NOT ENOUGH TICKETS !

  On 6/28/2011 at 1:02 PM, mcbpete said:

I'm jealous of your hearing (It's not 100% right but you're very close) unless you just looked at a spectrogram you big cheater !

thanks ? so can we drop the fuking bullshit commentary now anytime someone mentions "lossless" or "24bit-wav" or of that nature?

and where is that guy who said this

  On 6/26/2011 at 4:15 AM, analogue wings said:

if you can tell the difference between 320kbs mp3 and a 24bit wav file in a blind listening test i will personally suck your cock on camera

speak up?

  On 6/28/2011 at 6:11 PM, oscillik said:

  On 6/28/2011 at 4:27 PM, Bob Dobalina said:

  On 6/28/2011 at 3:31 AM, modey said:

i don't know better. i just stated that i can't tell the difference between (for example) oversteps in 16bit vs. 24bit. and i've mentioned before that i'd be satisfied if someone provided a decent analysis of the differences between the two versions (instead of just saying "r ess starts a few seconds earlier" or whatever). yet nobody has done so, so far. i don't know how to do it myself, i tried to subtract one from the other in soundforge but just ended up with white noise.

 

Yeah, basically throw all the spectrograph etc. analysis out the window because it only comes down to human perception. And rest assured that you aren't missing anything with those extra 8 bits either - no one, no where has been able to successfully differentiate between 16-bit and 24-bit in a blind test. Anyone claiming otherwise is just blowing smoke up their own ass.

respectfully, shut up.

 

you cannot make definitive statements pertaining to the entire population of earth regarding something that is subjective.

like i said before, i will respect your opinion 100% if you can show me a definitive, easy to perceive difference between the oversteps 16 and 24 bit wav files - even some kind of graphical analysis, although if you are so good at telling the difference between the two by ear, tell me some parts where it is obvious (i mean a part that you would hear at a normal listening volume). until then, this whole argument is bullshit. i'm not saying prove it because i want to prove you wrong, i actually want to know how to tell the difference.

  On 6/28/2011 at 11:26 PM, modey said:

  On 6/28/2011 at 6:11 PM, oscillik said:

  On 6/28/2011 at 4:27 PM, Bob Dobalina said:

  On 6/28/2011 at 3:31 AM, modey said:

i don't know better. i just stated that i can't tell the difference between (for example) oversteps in 16bit vs. 24bit. and i've mentioned before that i'd be satisfied if someone provided a decent analysis of the differences between the two versions (instead of just saying "r ess starts a few seconds earlier" or whatever). yet nobody has done so, so far. i don't know how to do it myself, i tried to subtract one from the other in soundforge but just ended up with white noise.

 

Yeah, basically throw all the spectrograph etc. analysis out the window because it only comes down to human perception. And rest assured that you aren't missing anything with those extra 8 bits either - no one, no where has been able to successfully differentiate between 16-bit and 24-bit in a blind test. Anyone claiming otherwise is just blowing smoke up their own ass.

respectfully, shut up.

 

you cannot make definitive statements pertaining to the entire population of earth regarding something that is subjective.

like i said before, i will respect your opinion 100% if you can show me a definitive, easy to perceive difference between the oversteps 16 and 24 bit wav files - even some kind of graphical analysis, although if you are so good at telling the difference between the two by ear, tell me some parts where it is obvious. until then, this whole argument is bullshit. i'm not saying prove it because i want to prove you wrong, i actually want to know how to tell the difference.

what? all i'm saying is that it is fucking obnoxious for someone to brazenly claim "YOU CANNOT HEAR THE DIFFERENCE, NO-ONE CAN" when it is a subjective thing.

and as i've said earlier, this shit happens all the time on WATMM

elusive, serious question: do you have evidence to believe Sean and Rob recorded either album in 24-bit at some point?

Draft and Confield?

edit: derp

  On 6/28/2011 at 11:36 PM, Awepittance said:

elusive, serious question: do you have evidence to believe Sean and Rob recorded either album in 24-bit at some point?

no - did you read the post that stated why i made the request?

modey made a point that may render the request useless, if in fact

  On 6/28/2011 at 11:26 PM, modey said:

(i mean a part that you would hear at a normal listening volume)

there's your problem!

  On 6/29/2011 at 12:12 AM, elusive4 said:

  On 6/28/2011 at 11:26 PM, modey said:

(i mean a part that you would hear at a normal listening volume)

 

there's your problem!

so why do you care about 24bit if you're not going to hear the difference when listening at a comfortable volume?

  On 6/28/2011 at 11:28 PM, oscillik said:

  On 6/28/2011 at 11:26 PM, modey said:

  On 6/28/2011 at 6:11 PM, oscillik said:

  On 6/28/2011 at 4:27 PM, Bob Dobalina said:

  On 6/28/2011 at 3:31 AM, modey said:

i don't know better. i just stated that i can't tell the difference between (for example) oversteps in 16bit vs. 24bit. and i've mentioned before that i'd be satisfied if someone provided a decent analysis of the differences between the two versions (instead of just saying "r ess starts a few seconds earlier" or whatever). yet nobody has done so, so far. i don't know how to do it myself, i tried to subtract one from the other in soundforge but just ended up with white noise.

 

Yeah, basically throw all the spectrograph etc. analysis out the window because it only comes down to human perception. And rest assured that you aren't missing anything with those extra 8 bits either - no one, no where has been able to successfully differentiate between 16-bit and 24-bit in a blind test. Anyone claiming otherwise is just blowing smoke up their own ass.

respectfully, shut up.

 

you cannot make definitive statements pertaining to the entire population of earth regarding something that is subjective.

like i said before, i will respect your opinion 100% if you can show me a definitive, easy to perceive difference between the oversteps 16 and 24 bit wav files - even some kind of graphical analysis, although if you are so good at telling the difference between the two by ear, tell me some parts where it is obvious. until then, this whole argument is bullshit. i'm not saying prove it because i want to prove you wrong, i actually want to know how to tell the difference.

what? all i'm saying is that it is fucking obnoxious for someone to brazenly claim "YOU CANNOT HEAR THE DIFFERENCE, NO-ONE CAN" when it is a subjective thing.

 

and as i've said earlier, this shit happens all the time on WATMM

what i mean is that so far, nobody has actually analysed the difference between encodings - aside from saying "r ess starts earlier" or whatever.

  On 6/29/2011 at 12:36 AM, modey said:

  On 6/29/2011 at 12:12 AM, elusive4 said:

  On 6/28/2011 at 11:26 PM, modey said:

(i mean a part that you would hear at a normal listening volume)

 

there's your problem!

so why do you care about 24bit if you're not going to hear the difference when listening at a comfortable volume?

do i have to reference that this thread was created due to the 61e.cr surface noise again (on my favorite part that i like to play at extremely loud levels as the signals are quite low relative to the rest of the track? how many times?

edit: where are you getting this "at a comfortable volume?" from? i can't recall mentioning it. let me check my logs,

  On 6/29/2011 at 12:38 AM, modey said:

  On 6/28/2011 at 11:28 PM, oscillik said:

  On 6/28/2011 at 11:26 PM, modey said:

  On 6/28/2011 at 6:11 PM, oscillik said:

  On 6/28/2011 at 4:27 PM, Bob Dobalina said:

  On 6/28/2011 at 3:31 AM, modey said:

i don't know better. i just stated that i can't tell the difference between (for example) oversteps in 16bit vs. 24bit. and i've mentioned before that i'd be satisfied if someone provided a decent analysis of the differences between the two versions (instead of just saying "r ess starts a few seconds earlier" or whatever). yet nobody has done so, so far. i don't know how to do it myself, i tried to subtract one from the other in soundforge but just ended up with white noise.

 

Yeah, basically throw all the spectrograph etc. analysis out the window because it only comes down to human perception. And rest assured that you aren't missing anything with those extra 8 bits either - no one, no where has been able to successfully differentiate between 16-bit and 24-bit in a blind test. Anyone claiming otherwise is just blowing smoke up their own ass.

respectfully, shut up.

 

you cannot make definitive statements pertaining to the entire population of earth regarding something that is subjective.

like i said before, i will respect your opinion 100% if you can show me a definitive, easy to perceive difference between the oversteps 16 and 24 bit wav files - even some kind of graphical analysis, although if you are so good at telling the difference between the two by ear, tell me some parts where it is obvious. until then, this whole argument is bullshit. i'm not saying prove it because i want to prove you wrong, i actually want to know how to tell the difference.

what? all i'm saying is that it is fucking obnoxious for someone to brazenly claim "YOU CANNOT HEAR THE DIFFERENCE, NO-ONE CAN" when it is a subjective thing.

 

and as i've said earlier, this shit happens all the time on WATMM

what i mean is that so far, nobody has actually analysed the difference between encodings - aside from saying "r ess starts earlier" or whatever.

ok, firstly, what does it matter to you? you listen to the highest quality you're comfortable with. you have already shown that you are quite happy with 16bit wav files as your 'highest' quality, so why harangue people that want better just because you personally can't hear the difference?

secondly, bit depth isn't anything to do with encoding.

i just want to know where you're hearing the difference so i can have a listen and see if i can spot it as well.

and yes i used the wrong word. time to crucify me i guess!

also re: 6ie.cr, i'll have a close listen to my vinyl copy tonight and see if there's any difference. though the amplifier for my record player is hardly audiophile quality.

  On 6/29/2011 at 2:09 AM, modey said:

i just want to know where you're hearing the difference so i can have a listen and see if i can spot it as well.

 

and yes i used the wrong word. time to crucify me i guess!

where in this thread have i mentioned that i can hear the difference between 16bit and 24bit recordings?

my contribution to this thread has been to counteract the knee-jerk reactionists that continue to brazenly proclaim "YOU CAN'T HEAR IT, BECAUSE I CAN'T HEAR IT, AND SOME OTHER PEOPLE ON THE INTERNET SAID YOU CAN'T HEAR IT."

and with regard to the difference between audio encodings and bit depth, yeah you used completely the wrong word. which completely changes what you're talking about, so just thought it might be better to clear that up before this thread gets even more out of hand than it already has.

so, is the noise during the ending of 61e.cr intentional or due to limitations of being 16bit; the noise irritates me and is the reason for the thread (in a jokingly way; although some took the ball)

yuop intro/extro and O-0 intro are fuking glorious when cranked all the way up - and not a HINT of noise. of course, need to turn it the fuck down before O-0 chimes slam in, but fuk it if the plumes in that intro aren't fuking incredilbe.

  On 6/29/2011 at 2:22 AM, elusive4 said:

so, is the noise during the ending of 61e.cr intentional or due to limitations of being 16bit; the noise irritates me and is the reason for the thread

to answer this, i would say (with my non educated guess) that the noise wouldn't be anything to do with the 'limitation' of 16bit, because it's not pertinent to the differences between 16bit and 24bit.

bit depth is to do with increments of dynamic range. so the higher the bit depth, the more increments of volume change can be recorded.

here is a very crude and overly simplified drawing to get my point across

as you can see, the 24bit file still hits 0dB at the same point, but it just has more increments of volume.

  On 6/29/2011 at 2:22 AM, elusive4 said:

yuop intro/extro and O-0 intro are fuking glorious when cranked all the way up - and not a HINT of noise. of course, need to turn it the fuck down before O-0 chimes slam in, but fuk it if the plumes in that intro aren't fuking incredilbe.

ok! finally an answer. i'll have a listen tonight to those parts as well, on 16bit wav, 24bit wav and vinyl versions. tbh i wasn't as satisfied with the vinyl version of oversteps as with previous autechre albums (confield amber :sup: tri repetae ).

Show me somewhere where someone has proven via double-blind test to be able to tell the difference between 16 and 24-bit, just one example will do. Psychoacoustics is a rich field of study, so surely someone's published something to this effect in a journal or something.

Sorry to break the news, but the burden of proof falls on the person making the claim counter to the currently accepted scientific understanding of the subject matter. So proclamations like oscilliks are complete bullshit unless they can be proven by ABX. Feel free to try it and post results here.

  On 6/29/2011 at 3:43 AM, Bob Dobalina said:

Show me somewhere where someone has proven via double-blind test to be able to tell the difference between 16 and 24-bit, just one example will do. Psychoacoustics is a rich field of study, so surely someone's published something to this effect in a journal or something.

 

Sorry to break the news, but the burden of proof falls on the person making the claim counter to the currently accepted scientific understanding of the subject matter. So proclamations like oscilliks are complete bullshit unless they can be proven by ABX. Feel free to try it and post results here.

troll

in fact, Bob Dobalina, since you're so keen on burden of proof and all that, you need to prove to me that every person on earth cannot tell the difference.

erm, anti-troll. Please, continue to make subjective claims without objective proof.

  On 6/29/2011 at 4:06 AM, Bob Dobalina said:

erm, anti-troll. Please, continue to make subjective claims without objective proof.

you can't have objective proof on something that is subjective.

next.

  On 6/29/2011 at 3:43 AM, Bob Dobalina said:

Show me somewhere where someone has proven via double-blind test to be able to tell the difference between 16 and 24-bit, just one example will do. Psychoacoustics is a rich field of study, so surely someone's published something to this effect in a journal or something.

 

Sorry to break the news, but the burden of proof falls on the person making the claim counter to the currently accepted scientific understanding of the subject matter. So proclamations like oscilliks are complete bullshit unless they can be proven by ABX. Feel free to try it and post results here.

bob dobalina you really need to laern to fucking read much more as no one here fuking claimed shit about being able to tell 16bit vs 24bit -how many times does this need to be stated.

feel free to try and read the fuking posts.

Rob looks really good with a mustache there, but for some reason the clip of Sean is creeping me out.

  On 6/29/2011 at 2:22 AM, elusive4 said:

so, is the noise during the ending of 61e.cr intentional or due to limitations of being 16bit

Not the latter. You can have dead silence in 16 bit and you can have sounds without audible hiss in 16 bit, I have about a billion examples (although the fact that several other tracks on the same CD fade out without similar hiss is probably the most relevant).

My guess is intentional, the whole track is about noise really. I love the drops of glitch falling like rain as it ends. It might also be that the source of the flute-like tone is noisy (e.g. an analog synth) but they were prepared to put up with it.

Also - "incomplete without surface noise" is a previously stated attitude of theirs.

  On 6/29/2011 at 2:31 AM, oscillik said:

Here is a very crude and overly simplified drawing to get my point across

 

 

as you can see, the 24bit file still hits 0dB at the same point, but it just has more increments of volume.

Not oversimplified at all young man, that's exactly the difference between bit rates: More divisions between -inf db and 0db !