Re: A/B listening tests

["Tilmann Dehnhard" <tilmann@dehnhard.com>]

hello bill, you write: In any digital system, distortion goes up as you 
approach the lowest volumes.
i am curious and would like to experience that. any suggestion for a setup 
to experience this?

(equiment: pc into tc konnekt into sennheiser hd 25, 39 year old male 
o)   )

are you talking about actual distortion, like in: oops, the red lights 
went 
on?
or change of sound color?
or is it the kind of warbling noise that comes up if you sample something 
soft and turn up the volume?


tilmann


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bill Fox" <billyfox@soundscapes.us>
To: <Loopers-Delight@loopers-delight.com>
Sent: Friday, July 13, 2007 4:34 PM
Subject: Re: A/B listening tests


> Stefan Tiedje wrote:
>> Bill Fox schrieb:
>>> Speaking of A/B testing, according to what I've read, the difference
>>>  between 16 and 24 bit digital can be heard much more easily than the
>>>  difference between 44.1kHz and 192kHz.
>> That means you read it and believe it?
> Actually, in this particular case, I do and here's why.  Recording at 
>the 
> higher sampling frequencies eat up far more more memory than increased 
>bit 
> depth and increases system costs.  Then you have to down sample to 44.1 
>in 
> order to release product which requires expensive software to do right. 
> (Why not record at 176.4kHz and avoid the high end software?)  It 
>behooves 
> the hardware and software industry to convince us that 16bit/192kHz is 
> superior to 24bit/44.1kHz.  (Of course 24bit/192kHz is even better!) 
> Since the 24bit/44.1kHz supposedly sounds better and costs me less, I'll 
> go that way.  I have also spoken to industry people who confirm the 
> increased bit depth is a far more audible improvement than increased 
> sample frequency.  I have not heard the other system nor do I have a 
>room 
> where I could hear the difference so I can't speak from personal 
> experience.  However, the golden ears in the industry who say that you 
> need 192kHz all seem to have a stake in its success.  There is just as 
> much physics at work when increasing and linearizing dynamic range.  As 
>an 
> engineer who believes in the Nyquist theorem and as an over 50 year old 
> male who (as I've read) can't hear much above 12kHz, I see no reason to 
>go 
> to 192kHz, especially when most listening environments are far less than 
> ideal and most people are only going to be listening to a crappy MP3 
>file 
> anyway.
>
> A higher sampling frequency gives you a wider frequency response that I 
> supposedly can't hear.  Increased bit depth reduces the noise floor and 
> decreases distortion due to LSB errors.  In any digital system, 
>distortion 
> goes up as you approach the lowest volumes.  These are things that I 
>*can* 
> hear.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Bill
>