Best sound quality - run 96khz samplerate, do not oversample.

[ermi]

Does any of this matter, though, when we all deliver any audio we produce as mp3's (or worse) or, at best, "CD quality" audio format?

Have you actually tried ABXing good MP3 or 16/44.1 audio with 24/96 files? While I have heard MP3 artifacts with a few problematic samples, I have yet to hear the benefits of higher than 44.1/16 resolutions for the final product. But I remain open minded.

See my post above yours.

You didn't really answer my question, tho.

(Foobar has a handy plugin for ABXing, for anyone interested.)

[A.M. Gold]

Yes, unfortunately hearing is incredibly subjective (especially on the myriad of systems) and the maths is very stupid.

Either way, it's not something you can show and get everyone to understand, or agree.

Yea, well I agree that hearing varies between people, but to say the math is stupid to me is a little disrespectful to the people trying to look at this mathematically.

I would tend to argue that the math may be misleading in that we may not be able to really break down the full relationship between human hearing and sound to the extent that the math really tells the whole story. We are talking about human experience here, as delivered through both the ear and the brain, as well as through the digital media, D/A systems, and speakers. There's also the question of whether all relevant acoustic phenomena can even be measured at this point. It's possible some aspect of sound analysis simply is unknown that is affecting the perceived quality delivered by different media.

But this is a good example of a flash point where people who embrace current trends in science feel offended because someone else comes along and implies that their math/science is somehow inadequate. That's why these things turn into arguments so quickly, based on what I've seen before.

[khanyz]

I know that they will be mastered differently, but if you listen to the CD and DVD Audio versions of Natalie Merchant's Tigerlily there is a noticeable difference that you can hear. This is in the clarity of the content and when using the same system.

That's what convinced me.

[A.M. Gold]

You didn't really answer my question, tho.

True, I'm sorry. I haven't been involved in an ABX test related to any audio issues, no. I'm willing to do it at some point, time allowing, though. I know that no one argues that sound degradation happens at lower mp3 encoding rates, but I'm not taking the position at this point that higher bit rates are appreciably lower in quality than standard CD quality.

[khanyz]

But this is a good example of a flash point where people who embrace current trends in science feel offended because someone else comes along and implies that their math/science is somehow inadequate. That's why these things turn into arguments so quickly, based on what I've seen before.

I have a degree in physics and have studied Error/Noise analysis extensively. So it's with a degree from Oxford University that I can say that the maths is stupid.

Whilst there is a definite Theory and Methodology to the Analysis, by it's very nature it is inexact and, IMO, has to rely on assumption too much. So the science/maths can be inadequate.

That being said, you cannot disregard it as that's a sure indication that it will become significant.

So, mostly you are damned if you do, damned if you don't and usually end up banging your head against the wall and seeking tequila.

[ermi]

I know that they will be mastered differently...

Exactly.
It's comparing apples and oranges at that point.


The only somehow credible test of 24/96 and 16/44 ABXing I saw is this one at HA. But I think it's too early to draw definitive conclusions. The difference might be due to some bad resampling/dithering processes..

[A.M. Gold]

Whilst there is a definite Theory and Methodology to the Analysis, by it's very nature it is inexact and, IMO, has to rely on assumption too much. So the science/maths can be inadequate.

So, mostly you are damned if you do, damned if you don't and usually end up banging your head against the wall and seeking tequila.

Well, that sounds reasonable from my layman's perspective. On a purely intuitive level, I don't doubt what you say about the math being overwhelmed by the complexity of the real-world situation. I have a feeling that is often the case with scientific and mathematical analysis.

This is risking putting gas to the (now small but potentially larger) flame, but I will post a link to an article by former computer programmer turned acoustic treatment designer/salesman Ethan Winer. He proposes a simple basis of analysis involving only four easily measured parameters to determine the quality of audio reproduction. This proposition sparked some of the massive bickering I alluded to earlier.

OTOH, some here might fully agree with this assessment:

http://www.ethanwiner.com/audiophoolery.html

[khanyz]

^

It's not the complexity of the situation, it's the recusive nature of the analysis (i.e. what error is there in the error analysis). It's a subjective decision when it's done, not a mathematic completion.

If you simplify it, to just 4 factors say, you are making assumptions which then need to be analysed and validated. This will, of course, spark arguments, most of which allude to I'm smarter than you and so can easily handle more factors. You can never win.

I'll give the article a read, but I'm assuming that I'm smarter then him and so can handle more factors easily.

Cheers,
Nigel

[A.M. Gold]

To paraphrase Ethan's hypothesis: he's basically saying that the four parameters are fully understood and measurable and that by all other indications of the human limits of auditory perception, they all fall within a range such that, say, an old Sound Blaster card doesn't aggravate these four issues to where anyone can actually sense the negative issues (compared to high-end converters). He also maintains that this is also the case with 16/44.1 format vs. high bit depth and sample rates.

In other words, he's saying the differences are there but they don't matter one wit to any human being with "normal" hearing.

[bezusheist]

1. who/what sets the "limit" of human hearing?
science? math? nature? ignorance? evolution/adaptation? Chuck Norris? Apogee?

[A.M. Gold]

1. who/what sets the "limit" of human hearing?
science? math? nature? ignorance? evolution/adaptation? Chuck Norris? Apogee?

Well, the 20 KHz upper limit has supposedly been tested and strongly validated. As far as validating the lower limit of noise/distortion floor perception, I'm not sure, but I wouldn't be surprised if that has been scientifically tested as well with the lower limit of common human perception having supposedly been established by those tests.

Ethan tends to use average level figures to substantiate is claims, and the very low averages for THD in modern audio systems are things he uses regularly to try to reinforce his case.

[jupiter8]

1. who/what sets the "limit" of human hearing?
science? math? nature? ignorance? evolution/adaptation? Chuck Norris? Apogee?

How is this even remotely a problem ?

[khanyz]

To paraphrase Ethan's hypothesis: he's basically saying that the four parameters are fully understood and measurable and that by all other indications of the human limits of auditory perception, they all fall within a range such that, say, an old Sound Blaster card doesn't aggravate these four issues to where anyone can actually sense the negative issues (compared to high-end converters). He also maintains that this is also the case with 16/44.1 format vs. high bit depth and sample rates.

In other words, he's saying the differences are there but they don't matter one wit to any human being with "normal" hearing.

The article is too high level to really draw any conclusions from it other than Duh! People being ripped off by marketing!!

Also, since there's no references, source data or figures mentioned it can only be considered an unsubstantiated opinion, rather than a well considered argument.

When he mentioned the CD/DVD quality issue here referred to compression, so not a direct comparison. D/A processing at higher rates, it's not all about the frequency response. It can be about how well the converter reproduces a smooth output and it can do this better at higher rates. Now this is usually seen (on a 'scope) more than it's heard (if at all) but there's a nerd factor too.

[Shabdahbriah]

1. who/what sets the "limit" of human hearing?
science? math? nature? ignorance? evolution/adaptation? Chuck Norris? Apogee?

+1

Just because something assumed/presumed to be "in-audible" does not mean it is not perceived in some way or manner with or of which "we" are not aware, or otherwise comprehend to any degree.

Not meaning to get too esoteric, but from my "life" experience it is obvious to me, that we all have *frequencies of perception* on numerous levels, which vary not only one (individual) from another, but alternately within ourselves.

Ebb and flow, as it were.

[2c]

[jupiter8]

It can be about how well the converter reproduces a smooth output and it can do this better at higher rates.

No, absolutely not.