Rob, I had a look at the spectrum plots in Audacity & don't see any problem - the spectrum plots overlay pretty exactly (by eye) between the different sample rate files (obviously the higher sample rate files plot to higher frequencies). The stopband frequencies seem correct for each sample file. Am I missing something?
Conclusive "Proof" that higher resolution audio sounds different
- Thread starter amirm
- Start date
Yes. While I have only used it on Windows, it is Java based so should run on the MAC: http://lacinato.com/cm/software/othersoft/abx
The numbers in file names are sampling rate, not max frequency. Divide that by two and you get the max frequency.Probably not could certainly be me. I thought that the lowest res file was limited to 16K not 8K. Maybe I misundserstood.
Rob
BTW, when I downloaded them the lowest was 32 Khz sampling or 16 Khz max response. He added the file you tested later.
Nice find!I just came across another ABX test from 2010 which shows positive results for 24/96 Vs 16/44 files. This time two poter report ABX results - one using Linux & one Windows both using an original music file as the test file. And guess what Arny is on the thread
http://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/in...7&pid=713014&mode=threaded&start=#entry713014
Amir,
I'm following the conversation on AVS & see that you seem to be saying that ArnyK messed up the downsampling to 16/44? Is this what you maintain? Have you done this as Tim on AVS has recently reported
Apart from the possibility that the two files have different offsets (which would cause a nulling issue) have you reason to believe that the 16/44 is a messed up downsample of 24/96 file?
I'm following the conversation on AVS & see that you seem to be saying that ArnyK messed up the downsampling to 16/44? Is this what you maintain? Have you done this as Tim on AVS has recently reported
Apart from the possibility that the two files have different offsets (which would cause a nulling issue) have you reason to believe that the 16/44 is a messed up downsample of 24/96 file?
Amir,
I think koturban is going on about the following IM test (3rd of the way down) : http://xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html
TBH IM can be measured with standard-ish/accepted tests so not sure the point of this and surprised it is this most of them are getting hung up on (especially when real world means diverse systems-recordings-environment and purpose is hearing differences that do exist) *shrug*.
I would be more leery about the true native hirez file (higher bit depth and sampling rate) vs how the downsampled file was created myself
Cheers
Orb
I think koturban is going on about the following IM test (3rd of the way down) : http://xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html
TBH IM can be measured with standard-ish/accepted tests so not sure the point of this and surprised it is this most of them are getting hung up on (especially when real world means diverse systems-recordings-environment and purpose is hearing differences that do exist) *shrug*.
I would be more leery about the true native hirez file (higher bit depth and sampling rate) vs how the downsampled file was created myself
Cheers
Orb
Just to add,
I feel if they really are concerned with IM, then they really should also be concerned about the strength/weakness of stop-band rejection of the filter/system as well (in fact real world systems this would be more of a concern IMO in the context of influencing audibibilty) - sticking with headphones for now otherwise this potentially brings in the Gedlee papers relating to speakers.
After all the context is about digital, but this is just my own take on the subject.
Cheers
Orb
I feel if they really are concerned with IM, then they really should also be concerned about the strength/weakness of stop-band rejection of the filter/system as well (in fact real world systems this would be more of a concern IMO in the context of influencing audibibilty) - sticking with headphones for now otherwise this potentially brings in the Gedlee papers relating to speakers.
After all the context is about digital, but this is just my own take on the subject.
Cheers
Orb
Amir, serious question - any evidence ArnyK's downsampling is messed up & this is why you are able to distinguish his 16/44 from 24/96 files? Have you tired downsampling the original 24/96 file to 16/44 using your favourite SRC & ABXed the resultant files?
Last edited:
I have not had any time to do further investigation.
That is almost beside the point though. The first and foremost point I want to make is that there are differences between listeners. Files have been put forward that the experimenter and many others say they can't hear the difference yet I could. And so did other people. Including some non-believers. So we have invalidated this strong claim that "there are no golden ears."
Also note that I have also passed Scott's test which was meticulously level matched and produced.
Ok this is bad form of me to say this but..
I really think I need to stop reading the discussion going on regarding this topic on AVSF, serious face and palm moments with much sighing.
I doubt anyone there will accept that you are passing them using valid equipment combined with valid methodology that IMO is the only way to successfully pass subtle ABX with music or complex sounds.
Mind boggling considering how much equipment is tested and measured for IM sigh, and yet do not consider potential stop-band rejection/attenuation implications in general - not to do with you passing the test but of interest in general IMO when it comes to digital systems and the diverse filters-DACs and sampling rates, also includes impulse response ripple/ringing potentials (FR and time domain behaviour).
Keep up the good work.
Cheers
Orb
I really think I need to stop reading the discussion going on regarding this topic on AVSF, serious face and palm moments with much sighing.
I doubt anyone there will accept that you are passing them using valid equipment combined with valid methodology that IMO is the only way to successfully pass subtle ABX with music or complex sounds.
Mind boggling considering how much equipment is tested and measured for IM sigh, and yet do not consider potential stop-band rejection/attenuation implications in general - not to do with you passing the test but of interest in general IMO when it comes to digital systems and the diverse filters-DACs and sampling rates, also includes impulse response ripple/ringing potentials (FR and time domain behaviour).
Keep up the good work.
Cheers
Orb
Last edited:
Hello Amir,
I have been following the threads here and over at AVS with much interest. At the risk of being attacked I applaud your stance. However you achieved it, you (and others) have taken the files and consistently been able to detect a difference. The differences may be subtle but that was not the point of the exercise. It is most amusing to see the AVS crowd talk themselves into nonsense circles attacking everyone who questions their religion.
Well done,
Marty
I have been following the threads here and over at AVS with much interest. At the risk of being attacked I applaud your stance. However you achieved it, you (and others) have taken the files and consistently been able to detect a difference. The differences may be subtle but that was not the point of the exercise. It is most amusing to see the AVS crowd talk themselves into nonsense circles attacking everyone who questions their religion.
Well done,
Marty
Hello Amir,
I have been following the threads here and over at AVS with much interest. At the risk of being attacked I applaud your stance. However you achieved it, you (and others) have taken the files and consistently been able to detect a difference. The differences may be subtle but that was not the point of the exercise. It is most amusing to see the AVS crowd talk themselves into nonsense circles attacking everyone who questions their religion.
Well done,
Marty
Yeah. Thank God that never happens here.
Tim
Thanks Marty. I must say, in no way did I imagine finding myself in this situation. It has been years since my listening abilities were put to test critically and I just automatically assumed I had lost them. It was just an amazing turn of events to have multiple challenges put forward and managing to meet them. And a couple of others following me just the same, at least partially.Hello Amir,
I have been following the threads here and over at AVS with much interest. At the risk of being attacked I applaud your stance. However you achieved it, you (and others) have taken the files and consistently been able to detect a difference. The differences may be subtle but that was not the point of the exercise. It is most amusing to see the AVS crowd talk themselves into nonsense circles attacking everyone who questions their religion.
Well done,
Marty
And yes, the tone of interactions on AVS are just out of this world. People keep acting as if nothing has happened. That if they try hard enough, they can just dismiss the results. I never know what obstacle they are going to throw at me next but so far, so good
.It has Tim but that accusation is a one-way one. That is, the subjectivists are accused of never accepting new data and changing their views. And that they are the "anti-science" crew and not them.Yeah. Thank God that never happens here.
Tim
My answer to this is that subjectivists don't make claims, not always anyway
, that their belief in audio is based on DBTs, engineering, etc. The extreme objectivists do. So they need to set the example of learning from new data. Your reaction Tim on this forum is what I expected them to have. But that is not remotely the case there. Just yesterday Arny announced that my "homework is not finished" and if I don't run his latest "IM Distortion Test" that my results are "bogus."
I notice in the files for Arny's keys, there is a slight shift in time between the tracks downsampled vs the full hirez version. Do you think that with you listening for very short periods of time this is perhaps what is letting you hear a difference? The 44.1 downsample has less lag than those of lower sample rate filtering.
The downsampled files at AVS also have a time lag for downsampled files. The AVS files also don't null out spectacularly well even when lined up. Arny's files null out better though not perfectly. Yes, the lags are small fractions of a second. Not saying you aren't hearing a difference just pondering some other reasons why it might be you are getting good blind results.
The downsampled files at AVS also have a time lag for downsampled files. The AVS files also don't null out spectacularly well even when lined up. Arny's files null out better though not perfectly. Yes, the lags are small fractions of a second. Not saying you aren't hearing a difference just pondering some other reasons why it might be you are getting good blind results.
It has Tim but that accusation is a one-way one. That is, the subjectivists are accused of never accepting new data and changing their views. And that they are the "anti-science" crew and not them.
My answer to this is that subjectivists don't make claims, not always anyway
My reaction is nothing new. I've believed you were hearing things, real things, that I don't hear for a long time, Amir. But I also believe that your training and listening abilities are very rare, and that it's not surprising that most of the folks over on AVS don't hear a difference. And are these small difference you've had to train yourself to listen for in isolated, ideal passages somehow coming through in the casual listening of the hundreds of audiophiles who have long insisted on the clear, analog-like superiority of hi res over Redbook digititis? Of that, I remain very skeptical.
Army's IMD test? Is he trying to show that the difference you hear is IMD in the audible range created by your system's reproduction of supersonic content? Pretty curious about that one myself, but it would do nothing to render your results "bogus." The fact that he swore there was no audible difference, and you demonstrated that you could differentiate them audibly, would remain.
Arny is wrong.
Have any of our most vocal subjectivists taken the test yet?
Tim
Thanks Marty. I must say, in no way did I imagine finding myself in this situation. It has been years since my listening abilities were put to test critically and I just automatically assumed I had lost them. It was just an amazing turn of events to have multiple challenges put forward and managing to meet them. And a couple of others following me just the same, at least partially.
And yes, the tone of interactions on AVS are just out of this world. People keep acting as if nothing has happened. That if they try hard enough, they can just dismiss the results. I never know what obstacle they are going to throw at me next but so far, so good
Amir, I started a thread on another forum (quiet soon after this one started) where the Obj Vs Subj row has always raged which recently had discussed using Evidence-based Vs Faith-based to define the two camps - I called my thread "Sorting out evidence-based from faith-based" & posted your results. The furore was very like the AVS crowd - denial, poo-pooing the results, questioning the integrity of the solo testers & here's the real clincher, denying that one test has any significance. For people that had demanded blind test proof of anybody that reported a subjective impression, when faced with the truth, they just couldn't handle it (as Jack Nicholson once said). I actually don't believe any of them had encountered Foobar ABX before or knew of it's existence or the notion of statistical significance
I had always called their "blind tests" half-arsed, pseudo-science & this proved it - no consideration for control of any biases other than the sighted bias.Similar threads
