Wombat;620057 Wrote:
You can see it has indeed tons of HF noise from somewhere and i think
Mnyb describes it correctly as dsd noise. Also you can see a very rapid
lowerage in HF energy on the music especially on the Audacity pic. A
psycho-acoustic codec will lowpass it pretty agressive cause
If this helps anyone
+---+
|Filename: 352file.jpg |
|Download: http://forums.slimdevices.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=11564|
sebp;619754 Wrote:
Could you please explain what you see there, for us mere mortals? :)
You can see it has indeed tons of HF noise from somewhere and i think
Mnyb describes it correctly as dsd noise. Also you can see a very rapid
lowerage in HF energy on the music especially on the Audacity
From a thread on another forum designed to show the differences between
standard CD quality and hi-res recordings (same recording at different
sampling rates and bit depth).
To my ears, the differences are clearly there, just as described. If
you can't discern them, then either your system
firedog;619600 Wrote:
From a thread on another forum designed to show the differences between
standard CD quality and hi-res recordings (same recording at different
sampling rates and bit depth).
To my ears, the differences are clearly there, just as described. If
you can't discern them,
firedog;619600 Wrote:
from Bruce Brown's (Puget Sound) thread at
http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?2938-The-Art-of-Listening-Hi-rez-music
One thread (the one with the link here) lets you compare redbook to
higher res versions of the same music. You can clearly hear the
I know you can't trust Audacity spectrum plots, but...
+---+
|Filename: CropperCapture[1].jpg|
|Download: http://forums.slimdevices.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=11556|
Phil Leigh;619679 Wrote:
I know you can't trust Audacity spectrum plots, but...
Aaargh :-/ is that how DSD noise looks like ? please filter before
putting trough your amps level is not obscenenely high but there is a
risk that the amp sounds different and gets hot too
--
Mnyb
Phil Leigh;619679 Wrote:
I know you can't trust Audacity spectrum plots, but...
Could you please explain what you see there, for us mere mortals? :)
--
sebp
'Last.fm' (http://www.last.fm/user/sebp)
sebp's Profile:
sebp;619754 Wrote:
Could you please explain what you see there, for us mere mortals? :)
Oh yes, I can see it now, I had lost one zero...
--
sebp
'Last.fm' (http://www.last.fm/user/sebp)
sebp's Profile:
Phil Leigh;615234 Wrote:
It's easy enough to do your own tests... you already have SOX which is
capable of high quality downsampling/word reduction.
Hi Phil,
I had another challenging session last sunday, and I surprisingly had
the impression I could hear some differences this time.
I
sebp;616378 Wrote:
Hi Phil,
I had another challenging session last sunday, and I surprisingly had
the impression I could hear some differences this time.
I couldn't really tell I heard anything missing from the CD version,
but the HD file just sounded better to my ears.
As I don't
Phil Leigh;616382 Wrote:
Obviously this varies slightly from person to person.
As said, I don't trust my ears that much, and am pretty sure I couldn't
ABX the files.
The strange part is that I was challenging the files alone, and ignored
two friends of mine were doing the same.
One of them,
sebp;616387 Wrote:
As said, I don't trust my ears that much, and am pretty sure I couldn't
ABX the files.
The strange part is that I was challenging the files alone, and ignored
two friends of mine were doing the same.
One of them, who is more accustomed to comparisons than me, also
Phil Leigh;616388 Wrote:
How did you roll your own?
I've used the example given in the FAQ:
Code:
sox any-file -b 16 outfile rate 44100 dither -s
Please note that I have not challenged my version with the downloaded
master.
I only wanted to check
sebp;616392 Wrote:
I've used the example given in the FAQ:
Code:
sox any-file -b 16 outfile rate 44100 dither -s
Please note that I have not challenged my version with the downloaded
master.
I only wanted to check whether there would be
Wombat;616505 Wrote:
Most likely the first one cause even many so called studio masters have
clipping samples.
Well, I also thought at first the CD version could have been made
sounding quieter intentionally, but given the album I've tested comes
from a very small label, and the fact that my
Here's a new article:
Whatever Happened To The Audiophile?
http://www.npr.org/2011/03/05/134256592/whatever-happened-to-the-audiophile
--
mortslim
mortslim's Profile:
quote from the original article:
but the loudness war has resulted in music squashed to within a few
decibels of its life.
Yes, and hi-res releases seem to generally be mastered without that.
That alone makes them much more listenable. The recent uncompressed
hi-res remaster of Band of the Run
firedog;615126 Wrote:
...So I'll keep buying hi-res. But before you call me silly and a fool,
just change the name from hi-res to properly mastered and then we
won't have anything to argue about.
That's what I do too!
--
Phil Leigh
You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a
I also buy hirez in some quantities. 1500 tracks so far.
But I try not have to many illusion about it .
But I won't fall in to HD tracks newest trapp, charching more for 176
or 192 khz than the pedestrian 88/96 that I would be happy with.
Unless... these to are off different masters :-/
HD
Thanks for the link!
Phil Leigh;614936 Wrote:
wasn't the cd supposed to be long enough to hold a particular Beethoven
symphony? (this might be a myth)
I remember something like this too (not definitely Beethoven, but some
particular long work that would just fit on both sides of an LP). Of
I brought this topic up over at computeraudiophile.com
Got a thoughtful answer from music producer Barry Diament, who records
in 24/192 and produces hi-res discs. He has an explanation for why
24bit does matter.
cumputeraudiophile!? Serious? This is the last place i will ever look
for any evidence.
--
Wombat
Transporter (modded) - RG142 - Avantgarde Acoustic based 500VA
monoblocks - Sommer SPK240 - self-made speakers
Wombat's
It's easy enough to do your own tests... you already have SOX which is
capable of high quality downsampling/word reduction.
--
Phil Leigh
You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it
ain't what you'd call minimal...
Touch(wired/XP) - Audiolense 3.3/2.0+INGUZ DRC - MF
I agree with TerryS on this (noting PL's point about dither). I don't
think the evidence for the roughness of 16 bit CD sound is a subtle
audio point. Listen to any recording of a string quartet when they play
a quiet passage and the roughness of the sound is perfectly obvious. On
some
Cape11;614876 Wrote:
I agree with TerryS on this (noting PL's point about dither). I don't
think the evidence for the roughness of 16 bit CD sound is a subtle
audio point. Listen to any recording of a string quartet when they play
a quiet passage and the roughness of the sound is perfectly
see also http://www.classicstoday.com/review.asp?ReviewNum=2550
The Talich traversal of the Beethovens originally came out in the dying
days of analogue. I loved them then and I love them even more in their
CD incarnation, which adds transparency and bite to sound that always
was clear and
Well, I simply speak as I find.
Equipment:
Loudspeakers: ATC SCM100 asl
Preamp: Chord CPA2800
DAC Chord DSC1500E
Deck SME20.2 with series 5 arm
Cartridge: Lyra.
Squeezebox.
(Expensive, yes, but then there's little reason to change the system,
and it's already done 15 years of good service).
Phil Leigh;614886 Wrote:
That whole filter thing is indeed history, thanks to oversampling which
moves the filter way out of harms way...unless you think 384kHz and
higher is still an issue?Well is it? Over sampling means there's no need for
an filter, but my
point was that the frequency
Cape11;614910 Wrote:
Well is it? Over sampling means there's no need for a filter, but my
point was that the frequency response is shaped like a cliff edge, and
over-ssampling can do nothing to remedy that under-lying condition. I
remain concerned about possible phase distortion into the
Well we're both arguing by repetition, so we'll have to agree to differ.
--
Cape11
Cape11's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=13763
View this thread:
dsdreamer;614831 Wrote:
It is not a feeling, but a reasoned conjecture. Difficult to measure per
se without sticking electrodes in people's brains. The non-linear and
time variant nature of the human ear's response to sound pressure waves
is, however, well-established.
The following is
Phil Leigh;614911 Wrote:
That's the whole point of the Meyer/Moran paper. They inserted a redbook
adc-dac chain in the midst of an SACD playback chain. Nobody could hear
it!
Hi Phil - got a link to that paper? I googled for it, and it's
apparently generated loads of controversy ('my google
bobkoure;614932 Wrote:
Hi Phil - got a link to that paper? I googled for it, and it's
apparently generated loads of controversy ('my google search'
(http://www.google.com/search?num=50hl=enlr=q=Meyer+Moran+CD+audiobtnG=Searchaq=faqi=aql=oq=)),
which IMO is all to the good, but I'd be curious
Phil Leigh;614936 Wrote:
Courtesy of Wombat:
http://hlloyge.hl.funpic.de/wp-conte...p-inserted.pdf
I have that link to that paper from Hydrogenaudio.org
On there are similar discussions running, there no one can do esotheric
claims without backing it up btw. It is violating the rules then
Phil Leigh;614936 Wrote:
Courtesy of Wombat:
http://hlloyge.hl.funpic.de/wp-conte...p-inserted.pdf
wasn't the cd supposed to be long enough to hold a particular Beethoven
symphony? (this might be a myth)
Yes the ninth. I have no idea whether it's true, but I have heard
various versions.
I recall reading an article in recent years celebrating an anniversary
of the CD format. In it they discussed the facts and myths surrounding
the format's development, including why 74 minutes and so forth. If I
remember correctly, they even spoke with members of the team or the key
developer.
maggior;614970 Wrote:
If I remember correctly, they even spoke with members of the team or the
key developer.
I'll have to see if I can jog the appropriate memory cells and see if I
can locate the article.
It would be really nice if it's confirmed by somebody at Sony or
Philips.
In the
Most of the tests were done using a pair of highly regarded,
smooth-measuring full-range loudspeakers in a rural listening room with
an ambient noise floor of about 19 dBA SPL, all electronics on (see Fig.
2).
This vagueness about the equipment being used is a bit of a concern,
but I
If you read the paper they are open for that you can not prove
nonexistance of something scientifically.
So there can be outliers where detections is possible.
Also they used more than one setup but these are not specified ?
Also some studio monitors where involved in some unspecified cases ?
Bit depth is not all about quiet parts, and sampling frequency is not
all about high frequencies. The point is that the resolution increases,
AFAIU.
--
Soulkeeper
-that is not dead which can eternal lie. and with strange aeons even
death may die.-
touch + duet + boom + radio / wrt160n/dd-wrt
So called hi rez offerings beyond 16/44 are nothing but marketing
ploys concocted by audio firms as they look to penetrate another
entirely new (read profitable) market segment, extracting hard earned
money from gullible consumers in the process.
Why shouldn't Apple be able to profit similarly?
Soulkeeper;614632 Wrote:
Bit depth is not all about quiet parts, and sampling frequency is not
all about high frequencies. The point is that the resolution increases,
AFAIU.
For bit depth yes, but not for sampling frequency. You can capture
higher frequencies, however the lower frequencies
Mnyb;614595 Wrote:
? I was under the impression that majority of the eventual improvement
is in the increased bith depth ? As this would increase the signal
content that we stand a chance to hear.
I know what a brick wall fillter is, but this is nowdays only a factor
during recording then
dsdreamer;614825 Wrote:
I guess I am setting myself up for several flames for writing this post.
However, I am just sharing an opinion.
No, of cause not. We are on Slimdevices General forum. Let your
feelings flow, no evidense needed! :)
--
Wombat
Transporter (modded) - RG142 - Avantgarde
May be soo ? But our old analog playback chain is/ was also bandwith
limited and suffer similar problems ? Can these problems be interly
described as a digital evil .
The digital filtering in downsampling they are not nearly as bad as the
analogue counterpart if you record at 44.1 ? Hence my
No matter what these samples bring, there are some that claim it is
better even when no one can prove to hear differences or the other way
around. No way to prove anything in here in any way.
If you do they wonder for a fraction of a second about your deafness
and go on writing in the next
I stole this link from you Wombat..
If it is ok
http://hlloyge.hl.funpic.de/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/audibility-of-a-cd-standard-ada-loop-inserted.pdf
It is a good experiment.
--
Mnyb
Main hifi: Touch + CIA PS
Wombat;614827 Wrote:
No, of cause not. We are on Slimdevices General forum. Let your
feelings flow, no evidense needed! :)
It is not a feeling, but a reasoned conjecture. Difficult to measure
per se without sticking electrodes in people's brains. The non-linear
and time variant nature of the
Well given the choice between 256k AAC or 24/96 PCM what to do .
And better soo if it is sourced from a different less compressed master
.
So let them market this, if it ends with us getting better sound evfen
if it would be possible to cram into a CD .
Specifically markett you effort at
Apple needs to find ways to get their customers to:
a. buy more music
b. re-buy their same music
c. update their hardware
what better way to accomplish this than to offer higher bit rate
and lossless music.
--
toby10
By inventing a brand new number called iTune iNdex, which is sample rate
in kHz multiplied by bit depth. That will enable their users to
appreciate the enormous quality improvement from 16/44.1 (iNdex 705.6,
or i*700* for simplicity's sake), to 24/48 (iNdex 1152, or i*1200* for
simplicity's
Soulkeeper;614428 Wrote:
That will enable their *users* (...)
You mean iDiophiles? ;)
--
sebp
'Last.fm' (http://www.last.fm/user/sebp)
sebp's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=11768
View this
I like the linked Gigaom article's tone and approach.
http://gigaom.com/apple/24-bit-itunes-music-would-be-a-step-in-the-right-direction/
I'd personally only interested if it were 24 bits@96kHz. I care more
for the 96kHz than the 24 bits, but I'd certainly be glad to have both.
I'd feel a bit
dsdreamer;614593 Wrote:
I like the linked Gigaom article's tone and approach.
http://gigaom.com/apple/24-bit-itunes-music-would-be-a-step-in-the-right-direction/
I'd personally only interested if it were 24 bits@96kHz. I care more
for the 96kHz than the 24 bits, but I'd certainly be glad
sebp;614063 Wrote:
I have made some experiments on my system with my ears, where I just
could not hear any difference between standard and hires files.
I wish I could, but I honestly couldn't.
I think it's pretty clear the differences are anything but
earth-shaking. From my experience, the
Apple's sudden interest in 24-bit sound is likely in preparation for new
hardware, and where Apple goes, folks tend to follow.
I like the idea of 24-bit files, but my equipment and ears cannot
distinguish it from 16-bit.
Perhaps Apple can lure a few young folks away from white earbuds to
jimzak;614252 Wrote:
Perhaps Apple can lure a few young folks away from white earbuds to
audiophile equipment.
I bet they saw services like HDTracks taking some of the typical iTunes
users away, thats all.
--
Wombat
Transporter (modded) - RG142 - Avantgarde Acoustic based 500VA
jimzak;614252 Wrote:
Perhaps Apple can lure a few young folks away from white earbuds to
audiophile equipment. I see that as a good thing.
Me too, but I'm a bit puzzled by the leap to 24-bit. I mean, does
iTunes store even offer anything lossless yet, even in 16-bit?
--
aubuti
aubuti;614309 Wrote:
Me too, but I'm a bit puzzled by the leap to 24-bit. I mean, does iTunes
store even offer anything lossless yet, even in 16-bit?
Worst case scenario is that they are developing some mongrel hirez aac
format ? 24/96 but done with perceptual coding so the filesize is at CD
Mnyb;614320 Wrote:
Worst case scenario is that they are developing some mongrel hirez aac
format ? 24/96 but done with perceptual coding so the filesize is at CD
size or something.
That would surely sound good enough, but leave you with all other
problems a propriatary lossy format has
Wombat;614329 Wrote:
Recent lossy codecs are already floating point and have no bit depth in
a way PCM wavs have. So if you feed them with 24bit files and no higher
sampling rate i doubt the files will be different much cause the
psycho-acoustic will leave the music content below the noise
Mnyb;614334 Wrote:
Very likely so but I wonder if one gets better result compressing to
mp3 from 24/96 or 16/44.1 ?
I doubt that. The developers of mp3 and their test sample arsenal no
and never had a 24bit sample that only was transparent when restoring
more then 16bit. If so i am really
Several other news sources have also reported that iTunes will probably
be offering 24-bit audio soon.
http://edition.cnn.com/2011/TECH/web/02/22/24.bit.music/
http://www.geekistry.com/2011/02/22/24-bit-music-coming-to-itunes/
In my humble opinion, people who can tell for sure they're able to
distinguish 24/96 from 16/44.1 either have not compared versions of the
same recording, or are fooled by their brain.
Hmm out of my 100 of so dvda i have one where the CD master is very
likely the same ?
I think I can here
Mnyb;614023 Wrote:
Hmm out of my 100 of so dvda i have one where the CD master is very
likely the same ?
I think I can here a small improvemement in favor of 24/96 ;) so it is
not easy to compare.
I have two 24/96 recordings for which I also have the CD version. Of
course I have no idea
Mnyb;614023 Wrote:
I _think_ I can here a small improvemement in favor of 24/96 ;)
guidof;614045 Wrote:
I also _think_ that I hear a *-very small-* improvement in favor of
24/96
You shouldn't be _thinking_ that much, guys.
Beware psycho-acoustics... ;)
--
sebp
'Last.fm'
Just to be clear:
I have made some experiments on my system with my ears, where I just
could not hear any difference between standard and hires files.
I wish I could, but I honestly couldn't.
This doesn't mean other people won't hear differences.
My point is just that the human brain is a
sebp;614063 Wrote:
Brain's even such a curious thing that, even if I'm firmly convinced I
cannot distinguish 24/48 from 16/44.1, I'm still downloading 24/48 from
BW's SoS.
Go figure... :D
Perhaps you are not that firmly convinced? Deep, deep down, maybe there
is a smidgeon of doubt?
I
guidof;614065 Wrote:
Perhaps you are not that firmly convinced? Deep, deep down, maybe there
is a smidgeon of doubt?
No doubt, really, just getting what I've paid for.
--
sebp
'Last.fm' (http://www.last.fm/user/sebp)
Post processing is another factor. And the major factor for me
I do room correction and uses my tone controlls subwoofer fillter and
sometimes i use multichannel modes on stereo material ( this works 5.1
can help the stereo illusion imensly, this is another way of figthing
your acoustics and
sebp;613588 Wrote:
In my humble opinion, people who can tell for sure they're able to
distinguish 24/96 from 16/44.1 either have not compared versions of the
same recording, or are fooled by their brain.
I can tell you the difference can be heard in some very specific cases.
But it is so
Griffin;613653 Wrote:
The 24/96 has a bit more bite there than it's downsampled 16/44 variant
as converted for a SB receiver.
Which could well be related to either the noise shaping algorithm used
by SoX for downsampling, or by differences in the way the Receiver and
the Touch handle S/PDIF.
People are simply obsessed with numbers. Simple numbers. Which should be
as high as technically possible. E.g. the widespread Megapixel obsession
when it comes to digital cameras. 'The Megapixel Myth'
(http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/mpmyth.htm)
--
Soulkeeper
-that is not dead which can
Even CDs are 16-bit, and the sonic quality of a CD is an accepted
definition of consumer-worthy HD quality.
That sentence is basically the entire argument
--
adamdea
adamdea's Profile:
Yeah, I understand the overall limited downside, especially with how the
internet in the US is right now, with wildly different speeds and
accessibility, it is not in any way practical at the moment or the near
future. It can take a couple of hours to download 96/24 files on a
decent DSL, and
amey01;613425 Wrote:
The true advantage comes from higher sampling rates. But people seem
obsessed with bit-depth as well.
Oh, really?
Technically speaking, 24 bit-depth allow to reproduce the sound of a
fly farting, immediately followed by the sound of a thunderclap, both
being at relative
rayman1701;613508 Wrote:
I mean really, too much dynamic range, too low a noise floor, really
that's the best you could come up with for an argument against it?
I think the guy's point (which admittedly he doesn't seem to explain
well enough) is that lowering the noise floor and going beyond
sebp;613512 Wrote:
Oh, really?
Technically speaking, 24 bit-depth allows to reproduce the sound of a
fly farting, immediately followed by the sound of a thunderclap, both
being at relative realistic levels.
Higher sampling rates just allow the reproduction of higher
frequencies, which
There is no question that sound quality corresponds to recording quality
and attention to detail by the recording engineer and that many 44.1/16
CDs can sound amazing (think XRCD) and that far too many totally suck
due to loudness wars and compression.
Be that as it may, when you have an
Claiming that 16 bits provides 96 dB of dynamic range ignores the fact
that the distortion rises as the number of bits decreases. For an
analog system, it is OK to define the dynamic range as the ratio of the
loudest signal that can be produced to the quietest (or the noise
floor). But I have a
adamdea;613505 Wrote:
Even CDs are 16-bit, and the sonic quality of a CD is an accepted
definition of consumer-worthy HD quality.
That sentence is basically the entire argument
it's also twaddle...
--
Phil Leigh
You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it
ain't
Phil Leigh;613546 Wrote:
it's also twaddle...
Well said
I couldn't agree more.
--
TerryS
TerryS's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=40835
View this thread:
TerryS;613524 Wrote:
Claiming that 16 bits provides 96 dB of dynamic range ignores the fact
that the distortion rises as the number of bits decreases. For an
analog system, it is OK to define the dynamic range as the ratio of the
loudest signal that can be produced to the quietest (or the
Phil Leigh;613554 Wrote:
Except it doesn't work like that in practice because we don't record at
16 bits or less, we record at 24 (OK let's call it an effective 21 in
reality) and dither down to 16, effectively masking (decorrelating) the
quantization distortion.
Thus the effect of
mdconnelly;613521 Wrote:
There is no question that sound quality corresponds to recording quality
and attention to detail by the recording engineer and that many 44.1/16
CDs can sound amazing (think XRCD) and that far too many totally suck
due to loudness wars and compression.
I definitely
Phil Leigh;613546 Wrote:
it's also twaddle...
Marvelous word - it's been awhile since I've seen it used. I spewed
coffee on the keyboard...
Very amusing
Thanks
Jim
--
usbethjim
All wireless (Linksys WRT54GS) except NAS (ReadyNAS PRO - 3GB RAM - 5 X
1TB drives - XRAID2 - Squeezebox Server
Gizmodo has published a new article as to why 24-bit audio is not
appropriate for end users:
http://gizmodo.com/#!5768446/why-24+bit-audio-will-be-bad-for-users
--
mortslim
mortslim's Profile:
Am I the only one who didn't get the author's point? 24 bit = larger
files. Okay... But in terms of the listening experience, I'm not clear
on the downside.
--
ShutterShock
Tim
Living Room: Duet, Bryston B60R w/built-in DAC, PMC FB1i Speakers
Kitchen: Boom
Bedroom: Boom
The point is that there really is no advantage for the end listener with
24 bit audio files. This is especially true with the current state of
things where albums are being produced with the dynamic range squashed
(i.e. the loudness war).
What I would love to see is CD quality (16 bit 44.1 kHz)
ShutterShock;613385 Wrote:
Am I the only one who didn't get the author's point? 24 bit = larger
files. Okay... But in terms of the listening experience, I'm not clear
on the downside.
There isn't really a downside, it's just that there is no upside, hence
the con.
--
maggior
Rich
The true advantage comes from higher sampling rates. But people seem
obsessed with bit-depth as well.
--
amey01
amey01's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=11274
View this thread:
93 matches
Mail list logo
