So does this bitrate/format stuff matter. If it does, then can you tell ?

[fas42]

Part of the story is that when the signal has more "information" in it then a less than stellar playback device will generate more distortion sludge trying to reproduce it - my rather poor laptop setup projected more ambience with the compressed versions - I didn't have to "fight" as much muck to hear what was going on ...

 

[Tattoo]

I'm surprised that nobody has brought up the 'nice to listen to' vs 'accurate reproduction' debate in response to this.

Clearly, we aren't comparing re-production systems, so accuracy of reproduction isn't compared in that way, but we are seeing that people prefer a little less dynamics and treble... could be why those $XXXX audiophile devices that turn out to be tiny inductors before the speaker were so popular ....

I can make a few files with different bitrates and people can discuss/vote on where the sound becomes to distorted.
Anyone up for a "test" like that?

 

[Mooly]

It could be interesting if enough took part.

 

[planet10]

Why? on another thread was suggested no evidence anyone can hear 24 bit vs 16 bit? Or are you suggesting we try and test that?

My understanding is that one of the main papers that nade that statement, the Boston Audio Society paper, has been thoroughly discredited.

dave

 

[Tattoo]

My understanding is that one of the main papers that nade that statement, the Boston Audio Society paper, has been thoroughly discredited.

dave

Link to a peer reviewed paper that shows an audible difference between 24 and 16 bit at normal listening levels with normal music?

 

[cogitech]

My understanding is that one of the main papers that nade that statement, the Boston Audio Society paper, has been thoroughly discredited.

dave

I'd like to read that reference, if you can provide it.

 

[cogitech]

Mooly,

I congratulate you on posting this exercise and I very much enjoyed the discussion.

If further tests/polls are on the horizon, I would suggest replacing MP3 compression with ogg/vorbis.

If that's not appealing, then at least use MP3 with VBR, as it was intended to be used.

 

[Mooly]

Thanks cogitech These threads are always fun even when things don't always go to plan. The big shame in all these listening tests is that the majority of those who are most vocal in decrying compressed over non compressed or 24 vs 16 bit etc never seem to take part... funny that. And yet if only they would, then their input could be the most valuable of all.

Such is life though

 

[TheGimp]

Here is an interesting slant on the 16 bit or greater issue:

Dynamic Range of Home Listening Roomes and Theaters

It depends in part on the listening environment, and thus headphones may have a slight advantage.

 

[TheGimp]

Another interesting talk discrediting the 2007 AES report by Meyer and Morgan claiming people could not hear the difference between CD and SACD formats.

High Resolution Audio: Does It Matter

 

[Mooly]

Interesting read/s. Thanks

(The bit on noise floors and seeing 50 to 60db as a background level seems high, I see around 25 to 28db [C weighted] at home. Perhaps I've not got the context of it but it seemed high.)

 

[TheGimp]

I get about 52db in my den at home. But my inside air handler is the other side of a single sheet of paneling from the den.

 

[Mooly]

So a lot of that could be pretty low frequency energy and not particularly intrusive.

 

[TheGimp]

Yes, but I'm thinking of adding some insulation where I can. It annoys me knowing it is there.

 

[davym]

Interesting reading, this could be why so many say their system sounds better at night, less background noise. Can sound at frequency's we cant hear somehow alter what we CAN hear in music?

 

[tomlewisrecording]

As a mixer, my biggest issue with working at 16 bits vs. 24 bits is the imaging. If I am given a choice of having a higher sampling rate or a higher bit depth, I'm in for the higher bit depth. Of course this all ends up 16 bit in the end for the most part, save vinyl or higher res releases, but I'm trying!