Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Mac Kerr]

Ethan Winer is doing a study to try to determine if we can really tell the difference between 16bit 44.1kHz and 24bit 96kHz files. He has created a series files that can be downloaded, and has a description of the test procedure HERE.

Mac

[Scott Holtzman]

Ethan Winer is doing a study to try to determine if we can really tell the difference between 16bit 44.1kHz and 24bit 96kHz files. He has created a series files that can be downloaded, and has a description of the test procedure HERE.

Mac

No naked girls in this one?  How disappointing. 

For those of you that possibly missed the most important video on the subject of acoustic treatment here is the link http://exposed.ethanwiner.com/ate.htm (adults only).

[Hayden J. Nebus]

Ethan Winer is doing a study to try to determine if we can really tell the difference between 16bit 44.1kHz and 24bit 96kHz files. He has created a series files that can be downloaded, and has a description of the test procedure HERE.

Mac

I can’t tell the difference but I think my dog can.

[Ivan Beaver]

No naked girls in this one?  How disappointing. 

For those of you that possibly missed the most important video on the subject of acoustic treatment here is the link http://exposed.ethanwiner.com/ate.htm (adults only).

I remember that from years ago.

THAT is the way to make learning fun

[Keith Broughton]

No naked girls in this one?  How disappointing. 

For those of you that possibly missed the most important video on the subject of acoustic treatment here is the link http://exposed.ethanwiner.com/ate.htm (adults only).

Very amusing 

[John Roberts {JR}]

Ethan Winer is doing a study to try to determine if we can really tell the difference between 16bit 44.1kHz and 24bit 96kHz files. He has created a series files that can be downloaded, and has a description of the test procedure HERE.

Mac

Thanks for sharing this. Ethan is an old friend and likes stirring the pot, and revealing myths.

JR

[Riley Casey]

The test notes fail to mention the benefits of being able to play the files on your laptop speakers 

[Roger Talkov]

Thanks for sharing this. Ethan is an old friend and likes stirring the pot, and revealing myths.

JR

Stirring the pot is most likely the case- which is totally fine however, Ethans research and tests tend to try and prove something that one cannot possibly prove given the type of test he is offering. In other words and with all do respect- don't waste your time. Without going on a huge rant here about the benefits of hi res audio, in my opinion one must understand what they are listening to. It's not much different than a person listening to a cheap violin and a Strad. There's a lot of people that prefer one over the other and a lot of people that don't have a preference etc. but if you play the Strad and explain what makes a great violin a great violin, most likely they will be able to pick out the great violin in any kind of test or at the very least pick out the violin that sounds like the Strad. when the Strad is played.
 We did many tests in the studio when I was at Sony when DSD and hi res audio was being developed. At the end of the day, was the DSD and high res audio (96K 24 and 192) same or different compared to the live mixer output with the band playing? Hearing it for myself, first hand, the higher res audio and DSD was way closer to same as the live feed. Obviously there is a lot in play including filters etc (which might make the biggest difference) but the same or different really helps me sort this stuff out. For me, the DSD and 192 were almost identical to the live output. Doing tests for these kind of perceptual things is really really really difficult and Ethans test is just a farce to make that kind of conclusion.

That being said, there are many studies on this  and I welcome you to read up on it if you are interested. The last real paper is fairly current and can be found here on the AES website  http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=18296
The paper is authored by Josh Reiss, a professor at Queen Mary Univ. of London. Check it out!

Remember- in our "live" world, hi res audio has other benefits that may not have anything to do with sounding better.

Regards to the list...

Roger

 

[John Roberts {JR}]

Stirring the pot is most likely the case- which is totally fine however, Ethans research and tests tend to try and prove something that one cannot possibly prove given the type of test he is offering. In other words and with all do respect- don't waste your time. Without going on a huge rant here about the benefits of hi res audio, in my opinion one must understand what they are listening to. It's not much different than a person listening to a cheap violin and a Strad. There's a lot of people that prefer one over the other and a lot of people that don't have a preference etc. but if you play the Strad and explain what makes a great violin a great violin, most likely they will be able to pick out the great violin in any kind of test or at the very least pick out the violin that sounds like the Strad. when the Strad is played.
 We did many tests in the studio when I was at Sony when DSD and hi res audio was being developed. At the end of the day, was the DSD and high res audio (96K 24 and 192) same or different compared to the live mixer output with the band playing? Hearing it for myself, first hand, the higher res audio and DSD was way closer to same as the live feed. Obviously there is a lot in play including filters etc (which might make the biggest difference) but the same or different really helps me sort this stuff out. For me, the DSD and 192 were almost identical to the live output. Doing tests for these kind of perceptual things is really really really difficult and Ethans test is just a farce to make that kind of conclusion.

With all due respect, if it is that difficult to coax out the perceptual difference between hi res and not, how valuable is that last millimeter of improvement?

I won't try to speak for Ethan but I suspect he wants to show people how hard it is to hear the tiny differences that may exist.   

That being said, there are many studies on this  and I welcome you to read up on it if you are interested. The last real paper is fairly current and can be found here on the AES website  http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=18296
The paper is authored by Josh Reiss, a professor at Queen Mary Univ. of London. Check it out!

Remember- in our "live" world, hi res audio has other benefits that may not have anything to do with sounding better.

Regards to the list...

Roger

 

The medium limitations are not paramount to enjoying recordings as evidenced by the re-emergence of vinyl.

I have long argued that modern playback is tragically flawed wrt to recreating an accurate sound field, but it works well enough, for enough paying consumers to succeed (or at least it did).  More bits and/or more samples, will not light a new fire under that IMO very mature consumer market segment (as some merchandisers hope).   

That said mastering and archival recording should use the best medium available. Playback needs to be good enough.

JR

PS: I learned decades ago about the frailty of human perception (at least my own). I could measure things with my bench test equipment that I could not hear, but never heard something that I could not measure (eventually.. Back in the day I did have to rig up some specialized test equipment).

[Andrew Broughton]

I wonder if he e-mailed Neil Young.

[ProSoundWeb Community]