[Industrial One]

When I started the other thread asking for clarification why quality
audio requires double the sampling rate of the actual frequency, I
received really insightful information, way more than I expected. This
newsgroup seems really professional, I'm impressed. It's a step up
from scrounging vBulletin audiophile communities that houses hordes of
****tards and clueless dork moderators who just love to argue over tha
intrawebz.

I'm convinced that UseNet is the only professional part of the
Internet left. WWW has seriously become a ****ing joke that lost its
hilarity by now.

Anyway, I was wondering if y'all would participate in a codec
listening test, and if its wise to do so on here.

Before I list the terms, I must know if you're all familiar with the
new-gen AAC codec and have it installed in your system. Not that I'm
assuming anyone here's an ignorant dip**** like a typical
Hydrogenaudio member; it's just that a UseNet newsgroup feels "retro."

Now, here are the terms of how this test will operate (if you think it
should be changed, feel free to post a suggestion):

The target audio samples will be a very specific type of music, with a
duration of 20 - 60 seconds. They'll be encoded with different codecs
at various bitrates, decoded to raw waveform and packed in a RAR
archive with a copy of the original, uncompressed sample. Considering
the type of music, the wavs should compress well and not be a problem
to download. Should I upload to Rapidshare, Megaupload or Zshare?

Once you acquire the wavs, you will see every original song with a
name and its derivatives will have a number appended. You will compare
each to the original and write down how you perceive the quality, in
the following scale:

5 - Derivative sounds exactly like the original. No noticeable
artifacts.
4 - Minor artifacts and audible defects. Good quality overall.
3 - Considerable defects. Sounds somewhat flawed compared to original.
2 - Low quality. Audio artifacts very prominent.
1 - Extremely ****ty quality, sounds like the song is playing from the
bottom of a garbage can.
Less than 1 - Barely recognizable or not recognizable at all.

You may use half-points like 4.5, 3.5 if you feel your perception is
in-between some of 'em, like if you don't hear flaws but the audio
"feels" different in a way you can't explain you can give it a 4.9,
4.8 etc. and optionally, you can follow your rating with an
explanation of what you noticed.
When you're done, e-mail me the text file, i repeat, EMAIL, don't post
it here. The results will be posted publicly when the test's done.

Use good quality headphones 'cuz speakers suck ass, but if you insist
your speakers are leet-class ****, go ahead. Better yet, use
canalphones. Don't use any software/hardware tweaks/mixers that
interpolate, reverb or alter the original signal in any way.

Don't participate if you're on hearing aid, are old as **** and have
crappy ears, an autistic ****, not human (I don't work with dogs yo)
or believe you have any significant problems hearing. Also, don't do
it while you're tweaked off your ass, woke up from a hangover, sleep-
deprived or simply distracted by the horn of the train. We want a
neurotypical point of view here.

And lastly, don't try to bull**** me by lying or cheating on the test,
'cuz I'll know. You are not to do ANYTHING with the .wavs except open
them with your media player and listen. No analyzing with an audio
engineering app to determine the level of compression (if that's even
possible) -- but I doubt any of you got no life that you get kicks
outta spending hours trying to deceive some anonymous named
"Industrial One" on the internet.

Deal?

[UnsteadyKen]

Industrial One said:

Deal?

Yes.

--
Ken

[Steven Sullivan]

Industrial One wrote:
When I started the other thread asking for clarification why quality
audio requires double the sampling rate of the actual frequency, I
received really insightful information, way more than I expected. This
newsgroup seems really professional, I'm impressed. It's a step up
from scrounging vBulletin audiophile communities that houses hordes of
****tards and clueless dork moderators who just love to argue over tha
intrawebz.

I'm convinced that UseNet is the only professional part of the
Internet left. WWW has seriously become a ****ing joke that lost its
hilarity by now.

Wrong. You could get the same good information you got here,
on hydrogenaudio.org.

But from reading the rest of your post it appears you've already
been there.

If by chance you think Usenet audio newsgroups are uniformly good
and informative, you're *sadly* mistaken. Witness rec.audio.opinion.

Anyway, I was wondering if y'all would participate in a codec
listening test, and if its wise to do so on here.

Hydrogenaudio.org conducts these every year or three. There's a
new 128kbps codec comparison in the making right now.

Before I list the terms, I must know if you're all familiar with the
new-gen AAC codec and have it installed in your system. Not that I'm
assuming anyone here's an ignorant dip**** like a typical
Hydrogenaudio member; it's just that a UseNet newsgroup feels "retro."

Actually, I'd wager the typical HA member is at least on par with you knowledge-wise,
though less of a snot, and I *know* that some of the more frequent posters are far
beyond you knowledge-wise, based on what I've read on HA over the years, and
what I've read of your posts.

Deal?

Nope.


--
-S
Poe's Law: Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humorous
intent, it is impossible to create a parody of a religious Fundamentalist that
SOMEONE won't mistake for the real thing.

[Industrial One]

On Jul 12, 5:18 pm, UnsteadyKen wrote:
Industrial One said:

Deal?

Yes.

--
Ken

Awesome. Anyone else?

On Jul 12, 9:39 pm, Steven Sullivan wrote:
Industrial One wrote:
Wrong. You could get the same good information you got here,
on hydrogenaudio.org.

Sure I could, amidst all the discursiveness and whining that geeks
seem to flaunt with pride. Apparently nobody understands that I don't
follow rules, or take orders from dorkwads, and if its a problem, they
can either ban me, or learn to deal with my ****. The UseNet
population is more or less void of PMS and don't talk as if they've
got some aircraft-sized vibrator up their ass but I guess it's less of
a playground since it's populated with adults, go figure.

If by chance you think Usenet audio newsgroups are uniformly good
and informative, you're *sadly* mistaken. Witness rec.audio.opinion.

What, pop culture chit chat, like "in 50 years when they start
recording in the THz range, will we be able to extract an image of the
singers tits from the waveform and count her nipplepores?" I'll bet.

Hydrogenaudio.org conducts these every year or three. There's a
new 128kbps codec comparison in the making right now.

Every year or THREE...? 3 years is a LOT on the net. I've learned to
save whatever webpage I find interesting to my HD as many of them
disappear tomorrow. Most of the tests I've viewed on HydrogenAudio
were either conducted by a single listener who's provided
contradictory results from what I and many others normally agree on
and I wouldn't be surprised: it's dated ****ing 2003!!! 2004 ain't up
to par with current standards either, I only saw one test conducted on
2006 which is minimum of what I accept as "current" and it confirmed
that WMA is actually better than AAC at 64kbps and that NO audio codec
can match 128 kbps MP3 quality at half the bitrate. Oh yeah and
there's the 48 kbps listening test that got an average of like 4/5
which I find hard to believe but... I'll see how my own first ABX test
turns out.

Actually, I'd wager the typical HA member is at least on par with you knowledge-wise,
though less of a snot, and I *know* that some of the more frequent posters are far
beyond you knowledge-wise, based on what I've read on HA over the years, and
what I've read of your posts.

I didn't appear on the scene boasting of my audio leetness, did I?
Most of my history involves sequencing MIDIs and I've only recently
moved on to more efficient audiophile studios where I'll be producing
some trance of my own. I'm a fast learner, HA mofos have been at it
probably since forever, not for a particular reason, but cuz they got
****-all to do. Asspies are like that *cough*Radius*cough* holy ****,
isn't that guy from around here?

Oh and I haven't the class 'till now to ask you what you're doing here
if Usenet isn't your ideal joint? Migrate back to HA and argue with
some birth-defected moron who is giving a public service announcement
how listening to Dj Tiesto's euphoria tracks with a plastic bag over
your head is AWWWIIGHT.

Better yet, stay here and do my listening test. I'll send you porn.

[UnsteadyKen]

Industrial One said:

I'll send you porn.

I'd rather have a link to some of your midi files please.

--
Ken

[Industrial One]

On Jul 13, 11:24 am, UnsteadyKen wrote:
Industrial One said:

I'll send you porn.

I'd rather have a link to some of your midi files please.

--
Ken

The audio test subjects are not MIDI files, they're early mono 8-bit
tracks utilizing only square, sawtooth, triangle waves and white noise
for percussion.

[UnsteadyKen]

Industrial One said:

The audio test subjects are not MIDI files, they're early mono 8-bit
tracks utilizing only square, sawtooth, triangle waves and white noise
for percussion.

Okey Doke, I was referring to your earlier comment.

Most of my history involves sequencing MIDIs

I'm a big fan of midi, the musical ghost in the machine.
A live performance every time, no concerns about recording quality
apart from the samples of course.

--
Ken

[Steven Sullivan]

Industrial One wrote:
On Jul 12, 5:18 pm, UnsteadyKen wrote:
Industrial One said:

Deal?

Yes.

--
Ken

Awesome. Anyone else?

On Jul 12, 9:39 pm, Steven Sullivan wrote:
Industrial One wrote:
Wrong. You could get the same good information you got here,
on hydrogenaudio.org.

Sure I could, amidst all the discursiveness and whining that geeks
seem to flaunt with pride.

In contrast to what you flaunt?

Apparently nobody understands that I don't
follow rules, or take orders from dorkwads, and if its a problem, they
can either ban me, or learn to deal with my ****.

LOL. You *rebel* you.

The UseNet
population is more or less void of PMS and don't talk as if they've
got some aircraft-sized vibrator up their ass but I guess it's less of
a playground since it's populated with adults, go figure.

So, you're clueless about Usenet. Check.


If by chance you think Usenet audio newsgroups are uniformly good
and informative, you're *sadly* mistaken. Witness rec.audio.opinion.

What, pop culture chit chat, like "in 50 years when they start
recording in the THz range, will we be able to extract an image of the
singers tits from the waveform and count her nipplepores?" I'll bet.

Unsurprisingly, you lose that bet. And unsurprisingly, you're unaware
of the flamewars and vendettas that rage not other there, but on most
of the other audio newsgroups. This one's not exempt.


Hydrogenaudio.org conducts these every year or three. There's a
new 128kbps codec comparison in the making right now.

Every year or THREE...? 3 years is a LOT on the net. I've learned to
save whatever webpage I find interesting to my HD as many of them
disappear tomorrow. Most of the tests I've viewed on HydrogenAudio
were either conducted by a single listener who's provided
contradictory results from what I and many others normally agree on
and I wouldn't be surprised:

So here, again, you're only displaying ignorance of what you claim to
know (HA.org)

Here's the thread about the 128kbps mp3 listening test currently in preparation. It's one of
series of such tests over the past decade. Does it look like 'single listener' design to you,
nOOb?

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/...wt opic=64673

And btw, it was right up there in the top ten 'latest threads' list.

Actually, I'd wager the typical HA member is at least on par with you knowledge-wise,
though less of a snot, and I *know* that some of the more frequent posters are far
beyond you knowledge-wise, based on what I've read on HA over the years, and
what I've read of your posts.

I didn't appear on the scene boasting of my audio leetness, did I?

Haven't you?

Most of my history involves sequencing MIDIs and I've only recently
moved on to more efficient audiophile studios where I'll be producing
some trance of my own. I'm a fast learner, HA mofos have been at it
probably since forever, not for a particular reason, but cuz they got
****-all to do. Asspies are like that *cough*Radius*cough* holy ****,
isn't that guy from around here?

Holy ****, you're a *badass*, Industrial One. I bet you dress Goth like Trent!!!.

There's no user 'Radius' on HA.org. There is a mental case troll with a name like that
who posts on...Usenet audio groups. Actually, I kinda thought you were him at first.

Oh and I haven't the class 'till now to ask you what you're doing here
if Usenet isn't your ideal joint?

I guess it's because the fallacy of the excluded middle is still, you know, a *fallacy*,
pisher.

Migrate back to HA and argue with
some birth-defected moron who is giving a public service announcement
how listening to Dj Tiesto's euphoria tracks with a plastic bag over
your head is AWWWIIGHT.

Better yet, stay here and do my listening test. I'll send you porn.

Something else you probably just discovered on the intarwebs.


--
-S
A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence. -- David Hume, "On Miracles"
(1748)

[Industrial One]

On Jul 13, 3:58 pm, UnsteadyKen wrote:
Industrial One said:

The audio test subjects are not MIDI files, they're early mono 8-bit
tracks utilizing only square, sawtooth, triangle waves and white noise
for percussion.

Okey Doke, I was referring to your earlier comment.

Most of my history involves sequencing MIDIs

I'm a big fan of midi, the musical ghost in the machine.
A live performance every time, no concerns about recording quality
apart from the samples of course.

I'll send a couple later.

On Jul 14, 2:19 pm, Steven Sullivan wrote:
Unsurprisingly, you lose that bet. And unsurprisingly, you're unaware
of the flamewars and vendettas that rage not other there, but on most
of the other audio newsgroups. This one's not exempt.

I know, 'cuz the sample topic would be INTELLIGENT conversation.

So here, again, you're only displaying ignorance of what you claim to
know (HA.org)

I thought you said they conduct tests every 3 years. 3 yrs too much
bro, try 3 months.

Here's the thread about the 128kbps mp3 listening test currently in preparation. It's one of
series of such tests over the past decade. Does it look like 'single listener' design to you,
nOOb?

No, but the 80 kbps one does.

And btw, it was right up there in the top ten 'latest threads' list.

Look like i give a ****? I don't visit Hydrogen Audio.

Actually, I'd wager the typical HA member is at least on par with you knowledge-wise,
though less of a snot, and I *know* that some of the more frequent posters are far
beyond you knowledge-wise, based on what I've read on HA over the years, and
what I've read of your posts.
I didn't appear on the scene boasting of my audio leetness, did I?

Haven't you?

Quote me, mother****er?

Most of my history involves sequencing MIDIs and I've only recently
moved on to more efficient audiophile studios where I'll be producing
some trance of my own. I'm a fast learner, HA mofos have been at it
probably since forever, not for a particular reason, but cuz they got
****-all to do. Asspies are like that *cough*Radius*cough* holy ****,
isn't that guy from around here?

Holy ****, you're a *badass*, Industrial One. I bet you dress Goth like Trent!!!.

Goth is old, not to mention for fags. Study:
http://www.wikihow.com/Dress-Cyber-Industrial-Punk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_music


There's no user 'Radius' on HA.org. There is a mental case troll with a name like that
who posts on...Usenet audio groups. Actually, I kinda thought you were him at first.

My bad, the guy's name is "Radium," and he posted on HA under a
different name.

Migrate back to HA and argue with
some birth-defected moron who is giving a public service announcement
how listening to Dj Tiesto's euphoria tracks with a plastic bag over
your head is AWWWIIGHT.
Better yet, stay here and do my listening test. I'll send you porn.

Something else you probably just discovered on the intarwebs.

Nah, if I'd wanna practice asphyxia, I'd listen to E-rotic in the
process, not Tiesto. Or maybe X Dream.

You done now? Outta my thread.

[Steven Sullivan]

Industrial One wrote:

On Jul 14, 2:19 pm, Steven Sullivan wrote:
Unsurprisingly, you lose that bet. And unsurprisingly, you're unaware
of the flamewars and vendettas that rage not other there, but on most
of the other audio newsgroups. This one's not exempt.

I know, 'cuz the sample topic would be INTELLIGENT conversation.

So here, again, you're only displaying ignorance of what you claim to
know (HA.org)

I thought you said they conduct tests every 3 years. 3 yrs too much
bro, try 3 months.

I said 'year or 3' actually.

Here's the thread about the 128kbps mp3 listening test currently in preparation. It's one of
series of such tests over the past decade. Does it look like 'single listener' design to you,
nOOb?

No, but the 80 kbps one does.

And you're interested in 128 on this thread, yes?


And btw, it was right up there in the top ten 'latest threads' list.

Look like i give a ****? I don't visit Hydrogen Audio.

Yeah, you've already established. that. Still, you're happy to talk dumbass smack about it.
Doesn't do much for your cred, such as it is.

Actually, I'd wager the typical HA member is at least on par with you knowledge-wise,
though less of a snot, and I *know* that some of the more frequent posters are far
beyond you knowledge-wise, based on what I've read on HA over the years, and
what I've read of your posts.
I didn't appear on the scene boasting of my audio leetness, did I?

Haven't you?

Quote me, mother****er?

Oh, pardon, was referring to typical HA posters as 'ignorant dip****s' in your threadstarter
here not a declaration of your audio leetness? My bad! Btw, did you post there, and if so,
under what badass teenager name? I might get a laugh out of that.


Most of my history involves sequencing MIDIs and I've only recently
moved on to more efficient audiophile studios where I'll be producing
some trance of my own. I'm a fast learner, HA mofos have been at it
probably since forever, not for a particular reason, but cuz they got
****-all to do. Asspies are like that *cough*Radius*cough* holy ****,
isn't that guy from around here?

Holy ****, you're a *badass*, Industrial One. I bet you dress Goth like Trent!!!.

Goth is old, not to mention for fags. Study:
http://www.wikihow.com/Dress-Cyber-Industrial-Punk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_music

I'd wager I was listening to Einsturzende Neuebauten when you were still puking on your mom's
left tit.

But hey, the angry adolescent **** seems to suit you, I won't deny it. Btw, users of 'fag'
like you are almost invariably people with sexual orientation anxiety of their own.


There's no user 'Radius' on HA.org. There is a mental case troll with a name like that
who posts on...Usenet audio groups. Actually, I kinda thought you were him at first.

My bad, the guy's name is "Radium," and he posted on HA under a
different name.

I thought you didn't visit HA?



--
-S
A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence. -- David Hume, "On Miracles"
(1748)

[Industrial One]

On Jul 15, 11:54 am, Steven Sullivan wrote:
I said 'year or 3' actually.

Not good enough.

Here's the thread about the 128kbps mp3 listening test currently in preparation. It's one of
series of such tests over the past decade. Does it look like 'single listener' design to you,
nOOb?
No, but the 80 kbps one does.

And you're interested in 128 on this thread, yes?

No, the audio samples we'll test here are 8-bit mono tracks with the
most basic instruments (square/sawtooth/triangle waves/noise.) Their
uncompressed forms are 353 kbps themselves and 88 if I compress with
WinRAR. Lossy 128 kbps is virtually pointless.

Haven't you?
Quote me, mother****er?

Oh, pardon, was referring to typical HA posters as 'ignorant dip****s' in your threadstarter
here not a declaration of your audio leetness? My bad! Btw, did you post there, and if so,
under what badass teenager name? I might get a laugh out of that.

I thought you didn't visit HA?

I may have found it thru that asspie Radium when he made another
thread demanding answers here when HA ignored him, or some ****. I
posted there for a couple days, got what I needed, asked the admin to
ban me, and left. Unnerstan?

I'd wager I was listening to Einsturzende Neuebauten when you were still puking on your mom's
left tit.

Nah, 14yo tits were kinda useless for breastfeeding, plus the cancer
ate the left one recently, so the closest I get to 'em now is when i'm
snorting phat lines of c0ke off her RIGHT tit.

But hey, the angry adolescent **** seems to suit you, I won't deny it. Btw, users of 'fag'
like you are almost invariably people with sexual orientation anxiety of their own.

Well I DID fail a double-blind gender-arousal test whose subjects are
normal chicks + transexuals with hawt clothes, out of 14 I selected
that I'd tap 2 of the real chicks and 3 of the transvestites but
most of the "real chicks" were mutant ballsack-ramming hoez that
appeared to be run over by a train, so I guess it was biased as was
the creator who's probably a hardcore sodomite himself.

Now, listen up: you contribute nuthin, you's a welfare pimp. Git outta
my heterosexual thread, fag.

[Mr.T]

"Industrial One" wrote in message
...
No, the audio samples we'll test here are 8-bit mono tracks with the
most basic instruments (square/sawtooth/triangle waves/noise.) Their
uncompressed forms are 353 kbps themselves and 88 if I compress with
WinRAR. Lossy 128 kbps is virtually pointless.

As are 8 bit music samples!
Why on earth would you use 8 bit samples, and what on earth makes you think
an 8 bit uncompressed wave sample is superior to a 16 bit compressed one at
the same resultant bit rate?

I'll wager YOU cannot pick a 353kbs, 16 bit Mono, MP3 file from the original
source.
And since NO ONE uses 8 bit sampling for music anyway, just what is the
point of the excercise?
Too much time to kill?

MrT.

[Industrial One]

On Jul 15, 11:39 pm, "Mr.T" MrT@home wrote:
"Industrial One" wrote in message

...

No, the audio samples we'll test here are 8-bit mono tracks with the
most basic instruments (square/sawtooth/triangle waves/noise.) Their
uncompressed forms are 353 kbps themselves and 88 if I compress with
WinRAR. Lossy 128 kbps is virtually pointless.

As are 8 bit music samples!
Why on earth would you use 8 bit samples, and what on earth makes you think
an 8 bit uncompressed wave sample is superior to a 16 bit compressed one at
the same resultant bit rate?

I'll wager YOU cannot pick a 353kbs, 16 bit Mono, MP3 file from the original
source.
And since NO ONE uses 8 bit sampling for music anyway, just what is the
point of the excercise?
Too much time to kill?

MrT.

You'll see. I've finished summoning all the samples and their lossy
compression outputs of different bitrates. There are 15 samples, 8
derivatives for each, totaling 135, 10 - 50 seconds, average 28,
archive's about 55 MB, once again: which hosting site would be the
most ideal for y'all? Zshare, rapidshare or megaupload or do you want
a torrent? When I recruit at least 12 participants, I'll post the link
to the archive in another, official 8-bit ABX listening test. So far
I've got about 4, another 2 pending but appear to be terminally
****witted so I doubt they'll figure how to even work the Google
groups interface let alone arrive here.

Do you wanna participate in the listening test, Mr.T?

[Mr.T]

"Industrial One" wrote in message
...
And since NO ONE uses 8 bit sampling for music anyway, just what is the
point of the excercise?
Too much time to kill?

Do you wanna participate in the listening test, Mr.T?

Nope, don't have too much time to kill myself. Even the noise floor should
be obvious to all on 8 bit samples.

MrT.

[Industrial One]

On Jul 16, 3:03 am, "Mr.T" MrT@home wrote:
"Industrial One" wrote in message

...

And since NO ONE uses 8 bit sampling for music anyway, just what is the
point of the excercise?
Too much time to kill?

Do you wanna participate in the listening test, Mr.T?

Nope, don't have too much time to kill myself. Even the noise floor should
be obvious to all on 8 bit samples.

MrT.

You don't get it, do you? The native sources are 8-bit, there's no
"noise floor." Here's the official thread with the download:

http://groups.google.ca/group/rec.au...3afef95f90c7b6
http://snipurl.com/2zpnq

[Mr.T]

"Industrial One" wrote in message
...
Nope, don't have too much time to kill myself. Even the noise floor
should
be obvious to all on 8 bit samples.

You don't get it, do you? The native sources are 8-bit, there's no
"noise floor." Here's the official thread with the download:

No I don't get it! Maybe you can tell us, and why you would want to use 8
bit samples?
Hint : The full band noise floor for any 8 bit digital waveform is
approx -48dB at best, NO MATTER HOW YOU GENERATE THE SIGNALS.
(roughly equivalent to a cheap cassette recorder with cheap tape and no
Dolby noise reduction!)

There is a reason why CD uses 16 bit samples, and most people here know why,
except for you it seems.

MrT.

[Industrial One]

On Jul 16, 11:17 pm, "Mr.T" MrT@home wrote:
"Industrial One" wrote in message

...

Nope, don't have too much time to kill myself. Even the noise floor
should
be obvious to all on 8 bit samples.

You don't get it, do you? The native sources are 8-bit, there's no
"noise floor." Here's the official thread with the download:

No I don't get it! Maybe you can tell us, and why you would want to use 8
bit samples?
Hint : The full band noise floor for any 8 bit digital waveform is
approx -48dB at best, NO MATTER HOW YOU GENERATE THE SIGNALS.
(roughly equivalent to a cheap cassette recorder with cheap tape and no
Dolby noise reduction!)

There is a reason why CD uses 16 bit samples, and most people here know why,
except for you it seems.

MrT.

Follow the link I provided, download the archive and see for yourself.

[Mr.T]

"Industrial One" wrote in message
...
You don't get it, do you? The native sources are 8-bit, there's no
"noise floor." Here's the official thread with the download:
No I don't get it! Maybe you can tell us, and why you would want to use
8
bit samples?
Hint : The full band noise floor for any 8 bit digital waveform is
approx -48dB at best, NO MATTER HOW YOU GENERATE THE SIGNALS.
(roughly equivalent to a cheap cassette recorder with cheap tape and no
Dolby noise reduction!)
There is a reason why CD uses 16 bit samples, and most people here know
why,
except for you it seems.

Follow the link I provided, download the archive and see for yourself.

Ah, there's your problem. You should LISTEN to audio rather than see it :-)
But I CAN see the HUGE difference in measured performance between 8 and 16
bit wave files!

And I can also HEAR the difference between 8 bit wave files and 16 bit ones.
IF you can't, then I can't help you.
I suggest there are PLENTY of good books on digital audio sampling/encoding
you should read though.

MrT.