adolf512

The artickle is indeed crappy and it gets spammed on threads like this one. A good artickle should contain references and link to actual listening tests.

sanpling frequency by experience, good luck finding a recording that even take advantage of 14 bits. Also i have not found noise to be that harmfull(people seams tl enjoy vinyl).

I give this thread a last chance. But i guess it is pointless

I give this thread a second chance, if no one guess which version that is worst this week i will extend the time by another week.

As promised earlier in http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f8-general-forum/blindtest-between-sample-rates-24251/ i have not uploaded 6 versions of the same song. I used the following sample rates 192 KS/s 192 KS/s 96 KS/s 64 KS/s 54 KS/s 44.1 KS/s Your job is to listen to download the different versions from https://www.dropbox.com/sh/qnn58di61mbud75/AAAnV0bQkCnCypq1DBhBib3va?dl=0 and during this week(in UTC) correctly guess which file who is the 44.1 KS/s version(same sample rate as CD). You can make your guess in this thread or using pm. I did the conversion using audacity which has produced good results before, the naming (A...F) is of course random. You are not allowed to cheat using suitable program but you are allowed to use any animal(including humans) as help. I cant guarantee that it is possible to hear the difference between any of these files, but hopefully it will be a fun experience and hopefully you will learn something as well. If more than one person guess correctly we will move up to guessing which the 54KS/s version is.

Of course i always resample back. I use linux most of the time and audacity is obviously very good at resampling. However you might be interested in trying filters with slower roll-off or less pre-ringing(not sure if it really matters that much at higher sampling rates). Dithering settings hardly matters when the tracks is 24 bits. Btw: i have already prepared the tracks for the next test.

Ok i will duplicate the 192KS/s version then, i will post the next blind test next week and before that you can always suggest (almost) any song (i am a what.cd member). I am thinking of doing it as a competition where the users first should identify the 44.1 version, than 54, 64 and finally the 96KS/s version(you have a 1 in 120 chance if you just guess).

I have found one track that might be suitable(sr003-02-24192) maybe (sr005-01-24192) also, the following sample rates will be chosen then: -192KS/s -96KS/s -64KS/s -54KS/s -44.1KS/s I do not think it is necessary to have a duplicate of the 192KS/s version since it is very unlikely it will be any audible difference between it and the 96KS/s version.

Please tell me how you voted and how you should have voted instead(PM or in this thread). Yes it would be nice with a better track, however it's not that easy to find tracks with powerful ultrasonics above 25khz. If there is another test the 2 of the files will be the original and 2 will be down-sampled.

You can always PM me and guess which file who is the oridginal, the reason why i ask for the worst file is because i didn't want it to be to difficult, a lot of people think it would be impossible to hear any difference between 96KS/s and 54KS/s when downsampling+upsampling correctly. One user has PM:d me his guess and he correctly identified the best and worst of the files. I recommend not to look at the poll result before voting since it might influence the vote. It is interesting to see that every single user who voted thinks he heard difference between the files but the poll is pretty even now..

are you serious? the most best way is to just switch between the files using audacity, the eye will notice any difference, there is no loudness difference if you exclude the ultrasonics. But you are free do to any analysis you want yourself. I can tell for sure the loudness difference is less than 0.1dB, and my analysis shows 0dB loudness difference when you doesn't count the ultrasonics. I am mostly interested in listening experience, another user has also verified that there isn't any clipping during the conversion. What i dislike about these home-listening tests is that you can't know if someone is honest with his findings or if he has cheated before listening, also people seams to be unwilling to do any real(multiple listenings) blind testing which makes all statistics useless. Currently it's a tie between frozen_E being the worst and frozen_D being the worst(including the vote from diyaudio). Frozen_E has a smallest file size so i guess a lot of people voted for it because of that(the bitrate itself doesn't mean anything). I will do a proper test myself when i have built my next system. What i will do then is -measure the system in order to estimate how much IMD distortion there will be from the ultrasonic tones, it is likely to be very close to zero since IMD distortion is multiplicative and RAAL 140-15d has low second order distortion. -do listening tests to see how much IMD distortion that is audible. -maybe have some trainees(zero salary) which will do listening tests for me, once the trainee period is over they will be fired. -

@audiventory what i did a FFT of the delta(for frozen54-frozen96) and then i looked at the frequency components. That is one problem with sample rate conversions but it appears that the conversion worked out well for these particular files, it is better mastered than the avarage(still not optimal) which reduces the risk of clipping. You are free to compare the files yourself, please tell me if you detected any abnormalities.

I just checked the files using audacity, no difference between the original and 44.1KS/s version below 20.5khz I played the difference files using audacity and the peak volumes where (-23dB,-29dB) for the (44.1, 54)KS/s versions.

I found this about ultrasonic brain stimulation(500khz) http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/2014/02/09/ultrasonic-brain/ http://www.unknowncountry.com/news/scientists-can-affect-brain-responses-using-ultrasound-waves very interesting stuff! All files is 24bit, this recording is not suitable for comparing 16bits against 24 bits in any case. i choosed this track due to the powerful ultrasonics(this are not noise but overtones).

Not if this study is correct http://jn.physiology.org/content/83/6/3548 According to this pdf http://www.tinnitus.vcu.edu/Pages/Ultrasonic%20Hearing.pdf ultrasonic hearing generally requires direct bone contact but is possible up to 150khz I used audacity and later verified that there wasn't any difference below 25.5 khz between the original version and the 54KS/s version. The file is frozen-delta and the resolution of this FFT is 4096