Can you truly make 16bit audio sound better by upping it to 32bit? - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: peteb2
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 10, 2017, 10:06:15 pm
content: ...and call it HiFi/HiQuality Audio.... Sorry. I am missing something here. This latest Kickstarter looks like a nifty wee cased thing to plug your headphones into but really?I followed a bit of the excitement for a while over high bitrate compressed audio files (.flac etc) thing. We mere individuals can now supposedly access what is as close if not a direct copy of the original studio mix by the recording artist. Some are released with the assurance you hear what the original mix which will always sound better being the studio recording, not some now-considered degraded version 16bit 44.1k music CD sold by the music industry that they adopted when vinyl records and cassette tapes went away... All that's happened i feel is it's a way to pay way more for your fave music you might like to own... but i digress.So add to all this that (apparently) the audiophools who'll will point out that any .mp3 audio files are an abortion because much of the music's 'soul' will be missing and even often distorted and that devices like your average iPhone do not contain a DAC chip that can operate at a bitrate anywhere near being able to decode 92bit/192k HiRes files let alone a 'HiFi" quality file format such as .flac They will shun using Bluetooth to remote feed the file pointing out a high number of bits will be being lost in the process, so they therefore own an expensive dedicated played from the likes of Sony, FiiO or Astell & Kern for their portable needs.... To some extent they have a point but then it's all about what the individual cares for i guessEnter this device: It appears to convert the low quality bitrate of Bluetooth up to 32bit.... so that makes itSOUNDbetter.... Hmmmmm ...I'd love to know anyone's thoughts on the subject but in this Kickstarter unit i'm seeing an audio up-scaler that's not HiFi let alone being true HiRes even though they are using a device capable for the doing so... bottom line you can't replace actual lost bits (only approximate them).... SO WHY BOTHER IN THIS APPLICATION?So cut to gratuitous Rigol scope and dodgy low speaker playing some sound video:https://ksr-video.imgix.net/assets/017/835/487/a4cca3311c291557106869067e1963e6_h264_high.mp4The Kickstarter Page:...AQUA+http://tinyurl.com/y8wnnen4

author: DrGeoff
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 10, 2017, 10:39:07 pm
content: Quote from: peteb2 on August 10, 2017, 10:06:15 pmBit rate and bit depth are two different things.I'd recommend watching Monty Montgomery's excellent video on this to further understand how the two affect signals. In short, 44.1K 16 bit is an excellent choice, and there is nothing wrong with it.

author: peteb2
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 11, 2017, 12:50:32 am
content: Quote from: DrGeoff on August 10, 2017, 10:39:07 pm

author: WastelandTek
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 11, 2017, 01:10:18 am
content: that was...awesomethat gentleman is a really good educator

author: Richard Crowley
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 11, 2017, 01:47:15 am
content: Quote from: peteb2 on August 10, 2017, 10:06:15 pmCan you make the MonaLisa look better by putting it into a larger frame? No.QuoteNo, you aren't missing anything. Kickstarter and Indiegogo are a rich source of phoolishness like this. To give them the benefit of the doubt, perhaps the majority of these schemes are perpetrated by people who actually believe the hype themselves. It doesn't change the fact that it is phony.

author: b_force
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 11, 2017, 07:05:00 am
content: I can think of some applications where 16 bit isn't adequate enough. But those are all high professional situations, where noise is a serious issue (especially with highly sensitive horn drivers).Keep in mind that most DACs are being sold as 16 or 24 bit, but practically they only can deliver 70-80% of that (speaking from a noise/dynamic range kind of perspective)

author: Rerouter
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 11, 2017, 12:04:23 pm
content: That was a very informative video, thanksb_force, i would say as far as 24 bit dacs go, its really easy to end up with them having effective bits in the 14-18 ballpark, once you add up all the error terms, to actually get 24 bits effective takes not only some more $, but layout techniques that go against most audiophile mantras (e.g. ground planes, return routing, and serious crosstalk prevention) I'm approaching this purely from the perspective of having laid out 16 bit ADC/DAC for precision measurements, and that alone wasn't easy to guarantee less than 1 lsb of noise. (50uV on 3.3V)

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 11, 2017, 12:18:39 pm
content: Quote from: WastelandTek on August 11, 2017, 01:10:18 amHe has several videos related to common misunderstandings about audio. They are all worth watching, even if you are an expert, if only to see his slant on presenting the material.

author: brucehoult
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 11, 2017, 12:56:04 pm
content: "Sound better" is a very subjective thing. Some people think pumping up the bass and/or treble makes music sound better. Or adding a bit of reverb or phasing.You certainly can't add back any missing information by converting a 16 bit signal to 32 bit and/or increasing the sampling rate.What you *can* do is make life easier for the analogue output components, to get the best from what you already have.Going to 16 bit 44.1 kHz with no copy protection on CDs was perhaps the worst blunder the music industry ever made. It's TOO GOOD. Or at least, it's as good as anyone ever needs for playback. In a studio mixing down different tracks and doing various processing it's useful to have a bit better, so that the final output can be at the maximum quality possible for 16 bit 44.1 kHz. Which is very very good.But not for end user delivery and playback.

author: b_force
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 11, 2017, 04:22:19 pm
content: "Sound better" is just pure and only marketing b*llsh*t.That virus is even so bad that even crap is coming out of some very smart people unfortunately.Noise levels etc, don't have anything to do with 'sounding better'.From experience I can tell that in some professional situation noise can be very annoying and unwanted.Like quiet moment on stage with a speaker monitor for the musician for example.I have been developing quite some audio related projects over the years, and I can confirm that it's all about grounding and using the right components, like Rerouter already said.Unfortunately with DSPs (digital filtering) noise levels are not getting any better, especially when you also need to have an universal input stage for different input standards.

author: Richard Crowley
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 11, 2017, 04:34:56 pm
content: I have been recording audio professionally from several decades before the Digital Age. The goal while "tracking" (recording the original sounds) is to maintain the optimal SNR (Signal to Noise Ratio) by keeping the average audio levels as high as possible without hitting the upper limit (clipping). Clipping back in the analog era was much "softer" and more forgiving/flexible compared to digital recording where when you hit 0dBFS (Full Scale) you are up against a HARD limit, beyond which there is nothing but severe distortion.When you do the math, you will see that a dynamic range of 16 bits is the equivalent of 96.33dB. If you take the noise-floor of the Real World at around 20dB you will see that 96dB is quite more than enough to produce sounds over the complete range that our ears can handle. Unless you want to ruin your ears with head-banging heavy metal at 120dB, I'll leave you to decide that for yourself.The overwhelming majority of music consumed these days is typically both dynamic range compressed (see the "Loudness Wars") as well as data-compressed (i.e. MP3) and it is rare to find people listening to music that even amounts to 14-15 bits of dynamic range.OTOH, when I am recording live performances (especially of amateur musicians) I prefer to use 24 bit recording sample depth. Not because it offers any significant improvement of SNR, but because it offers a significant increase in headroom so that I can record at a comfortable level while maintaining a substantial safety margin to handle unexpected amplitude excursions. Of course, it is also true that the electronics (mostly the microphone preamp) has nowhere near the 144dB of dynamic range implied by a 24-bit sample depth.32 bits of sample depth implies 196dB of dynamic range which isn't even possible to achieve under normal atmospheric pressure on our planet. Not to mention that you would need cryogenically-cooled electronics to even get half that dynamic range. But 32-bit (or even floating-point) arithmetic is commonly used for intermediate calculations in most modern audio software to handle mixing and other effects without worrying about arithmetic overflow ("clipping"). Of course the final result is truncated back down to 16 bit for consumption in the Real World.Ref:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_bit_depthhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war

author: ejeffrey
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 11, 2017, 08:25:30 pm
content: Quote from: Richard Crowley on August 11, 2017, 04:34:56 pmAlso, if you _do_ decide that, 20 dBA won't be your personal noise floor for long, so 16 bit will still sufficeBut ++ to all of this. 24 bit is useful in the sense that it is affordable overkill that takes one piece of the signal chain (the ADC) off the table as something you have to get "just right" when recording. For playback, a signal with more than 16 bits of dynamic range is unlistenable.The same thing goes for sample rate. 44.1 kHz or 48 kHz is enough to capture everything you can hear. But going to higher sample rate makes digital filters easier to implement. It would also help with analog anti-aliasing filtering except that now basically all audio CODECs are sigma-delta based which upconvert internally to a higher effective sample rate so that simple anti-aliasing filters can be used.

author: b_force
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 12, 2017, 01:36:19 pm
content: Like said before, a 24 bit ADC (or DAC) is still no guarantee at all.In fact, there are enough ADC/DAC/CODECs that can only do around 95-100dB SNR/Dynamic range *Can tell you that it's not enough, or very difficult to handle with in professional situations.@Richard CrowleyI can imagine that these extra bits are just enough to not feeling limited.Not that you'll always use these, but it's just handy to have the extra space.For that reason a lot of video editors use 4K.A normal human being isn't able to see the difference either (with 1080p or 720p).(same marketing BS)@ejeffreyLower sample rates have more other benefits, like (practically) lower latencies, smaller in storage etc etcOnes again, there is no 'better', just use what is needed for your purposes.(* Dynamic range and SNR aren't the same thing. Bit unfortunately in every datasheet these two numbers are just being copied)

author: WastelandTek
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 12, 2017, 04:23:21 pm
content: Quote from: b_force on August 12, 2017, 01:36:19 pmwell, for watching TV perhapsGamers are using the extra real estate to achieve a wider FOV, I am already seeing attempts at 3 x 4K surround setups among the serious (and wealthy) hardware enthusiasts.There will never be a limit to the gamer appetite for pixels, framerate, input lag or anti-aliasing.

author: b_force
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 12, 2017, 07:00:33 pm
content: Quote from: WastelandTek on August 12, 2017, 04:23:21 pmGamophiles

author: WastelandTek
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 12, 2017, 07:11:57 pm
content: Quote from: b_force on August 12, 2017, 07:00:33 pmWell sure, lol, but at least we are reaping actual benefits, unlike phools. I have been running 5760x1080 here for like 6 years already, I would never go back to a tighter FOV.

author: MT
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 12, 2017, 08:26:37 pm
content: Quote from: Richard Crowley on August 11, 2017, 01:47:15 amBut inside a golden baroque frame makes her appear more impressive!

author: nidlaX
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 13, 2017, 03:08:42 am
content: Quote from: blueskull on August 12, 2017, 07:25:44 pmI can still make out sub-pixels in Pentile configuration 1440p OLEDs at 5.5", so there is still some room for (not very practical) improvement. Not to mention, VR applications will require greater than 4K densities in small screens.

author: IanMacdonald
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 13, 2017, 11:05:45 am
content: The main quality issue is not the bit depth but the filtering used to eliminate RF. If the digital clock is 44.1kHz then that is only just over twice the audio range. That means your low-pass filter needs to be able to provide a substantial amount of high-cut in just one octave, to eliminate remnants of the clock frequency. Typically you need a compound active filter to achieve this, and the filter design itself can make or break the sound quality. In particular a poor filter design will introduce phase changes in the passband.The solution is oversampling, which is basically a case of multiplying the digital clock so the filtering requirement is shifted further away from the audio range. That means a simple low-pass filter can be used, which is far less likely to introduce artifacts into the audio range. Even some of the expensive early CD players lacked oversampling, and that is why the sound was 'fuzzy' and unclear. Some manufacturers then started making it a point of 'specmanship' to use silly amounts of oversampling. In fact this gains no advantage. As long as the carrier is high enough in frequency to avoid the need for a filter with extremely sharp cutoff, that's all that's needed.Incidentally, a 44.1kHz sampling rate means that a 10kHz signal consists of four points per cycle*. A 1kHz signal, 40. 100Hz bass, 400. Since 16-bit sample depth gives 65536 levels (or 32768 in each signal polarity) that is far more resolution than you can actually use, when you only have 400 points per cycle. Hence 32-bit encoding is pointless UNLESS a much higher clock rate is also used.* The human ear cannot tell the difference between sine, triangle and square waves at above a few kHz. So, this is actually quite acceptable. Believe it or not.

author: brucehoult
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 13, 2017, 12:08:05 pm
content: Quote from: IanMacdonald on August 13, 2017, 11:05:45 amGiven that both triangle and square waveforms consist of the fundamental tone plus odd harmonics (in different ratios), the first overtone in both cases is three times the frequency of the fundamental tone. So it stands to reason that even a fundamental of 5 or 6 kHz puts the first overtone near or past (depending on age) the limit of hearing.

author: b_force
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 13, 2017, 12:15:26 pm
content: That's simply because our ears work as a low-pass filter as well.Most (older) adults don't hear anything above 10kHz relativly speaking with other frequencies.(with a single tone and enough dB's you will eventually able to hear it).

author: kalel
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 13, 2017, 12:25:28 pm
content: Quote from: brucehoult on August 13, 2017, 12:08:05 pmAt 6 kHz in Audacity (tone generator), I can hear the difference between Sine, Square and Sawtooth. I believe there's surely some other reason for that though. I know that audio is complicated as so many factors influence it. Who knows what frequencies I'm actually hearing.At 10k, there's a huge difference too. Square makes you hear "more simultaneous tones" than Sine. 10k Sine at decent loudness hurts my ears, so be careful with trying any of these.It's interesting how the "Sine" looks when zoomed in:Square (also 10000 Hz)It would be even more interesting to compare it with what comes out of the headphones, but that's not easy.

author: b_force
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 13, 2017, 02:27:22 pm
content: there is nothing more 'complicated' about audio.Just a lot of fairy tales.With headphones you simply make the SNR MUCH better, so all effects or differences are going to be more clear.With a sawtooth contains even and odd harmonics. So with 6kHz it is possible to just hear the 2nd harmonic and maybe the third (although difficult).A square wave and triangle wave only have odd order, so with 6kHz the next harmonic is on 18kHz.Probably there are some issues with sampling or other side effects.All depends how good/bad programmers have done their home work.In a lot of cases there are also resample issues in Windows, which can be very clearly heard with just sine waves and alike.With my standard onboard soundcard 44kHz music sounds horrible when I don't select the proper output samplerate for example.

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 13, 2017, 03:59:06 pm
content: Quote from: Richard Crowley on August 11, 2017, 04:34:56 pmWhile a 20 dB noise floor may be realistic in a recording booth there are darn few real world situations where the noise is that low. Most modern urban people get uneasy in truly quiet environments. Maybe in a quiet room with earphones. All of this adds fuel to your argument that 16 bits is more than enough for reproduction.

author: Lukas
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 13, 2017, 06:33:40 pm
content: Quote from: kalel on August 13, 2017, 12:25:28 pmWatch the video by the xiph.org guy. Playing 'connect the dots' as audacity does it is the wrong way of rendering sampled signals. The correct way is to use sinx/x interpolation since this is what you'll get after putting the signal through a brick-wall filter that cuts off at nyquist frequency. Audacity can do this for you using Tracks->Resample and choosing a high sample rate.When generating a 10kHz square wave, select "Square, no alias" and you'll get something that doesn't look like a square but is the correct band-limited approximation of a band-limited 10kHz square.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 13, 2017, 06:42:04 pm
content: Quote from: kalel on August 13, 2017, 12:25:28 pmWhy do you find a meaningless join the dots presentation in any way interesting? I suppose its slightly interesting that someone would produce software that creates such a meaningless image. Try joining the dots with a properly band limited curve, which meets the Shannon criteria for the sampled data, and you will have a nice sine wave.

author: WastelandTek
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 13, 2017, 06:50:32 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on August 13, 2017, 06:42:04 pmTHIS is really important to grok

author: kalel
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 13, 2017, 08:22:40 pm
content: Quote from: Lukas on August 13, 2017, 06:33:40 pmThanks. Here's the sine after resampling:And the square no alias:

author: IanMacdonald
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 14, 2017, 07:28:43 am
content: As low as 6kHz you will be able to hear at least the second harmonic. Other point is, are you being influenced by relative loudness? The tonal quality of sound is very dependent on apparent loudness, and it's not easy to get that the same for different waveshapes.

author: Alex Nikitin
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 14, 2017, 08:49:38 am
content: On the topic:You can make it sound different. In essence, a 16-bit 44.1kHz recording (even uncompressed) is quite dead as far as the sound quality is concerned. All kinds of voodoo around it it is just painting of that dead body with various colours so it somewhat better resembles a living thing. Guys just did design another way to sell that postmortem colouring, good luck to them!CheersAlex

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 14, 2017, 10:10:10 am
content: Quote from: peteb2 on August 10, 2017, 10:06:15 pmAnd a good lot of studio recording a mixed with Yamaha NS10 studio monitor speakers which are actually not all that great (some say terrible), they are just "the standard". So unless you listen on the same speakers, you aren't getting the same mix anyway regardless of how perfect your file format is.https://www.soundonsound.com/reviews/yamaha-ns10-story

author: Gyro
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 14, 2017, 10:32:46 am
content: Ah, bring back the days when Tannoy Monitor Golds and HPDs were the standard (they still are for me.).Edit: Yes, I know, they were more for mastering than mixing.

author: DrGeoff
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 14, 2017, 11:16:35 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on August 14, 2017, 10:10:10 amNot exactly. That's pushing the envelope a bit far.NS10's (and Auratones) are there as reference check monitors, to check the translation of the mix on a number of other speaker systems which more closely resemble an average home 'hifi' style of speaker.The mixing itself is done using a number of other monitors (near field usually, for critical close listening) that the engineer trusts and knows well enough to be able to discern the various frequencies and components that need attention and treatment.And then it goes to Mastering, which use yet another style of monitoring system to hear the overall stereo mix.

author: alexanderbrevig
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 14, 2017, 12:57:04 pm
content: NS10 is best used as a sub microphone for the kick. If you use it for anything but one of many references, you're doing it wrong. I agree. It's not at all that great (except as a kick sub mic)

author: b_force
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 14, 2017, 01:56:57 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on August 14, 2017, 10:10:10 amI can name a lot of very $$$$ loudspeaker brands that are totally horrible. (as in really acoustically completely missing the point).But you certainly have a point that the acoustics in the room are far more important!Something that 90% of the people overlook, incl well respected "professionals".

author: ruairi
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 16, 2017, 08:45:55 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on August 14, 2017, 10:10:10 amNot anymore Dave. My day job is Mastering and I work part time with a high end Pro Audio Speaker manufacturer here in L.A. so I've spent way too much of my life dealing with speakers. A very small percentage of what you hear these days is mixed on NS10s.Re the different speakers issue, the goal of a good mix is have it "translate", the same applies to a good master. It is trivial to make things sound good in our rooms, making a mix or master that will work on an iPad, earbuds, a home theater and in the car is another matter altogether. A good mix engineer is not only making things sound good in his or her space, they are creating a balance that will translate.

author: ruairi
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 16, 2017, 08:47:47 am
content: Quote from: Alex Nikitin on August 14, 2017, 08:49:38 amI respectfully disagree. 44.1 kHz 16 bit audio can sound fantastic.

author: Alex Nikitin
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 16, 2017, 09:25:25 am
content: Quote from: ruairi on August 16, 2017, 08:47:47 amIf it does for you, good! Doesn't for me though, even at its best (and I've designed some very decent CD-players and DACs).CheersAlex

author: dave_k
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 16, 2017, 12:38:31 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on August 14, 2017, 10:10:10 amMixing is different from tracking/recording (which is the part of the process where quality monitors are needed and used). Often NS-10's are used *because* they are ordinary and will give a good indication of how well the relative levels of each instrument/track/channel sound when mixed together.

author: b_force
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 17, 2017, 06:02:01 pm
content: Quote from: Alex Nikitin on August 16, 2017, 09:25:25 amThan you're very talented, maybe not human.Keep in mind that placebo is extremely strong, especially with audio & sound.Humans don't only listen with their ears, also with their brains (= feelings, thoughts and judgements)Second to that is that quality seldom has to do with the used techniques. Or in other words, they could spend more time and energy into higher samplerate recordings.That's simply marketing, it definitely doesn't mean you can have top notch results otherwise.So that simply means that you blame things for the wrong reasons.If it can be done from a technological point of view, there is no reason why in practice it would be very different. Unless you think science is an hoax.

author: Alex Nikitin
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 18, 2017, 07:50:10 am
content: Quote from: b_force on August 17, 2017, 06:02:01 pmThe science of human sound perception is to a large degree a hoax, as there are no reliable and correct tools and methods exist (and please don't start on DBT and ABX etc - these a flawed on so many points) . We are measuring what we can measure and not what we need to measure in the sound quality area, and we can not quantify the actual result of our listening to music - which is emotional and mostly subconscious. The majority of audio measurements is a little bit like checking the book contents change by it's weight change. We can detect a missing page but not a change in the text (at least if the amount of ink used stays the same).CheersAlex

author: b_force
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 18, 2017, 10:03:45 am
content: Quote from: Alex Nikitin on August 18, 2017, 07:50:10 amI would suggest doing further reading, especially if you think everything can just (simply) be measured (with some tools).Science is very clear about perception. That whole field is called psycho-acoustics.Their are billions of papers and books written about the fact that our perception is heavily biased by what we think, see or smell.It's already well known for many many years that what people claim to hear isn't in line at all with what they should hear.The only gap we are talking about, is that most people don't want to admit it.(which is a perfect oppertunity for market to keep using these fairy tale claims)Personally I don't understand why people get so worked up about it? For some people it's almost like a religion. There is a lot of (angry) emotion involved.Everybody makes decisions which are only based on subjective feelings, what's wrong with that??As a scientist or researcher it should be a challenge to disprove or prove things instead?

author: Alex Nikitin
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 18, 2017, 10:29:01 am
content: Quote from: b_force on August 18, 2017, 10:03:45 amAt a risk of a serious off-topic here.As a scientist or researcher you should be able to smell pseudo-science when you see it. A large lot of these papers is exactly that. And as that pseudo-scientific stuff does not correspond to people personal experiences, it makes the reaction emotional (and even more so when as a "proof" they are called essentially delusional). I did design electronics for sound for many years, and if I would just follow that pseudo-scientific crap in my design work, I would end up designing just that - perfectly performing and crap sounding electronics. As I came from a purely engineering background it took me a while to learn that you should not blindly trust measurements only and that you should actually listen to the sound your equipment makes.CheersAlex

author: frozenfrogz
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 18, 2017, 10:49:49 am
content: That Bluetooth dongle does not even feature a 6.5mm headphone jack. What is the use case for that??I would maybe consider a wireless hp amp IF it was able to properly drive my Sennheiser HD 424 with 2k ohms impedance or at least AKG K240DF / Beyerdynamic DT 770 pro (both 600 ohms).

author: sibeen
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 18, 2017, 01:38:10 pm
content: If it can’t be expressed in figures, it is not science; it is opinion.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 18, 2017, 02:07:36 pm
content: Quote from: sibeen on August 18, 2017, 01:38:10 pmNo analysis of perception is perfect, but double blind trials are certainly better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick.

author: Richard Crowley
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 18, 2017, 02:18:28 pm
content: It was inevitable that this thread would devolve into mysticism.But I guess it actually started there, didn't it?

author: Alex Nikitin
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 18, 2017, 08:06:48 pm
content: Quote from: Richard Crowley on August 18, 2017, 02:18:28 pmStarted - perhaps. However mysticism is of no help whatsoever if you actually trying to design something for a serial production. So no mysticism required (or even allowed) for me personally when I design electronics for sound. You learn to trust your ears and you learn how to hear problems in the sound. It is almost an unpleasant skill as it spoils the music and denies you the pleasure if the sound quality is flawed in certain respects which you can recognise. And you learn where to look, what to change and how to make a design which will sound consistently good in production, without hiring virgins and producing equipment only on completely moonless nights.CheersAlex

author: dave_k
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 18, 2017, 09:36:35 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on August 18, 2017, 02:07:36 pmThat would be a poke in both eyes with 2 sharp sticks

author: A Hellene
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 18, 2017, 10:02:13 pm
content: Quote from: Alex Nikitin on August 18, 2017, 08:06:48 pmExactly, Alex! Exactly!After our mastering of any field, whichever this could be, we cannot anymore enjoy any creations of these fields without subconsciously tearing those creations apart, every single time, in order to find out any possible flaws --either these flaws being deliberate or not...Regarding the so-called 'psychoacoustics' I think it is amazing that no one can deny the fact that, the extremely low grade duplications of the songs that we were sharing with the aid of the Phillips-type portable battery-powered monophonictape recordersof the seventies era, as we were kids, seemed to be sounding heavenly to our ears, in contrast with the currently available 'mastering-quality' reproduction of those same songs we can hear today...And, I am afraid that, there is no T&M device to measure and classify this perceptual distinction...As our forefathers used to say, «???» (transliterated: 'gnothi seauton,' one of the 147Delphic maximsbeing inscribed in the pronaos of the Temple of Apollo at Delphi, that the Romans called 'know thyself' half a millennium later).-George<EDIT>Ah! Come on, Dave!In 2017, why is your discussions board softwarestill unableto display any Hellenic language characters?

author: retrolefty
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 18, 2017, 10:19:35 pm
content: It's a hopeless debate that has gone on for many (to many) decades. While some might rightfully demand proof that someone actually hears what they think and say they hear. It's so subjective to turn off most technically knowledgeable people, but too emotionally strong in 'golden ear' believers to not say "you can't measure what I hear and feel".I firmly believe that writing, producing, and mastering of music content is an ART and not limited to or by engineering principles.On the other hand I feel that music reproduction in one's home falls purely the domain of good engineering principles. Speakers and room layout will always be the limiting technical factors and dwarf any of the electronics including magic audio capacitors,$5K triode class A vacuum tube amps, $1K power and speaker cables, etc.There is no way out or hope for this topic................

author: WastelandTek
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 18, 2017, 11:15:58 pm
content: Well, I think it is very understandable for people to be uncomfortable with the idea that they are living in a simulation.

author: DrGeoff
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 18, 2017, 11:33:49 pm
content: Quote from: WastelandTek on August 18, 2017, 11:15:58 pmAnd the lack of comfort would be part of the simulation since people could not have ideas beyond those specified by the simulation parameters.

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 19, 2017, 03:41:19 am
content: The fact that we don't have the hard science behind all of audio doesn't mean those things don't exist. It just means we are more like Faraday, performing experiments and drawing conclusions before Maxwell pulled it all together.I can see this even though I was no golden ear in my youth, and far less so now. I never could keep records clean enough to avoid pops, snaps and other objectionable behavior. So I transcribed all of my library to .mp3 files, and transcribe new old stock records as I find and buy them. While I do use a high sample rate and bit depth, it is not because I can really hear a difference.Where I see funny phenomena is as I go through these recordings with Audacity to remove the noise artifacts. The automatic noise removal functions are not very effective, either leaving the noise in place, or distorting the sound depending on sensitivity settings so this cleanup is tedious and manual. I listen. When I hear an artifact I stop playback and go back to find it and edit it out. As I am scrolling through the sound trace looking for the guilty party I often see clear discontinuities and other disturbances that turn out not to have generated the offending noise or any noise that is audible to me. The actual guilty party is often just a little wiggle on the sound. The total energy of the difference from the desired sound signal is far smaller than many of the other much larger artifacts. Artifacts which cause similar auditory discomfort to me have physical amplitudes which vary by as much as 30 dB. This inability to select visual artifacts which will cause objectionable noise makes the tedious process even more difficult. An album with only a couple of pops and static may take three times the playing time to clean up. One with higher noise levels can take days. Such effort is justified only on a very enjoyable and rare recording.In attempts to automate this process I have tried to identify characteristics of "objectionable" or "audible" noise with little success. It is not a simple function of dV/dt, or frequency content or other classic signal processing measures. Higher listening levels make the noise more detectable and repetition also makes them more detectable, but I have been unable to quantify these observations. Maybe if I read the thousands of papers on psychoacoustics I would make more progress. In the meantime I have no problem agreeing that there are unexplored wilds in the world of audio.

author: b_force
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 19, 2017, 08:04:12 am
content: Quote from: CatalinaWOW on August 19, 2017, 03:41:19 amActually, the fact is, that there is enough hard and good science about it.But for some reason people don't want to dive into it.Almost like they refuse to face the truth.One of the reasons why it's complicated is because there is a lot of psychology involved. A type of science which is not always being considered as real science by engineers and tech scientists.

author: Alex Nikitin
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 19, 2017, 09:52:33 am
content: Quote from: b_force on August 19, 2017, 08:04:12 amActually, the fact is, there is not much "hard and good" science about it. What pretend to be a "science" is not based on measurements and numbers, and what in that area of knowledge is pretend to be based on measurements and numbers, is not a science but mostly a con art.Quote from: b_force on August 19, 2017, 08:04:12 amPsychology is not a science, it is a lot of crap mostly made up on a spot. You can not measure something if your tools are not suitable for that measurement, plain and simple. You can not measure 10mV DC voltage with a needle meter for 1kV full scale, and that is what most of this "science" about human audio perception tries to do. No real positive data except on the level "OK, there is a sound and now there isn't". And without a positive baseline established all the negative data ("this difference is impossible to hear according to our very scientific experiments") worth nothing.CheersAlex

author: A Hellene
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 19, 2017, 12:51:08 pm
content: Psychology... Ah, yes... That NON-scientific masterpiece of our times, based on anything but rock-solid scientific facts...Meaning no disrespect at all to our counterparts of this specific department, this will be a version ofa rantI have had a decade ago in another discussions board aboutmy personal opinionon Psychology.But, before that, please watch the documentary called 'Psychiatry: An industry of death':Psychiatry: An industry of death (2006).Beware, though, because this documentary has its fare share of bits and pieces of the usual propaganda; as it always happens with the vast majority of any release for public consumption...Well, let's take apart the fancy term, 'chemical imbalance.' Should not it be mandatory for anyone that 'diagnosed' us with some kind of 'chemical imbalance' to inform us what a 'chemical balance' really is? With documented factual numbers, if possible? No one can do that! Because this is yet another buzz-word for the well-meaning but gullible also masses. Just consider that this specific 'scientific department' considers even the healthy laughter as a disease that needs to be addressed withpsychotropic poisonsthat will most probably cause a permanent brain damage to their recipients... You can still find in Youtube televised advertisements of the fifties aboutLobotomy(yes, that good old psychiatric practice with an ice-pick...), in the context of:Is your wife getting tiresome when you return home from work and she does not let you watch your favourite TV programme? Make her a gift you will both appreciate: A Lobotomy!Yes, this actually was a TV commercial message of that era, before that medical practice of lobotomy that leftRosemary Kennedypermanently disabled for life; thus the invention of theSpecial Olympicsin 1962 in her memory...So, we have our therapists (sic) to confess our personal dramas (and facts) to, since people are not so pious today to be confessing to the priesthood anymore, while a formal inquisition is not such an appealing procedure for either party to brag about. As for the therapists themselves, they will be happy to be filled in with the latest gossip and to be payed for that, along with the prescription of useless and dangerous drugs that will allow them to earn their percentage from theBig Pharma. In my humble experience as an observer, people taking psychotropics will never overcome their problems because their self-healing ability will actually be reduced by the medication: only the pharmaceutical industry, the "therapists" and whoever gathers personal information or spies on the victims will benefit from this charade...What about the so-called 'mental disorders'? Are they for real? There are a few hundred distinctive names for mental disorders that have been made up; but if you would go to several different 'professionals' and tell them the same exactly story, you would probably end up getting several different kinds of'chemical-or'electrical-imbalance'diagnoses and several different drugs for their'cure': This is NOT science; there is another pejorative term for those practices. Until recently, there still wasthe Four Humorsmyth alive, since the days ofHippocrates, 2500 years ago... As for the inconsistency of the 'diagnoses,' if you are on insurance and they pay, you are going to be labeled indefinitely. Insurance has certainly perverted the system by forcing the therapist to make a diagnosis in order to get payment.Trying to take a look in depth, why are the religious people (who believe in things like angels and demons) considered to be healthy, but if someone dares to believe in elves and goblins is considered to be mentally disordered and schizophrenic? Neither of them has, or can ever positively prove the existence of the angel/deamon or the elf/goblin entities they believe in; both of them are equally invalid. Not to mention that in some special cases, where people in high places have to explain their beliefs in elves and fairies are no more considered to be mentally disordered: they are just been called Pagans, and that is alright... Point taken, or should I continue?As a result, I would like to point out that most people are too scared to look at the whole truth because in their vast majority they think with their feelings instead of their reason. No need to be rational if it already feels good... This is the exact mental (dys)function that is being taken advantage of by every kind of human manipulators; everywhere; ever...-George

author: b_force
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 20, 2017, 04:59:45 pm
content: Quote from: Alex Nikitin on August 19, 2017, 09:52:33 amThan you have A LOT of reading to do, good luck!I should start with an AES membership first.QuoteThat's the most simplistic definition of 'science' I have ever seen.Psychology is based on possibilities, very much like physics is.Nothing more than describing certain behaviors. You don't necessarily need any measuring tools for that even.Countless examples in physics that work exactly the same way.Unless you still believe in black and white or discrete results, but than you have been sleeping in a cave for more than 80-100 years.Psychology also goes MUCH further than these very simplistic given examples.

author: Alex Nikitin
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 20, 2017, 06:11:59 pm
content: Quote from: b_force on August 20, 2017, 04:59:45 pmI've considered an AES membership years ago. Went to several AES meetings in London, read the materials, etc . Lost interest after a while, as found it just a waste of time.Quote from: b_force on August 20, 2017, 04:59:45 pmPlease name one example from physics.CheersAlex

author: b_force
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 20, 2017, 07:29:19 pm
content: ALLphysics are based on statistics.Most obvious are quantum physics, but even the famous F=m*a is based on statistics.In other words, there is a possibility that something will 'fall up' instead of down for example.The change is only so extremely small that it's extremely unlikely you will see it.

author: Alex Nikitin
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 20, 2017, 07:55:04 pm
content: Quote from: b_force on August 20, 2017, 07:29:19 pmOh, so you've meant "probabilities", not "possibilities". Physics deals with probabilities by repeating the experiment multiple times and reaching a very predictable result. Essentially, you've just proved that psychology of perception is not a science, as this approach is not possible there. Statistics is just a tool and in audio perception experiments it is used mostly to cover the fact that there aren't any decent facts.CheersAlex

author: IanMacdonald
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 22, 2017, 06:21:49 am
content: @A Hellene - thought I should set you straight that psychology and psychiatry are two entirely different disciplines.Psychology is about trying to understand the 'software' of the human mind. Psychiatry is about treating mental health problems with drugs, on the principle that all such issues are a product of chemical imbalances in the brain.Psychologists freely admit that they don't understand the human mind all that well, but at least their approach isn't like hitting the computer in the hope of curing the fault.

author: A Hellene
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 22, 2017, 08:54:44 am
content: Of course, Ian! What you very well described are the claims of those departments.What I stated, in my message above, is what their actually practices are; and how scientific these practices really are (or have become), especially after the involvement of the banking sector (see: insurance companies) in their claimed 'science'...Again, I am not criticising any well-meaning individuals involved in these questionable practices, since this is what they haveofficiallybeen taught in order to make a living...I am merely expressing my distrust in this specific pseudoscientific department that has been established by the'Big Pharma'(a huge money-making and lobbying industry), since when money talks morals (as well as true science, in this case) disappear.-George

author: IanMacdonald
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 22, 2017, 03:30:47 pm
content: A useful comparison could possibly be made between psychology today and alchemy a few hundred years back. Now, a large part of alchemy was pure BS, but then the alchemists did lay down the principles of good experimental practice that are still used in every lab today. If there had been no alchemy, then likely there would have been no chemistry.So, I don't think it's fair to knock people who are trying to figure something out which we have little understanding of. People in that position are bound to make some wrong conclusions before they get it right. For example, Freud's notion that all human behaviour is sexually motivated is largely discredited today. It was a reasonable hypothesis at the time though.

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 22, 2017, 05:34:33 pm
content: To further your example. Although Freud's belief that sexual drives were at the root of everything, I suspect most today would support a modified version - that sexual drives influence much of our behavior. That would be typical of most science trajectories. A refinement of prior theories as better measurables come along and show the holes in earlier theories and allow better ones to develop.While much audiophoolery is hogwash, the example I provided earlier is a case where I can't explain an audio result based on the best tools I have from science - as an electrical engineer with advanced degrees and years of experience using and applying frequency response, power, dV/dt and other elements which supposedly explain it all. I am not saying that a fully integrated theory of audio won't combine those elements, merely that I haven't seen it developed yet.

author: julianhigginson
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 23, 2017, 01:36:19 am
content: We already have plenty of DACs that do oversampling internally, so the nyquist filtering becomes cheap and not so phase mangling in the range that you care about.... It seems all they are doing is using a separate chip to oversample and then feed it into a DAC already oversampled?I guess that gives them some control of the details of the interpolation, but I doubt it's going to be that different from what's being used by everyone else. As the action of this interpolation is happening well out of the range of human hearing, and what it generates only exists to allow a long filter transition band.And as mentioned already they can scale up the bit depth all day long (and show dodgy graphs of sampling resolution error that look like they're representing about 4 bits and then maybe 6-7 bits of sample depth, not 16 bit) even if that little AKM part receives its bitstream at 32 bit depth, no way is an audio signal even approaching 18 bits of resolution and appropriate noise floor coming out the audio out pins on that little low power battery-run part... :-)

author: ruairi
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 23, 2017, 07:17:32 am
content: Quote from: CatalinaWOW on August 22, 2017, 05:34:33 pmThe problem as I see it is that music is a type of magic and at it's finest it can transcend language, reality and reason to take us to another place. In truly great music 1 + 1 can = 3! Musicians and people who are sensitive to that magic want to believe that the same applies to the technology of music. Engineers on the other hand are rational creatures to the end and refuse to leave room for the magic in how we interpret music. Simplistic notions of distortion and noise deny just how good we are at hearing subtle differences.I've spent over 20 years working professionally as a recording and mastering engineer and I get to work daily in an extraordinary studio that was built from the ground up to be as close to perfect as possible. In the last 10 years I've been teaching myself electronics to answer the questions of why certain gear sounds the way it does and to try to figure out what makes a difference.I've spent time in the room with some of the best listeners on the planet and I've also had the pleasure of spending time with some extraordinary design engineers. Very few people in the world can do both at a high level. That is my goal and I have a feeling it will take a lifetime.

author: IanMacdonald
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 23, 2017, 05:51:35 pm
content: There was a time when FFTs first became available, when speaker manufacturers were using such tools to design speakers with near-flat frequency responses, something which had previously been near-impossible. Only thing was, they sounded truly dreadful.Which, I think underlines the folly of chasing a specification parameter which has little bearing on actual results. In practice, audio gear need not have an absolutely flat response in order to sound good, and our ears actually adjust to the tonal balance of the sound anyway. A speaker which booms on bass or puts sibilance on vocals is never going to sound good though, and avoiding such artifacts is more important than a flat response.

author: alexanderbrevig
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 23, 2017, 08:35:38 pm
content: A complete aside, and only really relevant to the above; IIR are much better for correcting speaker travel and it's response. At least in my limited experienceI'd also like to point out that even though psychoacoustics sounds like a pseudo science it really is not. It's a field which explains our perception of sound. Knowing the fact that we are more sensitive to baby screams than we are to rocks falling can be important to know. Much like the fact that we use echo and phase to locate and determine our surroundings. Then there is intermodulation and various noise shapes. What good is it that the RTA shows a flat line if you feel your ears bleed because of the 2-3k.Every field of science turns into a belief or religion at some point. We're still or waiting to know what the higgs boson will tell us. Many people have dedicated their lives to 'sides' of that.We guitar players love the power chord because it sounds deeper than it is. That is psychoacoustics, and it's true for everyone. Also, powerchords sohuld be played like the attached photo for extra psychology points\../,EDIT: Completely forgot to "answer" the question.Yes you can make it sound better by shifting the bits, if you believe it will sound better.

author: IanMacdonald
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 23, 2017, 09:37:49 pm
content: My understanding is that the ear's 'microphone' is basically a long coiled tube with sensors along it at regular intervals. The standing waves set up in the tube determine which sensors are activated. This is why we perceive certain sets of frequencies as being a musical scale, and certain combinations of notes as working together, whilst others clash. In other words the concepts of an octave scale and chords are purely a human standpoint. Other beings might hear our music very differently. Possibly not so muchas

author: The Soulman
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 23, 2017, 09:45:25 pm
content: Quote from: IanMacdonald on August 23, 2017, 05:51:35 pmYes!Together with:Quote from: alexanderbrevig on August 23, 2017, 08:35:38 pmTells what is important in a high quality sound system: a optimized phase response and a frequency response that is free of resonant spikes (no you can't properly correct that with eq).On topic: IMHO over-sampling is over-rated.

author: alexanderbrevig
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 23, 2017, 09:55:02 pm
content: Quote from: The Soulman on August 23, 2017, 09:45:25 pmHehe, as a live audio engineer I know all about that. With analog gear, you almost always just moves the peak to another place when using the EQ. On my Midas I have phase linear EQ which helps, but a nasty room will stay nastyAlso, I have a bad habit when I'm drunk. I always sing a sine sweep in the loo to find the resonant peak and then do drop it like it's hot so it shakes the room (on that freq). I often get the sink for myself afterhehQuote from: The Soulman on August 23, 2017, 09:45:25 pmAgreed. But if you want to send media over to f.ex a blue ray production. You will get strange looks/angry emails if you ship a 16@44.1kHz.