey in my original post here on HA, I made this video for people who didn't know much about audio, and therefore it most likely wouldn't be so useful for people at HA, but I nevertheless thought I would spread the word about the video in the hopes that someone could find the video useful. But again, if you don't find it useful, then no problem :).
So he can claim he posted on HA?
Yes, because I gain soooo much prestige in posting here  ::) . I've been active on HydrogenAudio since 2015, although not much lately.
"What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence"
- Christopher Hitchens
"It is always more difficult to fight against faith than against knowledge"
- Sam Harris

Re: High resolution audio vs. CD: A null-test

Reply #9
P.S. I most likely won't be taking part in any discussions, whether in the comments on Youtube or in any responses to this thread.
I'm certain the other members here will accord this thread the same consideration.
First impression perhaps... but with such uninviting rude erm, 'disclaimer' I can only see it as a gross attempt at advertising one's own YT channel.
Fair enough. If he or she wishes, a moderator may delete that sentence from my original post, especially seeing that now I have actually participated in the discussion here.
As for your earlier comment, English is not my native language, and I don't see much point in attacking my less than perfect grammar.
"What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence"
- Christopher Hitchens
"It is always more difficult to fight against faith than against knowledge"
- Sam Harris

Re: High resolution audio vs. CD: A null-test

Reply #10
I am only 25 minutes in the video and I can already see some problems...

1. You went from 24-bit > 32-bit float > 16-bit without dithering. Why?
I am aware that dithering is very helpful, but I didn't find it necessary to use it in this particular case.

2. Meter is not showing any movement. Of course it doesn't. It is configured for 10-bit. Noise is way below that.
Okay, fair enough. Obviously, I did see that the meters only showed down to -60 when making the video.

3. You can save it as 24-bit. Are you using older version of Audacity?
Apparently I am.
"What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence"
- Christopher Hitchens
"It is always more difficult to fight against faith than against knowledge"
- Sam Harris

Re: High resolution audio vs. CD: A null-test

Reply #11
@board
It's all good. In real life nobody can tell difference.  ;)
Even I downsample everything to 16/44.

@NateHigs
https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php?topic=121219.msg999889#msg999889
The funny thing is that it was actually you who asked me to provide abx logs and I did.

I’m not sure the people commenting here are fully able to. There is a difference between a psychoacoustic model and the implementation of a psychoacoustic model.
But you never gave us an explanation of this. Can you please provide more info.

gold plated toslink fan

 

Re: High resolution audio vs. CD: A null-test

Reply #12
Fair enough. [...]
Well done on realizing that forums are not soap boxes* after all, where one can state something then run away from debating their own thread, hit-and-run style.

Quote
English is not my native language, and I don't see much point in attacking my less than perfect grammar.
It's not mine either. You'll probably agree I wasn't doing it ad hominem-style (i.e, attacking yourself or your perfectly worded sentences): it was their content, which, you'll agree (no need to ask mods to delete it now, IMO), had initially come up as quite ludicrous, for the reasons explained above.

*I myself have recently said sorry for some of my own unnecessarily wordy posts.
Listen to the music, not the media it's on.
Wavpack -hb4.3

 
SimplePortal 1.0.0 RC1 © 2008-2021