> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "SurroundSound" group.
> To post to this group, send email to Surrou...@googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> SurroundSoun...@googlegroups.com
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/SurroundSound
>
Actually it is not to say 44.1/16 is perfectly fine it is to say it
starts with source then whatever sampling format you use should be
sufficient. The problem comes in QC of the product, dithering as said
in the article, remastering by eliminating tape noise if oresent and
artifacts from analog tape all cause a loss of fidelity and
transparency.
For a comparison take the 2000 WYWH Floyd reissue, the DVD-A at 640K
stereo, the vinyl and the Blue Ray disc. The Blu Ray wins hands down
with the vinyl as a second because it is the best reproducer of the
original source. But ask yourself is the original source good? Would
it have sounded better had it been properly mastered for the forum it
was on? Why does theQuad on the same disc DVD-V and same 640k give
Perhaps we should refrain from condemnatory speculation on what was and
was not done in the mixing suite, in the absence of testimony from Mssrs.
Wilson, Guthrie, etc??
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/SurroundSound
Or it's to acknowledge the very well established fact that the mind is
very easily fooled about such matters. And that's why serious researchers
use (double) blind methods to investigate such matters.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SurroundSound" group.
To post to this group, send email to Surrou...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to SurroundSoun...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/SurroundSound
So, research scientists are going to take some Absolute Sound/Stereophile
polemicist seriously, and stop using DBTs. Right. Peer-reviewed journals
of psychoacoustics will start accepting papers that rely on sighted
comparisons methods. Right. That's what a DBT being 'totally debunked'
would mean, but of course, that actually hasn't happened at all.
And I hope you're aware that use of double-blind methods isn't limited
audio research.
> Personally I only concern myself with what I can hear on my equipment,
> which is mediocre, but with some consideration for a brighter future
> when my equipment will be better. I just hope my ears stay working
> well enough.
> I have said that 24/96 is far superior to 16/44.1 when using a good
> vinyl source of a dynamic recording.
Well, since the effective 'resolution' of vinyl hardly even approaches 16
bits, and the audibility and fidelity of vinyl content above 20kHz is
problematic at best, it's hard to see why anything beyond Redbook rates
are needed for needledrops, unless one plans to do extensive digital
postprocessing (in which case, do it at 24 or 32 bits).
Btw it's not just me. The author of one of the best vinyl restoration
tools out there considers 16bits and 44/48 kHz SR to be entirely adequate
for vinyl transfer to digital:
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SurroundSound" group.
To post to this group, send email to Surrou...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to SurroundSoun...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/SurroundSound
Spectrograms aren't a particularly good tool for measuring dynamics -- the
difference over time between the noise floor and the signal -- and even if
they were, they would not show vinyl playback dynamics to be 'far
superior' to 16 bit digital, which can encompass a dynamic range of 96 dB
(even more with dither and noise shaping). And resolution is basically a
function of signal versus noise; as a general rule the more noise there
is, the harder it is for the human ear to resolve small differences. That
applies in both analog and digital realms.
> It is also very pratical as I said before to rip vinyl at a high bit
> resolution and then use those to go down to whatever format you need.
> This will minimize digital errors and capture everything possible in
> the process af archiving. Your article is by an expert who obviously
> does not listen to or care much for the real sound of vinyl and
> considers it an inferior reproducer. I should think if this is hard
> for him to see, he might try listening instead.
So, like realafrica, you've thrown wild, and inaccurate, jabs at someone
you don't know, instead of offering a serious rebuttal. And how very
bizarre that you'd accuse someone who actually went to the trouble of
writing a feature-laden vinyl restoration software tool, of not
appreciating vinyl enough. I'm sure he'd be amused.
And you sound like you don't have a substantial rebuttal, so you've taken
a wild potshot...and missed.
But for the record (pun intended) test your ears on these.
Let's have some nice examples of bits making a difference; listen to the
Beatles remasters on CD then on the USB stick. Listen to the vocals;
question which are correct? Now get your vinyl copy of your favourite disc.
Copy it to 44/16 then 44/24 listen to the vocals, which one is best?
Now if you have speakers that have real bandwidth (like floorstanders) now
copy the same track to 96/24, listen to vocals again and listen to the
additional space, air and height that was lacking on the 44 version, that's
bits and sampling rates done with.
To me copying vinyl is like playing vinyl; each audiophile has there own
favourite record decks and arms/cartridges/amp combination, - when I listen
to digital vinyl that's what I hear and it sometimes ruins the experience -
it's the old adage crap in = crap out. Nothing better than high end kit
though, great sounding but not sonically neutral, hence some of the great
rips with $$$$££££'s worth of gear.
Sonic Neutrality to me only comes from the tape, which has and always will
be the starting point for older recordings.
Back to bits; For some of us (me) I need this extra space and resolution of
96/24 or similar and I do find that upsampling, although it does not add in
extra data, does make CD sound better and also removes digital greyness,
which is loss of detail on 16 bit.
Onto Aqualung, having now listened to both versions on the BD - that's quad
and 5.1; it sounds to me that the original Quad (and stereo) was very poorly
mastered. First of all the quad version sounds like the (tape) equalisation
was wrong and that some form of studio compression was used. There is also
analogue delay and the whole album has a feedback ring to it.
And that is the difference with the 5.1, I think SW has gone back to the
original source tape, pre-compression, pre-analogue delay (which meant hiss)
and the result is a very dry and to me stunning mix. Iain Anderson has never
sounded so real, Martin Barre sounds tight and the distinct absence of
acoustic feedback (ringing) gives a much firmer sound. Hats off SW to me
this and Discipline are the best remasters (remixes) ever.
--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SurroundSound" group.
To post to this group, send email to Surrou...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to SurroundSoun...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/SurroundSound
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2012.0.1901 / Virus Database: 2109/4751 - Release Date: 01/18/12
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/SurroundSound
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2012.0.1901 / Virus Database: 2109/4752 - Release Date: 01/18/12
I’m sure some Radiohead would sound better with more bits, it’s a shame we haven’t heard them. Compare the REM collection, no comparison with CD or for the matter with vinyl, the DVD-As are just so much better. Or Talking Heads etc etc. What is the crying shame is the release of so much music with Dynamic Range Compression - all so that you can fall under a bus while listening…. Just to remind you http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war
MY NEPHEW (IN-LAW) HATES DISNEYLAND
===================================
It's true! He feels the rides are scary and the crowds are too loud.
What a pity.
I love Disney. Make the rides scarier! Make the crowds louder!
While the rest of the world enjoys 2-channel MP3s or 2-channel CD
audio, we're rich in audio experiences.
And why shouldn't we? Artists, please, embrace us....
Our group so rules!!!!
I love you all and PM me for personal french-kissing sessions!
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SurroundSound" group.
To post to this group, send email to Surrou...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to SurroundSoun...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/SurroundSound
Why? Does Radiohead records tracks with >96dB of dynamic range? To my
knowledge, no, they do not.
> it's a shame we
> haven't heard them. Compare the REM collection, no comparison with CD or
> for
> the matter with vinyl, the DVD-As are just so much better. Or Talking
> Heads
> etc etc.
See the waveform snapshot of a Talking Heads DualDisc (stereo track) in
this post:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=13418313#post13418313
Not a heck of a lot of dynamic range there. Certainly no need for 24 bits
as a delivery format for this audio signal. Yet, it sounds great (IMO).
Could it be that...OTHER choices in the mastering matter *as much or more*
than the bit depth or the peak-to-average ratio?
HDCD was no panacea for compression. As with 'high rez', it was no
guarantee that the actual mastering would retain a large dynamic range.
For many HDCDs, there is no difference in DR between the decoded and
nondecoded states. That's because 'Peak Extension' was optional. So if the
nondecoded version has 'modern' (limited DR) mastering -- as is the case
for the Van Halen HDCDs -- the decoded version doesn't expand on that.
Even *with* Peak Extension I've seen no, zero, examples of HDCD releases
that actually *require* more than 16 bits to capture their full dynamic
range. We're talking about sourcing from analog tapes of acts from the
1970s and 80s -- the content on those tapes already falls within that 96
dB limit.
The one undisputed use for 24 bits is in digital recording and digital
production -- it gives more headroom in the former, and prevents audible
accumulation of rounding errors in the latter. That's it. Assuming the
converters are the same high quality, simply doing a transfer of , say, a
Beatles master tape at 16 vs 24 isn't going to gain you more 'air around
the vocals' or whatever. And certainly *vinyl* , noiser than tape and
noisy enough to be 'self-dithering', isn't going to present a challenge to
16 bit technology.
That's not to say vinyl sounds *bad*. It's just to say vinyl isn't
magical or technically unsurpassable. In fact it's got some well-known
limits, and crucially, some well-known euphonic distortions that are very
likely what give it its 'sound'. And that 'sound' is easily and
*completely* captured on a 16bit/44/kHz needledrop.
> --
The historical fact is, the biggest push for digital home audio in the 70s
up through the advent of CD, came from classical music production
professionals and classical fans. Apparently vinyl's well-noted flaws
(which extend beyond 'mechanical noise') were all to real to them.
The rest of your anecdotes are, well, anecdotes.
> My rebuttal would be if we could remove the mechanical and other
> artifacts from vinyl it is fact it could reproduce a 90 db or better
> noise floor,
But you can't remove those artifacts, can you? You can't change the laws
of physics, either.
The fact is without having to remove 'artifacts', redbook digital can
ALREADY reproduce >90dB of dynamic range.
I have this usenet post (by an audio pro I admire) bookmarked for its
succinct rendition of what vinyl is and isn't:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.audio.high-end/msg/92fc0487580ffa52?hl=en&dmode=source
NB this part:
"In any case, there is NO way to avoid L-R enhancement, tracing distortions,
surface noise (it's not dirt, it's basic physics), and the like, and
yes, they ARE audible, albeit not very audible at their theoretically
best
Now, there's NO reason not to like their results, since it's been
shown time and time again that they CAN SOUND NICE, but please,
Curtis, accept the fact that your description of LP is not altogether
what you think it is.
Now, my LP system isn't up to yours, I'm sure, but it's interesting,
it does sound REAL NICE for some LP's on some cuts. Now, given the
training I've had (not all by choice) I can easily recognize some of
that "nice" as distortions that sound nice. You know what? I don't
care. Nice is nice."
> would not be missing information due to sampling or fake
> dithering and noise shaping and would be a very accurate way to
> reproduce any waveform including music.
Dither and noise shaping remove information? Yes, that *would* be 'fake',
but I've never heard of it.
> It is as close as you will get
> to the original waveform other than the original waveform.
Actually, no, because there's is physical 'writing' and 'reading' of that
waveform that takes place at multiple steps in the production and playback
of vinyl. Imperfections are introduced at every one. Meanwhile a digital
capture of the master analog tape (which like all media is limited in
bandwidth and 'resolution') can be as complete as you want it to be (you
want to capture that ultrasonic carrier signal? Just up the sample rate)
and more measurably 'perfect' than any process involving scraping or
reading grooves in metal or plastic.
> Same argument applies to surround sound. We now have the technology to
> have near perfect surround reproduction and what do we get? Movie
> surround. The lazy easy route instead of quality.
I *love* surround -- not just surround mixes, all my stereo sources get
upmixed too -- but it is far from perfect right now, if perfect is defined
as accurately reproducing real 360-degree spatial cues (i.e., 3-D 'high
fidelity'). Happily most surround releases aren't even trying to present
that -- they are studio productions where 'spatial' cues are largely
artificial.
As it happens the psychoacoustic imperfections of current surround
technology were being heatedly discussed on AVSforum in the last day or
two -- start at post #42 here.
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=21494687#post21494687
But make sure you level match and compare blind, if you're comparing tow
audio samples.
> Let's have some nice examples of bits making a difference; listen to the
> Beatles remasters on CD then on the USB stick. Listen to the vocals;
> question which are correct? Now get your vinyl copy of your favourite
> disc.
> Copy it to 44/16 then 44/24 listen to the vocals, which one is best?
>
> Now if you have speakers that have real bandwidth (like floorstanders) now
> copy the same track to 96/24, listen to vocals again and listen to the
> additional space, air and height that was lacking on the 44 version,
> that's
> bits and sampling rates done with.
No,it's not. Not in the least. Sorry. It's just another testimonial
amounting to 'I hear it, so it's real.' That doesn't hold up in the court
of science.
Thanks Stephen; I really think it is down to aural memory which is a bit like wine-tasting with oral memory, once somebody points out an oakey finish you never forget it, like it or dislike it it’s there.
I’ve found myself very sensitive to phase, hence all the help I gave to OD on getting the SQ/QS stuff right, some folks cannot hear the difference between in and out of phase and phase delays, but it doesn’t mean that phase doesn’t exist; it has been understood for years.
I liken that, with phase, to what I (we) hear with different bits and sampling rates – what I rally against is denial that it exists as a noticeable entity and can show you journals from years ago when engineers denied that capacitors had an audible effect, yet nowadays dielectric behaviour is part and parcel of standard audio design.
Thinking about it that is the sound difference that you hear on Aqualung, the quad master sounds like it was mastered on a reel to reel with (tired) electrolytic coupling capacitors.
Here, here (or I should say hear, hear!!). There are loads of good contemporary musicians. Adding to August’s, check out Battles and Elbow. Two bands that I’d love to hear in surround.
Battles:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=-CXtJA34QGQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4D7RzUtFEps&feature=related (be sure to skip the ad)
or Elbow:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMD7FIpq11Q
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfVejpYc8Zc&feature=related
There’s lots of great new music.
From: surrou...@googlegroups.com [mailto:surrou...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of August Bleed
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2012 11:08 AM
To: surrou...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [SurroundSound] Re: Bit Rate Resolution, Sampling Rate, Upsample, and Lossless vs. Lossy ....
I think so! Gillian Welch, Sufjam Stevens, Wilco, Radiohead, and I'm missing 10 zillion. These are the ones off the top of my head--Not certain they would gain a thing by high res. Most of these sound incredible on CD and I honestly can't imagine the extra bits making a 'bit' of difference. In fact listening to the 180gr vinyl versions doesn't really improve things either.
OK then, we can stop right here. Apparently what 'most people here'
believe trumps a century of scientific investigation in to perception of
sound. That's usually things go in discussions with 'audiophiles'.
This isn't about me putting my testimonials or anecdotes or 'ears' up
against Lokkerman's or anyone else's. As such anecodotes have zero
dispositive value to me, I'd hardly expect mine to prove anything to you.
It's interesting though, that you guys instantly chose to read it as 'my
ears vs yours' and immediately descended to the level of disparaging my
ears/equipment/disposition. I suspect 'bragging rights' are in play here.
I also suspect that a good level-matched, double blind test of one's
'golden ears' would be most revealing.
Yet blind testing has also found an important place in wine tasting.
Often with amusing results. Sense memory is not perfect, after all, and
we humans have an endless capacity to fool ourselves into 'certainty'.
> I've found myself very sensitive to phase, hence all the help I gave to OD
> on getting the SQ/QS stuff right, some folks cannot hear the difference
> between in and out of phase and phase delays, but it doesn't mean that
> phase
> doesn't exist; it has been understood for years.
Phase matters in some instances, and not so much in others.
> I liken that, with phase, to what I (we) hear with different bits and
> sampling rates - what I rally against is denial that it exists as a
> noticeable entity and can show you journals from years ago when engineers
> denied that capacitors had an audible effect, yet nowadays dielectric
> behaviour is part and parcel of standard audio design.
And that's because of scientific tests showing the conditions under which
capacitors became audibly different? Where were these published?
Think about what you've written here. It means you could hook your preamp
up to an ADC and capture 'just about everything' including that 'detail'
and 'transparency' on a CD (I'd say you'd capture *everything* that's
audible, actually). So what does that say about the relative 'superbness'
of 14/44 vs vinyl? For a more fun thought experiment, consider the
reverse case -- start with a 'superbly' recorded CD, and feed the output
of the CDP to disc cutter. Which process do you think will results in the
most accurate copy?
> And for the record (also pun itended) what I ment by perfect surround
> is DVD-A and BDA reproduction of four or more channels in full bitrate
> PCM form making it un-nessesary to compress audio anymore and also
> allowing engineers to create 360 degrees of spatial sound but.....
To the extent that can be done today, that can be done with lossy encoded
signals as well as lossless. So 'perfection' needs a different
definition.
> and
> thats the butt surround today is defined as enhanced upmix as you
> suggested Steven.
Not really. Some surround mixes are more 'aggressive' than others, is
all. Few of them have much to do with actually *reproducing* a 360 degree
sound field from a real space. And ones that did would rarely if ever
have guitars coming from the rear speakers except as echo. A lot of
people heare probably wouldn't like them. I've noticed that what
'surroundophiles' tend to like are effects that don't even pretend to
mimic real space. More like a multichannel version of hard panning.
> You also obviously have the cool surround decoder I
> have that makes stereo into surround and does do some pleasing things
> to two channels.
I use Dolby Pro Logic IIX. Pretty standard stuff nowadays. Still cool
though.
> It is sad that Engineers and artists can do so much
> yet do so little and that we as consumers accept it which was my point
> about the J.G WYWH. It could have been an experience instead of a
> dissapointment. I simply don't accept paying almost $50 for lazyness
> and snake oil.
Of course you get to believe that it is 'laziness and snake oil' rather
than aesthetic choice -- but absent hard evidence or testimony from those
involved, it's nothing more than a belief.
And your braying here tells me something about you, too.
> > You also obviously have the cool surround decoder I
> > have that makes stereo into surround and does do some pleasing things
> > to two channels.
>
> I use Dolby Pro Logic IIX. Pretty standard stuff nowadays. Still cool
> though.
>
> --
All reproduction that isn't purely digital-to-digital results in loss.
Physics again.
So there will be *measurable* losses in both. Which will be greater? And
which losses will be more likely to be *audible*?
Or, to pose the entirely non-silly question that you've tried to danc away
from: again: Which process do you think will results in the most accurate
copy?
> I'm beginning to wonder if you actually have a clue about the
> technicalities of audio.
>
Same here, about you.
> Oh and by the way what is so high quality about 14/44?
Oh, and by thew way, what exactly isn't?
> I'd like to make a point here. It is now accepted that 16/44.1 is not good
> enough for accurate musical reproduction. It requires a minimum of 24/48
> to accurately capture all the nuances of music, but to do recordings
> justice (and to ensure that future is best served) all recordings should
> be at 32/96
Says who, exactly?
Here is the 'utility' of >16.44 in a nutshell:
It's been known for a long time (Fielder's old work) that a live recording
of a close mike'd orchestra playing at its loudest might require up to
118db of headroom to capture without distortion. That 'worst case'
scenario would necessitate more than 16 bits, but less than 24. Digital
*recording* is typically done at 24 these days simple to allow for a rare
peak.
It's been known for a long time that it is safer to do intense digital
signal processing at 24 bits or higher, rather than 16, to prevent the
accumulated tiny quantization errors from having an audible effect.
Digitial *processing* is typically done at 24 or 32 bits for this reason.
Conversion to 16 bits as the final step in production of a consumer
format, accrues no audible damage at normal listening levels, when done
properly.
It's been know for a long time that higher sample rates render
*potentially* audible issues with antialiasing and imaging filters moot.
So that is a matter of convenience, not necessity. The audible utility,
such as it is, is not in the capture of higher frequencies than 22 kHz.
>
>
> Think about what you've written here. It means you could hook your
> preamp
> up to an ADC and capture 'just about everything' including that 'detail'
> and 'transparency' on a CD (I'd say you'd capture *everything* that's
> audible, actually). So what does that say about the relative
> 'superbness'
> of 14/44 vs vinyl? For a more fun thought experiment, consider the
> reverse case -- start with a 'superbly' recorded CD, and feed the output
> of the CDP to disc cutter. Which process do you think will results in
> the
> most accurate copy?
>
>
'Beyond the science of the time'? That's simply nonsense. Home audio, if
anything, has typically lagged behind science. (Jitter was a well-known
phenomenon in communications science before it became a topic of [usually
hysterical] discussion in audio). Loudspeaker and room DSP makers today
are benefiting from the scientific work performed by people like Toole and
Olive at Harman.
And I am very well aware of debates as 'all amplifiers sound the same'
(which was NEVER the claim btw), having been tracking them since the
1980s. You might want to look up the best article of the bunch --
"The Amp/Speaker Interface: Are Your Loudspeakers Turning Your Amplifier
into a Tone Control?" E. Brad Meyer, Stereo Review, June 1991, page 5
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SurroundSound" group.
To post to this group, send email to Surrou...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to SurroundSoun...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/SurroundSound
In the meantime you might well drag out those old issues of SR and check
out Tom Nousaine's articles describing blind tests of audio components.
I'm focusing on two things, 1)what Redbook and 'hi rez' measurably do and
don't do and 2)how easy it is for *anyone* to fool themselves into
'hearing' a difference that isn't real. That second one isn't just
conjecture, it's a fact so well established that scientists who do
research into perception of audio *must* use double-blind methods, in
order to have have their results taken seriously (or published at all).
Controls like that don't guarantee a correct answer but they do at least
filter out a lot of the 'noise'.
--S
Actually, a 'flat earther' historically would be one who ignores the
science, and just believes what 'feels' right to them. Closer to "I trust
my ears' than 'how do you know your ears are right?'
> Or should it be cuboid? The point is that
> i know what I hear which is what got me into audio in the first place i.e.
> I had no choice because I love it so much and I will not have sleepless
> nights at night because I know what CD sounds like and what 24 bits sound
> like and 48k versus 96k, I just wish you could because you really don't
> know what you are missing.
Just keep telling yourself that and you'll be fine.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SurroundSound" group.
To post to this group, send email to Surrou...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to SurroundSoun...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/SurroundSound
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2012.0.1901 / Virus Database: 2109/4761 - Release Date: 01/23/12
I note again how many of you made this 'personal' right away...your best
response when your beliefs are challenged, is to question my
hearing/gear/purchases/personality/enjoyment of good sound, as if that was
pertinent to the points I raised. Classic audiophile defense reaction.
I've been doing that for years -- since HDCD first appeared. I first had
an X-DAC with HDCD decoding, later a Harman receiver, later an Oppo
player, now I've decoded all my HDCDs in software.
If you know what HDCD does and how it works, you'll know it's basically
impossible for it to have an effect on bass specifically.
HDCD is simply 1) high quality (Keith Johnson's design) ADC and 2) some
'tricks' to encode 20 bit audio at 16 bits. The most notable add on is an
optional 'Peak Extend' function. But again, as with 'high rez' the
question begged is: what sources that have been released on HDCD -- and I
have a bunch in the rock realm, typically sourced from old analog tapes --
ever needed more than 16 bits to fully capture their 'peak extension'?
In the end it seems more a clever (perhaps inadvertant) way to allow some
users to play dynamically 'compressed' (undecoded) version of a disc, and
others to play a 'wide range' version of the same disc. But anyone with
an AVR can do that today.
And too there are plenty of HDCDs where there is no peak extension whatever.
The waveform of the decoded and nondecoded versions are essentially
identical, except that the decoded version is up to 6db *lower* in
amplitude (like turning the volume knob down 6db) than the nondecoded
version.
> Let me tell you a story (copyright - Max Bygraves)
>
> A friend of mine runs a recording studio, and i was involved in tests he
> ran when he was testing his new Pro-Tools setup to determine whether the
> improvements of 24 bit recording and 48/96k sampling rate
>
> After many tests, it was decided that 24bit trounced 16 bit in every
> respect, but that there was actually hardly any difference between 48k and
> 96k sampling.
>
What 'tests' were these? Double blind, level-matched?
> This was done with normal instruments that would be used in what we would
> term a 'group'.
>
> BUT a later test, which i wasn't involved in, with a string quartet showed
> that 96k sampling was preferred over 48k. It would make sense in that the
> harmonic structure of classical stringed instruments is far richer than
> modern 'electric' instruments.
However 'rich' the instrument is in producing frequencies above a
fundamental, all of them that are within a given bandwidth are captured
by proper ADC at twice that bandwidth. So overtones (harmonics) up to 22
are captured by 44 kHz SR (redbook), 24 by 48kHzSR, 48 by 96SR. Which
can't matter unless one can actually *hear* beyond 24 kHz and up to 48kHz,
which humans can't.
Curious to know, how do you carefully match levels in all these
comparisons (so that you're not interpreting a simple level difference as
something else), and how do you prevent the various
psychological/unconscious biases in play, from influencing the outcome?
Chances are that at least some of the differences you think you hear might
be imaginary, or not due to 'high rez' at all. (The measurable differences
aren't imaginary, but that doesn't automatically mean you are hearing
them.) The question is then, are you OK with living with that chance? If
so, relax and enjoy -- that's what I usually do, btw. Or do you care to
find out what the real state of affairs is for your perception of a
particular difference? That can be interesting, and certainly ear-opening,
but also time consuming.
P.
Wrong right off the bat.
"This guy" doesn't say 'you don't experience a difference'. Far from it.
I don't deny the experience. I question the accuracy of the
interpretation. This guy says 'what makes you so sure the difference is
real'? Because science tells us that humans often make such mistakes.
Since you got that so fundamentally wrong, not sure the rest of your post
is pertinent.
Yes.
> I don't recall, in all you have said so far, that you have done so.
> Please listen to the exact same recording from a decent 24/96 or
> better source and it's redbook version, as dithered and down-sampled
> by Izotope_RX for example.
But you aren't asking me to to do it blind, and level-matched, and
determine which is which , say, 14 times out of 16??
(Which I *have* tried...have you?)
> There are many examples, easily available of excellent vinyl rips done
> as both 24/96 and 16/44 at the same time, on the same equipment, by
> the same person. I think these ought to satisfy your 'scientific'
> criteria for a good source for such a comparison.
>
*Vinyl* rips? If you want to really test the technology, you'd compare a
rip of a 'high rez' original recording (i.e., originally recorded at
96/24) to a 16/44 downconversion of that. Vinyl is already highly
compromised in both dynamic range and distortion-free bandwidth. Better to
at least use something sourced from analog master tapes, than *vinyl*.
> As for the tired old chestnut of humans not hearing above 20kHz. You
> know that is not a good argument for your cause, why trundle it out?
> You must know that it has been scientifically proven that the
> harmonics in a recording well above 22kHz have a definite AUDIBLE
> effect upon the range we can hear?
You must show me the evidence for that. (If you mean Oohashi's problematic
PET scans, that won't do, sorry)
> When it comes down to it what matters is how we perceive the music we
> are listening to.
Up to a point. When you make claims about cause and effect, you have
moved beyond that point.
Whether it is anything to do with the mind playing
> tricks on us or not, in a way is irrelevant. As is whether it is
> scientifically proven or not.
And yet you just tried to cite science to me up there. Why?
It's great that you did some kind of level matching! So, how closely did
you match them, and by what method? Also, the other half of the package --
blind comparison -- is equally as important. You don't seem to have
addressed that at all.
After all, we wouldn't want your comparison to be *useless* now, would we?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SurroundSound" group.
To post to this group, send email to Surrou...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to SurroundSoun...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/SurroundSound
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2012.0.1901 / Virus Database: 2109/4767 - Release Date: 01/26/12
44.1/24 - how much has this been used commercially? Is it a recent
'downloadable sale' novelty?
I just sold a Tascam DAT that was 24/48. And I saw a very scarce DAT on
EBay UK (Pioneer D-07?) that was 16/96.
P.
-----Original Message-----
From: surrou...@googlegroups.com [mailto:surrou...@googlegroups.com]
On Behalf Of Britre
Sent: 27 January 2012 01:08
To: SurroundSound
Subject: [SurroundSound] Re: Bit Rate Resolution, Sampling Rate, Upsample,
and Lossless vs. Lossy ....
Version: 10.0.1416 / Virus Database: 2109/4767 - Release Date: 01/26/12