Can you hear 16/44.1 from 24/96?

[Dale]

Originally Posted by audio ergo sum

Nothing of that has any relevance to the subject at hand. Absolutely nothing.

LOL, like your diatribes!!!

[audio ergo sum]

Originally Posted by ISedlacek

Victim or not, the same in different words. Anyway - you are mixing two quite different things and processes: creative imagination and detailed perception. If I would use imagination for example when listening to tracks for mastering and its results, the clients would probably not be very satisfied. The same for evaluating various gear and processes.
I quite know when to use imagination (creating a new music etc) and when to be very exact and realistic ...
...

As a musician you have a different idea of the term imagination. I have explained here I use the term in a neurological and phenomenological way. Learn some years about neuroscience, cognition and hearing and we can maybe talk better about it.

[ISedlacek]

Originally Posted by valleysound

I can absolutely hear the difference. If you are a recording engineer and cannot hear the difference, I'm sorry for you and your clients.

Originally Posted by Plush

I posit that you and Op have lost touch with production and with working with artistes. Instead, you live in a fantasy world of ABX testing and your own brand of pseudo-metaphysics.

This sums up my impressions and feelings as well ...

[Ozpeter]

Post 1 - Petrus asks a straight question about whether portions of a 24/96 file converted in parts to 16/44.1 then back to 24/96 can be distinguished.

Post 4 - Plush opens a discussion about a completely different subject (making and listening to recordings at different sampling rates / bit depths).

Post 12 - Petrus tries to get back to the original topic.

Post 13 - J Craq immediately continues discussing Plush's topic. Subsequent posts seem to be continuing the Plush topic not the Petrus topic (though discussion of the length of time one should spend on listening to samples probably applies to either topic).

Post 43 - Petrus appears to claim that his samples can be used in Plush's topic as well as his own (which perhaps confuses matters further). Discussion continues on Plush's topic.

Post 48 - Petrus gets back to the original topic.

Post 53 - MichaelPatrick points out that an adequate delivery format does not imply that the same format is adequate for recording. (True, but the original question is about delivery not recording).

Post 57 - Petrus again appears to claim that his delivery format test has relevance to choice of recording format.

Post 61 - Ghellquist points out that if discussing recording standards then results depend on the precise components used and that there are therefore no universal truths.

Post 62 - Petrus says he records at 24/88.2 then converts to 16/44.1 - thus underlining that he's simply asking for opinions on the delivery format vs the mastering format.

Post 66 - MichaelPatrick asks why anyone would say, based on a consumer audio test, that audio pros should record and mix at 44.1. - I'm not sure that anyone did suggest that. Discussion then appears to be about recording rather than delivery standards.

Post 82 - Audio ergo sum asserts that for delivery, 24/96 cannot be distinguished from 16/44.1 but that differences due to converters and filters come into play when considering standards in recording and post-production.

Post 86 - Ivo Sedlacek while disagreeing with Audio ergo sum actually seems to me to be agreeing with his basic premise.

Post 91 - Audio ergo sum asserts Petrus' original arguement, that 24/96 converted to 16/44.1 then back to 24/96 cannot readily be distinguished from the original.

Post 92 - Ivo appears to agree - "It is very likely there would be very little difference then, while it is the same file (especially when using high quality SRC)" but then raises again the matter of recording standards.

Subsequent posts then dissolve into arguments between people who have basically already agreed with each other on the matter actually under discussion, and who I suspect also agree with each other on the matter originally raised by Plush.

And my point is... this thread has become more than somewhat confused due to two very different topics being discussed simultaneously, and the key contributors probably actually agree with each other on the key points (or almost agree) - so I for one am bowing out.

[ISedlacek]

In general, I consider quite strange when people who have the urge to come here with very authoritative and definite views, trying to teach others and to show their supremacy in the subject, hide behind a total anonymous curtain. That's a bit weird, (slightly cowardly) and quite impolite I feel. I may be wrong in many things, but at least I do not hide behind the bush.

[Dale]

Originally Posted by ISedlacek

In general, I consider quite strange when people who have the urge to come here with very authoritative and definite views, trying to teach others and to show their supremacy in the subject, hide behind a total anonymous curtain. That's a bit weird, (slightly cowardly) and quite impolite I feel. I may be wrong in many things, but at least I do not hide behind the bush.

I find this to be so true! and when the "it" continues to argue, and "it's" sig file says "old europe" but web presence claims american rhetoric, I think ... baffle me with bullshit ...dfegad

for the record, I do hear a difference.

[aracu]

Sampling rates higher than 44.1 offer a higher resolution and audio quality.
Many feel that the difference is not sufficiantly audible to human hearing to
warrant using files that take up a larger amount of memory and take longer to process. Others believe that they can clearly hear an audible improvement and integrate using higher sampling rates into the recording process. There is some common ground, in that technically a higher sample rate means higher quality, but does not determine if the recording will sound good or not. At best, it may slightly improve a recording. If I purchase gear which includes these options, I can try using higher sampling rates and compare the differences. If I want to double check my perception of things it is helpful to create blind tests.

[Remoteness]

As many of you already know, I do my best to keep the vibe of this forum useful and informative.

This is a privately owned Website; we (the mods) can delete any post or thread as we see fit to remove.

With that said, I still feel freedom of speech is the key to the success of this forum. I understand that some of you folks think I take this too far; in any event, I do have a boiling point and this thread has hit that mark.

I plan to ban certain folks from this thread.
Let us see how that works out, sine I really don't want to close this thread just yet.

Play nice or go destroy some other forum or audio blog.

[James Lehmann]

Originally Posted by Ozpeter

...this thread has become more than somewhat confused due to two very different topics being discussed simultaneously

Good summary post Peter, and I think you're on the money with the above. As is so often the case, most of the wrangling is due to a generalised and unqualified thread title that serves only to dilute what could be a more focussed discussion. I've pointed this out in several of my earlier posts.

Petrus' original question was
"Can you hear 16/44.1 from 24/96?"

He then stated that...
"I made a 2496 test file where random parts are 1644."

...goes on to insist
"This method gives the best possbile way of comparing 2496 and 1644."

later adding...
"SRC was done with Sox utility using Shibata dither."

For me there's enough ambiguity in the above claims and statements to warrant more probing scrutiny, even if we make some assumptions about the specific question he's trying to answer.

What I would like to know is why certain (co-incidentally anonymous) folks here - even those who elsewhere insist on 'a proper ABX test' - appear stubbornly wedded to the idea of listening to Petrus' so-called test file as being the ultimate arbiter of scientifically assessing the audible differences between 16/44.1k and 24/96k?

It is principally this that I take issue with because in other respects I find myself persuaded by argument from both sides of the floor.

[Petrus]

Originally Posted by valleysound

I can absolutely hear the difference. If you are a recording engineer and cannot hear the difference, I'm sorry for you and your clients. I can even hear the difference between 24/44.1 and 16/44.1. The details and open-ness disappear.

Are you refering to my test file?

If you are, what is the sequence?