"24/192 Music downloads, and why they make no sense"

[SY]

OK, let's see your data.

[simon7000]

Originally Posted by DF96

Isn't this what dither does?

To a certain amount. But with a smart process you get more resolution the lower the frequency.

[a.wayne]

Originally Posted by SY

OK, let's see your data.

What would suffice ...... so as not to waste each others time ...

[SY]

Controlled DBT. Your choice of the format (e.g., ABX, triangle, sorting...). Recordings must have identical mastering, the biggest reason why SACD and CD often actually do sound different. I think the basic idea of M&M was a good one, using a high res source and interposing a 16/44 "bottleneck." There are a lot of other ways to do it as well- the important thing is same master, level-matched, controlled for non-auditory cuing. If you're seriously interested in doing it, contact me via email and I'll be happy to help you set it up.

I convinced myself that at least I can't hear a difference at normal listening levels by making 16/44 copies of 24/96 recordings (my home-made ones) and using foobar for an ABX, but that's not well-controlled.

[a.wayne]

Identical mastering ...?

It's going to be very difficult to observe such. I will have to use a true 24/192 of which 16/44 exist for the comparison. I have such with 16/44 and then hi-res download, how would i confirm the mastering ..?


we did a similar DBX test 6 months ago and i could tell 12 out of 12 times the 24 bit recording from the 16. 16 bit recordings are more forward and in your face and has more noise, 24 bit is softer , a bit laid back and has more of an natural presence.

Maybe you could provide me with 2 recordings done your way for the test...? It must be true 24 bit not up sampled.

[simon7000]

SY,

Can you post 2 recordings A & B and see who can tell a difference?

ES

[SY]

@Ed, I can tell the difference without even listening, so that's the problem I referred to with "control." My experiment was fine for my own education, but if I thought I heard differences, a properly skeptical third party would want me to control things better before accepting my results.

You can download a couple of the high res versions of my recordings (I've posted links to the Soundcloud site) and save 16/44 versions if you have software like Goldwave (what I used).

@a.wayne, these aren't upsampled, I recorded tham in 24/96 format directly. As I told Ed, if you have high res material, you can easily convert it to 16/44 for your own comparison and amusement. I use Goldwave (cheap and versatile), but there's lots of other good audio editing software out there.

[DF96]

Huge:
1. Of exceedingly great size, extent, or quantity.
2. Of exceedingly great scope or nature
(thefreedictionary.com)

That is what I mean by 'huge'. Like the huge difference between night and day, or black and white, or wrong and right. A huge difference would be still noticeable using rubbish ancillary equipment during the most 'stressful' double-blind test. A 2kHz low pass filter would be huge. Half-wave rectified audio would be huge. Any other use of 'huge' could suggest male bragging.

[a.wayne]

@ SY,

The problem with this is the software manipulation...... No ..? we could be hearing the differences in software apps...

[a.wayne]

Originally Posted by DF96

Huge:
1. Of exceedingly great size, extent, or quantity.
2. Of exceedingly great scope or nature
(thefreedictionary.com)

That is what I mean by 'huge'. Like the huge difference between night and day, or black and white, or wrong and right. A huge difference would be still noticeable using rubbish ancillary equipment during the most 'stressful' double-blind test. A 2kHz low pass filter would be huge. Half-wave rectified audio would be huge. Any other use of 'huge' could suggest male bragging.

Now your definition of small ......Then i can answer in your terms