Headphones. Soundcard on the computer.
The difference was one file sounded duller than the other - tho I don't know which was which. Easy enough to hear on headphones. Similar on the Sinatra vinyl rip, just much more subtle. I may try again tomorrow over speakers.
Yes, I used Goldwave for the resample.
The difference was one file sounded duller than the other - tho I don't know which was which. Easy enough to hear on headphones. Similar on the Sinatra vinyl rip, just much more subtle. I may try again tomorrow over speakers.
Yes, I used Goldwave for the resample.
I do. I'll concede that I've never met any of them in person because I live at the wrong end of the world, but I've been where they hang out online (Gabe Weiner's mailing list) for about a decade. And they do indeed care deeply about minutaie, although I prefer to think of it as "attention to detail".
@ Don ,
Look at their mastering suites and the speakers they use ..They may Obsess on dither and the techno stuff, but can they hear ....
Oh, they can hear all right, and they know what to listen for. I was surprised to find how many albums in my collection have been mastered by the people I'm referring to. I've seen several of their suites, I know what speakers they use, I know how much effort they go to to set their environments up. One thing I have come to admire about mastering engineers compared to audiophiles is that they tend to consider "the elephant is the room" - what an audiophile might spend on cables, an ME is more likely to spend on acoustic treatments.
While the object of higher bit rate is understood by most in that in improves the dynamic range. The purpose and reason why a higher sampling frequency improves sound quality is largely misunderstood. The object is not to reproduce higher frequencies as there has yet to be found a person that can show neuron responses at over 32Khz. And for most adults the limit is far lower. We can therefore say that since there's no neuron response it is nonsense to claim it has any effect of how you hear the sound as the brain simply does not register that high frequency as has ever being reproduced in first place. The object lies instead in timing. The human ear can register rises and falls at a rate of 5.8 microseconds per dB. 192KHz sampling rate allows that since that equal 5.3 microsecond between samples. It is what we use to determine distance and direction of sound, and it is therefore crucial. That is the reason why 24bit/192KHz sounds so much better than 16bit/44.1KHz.
Uh, isn't that what I just said?
Remember this started out Where we would not hear the difference.....
I guess this makes you a genius ......
I did give the correct bit rate increase , so obvious error on my part and another reason why I hate using my IPhone to post , mistakes do go overlooked...
We who?
Funny thing is - once I turned off the SOX resampler in Foobar, the difference wasn't as great. Oops! Yes, I am an idiot.
I had SOX set to resample everything to 48Khz. Not sure if it's on during the ABX test, but it was much harder to hear a difference once I turned it off. Oh well.
Will try again tonight.
Funny thing is - once I turned off the SOX resampler in Foobar, the difference wasn't as great. Oops! Yes, I am an idiot.
I had SOX set to resample everything to 48Khz. Not sure if it's on during the ABX test, but it was much harder to hear a difference once I turned it off. Oh well.Will try again tonight.
Go read up on Claude Shannon. He founded the subject of information theory. Information comes in quantities that can be measured, like mass or anything else. Shannon defined the "capacity" of a noisy channel, and established that for a channel with 50% of the expected capacity, one could still get messages through intact, they'd just have to be reencoded into messages twice as long. Twice as many bits. One uses bits to measure information. 24, 96 is about 3.3x the information content per second of 16, 44.1.
I've read that some sound engineers in blind tests can tell 24, 96 apart from a live feed, but not 24, 192. I wasn't there, but I'm inclined to believe this.
It is a trap to attempt to use logic to refute the possibility that this is true. I'm a mathematician who gets the occasional migraine. During such a migraine one perceives a complete, intact world, but is in fact taking in far less information than usual. I know enough not to drive under such circumstances, despite my sense that I apparently can.
Logical theories have this same intoxicating, numbing effect; they all sound complete, as in "how could I be so stupid as to not have realized the situation was so simple!" The situation is never so simple, all logical explanations miss part of the story, and it is incompetent (scientific malpractice) to pass along any logical theory without recognizing this. Look at the history leading up to general relativity...
Many posts in this thread have this "here's the whole story, let me explain the logic!!" structure. It's a disease endemic in both science and audiophile circles.
"Logical theories have this same intoxicating, numbing effect; they all sound complete, as in "how could I be so stupid as to not have realized the situation was so simple!" The situation is never so simple, all logical explanations miss part of the story, and it is incompetent (scientific malpractice) to pass along any logical theory without recognizing this."
Spot on. I might quote that or something along those lines someday over at that lossy fanboy forum and their constant reference to TOS8. The tosser police I call them. No offence, just not quite right IMHO.
Spot on. I might quote that or something along those lines someday over at that lossy fanboy forum and their constant reference to TOS8. The tosser police I call them. No offence, just not quite right IMHO.
No, that kind of thinking leads usually to "no logic can be valid", therefore you must belive. Religion type belive. It's very spread between "audiophile" circles.
There are things that are absolutelly TRUE. And there are simplifications that are close enough of truth for a specific application. Like in the example with theory of relativity - there is no need for that to measure accuratelly the speed of moving car. Sure, some might say "the result is not valid without considering relativity" - but for all the practical purposes, that IS the correct result.
There are things that are absolutelly TRUE. And there are simplifications that are close enough of truth for a specific application. Like in the example with theory of relativity - there is no need for that to measure accuratelly the speed of moving car. Sure, some might say "the result is not valid without considering relativity" - but for all the practical purposes, that IS the correct result.
you're right, but here's the problem.
A says "X is true and here's the proof"
B says "your data is incomplete"
C thinks "so X is not true" when in fact he/she should think "so we really don't know".
many people are of the "C" type.
I have a more practical approach to this hires issue. DVD-A and SACD did not kill RedBook. it's a niche. as long as there aren't enough hires recordings, I think there's no point in obsessing over it.
when/if CD/DVD-A/SACD will die and be replaced by internet downloads and/or other type of media I'm confident that hires will be the preferred standard and we'll have to stick to it. and there'll be no point in obsessing over it.
problem solved
A says "X is true and here's the proof"
B says "your data is incomplete"
C thinks "so X is not true" when in fact he/she should think "so we really don't know".
Actually most of the times it doesn't matter that missing data, it does not change the practical result. So "A" is right, even if is misses a minute amount of data.
In science we need to learn how to use the relevant data for the practical purpose we seek. Nobody will have ALL the data about something.
B says "your data is incomplete"
C thinks "so X is not true" when in fact he/she should think "so we really don't know".
Actually most of the times it doesn't matter that missing data, it does not change the practical result. So "A" is right, even if is misses a minute amount of data.
In science we need to learn how to use the relevant data for the practical purpose we seek. Nobody will have ALL the data about something.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.