a little test re: sound-quality

[antarktika]

how clever, subjectivity pwnage!

[Komodovaran]

As always:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYTlN6wj ... AAAAAAABAA

Thanks a lot man! I've been searching for the title of that video for ages.

The best of its kind.

[Tarekith]

I definitely prefer D.

[nathannn]

im typing this as i listen and have not yet read other responses past page 2 so,

1.sounds like its all going through a chorus effect and sounds like its coming from vinyl
2. they both sound like they are coming from vinyl or have tape hiss
3. i can not tell any difference between the 3.

[nathannn]

i missed the answers on page 2.

anyways, i think the point that people like newboss are trying to make is that lives sound quality starts to sound worse with the more tracks you add. from what i remember, no one has ever posted a real world example of a whole track, or a snippet of a whole track that was recorded in live and another daw at the same time using the same settings and same sound card. this would be the ultimate test.
using samples from a loop pack or previously released songs would not work when it comes to their theory because you dont know if the sample was recorded into live or not.
i would do the test myself but i dont own a mixer to split the recording signal, nor do i own two identical sound cards.

[Sleepy dinosaur]

Nope. I took the file because it is known. The source is all the same pink floyd CD. And to provide the answer to the world: A and C are the same files, 16 bit resolution from CD, whilst B is the file reduced to 12 bit !

Now come to your own conclusions. I leave it to you.

Robert

I had a feeling. I couldn't hear any difference at all. And the more responses I read the more I started to think I should be hearing a difference.

Good test!

[Tone Deft]

thanks for coming out to play Robert, good stuff! thanks for the input in the various threads of late.
funny that the differences are at ~-108 dB. dunno if I could be subjective at this point but I've always wanted to do this kind of test on a BIG sound system to experience the difference between bit depths' dynamic range.


greetings from sunny SF, high 60s, clear skies, no wind, shorts and t-shirt weather, even got a little sun burned yesterday. me thinks you need a business trip to see your C74 cohorts.

[pencilrocket]

Bump. One of many daw myths have now covered.

[newboss]

i only can listen to the 3 files via laüptop speakers and ther i dont hear a differnce.. HAve read now that 2 are identical nad one is only 12 bit.. ok..

12 bit with truncation or 12 bit with dithering?

but anyway..i dont see the point here really.. What do you want to prove? that 12 bit files can sound ok?

I always found my s 900 and emulator II great sounding devices.. 12 bit can be ok..

But you was more after that, that even stealing 8 bit dont makes a big difference..right? Or is the 12 bit file supposed to sound even better? i dont hear that on my laptop speakers..but when this is the intention of the test i ve to mention that distortion creates overtones and that is easily perceived as fresher or brighter sound when you dont listen carefully.
I will listen to the files again when my monitors are online again.

However, thing is that the magic of the perfect good sounding and well balanced mix is that nothing can really destroy it.. they survive the mp3 conversion with almost no loss. As better the mix as less the loss thru mp3 conversion.

When i have my studio online again i will repeat that with just a naked 808.. one as 24 bit file.. one 16 bit truncated..and one 12 bit truncated. ok?

lets see how that works on raw material than.

[Forge.]

I'm personally not interested in tests like this - far too many far better audio guys than me have done it ad nauseum

but I would like to add this link where expensive wine has been proven to taste better: http://scienceblogs.com/cortex/2008/01/ ... better.php


more food for thought: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... YTlN6wjcvQ

[ze2be]

Nope. I took the file because it is known. The source is all the same pink floyd CD. And to provide the answer to the world: A and C are the same files, 16 bit resolution from CD, whilst B is the file reduced to 12 bit !

Now come to your own conclusions. I leave it to you.

Robert

[bassik]

Hi there,

I had a listen to the files RObert posted before reading the conclusions on page 2.
I have to say that I found File A the better sounding of the three but having experience with tests on sound quality I have to admit that if someone guides you through the listening excercise it can make you believe everything, especially when difference are subtle.

Sound Quality tests are always run through comparison to a reference file.

Said that, I believe that people in this forum spend too much time discussing how bad or good is the sound quality of their music produced through Ableton or other DAW.
My thoughts are:

1 - If you don;t like Ableton audio quality use another DAW and sell the product.
2 - If you spend too much time discussing about accurate precise digital convertion and other nerd talks, probably is better if you decide to work for a gear manufacturer more than think about music production
3 - Ableton sounds the same as other DAW to me...and when I get something sounding very bad out of it is only my fault.

My two pence, no offence to anyone.

bassik

[friend_kami]

you all got owned.
funny that.

i guess live sounds bad, when your imagining things.
idiots.

[newboss]

I'm personally not interested in tests like this - far too many far better audio guys than me have done it ad nauseum

but I would like to add this link where expensive wine has been proven to taste better: http://scienceblogs.com/cortex/2008/01/ ... better.php


more food for thought: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... YTlN6wjcvQ

Ok you are right..this tests are useless.. but not because there are no reasons for 24 bit recordings or good wine..

The last time I´ve spend 60.- for a bottle of wine it tasted absolute fantastic. And the smell like neroli,wow. And what it did to my brain, great. These old red wines are psychodelic !

I actually came to the bottle on a wine test.. after having a zip from various wines i had to have a bottle of that stuff.. it turned out to be the most expensive bottle in the test.. but was too late..
Actually i would have preferred to know the prices before i made the decision, but have´nt regretted the buy.

In short.. of cause you can fool fools .. that dont proves a thing.. in general expensive wine tastes and smells better. Of cause there is an expectation, but that expectation is there for a reason. And abusing that expectation just proves that you can trick people, not that bad wine is as good as good wine.

But thats the conclusion this bullshit wine or winer audio tests implement, that there is no sensual quality at all and the cheapest soundblaster or sour young wine will do as good as the expensive shit.

Just.. is there anybody that is really stiff enough to really go for that?

Ok, some people really dont have the sensory capacities.
I met a guy that really hasnt seen or tasted a difference between going to an expensive restaurant with perfect cooked dishes, and the too long cooked pasta with cold tomato sauce without any spices or even salt in the hotel.
For him it was booth just food and he couldnt understand that i was carrying him thru half town and spending 10 times as much.
He had all my pity.

[crumhorn]

Do I get a prize for correctly guessing that the difference would be bit depth without even listening to the files? though I did get a clue form Magik_10's reply.

This actually comes as a great relief to me, because I had thought it was just my ageing ears that prevented me from hearing the difference between 12 bit and 16 bit audio - but it seems it's a lot more widespread.