16/44 vs 24/96. Which sounds better in streaming ?

[mtemur]

My streamer presents DSD and 16/41k or whatever at a different output level. Any comparison becomes invalid without level matching. Do peOple consider the possibility of unequal level when comparing?

I'm sure they do.

DS/SACD signal is 6dB lower (half) than PCM/CD signal. Most of the players, DACs or playback/streaming devices compensate for that by increasing it 6dB. For the players/DACs that don't do compensation you should manually increase level by 6dB.

 

[Ian B]

My streamer presents DSD and 16/41k or whatever at a different output level. Any comparison becomes invalid without level matching. Do peOple consider the possibility of unequal level when comparing?

Some DACs might bump DSD down 3 or 6db to avoid inter-sample clipping. Mine doesn't. But with a 3 or 6db difference you will notice an obvious discrepancy in volume that you have to compensate for. It's definitely not level that makes the formats sound different, though.

 

[Kjetil]

Do you match them to within 0.1 dB?

 

[Balle Clorin]

few apart from the real nerds do I think. Those with a dB readout in the system can do it but maybe only in 0.5db steps. Few others mess with a test signal and a multimeter on the output…

Many audiophile brag about how this and that altered their sound , but if you ask then about level matching they start look baffled and talking about cars and whisky instead, or once in a while say of course- I do that easily by ear.

 

[Ian B]

few apart from the real nerds do I think. Those with a dB readout in the system can do it but maybe only in 0.5db steps. Few others mess with a test signal and a multimeter on the output…

Many audiophile brag about how this and that altered their sound , but if you ask then about level matching they start look baffled and talking about cars and whisky instead, or once in a while say of course- I do that easily by ear.

Yeah, it's kind of ridiculous to do in the real world. Like I swapped a fuse or cable, am I really going to bust out the multimeter to see if it slightly altered the volume, and then somehow try to level match it with a line stage with .1db increments? Unless you are comparing two very similar sources, side by side (and most people aren't), there isn't a whole lot of use for it.

I work in mixing and mastering, and I can assure you that some people can hear less than a .1db difference. And yet, there are many qualitatively unique things that change a sound beside a tiny change in level. Usually we hear louder as better if all things are equal, but not as usually does louder mean blacker background or more fluid etc etc.

 

[Balle Clorin]

You know what I mean and when matching levels matter or not.
But your last comment is interesting, I can adjust level at 0.1db increments. But find that 0.5 is perceived as an “improvement” rather than a level change. 0.1 db is not possible for me to hear. According to science our ear is not very sensitive to decimal db changes. Anything below 0.2 will likely go unnoticed. Is your 0.1 from personal experience?

 

[Ian B]

You know what I mean and when matching levels matter or not.
But your last comment is interesting, I can adjust level at 0.1db increments. But find that 0.5 is perceived as an “improvement” rather than a level change. 0.1 db is not possible for me to hear. According to science our ear is not very sensitive to decimal db changes. Anything below 0.2 will likely go unnoticed. Is your 0.1 from personal experience?
View attachment 152349

Yes, I move faders most days in .1db increments. In a high end mastering environment I've heard clearly .25db EQ boosts and .25db gain reduction from compression. .5db is a pretty obvious jump, and often too large of increment for fine tuning levels.

I don't know for a fact that I can hear below a .1db difference, but I do notice some pretty subtle things in audio systems that don't measure easily, so it's not hard to assume that someone is hearing very small differences.

 

[Amir]

Not all but for some releases on Qobuz 16/44.1 version sounds better than 24/192 and regular is better than remastered. And for others exactly the opposite is true, high res version is better. I don’t think a generalization like Cd resolution is better than high res is true. IMHO it’s about processing and transferring. Less processed and better transferred sounds superior even it’s only Cd res.

I agree with you the key is less processing in digital domain.

the awful thing is even two 100% similar CDs sound very very different. the audio industry is very awful and we have no good media after 40 years of digital innovation

 

[Kjetil]

Before my ears got prematurely old I could hear 0.1 dB level changes.

 

[audiobomber]

Do you match them to within 0.1 dB?

That's the wrong way to conduct a listening test. The only valid test is to listen to your music, in your system, for an extended period, preferably a couple of weeks. No level matching, let your monkey bone determine levels. If possible, go back to the original setup. If you know your system well, you will know whether there's been an improvement. Many times I've traded out a cable based on short-term listening, only to reverse my preference after extended listening.

A-B tests are misleading, as shown in countless trials where they could not determine what should have been obvious differences. The first one I ever read about was, as far as I recall, done by The Absolute Sound in the late 1970's, where the panel could not differentiate between an Audio Research tubed power amp and a Pioneer receiver. There have been many, many examples since then.

 

[MarkusBarkus]

the panel could not differentiate between an Audio Research tubed power amp and a Pioneer receiver.

...that explains why we don't see those exercises any more!

I think one *should* level-match for A/B comps, but completely agree a swap should get ample time in the saddle to determine the "truth" of the result. Unless it is hugely obvious...and then you're probably selecting chocolate vs chocolate-almond.

 

[Kjetil]

@audiobomber You are of course allowed your opinions. A load of audiophile bollocks of course. Sells a lot of gear though.

 

[audiobomber]

@audiobomber You are of course allowed your opinions. A load of audiophile bollocks of course. Sells a lot of gear though.

Here are instructions for a scientific blind test. Good luck implementing them in a home audio setting:

Methods for the subjective assessment of small impairments in audio systems:

https://www.itu.int/dms_pubrec/itu-r/rec/bs/R-REC-BS.1116-3-201502-I!!PDF-E.pdf

 

[MarkusBarkus]

Good luck implementing them in a home audio setting:

...oh yes. When we discuss A/B testing in audio, I think we are essentially saying: let's compare two things. Maybe tinker with volume. Maybe ask Sweetie to flip a switch and don't tell me the setting. Along those lines.

Sweetie is a world-class scientist, and even she has her bias cautions. She swore the Illy Intenso was waaay better than the Classico roast. I swapped the contents and never said a word. And she never said a word re: taste. Everybody has something to hide, except for me and my monkey. Hey! Yeah! Carry on bravely...

 

[Kjetil]

Another fallacy: Equaling level matched comparisons and double blind tests.

 

[Al M.]

Here are instructions for a scientific blind test. Good luck implementing them in a home audio setting:

Methods for the subjective assessment of small impairments in audio systems:

https://www.itu.int/dms_pubrec/itu-r/rec/bs/R-REC-BS.1116-3-201502-I!!PDF-E.pdf

There is no scientific blind test. I say this being a scientist myself.

On this page and onward I have discussed the issue with others:

Does Everything Make a Difference?

Cable deniers need to accept they don't have the ears, dont have the equipment, have an inferior setup. Actually, I suspect that some cable deniers have never actually conducted a comparison. I think some cable deniers adopt their view purely on theory or dogma.

www.whatsbestforum.com

 

[Balle Clorin]

Why not simply admit that we often buy equipment based on both looks, prestige and for some, technical performance, but justify it by the “great sound”, whatever that is.
There is a technical reason to prefer 24/96, it allows filtering with less effects in the audio range and a lower noise floor, even if the actual stat of the art only achieve 22-23 bits.
But I frankly admit the different filter choice will be extremely difficult to notice , at my age.
Statements that it is required to live with a component with months or that measurements ( to weed out the disasters) do not count is just silly to me. Most component faults are below audible levels today. The worst components are typically Boutique High end DACs using obsolete technology like R2R , and add on no oversampling or even no filter at all any you have many unpredictable artifacts. That may sound different yes.

 

[audiobomber]

Statements that it is required to live with a component with months or that measurements ( to weed out the disasters) do not count is just silly to me.

I don't believe anyone here has said you have to live with a component for months, but an empirical home trial for a week or two will result in better choices than any home brewed A-B test.

I always look at technical measurements, only to make sure they aren't whacky somehow, however it is pretty clear that measurements cannot fully describe musicality or even sound quality.

Recording and mastering are far more important than format, be it 24/96, DSD, or whatever. I started a playlist where I added some 16/44.1 tunes with outstanding quality and some hi-res tunes with unexceptional or sub-standard quality. I intended to play this list for my audiophile friends, but I decided it would be a waste of time, because there's no way they would be able to determine format. It would just be a wild guessing game.

 

[Ian B]

Double

Another fallacy: Equaling level matched comparisons and double blind tests.

Double blind tests don't exist in audio. They are from clinical science and essentially extremely onerous to impossible to implement in audio scenarios, especially home audio. Their function in discussions is as a red herring. They let gatekeepers say "You don't know what you hear about a piece of gear is true because you didn't do a double blind test", because of course nobody does them, and also because it sets a false premise that an extreme and unobtainable level of precision is necessary for audio comparisons, when it isn't.

If you are an engineer, a reasonably level-matched blind AB test is enough. If you are an audio consumer, it's perfectly fine and probably more useful to sit with a piece of gear to see if you enjoy it over a longer period of time. If you develop your hearing you can get good at hearing specific qualitative differences, and your own personal preferences. Slight differences in volume aren't going to throw that off a whole lot.

 

[Kjetil]

But why is it so that when we compare level matched gear hearing audible differences becomes very difficult?