Null test 88.2/24 and 44.1/16

[bachish]

1 hour ago, cookiemarenco said:

 

Sure!  What do you want to know?  I've moved to smaller, chamber acoustic recordings that are live in the studio without headphones or overdubs.  Much harder than having unlimited tracks, isolated rooms and control over the sound and performances.  

 

I don't mix in the box (computer).. instead I run through an analog mixing console.  Have great stories about recording Ladysmith Black Mambazo, Charlie Haden and Quartet West,  Max Roach...  what do you want to know? 

 

Thanks for asking

Cookie Marenco

Blue Coast Music

https://bluecoastmusic.com

 

 

Hopefully you will forgive my little rant. I really do like your recordings!  I hope nothing I said was offensive in my other post.

 

But...I am curious as to your micing philosophy.  I mentioned I like a simple stereo pair and avoid spot mics as much as humanly possible (though I may set them up to cover myself!). For me, the stereo pair (or array) does the heavy lifting and any spots would be for just a touch of clarity as needed.  How do you approach the subject? I am pretty open minded on this subject. I've heard many spectacular recordings done both ways. 

 

 

[PeterSt]

Just now, crenca said:

I noticed you did not say anything of substance, only attacked personally.

 

You noticed well, but isn't meant to be that explicitly. It's just that I wouldn't know where to start in explaining that this is the biggest bullocks ever. This is again not aimed at the person, just fact. And if it is your stance, then I can't help nor change that.

Btw, I am not into any debate because my English doesn't allow it (we know that both, so, sorry about that).

 

4 minutes ago, crenca said:

What's the substance behind your "Lush" USB cable for example?

 

I saw that one coming (and challenged for it). There is no relation whatsoever with a poor or better or voodoo cable, dipped in snake oil or not. But I suspect that you think that using a Lush or Lush^24 cable would copy files better ? or that a printer cable would do worse on it ?

There won't be any difference in the resulting file. Also not after a month of back and forth copying.

 

For fun : "Lush^24 cable would copy files better ?" ... "Better" to the sense of faster perhaps because it could imply less errors which now don't need to be corrected (re-send). Sadly, however, it would be the other way around : such an explicit audio "speced" cable would imply more error. Error which thus always is corrected with normal data transfer and if not, it is my advice to stop with computers (or find the serious fault in it).

I hope this is not getting too complicated because it is about the implied speed of the data transfer. For copying this is completely different from playing an audio stream over the same cable.

 

I am not here to offend. Really not. I just couldn't believe you were serious. That is all.

 

[crenca]

3 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

You noticed well, but isn't meant to be that explicitly. It's just that I wouldn't know where to start in explaining that this is the biggest bullocks ever. This is again not aimed at the person, just fact. And if it is your stance, then I can't help nor change that.

Btw, I am not into any debate because my English doesn't allow it (we know that both, so, sorry about that).

 

 

I saw that one coming (and challenged for it). There is no relation whatsoever with a poor or better or voodoo cable, dipped in snake oil or not. But I suspect that you think that using a Lush or Lush^24 cable would copy files better ? or that a printer cable would do worse on it ?

There won't be any difference in the resulting file. Also not after a month of back and forth copying.

 

For fun : "Lush^24 cable would copy files better ?" ... "Better" to the sense of faster perhaps because it could imply less errors which now don't need to be corrected (re-send). Sadly, however, it would be the other way around : such an explicit audio "speced" cable would imply more error. Error which thus always is corrected with normal data transfer and if not, it is my advice to stop with computers (or find the serious fault in it).

I hope this is not getting too complicated because it is about the implied speed of the data transfer. For copying this is completely different from playing an audio stream over the same cable.

 

I am not here to offend. Really not. I just couldn't believe you were serious. That is all.

 

 

Hey no worries.  Believe it or not, I am not after yet-another-audiophile-cable debate.  Rather, your explanation "...For copying this is completely different from playing an audio stream over the same cable." is what I wanted to indicate to the OP.  This is the "audiophile" assertion I wanted him to understand, which shows that for (some, most probably), digital is digital up to a certain point, when it becomes something else (i.e. the "sound" of digital files say FLAC vs. WAV, or the "sound" of USB signal transmission, or whatever).

 

The why of your assertion, the how of any other file transmission vs. audio (file) transmission (the assertion that USB becomes something different when an audio file is transmitted over it) is never explained really at all but it is simply considered normal and accepted wisdom in Audiophiledom...

[cookiemarenco]

14 minutes ago, bachish said:

With all due respect, your description of the professional recording world is not my experience at all.  Every professional recording engineer I know - in the classical world any way - is not recording serious projects at 44.1 and most definitely not at 16 bit. The vast majority are recording at higher sample rates, except perhaps for live recitals (and I agree with this - live recitals I record are at 44.1/24 bit).  And every classical engineer I know always records at 24 bit.

 

Hello Bachish, I did read your thread from the beginning.  I thought it was quite charming and adventurous for a first post.  I was familiar with the null test from years gone by.  I'm not sure how much has been deleted from this forum, but there have been some very interesting responses over the years to issues you brought up about the math.  I find no reason to argue any more.  I understand we all have different opinions and different experiences in life.

 

I'll listen more closely to your recordings tomorrow when I'm in a better listening environment.

 

I agree that most of the classical recording engineers record in at least 24 bit (even if 44.1).  Two of my best buddy engineers are Jack Vad (San Francisco Symphony engineer for 30 years and now records to 192) and Michael Bishop (records in DSD).  Classical music represents a good percentage of the music audiophiles buy (though still not as much as rock/pop).  That said, beyond classical it's a very different world of professional audio engineers.  Classical is a small percentage of the total music recorded in the world.  My generalization was about the total spectrum of music being created and how few audio engineers work above 44.1 (24 or 16 bit).  Sorry if there was a misunderstanding.

 

I'm not suggesting audio engineers don't care about sound, but there are different definitions of what that sound is.  Very few are taught good recording techniques these days.  We get a lot of interns at the studio from audio programs that are unaware of good techniques for recording. 

 

If I were asked what was the most important part of the recording to get a great sound, it would start with proper grounding and understanding gain structure.  Everything else is simplified once you get gain structure and grounding right.. and have a good set of ears.  .  

 

All the best to you and your recording projects.  It seems like you have good taste in music.

 

all the best,

Cookie Marenco

Blue Coast Music

https://bluecoastmusic.com

[sdolezalek]

Much of this discussion sounds like a disagreement as to whether it matters whether I use 3.141592653589 or the number below to represent Pi

3.14159265358979323846264338327950288419716939937510582097494459230781640628620899862803482534211706798214808651328230664709384460955058223172535940812848111745028410270193852110555964462294895493038196442881097566593344612847564823378678316527120190914564856692346034861045432664821339360726024914127372458700660631558817488152092096282925409171536436789259036001133053054882046652138414695194151160943305727036575959195309218611738193261179310511854807446237996274956735188575272489122793818301194912983367336244065664308602139494639522473719070217986094370277053921717629317675238467481846766940513200056812714526356082778577134275778960917363717872146844090122495343014654958537105079227968925892354201995611212902196086403441815981362977477130996051870721134999999837297804995105973173281609631859502445945534690830264252230825334468503526193118817101000313783875288658753320838142061717766914730359825349042875546873115956286388235378759375195778185778053217122680661300192787661119590921642019893809525720106548586327886593615338182796823030195203530185296899577362259941389124972177528347913151557485724245415069595082953311686172785588907509838175463746493931925506040092770167113900984882401285836160356370766010471018194295559619894676783744944825537977472684710404753464620804668425906949129331367702898915210475216205696602405803815019351125338243003558764024749647326391419927260426992279678235478163600934172164121992458631503028618297455570674983850549458858692699569092721079750930295532116534498720275596023648066549911988183479775356636980742654252786255181841757467289097777279380008164706001614524919217321721477235014144197356854816136115735255213347574184946843852332390739414333454776241686251898356948556209921922218427255025425688767179049460165346680498862723279178608578438382796797668145410095388378636095068006422512520511739298489608412848862694560424196528502221066118630674427862203919494504712371378696095636437191728746776465757396241389086583264599581339047802759009946576407895126946839835259570982582262052248940772671947826848260147699090264013639443745530506820

 

I would suggest that in both cases the answer depends heavily on what you are going to do with that number.  In music a 16/44 recording may fully and accurately represent what most human ears can hear. But listening to music isn't listening to that 16/44 digitization, or a higher rez version of same.  Listening to music requires that we perform other operations to turn that digital representation back into an analog waveform that sounds exactly like the original.    

 

Everything i have read here on CA suggests to me that the big issues are not in whether 16/44 captures the original waveform in the frequency ranges we can hear, but whether what we then do with that resulting digital information changes what we ultimately hear when it is converted back to analog and played in our systems.  

[PeterSt]

1 hour ago, crenca said:

The why of your assertion, the how of any other file transmission vs. audio (file) transmission (the assertion that USB becomes something different when an audio file is transmitted over it) is never explained really at all but it is simply considered normal and accepted wisdom in Audiophiledom...

 

I think (for myself) that the original Lush thread went as far as possible anno 2017, that still to be supported by my own measurements (guilty !). Anyway, that explained all from each angle possible, at least as how it is in my head. The relevant posts will not be easy to find in the 2500+ post thread.

Summarized (somewhat), the USB cable isn't going to be or behave different(ly) when audio is transmitted over it, but the current draw behavior of it influences the D/A process (in an all so indirect means for the paths involved).

 

Btw, this does not compare by any the slightest means to being able to see (null) differences as per the thread we're in at this moment. Possibly you said this yourself although it is very well possible that I couldn't believe your intentions with it (apologies). So, nothing whatsoever would appear in any null test because it is by far way too small to "see" in there. This thus means that once we see something anyway and especially as large as bachish so kindly shows it to us,  never mind he thinks or feels that the majority is out of the audio band, the subject is to way out for me or anyone who knows how audio can be controlled at this minute level. Not only by cables but also by software and the whole hoopla in between and beyond. IOW, @bachish, your subject has to be moot, once because e.g. me, myself and I are able to show you enormous differences in SQ with means which can't be measured at all (at least nobody found a way to do it). Thus, if your means shows measurable difference, then the SQ must be wildly varying between situations and it will only be a matter of knowing what to listen for, or possibly not having the reference yet.

 

I don't and didn't want to detract from your subject, but I am afraid that by texts like this it goes automatically because something else is wrong first. This, btw, is nothing different from those who provoke difference tests for many years and with that prove that there can-not-be an audible difference. Strange then that I can show (audibly) differences which blow you out of your socks and which not only show differences by these difference test means that are well under 120dB and thus "inaudible", but which show no-difference-at-all. Only my own means shows it (easily) and I must say that @pkane2001is heading for something that eventually may be able to do it too.

 

On a quite different note, the whole explanation of matters may go in a very different direction, now it starts to seem plausible that all is related to shielding. I am not sure about this yet because by the very same means (Lush^2 configurations) we change the dielectric and with that the properties of the cable, just the same.

 

Now if as many as possible could denote this post as off-topic, we can continue the original conversation which is nice enough to read with interest anyway. Well, I did and do.

[PeterSt]

2 hours ago, cookiemarenco said:

it would start with proper grounding and understanding gain structure.

 

WOW. I never heard someone say this before. It may not be easy to readily understand by everybody, but it is about all I do with any design - implement that right. Of course it is not at the exact same level, but for (noise) merits it comes down to the same.

Btw in power supplies it goes the opposite direction (call that attenuation structure ).

 

2 hours ago, cookiemarenco said:

I'm not sure how much has been deleted from this forum

 

Nothing much, Id say. But things are always hard to find.

Remember that (my) "Sound Engineers you molest out recordings !" thread ? I think that is one of the greatest ever. You contributed with all your heart together with Barry (a bit of opposite poles). I never learned more in a per post count than from that thread.

 

Kind regards,

Peter

 

PS: I hope your (smoking) sound engineer still works with you. Great(est) guy.

[sandyk]

7 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

This, btw, is nothing different from those who provoke difference tests for many years and with that prove that there can-not-be an audible difference. Strange then that I can show (audibly) differences which blow you out of your socks and which not only show differences by these difference test means that are well under 120dB and thus "inaudible", but which show no-difference-at-all. Only my own means shows it (easily) and I must say that @pkane2001is heading for something that eventually may be able to do it too.

Hi Peter

This section certainly is NOT off topic.

Quite a few members, including Barry Diament, have questioned the validity of NULL testing being definitive for quite some time.

 Regards

Alex

[bibo01]

10 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

Strange then that I can show (audibly) differences which blow you out of your socks and which not only show differences by these difference test means that are well under 120dB and thus "inaudible", but which show no-difference-at-all.

Hi Peter,

Could you please tell me (perhaps in PM so we do not pollute this thread) about such test that I can pass to my "laboratory friend" to reproduce it. Thanks

[PeterSt]

OffTopic : Hi @bibo01, nothing has changed since the time you wanted to work with it back in ... 2009 ?

So it is software (my own, not commercially available) and all what's changed to it since is that the other day (few months ago) I made it suitable for 24 bits. Sort of, because I recall some hurdles and did not finish that. ... Yea, I know again, the hurdle with 24 bits is that it requires down conversion (to 16 bits again) at the graph level, because no PC screen has a sufficient resolution to show the granularity of the lowest bit values where it obviously all happens. This is OK for 16 bits and a say 1080 (vertically) monitor. But 24 bits requires a theoretical 2^8 (256x) more pixels to show the same.

For @bachish, this, while what you show (spectrograph) comprises 16 million pixels vertically which is a bit, eh, too much compressed to see a thing (which you (or me !) don't care about because your subject is far from the same).

[Jud]

First things first, I'm hoping in the midst of our more usual discussions that it will be possible to go a little further along with @bachish's and @pkane2001's exploration of the resolution question to see what if any difference might be obtained in a comparison between Cookie's files  and a 44.1 version, or a 2L DXD file and the 44.1 version.

 

Two further steps might be interesting: comparisons with a 44.1 file produced by @bachish's own decimation filter; and with a 44.1 file produced by someone's version of a simple "bad" decimation filter of the type a major music company might use, that I've seen criticized occasionally here.  For the latter, @mansr @Miska, @PeterSt, Cookie, any ideas? 

[PeterSt]

24 minutes ago, Jud said:

decimation filter of the type a major music company might use,

 

Hi Jud - Is this about the Q word ?

[mansr]

1 hour ago, Jud said:

a simple "bad" decimation filter of the type a major music company might use

I would assume they use whatever their DAW, e.g. Pyramix, provides. Why do you believe it would be "bad"?

[pkane2001]

7 hours ago, cookiemarenco said:

 

Hello Bachish, I did read your thread from the beginning.  I thought it was quite charming and adventurous for a first post.  I was familiar with the null test from years gone by.  I'm not sure how much has been deleted from this forum, but there have been some very interesting responses over the years to issues you brought up about the math.  I find no reason to argue any more.  I understand we all have different opinions and different experiences in life.

 

I'd much rather argue about math, as the differences there can be resolved between knowledgeable people. Unlike listening tests of the type typically practiced by most here on CA, math is not a matter of opinion.

 

Having just gone through the implementation of a software null-test, I'd love to hear about some of the issues that have been brought up. Certainly a null test by itself says nothing about audibility of the difference, although you can play it back and listen for yourself. But, since I also spent some time coming up with (what I think are) some better analysis tools of both, the original files and their difference, I'd like to know what I might be missing.

[Jud]

52 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

Hi Jud - Is this about the Q word ?

 

I don't think so.  I've seen various critical comments over the years regarding the filters used in getting releases by the major music companies from the studio to CD format.  For example, I recall Miska saying many (most?) of the filters used ring.  That type of thing.

[Jud]

2 minutes ago, mansr said:

I would assume they use whatever their DAW, e.g. Pyramix, provides. Why do you believe it would be "bad"?

 

Because I have in the past read negative remarks about some of this filtering by people like @Fokus and Miska. 

[mansr]

16 minutes ago, Jud said:

Because I have in the past read negative remarks about some of this filtering by people like @Fokus and Miska. 

Specifics, please.

[pkane2001]

1 hour ago, Jud said:

First things first, I'm hoping in the midst of our more usual discussions that it will be possible to go a little further along with @bachish's and @pkane2001's exploration of the resolution question to see what if any difference might be obtained in a comparison between Cookie's files  and a 44.1 version, or a 2L DXD file and the 44.1 version.

 

Jud, you had to ask, didn't you?  

 

Now I'll have to look into a way to compare DSD captures, as that raises my curiosity, as well. May take some time, as I have to come up to speed with delta-sigma modulator and proper processing for DSD encoding.

[pkane2001]

20 minutes ago, Jud said:

For example, I recall Miska saying many (most?) of the filters used ring.  

 

All do, this is the nature of band-limited digital filtering. Sharper filters ring more. I know Miska measures DACs well into MHz, so yes, you can see all the ugly artifacts in the inaudible range. But do they matter?

 

In testing DeltaWave, I found some recordings that had noise pushed out to well above 88KHz range by noise shaping, at nearly the same level as the original (audible) signal. Perhaps that's an example of a poorly designed filter? And yet, it's still ultrasonic energy that most likely doesn't affect the audible range... May destroy a tweeter or two, if using a high-bandwidth amp, though

[Jud]

9 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

All do, this is the nature of band-limited digital filtering. Sharper filters ring more. I know Miska measures DACs well into MHz, so yes, you can see all the ugly artifacts in the inaudible range. But do they matter?

 

In testing DeltaWave, I found some recordings that had noise pushed out to well above 88KHz range by noise shaping, at nearly the same level as the original (audible) signal. Perhaps that's an example of a poorly designed filter? And yet, it's still ultrasonic energy that most likely doesn't affect the audible range... May destroy a tweeter or two, if using a high-bandwidth amp, though

 

I'm curious as to what recordings.   

[Jud]

42 minutes ago, mansr said:

Specifics, please.

 

As mentioned in my response to Peter, Miska has said many of these filters ring.  See Fokus' description in point #2 in his comment here: 

 

Edit: One more from Fokus - see his comment here re aliasing in an SDM ADC:

 

 

[mansr]

6 minutes ago, Jud said:

As mentioned in my response to Peter, Miska has said many of these filters ring.

All filters "ring," Miska's too. I want you to explain why you qualified downsampling filters used in typical DAWs as "bad." How do they differ from a filter you would deem "good"?

[Jud]

13 minutes ago, mansr said:

All filters "ring," Miska's too. I want you to explain why you qualified downsampling filters used in typical DAWs as "bad." How do they differ from a filter you would deem "good"?

 

To be as precise as I can be (as a layperson) about what I'm asking:

 

Miska and Fokus have made some criticisms (both of ringing; Fokus of aliasing, see edit to my last comment) of typical ADC filters.  I don't know what decimation filters Cookie used for her DSD/44.1k comparison, or 2L used for its DXD/44.1k comparison; and I am supposing the decimation filter @bachish used might be different from either.

 

I would be curious to see how if at all these various decimation filters - typical, Cookie's, 2L's, the OP's - might change the measurements in the hi-res/44.1k comparison.

[pkane2001]

33 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

I'm curious as to what recordings.   

 

I'll let you when I come across it again. I've run through a lot of various null test files for various DACs/ADCs in the last few months.

 

[mansr]

16 minutes ago, Jud said:

Miska and Fokus have made some criticisms (both of ringing; Fokus of aliasing, see edit to my last comment) of typical ADC filters.

Nobody is talking about ADCs here. You made the assertion that the filters used by DAWs such as Pyramix when exporting to CD format are somehow "bad." Maybe they are, but the discussions you've referenced are about other topics and neither support nor refute this idea.