 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
23.121.124.120
In Reply to: RE: what media player for older (XP) Dell computer? I just listen to internet radio with my Focal XS speakers posted by wolfy on March 10, 2015 at 17:28:14
thanks so much for taking the time to reply wolfy
Phil
Follow Ups:
But don't believe me: try it for yourself!
You can get a plug in for Foobar that will allow you to perform blind listening tests. Rip some tracks in both 16 bit and 24 bit and then use the plug in to hear for yourself how audible, if at all, the differences are between the two bit depths.
JE
If you can be happy with 16 bit then so much the better for you. Used CD's are selling for nothing and of course will take up less space on your hard drive.For me it's not an A B comparison test. I know that 16 bit is more fatiguing to my ears over long periods, the sound does not have enough meat or density. This becomes more apparent as you bring up the volume. Something is just missing and I just don't understand why more people don't get it. I'm not an engineer, but I think more data=more complexity=more fulfilling musical experience. It can be easily quantified and I do aknowledge the reality of diminishing returns as more data is used.
Edits: 03/11/15
I think you are confusing the standard audiophile argument for higher bit rates with your claim of the need for greater bit depth. Higher bit rates allow for higher frequencies to be in the music. Whether that makes a difference in the sound is the subject of endless debate. Greater bit depth simply moves the noise floor lower. By itself, greater bit depth does not add anything to the music. 16 bit already provides about ~100db of dynamic range. While 24 bit does provide for even more dynamic range, I think you'll be hard pressed to notice the difference in normal playback.
"I think more data=more complexity=more fulfilling musical experience." Up to a point, I agree with you. The question is, where is that point? One thing to remember is that "reality" went out the window when the recording microphone created an electrical signal. All we have in audio, whether analog or digital, is that electrical waveform. If digital can create a functionally identical reproduction of that waveform, then what is the problem? Once you've recreated that waveform, then what is the point in trying to gild the lily? It doesn't really change anything about the waveform but it does add needless complexity, size and expense to the files. I guess you can add in ultrasonics if you want to make your dog bark or to scare away bats, but for humans 16/44 is a pretty good compromise.
JE
There are separate arguments about bit rate and sample depth. It is best to discuss them one at a time. I am going to focus primarily on the bit depth issue here. I do not wish to debate what is or is not audible, just to clarify some misconceptions people may have on technical and economic matters.
1. The signal to noise ratio of 16 bit digital audio is approximately 91 dB, measured from peak levels. This comes from the necessity to add dither noise to eliminate gross distortion and noise modulation. Measuring from average levels, the signal to noise ratio is roughly 70 to 80 dB for recordings that have not been subjected to the "loudness wars".
2. Commonly used dither algorithms do not reduce quantization errors to independent noise. There is still higher order statistical correlation between the remaining quantization errors and the musical signal. Therefore the effect of additional bit depth is not just a lower noise floor.
3. Newer digital recordings made using PCM invariably capture 24 bits. Delivering all the bits that are available is not a question of "guilding the lily", it means delivering the music the way it was recorded.
4. The cost of 1 GB of hard drive storage is about $0.10. The cost of transmitting 1 GB of data across the Internet is about $0.10. The typical FLAC file for a 44/16 album takes up about 0.4 GB. The typical FLAC file for a 96/24 album takes up about 2 GB. In other words, the cost of the extra bits is hardly significant.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
"I do not wish to debate what is or is not audible," but you then go on to post a few tidbits as if they are audible. Why else would anyone care about them? Aren't you kind of begging your own question? Besides, doesn't audibility go to the very heart of audio?
With regard to:
Item 1. 70 to 80db dynamic range is not enough? You must have very understanding neighbors and rugged ears!
Item 2. Doesn't this go back to the point the Audio Diffmaker's Listener's Challenge makes? If people can't hear the brass band playing while the choir sings, how much harder will it be for them to hear "higher order statistical correlation between the remaining quantization errors and the musical signal?"
Item 3. Fair enough. On the other hand, if there is no readily audible difference, then who cares?
Item 4. I agree, these days disc and bandwidth are getting cheaper, but in a world of data caps and streaming music and entire music collections on iPhones, why bother with something that requires more overhead and does not provide a readily discernible improvement?
And before we get into the "Hi-Rez is easily discernible" claims, if that were truly the case then why is there a debate on the issue? Surely if Hi-Rez was easily discernible there would be a consensus on the matter. Both Blu-Ray and Hi-Rez bring additional data to their games, but the Blu-Ray differences are meaningful: pretty much everyone can see the additional detail. I'm not aware of anyone claiming that Blu-Ray cannot be distinguished from DVD. The Hi-Rez "differences" are far more subtle and accordingly far less meaningful. The differences from Redbook are harder to detect, if at all, which gives rise to the current debates. Most anyone could pass a Blu-Ray/DVD ABX test; far fewer could pass a Hi-Rez/Redbook test.
JE
My post was indended to correct technical misconceptions in your earlier post. It was not intended to start a debate as to what is or is not "audible" or how one might claim, prove, or disprove some aspect of audibility. If you disagree with specific words in my post, then please go ahead to identify them and the reasons you you think my comments go beyond technical facts unrelated to potentially disputatious points of psycho-acoustics.
I listen to live acoustic music at concerts. I play it back at the same levels when I listen at home. The volume levels depend on the scale and scope of the music and the musical arrangement/orchestration. RMS volume levels may go as high as 90+ dB for fortissimo passages, and peak SPLs to perhaps 115 dB under these circumstances. I listen in near field and can reproduce realistic row 10 concert volume for Mahler symphonies. I normally have no neighbors closer than 1000 feet. My system plays cleanly at the volume levels that I choose. Were I to subject myself to crude, loudness-war "music" my system would have no difficulty creating hearing damage since it is rated at peak SPLs of 118 dB at my listening position.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
I appreciate your analysis, but I can hear the difference. The 24/96 files that I have downloaded and recorded from lp's have more depth and clarity. I know many people who happily listen to mp3 files whereas I would not and I cannot even stand to listen to CD's; never really could.
High quality media will become ubiquitous at some point, and it won't even merit debate any more. I'm happy that we have at least reached a point that if you want it and don't mind doing a few work arounds, it's out there and getting better.
Ah, but can you really hear the differences, or does your mind just drive you nuts if it knows you're listening to 16/44? If you can truly HEAR the differences, you should be able to breeze through a foobar ABX session. If you only notice that you are "fatigued" after long listening to a known source, then I suspect something besides "hearing" is going on.
Most people can tell the difference between Blu-Ray and DVD. As a general rule, Blu-Ray is sharper and has more detail than DVD. It doesn't take extended viewing sessions to notice that difference. That said, do you find it "fatiguing" to watch DVDs? Do DVDs not have enough meat or density? Do you forego watching a movie that you want to see because the Redbox only has the DVD version?
I submit that the audible differences between 16/44 and high-rez are far more subtle than the visible differences between Blu-Ray and DVD. If you are unable to enjoy Redbook files, there are millions of others out there who can and do enjoy them. Your opinion is your own, and you are welcome to it, but know that you are in the minority. Just because YOU don't like them doesn't mean they "SUCK."
JE
Well said indeed. I've tried and tried to love the 16/44, I have tried to believe, I have tinkered to no end, I have tried to buy into the preaching of the 16/44. I thought, maybe it's the dac, maybe the hard drive or the software will make it listenable, maybe lampizator is right, the out put section is the problem. I tried for years. Then I discovered 24/96 and had the sudden epiphany that it was not the dac, or the ouput section, or which cd player I was using, or which way the wind was blowing, or anything else, it was that the unlistenable media was 16/44, -that- was the problem. 16/44 is always 16/44 no matter what I did and it always SUCKED!
I am free at last! I have ditched 16/44.
Hey, whatever floats your boat! De gustibus non est disputandum. Sadly though, there is an awful lot of good music out there that is only available in Redbook. You'll be missing out.
JE
True true. Thanks for your input, good tidings to you, and may we all be happy listeners.
Post a Followup:
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
