IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

96 vs. 48 or 44.1 kHz sampling --> scientific test, perhaps here is the 1. listening test !
user
post Jan 30 2003, 12:42
Post #1





Group: Members
Posts: 873
Joined: 12-October 01
From: the great wide open
Member No.: 277



http://www.hfm-detmold.de/texts/de/hfm/eti...ten/seite1.html


http://www.hfm-detmold.de/texts/de/hfm/eti...ten/seite9.html

etc.

(seite = site / page)



it is a summary of German diploma work, written 1998, so it should be independent from companies like Zoony etc.

It was quite a good reading, I hope, somebody of the germans could translate important things, sorry, I have no time.

So, the result was:




44.1 kHz, 16 bit:

they used Tascam-DAT-Recorder DA-30 MKII as reference for CD standard, 44.1/16.

They tell, that this was picked out very clearly from the majority.

(btw, they show a graph, that says, that 16 bit has in mid frequency range a noise level, which is higher than our hearing abilities. very interesting !)

so, 44.1/16 is not sufficient.






48 kHz, 24 bit

one DAC was preferred over analogue original, but why could not be figured out. So there was difference but which ?

another DAC was able to reproduce the analogue original as best DAC of all tested, better than all the 96 kHz DACs !!!!!

in blind test it was 50/50 %, so this DAC could not be distinguihsed from original source.



96 kHz:

Dacs had worse performance than the 48 khZ ones.
but some were "beta-versions...".



Look at the graphs, especially site 9.

Sorry for this short post, but I think, it may interest you...

This post has been edited by user: Jan 30 2003, 12:43


--------------------
www.High-Quality.ch.vu -- High Quality Audio Archiving Tutorials
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies
user
post Jan 30 2003, 13:49
Post #2





Group: Members
Posts: 873
Joined: 12-October 01
From: the great wide open
Member No.: 277



just a moment, it doesn't help, if you cite single parts of texts.

btw, those results are quite agreeing to main opinions of this board, there is no reason to bash that work.


@garfs posted lines:

they refer to the first test part, where i am not so clear about, if they did it blind.

well, they tell, the noise of that 44.1/16 source (DAT) was easy to listen, so they ranked 16/44.1 as worst.

btw, in the latter test, which is blind, 16/44.1 is rated worst, too, very clearly.




Well, somewhere they write clearly, that this test showed more the single characteristics of each DAC.

Compare the 24/48 DACs and the 24/96 DACs.

(at that time, 1998 !!!!, the 96/24 DACs were not perfect, not as good as the 48/24 DACs. This is one result of their test.

They write, that obviously the sound is more infleunced by the analogue in and outs circuits of the DACs, then by the digital circuits....

Well, and as they took only one example for 16/44.1, a Tascam DAT (which is used in a lot studios, the reason, why they took it, so, it cannot be so bad ?) it can be, that this DAT has perhaps a worser analogue output than other 44.1/16 DACs, who knows ?!


So, they have not only the result, that their Tascam DAT produced some noise at 44.1/16, they write as result, that very probably 96 kHz sampling is overkill.
The good blind-tested 48 kHz DACs proved, that transparency is already available at 48 kHz sampling (which does not exclude, that 44.1 kHz sampling , 20 kHz sound, would be transparent, too.
But these 48 DACs had 24 bit.

So, they tell, that the 24 bit is an improvement over 16 bits.
Not the 96 kHz are an listenable (ABXable) improvement, 96 kHz are waste of space, which we will agree mainly, without great headaches.


well, this 24 bit better than 16 bit thing is unfortuanetly not really tested by them. Their test-setup was mainly for 96 kHz against other sampling frequencies.
And therefor they have a nice result, 48 kHz perfect.


Their graphs are unfortunately not the best ones.
you can get some valuable information out of them.
but in this summary they give only very little numbers, statistics.
I assume, that there is more statistical proof in the real diploma work.

But the whole test-setup, and how it is written, shows, that they wanted to get real blind-tested results, like we want here at HA.


--------------------
www.High-Quality.ch.vu -- High Quality Audio Archiving Tutorials
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Posts in this topic
- user   96 vs. 48 or 44.1 kHz sampling --> scientific test   Jan 30 2003, 12:42
- - Garf   An dieser Stelle muss aber sicherlich berücksichti...   Jan 30 2003, 12:55
- - budgie   QUOTE so, 44.1/16 is not sufficient. HA... HA.....   Jan 30 2003, 13:23
- - Garf   Well, if I understand the German right, they did i...   Jan 30 2003, 13:30
- - user   just a moment, it doesn't help, if you cite si...   Jan 30 2003, 13:49
- - NumLOCK   Garf, I have not read this article yet but it seem...   Jan 30 2003, 13:55
- - user   QUOTE (Garf @ Jan 30 2003 - 01:30 PM)Well, if...   Jan 30 2003, 13:56
- - NumLOCK   QUOTE They had one very important test-setup for t...   Jan 30 2003, 13:58
- - F1Sushi   I think it's pretty clear from this "stud...   Jan 30 2003, 15:00
- - ChristianHJW   Here is how i would make such a test : 1. Record ...   Jan 30 2003, 16:33
- - budgie   Hey, hey, people... stop, please!!! So...   Jan 30 2003, 16:54
- - F1Sushi   You're certainly entitled to your opinion (so ...   Jan 30 2003, 17:25
- - SK1   This "study" is completely flawed. Until...   Jan 30 2003, 17:40
- - user   Sorry SK1, please tell me, what is flawed in thi...   Jan 30 2003, 20:00
- - F1Sushi   QUOTE (user @ Jan 30 2003 - 03:00 PM)"in...   Jan 30 2003, 21:23
- - NumLOCK   QUOTE (user @ Jan 30 2003 - 08:00 PM)[...] wh...   Jan 30 2003, 21:26
- - user   Numlock, now I am even asking myself, if you have ...   Jan 30 2003, 22:11
- - jesseg   QUOTE (NumLOCK @ Jan 30 2003 - 02:26 PM)...I ...   Jan 30 2003, 22:57
- - ChristianHJW   I took the time and read the complete article. us...   Jan 30 2003, 23:25
- - Doctor   Least Significant Bit in this case.   Jan 30 2003, 23:37
- - jesseg   thanks, ill read up about its important, if someth...   Jan 30 2003, 23:39
- - AgentMil   Slightly OT Sound is so subjective, in that I th...   Jan 31 2003, 07:21
- - NumLOCK   QUOTE (user @ Jan 30 2003 - 10:11 PM)Numlock,...   Jan 31 2003, 09:08
- - budgie   QUOTE ...it tells quite clearly, that 96 kHz is no...   Jan 31 2003, 09:16
- - NumLOCK   QUOTE (budgie @ Jan 31 2003 - 09:16 AM)NumLOC...   Jan 31 2003, 09:23
- - Bedeox   QUOTE (ChristianHJW @ Jan 30 2003 - 07:33 AM)...   Jan 31 2003, 09:33
- - NumLOCK   Bedeox: Why not record the analog to 96kHz, 24 bi...   Jan 31 2003, 10:06
- - Bedeox   Lowpass filtering sound introduces differences... ...   Jan 31 2003, 10:18
- - NumLOCK   QUOTE (Bedeox @ Jan 31 2003 - 10:18 AM)Lowpas...   Jan 31 2003, 10:34
- - Bedeox   Who wants to make such a test and has the equipmen...   Jan 31 2003, 10:40
- - Pio2001   What about the consumer products ? Even if 48 kHz...   Jan 31 2003, 12:44
- - NumLOCK   QUOTE (Pio2001 @ Jan 31 2003 - 12:44 PM)What ...   Jan 31 2003, 15:19
- - Bedeox   What is a 'typical' linearity? Every type...   Jan 31 2003, 15:30
- - mithrandir   Arguing over the wrong things... I would be perfe...   Jan 31 2003, 16:40
- - F1Sushi   QUOTE (mithrandir @ Jan 31 2003 - 11:40 AM)Ar...   Jan 31 2003, 17:17
- - Bedeox   You're so much right, mithrandir... a lot of m...   Jan 31 2003, 17:20
- - F1Sushi   Does anyone remember this article on compression a...   Jan 31 2003, 17:26
- - budgie   Uh?   Jan 31 2003, 20:24
- - F1Sushi   QUOTE (budgie @ Jan 31 2003 - 03:24 PM)QUOTE ...   Jan 31 2003, 20:38
- - Bedeox   Oh yeah... THE OTHER SIDE you say? From INSIDE of ...   Jan 31 2003, 20:43


Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 26th November 2014 - 22:02