Conclusive "Proof" that higher resolution audio sounds different

microstrip

VIP/Donor
May 30, 2010
20,806
4,698
2,790
Portugal
(...) 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. (...).

Amir,

Unfortunately I am away from my system and I will not be able to take this test any soon. But reading your words it seems that any average listener will notice the differences.
 

Ron Party

WBF Founding Member
Apr 30, 2010
2,457
13
0
Oakland, CA
Hi Ron. All three of Scott's clips are real music from AIX records. They are not artificial sounds.
Good points, Amir. I was internalizing, I suppose, when I wrote real music. I'm thinking of something like King Crimson, where masking might play a more significant role.

These tests are proper Ron. They are level matched and carefully created. Per above, they are also real music. And I used a common ABX comparator.
I did not mean to suggest in any way they were not. Apologies if my words came across as such. I was speaking, perhaps ineloquently, to the claims we've all read that long term and not short term listening is what is required to reliably and repeatably detect certain differences. I know you have a working grasp of all of the AES literature. Are you aware of any ABX or other blind tests which involved such long term listening?

And, allow me to reiterate my question to you: any speculation on your part as the technical reason why you nailed these tests?
 

Phelonious Ponk

New Member
Jun 30, 2010
8,677
23
0
these days i see expressions of preference, but very little, if any, actual condemnation of redbook you are describing. on WBF i cannot think of one person who pushes an opinion of redbook as unlistenable digital trash. i think there are folks who have not gone to the trouble to listen to a current good digital source so don't know about current digital performance.....but typically you won't find them within 10 miles of a forum thread about digital. they simply ignore it.

They're usually found in the typical analog vs digital threads, where they concede that only the highest resolutions of digital are acceptable, and that Redbook is almost intolerable. I doubt they could hear the difference, but never mind reality. Wait for the next one of those threads to come along and lurk in. You'll see what I'm talking about.

Tim
 
Last edited:

Phelonious Ponk

New Member
Jun 30, 2010
8,677
23
0
Good points, Amir. I was internalizing, I suppose, when I wrote real music. I'm thinking of something like King Crimson, where masking might play a more significant role.


I did not mean to suggest in any way they were not. Apologies if my words came across as such. I was speaking, perhaps ineloquently, to the claims we've all read that long term and not short term listening is what is required to reliably and repeatably detect certain differences. I know you have a working grasp of all of the AES literature. Are you aware of any ABX or other blind tests which involved such long term listening?

And, allow me to reiterate my question to you: any speculation on your part as the technical reason why you nailed these tests?

How would you even do that? Blind test at the beginning, then ask the subjects to spend a dedicated amount of time per day/week listening to and comparing the same file in Redbook and hi-res, then re-testing blind after some time? That would be training, not long-term listening. Shouldn't a regular listener who has both hi-res and rebook files in his collection already be a long-term listener, able to distinguish between them in AB/X listening?

Tim
 

Don Hills

Well-Known Member
Jun 20, 2013
366
1
323
Wellington, New Zealand
...
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.

Amir,
You've acknowledged that the equipment you were using isn't anything special in terms of sound quality.
Jkeny has already found that some equipment (or in his case, the way he was using it) can produce spurious results.
It may be that the equipment you used is a less than competent performer at high frequencies. I hope that you may consider repeating the test using a different set of equipment, of known good provenance, and see if you hear the same differences with the same clarity.

I can attest to the use of jangling keys as a test signal. When I was a child, I was given a small reel-to-reel tape recorder. It did an OK job on voice and music. But one day I recorded a length of chain jangling and the playback sounded nothing like the original. Finding out why sparked my lifetime interest in audio technology.
 

amirm

Banned
Apr 2, 2010
15,813
37
0
Seattle, WA
Good points, Amir. I was internalizing, I suppose, when I wrote real music. I'm thinking of something like King Crimson, where masking might play a more significant role.


I did not mean to suggest in any way they were not. Apologies if my words came across as such. I was speaking, perhaps ineloquently, to the claims we've all read that long term and not short term listening is what is required to reliably and repeatably detect certain differences. I know you have a working grasp of all of the AES literature. Are you aware of any ABX or other blind tests which involved such long term listening?
No worries Ron. As to your question, no I don't. I am a strong believer in long term testing making this kind of testing harder, not easier so I am the wrong guy to ask :).

And, allow me to reiterate my question to you: any speculation on your part as the technical reason why you nailed these tests?
I will honestly want to test more before speculating. As a minimum I like to isolate the effects of 16 and 24 bit from sampling rate. I think this is probably the "high order bit." Maybe dither is causing low level detail to be covered.

The 32 Khz file surprised me. I just didn't expect the difference to be so noticeable.

When I have time (and motivation :) ) I will do some follow up tests.
 

amirm

Banned
Apr 2, 2010
15,813
37
0
Seattle, WA
Amir,

Unfortunately I am away from my system and I will not be able to take this test any soon. But reading your words it seems that any average listener will notice the differences.
Two people on AVS ran the comparison and could not tell the difference. So maybe what I perceive to be large difference, isn't :).
 

Al M.

VIP/Donor
Sep 10, 2013
8,681
4,470
963
Greater Boston
They're usually found in the typical analog vs digital threads, where they concede that only the highest resolutions of digital are acceptable, and that Redbook is almost intolerable. I doubt they could hear the difference, but never mind reality. Wait for the next one of those threads to come along and lurk in. You'll see what I'm talking about.

Indeed.
 

RogerD

VIP/Donor
May 23, 2010
3,734
318
565
BiggestLittleCity
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. YMMV
 

Orb

New Member
Sep 8, 2010
3,010
2
0
No worries Ron. As to your question, no I don't. I am a strong believer in long term testing making this kind of testing harder, not easier so I am the wrong guy to ask :).


I will honestly want to test more before speculating. As a minimum I like to isolate the effects of 16 and 24 bit from sampling rate. I think this is probably the "high order bit." Maybe dither is causing low level detail to be covered.

The 32 Khz file surprised me. I just didn't expect the difference to be so noticeable.

When I have time (and motivation :) ) I will do some follow up tests.

If you are checking into isolating bit depth from sampling rate, maybe use a different DAC with its own filter/DAC architecture-implementation or have a DAC that allows one to enable different filters.
It is quite possible that the filter implementation used can make it easier/harder IMO, but that would not explain the 16bit and 24bit aspect (which I think you are probably right regarding subtle effects potentially caused by dither and studio processes involved such as editing-mixing-mastering).

Cheers
Orb
 

Phelonious Ponk

New Member
Jun 30, 2010
8,677
23
0
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. YMMV

Did you AB/X?

This thread needs to rise from the dead. It is probably one of the most significant threads on this board since Sean Olive stopped posting here. It reveals misconceptions on both sides, carries profound implications for the hobby. And yet it got the participation of a handful of people and died a quick death. Are we not interested in what is real? Would we rather hold on to what we've decided to believe and look the other way in the face of real evidence?

Tim
 

audioguy

WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
2,794
73
1,635
Near Atlanta, GA but not too near!
I am intrigued by Amir's ability to hear the difference. He has worked in this field and apparently has the ears (and brain) t know what to listen for. I have done blind test of music recored in 16/44 and 24/96 and could hear no difference. That could be because I have old ears and/or equipment that is not up to snuff.

I wonder, however, if he were to listen to a full cut of "regular" music (classical, jazz, rock) and do a similar test if the results would be the same --- or would the "differences" be buried in the music.

From my perspective, hearing differences in individual segments of sound (rattling of keys or even music) means little to nothing in the grand scheme of things if the difference becomes inaudible when a full music score is played.
 

Orb

New Member
Sep 8, 2010
3,010
2
0
I am intrigued by Amir's ability to hear the difference. He has worked in this field and apparently has the ears (and brain) t know what to listen for. I have done blind test of music recored in 16/44 and 24/96 and could hear no difference. That could be because I have old ears and/or equipment that is not up to snuff.

I wonder, however, if he were to listen to a full cut of "regular" music (classical, jazz, rock) and do a similar test if the results would be the same --- or would the "differences" be buried in the music.

From my perspective, hearing differences in individual segments of sound (rattling of keys or even music) means little to nothing in the grand scheme of things if the difference becomes inaudible when a full music score is played.

That would be like doing ABX picture comparison on a full on action movie and doing a subtle spot the difference test that pops up once in awhile.
Why make it harder than it needs to be?
If a musical note or short segment has identifiable cues, then it comes down to then working out why it was perceived; it does not matter how short the segment or sound used is as long as it pertains to context of music; therefore it can be simplistic as part of a note sung by a human/snare-hihat/drum/piano note-chords/etc to as complex as a full orchestra playing a specific part of a symphony.

Sorry to say but I really feel many underestimate just how hard a subtle blind audio ABX test is, and why it is essential to identify and lock onto specific cues that one may think exists (only proven after the test and results given).
This can take a lot of time itself as one becomes very familiar with the music-traits-characteristics of the source music/choosing the right music-sounds and selecting on where to lock on to do ABX test.
IMO just because it may be very difficult to successfully pass the ABX as did Amir, this does not mean its long term effect on satisfaction-preference-tolerance is negligible; it might help to show there is a real (beyond perception-cognitive biases) reason why there are those who do say they prefer some of the hirez out there (bearing in mind not all hirez is actually native or without issues).

Cheers
Orb
 

Al M.

VIP/Donor
Sep 10, 2013
8,681
4,470
963
Greater Boston
That would be like doing ABX picture comparison on a full on action movie and doing a subtle spot the difference test that pops up once in awhile.
Why make it harder than it needs to be?

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

jkeny

Industry Expert, Member Sponsor
Feb 9, 2012
3,374
42
383
Ireland
But then it would seem that the difference between 16/44 and hi-rez is insignificant, in the grander scheme of things.

Right, but then the difference between music played using some MP3 & 16/44 is also insignificant so let's standardise on that??
 

Ron Party

WBF Founding Member
Apr 30, 2010
2,457
13
0
Oakland, CA
IMO just because it may be very difficult to successfully pass the ABX as did Amir, this does not mean its long term effect on satisfaction-preference-tolerance is negligible; it might help to show there is a real (beyond perception-cognitive biases) reason why there are those who do say they prefer some of the hirez out there (bearing in mind not all hirez is actually native or without issues).

Cheers
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:>
 

MylesBAstor

Well-Known Member
Apr 20, 2010
11,236
81
1,725
New York City
I am intrigued by Amir's ability to hear the difference. He has worked in this field and apparently has the ears (and brain) t know what to listen for. I have done blind test of music recored in 16/44 and 24/96 and could hear no difference. That could be because I have old ears and/or equipment that is not up to snuff.

I wonder, however, if he were to listen to a full cut of "regular" music (classical, jazz, rock) and do a similar test if the results would be the same --- or would the "differences" be buried in the music.

From my perspective, hearing differences in individual segments of sound (rattling of keys or even music) means little to nothing in the grand scheme of things if the difference becomes inaudible when a full music score is played.

Isn't that the point? That differences do indeed exist but when the brain is forced to concentrate on too many variables (and overwhelm the brain's very limited short term memory and processing power), perception suffers as a result? That's basic testing 101 and has been known for decades. (See inverted U theory or why pianists want to perform with the least stress and maximize perceptual abilities) That's why simply playing music and just asking is there a difference is the absolute wrong way to examine perceptual differences. But once, as Amir has talked about numerous times, you know what to listen for, identification becomes much easier.

Why do you thing Madrigal's testing scheme is organized the way that it is? From one FR aberration to testing many at the same time?
 

thedudeabides

Well-Known Member
Jan 16, 2011
2,126
651
1,200
Alto, NM
Are we not interested in what is real?
Tim

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.
 

FrantzM

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
6,455
29
405
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.

Very difficult to replicate if you don't quantify, sometimes, somewhere ..
Quantification is needed.

Interesting thread. Will come back to it later ..maybe if times permit.
 

About us

  • What’s Best Forum is THE forum for high end audio, product reviews, advice and sharing experiences on the best of everything else. This is THE place where audiophiles and audio companies discuss vintage, contemporary and new audio products, music servers, music streamers, computer audio, digital-to-analog converters, turntables, phono stages, cartridges, reel-to-reel tape machines, speakers, headphones and tube and solid-state amplification. Founded in 2010 What’s Best Forum invites intelligent and courteous people of all interests and backgrounds to describe and discuss the best of everything. From beginners to life-long hobbyists to industry professionals, we enjoy learning about new things and meeting new people, and participating in spirited debates.

Quick Navigation

User Menu

Steve Williams
Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator
Ron Resnick
Site Co-Owner | Administrator
Julian (The Fixer)
Website Build | Marketing Managersing