Re: [ARSCLIST] Sampling and bit rates, was 78 Listening tests

[Scott Phillips <scottp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

	Perhaps if the same blind tests were run on 8 year old kids they
would hear the difference. Age and exposure to loud noises take their
toll on the rest of us. I still think there are subtle interactions with
18khz-35khz information that a CD loses. The fact that my ears
reasonable top end response measures now at 14khz means I'm not going to
notice much of that at best case. I spent years in studios and was very,
very careful about loudness... to the point of carrying an SPL meter
most of the time, along with ear plugs. Until I was in my early 40's, TV
monitors used to drive me nuts with the squeal.

I'd have to agree personally, the difference between 16 and 24 bit is
plain to me most of the time... my imagination ?? Hope not.

Scott

-----Original Message-----
From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
[mailto:ARSCLIST@xxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Steven Smolian
Sent: Monday, December 10, 2007 2:28 PM
To: ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Sampling and bit rates, was 78 Listening tests

And all this time I thought it was because of my aged hearing that I
couldn't tell the audible differences among the higher resolutions.

It would seem, then, that the only reason to use greater word lengths is
to give processors an easier working environment.  I can hear
significant diffrences between 16 and 24 bit work, and that's not a
function of age or wishful thinking.

Why use greater sampling rates?

Steve Smolian


----- Original Message -----
From: "Goran Finnberg" <mastering@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, December 10, 2007 9:52 AM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] 78 Listening tests, was Pristine Audio and the
Milllennials . . .


> Marcos Sueiro Bal:
>
>> Even a 24-bit vs 16-bit, 44.1 vs 48 vs 96, non-multiple vs multiple 
>> rate conversion blind test would be nice (and easy) to set up.
>
> There is no need for that as it has already been done.
>
> Seems like 44.1/16 correctly done is transparent compared to 24/192, 
> SACD, DVD-A etc.
>
> So no difference was heard among the various sample rates and bits.
>
> Please read on:
>
>
> ----------------------------
>
> http://www.aes.org/journal/toc/AES-Sep2007TOC.cfm
>
> Audibility of a CD-Standard A/D/A Loop Inserted into High-Resolution 
> Audio Playback
>
> E. Brad Meyer and David R. Moran 775
>
> Conventional wisdom asserts that the wider bandwidth and dynamic range

> of SACD and DVD-A make them of audibly higher quality than the CD 
> format.
>
> A carefully controlled double-blind test with many experienced 
> listeners showed no ability to hear any differences between formats.
>
> High-resolution audio discs were still judged to be of superior 
> quality because sound engineers have more freedom to make them that
way.
>
> There is no evidence that perceived quality has anything to do with 
> additional resolution or bandwidth.
>
> -----------------------------
>
> Additional info here:
>
> http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/explanation.htm
>
>
>
> --
> Best,
>
> Goran Finnberg
> The Mastering Room AB
> Goteborg
> Sweden
>
> E-mail: mastering@xxxxxxxxx
>
> Learn from the mistakes of others, you can never live long enough to
> make them all yourself.    -   John Luther