advertisement


Blind ABX test shows difference between 44.1 and 88.2

maxflinn said:
Yup, humans won't hear anything different due to a higher res than 320k, assuming the same master, though for some there are psychological benefits.
Click to expand...

Hang on, 320K defines no specific DR or maximum sampling rate - it's a (dynamic) compromise. So not sure how you can make such a statement, even if we assume that 14bit (say) DR and 20KHz frequencies (say) are the limit of human hearing?
 
Werner said:
You can't. With an engineered music sample and user training you can very likely break 320k MP3.
Click to expand...

Yes and I would like the test to be more extreme - not trying to hear the difference between 16 bit and 24 bit, but a sample test between 320k and 24 bit as a test, with such a massive gap in resolution is it possible to hear the difference in this particular circumstance?
 
beammeup said:
Yes and I would like the test to be more extreme - not trying to hear the difference between 16 bit and 24 bit, but a sample test between 320k and 24 bit as a test, with such a massive gap in resolution is it possible to hear the difference in this particular circumstance?
Click to expand...
I think the expression "massive gap in resolution" might be a bit misleading.
 
Robert said:
It is customary for insecure subjectivists to trawl the web looking for the merest scrap of evidence to support their claims, as a spoiler for having to accept the obvious.

Therefore I shall introduce a spoiler from the other side of the the fence - namely that the files have been down-sampled, by a process we cannot know presumably without either purchasing the AES paper or contacting the authors.

Therefore, sadly, the test must be viewed with suspicion until it can be proven that the downsampling is transparent.
At best this test compares 88.2 with a down-sampled version - it doesn't compare two sampling rates in isolation but also the sample rate reduction process.

Nevertheless it warms the heart to see former sceptics firmly embracing ABX as a valid method for comparison, and holding up the apparent 'results' to support their arguments. This is truly a mark of progress.

You see, nobody can win at this game ;)
Nice try though!
Click to expand...

Folks are gonna believe what they want to believe. Evidence be damned. QED.
 
Vital said:
Are you saying that ADCs and DACs have a "native" bitrate and that using 44.1 native DACs will sound best for CD for example? Or am I misunderstanding you?
Click to expand...
SOME do. Several PC soundcards, especially some Creative Labs cards, really worked at 48k and converted 44.1 on the fly (badly) to 48k.
It comes down to choice of crystals and DAC chips, unless you have a dual crystal design, supporting both clock families properly
 
paskinn said:
What's supposed to be the point of all this? Both sides just shout and shout, no-one listens. No one agrees. So, again, what's the point?
You might find it just as useful to 'debate' where a circle begins and ends.....
Click to expand...

Mm hmm.

Less is more. Unless more is.
 
Vital said:
Makes sense, kinda.

Could you explain what you mean a little more? Are you saying that ADCs and DACs have a "native" bitrate and that using 44.1 native DACs will sound best for CD for example? Or am I misunderstanding you?
Click to expand...


Since the mid to late 1990's pretty much everything you hear on CD will have been recorded at a higher resolution, mixed at a higher resolution, then mastered at a higher resolution. Pro Tools went 24 bit in 1997.

As a final step, that recording will have been down sampled, using any one of a number of sample rate converters, in order for it to meet the Red Book (CD) standard.

At this point, a number of available SRC's (sample rate converters), have been shown to be less than perfect and to introduce artifacts. This situation has improved over the past half a decade or so but there is no guarantee that the CD you listen to has been through a competent SRC.

Again since the Nineties, nearly all DAC's have had a native resolution of greater than 16 bit. The last 16 bit devices I remember were the Philips multibit based players of that era - although I'm far from certain about that.

My point really is that it would be preferable to me to hear the musician's work at the resolution it was mixed and mastered at, on a device that has that native resolution. Avoiding any steps that one can between the musicians and the listener has the potential to benefit the end result.
 
merlin said:
Since the mid to late 1990's pretty much everything you hear on CD will have been recorded at a higher resolution, mixed at a higher resolution, then mastered at a higher resolution. Pro Tools went 24 bit in 1997.

As a final step, that recording will have been down sampled, using any one of a number of sample rate converters, in order for it to meet the Red Book (CD) standard.

At this point, a number of available SRC's (sample rate converters), have been shown to be less than perfect and to introduce artifacts. This situation has improved over the past half a decade or so but there is no guarantee that the CD you listen to has been through a competent SRC.

Again since the Nineties, nearly all DAC's have had a native resolution of greater than 16 bit. The last 16 bit devices I remember were the Philips multibit based players of that era - although I'm far from certain about that.

My point really is that it would be preferable to me to hear the musician's work at the resolution it was mixed and mastered at, on a device that has that native resolution. Avoiding any steps that one can between the musicians and the listener has the potential to benefit the end result.
Click to expand...
I think this is fair enough as far as it goes. But
a. Could possibly be a difference if the SRC was done badly is not that much of a rallying cry. I think Werner refers to matters like this rather aptly as being ones of personal hygiene

b. I'm not absolutely sure that in every case there is a single unique format in which all of the mixing mastering and production was carried out ie there may have been some conversion to use particular effects. If there is such a format I'm not sure that we are always told what it was.

Like a fair few people around these parts I suspect, I subscribe to the B& W society of sound series which gives me every month an LSO live recording in 24/48. Many of these recordings were originally published as SACDs. I inquired as to whether the recordings were made in 24/48 and they confirmed that they were made in a variety of formats (I can't recall the details but certainly not always, and possibly never, in 24/48).

I always download the 24/48 rather than the 16/44 because "why not?", but it's conceivable that it could be worse than the 16/44 version. Then again I've not noticed any difference on the few occasions I have rather loosely compared them
 
adamdea said:
Like a fair few people around these parts I suspect, I subscribe to the B& W society of sound series which gives me every month an LSO live recording in 24/48. Many of these recordings were originally published as SACDs. I inquired as to whether the recordings were made in 24/48 and they confirmed that they were made in a variety of formats (I can't recall the details but certainly not always, and possibly never, in 24/48).
Click to expand...

I found that several of the recordings I downloaded from B&W SoS were zero-padded from 16-bit material.
 
As someone else said, people are going to believe what they want to believe.

I can only point out that it's unlikely that the CD that you buy or download is not in some way corrupted from the original waveform. It's up to each individual to decide whether that's important to them and whether it forms the basis for their thinking.
 
merlin said:
Since the mid to late 1990's pretty much everything you hear on CD will have been recorded at a higher resolution, mixed at a higher resolution, then mastered at a higher resolution.
Click to expand...

If you mean 24 bit and perhaps 48kHz too, then yes. But if you mean proper hires (88.2k and more), then no. I don't have many dealings with the recording industry, but more often than not I get to hear that the number of tracks take priority over the sample rate. And mixing 67 tracks at 192kHz is bound to choke the system...
 
adamdea said:
Like a fair few people around these parts I suspect, I subscribe to the B& W society of sound series which gives me every month an LSO live recording in 24/48. Many of these recordings were originally published as SACDs. I inquired as to whether the recordings were made in 24/48 and they confirmed that they were made in a variety of formats (I can't recall the details but certainly not always, and possibly never, in 24/48).
Click to expand...

I think Tony Faulkner was the recording engineer for quite a few of the LSO live performances; he is well know for his enthusiasm for hi-res and DSD and has lots of fancy dCS kit so his recordings are likely to have been as high-res as possible at the time. In this article for example he talks about recording at 176kHz. It's frustrating, at least for a few people like me, that his masters have never been released in their original form despite the technology to do so now being available.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top