Conclusive "Proof" that higher resolution audio sounds different

[sasully]

Look up "implication." Profound may have been a bit over the top. No, there's nothing proven here. Evidence is even scant. But the evidence we have implies that a) There is an audible difference between RB and hi-res,

I know what an implication is. The issue is with 'profound'. Meyer and Moran (2007), which Your Host has now dismissed as superseded(!), already provided evidence that audible difference can occur between RB and hi rez versions (even apart from obvious mastering difference) -- *depending on how the signals were made and played back*

The test results for the detectability of the 16/44.1 loop
on SACD/DVD-A playback were the same as chance:
49.82%. There were 554 trials and 276 correct answers.
The sole exceptions were for the condition of no signal
and high system gain, when the difference in noise floors
of the two technologies, old and new, was readily audible.
.
.
.

The high-resolution sources when played back at the
+14-dB level were unpleasantly (often unbearably) loud,
and modern, aggressively mastered CDs even more so.
Room tone and/or preamplifier noise in almost all recordings
masked the 16/44.1 noise floor, though we did find
one or two productions in which there was a detectable
difference in room tone at gain settings of +20 dB or more
above the reference level. At these very high gains we
could also hear subtle low-level decoding errors in all but
the most expensive of the high-resolution players.

From the many different recordings we used it emerged
that almost no music or voice program, recording venue,
instrument, or performer exceeds the capabilities of a well-
implemented CD-quality record/playback loop. The CD
has adequate bandwidth and dynamic range for any home
reproduction task, and it is a rare playback venue that is
quiet enough to reveal the 16-bit noise floor of our A/D/A
loop—which has no noise shaping and was therefore
less than optimal in this regard—even at gains above our
reference.

Meanwhile, the rather less well-controlled forum test results are being touted as 'conclusive' proof of a very definite claim, and an 'inflection point' , (I'm waiting for 'game changer', did I miss it?) by a party that sells 'high end' gear; and it took all of 5 minutes of reading this thread to bump into someone claiming they hear 'night and day' differences between Redbook and hi rez, routinely.

 

[sasully]

No, that's not correct.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Which part, JA, the 'numerous' ? I admit to never counting. Or the idea that anyone who has had words printed in Stereophile (or TAS) -- including audiophile letters to the editor -- might claim 48/24 to be less than 'high rez'? (Much less 44/16)

Have you polled your staff lately? Does Michael Fremer consider 48/24 to be 'high resolution' audio? Could be interesting.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Meyer and Moran (2007), which Your Host has now dismissed as superseded(!), already provided evidence that audible difference can occur between RB and hi rez -- *depending on how the files were made and played back*



Meanwhile, the rather less well-controlled forum test results are being touted as 'conclusive' proof of a very definite claim, by a party that sells 'high end' gear; and it took all of 5 minutes of reading this thread to bump into someone claiming they hear 'night and day' differences between Redbook and hi rez, routinely.

I'm pretty sure Amir's over the top title was exaggeration for effect, as was his statement that Meyer and Moran had been superseded. He has a pretty good understanding of what is required for "proof." Still, he passed the test with flying colors and, after he told folks what to listen for and where to listen, so did a few others. Proof? Nope. Fun. And really, has it ever taken you more than 5 minutes on any audiophile board to find someone hearing wholly unlikely "night and day" differences? That's the nature of the beast.

Tim

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Which part, JA, the 'numerous' ? I admit to never counting. Or the idea that anyone who has had words printed in Stereophile (or TAS) -- including audiophile letters to the editor -- might claim 48/24 to be less than 'high rez'? (Much less 44/16)

Have you polled your staff lately? Does Michael Fremer consider 48/24 to be 'high resolution' audio? Could be interesting.

Does Fremer consider any digital to be hi-res audio?

Tim

 

[sasully]

Does Fremer consider any digital to be hi-res audio?

Tim

 

[Orb]

Is anyone taking note of the Y axis here?

One sideband peaking at -95dB; the rest at < -100dB

Oh , such FAILS.

Yeah 1460psec is such great performance for HDMI
Even 409psec is very poor.
However importantly the context of those charts in this thread was relating to Amir pointing out that mainstream manufacturers can and do mess up DAC hardware design-implementation in response to a member suggesting DACs are simple enough to always do right by the large mainstream manufacturers such as Yamaha/Pioneer/etc (this of course ignores another important factor, the effect of filter design choice with minimum phase-linear/fast-slow rolloff).
More seriously though is differentiating between random and deterministic jitter but that is for a different thread to this.

Thanks
Orb

 

[esldude]

When I was younger, and my hearing better, there seemed to be a reasonably audible difference in 44.1 and 48 khz sample rates. Even then, nothing beyond 48 khz seemed better. 48/24 I am referencing. Even recently there seems to be a perceptible difference in 24 vs 16 bit 48 khz.

Would request, that Amir ABX 96/24 with 48/24 and see if he perceives a difference.

 

[sasully]

If the <sarc>great performance'</sarc> doesn't rise to the level of 'audible', who cares?

Yeah 1460psec is such great performance for HDMI
Even 409psec is very poor.
However importantly the context of those charts in this thread was relating to Amir pointing out that mainstream manufacturers can and do mess up DAC hardware design-implementation in response to a member suggesting DACs are simple enough to always do right by the large mainstream manufacturers such as Yamaha/Pioneer/etc (this of course ignores another important factor, the effect of filter design choice with minimum phase-linear/fast-slow rolloff).
More seriously though is differentiating between random and deterministic jitter but that is for a different thread to this.

Thanks
Orb

 

[sasully]

When I was younger, and my hearing better, there seemed to be a reasonably audible difference in 44.1 and 48 khz sample rates. Even then, nothing beyond 48 khz seemed better. 48/24 I am referencing. Even recently there seems to be a perceptible difference in 24 vs 16 bit 48 khz.

Under what conditions was that SR difference 'reasonably audible?

 

[Don Hills]

Look up "implication." Profound may have been a bit over the top. No, there's nothing proven here. Evidence is even scant. But the evidence we have implies that a) There is an audible difference between RB and hi-res, and b) That difference is so difficult to discern that it's highly unlikely that, if you don't train yourself to know where it occurs and recognize it, (I won't even listen to the files; don't want to know) you'll never be able to hear it while you're...you know...listening to the music? ...

I have a party piece that I perform on occasion when the subject of LP vs CD comes up. I play the 1 KHz tone from a test LP, and the same tone from a test CD. The differences are not subtle. It's an interesting example because it's a case of the longer you listen, the more differences you identify. The lesson is that the same audible degradations are occuring in all music that you play on that turntable, yet they are difficult to identify on most (musical) sources.

 

[microstrip]

Does Fremer consider any digital to be hi-res audio?

Tim

Tim,

Please read his opinions as expressed in the recent DCS Vivaldi review, freely available on the Stereophile site.http://www.stereophile.com/content/dcs-vivaldi-digital-playback-system-page-2 I know it is much more fancy being ironic about someone using the net audio gossip than his writings, but he was very clear about that aspect. Hi Res digital is hi-res audio - a big step from CD according to him.

 

[microstrip]

We've just done 38 pages on small differences that are audible. I guess you missed it.

Tim

No Tim, I did not miss it, although you and some others tried to minimize the importance of these differences. However my sentence was an answer to Ashley James line of posts, and quoted out of this context is meaningless. Apologies if it was not understandable for you.

 

[amirm]

I was challenged (yet again ) as to whether I can tell 320 kbps MP3 from source. So here are some tests I ran on that:

=============
foo_abx 1.3.4 report
foobar2000 v1.3.2
2014/07/19 19:45:33

File A: C:\Users\Amir\Music\Arnys Filter Test\keys jangling 16 44.wav
File B: C:\Users\Amir\Music\Arnys Filter Test\keys jangling 16 44_01.mp3

19:45:33 : Test started.
19:46:21 : 01/01 50.0%
19:46:35 : 02/02 25.0%
19:46:49 : 02/03 50.0%
19:47:03 : 03/04 31.3%
19:47:13 : 04/05 18.8%
19:47:27 : 05/06 10.9%
19:47:38 : 06/07 6.3%
19:47:46 : 07/08 3.5%
19:48:01 : 08/09 2.0%
19:48:19 : 09/10 1.1%
19:48:31 : 10/11 0.6%
19:48:45 : 11/12 0.3%
19:48:58 : 12/13 0.2%
19:49:11 : 13/14 0.1%
19:49:28 : 14/15 0.0%
19:49:52 : 15/16 0.0%
19:49:56 : Test finished.

----------
Total: 15/16 (0.0%)

And just now, ran one of the tracks from the 6 samples in Scott/Mark's music and converted that to MP3. Here are those results:

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

foo_abx 1.3.4 report
foobar2000 v1.3.2
2014/07/31 15:18:41

File A: C:\Users\Amir\Music\AIX AVS Test files\On_The_Street_Where_You_Live_A2.mp3
File B: C:\Users\Amir\Music\AIX AVS Test files\On_The_Street_Where_You_Live_A2.wav

15:18:41 : Test started.
15:19:18 : 01/01 50.0%
15:19:30 : 01/02 75.0%
15:19:44 : 01/03 87.5%
15:20:35 : 02/04 68.8%
15:20:46 : 02/05 81.3%
15:21:39 : 03/06 65.6% <--- Difference found
15:21:47 : 04/07 50.0%
15:21:54 : 04/08 63.7% <--- Dog barked!
15:22:06 : 05/09 50.0%
15:22:19 : 06/10 37.7%
15:22:31 : 07/11 27.4%
15:22:44 : 08/12 19.4%
15:22:51 : 09/13 13.3%
15:22:58 : 10/14 9.0%
15:23:06 : 11/15 5.9%
15:23:14 : 12/16 3.8%
15:23:23 : 13/17 2.5%
15:23:33 : 14/18 1.5%
15:23:42 : 15/19 1.0%
15:23:54 : 16/20 0.6%
15:24:06 : 17/21 0.4%
15:24:15 : 18/22 0.2%
15:24:23 : 19/23 0.1%
15:24:34 : 20/24 0.1%
15:24:43 : 21/25 0.0%
15:24:52 : 22/26 0.0%
15:24:57 : Test finished.

----------
Total: 22/26 (0.0%)

As you see, the results could not be more compelling on me being able to tell 320 kbps apart from the source. And these are not tracks selected to be "codec killers." It is what folks have put forward in this forum (AVS) for another reason.

I saved the markers for the above track:

Start point: 3:11.4
End point: 3:11.8

Listen to the difference in high frequencies. Listen to whether one is more congested than the other (for the lack of a better word). Now you see why I don't try to explain the differences. English words are not easy fit for them. This is why you need to do your own listening and hear the difference first hand. No amount of telling you how to fish will teach you what it feels like to catch your first one.

 

[microstrip]

I'm pretty sure Amir's over the top title was exaggeration for effect, as was his statement that Meyer and Moran had been superseded. (...)

Tim

Do you think he got audiophile hyperbolitis? I think he took the vaccine long ago!

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

If the <sarc>great performance'</sarc> doesn't rise to the level of 'audible', who cares?

Right. This supports Ashley's point, which was, frankly, audiophile blasphemy. The kind of stuff that would inspire strong protest and rationalization here, and a vicious attack on the messenger in places like Audio Karma and Pink Fish.

If a DAC chip thrown into a Yamaha AV receiver - a pretty noisy environment - and implemented through the most jitter-prone interface known, HDMI, produces jitter at worst, of -95dB, can we not consider DACs a mature technology that is providing excellent performance, even in giveaway circuits in consumer electronics products? As Orb points out above, there may be other factors to consider, but I think we all know that if we did, and put them all together and they still were low enough to be masked by the quiet strumming of a guitar, that wouldn't change the reaction to the blasphemy a bit.

Why is it audiophile blasphemy to acknowledge audible realities?

Tim

 

[Orb]

If the <sarc>great performance'</sarc> doesn't rise to the level of 'audible', who cares?

The sarcasm was because you totally taken Amir's post out of context to apply; the contxt (again) was to show that the large mainstream manufacturers cannot be assumed to manufacturer near perfect DACs as was mentioned by someone else.
Anyway the only perception studies I have seen regarding jitter were random jitter and that is white noise........
Because there are only a few tools I know that actually differentiate between random jitter and deterministic, and from a testing protocol a correlated/deterministic jitter audible test is a nightmare to do due to deciding/simulating right real world pattern utilised, hence why most of those tests argued about for what seems forever utilise random jitter and tbh that is a pointless test.
I used to do extensive realworld BERT testing-simulating-modelling in the distant past so do appreciate how much of a pig this can be even without applying it to a perception test.
One tool I remember using cost over £100k per controller-probe (that is going back 6 years) to provide level of flexibility required for testing-simulating such aspects in/onto real world transmissions-environment.
Anyway for a different thread because the original context was showing Yamaha/Pioneer do not necessarily make perfect DACs and therefore they are not necessarily "simple" to do.

TBH I think it would be better to discuss what the thread was originally about, rather than aspects being raised that are meaningless to the context of differentiating the files and why.
Thanks
Orb

 

[Orb]

Right. This supports Ashley's point, which was, frankly, audiophile blasphemy. The kind of stuff that would inspire strong protest and rationalization here, and a vicious attack on the messenger in places like Audio Karma and Pink Fish.

If a DAC chip thrown into a Yamaha AV receiver - a pretty noisy environment - and implemented through the most jitter-prone interface known, HDMI, produces jitter at worst, of -95dB, can we not consider DACs a mature technology that is providing excellent performance, even in giveaway circuits in consumer electronics products? As Orb points out above, there may be other factors to consider, but I think we all know that if we did, and put them all together and they still were low enough to be masked by the quiet strumming of a guitar, that wouldn't change the reaction to the blasphemy a bit.

Why is it audiophile blasphemy to acknowledge audible realities?

Tim

You cannot take the -95db and say ah it is inaudible for jitter...
Fuse blowing in my head so dropping this subject but please search for papers by Agilent/HP/Wolfson/AD/Julian Dunn/etc.
BTW some of the best digital engineers have posted on Pink Fish and at great length (John Westlake being one who spent a lot of time sort of like a blog there on the development of the Audiolab DAC and technical challenges-considerations-etc).
Thanks
Orb

 

[jkeny]

Good to see the real Tim is back - the one that I can completely disagree with
Ah, the world is back to rights again.
Phew, I was worried there for a while
Sorry for the interruption - as you were - back to the thread

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Do you think he got audiophile hyperbolitis? I think he took the vaccine long ago!

No, I think he was having fun.

Tim

 

[jkeny]

BTW some of the best digital engineers have posted on Pink Fish and at great length (John Westlake being one who spent a lot of time sort of like a blog there on the development of the Audiolab DAC and technical challenges-considerations-etc).
Thanks
Orb

JohnW is still posting on PFM but he seldom if ever posts outside of the MDAC thread which is his latest DAC. Anytime I have seen him in the past post on other threads, a number of the usual suspects on there, who are of the same mindset as Tim (as he has just expressed), have posted insults & abuse at him. So one of the many things in Tim's post that I don't agree with is his characterisation of PFM - there are a number of very vocal people of the same mindset as he himself.