...
fed to Peter's DSound SSRC plugin.
...

I searched the plugins on Winamp's site, but I couldn't find 'peter's dsound ssrc plugin'...

• For this test, I didn't reproduced real listening conditions. Difference are so subtle that I have to increase the level of my amp in order to maximise the audible difference.
• In order to make it possible without being completely deaf in few seconds, I've selected very quiet samples. With classical music, it's not really hard to find such samples (even full tracks are sometimes totally quiet). I didn't evaluate any decoders on pre-instrumental silence, but only when music was playing

A dithers strength is proportional to the strength of this inaudible noise, multiplying up the dither noise (and making it audible) proves nothing, just that there is noise that can be heard when multiplied, with such a test only the weakest dither or no dither at all would come out top.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=351210"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

>apparently misunderstand why dither is used at all

I was under the impression it was to increase perceived bit depth, there are other reasons?

I am not questioning that part of the test (ok I will also...an mp3 created from a 16 bit CD? so suddenly there is 20 bits worth of dynamic range?

Instead generate test sines (uncompressed) on the 16th+n bit and dither down to 16 bit then run listening tests, that would be a good test for dither.

>effects of dither are below the audible threshold for any practical purpose

So it is ok to multiply these up so they can be heard and pass comments on how one has more noise than the other?

(I am aware there are many different types of dither, in this test only the ones which push the created noise into the higher frequencies would come out well), AFAIK most strong commercial dithers (as actually used on CDs) are not this type.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=351221"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Quote

(I am aware there are many different types of dither, in this test only the ones which push the created noise into the higher frequencies would come out well), AFAIK most strong commercial dithers (as actually used on CDs) are not this type.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The high end ones most certainly are.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=351273"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

On to business, I think this test is flawed...to listen to dither (around 1 bits worth) the volume must be increased by a large factor. The best dither on the planet would be one that kept it's noise just below audible threshold (ok there is some give an take with this, as peoples hearing differs and playback hardware is different, but only to an extent), and by just below I mean right upto the threshold. A dithers strength is proportional to the strength of this inaudible noise, multiplying up the dither noise (and making it audible) proves nothing, just that there is noise that can be heard when multiplied, with such a test only the weakest dither or no dither at all would come out top.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=351210"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

...(less aliasing, less naturel and less synthetic sound)[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=174740"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Quote

...(less aliasing, less naturel and less synthetic sound)[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

What do you mean by "aliasing" here? I'm curious as to how an MP3 decoder could affect the AA filter of a DAC (or SRC)..
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=351985"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The sample is still online:
http://foobar2000.net/mp3decoder/files/lossless_mahler3.ofr
Result and comment are here:
http://foobar2000.net/mp3decoder/test7.htm

By aliasing I meant a weird form of "geometric" distortion easily audible with resampling (16->8 bits for example).

Dithered noise shaping technology has been incorporated into a handful of hardware devices. While all are based on the same concepts, some perform better than others. After simulating and listening to all available public domain algorithms, Lavry Engineering came to some conclusions in forming a basis for Acoustic Bit Correction™. The principal conclusions are:

a. The practice of greatly amplifying low level signals to determine triangular flat PDF (probability density function) dither reveals the effectiveness of distortion and noise modulation elimination. This practice yields misleading results when testing unflattened dithers and/or noise shapers. It conflicts directly with L. Fielder’s findings showing completely different threshold delectability curves for quiet and loud levels. Noise shaping listening tests must be done at "reasonable" volume levels.

b. Given the above requirement, our listening tests concluded a strong preference for "triangle high pass" dither (this dither is produced by simultaneously adding a new random number and subtracting the previous value). Such dither is frequency-shaped to carry more high frequency energy (the energy content at low frequencies is minimal).

c. Listening tests revealed a preference for smoothly varying noise-shaping curves. Peaks and notches seem to irritate the listener (admittedly while turning the volume up). In addition, despite the temptation to optimize the noise shaping curve to the average listener’s hearing threshold, given a significant variation from listener to listener requires reasonable compromises in tailoring such a curve. In other words, smooth the curve.
The improvements offered by dither and noise shaping vary with source material and final word length. An A/B/X test at 16-bit level, requires a quiet environment and low level (loudness) audio. The listener must resist the temptation to turn the volume up to unreasonable levels. The practice of truncating to short word length (8-12 bits) should be avoided. The ideal noise-shaping curve may be irritating at loud levels.
Lavry Engineering’s listening tests were based on test tones and repeating loops of quiet passages of various material (mostly classical music) with flat amplifier response. Listening to test tones was straightforward: we used the Model AD122-96 MKIII test tone generator mode switching the Acoustic Bit Correction™ on and off. The frequency and amplitude programmability was very useful.