Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
A 16 v. 8 bit listening test.
I can't tell any difference for the material included.
http://www.audiocheck.net/blindtests..._NeilYoung.php -- Les Cargill |
#2
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
A 16 v. 8 bit listening test.
On 10/11/2015 7:32 a.m., Les Cargill wrote:
I can't tell any difference for the material included. http://www.audiocheck.net/blindtests..._NeilYoung.php Neil Young ? During his grunge period(s) this isn't much difference ! That's why he feels the need for this higher resolution Pogo thing !?!@@%#&!!! geoff |
#3
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
A 16 v. 8 bit listening test.
EQ one differently from the other(add
some top to the 16bit to give the illusion of higher quality) and you'll hear a difference. At least the bean counters at the label will! |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
A 16 v. 8 bit listening test.
Les Cargill writes:
I can't tell any difference for the material included. http://www.audiocheck.net/blindtests..._NeilYoung.php No kidding! Lots of intentional distortion in the guitar (over-driven tubes and transducers pushed well into non-linearity; or, should I say, even more-than-usual non-linearity). Musically, it's in-your-face junk. Something like windchimes or orchestra bells at a -30 or even lower, would be a much more interesting test. And, we'd sure as hell want to do the tests with original PCM files, not MP3s, which I assume these were given how quickly they loaded. That said, I did some experimenting with this a few years back. All things being equal with a good conversion, same sample rate, filtering, et al, the only real difference between various bit depths should be the noise floor. That's it. No magic or wistful thinking about some oblique nod toward analog's "infinite resolution" nonsense. I still record at 24 bit and mix and edit in 32 bit float because I don't have to worry about headroom issues as multiple serial processing takes place, but that's it. As usual, I suppose YMMV. Frank Mobile Audio -- |
#5
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
A 16 v. 8 bit listening test.
On Monday, November 9, 2015 at 2:02:27 PM UTC-5, geoff wrote:
On 10/11/2015 7:32 a.m., Les Cargill wrote: I can't tell any difference for the material included. http://www.audiocheck.net/blindtests..._NeilYoung.php Neil Young ? During his grunge period(s) this isn't much difference ! That's why he feels the need for this higher resolution Pogo thing !?!@@%#&!!! At least we agree on one thing! It Pono, Pogo was a music group, I think! Jack geoff |
#6
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
A 16 v. 8 bit listening test.
That said, I did some experimenting with this a few years back. All things being equal with a good conversion, same sample rate, filtering, et al, the only real difference between various bit depths should be the noise floor. That's it. No magic or wistful thinking about some oblique nod toward analog's "infinite resolution" nonsense. If dithering has been properly applied, then this is exactly what the theory says, it's the same as an analog noise floor. So for once theory and practice DO agree. :-) Mark |
#7
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
A 16 v. 8 bit listening test.
On Monday, November 9, 2015 at 3:50:30 PM UTC-5, Frank Stearns wrote:
Les Cargill writes: I can't tell any difference for the material included. http://www.audiocheck.net/blindtests..._NeilYoung.php No kidding! Lots of intentional distortion in the guitar (over-driven tubes and transducers pushed well into non-linearity; or, should I say, even more-than-usual non-linearity). Musically, it's in-your-face junk. You mean it's worse than my stereo mixes??!! I agree, I got 6/10! Jack Something like windchimes or orchestra bells at a -30 or even lower, would be a much more interesting test. And, we'd sure as hell want to do the tests with original PCM files, not MP3s, which I assume these were given how quickly they loaded. That said, I did some experimenting with this a few years back. All things being equal with a good conversion, same sample rate, filtering, et al, the only real difference between various bit depths should be the noise floor. That's it. No magic or wistful thinking about some oblique nod toward analog's "infinite resolution" nonsense. I still record at 24 bit and mix and edit in 32 bit float because I don't have to worry about headroom issues as multiple serial processing takes place, but that's it. As usual, I suppose YMMV. Frank Mobile Audio -- . |
#8
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
A 16 v. 8 bit listening test.
On 11/9/2015 4:06 PM, JackA wrote:
It Pono, Pogo was a music group, I think! Pogo was a cartoon character. A possum. -- For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com |
#9
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
A 16 v. 8 bit listening test.
On 10/11/2015 7:50 AM, Frank Stearns wrote:
Les Cargill writes: I can't tell any difference for the material included. http://www.audiocheck.net/blindtests..._NeilYoung.php No kidding! Lots of intentional distortion in the guitar (over-driven tubes and transducers pushed well into non-linearity; or, should I say, even more-than-usual non-linearity). Musically, it's in-your-face junk. Something like windchimes or orchestra bells at a -30 or even lower, would be a much more interesting test. And if you really want to prove a point, record them at -60dB or less, then increase the playback volume of course to compensate. That's how they "proved" early digital systems could be worse than normally recorded analog after all. No point comparing properly with tape of course, since you'd barely hear the windchimes for tape noise when recorded at -60dB :-) That said, I did some experimenting with this a few years back. All things being equal with a good conversion, same sample rate, filtering, et al, the only real difference between various bit depths should be the noise floor. That's it. No magic or wistful thinking about some oblique nod toward analog's "infinite resolution" nonsense. I still record at 24 bit and mix and edit in 32 bit float because I don't have to worry about headroom issues as multiple serial processing takes place, but that's it. As usual, I suppose YMMV. That's the whole point though, 16 bit is more than enough for distribution despite idiots like Neil Young's blathering. And why higher resolution consumer systems have failed spectacularly to sell in any number. But having some extra margin when recording doesn't hurt when the cost is minimal these days. Trevor. |
#10
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
A 16 v. 8 bit listening test.
Frank Stearns wrote:
That said, I did some experimenting with this a few years back. All things being equal with a good conversion, same sample rate, filtering, et al, the only real difference between various bit depths should be the noise floor. That's it. No magic or wistful thinking about some oblique nod toward analog's "infinite resolution" nonsense. IF it is a linear encoding. If you move from 16-bit linear PCM to 8-bit linear PCM, the only thing that changes is the noise floor. If it is properly dithered, you should have no problem hearing plenty of sounds well below the noise floor too. But... if it's 8-bit u-law encoding, there are going to be some other effects that might be noticeable. In the real world when we see 8-bit audio systems they are almost always using a nonlinear encoding. I assume from the sound that the website is using linear encoding but they don't actually say anywhere. I still record at 24 bit and mix and edit in 32 bit float because I don't have to worry about headroom issues as multiple serial processing takes place, but that's it. As usual, I suppose YMMV. There's no reason not to, since computer power is cheap. I still do a bunch of recording to 16-bit systems out of a general inertia, myself. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#11
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
A 16 v. 8 bit listening test.
And if you really want to prove a point, record them at -60dB or less, then increase the playback volume of course to compensate. That's how they "proved" early digital systems could be worse than normally recorded analog after all. only becasue these early digital systems did not use proper dither. With proper dithering, there is no quantizing distortion, only random noise, same as anlog. Mark |
#12
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
A 16 v. 8 bit listening test.
On Monday, November 9, 2015 at 10:17:58 PM UTC-5, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 11/9/2015 4:06 PM, JackA wrote: It Pono, Pogo was a music group, I think! Pogo was a cartoon character. A possum. Hmm, can't say I... Maybe in the days off Krazy Kat!!! 1916!! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNrL_-jVvXo Jack -- For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com |
#13
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
A 16 v. 8 bit listening test.
|
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Listening test? | Pro Audio | |||
Distortion Listening Test | High End Audio | |||
Before/after listening test. | Tech | |||
Public Listening Test at 64 kbs | General | |||
Public Listening Test at 64 kbs | High End Audio |