Bill, the 24-bit sounds more clear and detailed in a small way, but it's there. That's what it sounds like. If you never saw the color red, how could I ever explain to you what it looks like? There is no way you could know exactly what the experience is like by reading some words about it.
Okay, but you did manage to do it under some particular conditions. What if someone dismissed your claim and insisted you couldn't possibly have heard any such thing? Therefore, you must be a liar or imagining things. Or maybe you are trying to brag about having expensive headphones that very deserving poor people can't afford? What kind of insanity is that? 😡
Last edited:
If I had never seen red, you could give me the wavelength and I could at least see where it sat in the EM spectrum. If there is a detectable difference, there must be a mechanism that can explain it even if cloth eared me can't here it. If there isn't then we are heading to Bybee territory.
Sorry as I get older I keep going back to the notes from Richard Burwen on how different bits of the frequency range change perception. I suspect that 80% of audible differences at normal domestic levels are down to a db here of there. In Ed's world of course things get a whole load more complex as he deals with stuff that would make the walls of Jerico look like papier mache!
(aside I was very pleased when excavations showed that the walls of Jerico had in fact fallen down due to earthquake).
I think PMA was just saying 'headphones cranked up on the quiet bits'. He never brags about his equipment.
I've posted Dave Geisinger's paper on speaker IM and hi-def audio here before several times. I don't thinks these effects are easily discounted or accounted for. So you're not a liar or imagining things, just maybe your speakers HF IM is creating some detail or maybe not and someone else's isn't. These tests are far harder to do than we think (IMO impossible). Personal preferences for easily measureable substantial distortions are well documented.
Bill, you asked a question about, "what is it supposed to sound like?" I tried to respond to your question. Now you are changing the subject. As you no doubt know, analogies always fail at some level. When people don't like an analogy, they just pick away at it until they find where it fails, then complain that it fails at some point. Of course it does. They always do.
I thought PMA was simply describing the "take home test cheat". Blow up the noise floor till you have something like 6 bits left on the 16 bit track and 14 on the 24 bit track. This of course assumes the recordings mix noise floor is low enough. I have numerous fine recordings on LP from the late 50's through 60's where the tape hiss is clearly audible ramping up from the lead in grooves. I can't see how a hi-res digital version would add anything.
Last edited:
He didn't say he cheated, but he did say he could only detect the difference at abnormal volume levels. Which if he was listening for an effect is not cheating.
Anyway you said
I actually said
Anyway you said
I actually said
by which I implied what is the difference that we are picking up on. If the differences are below all known hearing limits (for normal domestic reproduction) then what is going on. So sorry if I was not clear and you answered the wrong question, but I really am not goal post shifting. I am honestly interested on anything that someone can point and and say 'here is the difference'.
No idea, that was a joke for JC's benefit. If these things bothered me I'd be in sad shape.
Bill, yes, I understand. But I was trying to help you see why words cannot make someone clearly understand something that is a mental experience. Red is a mental experience, and we don't even know if it is exactly the same for everyone. It very well might not be.
Certainly, the mental experience or perception of something like musical pitch varies a lot from person to person. Some people describe it as like seeing a particular color, or shade of color. Of course, as an analogy it will break down at some point (although for some people it may be a synathesia). In any case, I certainly don't perceive it as being like color at all.
Certainly, the mental experience or perception of something like musical pitch varies a lot from person to person. Some people describe it as like seeing a particular color, or shade of color. Of course, as an analogy it will break down at some point (although for some people it may be a synathesia). In any case, I certainly don't perceive it as being like color at all.
Latest research suggests we all sit somewhere on a scale of synathesia, which is why crisps taste better if you hear a crunch sound etc. But in this case I am really interested in the nuts and bolts of what is coming out of the speakers that the ear might detect, not the perception which as Scott rightly says and you have backed up with your coaching anecdote is only of value as a shared experience.
I did try to reply, but the post vanished. One more try to post. So, anyone can try
http://pmacura.cz/16b_24b.zip
The recording is special, I agree, to show the limits of 16 bit resolution
My ABX:
Code:
foo_abx 1.3.4 report
foobar2000 v1.1.6
2017/06/05 18:44:15
File A: C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator\Dokumenty\Hudba\Testy_poslechove\16b_24B\16b.wav
File B: C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator\Dokumenty\Hudba\Testy_poslechove\16b_24B\24b.wav
18:44:15 : Test started.
18:44:49 : 01/01 50.0%
18:45:26 : 02/02 25.0%
18:45:37 : 03/03 12.5%
18:45:53 : 04/04 6.3%
18:46:09 : 05/05 3.1%
18:46:34 : 06/06 1.6%
18:46:41 : 07/07 0.8%
18:46:48 : 08/08 0.4%
18:46:57 : 09/09 0.2%
18:47:10 : 10/10 0.1%
18:47:19 : 11/11 0.0%
18:47:26 : Test finished.
----------
Total: 11/11 (0.0%)
Last edited:
I can't really get into this discussion, because I just attended the LA Audio Show and I listened differently. I just heard what was presented.
Mostly it was OK sonically, but I did get to hear a good comparison between a recording mastered at 88K-24bits unprocessed, and the very same recording mastered at 88K-24bits with MQA added. It was a real and convincing difference. The MQA track sounded more 'ambient' and 'realistic'. That's all I need to know. '-)
Mostly it was OK sonically, but I did get to hear a good comparison between a recording mastered at 88K-24bits unprocessed, and the very same recording mastered at 88K-24bits with MQA added. It was a real and convincing difference. The MQA track sounded more 'ambient' and 'realistic'. That's all I need to know. '-)
Ah, yes, I was hoping my presentation of the details were making William *of* Ockham's (thank you for the correction) adage clear. I've generally heard it phrased as the hypothesis that requires the fewest assumptions is the most preferred. And the most falsifiable, which, in honest pursuit of the truth, is held in the highest performance.
Bill -- I've earnestly looked around, and can't find any sort of study that would give us even the remotest confidence that, yes, a group can hear the difference. At this point it remains anecdotal. Not that I doubt the sincerity of those making the claims. Notwithstanding synthetic torture tests like PMA's, where effective DR is thrown away to highlight the difference (and go further to show just how small an effect we're talking).
There was a parallel used, few days ago, about audio and instrumentation. So I hope that no one of the present engineers, who all agreed that audio and instrumentation issues are similar, will doubt the fact that 24-bit means higher resolution and better potential of ultimate quality, than 16-bits. It is just the engineering fact. If we want the best in instrumentation, why to accept compromises in audio? Though tiny difference, the difference exists.
Last edited:
Of course, Pavel Given the option between more bits and less, why not? More headroom for DSP to boot. But there's a comfort in knowing that the electronics side is better than ones hearing.
Okay, let's try thinking about an analogy, knowing there are limitations. We know if a photograph is bit-depth reduced sufficiently and you look close up, you can see little jagged squares. If it were dithered first, we start to see an effect that looks better, and the contents of the image more recognizable. But, if you look up close at the computer screen, you still see jagged squares, but the colors and shades are more random looking. If you stand back, it starts to look pretty good with the dither added.
However, if you have a very old, maybe pre-VGA, color monitor, it may have so little spacial resolution that you hardly need dither, the monitor kind of does it for you. In this case, if you get up close, you still don't see little squares like you would in an high resolution monitor.
So, in the case where there is dither, you may or may not be able to see little squares depending on distance from monitor, monitor resolution, and visual acuity. You will need some combination of factors to see the little squares, and if they are small enough, you might need all the factors working in your favor.
-------
Okay, now let's switch to audio. People talk about dithered 16-bit audio as having an effective bit depth below the noise floor. But, when they talk about 24-bit, they may talk about the noise floor like it is hard limit, when in fact there may be some extra bits of signal buried in the noise. My position would be that with sufficiently "good" converters, the difference in signal bits between the two formats may potentially be audible. It still may be necessary to be close enough, and you may have heard me talking about "near field" or PMA talking about headphones. Maybe that is necessary requirement. And then there is the hearing acuity factor. Not everybody is exactly the same in that regard just like they are not all exactly the same height. When sufficient factors come together, my position would be that 24-bit vs 16-bit is audible. What does it sound like?
---
What does red look like? It's a mental experience. In the case of 24-bit vs 16-bit it may be something you have to hear for yourself. I don't know words that can make the equivalent experience be simulated in someone else's mind.
--
Okay, getting to the end here. Was the above explanation perfect and without fault? No, even if I wrote a whole book on it, no doubt there would be things that could be criticized. My only hope here is to try to provide some help in understanding for people wanting to understand.
If on the other hand, if someone wants to have something like a British parliamentary-style debate, I would necessarily have needed to write something very different. But, such debates are not useful for resolving scientific issues. Debates are contests between the human participants, not a means for discovering physical reality or resolving questions about it.
Now I am thoroughly confused. A bunch of analogy tha doesn't work followed by using 'science' right at the end. But there was no science?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.