Hi Ken!
I'm talking more general terms and from a system perspective .. as such, all our systems are not suited to evaluate one component in a chain.
//
I'm talking more general terms and from a system perspective .. as such, all our systems are not suited to evaluate one component in a chain.
//
As a reassurance, the 88.2 and 176.4 files have exactly the same level.
There is only a level difference between these files and their 44.1 parent version.
I will correct this 44.1 level difference by converting the file to 24 bits and attenuate it with the given difference.
Finally the file will be stored as 44.1/24 without dithering thereby leaving the content intact.
Keep in mind that the envisaged test is meant to compare 88.2 to 176.4 and that comparing 88.2 to 44.1 has already been performed quite some weeks ago.
Hans
There is only a level difference between these files and their 44.1 parent version.
I will correct this 44.1 level difference by converting the file to 24 bits and attenuate it with the given difference.
Finally the file will be stored as 44.1/24 without dithering thereby leaving the content intact.
Keep in mind that the envisaged test is meant to compare 88.2 to 176.4 and that comparing 88.2 to 44.1 has already been performed quite some weeks ago.
Hans
Yes. I just want to point that things could be different sometimes. In the field of visual, some "blure" could cause more natural overall impact? The sharpen picture could add efeect of unnatural distances between the objects. Which could be of help when You are looking for the details in parts of the picture to recognize something... But when we just looking at the picture that could be sensed that something is not so right? And that we coud attach as "deep" corresponding to the reveberations in the audio?
.
Another things are find important. The origin of the "picture". Analog or digital.
If You take for the example classic "picture" taken by analog camera and scan it
or if you take digitaly captured picture?
Last edited:
Here are the promised files.
1) First the 44.1 files as the references, where 2 additional versions have been added, with levels adjusted to the 88.2 and 176.4 files.
The level adjusted 44.1 files are resp. Bach -0.188dB and God -0.345dB. They are stored as 24bit files not to ruin the content, and became the file extension _1.wav
2+3) then come the 88.2/24 and the 176.4/24 versions that are subject of this current test. Both are dithered but not noise shaped and both produce the same levels for corresponding files.
I hope this will make a difference with the previous 176.4/24 versions that were noise shaped but were received sound wise as a step back compared to the 88.2/24
4) for those being able to process 32 bit files, there is also a 176.4/32 again without noise shaping. If possible it would be nice to report whether 24 or 32 bit makes a difference.
This time I would please ask you not to give your reaction on this thread, as happened with the previous 176.4 noise shaped version, but to send me a PM.
No attachments can be sent with a PM, that's why I have made a query in Word that I ask you to copy and put it in your PM.
That way we have a more structured system for evaluating the results.
The query comes in the next posting.
Hans
.
Dropbox - NOS-44.1 - Simplify your life
Dropbox - NOS1_88.2 - Simplify your life
Dropbox - NOS_176_24bits_dither - Simplify your life
Dropbox - NOS_176.4_32bits_dither - Simplify your life
1) First the 44.1 files as the references, where 2 additional versions have been added, with levels adjusted to the 88.2 and 176.4 files.
The level adjusted 44.1 files are resp. Bach -0.188dB and God -0.345dB. They are stored as 24bit files not to ruin the content, and became the file extension _1.wav
2+3) then come the 88.2/24 and the 176.4/24 versions that are subject of this current test. Both are dithered but not noise shaped and both produce the same levels for corresponding files.
I hope this will make a difference with the previous 176.4/24 versions that were noise shaped but were received sound wise as a step back compared to the 88.2/24
4) for those being able to process 32 bit files, there is also a 176.4/32 again without noise shaping. If possible it would be nice to report whether 24 or 32 bit makes a difference.
This time I would please ask you not to give your reaction on this thread, as happened with the previous 176.4 noise shaped version, but to send me a PM.
No attachments can be sent with a PM, that's why I have made a query in Word that I ask you to copy and put it in your PM.
That way we have a more structured system for evaluating the results.
The query comes in the next posting.
Hans
.
Dropbox - NOS-44.1 - Simplify your life
Dropbox - NOS1_88.2 - Simplify your life
Dropbox - NOS_176_24bits_dither - Simplify your life
Dropbox - NOS_176.4_32bits_dither - Simplify your life
Last edited:
Compare 176.4/24 to 88.2/24 both without noise shaping.
1) Dac Type (NOS/OS) :
2) Dac converts incoming content via SRC to (No SRC/96K/192K) :
3) Dac Supports 32 bit files.
4) Dac Chip type nr:
5) Below you can give your appreciation for the perceived differences for the 4 files
-2 to -1 means: 176.4 is resp. much or slightly worse as the 88.2
0 means: no difference
1 to 2 means: 176.4 is slightly better or resp. much better.
Bach Pastorale (-2 to +2) :
Still got the Blues (-2 to +2) :
God give me strength (-2 to +2) :
Day 0 (-2 to +2) :
6) Is there a noticeable difference between the 176.4/24 and the 176.4/32 versions, if so could you describe the difference:
7) Other comments :
.
1) Dac Type (NOS/OS) :
2) Dac converts incoming content via SRC to (No SRC/96K/192K) :
3) Dac Supports 32 bit files.
4) Dac Chip type nr:
5) Below you can give your appreciation for the perceived differences for the 4 files
-2 to -1 means: 176.4 is resp. much or slightly worse as the 88.2
0 means: no difference
1 to 2 means: 176.4 is slightly better or resp. much better.
Bach Pastorale (-2 to +2) :
Still got the Blues (-2 to +2) :
God give me strength (-2 to +2) :
Day 0 (-2 to +2) :
6) Is there a noticeable difference between the 176.4/24 and the 176.4/32 versions, if so could you describe the difference:
7) Other comments :
.
I keep my reservations to the changing a volume of the original file, especialy because it is 16-bit, cause high quantisation errors. Secondly, leaving it undithered is a mistake, some DACs will simply truncate lower bits. Lastly, 24-bit volume control had been abandoned long time ago. DACs with digital volume control use more bits internally. Players the same, i.e. Foobar's internal data format is 32-bit floating point.
Last edited:
Ha, ha, the battery of my iPhone gave up while updating my reply.
Audacity is calculating in 32 bit floating point.
So when attenuating a 44.1/16 file by a minimum amount and then storing it in a 24 format, noise of ca -50dB below the dithered level of the original file will be added to the original file, but this cannot even be reproduced because the Dac's own noise will be higher.
This should not be confused with attenuating a 44.1/16 file and putting it back into a 44.1/16 file, which can greatly affect the content.
And as a proof of the pudding, both 44.1 files are in the folder, so you can check for yourself whether you can A) hear the level difference and B) whether the sound has been affected in negative way after having adjusted the preamp's volume setting by 0.188 dB resp 0.345 dB. for the two relevant files.
Hans
Audacity is calculating in 32 bit floating point.
So when attenuating a 44.1/16 file by a minimum amount and then storing it in a 24 format, noise of ca -50dB below the dithered level of the original file will be added to the original file, but this cannot even be reproduced because the Dac's own noise will be higher.
This should not be confused with attenuating a 44.1/16 file and putting it back into a 44.1/16 file, which can greatly affect the content.
And as a proof of the pudding, both 44.1 files are in the folder, so you can check for yourself whether you can A) hear the level difference and B) whether the sound has been affected in negative way after having adjusted the preamp's volume setting by 0.188 dB resp 0.345 dB. for the two relevant files.
Hans
Good work on preparing the various files, Hans. Creating a report template for everyone to use is an excellent idea. By the way, if you haven't already done so, please be sure to deactivate the Dropboxes of your post #1295 so that no one mistakenly uses them.
Thanks!
Thanks!
As long 32-bit FP is used for volume adjustment, is fine, it wasn't made clear. Some degradation take place when converting it back to 16-bits (as happened in previous tests).
Last edited:
New 176.4 Experiment Files Released
Hans has just released the new 176.4kHz experiement test files in his post #1404. I think that his explanation of the file sets should answer most questions about them. The difference between these 176.4 files and the last ones are that the previous files utilized noise-shaping, while these utilize only dither and with no noise-shaping.
As far as the 24-bit file set versus the 32-bit set, I believe that I hear a somewhat different subjective presentation between them, but perhaps I actually don't. 😀 So, you be the judge of whether there is an audible difference between these two 176.4 sets.
Lastly, please give the 176.4 experiment a second chance, by giving these new file sets an audition. For those who had issues with the sound of the prior set of files, it should become quickly apparent whether those issues have been effectively addressed by the new file sets.
Hans has just released the new 176.4kHz experiement test files in his post #1404. I think that his explanation of the file sets should answer most questions about them. The difference between these 176.4 files and the last ones are that the previous files utilized noise-shaping, while these utilize only dither and with no noise-shaping.
As far as the 24-bit file set versus the 32-bit set, I believe that I hear a somewhat different subjective presentation between them, but perhaps I actually don't. 😀 So, you be the judge of whether there is an audible difference between these two 176.4 sets.
Lastly, please give the 176.4 experiment a second chance, by giving these new file sets an audition. For those who had issues with the sound of the prior set of files, it should become quickly apparent whether those issues have been effectively addressed by the new file sets.
Great. When you finish testing, read my comment in post#1062 about noise shaping.
What do you think makes NOS sound different?
Repeated few times, till Ken has threaten me with reporting to the moderator.
What do you think makes NOS sound different?
Repeated few times, till Ken has threaten me with reporting to the moderator.
Hans, regarding what query #4 above is asking; Does 'nr' refer to native resolution, referring to whether the DAC chip is a SDM type, or a full multibit type?
Last edited:
Hi Ken,
What I want is something like:
TDA1543 / PCM1794 / AK4499 or whatever chip you may have in your Dac, so only the type-nr of the chip, I can look into the specs for further details if needed.
Hans
What I want is something like:
TDA1543 / PCM1794 / AK4499 or whatever chip you may have in your Dac, so only the type-nr of the chip, I can look into the specs for further details if needed.
Hans
Without revealing preferences I tried the same piece at 44KHz/16bit and at 176KHz/32bit using two methods. The first was to compare them at the same levels as instructed, and the other was to turn the volume completely down and turn them up again (analog volume in preamplifier) to whatever level was most satisfying. This generated different results (both reasonably good) yet in a reversal of preference.
I can understand the intent, that using equal levels supports results being more definitive and accurate, however it doesn't necessarily address reality in that the level being set in all other circumstances is always in absence of any comparison, being set to the most positive experience.
I can understand the intent, that using equal levels supports results being more definitive and accurate, however it doesn't necessarily address reality in that the level being set in all other circumstances is always in absence of any comparison, being set to the most positive experience.
Gerrit,
As Hans mentions, the two “1.wav files are included for those who may be concerned about small level differences. The four “0.wav” files are all the original 16-bit source files, if I’m not mistaken.
As Hans mentions, the two “1.wav files are included for those who may be concerned about small level differences. The four “0.wav” files are all the original 16-bit source files, if I’m not mistaken.
Hi Gerrit,
The 44.1 files are just there for convenience when you are in doubt and want to go back to the original.
But the purpose of this test is to compare the 88.2 to the 176.4, which both have the exact same level, so don’t touch your preamp’s volume knob while switching between the two.
Hans
Sure. By the way, thanks for all the files and all the effort to produce them. It allows for all sorts of comparisons.
Gerrit
Gerrit