However, this is also the mechanism of delivery for high-resolution downloads and the test participants would likely be using the same equipment to listen. This allowed the opportunity for test subjects to analyze the audio files objectively rather than through pure listening. Limitations of the study includes the fact that this was an open test distributed via the Internet in an uncontrolled fashion. No difference was noted in the "older" (51+ years) age group data (not surprising if there is no discernible difference even with potential age-related hearing acuity changes). Those using headphones likewise did not show any stronger preference for the higher bit-depth sample. Nonetheless, analysis was not able to demonstrate improved accuracy despite claims of increased subjective confidence by the respondents.įurthermore, analysis of those utilizing more expensive audio systems ($6,000+) did not show any evidence of the respondents being able to identify the 24-bit audio. Conversely, 25-30% (depending on which musical sample) of respondents reported a strong sense of "certainty" that they were correct in identifying the 24-bit sample. The small group of individuals who identified themselves as writing hardware reviews did not show an increase in accuracy.Ībout 50% of respondents admitted that they had low confidence in their ability to discern differences. The "engineers" group did perform slightly better overall. Subgroup analysis of "musicians" and those who work with the technical aspects of recording, editing and mixing ("engineers") did not demonstrate evidence of special abilities at discerning the 24-bit audio. There were no surprises in terms of demographics with the vast majority being males, with an age distribution centred around 41-50 years old. Furthermore, 20% used an ABX utility in the evaluation process suggesting good effort in trying to discern sonic differences. The majority (77%) were using audio systems reported in excess of US$1,000 and 22% were listening with systems in excess of $10,000. This survey was targeted to audiophile enthusiasts who in general reported using equipment beyond typical consumer electronics. In a naturalistic survey of 140 respondents using high quality musical samples sourced from high-resolution 24/96 digital audio collected over 2 months, there was no evidence that 24-bit audio could be appreciably differentiated from the same music dithered down to 16-bits using a basic algorithm (Adobe Audition 3, flat triangular dither, 0.5 bits). Not surprisingly, the vast majority (98%) were men which is expected (just have a look around audio clubs, audio shows, etc.) - thanks to the 2 ladies that responded!: Being that this is an internet test, involves downloading 200MB worth of high-resolution audio data in FLAC, and given the target audiophile forums where the test was advertised, it is reasonable to conclude that many if not most are tech savvy audiophiles rather than the "average" music listener.
#Wav 8 bit vs 16 bit download#
The actual response rate would likely be significantly lower since there were other download sites.įirst let us consider the characteristics of the respondents taking this blind test. Response rate just based on my FTP server transfer was therefore about 40% of all who downloaded.
Whether you were able to detect the 24-bit version or not, I applaud your efforts and input.Īs I noted previously, there were 140 total respondents and looking at the transfer statistics from my FTP server, I know the test was downloaded at least 350 times. This makes the test much more difficult than the previous high bit-rate MP3 test from last year. As demonstrated in Part I, the sonic difference between the original 24-bit track and the 16-bit dithered version is down below -90dB. 16-bit listening test among respondents.įirst I need to remind everyone that the test procedure was not easy. In this installment, let's have a look at the results from the 24-bit vs. See Part I: PROCEDURE for details around the test samples used and how this study was conducted.
0 kommentar(er)
