The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Tags: ,

Can you hear 16/44.1 from 24/96?
Old 26th October 2009
  #1
Lives for gear
 

Thread Starter
Question Can you hear 16/44.1 from 24/96?

I made a 2496 test file where random parts are 1644.

Particulars at the mastering forum.
Old 26th October 2009
  #2
Lives for gear
 

The only 16/24 difference is -96 vs ~-115 dB noise floor. And the only difference between 44 and 96 as you did it is an SRC.

So I don't think most should expect to hear a difference under these conditions.
Old 26th October 2009
  #3
Lives for gear
 

Thread Starter
Quote:
Originally Posted by mobius.media View Post
The only 16/24 difference is -96 vs ~-115 dB noise floor. And the only difference between 44 and 96 as you did it is an SRC.

So I don't think most should expect to hear a difference under these conditions.
This method gives the best possbile way of comparing 2496 and 1644: 2496 is intact, no corruption there. 1644 is as good as it can be as it is sourced from higher resolution file and downconverted in the best possible way (in my possession). If there are any imperfections they are in the 1644 part making the difference easier to hear.

This method also requires no extra gear, just play it and hear what there is to hear.

I admit I can not hear it even when I know where the change is.
Old 26th October 2009
  #4
Lives for gear
 
Plush's Avatar
A confirmed good test is to commit to record and listen at 24/96 or 24/88.2 for one month. Do the recordings and then do a lot of listening at this combined high bit rate high clock speed combination for 1 month.

Then, after that time go back to 16/44.1 and you will notice a "cardboard" quality and a less dimensional quality to the sound. Ambience will be less and depth will be foreshortened in the lower quality material.

Testing by switching back and forth or by incorporating differing bit/clock combos in one playlist is not as beneficial as this 1 month immersion in ear training.
Old 26th October 2009
  #5
Lives for gear
 

Yes! When I first started recording I researched which samplerate to use and I had a hard time at finding a solid answer. So I used 96khz just because I new I couldn't go wrong with a better resolution. The problem I was having is the computer resource needed to run at a higher resolution. So I started researching and it seems as if a lot of professionals do use 44.1 and 48 so I figured what the hay let me give it another run. So I've been using 48 for awhile now almost 2 years straight everyday and its been fine. While last week I switched back to 96khz because I figured what the heck I want more resolution! Well guess what?? I'm glad I did because the sound of 96khz is light years ahead! Atleast with my convertors.. The harsh top end of my microphone is gone. Everything sounds more open and smoooooooooth! Way smoother and dare I say analog sounding!! My computer is getting hit pretty hard now by operating this way. But I am looking into a faster drive to record on I think it will get me over the hump.. A western digital velociraptor. I will be running 3 of them.



For me 96khz !!!!!!! Major League diffrence! Pro sounding!
Old 26th October 2009
  #6
Lives for gear
 
boojum's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Plush View Post
A confirmed good test is to commit to record and listen at 24/96 or 24/88.2 for one month. Do the recordings and then do a lot of listening at this combined high bit rate high clock speed combination for 1 month.

Then, after that time go back to 16/44.1 and you will notice a "cardboard" quality and a less dimensional quality to the sound. Ambience will be less and depth will be foreshortened in the lower quality material.

Testing by switching back and forth or by incorporating differing bit/clock combos in one playlist is not as beneficial as this 1 month immersion in ear training.
Plush, with all due respect I may have just read the one instance that ABX testing fails. How can this be?
Old 26th October 2009
  #7
Lives for gear
 
Plush's Avatar
ABX testing was not mentioned in my post. What I was talking about is a method that works and has results in teaching people to recognize differing bit/clock program material.

ABX testing is simply not a good way to test individuals for these differences. The ear/brain combination must learn OVER TIME, not over seconds, to recognize the differences talked about.
Old 26th October 2009
  #8
Lives for gear
 
boojum's Avatar
I reject your thesis and challenge you to provide proof other than your opinion. You have also changed the topic from testing to training, which would favor the thesis you are advancing.

I am not saying it is impossible. But I have heard this sort of story for 55+ years now and have often wondered what scientific or demonstrated basis of proof there is for it. Have at it. Show me the proof other than anecdotal or personal opinion.

BTW there are stacks of literature written on which is better with impassioned authors on each side. I am merely curious what you base such strongly held beliefs upon.

Thanks for your time.


Cheers
Old 26th October 2009
  #9
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by boojum View Post
I am not saying it is impossible. But I have heard this sort of story for 55+ years now and have often wondered what scientific or demonstrated basis of proof there is for it. Have at it. Show me the proof other than anecdotal or personal opinion.

BTW there are stacks of literature written on which is better with impassioned authors on each side. I am merely curious what you base such strongly held beliefs upon.

Thanks for your time.
All sensory and physiological responses have temporal/duration-of-exposure dependent aspects.

It is not unique to audio. There is an endless list of sensory and physiological phenomena that may easily be overlooked in a moment, but become increasingly obvious and irritating over time.
Old 26th October 2009
  #10
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mobius.media View Post
All sensory and physiological responses have temporal/duration-of-exposure dependent aspects.

It is not unique to audio. There is an endless list of sensory and physiological phenomena that may easily be overlooked in a moment, but become increasingly obvious and irritating over time.
Also goes the other way. Short tests are often way more sensitive than longer ones.

Sure, training is one factor but once you learned to listen for this or that long term you should be able to nail it in short tests blind as well.

Also there's nothing that stops you from doing a blind ABX (or similar) test over a month or more.

I smell hifi-mag-style audiophoolery in this thread. No offense guys!


/Peter
Old 26th October 2009
  #11
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Audiop View Post
Also goes the other way. Short tests are often way more sensitive than longer ones.
All test phenomena must be described in terms of both intensity and duration. The greater the intensity of the stimulus, the shorter the duration typically required to detect it. The lower the intensity of the stimulus, the longer the duration.

For example, if someone smacks you on the arm, you will only require a tiny instant to recognize what you felt. On the other hand, if a fly or spider is crawling across your arm hair, it may take as long as 5-10 seconds before you recognize the feeling as out of the ordinary and shoo it away.

This is not terribly abstract stuff.

Quote:
Also there's nothing that stops you from doing a blind ABX (or similar) test over a month or more.
Do you really have that much free time on your hands? Do you really enjoy ABX testing that much?

Quote:
I smell hifi-mag-style audiophoolery in this thread. No offense guys!
Then why insert a pointless (and irrelevant) insult?
Old 26th October 2009
  #12
Lives for gear
 

Thread Starter
Many people claim they can easily tell 1644 and 2496 apart. Here is a continuous file where it certainly should be easy to tell when the quality changes, if it really is a piece of cake.
Old 26th October 2009
  #13
Lives for gear
 

No test here just experience.. better than any test. The difference I'd say is at 44.1/48.. you can hear the filter. At 96 it sounds natural and unaltered (you can't hear the digital @ 96).

I'm sure if a highend converter was on both sides of the chain a/d... d/a... 44.1 would provide plenty enough detail and would sound unaltered. But you'd need to fork out the dough (2-3k) for an excellent converter and only then will 44.1 sound smooth.

Spend months working at 44.1 day in and out. Recording, mixing, composing.

Change to 96 and you will notice an immediate apparent difference. Especially while recording vocals. The sibilance is gone and the top end is endless. Bye bye harsh sound.. instant gel and plush smooth sound.
Old 26th October 2009
  #14
Super Moderator
 
Remoteness's Avatar
Exclamation

Why not upload the file on this thread and/or create a link to the other thread?

As time passes and more threads are posted, no one will know what thread you're referring to.
Old 26th October 2009
  #15
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by J CraQ View Post
The harsh top end of my microphone is gone.
This does not make sense. Obviously there was no harsh sound from the microphones if it went away by going up in sample speed.

Also when (if) you hear something when switching sample speeds you still don't know what you are hearing. It may be a difference in HF components but it could also bee a difference in aliasingdistortion or something else.

Just don't draw to many conclusions from limited testing, that's my point.


/Peter
Old 26th October 2009
  #16
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mobius.media View Post
All test phenomena must be described in terms of both intensity and duration. The greater the intensity of the stimulus, the shorter the duration typically required to detect it. The lower the intensity of the stimulus, the longer the duration.

For example, if someone smacks you on the arm, you will only require a tiny instant to recognize what you felt. On the other hand, if a fly or spider is crawling across your arm hair, it may take as long as 5-10 seconds before you recognize the feeling as out of the ordinary and shoo it away.

This is not terribly abstract stuff.
Then lets' be specific and not make up bad analogies that do not apply to the human hearing and auditory perception.

Quote:
Do you really have that much free time on your hands? Do you really enjoy ABX testing that much?
But you have that much time running an uncontrolled test?

The nice thing with short tests done right is that they are very sensitive and saves you time.


/Peter
Old 26th October 2009
  #17
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Audiop View Post
Then lets' be specific and not make up bad analogies that do not apply to the human hearing and auditory perception.

But you have that much time running an uncontrolled test?

The nice thing with short tests done right is that they are very sensitive and saves you time.
That is not analogy. Sorry you find it "bad". If there is some reason it is "bad", perhaps you can specify. Principles of duration and intensity apply equally to all sensory perception.

The exact same phenomena is notable in an endless of auditory situations. Do you want examples? Can you not think of them yourself?
Old 26th October 2009
  #18
Lives for gear
 

Thread Starter
The file is 170 MB in size, can this board take files that large?
Old 26th October 2009
  #19
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Audiop View Post
This does not make sense. Obviously there was no harsh sound from the microphones if it went away by going up in sample speed.

Also when (if) you hear something when switching sample speeds you still don't know what you are hearing. It may be a difference in HF components but it could also bee a difference in aliasingdistortion or something else.

Just don't draw to many conclusions from limited testing, that's my point.


/Peter
Hi Peter,

That's the point.. There wasn't any harsh end coming from my microphone it was the converter @ 48khz I was hearing! Limited tests?? Hours upon hours upon hours of listening to a particular sample rate is limited?

My suggestion to any user is to spend a substantial amount of time using their gear and gain experience to it's unique sound. Once your gear has been changed or reconfigured any subtle difference will become absolutely apparent and extremely prominant. Almost like a "man this sounds way different now" after you've been using it for so long any other way will sound completely different.

Oh by the way.. With my headphones turned on along with my microphone turned on standing on the other side of the room. The entire room sounds completely different coming through the mic now. It sounds quieter, more natural, almost as if my headphones weren't even on. Before I would actually hear the microphone i guess you would say "aliasing" and hear the room going "rrrrrrrrrrrrrghhhhrrrrrghhhhh" and at 96 now it's all good.

Do you think I would quadruple my file sizes and strain my cpu just to work at 96k? Hell no, I wish I could get this good of a sound working out of 44.1. My system breezes through 44.1. I have to make sacrifices to work at 96. I do now, and to me the difference is night and day and is well worth it for the sound working at 96.

Major League.
Old 26th October 2009
  #20
Super Moderator
 
Remoteness's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Petrus View Post
The file is 170 MB in size, can this board take files that large?
You stated that the particulars are at the mastering forum, but you don't have a link.
In time know one will know what you're referring to.

If the files too big, perhaps you can provide a link to the material.
Old 26th October 2009
  #21
Lives for gear
 

Thread Starter
Old 26th October 2009
  #22
Lives for gear
 
boojum's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by mobius.media View Post
All sensory and physiological responses have temporal/duration-of-exposure dependent aspects.

It is not unique to audio. There is an endless list of sensory and physiological phenomena that may easily be overlooked in a moment, but become increasingly obvious and irritating over time.

And you base this on??? Is this anecdotal or fact?

I read that auditory memory in < 5 seconds. Looks like ABX would be the only way to check sound on this basis. I know I ABX'ed a bunch of speakers when I selected the speakers I use for daily use now: KEF 104/2's. The quick switching back and forth allowed me to compare their sound. A gap of a minute or two would have left me adrift. I do not think I am alone in this experience.

And that there are temporal aspects, i.e. harsh sound get irritating over time, does not mean the same rule applies to all cases. Unless you know otherwise. If you do, please let us all know your source of information.

Thanks
Old 26th October 2009
  #23
Lives for gear
 
boojum's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by J CraQ View Post
Hi Peter,

<snip>

Do you think I would quadruple my file sizes and strain my cpu just to work at 96k? Hell no, I wish I could get this good of a sound working out of 44.1. My system breezes through 44.1. I have to make sacrifices to work at 96. I do now, and to me the difference is night and day and is well worth it for the sound working at 96.

Major League.

You would quadruple your file sizes, etc., if you believed there were a gain achieved. Can you demonstrate the achieved gain?
Old 27th October 2009
  #24
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by boojum View Post
You would quadruple your file sizes, etc., if you believed there were a gain achieved. Can you demonstrate the achieved gain?

Yes, I can but there's no reason. It's not like you couldn't do the same plus I recommend trying it out with your own gear since you all ready know how it sounds and reacts. Work at 48k for a good while and then after about 4 months switch over to 96k using the same levels, same instruments, same vocalist, same room, same monitoring, same headphones, etc. You WILL notice an apparent difference. If you can't hear the difference then switch back. I know for me I hear a HUGE difference and making music and mixing is so much more enjoyable I would not want to switch back. Everything at 96k for me sounds more pleasing to the ear and soothing compared to 48k. What samplerate is it you are working in now?

PS. I use Voxengo R8Brain SR Convertor to get back down to 44.1. It sounds exactly the same after conversion. What a great tool!!!
Old 27th October 2009
  #25
Lives for gear
 
Plush's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by boojum View Post
I reject your thesis and challenge you to provide proof other than your opinion. You have also changed the topic from testing to training, which would favor the thesis you are advancing.

I am not saying it is impossible. But I have heard this sort of story for 55+ years now and have often wondered what scientific or demonstrated basis of proof there is for it. Have at it. Show me the proof other than anecdotal or personal opinion.

BTW there are stacks of literature written on which is better with impassioned authors on each side. I am merely curious what you base such strongly held beliefs upon.

Thanks for your time.


Cheers
Thanks for my time? Cheers? Wow, Booj, you is feisty today.

I cannot prove my assertions to YOU and you're just baiting me anyway.

I suppose that my assertions are simply my own observations and are drawn from the way I teach. Who do you want me to cite anyway?

ABX testing has its place.

Listening for subtlety is sometimes not its strong suit.

I won't take your bait, so keep casting baby. . .
Old 27th October 2009
  #26
Lives for gear
 
12ax7's Avatar
 

I don't want to argue about what others hear (or why).

But as for me, I hear much more difference by increasing bit depth than I do by increasing sample rate.

When 24 bit came along (yeah, I know it ain't really 24), I quit complaining about the sound of digital.

I'd rather have 44.1 at 24 bit than 192 at 16!
Old 27th October 2009
  #27
Lives for gear
 

=) I bet you'd hear a big difference jumping bit depths!! Luckily when I got into audio I never had that problem!! Thankfully now we have 32 bit float! and in sonar up to 64bit! I would've used tape back then!!
Old 27th October 2009
  #28
Lives for gear
 
MichaelPatrick's Avatar
 

Plush is right. If the ears aren't trained to appreciate music delivered at a higher resolution it's often hard to tell what's missing like looking at impressive photos of the same subject but with different lenses and printing techniques. At a glance they may look the same, but the quality of one is better than the other - more interesting and revealing when studied. An untrained eye may not catch it because that kind of quality is just not obvious.

I definitely find higher resolution recordings easier to mix and master because there's more information in them, including ambiance.
Old 27th October 2009
  #29
Lives for gear
 
boojum's Avatar
If we really wanted to train our ears we'd be listening to live music, wouldn't we? ;o)

Being unable to support a strongly presented thesis is strange. To support it by saying you will not support it is even stranger.

I had hoped that in a group of experienced and technically adept folks who record music there would be a stronger demonstration of validity of this thesis. In the years I have been using audio gear I have had arguments advanced by folks who have "golden ears" and have no other defense other than their ears. I have never seen any physical or scientific proof for the positions of these folks with their "golden ears" other than the "I can hear the difference" statement.

I had honestly hoped for better. I am not saying this 44/96 debate over the superiority of the 96 rate is invalid. I would just like proof. And I do not think that is unreasonable. I am accustomed to skilled professors and knowledgeable folks advancing a thesis and then saying, "This is why" and giving a demonstration. That is teaching.

Other than that is merely advancing an opinion. If it is not demonstrable and repeatable what else could it be?

I would welcome anything other than anecdotal experience and opinion on this.
Old 27th October 2009
  #30
Lives for gear
 

When comparing files, it's necessary to organize them in such a way so
that the comparison is blind, otherwise there are too many psychological factors in the evaluation.
New Reply Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook  Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter  Submit Thread to LinkedIn LinkedIn  Submit Thread to Google+ Google+  Submit Thread to Reddit Reddit 
 
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
M2E / Rap + Hip Hop engineering & production
396
meteor / Gearslutz Secondhand Gear Classifieds
0
dexternyc / Gearslutz Secondhand Gear Classifieds
2
dexternyc / Gearslutz Secondhand Gear Classifieds
0

Forum Jump