The Audiophile Challenge

[mcbpete]

There are tons of people that can pick out 24bit files in blind tests.

 

I have a counter paper though - http://hlloyge.hl.funpic.de/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/audibility-of-a-cd-standard-ada-loop-inserted.pdf

[Guest nene multiple assgasms]

all I know is I've got dvd-audio discs (I'm talking about the high resolution stereo versions on them) that sound better than their corresponding cds and better than any standard cd I've heard.

[Guest Enter a new display name]

Claiming one can hear the difference between 16 & 24 bit is like claiming you have x-ray or infrared vision. The frequencies are there, this much is true. But the eyes don't see it, the ears don't hear it.

 

Frequencies? We aren't talking about sampling rate here. It's bit depth. I think you are confusing two different things. Ears are much more sensitive to bit depth. With sampling rate you have Nyquist's theorem, which says scientifically that you there is no point in digitally sampling audio anything greater than twice the limit of human hearing (plus guard-band). This is not the case for bit depth. There is no hard and fast rule for what bit depth humans are capable of hearing. There are tons of people that can pick out 24bit files in blind tests. Yes, there are studies that show that most people generally can't tell the difference, but there are also studies that show that people generally can't tell the difference between a 128kbps mp3 and non-compressed audio either, and you know that's bullshit from the example posted in this very thread. I think people are spending way too much time regurgitating bullshit they read on the internet instead of actually listening to anything. I'm the furthest thing from a fucking "audiophile". I could care less if something is sampled above 48khz, or what fucking cables you are using, or if your amplifier has tubes in it. The fact remains that is a very perceivable difference to me and plenty of other people between 24 bit and 16 bit audio. People that are claiming that this is scientifically impossible are completely full of shit.

I hope you enjoy your music encoded in 24mb/s for your own pride. :sup:

Edited March 16, 2011 by Enter a new display name

[mcbpete]

I hope you enjoy your music encoded in 24mb/s for your own pride. :sup:

I think you may have a decimal point in the wrong place my dear - It's closer to 2MB/s for a stereo 24bit wav....

[oscillik]

I hope you enjoy your music encoded in 24mb/s for your own pride. :sup:

I think you may have a decimal point in the wrong place my dear - It's closer to 2MB/s for a stereo 24bit wav....

nah, he's just suffering from the WATMM effect, like quite a few other people

[BobDobalina]

DVD audio is compressed, and compressed audio doesn't have a bit depth.

W A T M M

 

this particular quote is very lol

As for "MP3's have no bit depth": MP3's store the sound as amplitude over frequency, whereas a normal WAV has it as amplitude over time. The two are not directly comparable. In reality, most MP3's have a variable bit depth which often goes as low as 1 or 2 bits of ACCURACY, but with a much larger RANGE (in AAC the range is 64 bits, I think it's the same for MP3). It's because of this large RANGE that there is a _theorethical_ benefit to 24 bits playback.

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=55336

This coming from a admin and former AAC developer for Nero, I think he knows what he's talking about.

 

It's yards away from watmm's poop and batcock, but if anyone's interested in separating audio fact from fiction I highly recommend checking out the hydrogenaudio wiki and forums. Over ther, posting nonsense like "24-bit is better than 16 because I can definately hear it" without any proof to back it up will get you banned

 

And occilik IIRC correctly I'd already filed you under "pretentious audiophile twat" so it's good to see there's some consistency here.

Edited March 17, 2011 by Bob Dobalina

[blos]

I'm older than many here (40) so I thought I was doomed to fail this because of my declining high end frequency response. Although the Autechre piece was dead easy (soundstage and transients were gone in the MP3) the Glass had an interesting thing - I was listening intently to the highs and trying to pick them apart, which I couldn't, but I kept noticing quiet, rumbling noises which sounded like people shifting in their seats during the recording. When I checked the spectrum I realised these were all in the MP3 parts, particularly in the switch from FLAC to MP3, so they were caused by the encode and not the recording. Wonder if these were phase shifts or something - anyway they were clearly audible before I knew they were MP3 related.

Edited March 17, 2011 by blos

[oscillik]

DVD audio is compressed, and compressed audio doesn't have a bit depth.

W A T M M

 

this particular quote is very lol

As for "MP3's have no bit depth": MP3's store the sound as amplitude over frequency, whereas a normal WAV has it as amplitude over time. The two are not directly comparable. In reality, most MP3's have a variable bit depth which often goes as low as 1 or 2 bits of ACCURACY, but with a much larger RANGE (in AAC the range is 64 bits, I think it's the same for MP3). It's because of this large RANGE that there is a _theorethical_ benefit to 24 bits playback.

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=55336

This coming from a admin and former AAC developer for Nero, I think he knows what he's talking about.

 

It's yards away from watmm's poop and batcock, but if anyone's interested in separating audio fact from fiction I highly recommend checking out the hydrogenaudio wiki and forums. Over ther, posting nonsense like "24-bit is better than 16 because I can definately hear it" without any proof to back it up will get you banned

 

And occilik IIRC correctly I'd already filed you under "pretentious audiophile twat" so it's good to see there's some consistency here.

again, looks like he still thinks that compressed audio doesn't have bit depth!

[xy_politics]

On the Philip Glass track I managed to detect every transition within half a second or so of accuracy on my first go.. Even my old ears can tell! That's on a pair of £10 headphones in a noisy work environment.

 

 

0s - FLAC

6s - MP3

15s - F

22s - M

26s - F

37s - M

43s - F

45s - M

50s - F

57s - M

 

 

16 vs 24 bit sound - I can't tell any difference whatsoever. But in a studio situation with post-EQ, distortion, compression, 24 bit is a very welcome and very audible improvement.

[BobDobalina]

again, looks like he still thinks that compressed audio doesn't have bit depth!

 

An mp3 or other lossy compressed audio file has no inherent bit depth until it's decompressed/decoded for playback; that you don't understand this is your problem.

 

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=55342&view=findpost&p=500888

Taking the bit depth first. Lossy codecs don't have a fixed internal bitdepth - the effective bitdepth changes dynamically, frequency band by frequency band, moment by moment - that's how they work. Within a given frequency band, there are often only a few bits of resolution. However, the noise floor can easily be below that of a 16-bit signal. Many encoders can accept 24-bit samples as input. Just like 16-bit samples, most of the accuracy will be thrown away, but there will be moments (typically very quiet moments!) where some of the extra accuracy will be used in some way.

 

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=69200&view=findpost&p=613217

Lossy formats doesn't have bit depth because they doesn't store sample values.

[mcbpete]

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=55342&view=findpost&p=500888

Lossy codecs don't have a fixed internal bitdepth - the effective bitdepth changes dynamically.

 

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=69200&view=findpost&p=613217

Lossy formats doesn't have bit depth

So do they have a variable bit depth, or no bit depth at all - the two quotes appear rather contradictory ...

 

But yeah looking deeper to the way mp3s (for example) compresses audio information is an intriguing one, I hadn't really thought about it before ...

[TwiddleBot]

16 vs 24 bit sound - I can't tell any difference whatsoever. But in a studio situation with post-EQ, distortion, compression, 24 bit is a very welcome and very audible improvement.

 

of course. it's better to do everything in your production chain in as high quality as you can..

 

it's conceivably possible to tell the difference between 16 and 24-bit in theory. 24-bit gives you I forget, 144dB dynamic range versus 96dB dynamic range for 16-bit. for example 24-bit could reproduce the ~130dB dynamic range of an orchestra if you had proper amplification.

 

in practice though mixes don't ever use that kind of dynamic range.

 

i still prefer to have everything at my disposal at as high a quality as possible, as it opens things up to other uses (like remixing, etc)

[azatoth]

OOH, an audiophile battle...

 

[TwiddleBot]

it's the special olympics.

 

(and a slow day at the office lol)

Edited March 17, 2011 by TwiddleBot

[Guest nene multiple assgasms]

16 vs 24 bit sound - I can't tell any difference whatsoever. But in a studio situation with post-EQ, distortion, compression, 24 bit is a very welcome and very audible improvement.

 

of course. it's better to do everything in your production chain in as high quality as you can..

 

it's conceivably possible to tell the difference between 16 and 24-bit in theory. 24-bit gives you I forget, 144dB dynamic range versus 96dB dynamic range for 16-bit. for example 24-bit could reproduce the ~130dB dynamic range of an orchestra if you had proper amplification.

 

in practice though mixes don't ever use that kind of dynamic range.

 

i still prefer to have everything at my disposal at as high a quality as possible, as it opens things up to other uses (like remixing, etc)

 

forget about dynamic range. what about the difference in timbre from 16 to 24? does it just not exist for you because you have no objective way to measure it?

[Guest MrSparkle666]

I find being labeled an "audiophile" absolutely hilarious. Yeah, I use 80s digital hardware, bitcrush shit, record mixes to vhs tape, and listen to my music in mp3 format most of the time because I'm a fucking "audiophile".

 

The fact remains that I can hear a noticeable difference between 24bit and 16bit audio, and it's definitely not placebo, so I have to insist: Have any of you arguing against me actually compared 16bit to 24bit for yourselves? Or are you just regurgitating shit you read on the internet as usual.

[Guest Calx Sherbet]

i'm too much of an audiophile to even enjoy flac. i just sit in the studio and listen to the artist live

[oscillik]

i'm too much of an audiophile to even enjoy flac. i just sit in the studio and listen to the artist live

"DO IT GOODER! YOU'RE NOT PLAYING CLEAR ENOUGH!"

[TwiddleBot]

i`m so much of an audiophile that i wear earplugs all day and listen to the music in my MIND

[BobDobalina]

The fact remains that I can hear a noticeable difference between 24bit and 16bit audio, and it's definitely not placebo, so I have to insist: Have any of you arguing against me actually compared 16bit to 24bit for yourselves? Or are you just regurgitating shit you read on the internet as usual.

 

No 'fact' dude, what you're saying is a subjective statement about the being able to hear a noticeable difference between 16/24-bit audio, with no objective evidence to back it up. This is generally frowned upon in the scientific community (repeated statements like this get you banned at hydrogenaudio) and more commonly known as bullshit.

 

Your claim that you (and many others) are able to differentiate between 16- and 24-bit audio runs contrary to modern scientific understanding of human audio perception (e.g., see the link to the paper that mcbpete posted) namely that, exceptional conditions notwithstanding, people cannot perceive any difference between 16- and 24-bit audio. Since this is the case, the burden of proof is on you to prove otherwise.

 

If you're so confident that the differences you perceive are not placebo, pray tell, what measures have you taken to ensure that your listening experience isn't biased? If you really want to eliminate placebo/bias and objectively prove that you can hear a difference, you're going to have to do a blind/ABX test, which I doubt you'll do for fear of being proven wrong.

[Guest MrSparkle666]

I'd be perfectly willing to take a blind test. I've done AB tests on my own with other people in the room who could also hear the difference without knowing which file I as playing, and had a number of experiences where I noticed a bit rate reduction that I had no way of knowing was there beforehand. That's enough to satisfy myself that what I'm hearing is not placebo, but sure, I'll take a test.

 

That study that you keep referring to simply shows that on average people cannot tell the difference. It can in no way be taken as proof that there is no audible difference between 16bit and 24bit audio. Making that claim is a severe distortion of scientific results. That paper would be an excellent argument against the need for a higher bit-rate standard because it clearly shows that most people generally can't tell the difference, but as I said earlier, when similar blind tests are done with mp3 audio, most people can't tell the difference either. Yet, tests in this very thread show that there is an audible difference with mp3s, even though on average people can't tell the difference. I know the same thing to be true with 16bit vs 24 bit from my own experiences and that's good enough for me. I'm not going to listen to someone distorting science to claim that something that I, and others, can hear doesn't exist. There simply isn't anything close to scientific proof of that. Making an argument that there is scientific proof of something based on twisting the results of one solitary study is something that would also be frowned upon in the scientific community.

 

Unfortunately I can't offer any similar studies as a refutation because, as far as I'm aware, that study is the only real scientific study ever conducted on the matter. I couldn't find anything else. I could dig up other forum discussions, like this one, where people did blind AB tests and could hear a difference, but that would just be treated as hearsay anyway, so what's the point.

[MadnessR]

I'd be perfectly willing to take a blind test... but sure, I'll take a test.

So take one. Post pics online of the results. Thanks in advance for PROOF.

 

That study that you keep referring to simply shows that on average people cannot tell the difference.

"The tests were conducted for

over a year using different systems and a variety of subjects. The systems included expensive

professional monitors and one high-end system with electrostatic loudspeakers and expensive

components and cables. The subjects included professional recording engineers, students in

a university recording program, and dedicated audiophiles."

 

Unfortunately I can't offer any similar studies as a refutation because, as far as I'm aware, that study is the only real scientific study ever conducted on the matter. I couldn't find anything else. I could dig up other forum discussions, like this one, where people did blind AB tests and could hear a difference, but that would just be treated as hearsay anyway, so what's the point.

"I could proove you wrong but what's the point" haha

[Guest Ranky Redlof]

hi guys, i cant hear the different between a wav file and a 320 mp3

is this bad?

 

note that i dont have a special audiocard and use phantastic JB-systems monitors, maybe that has something to do with it

[Guest Adam]

I can't hear it too. But I'm with some gaming headphones and integrated motherboard soundcard so maybe it has something to do with it too.

[cruising for burgers]

 

 

 

 

 

sold in pairs, operate at extremely high frequencies -- much higher than the audio band -- actually in the microwave band above 1 Gigahertz. The Ultra Tweeters are connected to the output terminals of existing speakers with speaker cables -- preferably light, flexible ones -- since the Ultra Tweeters themselves are quite light. The Ultra Tweeter principle of operation is very unconventional. They don't generate sound in the audio band or even in the 20-100KHz band like super tweeters. They function in the Gigahertz band normally used for satellite and microwave communications. Ultra Tweeters organize and improve the energy flow in signal conductors as well as the internal wiring of speaker drivers, making the audio system perform more efficiently and synergistically. http://6moons.com/audioreviews/jsmr/ultra.html

 

Edited March 17, 2018 by THIS IS MICHAEL JACKSON