We don't need no stinking hi-rez

[Paul R]

If you were petting or touching the cat, then it was only a single blind comparison. You knew the filter settings and could have unconsciously transmitted those feelings to the cat. I am assuming your cat isn't telepathic.

 

OT: All cats are telepathic, more or less.

 

Dogs less so, but still able to access that "extra sense."

 

Now, there really isn't anything spooky about telepathy. Hearing voices over vast distances is pretty common. So is psychometry, reading the past from an object. Certainly distance viewing and scrying the past are common. Spirit writing? Well, maybe. Spirited writing here for sure.

 

Of course, does it really matter that all those fantastic capabilities in humans are the result of using appropriate technology instead of mystic mind powers?

 

Or that animals, in particular cats and dogs, have far keener senses than humans *and* the ability to think? They are sentient, right? What? you don't think so? They understand language and manipulate their environment. They clearly show pride, affection, and remorse. What else do you need to be sentient?

 

-Paul

 

 

-Paul

[semente]

Very interesting story, Ricardo. There's much I agree with, including that I would rather listen to music than do comparisons.

 

Softness and clarity are very good qualities to be able to have together, I think.

 

Speaking of softness, and regarding immunity to hype, etc.: What I think it is impossible to make oneself immune to is loudness. You want to be extremely careful that what you are evaluating and what you have been using as a baseline, or any two things you are comparing, are volume-matched very, very closely (within ~.1dB if possible).

 

This volume-matching is one of the problems with AB comparisons and the reason why I stopped comparing equipment at audio stores.

Another one is finding an all-encompassing (sound wise) piece of well recorded music that is suitable for testing an equipment or system...is there such a thing?

 

R

[mansr]

I also quickly tired of HDR photography although I think it is abused.There is nothing wrong with capturing full dynamic range per se.

 

HDR photography is actually a kind of dynamic range compression. Regardless of the medium, this is a technique that has its uses but is more often abused.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

HDR photography is actually a kind of dynamic range compression. Regardless of the medium, this is a technique that has its uses but is more often abused.

 

Oh interesting, why?

 

off the top of my head I think the eye/brain has about the equivalent 11 or 12 stops of dynamic range and most DSLR are around 7 -9 ? Those figures may be wrong but you get the point. So, are you saying HDR tries to stuff the extra stops into a photo? I would have thought that multiple exposures for light and dark areas would capture greater dynamic range, the challenge being how do you then composite that into one pic.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

This volume-matching is one of the problems with AB comparisons and the reason why I stopped comparing equipment at audio stores.

 

R

Yes how do people achieve this. I use an inexpensive hand held SPL meter and get a sense of the average read out but it is a pretty crude estimate. To be honest I find I can achieve similar results by ear.

 

Not sure if volume matching in JRiver works well enough for this purpose?

[PopPop]

Yes how do people achieve this. I use an inexpensive hand held SPL meter and get a sense of the average read out but it is a pretty crude estimate. To be honest I find I can achieve similar results by ear.

 

Not sure if volume matching in JRiver works well enough for this purpose?

 

As I said, the sensor isn't smart enough to be able to call for an exposure that would render all the lighting in the scene properly. So, lI use three exposures per image. One to capture light and detail in the darkest areas of the scene, a second to capture what one would consider normal exposure, and a third to underexposed the brightest areas just a bit. These images can be stacked and merged to create a composite that (if done right) shows a more normal light balance than one might otherwise get in a high contrast scene. Some people over do it and the whole thing starts to look "flat."

 

So in a sense it is a means to compress the visual spectrum by lightening the darks and darkening the lights but that is only to account for limitations in the camera. The final tweaking should result in an image with full (normal) dynamic range.

 

Oops, I meant to quote #729.

[mansr]

Oh interesting, why?

 

off the top of my head I think the eye/brain has about the equivalent 11 or 12 stops of dynamic range and most DSLR are around 7 -9 ? Those figures may be wrong but you get the point. So, are you saying HDR tries to stuff the extra stops into a photo? I would have thought that multiple exposures for light and dark areas would capture greater dynamic range, the challenge being how do you then composite that into one pic.

 

HDR photography uses multiple photos at different exposure settings to capture a total dynamic range exceeding that of the sensor. These images are then compressed into the range of the intended display device, typically an 8-bit monitor. Even a single image using the full bit depth of a good sensor (typically 14 bits) has more dynamic range than any monitor you're likely to see soon (the much-hyped Blu-ray HDR is 10-bit). Used gently, a little dynamic range compression can bring out otherwise invisible detail in the darkest and brightest parts of an image without looking fake or surreal. The extreme HDR images you probably most associate with the term are the photography equivalent of loudness war music.

 

As for the human eye, while the total dynamic range is indeed quite large, the range available at any instant is much smaller. Much like a camera, the eye adapts to the amount of available light by adjusting the aperture (pupil) and through chemical changes in the retina (notice the time it takes to adapt to a dark room). The instantaneous dynamic range of the eye is no match for a modern camera sensor.

[PopPop]

What he said. [emoji106]

[esldude]

As for the human eye, while the total dynamic range is indeed quite large, the range available at any instant is much smaller. Much like a camera, the eye adapts to the amount of available light by adjusting the aperture (pupil) and through chemical changes in the retina (notice the time it takes to adapt to a dark room). The instantaneous dynamic range of the eye is no match for a modern camera sensor.

 

Excellent post.

 

I will also mention the instantaneous dynamic range of human hearing is maybe 60 db. Plenty of good microphones exceed that handily.

[esldude]

Yes how do people achieve this. I use an inexpensive hand held SPL meter and get a sense of the average read out but it is a pretty crude estimate. To be honest I find I can achieve similar results by ear.

 

Not sure if volume matching in JRiver works well enough for this purpose?

 

Well using an SPL meter for careful AB comparisons is inadequate. Your hearing, if not blasted into insensitivity (which only takes a few seconds of very loud sound) can manage to match levels within about 1 db at best. You need a match to within .1 db for loudness not to corrupt AB comparisons.

 

A simple method is to use a 1 khz tone to set levels before comparing with music. Play the tone and measure voltage across the speaker leads with a multimeter. You need to match to no more than a 1.2% voltage difference.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

Dynamic Range of Hearing

In addition to its remarkable sensitivity, the human ear is capable of responding to the widest range of stimuli of any of the senses. The practical dynamic range could be said to be from the threshold of hearing to the threshold of pain:

 

 

[TABLE=width: 1]

[TR]

[TD]

Threshold of Hearing

[/TD]

[TD]

Threshold of Pain

[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]

I0

[/TD]

[TD]

1013I0 = 10,000,000,000,000 I0

[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]

0

decibels

[/TD]

[TD]

130

decibels

[/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

This remarkable dynamic range is enhanced by an effective amplification structure which extends its low end and by a protective mechanism which extends the high end.

 

Sensitivity of Human Ear

 

From <http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/sound/earsens.html#c1>

 

The dynamic range of a photo and vision

is defined as the ratio between the darkest and lightest parts of the photo. The dynamic range of a camera is the largest dynamic range that be captured by the camera sensor in a raw file. The dynamic range in a JPEG file will be smaller unless it is processed in a RAW editor.

 

Dynamic range can be expressed in terms of stops (e.g. - 10 stops), or as a ratio (1:1,000). to convert stops to a ratio, raise 2 to the power of the stop. E.g. - a 6-stop dynamic range = 2^6 = 1:64.

[so 8 bits per pixel yields 2^8 = 256 levels and a DR of 8 stops =1:256

(levels and DR are not synonymous, but a greater DR can potentially give more levels []It is the lightnes range (not number]

2^9 = 512

2^10=1,024

2^11=2,048

2^12=4,096

2^13=8,192

2^14=16,384

2^15=32,768

2^16=65,536

2^16.5=92,681.9

2^17=131,072

2^18=262,144

2^19=524,288

2^20=1,048,576

 

Lets look at some common dynamic ranges:

 

 

[*=center]human eye 1:10,000 13-14 stops
[*=center]outdoor sunlit scent 1:1000 10-11 stops
[*=center]real-world scenes can be quite high -- ratios of 100,000:1 16 -17 stops
[*=center]dSLR camera 1:512 9 stops
[*=center]Canon 5D II 11.9 stops 3,821:1 11.9 stops of DR.
[*=center]35mm film 13 stops 8,192:1
[*=center] RED EPIC and ARRI ALEXA cameras both claim 13+ stops

 

[*=center]compact camera 1:256 8 stops
[*=center]color film 1:256 8 stops
[*=center]printed image, glossy paper 1:128 7 stops

A glossy photographic print has a dynamic range of about 100:1, i.e., the brightest highlight reflects about 100 times more light than the darkest shadow. This is a 6.6 f-stop range

 

[*=center]printed image, matte paper 1:32 5 stops
[*=center]indoor scene 1:64 6 stops

As you can see, the human eye is capable of seeing much more dynamic range than your camera can capture. This problem has plagued photographers forever. Your challenge as a photographer is to manage the dynamic range of what you are shooting.

 

For maximum dynamic range

 

[*=center]Shoot at base ISO. Dynamic range is decreased at higher ISO's
[*=center]Use a camera with a larger sensor. Full-frame cameras have the largest dynamic range.
[*=center]Watch your exposures - decide ahead of time whether you want to sacrifice shadows, highlights or a little of both

 

Pasted from <sensor size, pixels resolution, dynamic range,|Underwater Photography Guide>

[esldude]

Dynamic Range of Hearing

In addition to its remarkable sensitivity, the human ear is capable of responding to the widest range of stimuli of any of the senses. The practical dynamic range could be said to be from the threshold of hearing to the threshold of pain:

 

 

[TABLE=width: 1]

[TR]

[TD]

Threshold of Hearing

[/TD]

[TD]

Threshold of Pain

[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]

I0

[/TD]

[TD]

1013I0 = 10,000,000,000,000 I0

[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]

0

decibels

[/TD]

[TD]

130

decibels

[/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

This remarkable dynamic range is enhanced by an effective amplification structure which extends its low end and by a protective mechanism which extends the high end.

 

Sensitivity of Human Ear

 

From <Sensitivity of Human Ear>

 

The dynamic range of a photo and vision

is defined as the ratio between the darkest and lightest parts of the photo. The dynamic range of a camera is the largest dynamic range that be captured by the camera sensor in a raw file. The dynamic range in a JPEG file will be smaller unless it is processed in a RAW editor.

 

Dynamic range can be expressed in terms of stops (e.g. - 10 stops), or as a ratio (1:1,000). to convert stops to a ratio, raise 2 to the power of the stop. E.g. - a 6-stop dynamic range = 2^6 = 1:64.

[so 8 bits per pixel yields 2^8 = 256 levels and a DR of 8 stops =1:256

(levels and DR are not synonymous, but a greater DR can potentially give more levels []It is the lightnes range (not number]

2^9 = 512

2^10=1,024

2^11=2,048

2^12=4,096

2^13=8,192

2^14=16,384

2^15=32,768

2^16=65,536

2^16.5=92,681.9

2^17=131,072

2^18=262,144

2^19=524,288

2^20=1,048,576

 

Lets look at some common dynamic ranges:

 

 

[*=center]human eye 1:10,000 13-14 stops
[*=center]outdoor sunlit scent 1:1000 10-11 stops
[*=center]real-world scenes can be quite high -- ratios of 100,000:1 16 -17 stops
[*=center]dSLR camera 1:512 9 stops
[*=center]Canon 5D II 11.9 stops 3,821:1 11.9 stops of DR.
[*=center]35mm film 13 stops 8,192:1
[*=center] RED EPIC and ARRI ALEXA cameras both claim 13+ stops

 

[*=center]compact camera 1:256 8 stops
[*=center]color film 1:256 8 stops
[*=center]printed image, glossy paper 1:128 7 stops

A glossy photographic print has a dynamic range of about 100:1, i.e., the brightest highlight reflects about 100 times more light than the darkest shadow. This is a 6.6 f-stop range

 

[*=center]printed image, matte paper 1:32 5 stops
[*=center]indoor scene 1:64 6 stops

As you can see, the human eye is capable of seeing much more dynamic range than your camera can capture. This problem has plagued photographers forever. Your challenge as a photographer is to manage the dynamic range of what you are shooting.

 

For maximum dynamic range

 

[*=center]Shoot at base ISO. Dynamic range is decreased at higher ISO's
[*=center]Use a camera with a larger sensor. Full-frame cameras have the largest dynamic range.
[*=center]Watch your exposures - decide ahead of time whether you want to sacrifice shadows, highlights or a little of both

 

Pasted from <sensor size, pixels resolution, dynamic range,|Underwater Photography Guide>

 

You missed the word INSTANTANEOUS. It makes a difference.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

Well using an SPL meter for careful AB comparisons is inadequate. Your hearing, if not blasted into insensitivity (which only takes a few seconds of very loud sound) can manage to match levels within about 1 db at best. You need a match to within .1 db for loudness not to corrupt AB comparisons.

 

A simple method is to use a 1 khz tone to set levels before comparing with music. Play the tone and measure voltage across the speaker leads with a multimeter. You need to match to no more than a 1.2% voltage difference.

 

 

a bit of a pain but I guess I can do it :-).

 

I wonder how accurate JRiver volume matching is ?

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

You missed the word INSTANTANEOUS. It makes a difference.

 

No, I got that but, rightly or wrongly, I allowed for the fact that the eye's pupillary response is dynamic not static.

So, to be fair I guess one would need to compare ONE aperture from the DSLR camera to ONE pupil size of the eye.

 

For hearing it says 130 dB

[esldude]

No, I got that but, rightly or wrongly, I allowed for the fact that the eye's pupillary response is dynamic not static.

So, to be fair I guess one would need to compare ONE aperture from the DSLR camera to ONE pupil size of the eye.

 

For hearing it says 130 dB

 

There are muscles to reduce your hearing sensitivity at loud volumes. They take time to activate. The correct value has been estimated at 60 db from experimental testing of hearing. Those muscles can also tire reducing your protection from continued loud sound. They also work more slowly and tire more easily as you age.

 

The Ear's Protective Mechanisms

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

From your reference

 

In response to sustained loud sounds, muscle tension tightens the tympanic membrane and, acting through the tendon connecting the hammer and anvil, repositions the ossicles to pull the stirrup back, lessening the transfer of force to the oval window of the inner ear. This contributes to the ear's wide dynamic range.

 

The stapedius muscle and the tensor tympani muscle act in response to loud sounds.(DeBonis & Donohue)

 

which references dynamic range. 130 db

[JSWolf]

This thread has gone way off track. This is not an issue of dynamic range but about sound quality. Does hi-res (24/96, 24/172, 24/192, DSD) sound better than 16/44.1? We know 16/44.1 has enough DR. So discussing DR is not on topic.

[PopPop]

Probably because at the moment we have run out of novel ideas to share about hi-res.

[Blake]

Further to the original article from John Darko I posted to start this thread, Darko has just posted an excellent follow-up (I think he is again hitting the nail on the head):

 

MQA streaming points to a brighter future for hi-res audio | DAR__KO

[Kees de Visser]

I said that I would accept the phenomenon at issue did not produce differences audible to me if, given well-recorded monaural music, with the "A" sample in one channel and the "B" sample in the other, I heard a well-integrated, coherent center image.

I do that kind of testing quite often. Don't forget however that differences between transducers (L/R speakers or headphones) can be relatively large, especially compared to cd/hires differences (which are typically below -100dB). Also our two ears are not perfectly identical.

What I sometimes do is open a redbook and hi-res track in a DAW, pan their Left or Right channels to the Left and Right DAW output and alternate them periodically (e.g. every second). If you notice an image displacement (lateralization) at any frequency, it's likely that there is an audible difference. Make sure to synchronize the tracks sample accurately and use inaudible (linear) cross fades, without dither.

To illustrate, the signal becomes:

Lch: L.lores - L.hires - L.lores - L.hires - L.lores - L.hires...

Rch: L.hires - L.lores - L.hires - L.lores - L.hires - L.lores...

 

Synchronization is important, since the human ITD (inter aural time delay) JND is known to lie around 10 µs, which is about 1 sample period at 96 kHz sampling rate. Also don't forget that many SRC's produce outputs with subsample delays compared to the original. I think 10 µs sync accuracy should be ok, but YMMV.

[Jud]

I do that kind of testing quite often. Don't forget however that differences between transducers (L/R speakers or headphones) can be relatively large, especially compared to cd/hires differences (which are typically below -100dB). Also our two ears are not perfectly identical.

What I sometimes do is open a redbook and hi-res track in a DAW, pan their Left or Right channels to the Left and Right DAW output and alternate them periodically (e.g. every second). If you notice an image displacement (lateralization) at any frequency, it's likely that there is an audible difference. Make sure to synchronize the tracks sample accurately and use inaudible (linear) cross fades, without dither.

To illustrate, the signal becomes:

Lch: L.lores - L.hires - L.lores - L.hires - L.lores - L.hires...

Rch: L.hires - L.lores - L.hires - L.lores - L.hires - L.lores...

 

Synchronization is important, since the human ITD (inter aural time delay) JND is known to lie around 10 µs, which is about 1 sample period at 96 kHz sampling rate. Also don't forget that many SRC's produce outputs with subsample delays compared to the original. I think 10 µs sync accuracy should be ok, but YMMV.

 

So let me tell you about a little auditory illusion that humans are subject to.

 

Lch: High pitch - low pitch - high pitch - low pitch - high pitch

 

Rch: Low pitch - high pitch - low pitch - high pitch - low pitch

 

Humans will hear this as follows:

 

If right handed: Low pitch in one ear, then high pitch in the other, beginning in the right ear.

 

If left handed: Some will hear high pitch in one ear, then low pitch in the other, beginning with the left ear. Others will hear what the right-handers hear. A small percentage will be able to "flip" back and forth between these two. What no one will hear is what is actually happening, alternating pitches in each ear, low pitch in one ear playing simultaneously with high pitch in the other ear.

[elcorso]

This thread has gone way off track. This is not an issue of dynamic range but about sound quality. Does hi-res (24/96, 24/172, 24/192, DSD) sound better than 16/44.1? We know 16/44.1 has enough DR. So discussing DR is not on topic.

 

Really?

 

Try dynamic contrast instead of DR, between HR and Redbook. Then we can talk.

 

Really

[esldude]

From your reference

 

 

 

which references dynamic range. 130 db

 

Again not instantaneously. Surely you understand something about masking. You can't hear a quiet whisper standing next to a runway with a 747 taking off. If our hearing had 130 db of dynamic range instantaneously you could. Yes we can hear a goodly amount at very loud runway levels. And at another quiet location hear and understand a whisper. But not both at the same time.

[Kees de Visser]

So let me tell you about a little auditory illusion that humans are subject to.

Sorry, I thought the test was about redbook vs. hi-res audio. Pitch is an interesting subject, but I don't see the relationship with audio resolution.

[Sal1950]

Probably because at the moment we have run out of novel ideas to share about hi-res.

 

WHO'S GOT THE CRYSTAL BALL?

 

You hit the nail on the head PopPop, There's only so much that can be said about a future that none of us can see into. All this talk is Much Ado About Nothing as technology and the marketplace will supply answers to all this in due time.

We all know that one way or another all bandwidth issues for the transmission and storage of any form HDA you could want will be solved in the VERY near future. And the cost of that bandwidth will also be a non-issue. The lines between MP3, Redbook, and some HDA standard should then disappear into one accepted HDA format that will truly bring Perfect Sound Forever to everyone.

I'm a dinosaur and the current market is a good one for me. I continue to stock my collection of my generations music with used CD's I get for pennies, rip them and then pass them on thru local charities. I also splurge on occasional HDA downloads when I feel IMHO the provenance of the file justifies the cost.