Conclusive "Proof" that higher resolution audio sounds different

[audioguy]

y

When all is said and done, it's just a flippin hobby.

Not to everyone, apparently

 

[MylesBAstor]

Well one can't apply science when it pleases them. That's called parochialism.

No scientific study ever begins with a complex system. Al M. made the very same comments not so long ago also.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

What's real for me is enjoying listening to music and reacting to it emotionally.

And with all due respect, I don't need to dissect the numerous pieces of a subjective hobby to tell me I'm enjoying the music.

I simply don't understand the need / desire to quantify subjectivity.

When all is said and done, it's just a flippin hobby.

Fair enough. I'm just curious, because guys like Roger say the difference is obvious, while guys like Amir, trained to listen, can only seem to pick out the difference when zeroing in on specifics. Can't hear it, myself, whenever comparing hi-res apples to Redbook apples, but clearly there's something there. I'd like to know what it is. That curiosity doesn't take anything away from my enjoyment of music, but a lack of curiosity, or ready acceptance of conventional wisdom, has some of the music industry (Neil Young, Pono, etc.) focused on hi-res and analog instead of using all their influence to change mastering habits for the better and maximizing the formats that are going to continue to deliver the overwhelming majority of the music. That has the potential to seriously impact my listening pleasure and yours.

Tim

 

[Al M.]

but a lack of curiosity, or ready acceptance of conventional wisdom, has some of the music industry (Neil Young, Pono, etc.) focused on hi-res and analog instead of using all their influence to change mastering habits for the better and maximizing the formats that are going to continue to deliver the overwhelming majority of the music. That has the potential to seriously impact my listening pleasure and yours.

Tim

Precisely. A crappy mastering made and released in hi-res doesn't make the mastering any better. Conversely, many classical CDs are mastered splendidly, and accordingly the sound is great, on the format that continues to deliver the overwhelming majority of the music. Recording/mastering is bound to trump format any time (well, I won't go with mp3). Hell, with good mastering you can even get cymbal crashes right in the CD format...

 

[RogerD]

Fair enough. I'm just curious, because guys like Roger say the difference is obvious, while guys like Amir, trained to listen, can only seem to pick out the difference when zeroing in on specifics. Can't hear it, myself, whenever comparing hi-res apples to Redbook apples, but clearly there's something there. I'd like to know what it is. That curiosity doesn't take anything away from my enjoyment of music, but a lack of curiosity, or ready acceptance of conventional wisdom, has some of the music industry (Neil Young, Pono, etc.) focused on hi-res and analog instead of using all their influence to change mastering habits for the better and maximizing the formats that are going to continue to deliver the overwhelming majority of the music. That has the potential to seriously impact my listening pleasure and yours.

Tim

Listen to Neil Young's live @ Massey Hall between the CD and DVD. There is a difference.

 

[mojave]

That curiosity doesn't take anything away from my enjoyment of music, but a lack of curiosity, or ready acceptance of conventional wisdom, has some of the music industry (Neil Young, Pono, etc.) focused on hi-res and analog instead of using all their influence to change mastering habits for the better and maximizing the formats that are going to continue to deliver the overwhelming majority of the music. That has the potential to seriously impact my listening pleasure and yours.

In March I attended a Pono demo in Sacramento. The emphasis was not on the final resolution as much it was on remastering existing music and providing better mastering on new offerings. All the Pono supplied music was played at 24 bit 48 Khz and sounded better to me than the 24 bit 192 kHz music played that day from sources such as HDTracks.

 

[jkeny]

In March I attended a Pono demo in Sacramento. The emphasis was not on the final resolution as much it was on remastering existing music and providing better mastering on new offerings. All the Pono supplied music was played at 24 bit 48 Khz and sounded better to me than the 24 bit 192 kHz music played that day from sources such as HDTracks.

That's good to hear - progress, hopefully

 

[microstrip]

I am finding the evolution of this thread very curious.

Amir clearly said

(...) On Arny's 44K and all of Scott's files #1 and #3, the difference is what I would call "high-res" versus not. The 44 Khz versions sound flat and lack that depth that high-res has. I listen to the notes between the transients and see how it transitions down before the next peak. The quality and fidelity is different. (...) I would say the 32Khz sample then is the proverbial "night and day" to my ears and the other ones difference is in very low level detail.

These are exactly the main points what the great majority of the audiophiles in this forum and many other audio forums have been saying for long time. But some people want to debate it presenting the extreme opinions of only a few fundamentalists that are a small minority. We all know that the differences often pointed and valuated by audiophiles are exactly the usually called "small differences" in the audio literature, and Amir made a great contribution identifying them and proving they exist.

I think that using SOTA equipment, that would highlight the aspects of sound reproduction previously referred, these differences would be enhanced, but it is only my guess - as they say YMMV.

Disclaimer: I have very little experience with HiRez, as the music I mostly enjoy is not available in HiRez formats.

 

[microstrip]

(...) while guys like Amir, trained to listen, can only seem to pick out the difference when zeroing in on specifics. (...)
Tim

Tim,

Please read my previous post - the specifics you refer and I quoted in bold are one of the reasons why Hgh End exists!

BTW, you should read about trained listeners in the Harman literature - often they are more reliable and can arrive at conclusions faster than general listeners, but in the end they reach the same conclusions than the whole crowd. It is why training is a very serious and debated subject and must be validated using appropriate methods.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Tim,

Please read my previous post - the specifics you refer and I quoted in bold are one of the reasons why Hgh End exists!

BTW, you should read about trained listeners in the Harman literature - often they are more reliable and can arrive at conclusions faster than general listeners, but in the end they reach the same conclusions than the whole crowd. It is why training is a very serious and debated subject and must be validated using appropriate methods.

I have no problem with Amir's description of what he heard in the post you're referring to, and I am not saying there is not a difference between hi-res and Redbook. But there are some other quotes from Amir's posts that matter as well:

Track 1 and 3 were relatively easy to tell apart but both took fair amount of effort to find the critical segments were the difference could be heard. The middle track #2 was essentially not distinguishable but I managed to finally find the difference.

This doesn't sound like the obvious differences between hi-res and Redbook consistently claimed on audiophile forums...

So far no one has repeated my success here. Anecdotal reports say that people could not distinguish the files from each other.

This doesn't sound like Dr. Olives trained listeners, either. They made critical observations of audible differences and reached conclusions quicker than the untrained. In these tests, they untrained are not hearing the difference at all.

I am not yet ready to speculate why I am able to hear the differences. Only that I have the skills to find and focus on difficult segments and know what to look for. My hearing is shot above 12 Khz so I don't think any of this due to me actually "hearing" ultrasonics. My headphone response also doesn't go that high.

Amir's humility is admirable. Clearly it is his training, experience and expertise that allows him to hear what others can't. And all I'm saying, Micro, is that if the highly trained and deeply experienced must "find the critical segments," that the differences are "essentially not distinguishable," but he managed to "finally find a difference," and that "So far no one has repeated my success..." we're not talking about the dramatic differences touted on audiophile forums. It is much more likely, frankly, that most of the people talking about those dramatic differences haven't actually heard anything except what they wanted to hear, and, if told that 16/44.1 was hi-res, would enthusiastically describe the greater depth and fidelity, the deeper, more realistic sound stage, the incredible micro dynamics...the list of euphemisms is long. The list of people who can actually hear a difference, it appears, is likely to be very short.

Tim

 

[Don Hills]

I liken it to a hand-knotted Middle Eastern rug. The weaver traditionally includes one incorrect stitch. You may study the rug carefully and never find the stitch, but if you do find it, you'll find it with much less effort next time. So it is with audible differences.

 

[FrantzM]

I have no problem with Amir's description of what he heard in the post you're referring to, and I am not saying there is not a difference between hi-res and Redbook. But there are some other quotes from Amir's posts that matter as well:


This doesn't sound like the obvious differences between hi-res and Redbook consistently claimed on audiophile forums...



This doesn't sound like Dr. Olives trained listeners, either. They made critical observations of audible differences and reached conclusions quicker than the untrained. In these tests, they untrained are not hearing the difference at all.



Amir's humility is admirable. Clearly it is his training, experience and expertise that allows him to hear what others can't. And all I'm saying, Micro, is that if the highly trained and deeply experienced must "find the critical segments," that the differences are "essentially not distinguishable," but he managed to "finally find a difference," and that "So far no one has repeated my success..." we're not talking about the dramatic differences touted on audiophile forums. It is much more likely, frankly, that most of the people talking about those dramatic differences haven't actually heard anything except what they wanted to hear, and, if told that 16/44.1 was hi-res, would enthusiastically describe the greater depth and fidelity, the deeper, more realistic sound stage, the incredible micro dynamics...the list of euphemisms is long. The list of people who can actually hear a difference, it appears, is likely to be very short.

Tim

+1

"Night and day" .. "Blew out of the water" and other audiophile hyperbole, seem to be missing from the Amir's OP. For the record,

For the record I am of the advice that Hi-Rez and Redbook can sound different .. Altough most often the differences can be tracked to different mastering.

 

[Orb]

But then it would seem that the difference between 16/44 and hi-rez is insignificant, in the grander scheme of things.

As I said, many underestimate just how hard/artificial it is to pass a subtle blind ABX, especially when the test and results are being specifically used for debates as "no difference between amps/no difference between digital resolutions/etc".
JND IS tough to prove differences due to human biases/anchoring/unsure differences cause a cognitive decision bias/weighted success margin as errors will increase as the JND becomes smaller/etc and why one needs a stringent approach in listening process (that also includes the listener music-sound selection for reasons I mentioned earlier) and importantly the scope such test provides.

All this test helps to show is that there is actual perceived differences for those that are experienced in such listening tests; really does not correlate to actual normal listening and subjective preference/satisfaction/tolerances/etc that may be much greater for the listener in the grander scheme of things of natural longer term listening.

Edit:
Al M, just to say much of what I am saying is more about the wider internet forum community rather than directed at you; just mentioning as it may come across in my post I am putting this on you when I am definitely not.

Cheers
Orb

 

[Orb]

Hi Orb.

That is why I posed the question to Amir, i.e., are there any ABX or other blind studies using long term listening/experiencing instead of short snippets? We don't know if the effect does not exist, is negligible or profound. Amir has a good working grasp of that which exists under the umbrella of AES, and he responded there did not exist any. I would love to see such a test undertaken. Of course, I would also love a new Porsche. I don't think either will happen. <:sad:>

Ron,
yeah I am with you on this and sadly such an extensive test I doubt will ever happen due to the variables needing to be controlled, the environment-equipment,time needed with trained listeners, and the cost.
This is compounded that really any scientific test needs to also monitor-capture-weight the biases and behaviour that may influence said test.
This means a very complex system and setup to have any real meaning beyond anecdotal IMO.

Cheers
Orb

 

[Al M.]

For the record I am of the advice that Hi-Rez and Redbook can sound different .. Altough most often the differences can be tracked to different mastering.

This phenomenon was pointed out already in the very first review of SACD by Martin Colloms in Hifi News/Record Review at the end of 1998. He found that the SACD layer of the disc that he got sounded much better than the CD layer. Yet then he made frequency plots of the two layers, and voila, they were markedly different, pointing to different mastering.

 

[Al M.]

Edit:
Al M, just to say much of what I am saying is more about the wider internet forum community rather than directed at you; just mentioning as it may come across in my post I am putting this on you when I am definitely not.

Cheers
Orb

Don't worry, I hadn't read it as being personal.

 

[Whatmore]

+1

"Night and day" .. "Blew out of the water" and other audiophile hyperbole, seem to be missing from the Amir's OP. For the record,

For the record I am of the advice that Hi-Rez and Redbook can sound different .. Altough most often the differences can be tracked to different mastering.

Isn't that a bit of a red herring in the context of this discussion?
If the mastering is different then all you can conclude is that different masters sound different.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

As I said, many underestimate just how hard/artificial it is to pass a subtle blind ABX

I keep reading that this "is" from those who wish to question the results of AB/X testing. What I haven't read is any evidence in support of it. AB/X testing is pretty broadly used, outside of audio, for some things much more critical than our hobby. You'd think if it was as unreliable and problematic as many audiophiles claim, there would be some studies,confirmation of that. None have ever come forward in any of audiophile conversations that I recall. On the contrary, it continues, as it has for decades, to be a valued research tool.

especially when the test and results are being specifically used for debates as "no difference between amps/no difference between digital resolutions/etc".

I don't think anyone here is questioning what Amir heard.

All this test helps to show is that there is actual perceived differences for those that are experienced in such listening tests; really does not correlate to actual normal listening and subjective preference/satisfaction/tolerances/etc that may be much greater for the listener in the grander scheme of things of natural longer term listening.

Agreed. If I followed that, I think where we may depart is on the possible results of long-term listening. You seem to be saying that which is extremely subtle to a trained expert listener, concentrating on differences, focusing on passages that reveal those differences, may somehow become much more obvious to the un-trained listener in long-term, casual listening. Occam's razor; It seems much more likely that the "night and day" differences are a result of sighted listening. You know you are listening to the superior file, therefore you hear superior quality.

Tim

 

[TBone]

Listen to Neil Young's live @ Massey Hall between the CD and DVD. There is a difference.

In my system, the HDCD CD proved superior ... but the differences were tainted by the quality of the equipment they were played on, my CDP much superior to my Blu-Ray player (which can reproduce 24/192).

The differences to me are night and day,no contest the lower resolution files, the high frequency harmonics are severly attenuated. I find this pretty much standard fair between redbook and higher sampled versions. Even though most rebbook CD's I would classify as very good. On a system such as mine that uses psychoacoustics the differences stick out like a sore thumb.

Poor hi-frequency reproduction was once considered part & parcel of early redbook reproduction, but those days are long behind us. If your CDP is "severely attenuating", the highs, then consider that an issue with your CDP and not necessarily the responsibility of the format. As for higher-rez formats having superior highs by simple default, that's proved to be as much of a moving target as CD; I've heard my share of hi-rez digital products with very much compromised extended frequencies.

tb1

 

[TBone]

I don't think anyone here is questioning what Amir heard.

Not at all ... in fact (and with all due respect to Amir hearing) ... I think many experienced audiophiles, especially those who do a lot of hi-quality digital recording, could repeat & verify his claims.

However, whats this lesson taught us ... that we didn't already know?