The Audiophile Challenge

[sneaksta303]

That is a better example. You can obviously hear the highs getting sliced off, and then when the flac comes in, the soundstage is noticeably airier, clear, and open.

[cruising for burgers]

what's a flac?

[Guest Adam]

I'll try the autechre one. It's like this? or no?

 

 

00-06 mp3,07-13 flac,14-21 mp3, 22-25 flac, 26-37 mp3, 37-41 flac, 42-45 mp3, 46-49 flac, 50-55 mp3, flac till the end.

 

[Guest MrSparkle666]

See what I mean. Much better example.

[modey]

The real culprit in this day and age is bit depth. 24bit audio is so vastly superior to 16bit it's like night and day, yet everything is still typically downsampled and released in 16 bit even though there is no fucking reason. It's just stupid. That's why DVD audio on movies sounds so much better than cds. It's the bit depth. We really need a shift in standards.

i could not tell any difference between the 16 and 24 bit wavs of oversteps, though that might not be the best example!

[Dragon]

I'll try the autechre one. It's like this? or no?

 

 

00-06 mp3,07-13 flac,14-21 mp3, 22-25 flac, 26-37 mp3, 37-41 flac, 42-45 mp3, 46-49 flac, 50-55 mp3, flac till the end.

 

 

Well, this is interesting...

 

 

That's the most accurate guess yet, but you've inverted it. You have FLAC where it's in MP3, and vice versa.

 

[eugene]

oh my lols, now that's a fail !

[Guest Adam]

Oh god, this is very interesting indeed lol.

[BobDobalina]

The real culprit in this day and age is bit depth. 24bit audio is so vastly superior to 16bit it's like night and day, yet everything is still typically downsampled and released in 16 bit even though there is no fucking reason. It's just stupid. That's why DVD audio on movies sounds so much better than cds. It's the bit depth. We really need a shift in standards.

How exactly is 24-bit 'vastly superior' to 16-bit? Because it has 8-more?? No human being has successfully ABX'd 16-bit vs. 24-bit audio, any music, any equipment. They chose 16-bit as the redbook standard for CDs for a reason, 2^16 bits per sample is more than enough for the human ear, unless you can differentiate loudness to a finer resolution than 65536 increments, which you nor anyone else can.

 

Also, DVD audio, while being multichannel, is compressed Dolby AC-3 (a codec inferior to mp3) and typically at 64 bits/channel. So you're wrong here too.

 

In the future STFU when you have no idea what you're talking about.

[Guest nene multiple assgasms]

The real culprit in this day and age is bit depth. 24bit audio is so vastly superior to 16bit it's like night and day, yet everything is still typically downsampled and released in 16 bit even though there is no fucking reason. It's just stupid. That's why DVD audio on movies sounds so much better than cds. It's the bit depth. We really need a shift in standards.

How exactly is 24-bit 'vastly superior' to 16-bit? Because it has 8-more?? No human being has successfully ABX'd 16-bit vs. 24-bit audio, any music, any equipment. They chose 16-bit as the redbook standard for CDs for a reason, 2^16 bits per sample is more than enough for the human ear, unless you can differentiate loudness to a finer resolution than 65536 increments, which you nor anyone else can.

 

Also, DVD audio, while being multichannel, is compressed Dolby AC-3 (a codec inferior to mp3) and typically at 64 bits/channel. So you're wrong here too.

 

In the future STFU when you have no idea what you're talking about.

 

I think you might be confusing dvd-audio with the audio tracks on dvd-video.

[Guest MrSparkle666]

 

No human being has successfully ABX'd 16-bit vs. 24-bit audio, any music, any equipment. They chose 16-bit as the redbook standard for CDs for a reason, 2^16 bits per sample is more than enough for the human ear, unless you can differentiate loudness to a finer resolution than 65536 increments, which you nor anyone else can.

 

Bullshit. Complete unmitigated bullshit. You are talking out of your ass.

 

First of all, it's not 2^16 bits per sample. It's just 16 bits, and it's not "more than enough for the human ear." That has nothing to do with why they chose it as the redbook cd standard. Also, it's not just about "differentiating loudness". That's a complete misunderstanding about how digital audio works. Need proof? Downsample a file to 8 bits from 16 bits. Is the difference in fidelity purely an issue of "differentiating loudness"? Of course not. Don't be stupid.

 

I know the difference between 16 and 24 bit audio because I've been recording for years (yes, that means live musicians, bands etc, with decent quality equipment) in higher bit depths, and it's always painful to down-sample to 16bit. EVERYONE hears the difference and comments on it. So much so that I've tried every piece of software under the sun to do a better conversion. It doesn't matter. 16bit sounds worse than higher bit depths. That lead me to start seeking out higher bit depth recordings and I found the same quality difference there as well. If you can't hear it then you are either deaf or your monitoring sucks.

 

Also, DVD audio, while being multichannel, is compressed Dolby AC-3 (a codec inferior to mp3) and typically at 64 bits/channel. So you're wrong here too.

 

Did I say DVD audio was uncompressed? No. All I said was that it was a higher bit depth than cd. Stop distorting my words.

 

Whether or not AC-3 is superior or inferior to mp3 is highly debatable, and I'm not interested in going down that road.

 

In the future STFU when you have no idea what you're talking about.

 

I don't mind a healthy debate, but I don't appreciate being told to "shut the fuck up" by some little twat who is completely fucking clueless. Seriously, if you that's how you participate in a discussion, then go fuck yourself. I'm considering this discussion over, since I don't care to waste my time arguing with arrogant pricks who talk to people that way.

[Guest Calx Sherbet]

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL

[Guest Synthacat 9]

[jeremymacgregor87]

the face of watmm

[Root5]

I often think the music on DVDs sounds surprisingly good, but that might just be because of the way they master it. But I'd like to believe it's because of bit-depth.

[BobDobalina]

 

No human being has successfully ABX'd 16-bit vs. 24-bit audio, any music, any equipment. They chose 16-bit as the redbook standard for CDs for a reason, 2^16 bits per sample is more than enough for the human ear, unless you can differentiate loudness to a finer resolution than 65536 increments, which you nor anyone else can.

 

Bullshit. Complete unmitigated bullshit. You are talking out of your ass.

 

First of all, it's not 2^16 bits per sample. It's just 16 bits, and it's not "more than enough for the human ear." That has nothing to do with why they chose it as the redbook cd standard. Also, it's not just about "differentiating loudness". That's a complete misunderstanding about how digital audio works. Need proof? Downsample a file to 8 bits from 16 bits. Is the difference in fidelity purely an issue of "differentiating loudness"? Of course not. Don't be stupid.

 

I know the difference between 16 and 24 bit audio because I've been recording for years (yes, that means live musicians, bands etc, with decent quality equipment) in higher bit depths, and it's always painful to down-sample to 16bit. EVERYONE hears the difference and comments on it. So much so that I've tried every piece of software under the sun to do a better conversion. It doesn't matter. 16bit sounds worse than higher bit depths. That lead me to start seeking out higher bit depth recordings and I found the same quality difference there as well. If you can't hear it then you are either deaf or your monitoring sucks.

 

Also, DVD audio, while being multichannel, is compressed Dolby AC-3 (a codec inferior to mp3) and typically at 64 bits/channel. So you're wrong here too.

 

Did I say DVD audio was uncompressed? No. All I said was that it was a higher bit depth than cd. Stop distorting my words.

 

Whether or not AC-3 is superior or inferior to mp3 is highly debatable, and I'm not interested in going down that road.

 

In the future STFU when you have no idea what you're talking about.

 

I don't mind a healthy debate, but I don't appreciate being told to "shut the fuck up" by some little twat who is completely fucking clueless. Seriously, if you that's how you participate in a discussion, then go fuck yourself. I'm considering this discussion over, since I don't care to waste my time arguing with arrogant pricks who talk to people that way.

 

No, it is you who is talking out if your ass. Find me someone, somewhere, on any type of music, any type of equipment, who can successfully tell the difference between 16 and 24 in a blind test. Good luck, because so far no one has. That you 'hear' a difference is entirely a placebo effect that you and other 'audiophiles' suffer from - and when someone dares to question your assertion that 24 is 'better' than 16 by asking for *gasp* actual proof in the form of a legit ABX blind listening test, you and your ilk retreat to the same 'well I don't care what you say, I can definitely hear a difference' argument, all the while fooling yourself with your inherent bias towards the one that 'should' sound better.

 

A 1200 dpi print might also be 'better' than a 600 dpi one, but if I put the 2 of them, unlabeled, in front of you and asked you to tell me which is which or which is 'better', could you???

 

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

[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

[mcbpete]

 

Though:

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

You may want to rethink this particular quote ....

[ganus]

placebo effect

yup

 

compressed audio doesn't have a bit depth

what the fuck?

[MadnessR]

That video makes audiophiles laughable...

[ganus]

it's a pretty great video.

makes me feel better about my soundblaster card lol.

[MadnessR]

"endless arguments over basic scientific principles that have been understood fully for over 50 years"

gotta love science

[chaosmachine]

everyone in this thread is wrong.

 

here are the real facts:

 

 

 

 

 

[MadnessR]

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.

[Guest MrSparkle666]

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.