Sound quality - the science.
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 17
  1. #1
    DJTT Tankard fullenglishpint's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    St Albans, UK
    Posts
    7,101

    Default Sound quality - the science.

    Just thought I'd share this on the topic of sound quality, why mp3s are evil etc. I found myself watching the TED talk video below by Tony Andrews of Funktion One, and started to think a lot of what he was saying sounded like bullshit.

    However, I don't know the science well enough to justify that statement, so I did some research and sent the link to a good friend of mine who's a physics graduate and electronics engineer specialising in signal processing and analysis (and DJ). I'll post his response later, but first the video and a post I found on another forum which takes the bit depth issue into account.



    Now the post from head-fi by a guy called Gregorio.
    I'm interested to hear the responses from those of you who can make it through the whole thing. It gets a bit scientific but I think it's very well explained:

    TSP 2 | Serato DJ | Live 8 | MBP (SSD + HDD) | AIAIA TMA-1 Fool's Gold Edition | 1200 Mk2s | MidiFighter | KRK RP5
    Xone: DB4 | Pioneer CDJ-2000 Nexus
    DJTT FAQ | Read my guide to AUDIO CABLES

  2. #2
    DJTT Tankard fullenglishpint's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    St Albans, UK
    Posts
    7,101

    Default

    Gregorio:

    It seems to me that there is a lot of misunderstanding regarding what bit depth is and how it works in digital audio. This misunderstanding exists not only in the consumer and audiophile worlds but also in some education establishments and even some professionals. This misunderstanding comes from supposition of how digital audio works rather than how it actually works. It's easy to see in a photograph the difference between a low bit depth image and one with a higher bit depth, so it's logical to suppose that higher bit depths in audio also means better quality. This supposition is further enforced by the fact that the term 'resolution' is often applied to bit depth and obviously more resolution means higher quality. So 24bit is Hi-Rez audio and 24bit contains more data, therefore higher resolution and better quality. All completely logical supposition but I'm afraid this supposition is not entirely in line with the actual facts of how digital audio works. I'll try to explain:
    When recording, an Analogue to Digital Converter (ADC) reads the incoming analogue waveform and measures it so many times a second (1*). In the case of CD there are 44,100 measurements made per second (the sampling frequency). These measurements are stored in the digital domain in the form of computer bits. The more bits we use, the more accurately we can measure the analogue waveform. This is because each bit can only store two values (0 or 1), to get more values we do the same with bits as we do in normal counting. IE. Once we get to 9, we have to add another column (the tens column) and we can keep adding columns add infinitum for 100s, 1000s, 10000s, etc. The exact same is true for bits but because we only have two values per bit (rather than 10) we need more columns, each column (or additional bit) doubles the number of vaules we have available. IE. 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024 .... If these numbers appear a little familiar it is because all computer technology is based on bits so these numbers crop up all over the place. In the case of 16bit we have roughly 65,000 different values available. The problem is that an analogue waveform is constantly varying. No matter how many times a second we measure the waveform or how many bits we use to store the measurement, there are always going to be errors. These errors in quantifying the value of a constantly changing waveform are called quantisation errors. Quantisation errors are bad, they cause distortion in the waveform when we convert back to analogue and listen to it.


    So far so good, what I've said until now would agree with the supposition of how digital audio works. I seem to have agreed that more bits = higher resolution. True, however, where the facts start to diverge from the supposition is in understanding the result of this higher resolution. Going back to what I said above, each time we increase the bit depth by one bit, we double the number of values we have available (EG. 4bit = 16 values, 5bit = 32 values). If we double the number of values, we halve the amount of quantisation errors. Still with me? Because now we come to the whole nub of the matter. There is in fact a perfect solution to quantisation errors which completely (100%) eliminates quantisation distortion, the process is called 'Dither' and is built into every ADC on the market.


    Dither: Essentially during the conversion process a very small amount of white noise is added to the signal, this has the effect of completely randomising the quantisation errors. Randomisation in digital audio, once converted back to analogue is heard as pure white (un-correlated) noise. The result is that we have an absolutely perfect measurement of the waveform (2*) plus some noise. In other words, by dithering, all the measurement errors have been converted to noise. (3*).


    Hopefully you're still with me, because we can now go on to precisely what happens with bit depth. Going back to the above, when we add a 'bit' of data we double the number of values available and therefore halve the number of quantisation errors. If we halve the number of quantisation errors, the result (after dithering) is a perfect waveform with halve the amount of noise. To phrase this using audio terminology, each extra bit of data moves the noise floor down by 6dB (half). We can turn this around and say that each bit of data provides 6dB of dynamic range (*4). Therefore 16bit x 6db = 96dB. This 96dB figure defines the dynamic range of CD. (24bit x 6dB = 144dB).


    So, 24bit does add more 'resolution' compared to 16bit but this added resolution doesn't mean higher quality, it just means we can encode a larger dynamic range. This is the misunderstanding made by many. There are no extra magical properties, nothing which the science does not understand or cannot measure. The only difference between 16bit and 24bit is 48dB of dynamic range (8bits x 6dB = 48dB) and nothing else. This is not a question for interpretation or opinion, it is the provable, undisputed logical mathematics which underpins the very existence of digital audio.


    So, can you actually hear any benefits of the larger (48dB) dynamic range offered by 24bit? Unfortunately, no you can't. The entire dynamic range of some types of music is sometimes less than 12dB. The recordings with the largest dynamic range tend to be symphony orchestra recordings but even these virtually never have a dynamic range greater than about 60dB. All of these are well inside the 96dB range of the humble CD. What is more, modern dithering techniques (see 3 below), perceptually enhance the dynamic range of CD by moving the quantisation noise out of the frequency band where our hearing is most sensitive. This gives a percievable dynamic range for CD up to 120dB (150dB in certain frequency bands).


    You have to realise that when playing back a CD, the amplifier is usually set so that the quietest sounds on the CD can just be heard above the noise floor of the listening environment (sitting room or cans). So if the average noise floor for a sitting room is say 50dB (or 30dB for cans) then the dynamic range of the CD starts at this point and is capable of 96dB (at least) above the room noise floor. If the full dynamic range of a CD was actually used (on top of the noise floor), the home listener (if they had the equipment) would almost certainly cause themselves severe pain and permanent hearing damage. If this is the case with CD, what about 24bit Hi-Rez. If we were to use the full dynamic range of 24bit and a listener had the equipment to reproduce it all, there is a fair chance, depending on age and general health, that the listener would die instantly. The most fit would probably just go into coma for a few weeks and wake up totally deaf. I'm not joking or exaggerating here, think about it, 144dB + say 50dB for the room's noise floor. But 180dB is the figure often quoted for sound pressure levels powerful enough to kill and some people have been killed by 160dB. However, this is unlikely to happen in the real world as no DACs on the market can output the 144dB dynamic range of 24bit (so they are not true 24bit converters), almost no one has a speaker system capable of 144dB dynamic range and as said before, around 60dB is the most dynamic range you will find on a commercial recording.


    So, if you accept the facts, why does 24bit audio even exist, what's the point of it? There are some useful application for 24bit when recording and mixing music. In fact, when mixing it's pretty much the norm now to use 48bit resolution. The reason it's useful is due to summing artefacts, multiple processing in series and mainly headroom. In other words, 24bit is very useful when recording and mixing but pointless for playback. Remember, even a recording with 60dB dynamic range is only using 10bits of data, the other 6bits on a CD are just noise. So, the difference in the real world between 16bit and 24bit is an extra 8bits of noise.


    I know that some people are going to say this is all rubbish, and that “I can easily hear the difference between a 16bit commercial recording and a 24bit Hi-Rez version”. Unfortunately, you can't, it's not that you don't have the equipment or the ears, it is not humanly possible in theory or in practice under any conditions!! Not unless you can tell the difference between white noise and white noise that is well below the noise floor of your listening environment!! If you play a 24bit recording and then the same recording in 16bit and notice a difference, it is either because something has been 'done' to the 16bit recording, some inappropriate processing used or you are hearing a difference because you expect a difference.

    Last edited by fullenglishpint; 11-05-2012 at 06:33 PM.
    TSP 2 | Serato DJ | Live 8 | MBP (SSD + HDD) | AIAIA TMA-1 Fool's Gold Edition | 1200 Mk2s | MidiFighter | KRK RP5
    Xone: DB4 | Pioneer CDJ-2000 Nexus
    DJTT FAQ | Read my guide to AUDIO CABLES

  3. #3
    DJTT Tankard fullenglishpint's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    St Albans, UK
    Posts
    7,101

    Default

    Cont.

    1 = Actually these days the process of AD conversion is a little more complex, using oversampling (very high sampling frequencies) and only a handful of bits. Later in the conversion process this initial sampling is 'decimated' back to the required bit depth and sample rate.


    2 = The concept of the perfect measurement or of recreating a waveform perfectly may seem like marketing hype. However, in this case it is not. It is in fact the fundamental tenet of the Nyquist-Shannon Sampling Theorem on which the very existence and invention of digital audio is based. From WIKI: “In essence the theorem shows that an analog signal that has been sampled can be perfectly reconstructed from the samples”. I know there will be some who will disagree with this idea, unfortunately, disagreement is NOT an option. This theorem hasn't been invented to explain how digital audio works, it's the other way around. Digital Audio was invented from the theorem, if you don't believe the theorem then you can't believe in digital audio either!!


    3 = In actual fact these days there are a number of different types of dither used during the creation of a music product. Most are still based on the original TPDFs (triangular probability density function) but some are a little more 'intelligent' and re-distribute the resulting noise to less noticeable areas of the hearing spectrum. This is called noise-shaped dither.


    4 = Dynamic range, is the range of volume between the noise floor and the maximum volume.
    More will follow (hopefully tomorrow) on sample rate etc.
    Last edited by fullenglishpint; 11-05-2012 at 07:24 PM.
    TSP 2 | Serato DJ | Live 8 | MBP (SSD + HDD) | AIAIA TMA-1 Fool's Gold Edition | 1200 Mk2s | MidiFighter | KRK RP5
    Xone: DB4 | Pioneer CDJ-2000 Nexus
    DJTT FAQ | Read my guide to AUDIO CABLES

  4. #4
    Tech Mentor Audeo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Enschede, The Netherlands
    Posts
    415

    Default

    The Funktion One guy, Tony, really sounds like he did a bit too much LSD in his time and is really frustrated by the mainstream studio mixers. All I hear him do is ranting about things but nothing about Mike Shipley and studio engineers like him, who make gorgeous mixes.

    What Gregorio says is true when he talks about the useless dynamic range of 24bit audio. But what he doesn't cover is the extra frequency sample range and that's the thing that DOES add more enjoyment.

    At school we recorded a saxophone at 44.1Khz and at 88.2Khz.
    Of course there was no way to let the saxophone sound as good as when it was played live, but the difference between 44.1Khz and 88.2Khz was pretty amazing. It added so much more air and depth. Even though we can't "translate" frequencies above 20Khz with our ears, it still contains information that is somehow perceived and does make a difference.
    Midi Fighter|Kontrol X1|A4DJ|HDJ2000|MBP 13" 2,53Ghz 60GB SSD/500GB HDD

  5. #5
    DJTT Tankard fullenglishpint's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    St Albans, UK
    Posts
    7,101

    Default

    There will be more on this when I have the full write up of the response from my friend (he decided to edit it so it was a little more informative and less libellous ) but I find it very hard to believe that pushing the sample rate beyond 44.1kHz makes an audible difference. No consumer audio speaker is designed to (or able to) accurately reproduce frequencies much above 20kHz. The physical limitations of the size of the average tweeter mean that it simply won't move that fast, so you'd need a dedicated ultrasound driver. On top of that, there's no scientific evidence to even suggest that the human ear can pick up ultrasound in any way.
    TSP 2 | Serato DJ | Live 8 | MBP (SSD + HDD) | AIAIA TMA-1 Fool's Gold Edition | 1200 Mk2s | MidiFighter | KRK RP5
    Xone: DB4 | Pioneer CDJ-2000 Nexus
    DJTT FAQ | Read my guide to AUDIO CABLES

  6. #6
    Tech Mentor Audeo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Enschede, The Netherlands
    Posts
    415

    Default

    Oh we weren't listening on your average home stereo system..
    We got six Meyer MSL4 tops and six 700-HP subs installed with all the right processing, bells and whistles
    That's about 21,840 watt of seriously high quality sound.
    Midi Fighter|Kontrol X1|A4DJ|HDJ2000|MBP 13" 2,53Ghz 60GB SSD/500GB HDD

  7. #7
    DJTT Tankard fullenglishpint's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    St Albans, UK
    Posts
    7,101

    Default

    According to Meyer themselves, the MSL-4 only has a frequency response up to 18kHz...

    http://www.meyersound.com/pdf/produc...s/msl-4_ds.pdf

    Was it a double blind test?
    TSP 2 | Serato DJ | Live 8 | MBP (SSD + HDD) | AIAIA TMA-1 Fool's Gold Edition | 1200 Mk2s | MidiFighter | KRK RP5
    Xone: DB4 | Pioneer CDJ-2000 Nexus
    DJTT FAQ | Read my guide to AUDIO CABLES

  8. #8
    DJTT Infectious Moderator photojojo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Sherman, TX
    Posts
    13,939

    Default

    tldr

    blah, blah, blah Tony Andrews can kiss my AAC's
    Chris Jennings FHP

    Podcast - Soundcloud - Mixcloud - Beatport Charts - x

  9. #9
    Tech Mentor Audeo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Enschede, The Netherlands
    Posts
    415

    Default

    Not a double blind test, no. The teacher knew what file was playing.
    And about the spec sheet, that's just the range they can guarantee, not "just" the range it can produce.
    Even the DS210 from Funktion One goes to 18Khz.

    But in reality they go way higher. Next time I have a measurement mic handy (one that goes REALLY really high) I'll take a measurement.
    Midi Fighter|Kontrol X1|A4DJ|HDJ2000|MBP 13" 2,53Ghz 60GB SSD/500GB HDD

  10. #10
    Tech Guru AllDay's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    From The Okanagan. Canada!
    Posts
    1,182

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fullenglishpint View Post
    According to Meyer themselves, the MSL-4 only has a frequency response up to 18kHz...

    http://www.meyersound.com/pdf/produc...s/msl-4_ds.pdf

    Was it a double blind test?
    goottt emm

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •