How many bits, how fast, just how much resolution is enough?

[Ralf11]

you could see if there are any listening tests comparing - but... it may really be about filter slopes

[Ralf11]

several reasons to (maybe) buy a higher bit rate/depth recording:

 

#1 by far is that, just maybe, they took greater care with the recording mastering etc. process before it got to the consumer level - you'd have to check to be sure

 

#2 filtering may be easier/less intrusive as I alluded to above - this is mentioned in that article by "monty" tho I downrate things without a Methods section, or by some dude on the internet - to be taken seriously, your name and affiliation will appear at the top of your peer-reviewed article

 

#3 - um... ah... I thought I had a 3rd one last night...

[Ralf11]

Then it is easily refuted. But yet no refutation has taken place.

 

then let's see it

 

 

as for monty being the real deal, what are his qualifications? I'm not saying he is wrong; I am just used to seeing things justified by citations to previous work or by the Results section, which is obtained by following the procedures in the Methods section - that is Science 101

[Ralf11]

and BTW, #3 - if there is an advantage it will most likely be found on transients

 

the whole edifice of digital sound is built on an upper hearing limit of 20 kHz, which was established in the 1930s IIRC and by using sinusoidal waves, NOT music (with say snare drums) - if that is wrong the entire Nyquist NoNo collapses

 

OTOH, don't hold your breath... and the lack of controlled studies to show that a higher (consumer level) bit rate/depth is preferred suggests that the redbook std. is fine

[Ralf11]

don't be evasive plisskit

[Ralf11]

Meyer, E. B. and D. R. Moran. 2007. Audibility of a CD-Standard A/D/A Loop Inserted into High-Resolution Audio Playback. JAES 55(9): September 2007

 

Abstract:

Claims both published and anecdotal are regularly made for audibly superior sound quality for two-channel audio encoded with longer word lengths and/or at higher sampling rates than the 16-bit/44.1-kHz CD standard. The authors report on a series of double-blind tests comparing the analog output of high-resolution players playing high-resolution recordings with the same signal passed through a 16-bit/44.1-kHz "bottleneck." 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. The test results show that the CD-quality A/D/A loop was undetectable at normal-to-loud listening levels, by any of the subjects, on any of the playback systems. The noise of the CD-quality loop was audible only at very elevated levels.

[Ralf11]

That paper is good source for laughs... So pathetic.

 

where can I read your published comments? I assume you are a Fellow of the AES, right?

[Ralf11]

While these are not "my published comments" (just as the Abstract quote posted by you (Ralf11) aren't yours....) they are links to others:

[h=3]Meyer and Moran debunked by Meridian's Robert Stuart - Computer ...[/h]

 

[h=3]The Controversial Meyer and Moran Study: A Fresh Look[/h]

[h=3]Meyer and Moran: Let's Change the Focus | Real HD-Audio[/h]

[h=3]SA-CD.net - Debunking Meyer and Moran[/h]

[h=3]AES Journal Forum » Audibility of a CD-Standard A/DA/A Loop ... (this one might cost money to read. It is AES)[/h]

 

[h=3]Thoughts on Meyer/Moran SACD/DVD-A vs. CD audio study? - AVS Forum[/h]

[h=3]Meyer & Moran Updated: Proof that CD audio isn't transparent ...[/h]

[h=3]Art Dudley | Stereophile.com[/h]

This series of links should give you a enough info on both sides of the argument to make an informed decision on the value of the Meyer/Moran study.

 

Thx, unfortunately only one of those is a peer-reviewed publication. They could still be correct, but your claims are not supported, esp. by the Stereopile 'thing'. I'll take a look at the one AES later on...

 

Is that the same Bob Stuart that everybody dumps on for trying to foist MQA on us? ;]

 

There are dozens, likely hundreds. of published studies showing lack of statistical differences for the higher bit rates. Maybe they are all wrong? Personally, it doesn't cost me a lot to get that source material, but I figure I am likely getting more care in recording/mastering...

 

Similarly, there some studies showing that mp3 files cannot be distinguished from redbook. It costs me nothing to use Apple Lossless instead tho (well, ok - I guess it cost me a little more for a higher capacity iPhone).

 

I'm fine with using higher bit rates or depth as long as I don't have to pay a lot for it.

[Ralf11]

There was a test done here at CA years ago by a member known as Julf, with the cooperation of the head of the Bis recording label. It included RedBook, mp3, and hi res files. The "winner" by a fairly large margin was a RedBook file 1dB louder than the others. This quite clearly shows even a loudness difference so small that it is not consciously perceptible is sufficient to sway preference in the context of an audio A/B test. (No tester identified from listening that one of the files was louder.)

 

this is well known and the usual spec. is 0.2 or even 0.1 dB - it has to be controlled for and usually not just by ear either

[Ralf11]

I very well remember my first A/B test in a colleague's apartment between a CD --- touted at the time as the pinnacle of audio reproduction --- and an LP ... and well the CD sounded like cr*p in comparison. So is it the format or the ancient NOS brickwall filter? Miska's software goes the furthest among anything to convince me it is more the filter than the format.

 

That buy's him more street cred in my book than an AES Fellowship. Is that hard to get?

 

 

early CDs were notorious for bad mastering; that is likely what you heard

 

a fellowship in a professional scientific or engineering society is a rather large chunk of cheese

 

you realize that I have asked for actual studies, rather than arguments from authority, but what the advocates of higher bitology have posted is almost nothing but arguments from authority ???

[Ralf11]

re: it's a fact that a 44.1KHz sample rate is mathematically adequate to reproduce all audible frequencies.

 

I would say (based on a post somewhere up above) that it's a fact that a 44.1KHz sample rate is mathematically adequate to reproduce all audible [sine wave] frequencies.

 

i.e. out to 20 kHz

 

if there is an issue with the 1930s research that established that limit, I bet that is for transients

 

 

as for bewildering options - I find it pretty simple: I start with redbook and avoid lossy compression (maybe the psychoacoustic models for lossy are fine, but the cost to me is about zip to have non-compressed redbook).

 

Now, once I have the music I want on redbook; I look at the particular things that others say sound a lot better than what I already have. I don't buy it if it costs $100 for a CDRSACDHDCDwhatever, but if it is something I really want and costs me $20 or $30 then why not?

 

I figure (as per some above posts I made) that I am most likely buying better recording techniques, remastering, etc. but I don't care. If it really IS bit rate or bit depth, that's fine too and eventually the world will be re-Ponocized.

[Ralf11]

could be - my point is simply that we don't know for sure (not that it matters much for the reasons I posted above)

[Ralf11]

this timing argument is interfering with the other arguments here

 

you guys have 55 picoseconds to wrap it up or start your own delay phase thread

[Ralf11]

it was a joke

[Ralf11]

No doubt about that. But it isn't all about frequency response. There are other criteria that define fidelity.

 

I agree completely (but you cut the important part out of my quote - audible sine waves - I am reserving transients as a possible exception)

[Ralf11]

...

 

I have used his software on a trial basis and can confirm it gives better measured results than other software for playback. I couldn't hear an improvement. ...

 

Just to clarify - is this about HQplayer? And if so, what CPU does your computer use?

[Ralf11]

the idea behind worse sound with 96 kHz is that it injects ultrasonics into circuits that are unhappy with it

 

 

and BTW, I know the difficulty of hitting that shift key (just look at what i do), but for SI units, and to honor Heinrich, can we use Hz, not hz?

[Ralf11]

If anybody has blind listening test info where a lot of transients were used (say snare drums, etc.) for redbook vs. hi-zoot digital, I'd really like to see it.

 

That is the program material where I'd expect a difference (if there is a difference).

[Ralf11]

Thanks again. So this theorem proves that there can be no audible difference between redbook and higher resolution recordings other than different audible artifacts of DA-conversion. I suppose that's possible..

 

it's more than just possible (given the assumptions), it's inevitable

 

but ... it IS based on some assumptions

[Ralf11]

It is very likely that the engineers who designed 8x oversampling into DAC chips decades ago did so for solid engineering reasons as engineers dislike doing things irrationally (tho are sometimes forced to do irrational things by their MBA Overlords).

 

But best practices decades ago may also not be best practices today.

[Ralf11]

Harmon or somebody has an online course on training your ears

 

 

Jud, practices could have easily evolved in the direction of *more restricted* capabilities than a couple of decades ago, to fit into ipods

 

and it seems they have

[Ralf11]

... more difficult and interesting questions, such as whether a difference that isn't consciously audible for you may nevertheless subconsciously affect your enjoyment.

 

time for some brain imaging studies

[Ralf11]

that's because they are transducers...

[Ralf11]

ok ok, you guys want to talk TV... I appreciate the 4k nil benefit argument, but HDR does matter and AFAIK can only be had on a 4k TV...

 

I also use my TV for photo display - my Apple TV streams a group of them over WiFi while playing from my iTunes collection... it is simple, cheap ($40 refurb), effective...

[Ralf11]

Albert Einstein had a long running argument with Abe lincoln, but Heisenburg lost it somewhere