not sure if this point is important, but the dither that is added before you hear the program material being reproduced isn't actually supposed to be 'heard' - so this argument doesn't appear to make much sense in my mind. engineers might hear the dither when they're familiar with the studio that they work in, but past that, i'm not sure i get the point of discussing the practical limits of hearing something added which, for all intents and purposes, is hidden. it's almost like you're trying to reverse engineer what recording interface an audio engineer was using
On Sun, Jan 9, 2022 at 5:48 PM Brian Willoughby <[email protected]> wrote: > Thank you for these titles. I've already found them in the AES library. > > Brian Willoughby > > > On Jan 9, 2022, at 13:43, vicki melchior <[email protected]> wrote: > > As far as measurements of how far “into the noise” we can hear, there > aren’t a lot of good published numbers that I know of (having reviewed the > subject a couple of years ago), but Bob Stuart and Peter Craven argue > dynamic range and, to a certain extent, audibility below the noise floor in > a couple of papers published in JAES in 2019. They are based on > psychoacoustic arguments as well as listening test results, the latter as > part of their studio and lab work on MQA. If interested, their (open > access) papers are in the AES e-lib, “The Gentle Art of Dithering” and “A > Hierarchical Approach for Audio Capture, Archive and Distribution”. >
