16 bit files almost unlistenable now...

[PeterSt]

2 minutes ago, GUTB said:

High resolution audio sounds better, that's a ** FACT **.

 

No sir, it is not.

It is a FACT though, that your digital chain is so lousy (you tell that yourself) that you won't be able to discern a bit from a byte.

So who are you to come up with such facts ?

 

Are you in the neighborhood soon ?

[numlog]

38 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

This type of music has it all for the lowest to the highest and most transient etc. and rock or jazz fully pales in comparison. But you need to come by and listen to see what I mean.

You have no clue ...

what are you saying... what do i have no clue about?

 it sounds like you misinterpreted the post

 

 

[GUTB]

6 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

No sir, it is not.

It is a FACT though, that your digital chain is so lousy (you tell that yourself) that you won't be able to discern a bit from a byte.

So who are you to come up with such facts ?

 

Are you in the neighborhood soon ?

 

It's a fact. There's no evidence to the contrary. There is no serious counter opinion.

[AudioDoctor]

1 minute ago, GUTB said:

 

It's a fact. There's no evidence to the contrary. There is no serious counter opinion.

 

I'd give you two albums to listen to, one in CD res and one in 24/92, but I am certain I can't trust you to come back with an honest answer.

[firedog]

16 minutes ago, GUTB said:

High resolution audio sounds better, that's a ** FACT **.

 

Why it sounds better is up for debate. There's good evidence that it's due to our apparent ability to process high frequency information even though we aren't conscious of them as sounds. There is also evidence that human's time domain acuity is much higher than our frequency perception would suggest. Setting aside the theory, it's fact that anyone with even a mediocre ability to discern audio quality should be able to appreciate it. 

Do you know what a fact is? I think not. 

 

"good evidence" - no. Evidence. An indication. Nothing remotely supporting an idea of good evidence. Other than direct bone conduction, there is little evidence of it. One paper with results that are reproduced by others doesn't count as good evidence.

 

You keep saying that "anyone" can appreciate it - but that clearly isn't true. If it was so clearly better it wouldn't be up for debate, and lots of audio/recording professionals wouldn't say the opposite of what you are claiming. 

[PeterSt]

11 minutes ago, numlog said:

what are you saying... what do i have no clue about?

 it sounds like you misinterpreted the post

 

You have "no clue" what's all possible with 16 bits. That's what I meant. and this was the context to understand it :

 

Quote

But you need to come by and listen to see what I mean.

 

Maybe it should be noted that I am working on 16 bits explicitly because there's too much of Redbook around not to. This includes software, DAC, PC, actually the full chain. All to "expose" 16 bits. There's so so much more possible than most people know.

You have no clue. 

[PeterSt]

8 minutes ago, GUTB said:

There is no serious counter opinion.

 

There's mine. And I seem more serious than you.

[numlog]

52 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

Actually you have no idea. Hip-hop was my genre (OK it still is but not the modern sh*t and I don't prefer it any more) and electronic has become my genre, from a sheer "testing" point of view (I have 3000 - 4000 albums of the "ambient" genre, think C.J. Catalyzer, Bluetech, Boozoo Bajou, Don Peyote - to name a few you have hopefully heard of).

This type of music has it all for the lowest to the highest and most transient etc. and rock or jazz fully pales in comparison. But you need to come by and listen to see what I mean.

You have no clue ...

Electronic and hip hop has some of the best recordings and also the best music... hence it could benefit the most from 24 bit, so thats why its a shame so many albums will only ever exist in 16 bit. understand my point?

 

You cant say that these are albums are 'perfect' at 16 bits without a 24 bit version to compare.
I already compared 24bit albums to 16 bit conversions of the same albums and the difference is there.

[Ralf11]

22 minutes ago, AudioDoctor said:

 

I'd give you two albums to listen to, one in CD res and one in 24/92, but I am certain I can't trust you to come back with an honest answer.

 

Blind test him

[Ralf11]

16 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

You have "no clue" what's all possible with 16 bits. That's what I meant. and this was the context to understand it :

 

 

Maybe it should be noted that I am working on 16 bits explicitly because there's too much of Redbook around not to. This includes software, DAC, PC, actually the full chain. All to "expose" 16 bits. There's so so much more possible than most people know.

You have no clue. 

 

so, what IS possible with 16 bits - give us a clue

[PeterSt]

2 minutes ago, numlog said:

hence it could benefit the most from 24 bit, so thats why its a shame so many albums will only ever exist in 16 bit. understand my point?

 

I understand your point, but it is a moot point. It is moot because

a. the way my (Phasure's) chain does it, you won't be able to discern any profitable difference in the first place;

b. the hires material isn't there in the first place so why bother.

 

2 days ago I once again listened to King Crimson's The Court of the Crimson King (with I Talk to The Wind as the highlight). Imagine me telling you that it won't get any better today SQ wise - also not with any Hires. And do you know from what year it is ? Key point here is : find that one and only decent original transfer and skip the remasters let alone the hires laughter.

Or try the early Ice-T's for that matter. You really won't get better sound (quality) than that. And my point is : you probably don't recognize it because your system requires hires to perform.

 

PS: I have over 2000 hires albums. I never ever play them. Also not the handful which are from the same master. It is just not necessary ...

 

[PeterSt]

2 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

so, what IS possible with 16 bits - give us a clue

 

Now I'm speechless for a change.

[Ralf11]

4 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

Now I'm speechless for a change.

 

just write it down without speaking

[PeterSt]

19 minutes ago, numlog said:

1 hour ago, PeterSt said:

Electronic and hip hop has some of the best recordings and also the best music...

 

The later Young MC's ... Maybe Faithless., Beastie Boys (is quite challenging for SQ), Massive Attack. Paris, if your system is up to it (when not it sounds so-so, when it is, it is superb).

The "best music" could be doubtful, even to me. But it is my genre anyway.

[PeterSt]

1 minute ago, Ralf11 said:

just write it down without speaking

 

I thought I was always doing that ?

[numlog]

17 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

You have "no clue" what's all possible with 16 bits. That's what I meant. and this was the context to understand it :

 

 

Maybe it should be noted that I am working on 16 bits explicitly because there's too much of Redbook around not to. This includes software, DAC, PC, actually the full chain. All to "expose" 16 bits. There's so so much more possible than most people know.

You have no clue. 

Its true, there is so much redbook material, im interested in how to make a 16bit system.
Some DACs could perform better at 16 bit, that is fair, but what exactly is a '16bit PC' and the rest of the chain? 16bit amp, 16bit speakers, 16 bit cables?

 

Also how do you tweak software for 16bit? If you are also using HQ player could you explain how?

 

My DAC is 32bit and HQ player 'DAC Bits' is set to 32 bit, 24 and 16 bit audio are both sent in 32 bit 'package' to the DAC.

[PeterSt]

Or try Rammstein's Rosenrot, if you want to know what 16 bits is capable of outside "electronic" music.

Nothing much ? then it is your system.

[AudioDoctor]

27 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

 

Blind test him

 

How can I do that while keeping file size from giving away which is the hi res.

 

edit: Not only file size, but any file player will be able to tell the bit depth/sample rate.

[numlog]

We need an online hi res test

[AudioDoctor]

Speaking of Hip Hop and Electronica...

 

This is where the sub in my main system really makes itself heard.

 

[PeterSt]

2 minutes ago, numlog said:

If you are also using HQ player could you explain how?

 

Very first clue (haha) is not to use that. But I am not here to talk anybody out of his software of preference.

Like with HQPlayer the key is the filtering and 10 years or so ago I created the Arc Prediction filtering for that. This anticipated the NOS1 DAC which did not even exist on paper (only in my mind) and from that came the rest (in 2009 the NOS1 did 24/384 back at the time, as a first, and a year later or so 24/768, also as a first).

So yes, it is about the way the filtering/upsampling is done and this is really the base. Plus a DAC which can digest it 1:1 without destructive filters (that's why it is NOS/Filterless).

 

Today this results in a most audio dedicated PC with a 20 up to 40 cores cpu, linear power supply which in the Mach III incarnation is super fast, and this super fast now almost fully creates the sound (which indeed exhibits speed speed speed - like my mention bouncing ball implies (I am not talking about the bouncing balls of AC/DC, though they are fine too)).

 

In between is the OS tweaking software (more than any AO and Fidelizer and what not together) and this all seriously matters.

Oh, not to forget 6GH capable interlinks over 100+ meters. And from here : say that over-sizing is the key.

Not mentioning Lush USB cables ... that's about it. Unless we count in the speakers as well.

 

End of commercial ?

Anyway, of course I am the most serious. I work on it very explicitly ...

 

 

 

[PeterSt]

6 minutes ago, AudioDoctor said:

This is where the sub in my main system really makes itself heard.

 

Which track in particular ?

I don't know this, so now I like to try it ...

 

Speaking about sub ... try Hatfield's End (all three of them). It's the best of ambient/electronic and those with classical interest will like this too.

[AudioDoctor]

Just now, PeterSt said:

 

Which track in particular ?

I don't know this, so now I like to try it ...

 

Speaking about sub ... try Hatfield's End (all three of them). It's the best of ambient/electronic and those with classical interest will like this too.

 

Quite a few through the album.  I am listening at my computer right now, so not getting the full effect but song #2 has a heck of a bass track.

[Ralf11]

18 minutes ago, AudioDoctor said:

 

How can I do that while keeping file size from giving away which is the hi res.

 

edit: Not only file size, but any file player will be able to tell the bit depth/sample rate.

 

transfer to analog

[AudioDoctor]

1 minute ago, Ralf11 said:

 

transfer to analog

 

I'm not sure I follow.