Based on sonics... which do you prefer ?

Based on sonics which do you prefer.

  • Ruby

    Votes: 14 42.4%

  • Opal

    Votes: 19 57.6%
  • Total voters
    33
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
Jump to Latest
#621
That test192 file has some high frequency contamination at 88kHz, this could result in interference signals in the audio band.
Makes me wonder what AD converters they used, so I can avoid them. 😛

Anyway here are the files, one with added noise at -93dBfs. Its a 47Mb file.
Zippyshare.com - noise test.rar

P.s. If you want to test samplerate, you should add a high quality FIR filter (witch I don't have) into the file.
 
#622
mohammed li said:
That can show that processing a file changes its sound, not a reliable result as it depends on the quality of the samplerate converter.

Adding white noise at -93.32dB is simple and adds no other artefacts.
Click to expand...

Yes, but then you have to prove that adding white noise is the same as dithering and reducing bit depth. That isn't necessarily the case. For a start, dither can be noise shaped which makes it not white.

Also, if you want to explore the effect of different sample rates, you have to introduce an interpolation filter for the lower sample rate somewhere. If you allow the DAC to change sample rates, you're using the DAC's reconstruction filter. It's not unheard of for DACs to use different filters for different sample rates.

If you sample rate convert in software, you're using the sample rate converter's interpolation filter. This may well sound different to whatever filter your DAC might use at that rate.

Most sample rate converters I've seen (and most DACs for that matter) use a sinc filter kernel to give a brickwall filter with the associated "pre-ringing" that some audiophiles find distasteful. Some audiophile DACs offer a choice of filter kernels, but I've never seen a software sample rate converter that offered the same.
 
#629
mohammed li said:
I'm aware of the differences in dither.
Tpdf dither results in white noise 4.8dB above the noise level of an undithered converter. Am I wrong? If yes please explain.
Click to expand...

When you reduce bit depth by dithering, you add the white noise and then throw the extra bits away. You are proposing to do the test without actually throwing the extra bits away, and that is what I have a problem with.

You are also assuming that TPDF dither is the subjectively least audible way of reducing a finished recording from 24 bits to 16, and that isn't necessarily true either.
 
#630
#633
scopeboy said:
When you reduce bit depth by dithering, you add the white noise and then throw the extra bits away. You are proposing to do the test without actually throwing the extra bits away, and that is what I have a problem with.
Click to expand...
I can understand that.

scopeboy said:
You are also assuming that TPDF dither is the subjectively least audible way of reducing a finished recording from 24 bits to 16, and that isn't necessarily true either.
Click to expand...
No, I'm not doing that. I'm aware of different dither techniques.
 
#634
Of possible interest, my Realtek setup does have improved sound at certain times when fed 24, vs. just 16 bits, with everything else the same - in particular, the treble quality improves, becomes more 'pristine'. What the actual reason is, I can't say - possibly an artifact of the processing environment ...
 
#637

Attachments

  • 16bit.PNG
    16bit.PNG
    21.6 KB · Views: 101
  • 24bit.PNG
    24bit.PNG
    22.3 KB · Views: 99
Last edited by a moderator:
#638
PMA said:
Here is a link to 2 files, both in 44.1/24 bit format. One of them is internally 16bit, (tpd?) dithered. The 2nd is true 24 bit. For those who are interested, please try ABX test in foobar and post a screenshot of your result. The files are amplitude matched, as attached.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/03825zeagilumok/test192_1.wav

https://www.dropbox.com/s/tpobdp76yd2u6ke/test192_2.wav

Have fun! 🙂
Click to expand...
One of the files is redbook.

And you, as you claimed a better performance for 24 bit, need to participate to.
 
#639
fas42 said:
Dropbox sounds good. Personally, I use the latest Audacity to do sample rate conversions, and I don't find any issues with it.

For something more meaty, there's this: Steinway and Sons grand piano recording : High definition music | Audiophile music recordings | HD tracks by LessLoss. Ignoring lessloss's somewhat peculiar products for the moment, this may test the dynamic range aspects. They very kindly point out defects, and highlight the pluses to look for ...
Click to expand...
More high res files here:
High Resolution Music DOWNLOAD services .:. FLAC in free TEST BENCH
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom