IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

5 Pages V   1 2 3 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
xiphmont’s ‘There is no point to distributing music in 24 bit/192 kHz’, Article: “24/192 Music Downloads are Very Silly Indeed”
NullC
post Mar 6 2012, 03:14
Post #1





Group: Developer
Posts: 200
Joined: 8-July 03
Member No.: 7653



Of interest, but certainly not news to anyone here is Monty's educational piece regarding the lack of value of 24/192 as a distribution format:

http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

Some of the commentary on the internet has been not especially well informed, for example there are some crazy claims at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3668310. If you're in a "someone is wrong on the internet!" correcting mood, you might want to go leave some comments in furtherance of the collective intelligence of mankind.

Cheers
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
NullC
post Mar 6 2012, 05:36
Post #2





Group: Developer
Posts: 200
Joined: 8-July 03
Member No.: 7653



It's also on slashdot now: http://news.slashdot.org/story/12/03/06/00...ds-is-pointless
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Canar
post Mar 6 2012, 05:52
Post #3





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 3370
Joined: 26-July 02
From: princegeorge.ca
Member No.: 2796





--------------------
You cannot ABX the rustling of jimmies.
No mouse? No problem.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
mudlord
post Mar 6 2012, 06:08
Post #4





Group: Developer (Donating)
Posts: 813
Joined: 1-December 07
Member No.: 49165



QUOTE (Canar @ Mar 5 2012, 22:52) *

Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
DigitalMan
post Mar 6 2012, 06:27
Post #5





Group: Members
Posts: 486
Joined: 27-March 02
From: California, USA
Member No.: 1631



Very, very nicely done. Long live TOS #8.


--------------------
Was that a 1 or a 0?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Carledwards
post Mar 6 2012, 08:50
Post #6





Group: Validating
Posts: 30
Joined: 3-January 11
Member No.: 87003



Excellent. Glad to see this and I hope it gets widespread attention.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Batman321
post Mar 6 2012, 09:00
Post #7





Group: Members
Posts: 67
Joined: 28-December 09
Member No.: 76405



Great article! biggrin.gif


Meanwhile in a parallel universe where science is for losers who aren't rich enough to buy insanely expensive gear:

SH Forums
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Porcus
post Mar 6 2012, 09:32
Post #8





Group: Members
Posts: 1903
Joined: 30-November 06
Member No.: 38207



At the risk of spinning off a digression: what is the maximum effective number of bits available in a DAC these days -- and does that number depend on the sampling frequency?


--------------------
One day in the Year of the Fox came a time remembered well
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
skamp
post Mar 6 2012, 10:27
Post #9





Group: Developer
Posts: 1450
Joined: 4-May 04
From: France
Member No.: 13875



^^^ http://nwavguy.blogspot.com/2012/03/odac-update.html

QUOTE
ENOB stands for Effective Number of Bits and is another measure of a DAC’s performance. No 24 (or 32) bit audio DAC can achieve true 24 bit performance, In fact, 20 ENOB is generally considered the “Holy Grail” of real world DAC performance. The ODAC is just under 19 ENOB and the Benchmark [DAC1], even referenced to its full 7+ volt maximum output, is 19.3 ENOB. The FiiO E10, even in 24 bit mode, is only 16.2 ENOB.


Note: the guy is touting his own design for a DAC/headphone amp combo (referenced above as ODAC), but he has a good track record of providing what looks like precise measurements, and making sense…

This post has been edited by skamp: Mar 6 2012, 10:31


--------------------
See my profile for measurements, tools and recommendations.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
AndyH-ha
post Mar 6 2012, 10:39
Post #10





Group: Members
Posts: 2210
Joined: 31-August 05
Member No.: 24222



The answer depends on conditions, like the chem lab experiments. At standard temperature and pressure ... .
20 bits is pushing the limit for practical purposes, thermal noise is too high for anything better. For some endeavors, such as some aspects of radio astronomy, cutting edge particle physics, and military systems, cryogenic cooling is practical and common place. Liquid nitrogen, or even more extreme materials, with the low temperatures they provide, considerably reduce the intrinsic device noise levels.

Sampling frequency and bit depth are independent of each other.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
hlloyge
post Mar 6 2012, 11:25
Post #11





Group: Members
Posts: 699
Joined: 10-January 06
From: Zagreb
Member No.: 27018



Finally. Thank you.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
razer
post Mar 6 2012, 13:16
Post #12





Group: Members
Posts: 83
Joined: 10-August 03
Member No.: 8295



Such a great read.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Porcus
post Mar 6 2012, 13:30
Post #13





Group: Members
Posts: 1903
Joined: 30-November 06
Member No.: 38207



QUOTE (AndyH-ha @ Mar 6 2012, 10:39) *
Sampling frequency and bit depth are independent of each other.


So ... at least it is not the case that a DAC fed a 192/24 signal as oppsed to a 48/20 or 44.1/16, will have to operate at higher load --> more thermal noise --> lower e.n.o.b.?
(Shouldn't be, it is not that demanding?)


--------------------
One day in the Year of the Fox came a time remembered well
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
DonP
post Mar 6 2012, 13:59
Post #14





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 1471
Joined: 11-February 03
From: Vermont
Member No.: 4955



QUOTE (AndyH-ha @ Mar 6 2012, 05:39) *
Sampling frequency and bit depth are independent of each other.



Delta sigma?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Arnold B. Kruege...
post Mar 6 2012, 14:41
Post #15





Group: Members
Posts: 3939
Joined: 29-October 08
From: USA, 48236
Member No.: 61311



QUOTE (Porcus @ Mar 6 2012, 03:32) *
At the risk of spinning off a digression: what is the maximum effective number of bits available in a DAC these days -- and does that number depend on the sampling frequency?


Effective number - you mean in terms of resolution that is actually delivered to the analog domain?

Check the TI and ESS web sites. They seem to be flogging the SOTA in this regard the hardest.

I think that noise down 133 dB down is the SOTA - what about 21 bits? If you want to be hard to please you would also demand that spurious responses (IM+THD) would also be part of the equation, in which case things seem to be about 3-6 dB worse.

I basically agree with the 20 bit number that others have put forth.

There is a strategy for improving the dynamic range of a DAC that can be expanded almost endlessly, at a increasingly high cost. Run multiple DACs that each generate statistically independent noise in parallel. Dynamic range improves by 3 dB for every doubling of DACs. I believe that ESS goes to 4x or even 8x for specing their products.

The progression is:

2 DACs in parallel, get a 3 dB improvement
4 DACs in parallel, get a 6 dB improvement
8 DACs in parallel, get a 9 dB improvement
16 DACs in parallel, get a 12 dB improvement
...

Thing is, this does nothing for spurious responses because they are always coherent, like the signal. The ratio between spurious responses and signal remains the same as you add DACs.

In the past people have run DACs in antiphase which can help even-order distortion. But you only get one iteration of that approach.

As DAC functionality gets cheaper and cheaper, the numbers race may cause these approaches to be more common. But, a good single DAC is overkill enough!

This post has been edited by Arnold B. Krueger: Mar 6 2012, 14:42
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Arnold B. Kruege...
post Mar 6 2012, 14:45
Post #16





Group: Members
Posts: 3939
Joined: 29-October 08
From: USA, 48236
Member No.: 61311



QUOTE (DonP @ Mar 6 2012, 07:59) *
QUOTE (AndyH-ha @ Mar 6 2012, 05:39) *
Sampling frequency and bit depth are independent of each other.



Delta sigma?



After measuring about a hundred audio interfaces, the overwhelming majority being Sigma-Delta, it seems to be a general rule that the best effective performance is found at lower sample rates (e.g. 44 KHz), all other things being equal.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
dumdidum
post Mar 6 2012, 14:52
Post #17





Group: Members
Posts: 57
Joined: 21-January 12
From: Germany
Member No.: 96595



Monty: "The more that pseudoscience goes unchecked in the world at large, the harder it is for truth to overcome truthiness... even if this is a small and relatively insignificant example."

QUOTE (Batman321 @ Mar 6 2012, 09:00) *
Meanwhile in a parallel universe where science is for losers who aren't rich enough to buy insanely expensive gear:

SH Forums

That SH forum thread you linked reminds me of creationism. I wouldn't be too optimistic about convincing such "audiophiles" by appealing to science and logic.

This post has been edited by dumdidum: Mar 6 2012, 14:53
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Martel
post Mar 6 2012, 15:15
Post #18





Group: Members
Posts: 553
Joined: 31-May 04
From: Czech Rep.
Member No.: 14430



QUOTE (AndyH-ha @ Mar 6 2012, 11:39) *
Sampling frequency and bit depth are independent of each other.
Theoretically maybe. But this is definitely false for integrating ADCs (commonly used in digital voltmeters) which have have a reciprocal relationship between accuracy (bit depth) and sampling rate.

This post has been edited by Martel: Mar 6 2012, 15:18


--------------------
IE4 Rockbox Clip+ AAC@192; HD 668B/HD 518 Xonar DX FB2k FLAC;
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Wombat
post Mar 6 2012, 17:02
Post #19





Group: Members
Posts: 1055
Joined: 7-October 01
Member No.: 235



QUOTE (NullC @ Mar 6 2012, 03:14) *
Some of the commentary on the internet has been not especially well informed, for example there are some crazy claims at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3668310. If you're in a "someone is wrong on the internet!" correcting mood, you might want to go leave some comments in furtherance of the collective intelligence of mankind.

One more page to link to if asked for some explanation, many thanks for that. What saddens me is the resulting discussion on this news channel.
There the typical "I am enigineer" come in and simply claim that "Nyquist was wrong because i can hear all these harmonics!"
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
saratoga
post Mar 6 2012, 18:26
Post #20





Group: Members
Posts: 5042
Joined: 2-September 02
Member No.: 3264



QUOTE (Porcus @ Mar 6 2012, 07:30) *
QUOTE (AndyH-ha @ Mar 6 2012, 10:39) *
Sampling frequency and bit depth are independent of each other.


So ... at least it is not the case that a DAC fed a 192/24 signal as oppsed to a 48/20 or 44.1/16, will have to operate at higher load --> more thermal noise --> lower e.n.o.b.?
(Shouldn't be, it is not that demanding?)


Usually they operate at about the same internal clock speed regardless of sampling rate, just with different oversampling ratios. Wouldn't make sense to run a DAC made for high speed operation at a lower speed, since more oversampling means less risk of aliasing and generally less quantization noise.

Also, in this context, thermal noise doesn't necessarily refer to the temperature of the A/D alone, but also to the temperature of everything its hooked up to. The terminating resistance in whatever the A/D is reading still contributes the same thermal noise no matter how cool you make the A/D for instance. This is why refrigeration is not a great option like it is in optical detectors.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Satellite_6
post Mar 6 2012, 20:56
Post #21





Group: Members
Posts: 40
Joined: 13-September 10
From: VA, USA
Member No.: 83831



"It's hard to fake ambisonics or holographic audio, sort of like how 3D video always seems to degenerate into a gaudy gimmick that reliably makes 5% of the population motion sick."

"If it wasn't the most boring party trick ever, it was pretty close."

haha!

Very amusing and very informative. I just want 16/44.1 lossless downloads, so to whoever starts offering that on a wide scale, shut up and take my money. smile.gif



--------------------
JDS Labs ODAC/O2 -> Sennheiser HD 650
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
jensend
post Mar 6 2012, 22:53
Post #22





Group: Members
Posts: 145
Joined: 21-May 05
Member No.: 22191



By the by, I recently added a little writeup about TOS 8 on the wiki. Thought I'd mention it after seeing Monty referencing TOS 8.

This post has been edited by Frank Bicking: Mar 6 2012, 23:17
Reason for edit: Fixed link.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
soulsearchingsun
post Mar 6 2012, 23:39
Post #23





Group: Members
Posts: 145
Joined: 27-January 05
Member No.: 19370



From the article:
QUOTE
Audibility of a CD-Standard A/D/A Loop Inserted into High-Resolution Audio Playback [...]
Not one listener throughout the entire test was able to identify which was 16/44.1 and which was high rate, and the 16-bit signal wasn't even dithered!
Not to be nitpicky, but IMHO you only dither if you resample digitally?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
klonuo
post Mar 7 2012, 00:04
Post #24





Group: Members
Posts: 258
Joined: 29-April 10
Member No.: 80274



QUOTE (jensend @ Mar 6 2012, 23:53) *
By the by, I recently added a little writeup about TOS 8 on the wiki. Thought I'd mention it after seeing Monty referencing TOS 8.

While there, someone could also fix links in pointed ABX article - all but one external links are 404 biggrin.gif

This post has been edited by klonuo: Mar 7 2012, 00:05
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
wakibaki
post Mar 7 2012, 00:57
Post #25





Group: Members
Posts: 37
Joined: 23-July 11
Member No.: 92474



I'm happy to see a truly coherent argument against the necessity for higher bit depths and sample rates.

Waste of storage space is a small margin of disadvantage however. The advocates of 24/96 and higher were happy to pay the cost of increased storage space to achieve a perceived advantage, and storage space (or transmission bandwidth) is an increasingly cheap commodity.

This leaves us with degradation of fidelity as a result of processing unnecessary ultrasonics. Unfortunately the very same tests (Meyer and Moran) we used to make our case previously now mitigate against us. If a 16/44k1 bottleneck is inaudible in a system avowedly processing ultrasonics, then the ultrasonics cannot reasonably be said to have (audibly) degraded the sound.

w

This post has been edited by wakibaki: Mar 7 2012, 01:01


--------------------
wakibaki.com
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

5 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 
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: 21st October 2014 - 21:09