An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Expectation bias?
Simple a-b experiment that requires a track that you own both an older 16/44 and a remastered 24/96. Preferably, pick a piece that you're not as intimate with, and ideally use a 1-2 minute section in the middle (matched exactly), so you'll be less likely to determine which is which from non-playback reasons. Use EAC to pull the lower res file off a CD and on to your computer if it's not already there.
You should have 4 files (use SOX, SoX - Sound eXchange | HomePage for consistency):
1.) Raw 16/44 file
2.) Raw 24/96 file
3.) Upsampled older 16/44 peice to 24/96
4.) Downsampled and dithered 24/96 to 16/44.
* Each track needs to be normalized volume-wise as well--pin it to the levels on your newer 24/96. This can be done within SOX.
ABX on 5 useful tests:
1.) File 1 vs File 2
2.) File 1 vs File 3
3.) File 1 vs File 4
4.) File 2 vs File 3
5.) File 2 vs File 4
No peaking. Use your Benchmark DAC and your favorite headphones. Post the results.
Remember, no peaking.
And you've been told over and over again what the answer is - insufficient engineering of every aspect of the system.
This is like a person who complains that his swimming pool always keeps dropping in level - he puts fancy, expensive covering over it to stop evaporation, high fences around so the wind doesn't make things worse, special additives in the water which supposedly "condition" it so this doesn't happen - yet the problem remains - someone idly comes along, looks down and says, "I see a small hole in the liner over in the corner there - maybe that should be checked out" ... "Nahhh", says the owner, "That sort of thing is not important enough to be a problem!!"
he is talking about the multiplies that you require when you add effects or filter etc.
Don't you realize he is just poking with a long stick - and laughing all the way to the Bentley right-hand seat.
That's not what he said then. He just proffered master gain which could be assumed to be a +/- some small number of dBs. If he wanted to say that a 16 bit by 16bit DSP MAC can result in a 32 bit intermediate he should have said so? He doesn't name names but I surely no professional workstation software would get the maths that wrong in this day and age? User error of course will always screw up the result...
To be Frank If you cant get 16 bit audio to sound good, you wont get 32 bit sounding better. I like a simplified approach to complex issues but only if it's accurate, here's an article which manages that quite well (as far as i can tell).
Tweakheadz 16 Bit vs. 24 Bit Audio
If you cant get 16 bit audio to sound good, you wont get 32 bit sounding better. I like a simplified approach to complex issues but only if it's accurate, here's an article which manages that quite well (as far as i can tell).Tweakheadz 16 Bit vs. 24 Bit Audio
Don't you realize he is just poking with a long stick - and laughing all the way to the Bentley right-hand seat.
At this point whenever John mentions Bybee on this forum, my mind's eye sees Blucher
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdIID_TGwhM
Nice one, Davy - I'd go along with the article, it's on the money.To be Frank
Tweakheadz 16 Bit vs. 24 Bit Audio
I like the bit about "voodoo",
... "normal" CD sound is often a bit throwaway, and people want a magical reason for that being so - wave a magic wand and it all gets better, . Sorry, it's just hard work, attention to detail that's required - but that means you have to get off your bum, and think a bit more about things ... bugger!!! This,
nails it ... worry about everything, and then it all falls into place - including on the replay side!! Simple to say, but so many don't get it ...
Cheers Frank. I first read that a while ago but it seems appropriate to this thread.
While i'm typing i've got this on the hifi - http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B000092A...rd_t=201&pf_rd_p=569136327&pf_rd_i=B0000793ZD
I bought it on CD back in 1989 when it came out, i've not played it in years but i dug it out and ripped it to FLAC (16/44.1) earlier today. I am amazed at how it sounds through my present system, i wish you could hear this set up Frank.
While i'm typing i've got this on the hifi - http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B000092A...rd_t=201&pf_rd_p=569136327&pf_rd_i=B0000793ZD
I bought it on CD back in 1989 when it came out, i've not played it in years but i dug it out and ripped it to FLAC (16/44.1) earlier today. I am amazed at how it sounds through my present system, i wish you could hear this set up Frank.
Last edited:
No prob's, Davy ... I do "get" it - I don't know the material at all, I just listened to the YouTube clip on my crappy laptop sound - but I know exactly how it should sound on a well sorted out system - big, big, deep sound, that fills vast spaces ...
The interesting thing is that after one goes a reasonable number of rounds, with optimising, listening to a huge variety of types of recordings, at various stages of tune of a setup - that one can tell what the potential of an unknown recording is, even on a pretty poor playback system - there are various clues, signature attributes that still come through. You know how well the recording can come across, and so you keep working at things until that level of replay is achieved ...
The interesting thing is that after one goes a reasonable number of rounds, with optimising, listening to a huge variety of types of recordings, at various stages of tune of a setup - that one can tell what the potential of an unknown recording is, even on a pretty poor playback system - there are various clues, signature attributes that still come through. You know how well the recording can come across, and so you keep working at things until that level of replay is achieved ...
Last edited:
Bang on the money Frank! The sound seems to be trying to envelop the whole house, it's an experience for sure.
Reliability is getting awfully good, especially if you're a bleeding edge kind of guy that will likely be relegating older toys to lesser-used systems on a decent schedule.
The SSD Endurance Experiment: They're all dead - The Tech Report - Page 1
Set of 2 Tannoy Mercury MX 2 Bookshelf Speakers Light Maple | eBay
This pair looks mint. These do a lot of things right for the price. IMO.
This pair looks mint. These do a lot of things right for the price. IMO.
A bit demanding with amplification, since they are more like 6 ohms rather than 8. I use mine with a LM3886 diy, i´m not sure if the LM3875 would drive them properly. The speakers are musical and can provide good of enjoyment of the music, perhaps this is the most important factor. Surprising bass for the size.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.