Conclusive "Proof" that higher resolution audio sounds different

[MylesBAstor]

 

[MylesBAstor]

This is also a good site to check out.

https://brainsciencepodcast.squarespace.com/categories

 

[amirm]

Another challenge put forth and another set of results .

------------------------------

I've experimented with the audibility of round-tripping audio through the analog domain. With really high quality converters (those in a LynxTWO for example) something like 20+ round trips are possible without any reliably audible effects.

People who want to investigate this for themselves can download relevant test files from http://ethanwiner.com/aes/ under the heading "SoundBlaster Generations". An hour spent with those files and FOOBAR2000 + the ABX plug in will dispell any misapprehensions. This is especially true given that the audio interface that Ethan used performed at a far lower level then a benchmark pro audio interface such as the LynxTWO.

OK guys. You must be playing with me. You really can't tell the difference here? Here are my quick results. I skipped down to 5th generation (five times going from analog to digital and back):
=========
foo_abx 1.3.4 report
foobar2000 v1.3.2
2014/07/18 06:34:21

File A: C:\Users\Amir\Music\Ethan Soundblaster\sb20x_original.wav
File B: C:\Users\Amir\Music\Ethan Soundblaster\sb20x_pass5.wav

06:34:21 : Test started.
06:35:00 : 01/01 50.0%
06:35:10 : 01/02 75.0%
06:35:21 : 01/03 87.5%
06:35:46 : 02/04 68.8%
06:35:58 : 03/05 50.0%
06:36:19 : 03/06 65.6% <----- Difference found
06:36:28 : 04/07 50.0%
06:36:40 : 05/08 36.3%
06:36:51 : 06/09 25.4%
06:37:02 : 07/10 17.2%
06:37:11 : 08/11 11.3%
06:37:25 : 09/12 7.3%
06:37:36 : 10/13 4.6%
06:37:47 : 11/14 2.9%
06:37:58 : 12/15 1.8%
06:38:10 : 13/16 1.1%
06:38:24 : 14/17 0.6%
06:38:34 : 15/18 0.4%
06:38:50 : 16/19 0.2%
06:38:58 : 17/20 0.1%
06:39:12 : 18/21 0.1%
06:39:21 : 19/22 0.0%
06:39:38 : Test finished.

----------
Total: 19/22 (0.0%)

Above I am showing my search for critical section. So when I tested the single generational loss (i.e. "most difficult") I knew what to listen for:

foo_abx 1.3.4 report
foobar2000 v1.3.2
2014/07/18 06:40:07

File A: C:\Users\Amir\Music\Ethan Soundblaster\sb20x_original.wav
File B: C:\Users\Amir\Music\Ethan Soundblaster\sb20x_pass1.wav

06:40:07 : Test started.
06:41:03 : 01/01 50.0%
06:41:16 : 02/02 25.0%
06:41:24 : 03/03 12.5%
06:41:33 : 04/04 6.3%
06:41:53 : 05/05 3.1%
06:42:02 : 06/06 1.6%
06:42:22 : 07/07 0.8%
06:42:34 : 08/08 0.4%
06:42:43 : 09/09 0.2%
06:42:56 : 10/10 0.1%
06:43:08 : 11/11 0.0%
06:43:16 : Test finished.

----------
Total: 11/11 (0.0%)

So I started at 6:34 AM and finished at 6:43 AM for a total of 9 minutes. What I am supposed to do for the rest of the hour Arny?

By the way, I am traveling and the headphone I have is my Shure IEM. So now we have results across three different headphones.

Arny do you honestly not hear the difference???

By the way the techno clip Ethan picked is not ideally suited for this type of testing yet the audible difference is there.

 

[Orb]

Amir,
I think they do not hear the differences because their listening methodology-approach is the same as casual/normal critical music listening (includes material chosen), and they listen to the whole (whether whole track/segment or without dissecting for specific details-traits) rather than looking to isolate and what to listen for.
Most of the ABX done on various audio forums seem to have that "whole" approach IMO, but that is just my own condensed view and I am sure is different to a few others *shrug*.

Regarding the brain some might remember a few modern projects I posted about awhile back, I will see if I can find the posts but I did provide latest update on the Human Connectome Project and a couple others that imporantly also tie into this; really interesting stuff.
Some reason I find using search on WBF a bit hit and miss; I like the blame the tool rather than user approach
PS, thanks jkeny and I can say the same about yours and Myles, Amir,etc own posts as well.

Cheers
Orb

 

[amirm]

Thanks Orb. My comment in my post was directed at Arny. As the bandleader on what is audible and what is not, he just can't have such poor listening ability. To make matters worse, he keeps posting these challenges as if the others before it had not backfired on him.

 

[Orb]

Amir,
you are doing great work that is for sure and kudos to you.
I am pretty sure even with you passing those tests it still will not change their view-approach-conclusions-"what does Amir do differently to us"-etc.
In fact another excuse will be found or your success will be mostly ignored, and then I bet they will be as vocal as they were in the past with no differences were identifiable for any "approved" digital hirez vs lower in any ABX
But at least you can always point back to that thread and specific posts, internet and web can be great for efficient highlighting of what actually happened

BTW You would make a great teacher; knowledge and wanting to share it is great, but also having the patience to do so with err challenging pupils is a wonder.
Cheers
Orb

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Amir,
I think they do not hear the differences because their listening methodology-approach is the same as casual/normal critical music listening (includes material chosen), and they listen to the whole (whether whole track/segment or without dissecting for specific details-traits) rather than looking to isolate and what to listen for.
Most of the ABX done on various audio forums seem to have that "whole" approach IMO, but that is just my own condensed view and I am sure is different to a few others *shrug*.

Regarding the brain some might remember a few modern projects I posted about awhile back, I will see if I can find the posts but I did provide latest update on the Human Connectome Project and a couple others that imporantly also tie into this; really interesting stuff.
Some reason I find using search on WBF a bit hit and miss; I like the blame the tool rather than user approach
PS, thanks jkeny and I can say the same about yours and Myles, Amir,etc own posts as well.

Cheers
Orb

Sounds about right. Which means the furthest they were getting from normal listening was into critical listening. They didn't have the knowledge, or discipline, to listen around the music in the search for artifacts. Not even when listening to keys jangling. When listening to music, they don't have a chance. As music lovers, they are blessed.

Tim

 

[Al M.]

Sounds about right. Which means the furthest they were getting from normal listening was into critical listening. They didn't have the knowledge, or discipline, to listen around the music in the search for artifacts. Not even when listening to keys jangling. When listening to music, they don't have a chance. As music lovers, they are blessed.

Tim

What's the point about high-rez when the benefit is mostly not immediately obvious? I have had upgrades where differences were glaringly obvious with most CDs that I put on, such as the implementation of acoustic room treatment, as well as upgrades of my DAC and the power supplies for the amps (the latter removing electronic noise, among others). All those upgrades showed me that plain ole' Redbook CD was capable of much better resolution than I had thought possible.

There are much bigger fish to fry in audio than fretting about hi-rez vs. CD, fueled by the futile and rationally unjustifiable hope that someday high-res will be a mainstream, i.e. actually relevant format.

Sony announced almost a year ago they would open their faults of high-res tapes. Still waiting, thumbs twiddling. No wonder, there's no real money to be made; the audiophile community is vanishingly small in the big picture.

 

[Orb]

Sounds about right. Which means the furthest they were getting from normal listening was into critical listening. They didn't have the knowledge, or discipline, to listen around the music in the search for artifacts. Not even when listening to keys jangling. When listening to music, they don't have a chance. As music lovers, they are blessed.

Tim

Tim,
I think you are getting a bit hung up on artifacts.
Some tests would be listening for artifacts-glitches-distortion-etc, however and very importantly it is also traits-characteristic cues of the sound given by the recording for instruments/how played/etc-mix-mastering and this can relate to the specific instrument or instruments/choir/symphony and its attack-decay-leading edge or even timber-tone (however I stress this needs to be focused on in a dissected-isolated fashion rather than a "whole" to identify possible cues for accurate chance to usually pass subtle ABX).

Sorry for all the "/" but there are a lot of variables and ifs or depends involved.
Cheers
Orb

 

[Orb]

What's the point about high-rez when the benefit is mostly not immediately obvious? I have had upgrades where differences were glaringly obvious with most CDs that I put on, such as the implementation of acoustic room treatment, as well as upgrades of my DAC and the power supplies for the amps (the latter removing electronic noise, among others). All those upgrades showed me that plain ole' Redbook CD was capable of much better resolution than I had thought possible.

There are much bigger fish to fry in audio than fretting about hi-rez vs. CD, fueled by the futile and rationally unjustifiable hope that someday high-res will be a mainstream, i.e. actually relevant format.

Sony announced almost a year ago they would open their faults of high-res tapes. Still waiting, thumbs twiddling. No wonder, there's no real money to be made; the audiophile community is vanishingly small in the big picture.

Because one really cannot quantify this to subjective preference/satisfaction/emotional connection to music/long term listening/tolerances-thresholds/etc.
As touched upon by Ron earlier, really to do anything but speculate on its benefit beyond subtle differences potentially shown in ABX requires further testing.
Until then we can unfortunately only rely on anecdotal evidence, provided ideally by those that have a structured approach/methodical-analytical mind - IMO of course

This is really compounded by digital filters for both ADC and DACs and processing required in the studio associated with mixing-mastering, furthermore the balance-compromise between FR and time domain unfortunately required for CD; hence why nearly the whole respected engineering world (I mentioned quite a few names already but the list is very big) of digital do state one needs roughly 20bits and over I think roughly 60khz at a minimum.

Cheers
Orb

 

[Al M.]

Because one really cannot quantify this to subjective preference/satisfaction/emotional connection to music/long term listening/tolerances-thresholds/etc.

Oh, I can readily quantify that I can listen to a series of well-recorded CDs for many hours straight without any psychological/emotional fatigue -- until I get physically tired and need to go to bed


Edit: and I might add that I listen at loud, realistic volume -- no desire to turn down because of alleged 'fatiguing artefacts'. Except when it comes to the rare early digital recording of classical music that indeed sounds painfully shrill, like the 5th symphony of Shostakovich with Haitink/Royal Concertgebouw (Decca), a recording that inexplicably won a Grammy in 1983 for engineering (!).

 

[Stereoeditor]

My comment in my post was directed at Arny. As the bandleader on what is audible and what is not, he just can't have such poor listening ability. To make matters worse, he keeps posting these challenges as if the others before it had not backfired on him.

My thanks also for performing blind testing on this matter, Amir. Finally, it would appear, someone has put the Meyer-Moran test in its proper context.

As for Arny Krueger, he never gives an inch, no matter how much evidence mounts up proving him incorrect. I first encountered him in the Usenet days when he was publicly criticizing me as an "ex-car mechanic with no formal education in audio engineering." I politely corrected him, explaining that I did indeed have a formal education that included audio engineering and that he was confusing me with then-Stereophile publisher Larry Archibald, who was indeed once a car mechanic (though Larry also had a degree in English from Harvard). Rather than acknowledge his error, Arny doubled-down, insisted that his statement was correct, and has continued in that vein ever since. :-(

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

 

[Orb]

Oh, I can readily quantify that I can listen to a series of well-recorded CDs for many hours straight without any psychological/emotional fatigue -- until I get physically tired and need to go to bed


Edit: and I might add that I listen at loud, realistic volume -- no desire to turn down because of alleged 'fatiguing artefacts'. Except when it comes to the rare early digital recording of classical music that indeed sounds painfully shrill, like the 5th symphony of Shostakovich with Haitink/Royal Concertgebouw (Decca), a recording that inexplicably won a Grammy in 1983 for engineering (!).

And then carry on listening to the music due to dreaming of it

Just to add the emotional-connection aspect I am touching upon is what I mentioned a bit earlier; music and indeed sounds combine both linquistic and mathematical aspects within the brain, we can have a connection to these in terms of beauty/emotion/satisfaction (satisfaction can be both from tolerances and also emotional-beauty connection to the music and sound reproduced by the system).
And yes I appreciate CDs/FM radio/etc all can provide great levels of this.

Regarding fatigue; try playing Bat Out of Hell (or other music with similar challenges and issues) loud and for many hours straight without suffering fatigue
Cheers
Orb

 

[microstrip]

(...)

Edit: and I might add that I listen at loud, realistic volume -- no desire to turn down because of alleged 'fatiguing artefacts'. Except when it comes to the rare early digital recording of classical music that indeed sounds painfully shrill, like the 5th symphony of Shostakovich with Haitink/Royal Concertgebouw (Decca), a recording that inexplicably won a Grammy in 1983 for engineering (!).

We are going to disagree on this recordind. I also had this idea long ago. But I found that I was just listening to the limitations of the playback system - in an adequate system it sounds glorious. I have recommended it to few WBF friends who loved it. A few music lover friends who were supposed to dislike Shostakovich have listened to it in my system with great satisfaction.

 

[Al M.]

Regarding fatigue; try playing Bat Out of Hell (or other music with similar challenges and issues) loud and for many hours straight without suffering fatigue
Cheers
Orb

Sure, Bat Out Of Hell sounds pretty bat and hellish on CD. But that may be an issue not just with digital transfer but also with the original recording. Problems with that recording might have been concealed in the vinyl days by inferior pressings which, while less transparent than ideal, might also have mellowed the sound (let's face it, vinyl can sound spectacular on great pressings of great recordings, but too often standard pressings are just sub par).

I mainly listen to classical music, and for that CD is mostly great.

(I notice that the most fervent critics of CD are often those who mainly listen to pop/rock where mediocre or even bad recording and mastering are more rule than exception. But that problem has nothing to do with the CD medium itself except that, sadly, for its technical possibilities digital invites the practices of over-compression and lack of correction of exaggerated sibilance from the original recording/mastering. Try to find problems with sibilance on classical recordings, they are much rarer. )

 

[Al M.]

We are going to disagree on this recordind. I also had this idea long ago. But I found that I was just listening to the limitations of the playback system - in an adequate system it sounds glorious. I have recommended it to few WBF friends who loved it. A few music lover friends who were supposed to dislike Shostakovich have listened to it in my system with great satisfaction.

Interesting. I don't think that my system is inadequate since many other recordings sound glorious on it, except this one. Compare this Haitink/RCO/Decca recording with the one of the same symphony featuring Jansons/VPO on EMI (from 1997). It's not even a contest. Whiile the latter recording sounds marvelously resolved and open up to very high volume levels, in comparison the former sounds congested and shrill in fortissimo passages, and the overall timbral resolution is far less, also in the soft passages.

In fact, the differences are now much clearer on my system since the latest upgrades that have dramatically increased resolution.

You are right, we probably have to agree to disagree on the Haitink/Decca recording (by the way, many later digital recordings on the Decca label sound glorious indeed).

 

[Orb]

Sure, Bat Out Of Hell sounds pretty bat and hellish on CD. But that may be an issue not just with digital transfer but also with the original recording. Problems with that recording might have been concealed in the vinyl days by inferior pressings which, while less transparent than ideal, might also have mellowed the sound (let's face it, vinyl can sound spectacular on great pressings of great recordings, but too often standard pressings are just sub par).

I mainly listen to classical music, and for that CD is mostly great.

(I notice that the most fervent critics of CD are often those who mainly listen to pop/rock where mediocre or even bad recording and mastering are more rule than exception. But that problem has nothing to do with the CD medium itself except that, sadly, for its technical possibilities digital invites the practices of over-compression and lack of correction of exaggerated sibilance from the original recording/mastering. Try to find problems with sibilance on classical recordings, they are much rarer. )

Oh its sound issues is nothing to do with digital transfer, was using it as a light hearted banter example of giving one fatigue
Its issues are pretty much IN YOUR FACE hehe sorry could not resist capitals because its faults really do scream out, one caused from what I remember going from 16 track to 8 track for some of its mixing.

More on topic and may have consideration towards fatigue; just bear in mind your DAC (with its filters) may also be helping with regards to some of the variables I touched upon or may exacerbate certain digital albums-recordings-"genre" such as rock/pop/average jazz recordings.
Problem with hirez as I mention is that there is a fair amount which is not done well or even "true" native hirez (HifiNews has covered this quite often and the results are interesting for their album reviews where hirez also is measured and analysed).
Cheers
Orb

 

[microstrip]

Interesting. I don't think that my system is inadequate since many other recordings sound glorious on it, except this one. Compare this Haitink/RCO/Decca recording with the one of the same symphony featuring Jansons/VPO on EMI (from 1997). It's not even a contest. Whiile the latter recording sounds marvelously resolved and open up to very high volume levels, in comparison the former sounds congested and shrill in fortissimo passages, and the overall timbral resolution is far less, also in the soft passages.

In fact, the differences are now much clearer on my system since the latest upgrades that have dramatically increased resolution.

You are right, we probably have to agree to disagree on the Haitink/Decca recording (by the way, many later digital recordings on the Decca label sound glorious indeed).

I have found that every time my system improved the number of recordings with high quality increased. This particular recording fortissimi passages have been used in a Wilson Audio XLF session with great success. BTW, we should not confuse inadequacy with mismatch - sometimes a particular recording does not suit our systems.

And no, I do not own XLFs ...

 

[TBone]

BTW, we should not confuse inadequacy with mismatch - sometimes a particular recording does not suit our systems.

Well, some systems may actually be like that ... even w/ certain musical genres, such as R&R, some systems may be more "suited" than others. I've heard the same with Jazz, classical ....whatever.

Geez, even components get known as being more suited to certain musical genres. As an example, my arm supposedly has this "reputation" for not being all that good with R&R. This was even claimed in some reviews, and given that the reviewer (who I very much respect) probably hadn't set it up optimally, I can relate. I attempted (&lost) a bid for another similar arm not long ago, and when I ask the owner why he was selling it ... he replied .... "wanted something more suited to R&R".

Yet, I consider the characteristics of this particular arm as fast, impact-full, wide, open & dynamic, and certainly much leaner than most arms ... all attributes that make my system Rock. However, I consider those same attributes key with any form of music.

 

[Al M.]

I have found that every time my system improved the number of recordings with high quality increased.

I absolutely agree with that!