Audiofoolery....Sony style - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: FrankenPC
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 20, 2015, 06:37:29 am
content: http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015/02/sony-will-sell-a-premium-sound-microsdxc-card-to-audiophiles-in-japan/The Wall Street Journal reports that Sony will be bringing what is labeled as a "premium sound" microSDXC card to market in Japan next month. In spite of the fact that these cards use packetized digital signaling and "noise" below a certain threshold is immaterial to the proper reading of data from media, and despite the fact that even Sony isn’t sure about the viability of a "premium sound" microSDXC card, the company does think that there are people out there who will want it.Let's cut the shit. Only an idiot of the highest caliber would confuse analog and digital signals.

author: Unknown
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 20, 2015, 07:25:31 am
content: Idiots everywhere are taken advantage of everyday. Sony just wants in on the action.

author: leppie
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 20, 2015, 07:25:46 am
content: $140 for a sticker...

author: Hydrawerk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 20, 2015, 08:14:32 am
content: Hahaha. Fuck.http://www.tweekgeek.com/tweaks/tweeks-by-brand/steinmusic-e-pad-s/

author: miguelvp
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 20, 2015, 08:23:09 am
content: Quote from: Hydrawerk on February 20, 2015, 08:14:32 amyup, you won the internets for today

author: leppie
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 20, 2015, 09:17:11 am
content: Quote from: Hydrawerk on February 20, 2015, 08:14:32 amThey are cheaper than the Sony branded ones, it seems

author: Yago
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 20, 2015, 09:33:26 am
content: Quote from: Hydrawerk on February 20, 2015, 08:14:32 amI tried to write a review of that, a little box came up "only customers who have purchased can write reviews"Rofl.Review was along the lines of; "I couldn't afford to buy E_Pad, so I printed my own on an inkjet printer. They worked EXACTLY the same as the ones for sale here"They also sell these:http://www.tweekgeek.com/tweaks/tweeks-by-brand/steinmusic-magic-stones/Nothing new, but the name is funny, "they" certainly must have some magicstonesselling this stuff!

author: iampoor
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 20, 2015, 09:43:26 am
content: http://www.tweekgeek.com/ct-1-ultimate-reference-rhodium-plus-power-cord/

author: PinheadBE
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: February 20, 2015, 09:59:33 am
content: Would give an arm (well... sort of...) to see a teardown of this onehttp://www.tweekgeek.com/steinmusic-harmonizer-system-platinum/"elongating the air molecules"

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 20, 2015, 10:17:51 am
content: Quote from: PinheadBE on February 20, 2015, 09:59:33 amHere's the best I could find.It's an LED attached to a battery pack (or power pack, with a switch) and doesn't even look that well constructed.Can't see the rest but wouldn't be surprised if it's empty. Certainly, the batteries/power supply don't appear to be connected to anything but the LED, so whatever's in there is a very passive device indeed.

author: PinheadBE
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: February 20, 2015, 03:32:26 pm
content: Wow, well done Tom66! Thanks!I suspect the "Intensity" pot to be a 1 k (or a 10 k if the LED is a low current one) in series, so that in a utterly mesmerizing effect, the LED intensity actually reflects .... the position of the cursor.Now, the real mistery is: are there really people out there who are buying that kind of bulls**t ?

author: Sigmoid
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 20, 2015, 03:43:28 pm
content: Quote from: PinheadBE on February 20, 2015, 03:32:26 pmIn the 90s, in Hungary, there was a religious sect called "The Witches' Alliance".Their main means of generating income was to drive around extremely poor villages, and find the richest home (usually the home of some local godfather). Then they would ring the doorbell, and say that they just happened to drive by, and saw a curse upon the house that will ruin the family living in there.It's just pure luck that they are trained witches, and can remove the curse for a mere 500 000 Hungarian Forints (approx. $2500).Usually they got paid.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 20, 2015, 09:02:18 pm
content: Quote from: mojo-chan on February 20, 2015, 10:12:46 amTwo points:1) There's arguably no point in 24-bit audio, unless it's used in the intermediary steps of digital processing to avoid rounding errors.2) Yes SD cards can emit noise which interferes with analogue systems but if the device is any good it should have adequate screening and filtering so it shouldn't make any difference.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 20, 2015, 09:09:59 pm
content: Case in point, the radio on most phones can sense well below -100dBm and still maintain a high data rate; an audio amplifier is unlikely to be significantly affected by an SD card (at least in a way where humans can tell the difference between A vs B)My bet is all Sony have done is changed a few arbitrary parameters, such as the way the card wear levels or the charge pump voltage. Something so that they can at least claim they have made some change. I'd be surprised if they've put shielding around the chip, or something equally esoteric.

author: Corporate666
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 21, 2015, 12:42:28 am
content: Quote from: mojo-chan on February 20, 2015, 10:10:08 pmBit depth doesn't affect the music at all - it merely changes the noise floor. There is no additional "information" in a 24 bit recording vs a 16 bit one, not in terms of 'information' a human can hear. The range of 16 bit is already far in excess of what humans can use, even when the noise floor is below quiet listening room levels.Hearing a difference with 24 bit is 100% placebo effect, or a different mastering that causes the differences.

author: John Coloccia
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 21, 2015, 12:58:40 am
content: Quote from: Corporate666 on February 21, 2015, 12:42:28 amThat's just not true. Whether it's significant or not can be debated, but the human ear's dynamic range isn't covered, even in theory, by 16 bit audio. In practice, the problem is worse.But it hardly matters since the way music is mixed and mastered these days (maybe the last 30 years) completely obliterates any sort of subtlety and nuance from the material. I doubt if most material would sound different even with 12 bit audio, to be honest.

author: SteveyG
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 21, 2015, 02:25:03 am
content: Quote from: Corporate666 on February 21, 2015, 12:42:28 amNot true at all. Maybe your ears are poor?

author: Richard Crowley
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 21, 2015, 02:51:42 am
content: Humans cannot discern the difference between 16-bit and 24 bit audio. As proved by an extensive test and published by the Audio Engineering SocietyRef:http://drewdaniels.com/audible.pdf&http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=14195QuoteNow, 24 bit audio is extremely useful when recording, especially live events where it is almost impossible to correctly guess the peak levels. It gives you the headroom you need to get a good recording And 24-bit (or even 32-bit floating point) are useful during post-production mixing, etc. But releasing on 24-bit is pure audiophoolery.

author: miguelvp
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 21, 2015, 02:59:38 am
content: Quote from: SteveyG on February 21, 2015, 02:25:03 amI guess this makes sense, maybe audiofoolery has a lot in common with culinary taste buds, not all appreciate food and wine the same way and we all have the same receptors.

author: Unknown
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 21, 2015, 03:05:53 am
content: Richard Crowley has it spot on. Having recorded both audio and video for various productions (mainly live theatre), this is precisely the reason why we use 24-bit to capture all our audio feeds from the desk. I was part of the production crew for Les Misérables in Sydney a few years ago and if you've seen that show, you'll know there are huge differences in levels right throughout the performance. The last act particularly goes from a normal speaking volume to a loud orchestra at the end with some loud peaks. When performers start shouting into those body-pack mics, you really hear it and things get scary when you're watching the audio level meters.We get pretty close to live sound levels using 24-bit; something that can lead to trouble using 16-bit.

author: John Coloccia
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 21, 2015, 03:17:33 am
content: Quote from: Richard Crowley on February 21, 2015, 02:51:42 amThat's a good practical test, but a real test would be to have actual test recordings made that stress the 16 bit format vs the 24 bit format, and then compare those. It does no good to do a test where the signal doesn't stress the format.

author: FrankenPC
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 21, 2015, 04:36:02 am
content: Quote from: Halon on February 21, 2015, 03:05:53 amThat's interesting. OK. So, ASSUMING you are listening through a signal processor/amp with the ability to reproduce 24bit signals accurately, wouldn't it be fair to say the a human could hear the difference simply because the sound would go from normal audible range to freaking loud?

author: John Coloccia
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 21, 2015, 04:59:13 am
content: Quote from: FrankenPC on February 21, 2015, 04:36:02 amYou actually can't reproduce a 24 bit signal accurately. If I remember correctly, 20 bits or so is the best that's achievable.Where you may hear a difference is if you take a 24 bit recording that uses a good deal of it's available dynamic range, and then compare it to the same recording that's been converted to 16 bit and dithered. As I pointed out earlier, though, it's somewhat of an artificial test these days because for whatever reason, audio engineers like to compress the hell out of the recording, boost the levels until they clip, and then limit it so it doesn't clip. What you end up with is a distorted mess that doesn't even come close to using the dynamic range available even on a CD.So as a practical matter, the difference between 16 and 24 bits is academic. There's nothing more bits, or fancy memory cards, power strips carved out of granite, little bags of rocks, or stupid looking speakers can do to help the situation, because whatever harm you might do to the signal has typically already been done 100 fold long before the CD was ever made.

author: Richard Crowley
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 21, 2015, 06:23:16 am
content: Quote from: FrankenPC on February 21, 2015, 04:36:02 amEssentially, yes.....Quote

author: Unknown
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 21, 2015, 11:03:46 am
content: Quote from: FrankenPC on February 21, 2015, 04:36:02 amIt's the difference between clipping the high level stuff and not. If you were to capture and playback certain recordings at 16-bit, you could get noticeable clipping at high levels. The initial edit we do is largely through the use of visual meters and indicators, applying compression etc... EQ is then tweaked later. At 24-bit we get a considerable lower noise floor and a higher headroom at the top end.It also reduces, if not largely eliminates the need for a dedicated audio guy on the output stage. We basically have a guy who performs dual-roles, as long as the gear is recording and there is no loss of signal, the guy at the sound desk does the rest; Whatever he produces for the show is within parameters of the recording gear. The rest we play with in post.

author: John Coloccia
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 21, 2015, 12:04:58 pm
content: It goes beyond just clipping, or loss of dynamic range too. You also end up with distortion artifacts, particularly at low levels. But like I said, we're not even using anywhere near the dynamic range available on the CD as is. Even recordings that I'd consider to be GOOD recordings, these days, have so much compression that I have a hard time listening to it. It's a downright assault on your ears, like listening to road noise for 10 hours a day.Music needs space.

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 21, 2015, 01:38:43 pm
content: Most relatively recent music could be sent as 8 bit samples, with little difference in the perceived quality. Then again most media playback is done with suboptimal equipment, with a very poor noise and distortion figure.I recorded old vinyl to CD years ago, and all I did was look for the maximum level on one playback then set the gain so that did not clip, then hit record with the track set to the beginning. Took the 800M wave files and encoded them to ogg, at 320kb/s, as I could not hear the difference between that and the 2 next lower rates. Then they were recorded on CD, and kept as the ogg files on the hard drive. Way over the playback unit, but at least i was not adding anything.

author: Corporate666
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 21, 2015, 05:04:42 pm
content: QuoteQuoteSo clearly a CD is not greater than the range that a human ear can perceive by any stretch of the imagination. You also have to take into account the fact that to get 96dB at 16 bit you need to use synthetic signals like triangle or sine waves, not music.Next time you go to the cinema take your sound meter. You will find that the amount of dynamic range in a THX certified cinema is often way above what a CD can handle, and THX is old hat these days.There are a lot of people who have fallen victim to the belief that 24 bit audio is superior for listening to 16 bit audio, either through the placebo effect or through differences in mastering. Audio theory is settled science, and there is nothing we don't know or don't understand about digital audio.The simple fact is that all the technical claims in the world don't matter when the reality is that nobody can reliably pick out the difference between 16 and 24 bit audio in a double blind test, despite claiming that 24 bit sounds much superior.Often, the people claiming it sounds superior have technical arguments as to why - like religion starting with a conclusion and looking for the facts to support itAs for the technical details...-The dynamic range of human hearing is 120db to 140db, depending on the source you believe. However, this is irrelevant to digital audio. Firstly, because a human must become acclimated for a substantial period of time before they can detect the extremes of the range, making the range of hearing much broader than the range we can actually hear during a song. Secondly, there is always a noise floor when listening to music, so having a range that extends below that is irrelevant because you can't hear those sounds (not to mention you would need to be acclimated before you could). A CD has a practical range of 120db through dithering which can move the noise to ranges out of our hearing. If you set the max level to the threshold of pain, the minimum level is below the noise floor for a quiet room. That's all there is to it.-You won't measure close to CD range in any movie theater. The noise floor isn't going to be that good, and unless they are inflicting pain or death upon their patrons, they aren't exceeding the dynamic range of CD's.As I said, this is settled science. There are lots of people who will talk about the "clarity" or "depth" or "sibilance" benefits they experienced when they heard 24 bit audio - but the reality is that in a DBT, nobody can pick it out. 24 bit has one advantage... a lower noise floor. There is no more 'detail' in a 24 bit vs a 16 bit recording. And the noise floor difference isn't relevant to home audio because with the upper limit at the threshold of pain, the lower limit is below the noise floor of a quiet room.

author: Corporate666
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 21, 2015, 05:09:38 pm
content: Quote from: John Coloccia on February 21, 2015, 12:58:40 amYes, it is true.It is erroneous to compare the limits of human hearing to the limits of CD audio - that's like comparing the limits of vision to the limits of what a TV can display. Detecting one photon after acclimation may be possible for the human eye, and withstanding sun-level brightness for a short period without eye damage may be possible... but that doesn't mean a TV that can emit single photons at the low end and sun-level brightness at the high end is necessary to cover the range of human eyesight... because you can't go from seeing one photon to seeing the sun without substantial acclimation. Not to mention those extremes of brightness don't do anything for picture quality - they are merely theoretical limits.Same with audio. If I can fire a cannon 2 inches from your ear and it only causes temporary deafness and a small additive hearing loss, that doesn't mean that the same level is required of a CD to cover the range of human hearing - because after that cannon blast, you wouldn't be hearing much of anything for a while.Not to mention that drawing a parallel between "range of human hearing" and "sound quality of 16 vs 24 bit" is flawed from the get go. There is one difference between the two - the noise floor.

author: Corporate666
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 21, 2015, 05:15:39 pm
content: Quote from: SteveyG on February 21, 2015, 02:25:03 amWhat's "not true"?Audio theory isn't really something that is open for debate or interpretation. It is a fact that the difference between 16 and 24 bit audio is the noise floor.It makes sense to the layman that 24 bit audio has more "levels" and therefore more accurate measurement of audio waves, but that isn't how digital audio works. The sound wave is just as accurately reproduced in 16 bit vs 24 bit audio, therefore when people claim that they can hear a difference (usually combined with unmeasurable words like 'depth of sound stage'), that is merely the placebo effect.If you disagree that the only difference is the noise floor, then you are making a claim their audio theory - which is the underlying science behind all digital music - is fundamentally wrong. And since we can test it with the most precise oscilloscopes and spectrum analyzers, it's a pretty bold claim.I'm curious where I am wrong?

author: Mechanical Menace
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 21, 2015, 05:24:01 pm
content: Quote from: mojo-chan on February 21, 2015, 05:14:46 pmYeah, by looking at the headers or what your media player tells you the resolution isThis isn't really a double blind test because of that reason amongst others, no control groups were played 2 16 bit and two 24 bit streams and asked to rate the quality for example. And there's no results published.

author: Richard Crowley
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 21, 2015, 05:28:46 pm
content: Quote from: Mechanical Menace on February 21, 2015, 05:24:01 pmPerhaps a review of what ABX testing would help here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ABX_testQuoteSo beyond the AES Engineering Report, what would "published results" look like to you?

author: Mechanical Menace
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 21, 2015, 05:29:59 pm
content: Quote from: Richard Crowley on February 21, 2015, 05:28:46 pmI'll read it up but I did say:QuoteQuoteAgain I meant for the particular test linked to. To me "published results" looks like results that have been published. That site didn't supply it's results so they aren't published.EDIT:And yeah, the link you supplied does indeed confirm the methodology used in the aforementioned test wasn't double blind.

author: Corporate666
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 21, 2015, 05:32:36 pm
content: Quote from: mojo-chan on February 21, 2015, 05:14:46 pmWell, a few thoughts...1) The username/password given to DL the files from his site is incorrect/changed, and the files have since been removed from the 2 alternate sites he posted. So unless you had previously DLed these files some time ago, I don't see how you were able to get them to listen (not to mention you posted a few moments after me - seems quick to DL and listen and do a DBT in such a short time)2) What program did you use to perform your DBT? Did you use foobar2000? DBT testing is based in science and there are levels of certainty which remove random guessing. Foobar will tell you how you did at the end of the testing and provides a percentage likelihood of guessing3) The survey (where the answers are given) was closed months ago - so again I'm not sure how you can say you were able to discern a difference unless this was something you did months ago4) You are an accomplished electronics guy and I am sure you do not disagree with audio theory, right? So I presume you would agree with me that the only difference between 16 and 24 bit audio is the noise floor, right? Or do you feel there is actually a difference in the quality of the recording? If so, I don't see how as that is contrary to how digital audio works.I don't disagree that some people hear 24 bit audio and say "wow, this sounds great!". I am absolutely sure they do. Just as I am absolutely sure that some people can be given sugar pills during a DBT drug test and report lots of beneficial effects. The placebo effect is not imaginary, it is very real and makes a real difference to those experiencing it. I think people who buy $10,000 audio cables actually do believe they are hearing a difference - not just that they want to hear it. But in the end, all that really counts is scientifically performed DBT. And in that realm, there hasn't been any credible and peer reviewed test that has shown benefits to >16 bit and >44.1kHz digital audio.Tests at home using Foobar2000 or the like are a good start, but of course rely on the user doing it correctly. Not saying you wouldn't do it correctly, but sometimes when people have a vested interest, they can run the test 100 times and cherry pick the result that shows what they wanted it to be. That's why peer reviewed and documented tests are what counts. And in those tests, dozens of audiophiles, musicians, sound engineers, average listeners and proponents of "high-res" audio weren't able to tell a difference.

author: Corporate666
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 21, 2015, 05:37:43 pm
content: Quote from: mojo-chan on February 21, 2015, 05:16:59 pmBit depth and noise floor are inextricably linked. I think this is where you are misunderstanding digital audio and thinking 24 bit sounds different than 16 bit.You don't get "more resolution" when you sample at a higher bit depth, you simply get smaller quantization errors. Those quantization errors are dithered out and turn into noise. The higher the quantization errors, the higher the noise. That is the only difference between 16 and 24 bit audio - the noise floor.Read through this:http://www.sonicscoop.com/2013/08/29/why-almost-everything-you-thought-you-knew-about-bit-depth-is-probably-wrong/it explains it pretty well.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 21, 2015, 11:10:26 pm
content: Ok, so a typical output of a headphone amplifier is a few volts p-p at most. Say 3Vp-p to make the numbers easy. With a 24-bit range, your lowest level is ~178nV.Is it reasonable to expect a typical mobile phone to be able to manage such a low noise floor? Not at all. Even the heavily shielded RF front end would be lucky to reach that. Maybe around 100uV for a REALLY well designed output and closer to 1mV realistically. I'd be surprised if the most silver-plated hand-selected-opamp virgin-blessed audiophile amp going could even go below the 45uV threshold for 16-bit.The only real benefit I can see is it would allow the DAC to scale the volume level without losing information -- except there's little point, as you would be well into clipping before your LSB data was at the same level as the noise floor. That is, unless your content makes use of much less bits, but then what is the point of using 24-bit in the first place?

author: Unknown
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 21, 2015, 11:11:19 pm
content: Quote from: mojo-chan on February 21, 2015, 11:04:43 pmIt's actually the sum of allundesiredsignals. "Noise" doesn't include your intended signal. The use of the term 'noise floor' as per Corporate666's post is actually correct and widely accepted in the industry. That's why it's called a "floor".

author: John Coloccia
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 21, 2015, 11:30:23 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on February 21, 2015, 11:10:26 pmIt's not a matter of mobile phones. It's a matter of can a human hear it given the right conditions. The answer is most certainly yes, because we know what the dynamic range of a typical ear is, and we know what the dynamic range of 16 bit audio is. It may seem extreme, but it's not extreme when you're watching a movie in a nice home theatre, and you expect to be able to go from slight whispers to loud explosions and things like that, and have it all be audible with no annoying artifacts like hiss or clipping.If you look at what a whisper registers (less than 20dB) and something like a motorcycle or explosion (over 100dB), and then you look at the performance 16 bit audio affords you, you will see that if everything is mastered absolutely perfectly, you're out of headroom with 16 bit audio. And that's if everything is PERFECT. People argue, "Oh, well that nuance isn't important." Well, it IS important to someone looking for the ultimate listening experience. Whether or not most recordings take advantage of this, or even could take advantage of this, has nothing at all to do with what you can or can't hear. Let's separate the actual science from what's practically available today.Trying to do a comparison on some mastered piece of music, which by design probably only uses 20 or 30dB of dynamic range to begin with, is ridiculous. You're not going to hear any noise that's sitting 60 dB down from that. Do a real test with a signal that uses the entire dynamic range available, including all of the short transients that are normally squashed to hell, and then you'll hear it.

author: Corporate666
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 21, 2015, 11:32:39 pm
content: Quote from: mojo-chan on February 21, 2015, 11:04:43 pmI'm not confused at all.You said above in this thread that bit depth has nothing to do with noise floor. You also said that 24 bit is better for some music and talking about the distinction between percussion and vocals. The simple fact is that the only difference that increasing the bit depth has is lowering the noise floor. I'm not so ignorant of the subject as to think that quantization error is the only component of noise, and I never claimed that. I simply claimed that the ONLY difference between 16 and 24 bit is a lowered noise floor - and that is exactly correct.The reason it is correct is that you can set the upper limit to the threshold of pain, and with 16 bits, your lower limit is below the ambient noise of a quiet listening room. Even setting the upper limit at the threshold of pain is foolish, but the point is that it's inarguable that going above that level makes sense. Therefore, going beyond 16 bit is only lowering your noise floor. People mistakenly think that 24 bit as more "resolution" and that there is more detail, or a more accurately recreated wave in their audio with higher bit depths. But that's not true... the only difference is the quantization error is lower, which means when it's dithered, it will turn into a lower level of noise.That's really all there is to it.

author: John Coloccia
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 21, 2015, 11:40:09 pm
content: Quote from: Corporate666 on February 21, 2015, 11:32:39 pmPain threshold sits above 120dB. A whisper sits at 20dB. That's 100dB right there, more than you can do with 16 bit audio, with NO headroom. Foolishness aside, certainly transients can extend well above the pain threshold with no pain and no ill effects.Audiofoolery is one thing, and there's plenty of that, but this is just basic science. There's more to sound reproduction than just cranking the latest pop album.

author: Corporate666
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 21, 2015, 11:48:23 pm
content: Quote from: mojo-chan on February 21, 2015, 11:19:00 pmPost the foobar log with a sufficient number of tests to remove any error - that will be a more credible result. Not saying you're lying, but the results page of the test closed months ago, so you must have previously taken this test and likely knew which was the 16 and 24 bit file.QuoteYou're saying you disagree with my understanding of bit depth and then you just repeated exactly what I said in post #41. In that post, I said that the difference between bit depths is the quantization error, which is then dithered into noise. So the difference between 16 and 24 bit is the noise floor - nothing else. Not unless you are suggesting we need levels above the pain threshold for consumer audio or something. There is value in 24 bit (or higher) on the recording/processing side because it gives you more 'breathing room' in manipulating the audio. But for listening, the difference is the noise floor.QuoteWell, there isn't actually any equipment capable of 24 bit playback, but that's another argument24 bit audio is sold to the consumer as "high res", or even "high definition". People think of it in terms of screen resolution and imagine that more is better. But audio theory doesn't work the same way as graphics, because we are not storing discrete values and approximating a result as we do in images. With digital audio, we are using a mathematical process to sample an audio signal and perfectly recreate it on the other end - the key word being perfectly. The only errors are quantization errors due to bit depth. Those quantization errors will always be there - only their magnitude changes. And whatever those quantization errors are, they are reduced to noise by dithering - they do not contaminate the original recorded wave. The higher the bit depth, the lower the quantization error, and the lower the noise floor of the piece of audio.

author: John Coloccia
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 21, 2015, 11:50:50 pm
content: Quote from: Corporate666 on February 21, 2015, 11:48:23 pmI'll grant you that the marketing surrounding this is ridiculous. If consumers understood more of what they were buying and listening to, they could save themselves a whole heck of a lot of money and aggravation.

author: Corporate666
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 22, 2015, 12:02:13 am
content: Quote from: John Coloccia on February 21, 2015, 11:40:09 pmNobody is arguing that 16 bit = 96db, that's a mathematical truism.However, it is also true that 16 bit absolutely covers the range of human hearing for audio. Dithering increases the practical dynamic range of a CD to 120db. And, there is no such thing as an absolutely silent room where one can take advantage of the full 120db you can get out of a CD. On top of that, the most important factor is the dynamic range of whatever you are listening to. The vast majority of music (hip hop, rap, heavy metal, R&B, pop, whatever) is going to be 20db or less. Orchestra is the highest at up to 80db. So since there is nothing that uses 96db, let alone the practical range of 120db, what do we get with expanding the range? Well, considering we can set the upper limit to the threshold of pain and that leaves the lower limit below a quiet listening room - we don't need any more.

author: Corporate666
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 22, 2015, 12:12:17 am
content: Quote from: mojo-chan on February 21, 2015, 11:43:29 pmNoise floor is the correct term. You are using the term "system noise floor" which of course has many components (and I am not dumb enough to think bit depth->quantization->noise is the only component of noise in general), but in terms of digital audio, the noise floor is the signal that is present when the 'audio track' is silent. Or, another way to say it would be the lowest amplitude signal you can discern before it gets lost in the noise. That's what noise floor means throughout the industry in digital audio.QuoteI'm not sure what you mean by "considerable difference between percussion and vocals" in scientific terms. The difference between 16 and 24 bit audio will be the noise floor. We can call it something else if it helps... background noise... hiss... noise of silence - whatever we like. But the difference in 16 and 24 bit will be that this noise is lower.So the question then is - does the delta between noise in 16 vs 24 bit affect the quality music? Well, if it's already below your threshold of hearing in 16 bit, then moving to 24 won't make any difference. And given that we can dither the quantization errors such that the noise floor is moved selectively to frequencies we can't hear (or that don't matter for listening), what noise is present is moved away from the places we can hear it. 120db of effective range is far beyond what is useful between the quietest sound and the loudest sound on the widest dynamic range'd music (orchestral), so there is no difference between 16 and 24 bit.Will you see a difference if you use a spectrum analyzer? Sure. The noise floor will be higher on the 16 bit track. Will you be able to hear the difference? No. Certainly not at a volume level below that which would instantly kill you, or at least cause you pain.

author: Corporate666
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 22, 2015, 12:14:21 am
content: Quote from: John Coloccia on February 21, 2015, 11:50:50 pmI couldn't agree with you more.But as long as there are people buying magic stones, directional audio cables, solid silver speaker wire and low-loss HDMI cables, the "high rezzers" are easy pickins

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 03, 2016, 04:17:35 pm
content: Dead thread, but I came across another example of Sony's participation in Audiofoolery. Check the specs in the following link for one of their receuvers. In addition to being almost devoid of numerical specifications read to the end where they start describing features. It sounds like the engineers did a good job of designing the product, but the ad writers didn't understand what they did and then ran off the deep end with it.www.sony.com/electronics/av-receivers/str-dn1060/specificationssome of my favorite lines are "improves excess properties" and "located on a glass-expoxy board in order to achieve higher speed and power." and "It is strong enough to maintain contact due to its property of adhesion to quartz"

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 03, 2016, 04:24:56 pm
content: Quote from: CatalinaWOW on April 03, 2016, 04:17:35 pmI like how their audio is better at 96k sampling than at 44.1k. Maybe if they hadn't applied ZOH first, that wouldn't be the case.

author: NiHaoMike
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 03, 2016, 05:35:01 pm
content: Quote from: CatalinaWOW on April 03, 2016, 04:17:35 pmTo me, the funniest part was the picture of the amplifier board with the discrete MOSFETs having nice, long leads in an antiquated half bridge design. A plus for serviceability but it's certainly not going to match the resolution the surface mount full bridge designs can do.Not to mention the "4K upscaling" that is sure to frustrate gamers. Why spend extra on yet another upscaler when there's already a very good one in your GPU and probably another good one in your display?

author: edy
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 04, 2016, 01:30:36 am
content: This is brilliant on Sony's part!They produce exactly the same product. Change the labeling/packaging on it, and create another "tier" to their market and cash in extra profits on those who are willing to pay more. And you think this does not happen in EVERY OTHER INDUSTRY? I am not surprised at all about this.You will find many industries that produce very similar or identical quality items and market to different regions, or under different distributors, or using different branding, and different targets of consumers or professional, and charge wildly different amounts. It's called MAXIMIZING PROFIT. We all know the cost involved in most products has as much to do with the actual manufacturing as it does (if not more) to do with many other factors.Same product, different label...

author: macboy
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 05, 2016, 04:21:22 pm
content: Quote from: NiHaoMike on April 03, 2016, 05:35:01 pmI think you are assuming this is a digital amplifier, and picking apart the photo as such. This is a good old analog Class AB amplifier, no digital nonsense. Also, Sony doesn't use MOSFETs in their amps, only bipolars. They played with digital stuff in mid-2000's but dropped it after only a couple years, reverting to a fully discrete transistor analog design. I like the performance of their amplifiers even though the power supplies are quite under-sized these days.The marketing speak around the "glass-epoxy board" is rather hilarious, but the point is that they are using proper PCBs, not those crap paper-phenolic ones used in most consumer audio gear.They certainly didn't spend extra on any upscaler. The receiver supports 4k input and output, and therefore will upscale. Whether it is as good or better than the display's upscaler is, as always, left to the end user to decide.

author: NiHaoMike
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 07, 2016, 04:42:38 am
content: Looking at the description again, they don't mention that it's a digital amplifier. I guess the fact it has HDMI I/O makes everyone assume it's a true digital. Talk about being sneaky!The main downside of an upscaler is the added latency. That's especially true of the more advanced upscalers that look at multiple frames. Hence why ironically, cheaper receivers are often better for gaming.

author: macboy
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 07, 2016, 12:54:17 pm
content: Quote from: NiHaoMike on April 07, 2016, 04:42:38 amI don't think it's sneaky to use an analog amp. Most AVRs still do I think. Digital amps are left to some of the cheapest and the most expensive. There really is nothing in the middle, nothing of respectable performance at least.I agree about the upscaler and latency. My Sony (higher end than this one but a few years old) has an HDMI direct option to pass the video without processing.