Well, that's an empirically false statement (I HATE vinyl), which calls into question the veracity of your previous utterances....We all love vinyl (I do) and a good LP sounds great...
Well, that's an empirically false statement (I HATE vinyl), which calls into question the veracity of your previous utterances....We all love vinyl (I do) and a good LP sounds great...
I agree that double-blind tests are the best (though not perfect) way to resolve such issues. The only additional feature I would add is that multiple sample sizes should be used and grouped according to how sensitive their hearing is, rather than testing one large random group. This helps to reduce another aspect of experimental bias: that a person's hearing generally declines with age. So an agreed preference for a source file amongst, say, three groups with the same hearing sensitivity yields a more robust result than a single random sample of individuals with a diverse age range (and hence, expected hearing sensitivity, which can easily be tested as well).OK.... Yet another thread of this...
I have always been an absolute defender of double blind tests. BUT you have to compare apples with apples.
The only comparison test that will give adequate results is:
- Have a source file Hi-res (24/96 or 24/192). This is the 'good' master produced.
- Downsample that file to CD resolution (16/44.1)
- Play alternatively both files with exactly the same equipment, same sound settings, same etc., same etc., same etc.
- I repeat same etc. again because a simple change even in just volume level may affect the non lineal frequency perception of the human hearing. And then you say... I like more this.
CorrectedWell, that's an empirically false statement (I HATE vinyl), which calls into question the veracity of your previous utterances.
I record 96 or 192...it definitely helps when processing.
Once you actually bounce it down, I can't tell the difference between 48 and 96, and usually there aren't too many ultrasonics in my music, so I just bounce it to 48.
The difference between 16 and 24 bit is definitely there and 24 bit is a must always.
Sure. The tests can be designed as much as rigurous as possible. But they will NOT contribute to clarify the fact that for the final listener the difference is minimal, if exists.I agree that double-blind tests are the best (though not perfect) way to resolve such issues. The only additional feature I would add is that multiple sample sizes should be used and grouped according to how sensitive their hearing is, rather than testing one large random group. This helps to reduce another aspect of experimental bias: that a person's hearing generally declines with age. So an agreed preference for a source file amongst, say, three groups with the same hearing sensitivity yields a more robust result than a single random sample of individuals with a diverse age range (and hence, expected hearing sensitivity, which can easily be tested as well).
Oof... DAC = digital-to-analog converter. The digital signal that is converted to analog—in this case—is audio, but it could just as well be some other kind of signal....digital to audio converters (DACs)...
Original post corrected as you have noted. At least it was his mistake, not mine.Oof... DAC = digital-to-analog converter. The digital signal that is converted to analog—in this case—is audio, but it could just as well be some other kind of signal.
I removed the low pass filter on my SACD player because my dogs love DSD quantization noise! They shake with joy and bounce all over the room!I enjoy SACD the most.
Fight!
Interview: Jethro Tull's Ian Anderson on 2014 HD Album | Digital Trends
Digital Trends: Do you feel strongly about having your music made available to listeners as high-resolution, 96-kHz/24-bit files?
Ian Anderson: Well, I’m very keen on the 24, which is absolutely necessary to get the best out of digital recording. 16-bit recording is alright — or it was, back in the ’80s. But 24-bit is not just 8 bits better — it’s a huge amount better.
“Anybody who pretends they can hear more than 48k audio is just bull$hitting. Even if it’s my dog.”
That probably represents the limit of our human physiology to appreciate any difference between 24-bit digital and the analog world in which we live, in terms of recording. 24 bits is all we need. There’d be no point in going to 32 bits. That would be beyond our ability to perceive any actual benefits.
But 24 bits is crucial. 96k, to me, is just double the file size. I’m personally a believer in 48k/24-bit recording, because with 48k, you’ve got ample headroom to more than exceed the limits of human hearing. 48k is going to give more than 20k of bandwidth, and anybody who pretends they can hear more than that is just bull$hitting. Even if it’s my dog.
Warner is responsible. I have requested Blu-ray. Problems with the Aqualunq Blu-ray not playing doesn't help the cause. I'm told it doesn't really matter with rock music.Well, Mr. Ian Anderson, can you explain why ALL your fantastic sounding Steve Wilson 5.1 remixes with the exception of Aqualung [BD~A 5.1] have been released with LOSSY DTS 5.1 DVD~Vs and 96/24 LOSSLESS Stereo remasters?
Why not release BOTH in LOSSLESS formats?
[In REPLY to above Post #35]
What an 'insipid' response from Warner, John .... It's ROCK music ... doesn't matter! The Nerve. At one time Warner/Rhino was tops in releasing their music in hi res and their Chicago//Doobie QUADIO BD~As in 192/24 4.0 are SUPERB! Why they also released those two Fleetwood Mac box sets [Fleetwood Mac/TUSK] in LOSSY codecs after newly remixing them for 5.1 was ABSURD!Warner is responsible. I have requested Blu-ray. Problems with the Aqualunq Blu-ray not playing doesn't help the cause. I'm told it doesn't really matter with rock music.
It was Aqualung Adapted in particular. I wanted Blu-ray.What an 'insipid' response from Warner, John .... It's ROCK music ... doesn't matter! The Nerve. At one time Warner/Rhino was tops in releasing their music in hi res and their Chicago//Doobie QUADIO BD~As in 192/24 4.0 are SUPERB! Why they also released those two Fleetwood Mac box sets [Fleetwood Mac/TUSK] in LOSSY codecs after newly remixing them for 5.1 was ABSURD!
Enter your email address to join: