Topic: The difference between 16/44 and 24/96 can not be heard

[Petrus]

  I would expect high quality DACs to process 16/44 content very gracefully, which apparently, these do.  It may also be that these particular DACs compromize potential 24/96 performance in order to optimize 16/44 performance...  But who knows?  This kind of testing doesn't appear to take those factors into account (but again, I haven't read the full study).
- Dave

In that test straight, pure SACD signal form SACD player was compared to the same signal after a 16/44 process. SACD was "pure" SACD, so how could it be of "compromized quality"? So there was a "perfect" hi-resolution SACD against a downgraded SACD-to-16/44 signal. Difference was not heard. Why is this not valid?

[daco63]

In that test straight, pure SACD signal form SACD player was compared to the same signal after a 16/44 process. SACD was "pure" SACD, so how could it be of "compromized quality"? So there was a "perfect" hi-resolution SACD against a downgraded SACD-to-16/44 signal. Difference was not heard. Why is this not valid?

Believe me, I'm over my head here, so maybe someone else can step in... but SACD players must also perform some form of Digital to Analog Conversion, right?  And I would think there would be some noise filtering to smooth out the jagged edges...  Just a quick google I find this example SACD player description:

The filter designed for the SACD 2 is a 2nd-order passive filter. At 12 dB per octave roll-off, it does not offer the out-of-band rejection of a more complex, steep slope filter. However, with a corner frequency at 35 kHz and 96 dB of attenuation at 2 MHz, this filter provides more than sufficient noise suppression to prevent both audible artifacts and intermodulation distortion.

[it-goes-to-eleven]

In that test straight, pure SACD signal form SACD player was compared to the same signal after a 16/44 process. SACD was "pure" SACD, so how could it be of "compromized quality"? So there was a "perfect" hi-resolution SACD against a downgraded SACD-to-16/44 signal. Difference was not heard. Why is this not valid?

All this test shows is that for one specific player, commercially mastered SACD is no better than 16/44.

[stevetoney]

I'm not sure what point the original poster is trying to make.  If the original poster is trying to convince this community that we're wasting our time with 24/96, then he's not going to succeed for all the reasons cited in earlier messages.  The advantanges to RECORDING in 24 bit are inherently obvious.

[boojum]

The original posting is quite clear: over 100 people could not hear the difference between 16 and 24 bit recordings when tested in an ABX setup.  The AES is quite a respectable group of experienced folks, experienced in audio engineering and its allied fields.  The est subjects varied, as outlined in the BAS paper I linked.  These are actual tests.  You may not like the results but these are what they are.  If you disagree strongly enough why not conduct your own controlled ABX tests and see what results you get?

I am not sure what the arguement is about.  The results are not of speculation but testing.

Any input here?

[RebelRebel]

The original posting is quite clear: over 100 people could not hear the difference between 16 and 24 bit recordings when tested in an ABX setup.  The AES is quite a respectable group of experienced folks, experienced in audio engineering and its allied fields.  The est subjects varied, as outlined in the BAS paper I linked.  These are actual tests.  You may not like the results but these are what they are.  If you disagree strongly enough why not conduct your own controlled ABX tests and see what results you get?

I am not sure what the arguement is about.  The results are not of speculation but testing.

Any input here?

I dont think it matters if 5,000,000 AES members took a quadruple blind test. The benefits of 24 bit word length are well documented and apparent to me. If they arent to you, keep recording in 16 bit, if they are, record in 24. Just dont rag on anyone else's decision to go one way or the other. Audio is no place for dogma or crusades..I dont really see the point of the OP.. does he think that his posting that little test will cause some mass exodus from high resolution recording? Dont hold your breath. Another thing..those AES people arent all professionals or credentialed....it isnt an elite club by any stretch. Pretty much all the engineers that I look up to work with 24 bit(and higher) (though the decision over sampling rates is all over the map)..

Boojum, it is ok to be opinionated, but it seems to me that you are a bit confrontational. Ive noticed that a lot of  your posts are just you arguing with someone or calling someone names, dispelling someone else's ideas, etc.....just live and let live, you arent here to save souls..it is only music.

[Gutbucket]

This test is not applicable to recording.
It is only about playback.

The test addresses the audibility of an A/D(16bit/44.1kHz)/A conversion inserted after the analog output of several SCAD players.

[RebelRebel]

This test is not applicable to recording.
It is only about playback.

The test addresses the audibility of an A/D(16bit/44.1kHz)/A conversion inserted after the analog output of several SCAD players.

the original OP's first post had broader implications, and I was addressing those.

[boyacrobat]

i can feel 24/96
i can hear 24/96

my sences demand i play 24/96 as much as possible.
most soothing this realm is over 16/44 for me.

i myself cant explain it properly but something more happens to me when in this realm.
try to feel it not just listen.

g

[Petrus]

We all know recording with 24 bits has tangible benefts. This test was about delivery; SACD could not be distinguished form 16/44. 16/44 has all the resolution we need for playback. Using 24/96 or whatever is perfectly legal and usefull (at least for recording), but claiming a big, audible difference in playback quality is simply not true.

Let's not mix up two different things, recording and delivery.
-----------------
Funny note: on a hifi bulletin board there has been two long winding threads about audible audio quality: one about different MP3 versions, one about this same CD versus ri-res formats. The funny part is that MP3 discussion is quite factual, people calmly admit they can not tell the least compressed MP3s apart, or distinguish them form CD quality. The CD/hi-res thread is much more emotional, there the whole question of even testing such a self evident fact [that hi-res is superior] is questioned, the validity of making test files is questioned and people refuse to take part in the test (or at least they decline to make any comments about their personal results).

I think this only can be caused by the monetary sacrafices these people have made. You can test different MP3 compressions without investing any money; any digital player can play anything MP3 and CD-WAV, so you are not going to loose face by admitting the best compressions sound the same. Not so with SACD/hi-res. Some people have invested thousands to play these formats, they will not admit they can not hear any improvement, they even refuse to listen to a simple test file to see it the difference can be heard.

[Lil Kim Jong-Il]

SACD could not be distinguished form 16/44.

An alternate interpretation is that the SACD may not be up to the task.  You seem to overlook that possibility.

How about I (or someone) make an audio-DVD with various LPCM tracks at 24/96 and 16/44 and circulate that as test material with each reviewer reporting his/her impressions of the various tracks, the equipment used and promising not to inspect the content of the dvd until after listening to the tracks and submitting results?  I think there are enough people on this forum have playback systems that qualify as adequate for the task.

Suggestions for selecting tracks?

edit: actually for an audio-DVD it would have to be 16/48 but someone with DVDA authoring could make a 16/44 comparison disk.

[noahbickart]

Another vital issue that had not yet come up is the duration of listening involved in the "test." In my experience, long term listening fatigue is a much bigger problem with comporession schemes like mp3. Can I reliably ABX the difference between FLAC and a 320 kbps MP3? No. But if you sat me down to listen to a whole show encoded both ways, I would be up and checking my e-mail or reading a book much faster with the MP3. Uncompressed audio holds my attention longer- kal v'homer with high res...

Over good headphones, however, the differences are clear.

-Noah

[Corporate hack]

and just imagine if that show was keller williams how often you'd be up?

[Lil Kim Jong-Il]

 

[it-goes-to-eleven]

SACD could not be distinguished form 16/44.

Agreed.  Sony keeps the format so tightly controlled that it is almost impossible for us to do our own 24/96 vs. sacd tests. I recall those who have not being too impressed with SACD.