• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Upsampling 16/44.1 collection a good idea?

MaxwellsEq

Major Contributor
Joined
Aug 18, 2020
Messages
1,821
Likes
2,779
The eye roll because I am thinking (sorry if you have a different interpretation of if). By the way, what do you think of the meaning of "the eye roll'? I just want to be in sync with you guys if possible.
The eye-roll emoji NEVER means you are thinking considering etc. The thinking emoji is always this:


Eye-roll emoji indicates a negative view of what someone just said, a bit like: "only someone who's too lazy to do the research would say that."

So please stop using it the way you are. It makes you look like you are being sarcastic, which I think is not what you intend.
 

MaxwellsEq

Major Contributor
Joined
Aug 18, 2020
Messages
1,821
Likes
2,779
I am sorry about the mis-communication.... I thought I checked with an experienced member here and he indicated clearly it is ok:

View attachment 365074

The other reason I picked this one is because there are only limited selection for me. I bet I did something wrong with my system. It only shows below for me to pick:

View attachment 365076

Which one you suggest I can pick for thinking? Or do you know how to fix what's wrong here? Thanks.
This forum doesn't support a thinking emoji (as set up) so just don't use an emoji. Over-use of emojis feels a bit childish. Just use a question mark or use numbers to track specific queries.
 

pkane

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 18, 2017
Messages
5,741
Likes
10,484
Location
North-East
In short, oversampling help us to have a better reconstruction of the audio signal in the audible range. It is not for superhuman.

No. Oversampling is used by engineers to help build cheaper/less complex circuits. It's not that it sounds better than properly reconstructed, non-oversampled audio, it's just that it's easier to do this on a budget. Oversampling is already done in 99.9% of the DACs out there, so what point are you making? Why do I need Hi-Res audio if my DAC already oversamples?
 

restorer-john

Grand Contributor
Joined
Mar 1, 2018
Messages
12,840
Likes
39,428
Location
Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia
No. Oversampling is used by engineers to help build cheaper/less complex circuits. It's not that it sounds better than properly reconstructed, non-oversampled audio, it's just that it's easier to do this on a budget. Oversampling is already done in 99.9% of the DACs out there, so what point are you making? Why do I need Hi-Res audio if my DAC already oversamples?

Oversampling hardly created a less complex, nor cheaper circuit. It was the complete opposite. The only part that was cheaper, was the lack of a decent LPF and in the early days (mid 1980s), that was expensive. 40+ years later, it isn't an issue.
 

MaxwellsEq

Major Contributor
Joined
Aug 18, 2020
Messages
1,821
Likes
2,779
Thanks for your suggestion. I didn't know there are so many rules here. :facepalm:
They are not ASR forum "rules" at all. They are universally common netiquette going back decades. You current usage is wrong on any forum, in any language, anywhere in the world, at any time.

1. don't use too many
2. use the correct one as it is universally understood. You can Google this yourself.

If in doubt, don't use an emoji!
 

melomane13

Active Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2023
Messages
100
Likes
73
Location
France
I'd read your reply word by word before I posted my "a bit long" post above.. If you still insist me to reply your earlier message, here you are:

1) Cool, we are waiting for you to show us the objective evidence. Thanks a lot.

For me, I can tell the difference (based on my own personal experience) between 16/44 and 32/768k with HQPlayer real-time upsampling. Thanks for your suggestion. I didn't try to compare between 16/44 and 24/96 and I am not going to as I never use 24/96 for upsampling.

2) I am not listening to any signal outside the regular audilble range. I am listening to a better reconstructed signal in the regular audible range with the help of oversampling (as stated in my previous post).

Please do let me know if you have more questions. I hope it shows that "I am not wrong again as, now, I respond to what you wrote"

Cheers
1) Audibility of a CD-Standard A/D/A Loop Inserted into High-Resolution Audio Playback*
E. BRAD MEYER, AES Member AND DAVID R. MORAN, AES Member ([email protected]) ([email protected])
Boston Audio Society, Lincoln, MA 01773, USA


CONCLUSIONS We have analyzed all of the test data by type of music and specific program; type of high-resolution technology; age of recording; and listener age, gender, experience, and hearing bandwidth. None of these variables have shown any correlation with the results, or any difference between the answers and coin-flip results.

if you here difference is because you dont not attentive to cognitive bias.
 

pkane

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 18, 2017
Messages
5,741
Likes
10,484
Location
North-East
Does it mean it cannot be used for better reconstruction of audio signal?

Oversampling allows simpler filters to be used. Same reconstruction quality can be achieved without oversampling by implementing more complex filters. It’s a tradeoff an engineer makes.

If a DAC has poor reconstruction, one can try to fix it by resampling and filtering outside the DAC… or one can just get a properly designed DAC.
 

pkane

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 18, 2017
Messages
5,741
Likes
10,484
Location
North-East
Sorry I am confused with your answer to my question.

Let me rephrase it again:

From your understanding, 'does oversampling can help better reconstruction of audio signal as stated in the wiki page?'

A; Yes
B: No
C: No sure
?
Sorry, don’t have the time or inclination to read the wiki page.
 

Jimbob54

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Oct 25, 2019
Messages
11,166
Likes
14,872
Cool, thanks a lot. It was a wonderful paper. It is exaclty what we need. Really thanks a lot.

Let's look at the conclusion of this objective research based report. They used a thorough, straightforward double-blind level-matched listening test for their experiment

Recap here:

===============================
3 CONCLUSIONS

We have analyzed all of the test data by type of music and specific program; type of high-resolution technology; age of recording; and listener age, gender, experience, and hearing bandwidth. None of these variables have shown any correlation with the results, or any difference between the answers and coin-flip results. The previous work cited, some of it at the very beginning of the CD era and some more recent, pointed toward our result. With the momentum of widespread “high-rez” anecdotes over the last decade, culminating in the Stuart assertions, we felt the need to go further and perform a thorough, straightforward double-blind level-matched listening test to determine whether 16/44.1 technology would audibly degrade the sound of the best high-resolution discs we could find. We used a large and varied sample of serious listeners; we conducted our tests using several different types of high-quality playback systems and rooms; and we took as much time as we felt necessary to establish the transparency of the CD standard. Now, it is very difficult to use negative results to prove the inaudibility of any given phenomenon or process. There is always the remote possibility that a different system or more finely attuned pair of ears would reveal a difference. But we have gathered enough data, using sufficiently varied and capable systems and listeners, to state that the burden of proof has now shifted. Further claims that careful 16/44.1 encoding audibly degrades highresolution signals must be supported by properly controlled double-blind tests.

4 A NOTE ON HIGH-RESOLUTION

Though our tests failed to substantiate the claimed advantages of high-resolution encoding for two-channel audio, one trend became obvious very quickly and held up throughout our testing: virtually all of the SACD and DVD-A recordings sounded better than most CDs— sometimes much better. Had we not “degraded” the sound to CD quality and blind-tested for audible differences, we would have been tempted to ascribe this sonic superiority to the recording processes used to make them. Plausible reasons for the remarkable sound quality of these recordings emerged in discussions with some of the engineers currently working on such projects. This portion of the business is a niche market in which the end users are preselected, both for their aural acuity and for their willingness to buy expensive equipment, set it up correctly, and listen carefully in a low-noise environment. Partly because these recordings have not captured a large portion of the consumer market for music, engineers and producers are being given the freedom to produce recordings that sound as good as they can make them, without having to compress or equalize the signal to suit lesser systems and casual listening conditions. These recordings seem to have been made with great care and manifest affection, by engineers trying to please themselves and their peers. They sound like it, label after label. High-resolution audio discs do not have the overwhelming majority of the program material crammed into the top 20 (or even 10) dB of the available dynamic range, as so many CDs today do. Our test results indicate that all of these recordings could be released on conventional CDs with no audible difference. They would not, however, find such a reliable conduit to the homes of those with the systems and listening habits to appreciate them. The secret, for two-channel recordings at least, seems to lie not in the high-bit recording but in the high-bit market

===============================================================

TLDR; Let me summarize a few points from their conclusion:

1. They cannot use the result to prove the inaudibility
2. Based on their own personal experience, it is obvious that virtually all of the SACD and DVD-A recordings sounded better than most CDs - sometimes much better

(not sure if they have to define what is "sounded better" and "much better")

Thanks again for this objective research period.

p.s.: do you want to try HiRes again now?
To be clear, they are not suggesting that the recording format/encoding made the sacd sound better. They suggest it may be due to these being the kind of audiophile records I personally despise but are technically very well recorded, engineered, mixed, mastered etc.

Take those recordings and down sample to red book they were indistinguishable to the original.
 

melomane13

Active Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2023
Messages
100
Likes
73
Location
France
TLDR; Let me summarize a few points from their conclusion:

1. They cannot use the result to prove the inaudibility
2. Based on their own personal experience, it is obvious that virtually all of the SACD and DVD-A recordings sounded better than most CDs - sometimes much better

(not sure if they have to define what is "sounded better" and "much better")

Thanks again for this objective research period.

p.s.: do you want to try HiRes again now?
It seems to me that you only take what interests you.

1) yes, this does not mean that anyone will ever be able to hear differences.
on the other hand, it proves that no one has been able to hear differences in a controlled context, until now.

Now, you say you hear differences: can you send us your test protocol?

2) it is written: Our test results indicate that all of these recordings (hd recording) could be released on conventional CDs with no audible difference

so stop twisting the information, it's very difficult to discuss on this basis.
 
Last edited:

pkane

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 18, 2017
Messages
5,741
Likes
10,484
Location
North-East
ok, let me rephase it one more time to save your time:

Based on your understanding, 'does oversampling can help better reconstruction of audio signal?'

A; Yes
B: No
C: No sure
D: ? (default)

I already answered that question multiple times in this thread alone, and even in the post you quoted. What else do you want to know?
 

pkane

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 18, 2017
Messages
5,741
Likes
10,484
Location
North-East
Sorry, probably due to my poor communication skills, I don't really get that answer clearly.

The things I posted earlier are just based on my very own understading of the topic, I could be wrong. (of course, to the best of my understanding, it believe it should be correct, otherwise I won't share).

It seems to me that you know this area pretty well. Just want to find a second opinion. If you have a different viewpoint, it could mean my understanding is wrong and I should go back and learn more.

To me, I hope someone can point out my mistake or misunderstanding so that I can fix them. Hope you understand. Just ignore my question.

Your mistake is trusting your listening experience. Is posted the links to videos as to what you need to learn before you can state that A is better than B among DACs. Any questions, conclusions and wild goose chases that result from this mistake are unnecessary and avoidable if you would just learn how to properly compare A to B.
 

melomane13

Active Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2023
Messages
100
Likes
73
Location
France
1) The conclusion mentioned that they cannot prove inaudibility.

If you cannot prove X, that means X can be true or false

2) indicate is different from prove. I believe anyone who has submitted a researh paper to a journal would know this pretty well. Please ask around your friends who did submit research paper to any journal to verify.
but you not prove you can hear differences.
i re ask you: you say you hear differences: can you send us your test protocol?
and stop trolling
 
Last edited:

pkane

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 18, 2017
Messages
5,741
Likes
10,484
Location
North-East
100% agree.

Listening experience cannot be trusted. It can just give you your very own personal experience / feeling / perception <=== all these could come from our brain.

That's why we are focusing on science, especially here, an "Audio Science" forum. I strongly believe that we don't want to have any mis-leading claims here.

We build our knowledge based on objective measurements (like the researh paper we just seen)
We build our knowledge based on scientific / mathematical proofs (like the sampling thoery)

and that’s why I recommend that you read more of ASR before continuing. There’s plenty of objective results and evidence. Plenty of blind tests on audibility of hires, and measurements for oversampling and non-over sampling DACs. Even software that you can use to find your own answers.
 

pkane

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 18, 2017
Messages
5,741
Likes
10,484
Location
North-East

tmtomh

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 14, 2018
Messages
2,827
Likes
8,347
That's about the noise introduced by the quantizer in the DAC's modulator, the "Q" block in figure 1.2. It's not about the noise that's already present in the input file.


The signals generation and upsampling was done with SoX.


That was the illustration that when you do the quantization (to 8-bit in that example) and you have more bandwidth, then the noise in the 0-22k band is indeed lower (file 01 in 8/44k vs file 03 in 8/352k). It was also the illustration that once you did the quantization having less bandwidth, you cannot "undo" the noise in the 0-22k band by upsampling (files 01 and 02 in 8/44k and 8/352k respectively vs file 03 in 8/352k).

Introducing noise-shaping will not change that conclusion. The only difference will be that the blue (above 20k) and yellow graphs won't be flat but... er... shaped. SoX can do noise-shaping only in 44k and 48k, so the only way I have to illustrate that, is by starting with lower sampling rate:
  • File 01 is -20 dBFS 1 kHz tone generated in 8/11k.
  • File 02 is the file 01 upsampled to 8/44k with noise shaping.
  • File 03 is -20 dBFS 1 kHz tone generated in 8/44k with noise shaping
View attachment 365066

I don't think we should let this graph pass us by in this thread without being very explicit about what it shows:

If @terryforsythe 's (and @sunjam 's) argument about this were correct, then File 02's noise curve in this graph would look like File 03's. But it doesn't.

In other words, in the frequency range below the Nyquist limit of the original sample rate - which for CD-quality 44.1kHz also means the frequency range of human hearing - the noise floor is unchanged by the application of noise-shaped dither during resampling.

It is only with File 03 - when the original sample rate is higher - that noise-shaping dither reduces the noise floor within the audible range below what it would otherwise be.

So as @danadam and numerous others have noted, high sample rates/oversampling plus noise shaping dither can minimize quantization noise added at the stage when that sampling and dithering is done. (Although so can just increasing the bit depth.) That means that resampling after the fact can minimize, and for all intents and purposes eliminate, increases in the noise floor. But it can't retroactively decrease the original noise floor.
 

Brian Hall

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Nov 25, 2023
Messages
635
Likes
1,165
Location
Southeast Oklahoma
In your opinion, my understanding is that

1. your first statement include 24/768 or higher
2. your second statement only state 24/96 and 24/192 are pointless

May I ask how about, say 24/768? Is it also pointless in your opinion?

24/768 is so ridiculous and pointless that it was not worth mentioning separately.
 
Top Bottom