Conclusive "Proof" that higher resolution audio sounds different

[Ron Party]

^
Exactly, Tony. Nothing so far constitutes proof, let alone conclusive proof. The scientific method requires both investigation of the results reported thus far and further testing.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Don't know what your reply has to do with my post you quoted?

I haven't a clue how to even reply to that, John, except to suggest that you read it again.

Tim

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

There is no point in hanging around waiting for people to change their minds. They won't. They should be left in the dust at the side of the road.

There are some real questions to be answered. For example, although evidence has been presented that shows that people heard differences, the evidence is far from compelling that the differences were caused by the resolution of the digital formats involved. The differences could have been due to implementation limitations in the format converter software or to as yet unknown artifacts in the playback equipment.

One way to advance is to better characterize what people can hear and to do so along separate directions, e.g. bit depth / dither algorithms would be one direction and sample rate conversion / filters would be a separate direction. One can get around the handicap of "null" results by using different parameters, e.g. how many bits?

It's a long thread and I haven't read every post, but I don't think anyone has presented any evidence indicating that the resolution of the digital formats is the difference being heard.

Tim

 

[microstrip]

(...) There are some real questions to be answered. For example, although evidence has been presented that shows that people heard differences, the evidence is far from compelling that the differences were caused by the resolution of the digital formats involved. The differences could have been due to implementation limitations in the format converter software or to as yet unknown artifacts in the playback equipment. (...)

We can never separate completely the format and the implementation - we could always think that other hardware could result in different results. It is why I though that the description of the differences in terms of sound quality given by Amir was very relevant to valuate his comparison. It was not only different - in his opinion it was of significantly better subjective quality. See post #35 http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?15255-Conclusive-quot-Proof-quot-that-higher-resolution-audio-sounds-different&p=276714&viewfull=1#post276714

(...)
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. (...)

 

[thedudeabides]

Amir and jkeny bring up a very valid point about "rehasing" the same old same old.

My question is this.

After 1,300 + posts, is there any consensus on anything?

Appears that the answer is no.

Pretty amazing when you think about it.

So much for the "O" perspective.

 

[Orb]

It's a long thread and I haven't read every post, but I don't think anyone has presented any evidence indicating that the resolution of the digital formats is the difference being heard.

Tim

Your right Tim, but the context and scope (not about the testing process this time although that is applicable as mentioned before but more about the real world technical audio environment) has to be considered very carefully, especially for resolution of digital formats and what is benefit/heard.
Just to expand.
In theory all modern digital releases are at least "hybrid hirez" recordings due to how recorded and mastered in the studio and then downsampled/decimated; try recording at 16-bit natively and then do the mixing-editing-mastering and see how that compares to one that is above native 20bits, let alone transcoding DSD.
Hybrid in this case means they nearly all are originally natively hirez before we get the "CD" version.

So the context/scope is pretty critical in how one states the benefit (or not)/transparency/etc of higher bit depth and its possible affects in terms of being audible; in reality it must consider all the hardware-software-processes involved for both studio and consumer side if looking to generalise hirez compared to "CD" quality.
That said it does need differentiation when trying to identify/isolate exactly as per a few of us have been saying and also Tony Lauck regarding what is the mechanism potentially causing audibility, although the conclusion-implications could be applicable to both studio and consumer.
Anyway hirez vs "CD" needs to be thought of from the mic to consumer DAC.
Just mentioning this as it always gets lost in any debates on all forums IMO that involves native bit depth with sampling rates with what is better-transparent-etc and how they are also "handled", usually with conclusions taken too far or wrong real world context.

Thanks
Orb

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Your right Tim, but the context and scope (not about the testing process this time although that is applicable as mentioned before but more about the real world technical audio environment) has to be considered very carefully, especially for resolution of digital formats and what is benefit/heard.
Just to expand.
In theory all modern digital releases are at least "hybrid hirez" recordings due to how recorded and mastered in the studio and then downsampled/decimated; try recording at 16-bit natively and then do the mixing-editing-mastering and see how that compares to one that is above native 20bits, let alone transcoding DSD.
Hybrid in this case means they nearly all are originally natively hirez before we get the "CD" version.

hardly.

when you say 'we' that may be true for the primary participants of this thread but it's so '90's' or even '2000's', but it's not where things are now at the top of the digital food chain.

my digital listening, multiple hours a day, is primarily pure dsd either native mastered to dsd (like Channel Classics), or mastered from analog tapes (such as AP--Analog Productions), or ripped straight to 2xdsd from needle drops or RTR tape master dubs.

so PCM is a small percentage of my digital listening. and what PCM I do listen to is many times direct hirez native PCM files (Reference Recordings HRx and others).

these days serious audiophiles have choices that many make to keep it hirez. I have lots of other hirez PCM and SACD and dsd files of dubious sources and mastering processes, but those are not the main focus of my digital listening.

So the context/scope is pretty critical in how one states the benefit (or not)/transparency/etc of higher bit depth and its possible affects in terms of being audible; in reality it must consider all the hardware-software-processes involved for both studio and consumer side if looking to generalise hirez compared to "CD" quality.
That said it does need differentiation when trying to identify/isolate exactly as per a few of us have been saying and also Tony Lauck regarding what is the mechanism potentially causing audibility, although the conclusion-implications could be applicable to both studio and consumer.
Anyway hirez vs "CD" needs to be thought of from the mic to consumer DAC.
Just mentioning this as it always gets lost in any debates on all forums IMO that involves native bit depth with sampling rates with what is better-transparent-etc and how they are also "handled", usually with conclusions taken too far or wrong real world context.

Thanks
Orb

you cannot generalize without knowing about the current reality of the subject you are addressing. pay attention to where things are actually at right now for those wanting and enjoying the best digital.....

so when we say hirez.......it's hirez.

and all this silliness about identifying hirez files.........I will stay far away from.

with all due respect to Amir, of course.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

I realize that this thread is about much more than whether hirez (at whatever level) is audibly better than standard PCM. and I won't try to begin to define the 'much more'. however, while writing the previous post it occurred to me how simple it is for anyone to sort out the whole hirez puzzle for yourself and eliminate any ambiguity.

just find a mastering studio, such as Bruce Brown has, that has the proper tools and listen for yourself to what the different levels of hirez do to an analog signal. Bruce has a switchboard where you feed any source (analog or digital), and then it can output any format.....analog or digital.....PCM or dsd. you can feed it pink noise or any music and Bruce can go up the digital food chain and you can hear for yourself exactly the effect of each step. you can blindfold yourself and have someone do the switching. he has every dac and adc known to man to choose from.

but be very careful since after you do that what are you going to argue about for 1375 posts? it won't be whether the benefit of hirez is audible, I can tell you that.

Bruce was good enough to allow me to do this some years ago.

 

[amirm]

I realize that this thread is about much more than whether hirez (at whatever level) is audibly better than standard PCM. and I won't try to begin to define the 'much more'. however, while writing the previous post it occurred to me how simple it is for anyone to sort out the whole hirez puzzle for yourself and eliminate any ambiguity.

just find a mastering studio, such as Bruce Brown has, that has the proper tools and listen for yourself to what the different levels of hirez do to an analog signal. Bruce has a switchboard where you feed any source (analog or digital), and then it can output any format.....analog or digital.....PCM or dsd. you can feed it pink noise or any music and Bruce can go up the digital food chain and you can hear for yourself exactly the effect of each step. you can blindfold yourself and have someone do the switching. he has every dac and adc known to man to choose from.

but be very careful since after you do that what are you going to argue about for 1375 posts? it won't be whether the benefit of hirez is audible, I can tell you that.

Bruce was good enough to allow me to do this some years ago.

Good suggestion. Bruce should auction off his time for such a service .

 

[Orb]

hardly.

when you say 'we' that may be true for the primary participants of this thread but it's so '90's' or even '2000's', but it's not where things are now at the top of the digital food chain.

my digital listening, multiple hours a day, is primarily pure dsd either native mastered to dsd (like Channel Classics), or mastered from analog tapes (such as AP--Analog Productions), or ripped straight to 2xdsd from needle drops or RTR tape master dubs.

so PCM is a small percentage of my digital listening. and what PCM I do listen to is many times direct hirez native PCM files (Reference Recordings HRx and others).

these days serious audiophiles have choices that many make to keep it hirez. I have lots of other hirez PCM and SACD and dsd files of dubious sources and mastering processes, but those are not the main focus of my digital listening.



you cannot generalize without knowing about the current reality of the subject you are addressing. pay attention to where things are actually at right now for those wanting and enjoying the best digital.....

so when we say hirez.......it's hirez.

and all this silliness about identifying hirez files.........I will stay far away from.

with all due respect to Amir, of course.

Eh...
Then we have been following very different threads, especially all this debate of hirez vs downsampled/decimated; this whole thread is in essence about that meaning hirez "handled" or compared to "CD quality"

Remember this thread is not just about hirez, it is about hirez vs "CD" or hirez downsampling/decimation for some along with applying it to ABX and the results showing possibility lack of transparency in some processes, and that is why this thread is soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo long
Sorry but I get the feeling your not entirely taken my post into the context of what it was meant for; this thread.

The "we" is still applicable to you because many "hirez" releases are "handled" in some way; whether transcoded from DSD or PCM to DSD, or even naughty upsampling,or other issues, etc.
You will be rather restricted if you just want true native hirez music IMO, and then how do you test-measure to ensure it IS that?
Might remember how many times I have mentioned HiFiNews analysis for hirez reviews shows roughly 20% to 25% every month have some kind of issue or not "true" native hirez and that is the reality

I am not for/against CD or hirez PCM or DSD
I am for/against digital filters-dither-downsampling-decimation-solutions-software-hardware-how processed-etc used and applied correctly; albeit "CD quality" brings serious amount of constraints from studio-to-consumer DAC (not going into it here as already covered a few times in the past).
Thanks
Orb

 

[amirm]

I am for/against digital filters-dither-downsampling-decimation-solutions-software-hardware-how processed-etc used and applied correctly; albeit "CD quality" brings serious amount of constraints from studio-to-consumer DAC (not going into it here as already covered a few times in the past).
Thanks
Orb

This is my position as well. What we can easily prove is that if you don't change the bits, the sound will not change. Anything else that transforms the music would need lots of testing to know if it is or it isn't transparent. And "proof" of transparency will be hard to come by due to large matrix of music and conversion processes. In my book then there is no reason to advocate conversion of music to CD bit-depth/sampling. If someone wants to say getting the original bits is bad for us, let's hear that argument.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Eh...
Then we have been following very different threads, especially all this debate of hirez vs downsampled/decimated; this whole thread is in essence about that meaning hirez "handled" or compared to "CD quality"

Remember this thread is not just about hirez, it is about hirez vs "CD" or hirez downsampling/decimation for some along with applying it to ABX and the results showing possibility lack of transparency in some processes, and that is why this thread is soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo long
Sorry but I get the feeling reading your response my post has been taken very wrongly.

BTW where do I say "we" ?

right here....

Your right Tim, but the context and scope (not about the testing process this time although that is applicable as mentioned before but more about the real world technical audio environment) has to be considered very carefully, especially for resolution of digital formats and what is benefit/heard.
Just to expand.
In theory all modern digital releases are at least "hybrid hirez" recordings due to how recorded and mastered in the studio and then downsampled/decimated; try recording at 16-bit natively and then do the mixing-editing-mastering and see how that compares to one that is above native 20bits, let alone transcoding DSD.
Hybrid in this case means they nearly all are originally natively hirez before we get the "CD" version.

So the context/scope is pretty critical in how one states the benefit (or not)/transparency/etc of higher bit depth and its possible affects in terms of being audible; in reality it must consider all the hardware-software-processes involved for both studio and consumer side if looking to generalise hirez compared to "CD" quality.
That said it does need differentiation when trying to identify/isolate exactly as per a few of us have been saying and also Tony Lauck regarding what is the mechanism potentially causing audibility, although the conclusion-implications could be applicable to both studio and consumer.
Anyway hirez vs "CD" needs to be thought of from the mic to consumer DAC.
Just mentioning this as it always gets lost in any debates on all forums IMO that involves native bit depth with sampling rates with what is better-transparent-etc and how they are also "handled", usually with conclusions taken too far or wrong real world context.

Thanks
Orb

your whole post is generalizing about the lack of consistency of the recording/mastering/listening chain. and generalizing about how that makes any definitive preference for hirez not as meaningful.

my point is that this is not an informed perspective about people who really care about this subject. that subject being the highest levels of digital audio listening.

I am not for/against CD or hirez or DSD
I am for/against digital filters-dither-downsampling-decimation-solutions-software-hardware-how processed-etc used and applied correctly; albeit "CD quality" brings serious amount of constraints from studio-to-consumer DAC (not going into it here as already covered a few times in the past).
Thanks
Orb

I respect that you are not choosing sides or care about hirez one way or the other. again; my point was that your characterization of current efforts of users of high performance digital audio is not right.

this thread has little to do with what the highest level digital is all about right now, and that is why I said what is said. heck, the tests are 14 y e a r s o l d.

while this thread might have significance/relevance in regards to testing protocol and related areas; it is not in touch with current high levels of digital audio performance.

 

[Orb]

Then Mike you should had made that point ages ago as my post is very relevant when looking at the POV-debate of many in this thread.
Look back and there IS generalisation about "CD quality" and hirez around bit depth/sampling rate.

My post is explaining why that generalisation more focused only at consumer DAC end is too simplistic for such a technical debate/statements given in this thread and in fact many in these discussions need to consider the whole chain aspect from Mic/ADC-studio-consumer-DAC and how conclusions-POVs will be skewed.

Edit:
Mike unfortunately you responded while I was editing my previous post, where I point out how the "we" is still applicable to you as roughly 20% to 25% of hirez that goes through HiFinews has issues or is not really hirez, but not sure how we ended up on this subject considering my original context lol.
Cheers
Orb

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Then Mike you should had made that point ages ago as my post is very relevant when looking at the POV-debate of many in this thread.
Look back and there IS generalisation about "CD quality" and hirez around bit depth/sampling rate.

My post is explaining why that generalisation more focused only at consumer DAC end is too simplistic for such a technical debate/statements given in this thread and in fact many in these discussions need to consider the whole chain aspect from Mic/ADC-studio-consumer-DAC and how conclusions-POVs will be skewed.
I am dropping out because my point is totally lost now lol.

Cheers
Orb

fair enough. yes.....I could have dived into a thread about blind testing......but I was waiting for it to stop. and waiting some more for it to stop. and then waiting some more for it to stop.

but it would not stop.

why would people argue about how many angels you can place on the head of a pin? because they can.

I complained about it. I even tried to challenge it. but it was too contentious to deal with.

then I saw your attempts to generalize about why hirez was ambiguous and realized that the whole perspective and relevance of this thread was bogus as it relates to state of the art digital performance today.

so I responded.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

fair enough. yes.....I could have dived into a thread about blind testing......but I was waiting for it to stop. and waiting some more for it to stop. and then waiting some more for it to stop.

but it would not stop.

why would people argue about how many angels you can place on the head of a pin? because they can.

I complained about it. I even tried to challenge it. but it was too contentious to deal with.

then I saw your attempts to generalize about why hirez was ambiguous and realized that the whole perspective and relevance of this thread was bogus as it relates to state of the art digital performance today.

so I responded.

For the last 100 pages or so, I've mostly been arguing that I should be able to use my own mouth for my own purposes instead of having words put in it for me, but I digress....Mike, it's great that you and Bruce can sit in his studio, moving up the digital food chain and hear the improvements at each level. Your experience, however, does not appear to be universal, or even common. I look forward to the new study, because, while I believe there is a difference, I'm with the many who haven't been able to identify it consistently, and even if I could, I'd love to know the source of the difference because theoretically, it shouldn't be there. Curiosity stirred.

Tim

 

[Ron Party]

This is my position as well. What we can easily prove is that if you don't change the bits, the sound will not change.

Amir, I like it! If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

And Mike, I think your point about on the fly changes at Bruce's studio ought to given serious weight in a serious discussion about trying to ascertain whether there are differences and, if so, the nature of the differences.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Mike, it's great that you and Bruce can sit in his studio, moving up the digital food chain and hear the improvements at each level. Your experience, however, does not appear to be universal, or even common. I look forward to the new study, because, while I believe there is a difference, I'm with the many who haven't been able to identify it consistently, and even if I could, I'd love to know the source of the difference because theoretically, it shouldn't be there. Curiosity stirred.

Tim

And Mike, I think your point about on the fly changes at Bruce's studio ought to given serious weight in a serious discussion about trying to ascertain whether there are differences and, if so, the nature of the differences.

as a person who has lived with these clear differences between all formats on a daily basis for years, it cracks me up how much skepticism there exists about this. it's like being on a space station observing earth, and hearing about how some still think the earth is flat and we have to be careful or we might fall off the edge. i suppose it's all about perspective.

in talking to Bruce over the years regarding formats and how his clients choose which one, it is fascinating that often his clients choose the output format based on many things other than what sounds the best, even though they all mostly agree (preferring dsd) on that issue. so many agendas.

in reading many of the posts in this thread, it seems there is a bit of respect for a local Seattle guy, JJ, in terms of testing protocol. maybe Amir could contact Bruce, connect with JJ, and figure out some sort of process to use Bruce's studio for a test which would satisfy the skeptics about format differences.

i hope something like that can be put together. and that people can find the truth for themselves on their own terms

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Well, we've got you, and evidently Bruce, and I believe it was Rodger D who early in this thread said he could hear the difference with one ear closed, all of whom seem to think these differences are obvious, and that difference is clearly one of quality. And then we have a whole lot of people for whom these differences appear to be very subtle, at best, requiring instruction to identify at all. Skepticism does not seem at all unreasonable under the circumstances.

Tim

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Well, we've got you, and evidently Bruce, and I believe it was Rodger D who early in this thread said he could hear the difference with one ear closed, all of whom seem to think these differences are obvious, and that difference is clearly one of quality. And then we have a whole lot of people for whom these differences appear to be very subtle, at best, requiring instruction to identify at all. Skepticism does not seem at all unreasonable under the circumstances.

Tim

at this point I should have not indulged myself with my comments, and simply recommended a course of action. so I apologize. it serves no purpose for me to try and convince anyone with words.

as far as quantifying actual degrees of differences and preferences, that will end up as a subjective question. open to interpretation. one man's subtle is another man's significant or important.

I do hope that at least my suggestion can result in a process that concludes in some sort of 'proof' that skeptics can accept. if not, no harm done.

Mike

 

[thedudeabides]

Skepticism does not seem at all unreasonable under the circumstances.

Tim

Well stated. I think that statement applies universally to both sides of this discussion.

So where to from here?

Any consensus yet?