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, 20:00
Post #2





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



Sorry SK1,

please tell me, what is flawed in this study ?

Can you read german ?
Who translated for you ?


Tell facts, what the flaws are !


Hey, this study needs at least 9 sites. And these 9 or 10 sites are only an extract out of perhaps 60 sites, dunno.



cite:

" Here is how i would make such a test :

1. Record a jazz combo live with a simple, classic 2 microphone setup ( to preserve runtime delay best possible ), using a very high quality 24 Bit/ 96 Khz ADC

remark user: afaik I have read, this has been done nearly that way. They had some musicians playing, perhaps 1, 2 or 3, classical instruments, and this was recorded at the best way, I remember that classic 2-microphone setup.

Well, you should all know, that this "High-School (a kind of special university, specialzed on studies for becoming sound-ingeneer)", where the test took place, is the only kind besides another in Berlin, in Germany. So, they have the knowledge, all (if not more), like we have here at HA.
They have around 40 - 50 students, all becoming sound-ingeneers at the end.
btw, these guys were the test-listeners.
So they would have had enough to perform a solid statistic, I assume (well, the information about carried out statistics is very small in this article, but there is some. I want to add, that 2 main lessons of the students are maths and physics, specialized on sound....) The statistical stuff will fill the a lot of sites of the official diploma work.............





2. Downsample the recorded digital signal to 44.1 and 48 Khz afterwards on a PC, with a normal FFIR filter ( or whatever ), but using a very high internal precision to avoid rounding errors ( like 32 bit FP ), and dither the signal


reamrk user: in one test-setup, this was carried out similarily to 48 kHz, I had mentioned it above. They were aware of the fact, that every DAC may sound a different way...




3. Play back those downsampled signals using a state-of-the-art 24 Bit / 96 KHz DAC and an excellent stereo monitoring system


remark user : done, written above.




4. Let the user in an ABX decide what sounds 'best' or most natural to them

If you use different DACs you will hear the differences between them, and not the sampling frequency. "

remark user:
that was carried out, otherwise, I wouldn't have wasted my time, to inform you about this study.

Well, I haven't found a flaw in this study. They were aware of all the mentioned things until now.
Why are some of you critizising this study ?
If you find a flaw, describe it. But you should not tell here possible flaws, which *might* have occured, like if they were beginners.


hmm, I know, it is difficult for most of you, to read those german sites.
(I assume, that this study wasn't spreaded so far, as it tells quite clearly, that 96 kHz is not necessary, 48 kHz are enough. The big music-industry had surely no interest to THIS result, lol !!!)
About that 16 bit vs. 24 bit thing, the study tells nothing new, perhaps I have written/interpreted too much in my first post.)
I have read, what guys these 40-50 students,( = participants of the blind -tests ) are.
They are selected out of a quite big number of volunteers, who want all to become sound-engineer, master for recording professional in studios or live etc.
So, they select the best ones, theoretical and practical skills.
Then they let them study at thier school.
So, the guys are quite young (20-25 max.) (haven't lost thier hearing abilities so far...)
and they are trained for musicality listening. They must play instruments , before they start their studies there...
and knowledge about electronics, acoustics, electrical, physics are reqwuired too, ot they are teached at that school.

In fact, they would be ideal HA-members, if they would start dealing with lossy codecs, too, and some training to listen to artifacts of lossy encoders, but this could be learned quite fast...

This post has been edited by user: Jan 30 2003, 20:01


--------------------
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: 17th September 2014 - 20:36