Science proves Hi res is better

[Gregadd]

People can hear the difference in high resolution audio, study finds

Listeners can hear a difference between standard audio and better than CD quality, known as high resolution audio, according to a new study. The study compared data from over 12,000 different trials from 18 studies where participants were asked to discriminate between samples of music in...

www.sciencedaily.com

 

[spiritofmusic]

I bet very few of them really care or are gonna buy a system that will benefit.

 

[Powerman]

What's the demos of those studied? What is the resolution? At what point can they not tell a difference? Is sample rate important, or bit rate? DSD or PCM?

 

[Gregadd]

All good questions for the skeptics. I think the paper was published in the AES journal. Access is not free.

 

[Ian B]

There is no paywall, you can download and read it for free here: https://www.aes.org/tmpFiles/elib/20230218/18296.pdf

This is a meta-study of all current available high res comparison studies and does not differentiate between various sample rates or PCM vs DSD. The overall conclusion is that better than CD quality sources as a group are differentiated by listeners by a small margin, and moreso when the listeners had ear-training or preparation. In the paper there is also a specific takedown of the infamous Meyer- Moran study that was wielded heavily by high res detractors.

 

[Gregadd]

Going down swinging, eh?
So what would you require as proof? You don't like anecdotal evidence. You don't like scientific evidence. Are you just assuming the null? It is sort of like Real Clear politics. They take an average of the polls.
A small margin is good enough. That means hi res is real. Dr. Sean Olive says trained listeners and amateurs pero\from virtually the same. It 's is just trained listeners get there faster and give more detailed descriptions.
Finally I do not really need to read the study, I hear the difference. It's just fun to watch the mental contortions to avoid the obvious. A wise man said, "when the evidence changes, I change my opinion."

 

[Gregadd]

I think you may have done a little cherry picking Ian. That' is ok My eyes are getting a little red. I will read the article with my Sunday morning coffee Thanks for the link. Here is the syllabus: Emphasis is supplied.

There is considerable debate over the benefits of recording and rendering high resolution audio, i.e., systems and formats that are capable of rendering beyond CD quality audio. We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the ability of test subjects to perceive a difference between high resolution and standard, 16 bit, 44.1 or 48 kHz audio. All 18 published experiments for which sufficient data could be obtained were included, providing a meta-analysis involving over 400 participants in over 12,500 trials. Results showed a small but statistically significant ability of test subjects to discriminate high resolution content, and this effect increased dramatically when test subjects received extensive training. This result was verified by a sensitivity analysis exploring different choices for the chosen studies and different analysis approaches. Potential biases in studies, effect of test methodology, experimental design, and choice of stimuli were also investigated. The overall conclusion is that the perceived fidelity of an audio recording and playback chain can be affected by operating beyond conventional levels.

 

[rDin]

Invalid link...

 

[Ian B]

Invalid link...

Strange, it seems to work some of the time. Maybe the problem is loading the PDF. You can click through this page and access the same document: https://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=18296

 

[rDin]

That worked. Thank you.

 

[Gregadd]

hmm...????obviously it worked for me..

 

[Al M.]

Was the mastering of all the musical material at diverse bit and sample rates identical? Was it done according the best/most recent standards? Did the DACs employed have an optimum for certain formats or were they of such a quality that they handled any format evenly?

All of the above would be necessary preconditions to even suggest a "scientific proof". Regardless of the question if otherwise scientific standards were rigorously met in those studies.

 

[Gregadd]

Don't fight he hypothetical.

 

[Shuggie]

Hi Res can definitely make a positive difference - I have some Naim recordings in standard Red Book and either 96kHz/24bit or 192kHz/24bit, and the hi-res versions demonstrate better and finer detail resolution, and unquestionably better spacial resolution. But, those are all very well recorded and mastered recordings, where the original master was natively hi-res. I have plenty of other hi-res recordings which are, in comparison to original CD format, no better in terms of resolution, and often musically bowdlerised. Among my worst purchases is a 24bit/96kHz download of Steely Dan's Gaucho - as dull as ditchwater, but maybe that describes the album. It's not just digital, though: last year curiosity led me to buy a copy of Carole King's Tapestry, expensively re-issued on two 45rpm records by Mobile Fidelity - superficially 'nicer' sound but musically less engaging than an LP copy bought sometime in the early 80s.

Ultimately, the quality of the original recording and mastering is what matters most, and not whether it's hi-res.

 

[Al M.]

Don't fight he hypothetical.

There is nothing hypothetical about it.

For example, I have the in audiophile circles famous "Cantate Domino" recording with choir, vocal soloists and organ on the Propius label on two different discs. One is the standalone CD, the other is the SACD version. I don't know how the SACD layer sounds on that disc, since I don't have an SACD player. However, the CD layer on the SACD is clearly inferior in sound to the same format on the standalone CD.

If the SACD layer on the SACD is at least as good as the standalone CD, then when comparing the two layers on just the SACD disc you would of course conclude that SACD is superior. Mastering and manufacturing matters.

When the first SACDs came out in 1998, some magazines ran frequency spectra on the two layers on the discs. They were different, and not just above 20 kHz. Different masterings for the SACD and CD layers. Comparing apples and oranges.

 

[Al M.]

To be sure, I am *not* claiming that there is no intrinsic difference between the formats, all other things being equal.

However, the "all other things being equal" clause must be rigorously met, in the ways I described, before even remotely being able to hold up a study in a triumphant manner and claiming, "see, scientific proof".

Sorry, I am a scientist myself, and I take these things seriously from a professional standard point of view.

 

[Gregadd]

The hypothetical is "the question presented. If you add or detract to or from it you have changed the question. I would be the last to disqualify your anecdotal evidence.

 

[Gregadd]

To be sure, I am *not* claiming that there is no intrinsic difference between the formats, all other things being equal.

However, the "all other things being equal" clause must be rigorously met, in the ways I described, before even remotely being able to hold up a study in a triumphant manner and claiming, "see, scientific proof".

Sorry, I am a scientist myself, and I take these things seriously from a professional standard point of view.

I am a lay person. Is not that the argument that the higher the resolution the better the sound? How are all things going to ever be equal? Rather than perform yet another test with all its inherent pitfalls, the author decided to analyze the existing dat. It seems fair enough to me. You can understand my frustration. In another informal blind test of power cords on this, I am chastised for being strict in calling a proper double blind protocol. Even though it is they who are relying on the test. Now I have members saying scientist are not being strict enough.

Be that as it may if you are "*not*claiming there is no difference between the formats..." I have no further argument with you.

 

[Al M.]

Hi Res can definitely make a positive difference - I have some Naim recordings in standard Red Book and either 96kHz/24bit or 192kHz/24bit, and the hi-res versions demonstrate better and finer detail resolution, and unquestionably better spacial resolution. But, those are all very well recorded and mastered recordings, where the original master was natively hi-res. I have plenty of other hi-res recordings which are, in comparison to original CD format, no better in terms of resolution, and often musically bowdlerised. Among my worst purchases is a 24bit/96kHz download of Steely Dan's Gaucho - as dull as ditchwater, but maybe that describes the album. It's not just digital, though: last year curiosity led me to buy a copy of Carole King's Tapestry, expensively re-issued on two 45rpm records by Mobile Fidelity - superficially 'nicer' sound but musically less engaging than an LP copy bought sometime in the early 80s.

Ultimately, the quality of the original recording and mastering is what matters most, and not whether it's hi-res.

Exactly my experience as well. I also have heard hi-res files that sounded hopelessly inferior to the CD format. Does that mean hi-res is inferior? Of course not, it was just bad mastering. But that cuts in the other direction, too.

 

[Gregadd]

Exactly my experience as well. I also have heard hi-res files that sounded hopelessly inferior to the CD format. Does that mean hi-res is inferior? Of course not, it was just bad mastering. But that cuts in the other direction, too.

Oh come on as a scientist you can do better than the old bad recording argument. As a veteran of the digital vs analog wars tha t one has been done to death.