Vintage HiFi Audio Forum
Audio Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: rgpit on August 15, 2014, 01:59:29 PM
-
http://benchmarkmedia.com/blogs/news/15121729-audio-myth-24-bit-audio-has-more-resolution-than-16-bit-audio?utm_source=Application+Notes&utm_campaign=f80542b9fc-AppNotes_15aug-+Audio+Myth+%28LINK%29&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_e28f43b8aa-f80542b9fc-125366521&mc_cid=f80542b9fc&mc_eid=4758a337c5 (http://benchmarkmedia.com/blogs/news/15121729-audio-myth-24-bit-audio-has-more-resolution-than-16-bit-audio?utm_source=Application+Notes&utm_campaign=f80542b9fc-AppNotes_15aug-+Audio+Myth+%28LINK%29&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_e28f43b8aa-f80542b9fc-125366521&mc_cid=f80542b9fc&mc_eid=4758a337c5)
-
Good read!
I'm happy with my 24bit USB DAC, it's a huge improvement over the on-board audio I was using.
-
I am a firm believer in using 24 bit in the editing/mastering stage. Any changes are much more transparent because the math used is so much more precise. But I also agree with the article that if you properly dither your finished 24 bit file (I use isoTope RX), it is all but impossible to hear a difference.
-
Interesting article; 24 bit does it. I particularly appreciate the last line.... "please do not underestimate the importance of a low-noise audio system"....this has been at least one primary audio goal from the beginning.
-
There are many points in this that I agree, and I will not pretend to be an expert on DSD, but I know for a fact that DSD is not simply a 1-bit PCM digital recording standard. DSD is a totally different system, where your bit-depth isn't necessarily going to determine your resolution. 24-bit is significantly better to listen to than 16-bit. What he seems to fail to mention is that DSD is rarely used for recording (if it all), and only in post production (still not often). Thrifty, I agree that 24 bit editing and mastering is very important, but I find it absurd that people don't just record in 24-bit as well; it's almost frustrating. And also, Izotope RX is brilliant software. It is the best restoration software out there next to CEDAR, which normally costs in the 10s of thousands of dollars.
-
I know, it struck me that the article refers to DSD as a "1 bit" format, but it is accurate. The technique for extracting the signal is way different, so it is not fair (I think) to state that quantization noise in DSD is "huge". I have tried to detect a difference in quality between the two formats but it is really hard for my tin ears. Truth to me is that 44.1/16bit sounds pretty good and 44.1/24 bit sounds great. Anything above that gets hard to qualify as better, since it can always depend on the sounds was mastered/mixed/messed with in addition to encoding at a higher rate.
P
-
I have tried to detect a difference in quality between the two formats but it is really hard for my tin ears.
This quote opens up a whole other can of worms. I firmly believe that many people who can hear the difference firmly believe that they can hear the difference. If they are unwilling to DBT, I give them zero credence.
-
DBT is not valid for the evaluation of stereo sound. Even Bell Labs, the inventors of stereophonic reproduction, knew that way back when.
-
DBT is not valid for the evaluation of stereo sound. Even Bell Labs, the inventors of stereophonic reproduction, knew that way back when.
Why?
What scientific process do you instead favor for evaluation of claims?
-
Some reading for you.
http://www.polkaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?104973-A-Historical-Overview-of-Stereophonic-Blind-Testing&highlight=bell (http://www.polkaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?104973-A-Historical-Overview-of-Stereophonic-Blind-Testing&highlight=bell)
http://www.polkaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?111056-Further-Thoughts-On-ABX-Testing-Of-Stereophonic-Audio-Systems&highlight=bell (http://www.polkaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?111056-Further-Thoughts-On-ABX-Testing-Of-Stereophonic-Audio-Systems&highlight=bell)
http://www.polkaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?98139-Questions-Regarding-Power-Cable-ABX-Test&highlight=test (http://www.polkaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?98139-Questions-Regarding-Power-Cable-ABX-Test&highlight=test)
Robert Harley's thoughts on the matter.
Now back to the question of the blinded testing. Here is what the now publisher (Robert Harley) of one of the major magazines wrote a few years ago....
Quote:
Blind tests nearly universally appear to indicate that no differences exist between electronics, cables, capacitors, etc. In fact, one infamous test "revealed" that no sonic differences exist between power amplifiers. Mark Levinson, NYAL Futterman OTL tube monoblock, NAD, Hafler, and Counterpoint power amplifiers were all judged to be sonically identical to each other and to a $219 Japanese receiver (footnote 7). This very test, wielded by the objectivists as proof that all amplifiers sound alike, in fact calls into question the entire blind methodology because of the conclusion's absurdity. Who really believes that a pair of Futterman OTL tube amplifiers, a Mark Levinson, and a Japanese receiver are sonically identical? Rather than bolster the objectivist's case, the "all amplifiers sound the same" conclusion of this blind test in fact discredits the very methodology on which hangs the objectivist's entire belief structure.
If differences do exist between components, why don't blind tests conclusively establish the audibility of these differences? I believe that blind listening tests, rather than moving us toward the truth, actually lead us away from reality.
First, the preponderance of blind tests have been conducted by "objectivists" who arrange the tests in such a way that audible differences are more difficult to detect. Rapid switching between components, for example, will always make differences harder to hear. A component's subtleties are not revealed in a few seconds or minutes, but slowly over the course of days or weeks. When reviewing a product, I find that I don't really get to know it until after several weeks of daily listening. Toward the end of the review process, I am still learning aspects of the product's character. Furthermore, the stress of the situation—usually an unfamiliar environment (both music and playback system), adversarial relationship between tester and listener, and the prospect of being ridiculed—imposes an artificiality on the process that reduces one's sensitivity to musical nuances.
Going beyond the nuts and bolts of blind listening tests, I believe they are fundamentally flawed in that they seek to turn an emotional experience—listening to music—into an intellectual exercise. It is well documented that musical perception takes place in the right half of the brain and analytical reasoning in the left half. This process can be observed through PET (Positron-Emission Tomography) scans in which subjects listening to music exhibit increased right-brain metabolism. Those with musical training show activity in both halves of the brain, fluctuating constantly as the music is simultaneously experienced and analyzed. Forcing the brain into an unnatural condition (one that doesn't occur during normal music listening) during blind testing violates a sacrosanct law of science: change only one variable at a time. By introducing another variable—the way the brain processes music—blind listening tests are rendered worthless.
-
What scientific process do you instead favor for evaluation of claims?
-
I believe you'll find the answer to your question in the links I provided.
Let me ask you one from the Robert Harley comments. Do you believe a test that results in a pair of Futterman OTL tube amplifiers and a Japanese receiver being sonically identical even remotely close to valid?
-
The fact that some people are deaf does not negate the validity of DBT. In fact, it negates the validity of anecdotal evidence, which is what many seem to favor as the gold standard in audio methodology. It seems to me that some people not hearing a difference between those two amplifiers proves that experience based rationale is utter hogwash.
-
PWK said it best.
-
I truly believe that people who scorn DBT are afraid that their own fallacies and shortcomings will be revealed. I also believe that many "upgrades" in audio are placebo effect. I don't really care what Joe Schmoe can and can't hear. I care what I can and can't hear. If I can't hear a difference, there isn't one (for me). Anyone who says otherwise is likely doing a reach around for your wallet or is influenced by someone who is.
-
After reading those links, I presume you did, that's all you can come up with!?!
Just so you know, the gentleman starting those threads is an EE with 2 doctorates, owns a consultant business in the telecommunications industry and is a professor. He is also published in the field of stereo sound reproduction.
I care what I can and can't hear. If I can't hear a difference, there isn't one (for me).
Do you come to your conclusions by conducting a DBT?
-
I come to my conclusions by listening. It's a skill that surprisingly not many have.
-
I am not an engineer, nor an academic, and don't understand how any combination of amps/speakers can be tested or compared when any given amp/speaker combination might sound different due to the impact of speaker impedance on the amps performance.
I particularly enjoyed the following..."It is a shame that Mr. Nousaine and some others view the pursuit of stereophonic audio (stereophony) as some sort of contest to be won rather than an attempt to recreate a realistic reproduction of the live concert experience in the listener's home."
I do know when I listen to something that makes me feel better than my own gear (that goosebump sensation). When that happens, I am usually motivated to upgrade (budget permitting).
-
Um... what's DBT?
-
I am not an engineer, nor an academic, and don't understand how any combination of amps/speakers can be tested or compared when any given amp/speaker combination might sound different due to the impact of speaker impedance on the amps performance.
I particularly enjoyed the following..."It is a shame that Mr. Nousaine and some others view the pursuit of stereophonic audio (stereophony) as some sort of contest to be won rather than an attempt to recreate a realistic reproduction of the live concert experience in the listener's home."
I do know when I listen to something that makes me feel better than my own gear (that goosebump sensation). When that happens, I am usually motivated to upgrade (budget permitting).
Precisely. Trust your ears, it only matters how a system sounds to you.
-
Um... what's DBT?
DBT = Double Blind Test. Listening to gear without knowing what you are listening to. High end manufacturers fear it because it has far more power to dissuade someone from a purchase than it does to persuade them.
FWIW, I don't rule out ascetics as an important factor in purchasing decisions. If the way something looks is important to someone, then they should certainly buy gear that looks good to them. I just think it is vital for people to understand that their perceptions of a piece of gear are influenced by their eyes and their expectations sometimes much more than they are by their ears.
I was VERY impressed when OBG posted here that the Focusrite I recommended to him did sound better than the $1000 DAC he had been using. Many people can only hear dollar signs. I encourage people to take the time to learn to listen.
I am currently recapping a plate amp with gold colored Nichicon caps. My wife commented on how much "prettier" the gold caps are than the black ones. Will the recap improve the sound? I don't know, I'm doing it mainly for purposes of longevity (and practice). Will the amp sound better to her? I suspect it will. Perception is powerful.
-
i don't understand why everyone posts these long comments, but still abbreviates everything they can...
regardless...
the whole "DBT" concept works in the way that you can pick out gear that sounds good to you, but let us not forget things like the Carver challenge, which was more or less based on the results of putting a bunch of scopes on the gear. it wasn't until AFTER that, that they did a "DBT". Speaking strictly as a professional, I would rather disregard a "DBT" and use equipment that specs out well on an audio precision unit. Flat and clear is more important in pro audio.
as for looks... yeah, it's nice to have nice looking things.
I won't buy Focusrite; everything I have ever heard by them (which has all been pro gear) has sounded very british. there always seems to be something in their circuits boosting mids.
-
I come to my conclusions by listening. It's a skill that surprisingly not many have.
So, no DBT. I see, said the blind man.
-
If days or weeks of critical listening are required to make a determination of which piece of gear sounds better, the difference must be very minor. Would you spend an extra 10 grand, 1 grand, or even a hundred bucks for that upgrade? I guess it depends on your disposable income?
-
I keep asking you for a better alternative, you keep dodging the question. At least BJ suggested measurement tools. I agree with him that specs are one very useful tool. My only problem with specs is that it is hard to say at exactly what threshold the specs are and aren't audible. That brings us back again to... listening.
Again, people who sell gear but are afraid to listen to it are usually the ones doing a reach around for your wallet (perhaps not coincidentally, they are also often the ones who won't post specs).
-
If days or weeks of critical listening are required to make a determination of which piece of gear sounds better, the difference must be very minor. Would you spend an extra 10 grand, 1 grand, or even a hundred bucks for that upgrade? I guess it depends on your disposable income?
Another voice of reason joins the fray. Not surprisingly, Ron has the "best sounding" setup I have heard.
-
I stand by the Roy Cizek method. It has always served me well.
-
I know he made speakers, but I don't know anything about his method.
-
I believe you'll find the answer to your question in the links I provided.
Let me ask you one from the Robert Harley comments. Do you believe a test that results in a pair of Futterman OTL tube amplifiers and a Japanese receiver being sonically identical even remotely close to valid?
F1Nut, if you have an opinion why not express it rather than being vague and referring others to links so they can study up on it for themselves.
-
My 2 cents worth.
Some people swear by Cerwin Vegas. Why? I have no idea. Perhaps they are neanderthals. But even neanderthals have a likes and dislikes.
I have been an advocate of 901's and still believe they have their strong points. so......
The bottom line, If it sounds good to you, then it is good for you.
My 2 cents.... for what it's worth.
Andrew
-
I believe you'll find the answer to your question in the links I provided.
Let me ask you one from the Robert Harley comments. Do you believe a test that results in a pair of Futterman OTL tube amplifiers and a Japanese receiver being sonically identical even remotely close to valid?
F1Nut, if you have an opinion why not express it rather than being vague and referring others to links so they can study up on it for themselves.
Based on that quote and other exchanges, it seems that F1 is much better at asking direct questions than he is at answering direct questions.
-
Based on that quote and other exchanges, it seems that F1 is much better at asking direct questions than he is at answering direct questions.
I too disagree with F1 on some levels especially on my opinion regarding the information of hafler surround information and its similarities to SDA information
Due to the fact that he is much more knowledgeable than myself, I can only agree to disagree
Bottom line: F1 knows his shit. but, the fact still remains, He is one heck of a Ball Breaker
-
I have a solution to this and have given this much thought over my maturation of my audio habit
How about a DBS or our own. or at least a single blind study (SBS) where the listener knows not of the amp they are listening to
I will contribute what you all seem to think is a shitty amp
Someone throw in a Carver of your choice, and someone donate a nice esoteric tube or solid state amp and lets do a SBS of our own.
I'd be curious to see the outcome.
In order for this to be possible, the listeners have no idea of the amps being used or the order at which they will be selected.
When the shop is open, I'm in!
Any takers? or better yet, anyone with enough salt to risk picking a lesser amp then what you are currently using?
-
Based on that quote and other exchanges, it seems that F1 is much better at asking direct questions than he is at answering direct questions.
I too disagree with F1 on some levels especially on my opinion regarding the information of hafler surround information and its similarities to SDA information
Due to the fact that he is much more knowledgeable than myself, I can only agree to disagree
Bottom line: F1 knows his shit. but, the fact still remains, He is one heck of a Ball Breaker
I'm not commenting on his knowledge, just his delivery.
-
I have a solution to this and have given this much thought over my maturation of my audio habit
How about a DBS or our own. or at least a single blind study (SBS) where the listener knows not of the amp they are listening to
I will contribute what you all seem to think is a shitty amp
Someone throw in a Carver of your choice, and someone donate a nice esoteric tube or solid state amp and lets do a SBS of our own.
I'd be curious to see the outcome.
In order for this to be possible, the listeners have no idea of the amps being used or the order at which they will be selected.
When the shop is open, I'm in!
Any takers? or better yet, anyone with enough salt to risk picking a lesser amp then what you are currently using?
The big problem with testing amps in this way is that you have to control all of the variables that produce different volumes. It is a universally accepted fact (at least I think it is universal, we can see if anyone disagrees) that louder gives the perception of better.
-
Based on that quote and other exchanges, it seems that F1 is much better at asking direct questions than he is at answering direct questions.
I too disagree with F1 on some levels especially on my opinion regarding the information of hafler surround information and its similarities to SDA information
Due to the fact that he is much more knowledgeable than myself, I can only agree to disagree
Bottom line: F1 knows his shit. but, the fact still remains, He is one heck of a Ball Breaker
I'm not commenting on his knowledge, just his delivery.
Why should he spend time re-stating what was said in the article? If you can't understand or don't agree with something therein then perhaps you can discuss that?
-
I have a solution to this and have given this much thought over my maturation of my audio habit
How about a DBS or our own. or at least a single blind study (SBS) where the listener knows not of the amp they are listening to
I will contribute what you all seem to think is a shitty amp
Someone throw in a Carver of your choice, and someone donate a nice esoteric tube or solid state amp and lets do a SBS of our own.
I'd be curious to see the outcome.
In order for this to be possible, the listeners have no idea of the amps being used or the order at which they will be selected.
When the shop is open, I'm in!
Any takers? or better yet, anyone with enough salt to risk picking a lesser amp then what you are currently using?
The big problem with testing amps in this way is that you have to control all of the variables that produce different volumes. It is a universally accepted fact (at least I think it is universal, we can see if anyone disagrees) that louder gives the perception of better.
c'mon hook em up, slowly turn em up and just listen... Let's shut our eyes and hear what gives us the biggest suderiferious hard-on.
-
F1Nut, if you have an opinion why not express it rather than being vague and referring others to links so they can study up on it for themselves.
Well, I did express my opinion of DBT.
Is it not better when someone learns for themselves rather than handing them the answer?
Has anyone read any of it and if so, please share your thoughts.
-
DBT vs. ( insert your preference here)
Tubes vs. SS
Analog vs. Digital
Can't we all just play nice >:D
Each has is merits, each has its place, each has its faults.
-
Based on that quote and other exchanges, it seems that F1 is much better at asking direct questions than he is at answering direct questions.
I too disagree with F1 on some levels especially on my opinion regarding the information of hafler surround information and its similarities to SDA information
Due to the fact that he is much more knowledgeable than myself, I can only agree to disagree
Bottom line: F1 knows his shit. but, the fact still remains, He is one heck of a Ball Breaker
I'm not commenting on his knowledge, just his delivery.
Why should he spend time re-stating what was said in the article? If you can't understand or don't agree with something therein then perhaps you can discuss that?
Because I am trying to engage another human being in conversation, not be endowed with wisdom from on high. I was interested in his thoughts, not some message board links.
-
Because I am trying to engage another human being in conversation, not be endowed with wisdom from on high. I was interested in his thoughts, not some message board links.
I do enjoy reading other's opinions, as well. It makes for a good read.
I look forward to knowledgeable prose relating to the passion you all have about the sound of your systems. And, (of course) pics of all your sexy gear.