Page 3 of 156 FirstFirst 1234567891011121353103 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 1555

Thread: Conclusive "Proof" that higher resolution audio sounds different

  1. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    16,051
    Quote Originally Posted by jkeny View Post
    OK, you deserve to bask in some glory for a while
    Oh, that was not the intent of my post at all. I have promised Scott not to provide hints to listeners while he is collecting data.

    I am actually hoping that more people hear these differences. Hate to be the only one on this as the message will only become stronger if more people are able to hear it.

    Can I get more people to try Arny's 32 Khz test? That is one that should be audible to everyone and I like to make that case abundantly clear. Thanks for trying it John.

  2. #22
    Member Sponsor Addicted to Best!
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    3,360
    I started to redo the test using an older DAC (ES9023 based one) I have here & noticed that the Foobar ABX utility introduces (or emphasises) clicks in the playback (some in the left ear, some right & maybe some in both) that aren't as noticeable (or even evident) when I play the same file in Foobar outside of the ABX utility - hmmm??

    Of course I can't ABX that difference using ABX

    Anybody else get this? It's particularly evident around 8 secs or so but pops up intermittently through the tracks.

    So I didn't go any further with the test until I figure this out

    Is there a replay gain in ABX as this might explain the issue - the ES9023 is prone to digital clipping at digital 0dB? (I don't have replaygain ticked on in ABX, BTW)
    I'll get another non ES9023 DAC & try
    Manufacturer digital products www.Ciunas.biz
    "The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin.

  3. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by amirm View Post
    Those issues are dismissed out of hand though. My tests pull that back in the realm of possibility and now, expecting a different explanation than "it can't happen."
    Dismissed out of hand?

    What can't happen?

    tb1

  4. #24
    Member Sponsor Addicted to Best!
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    3,360
    Nope, I'm also getting it with another DAC - curiouser & curiouser

    Edit: OK solved it. I'm using headphones directly into the back of the DACs which are not meant for driving headphones directly so at full volume they distort. I was playing the tracks in Foobar with the Foobar's volume slightly reduced = no distortion but ABX plays at full volume = distortion.

    Have to go another route to ABXing these files with a decent DAC as I don't have a headphone amplifier

    Sorry for the hiccup
    Last edited by jkeny; 07-14-2014 at 10:11 AM.
    Manufacturer digital products www.Ciunas.biz
    "The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin.

  5. #25
    Member Sponsor Addicted to Best!
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    3,360
    Quote Originally Posted by amirm View Post
    Oh, that was not the intent of my post at all. I have promised Scott not to provide hints to listeners while he is collecting data.

    I am actually hoping that more people hear these differences. Hate to be the only one on this as the message will only become stronger if more people are able to hear it.

    Can I get more people to try Arny's 32 Khz test? That is one that should be audible to everyone and I like to make that case abundantly clear. Thanks for trying it John.
    I know, I was pulling your leg, slightly
    I need to get a decent headphone playback as I don't consider laptop headphone output to be up to the job, particularly when using Microsoft DS - sorry Amir
    But it may be that it also needs a trained ear to notice the difference? Even if you gave the particular aspect that you can hear that is different between the tracks, it wouldn't invalidate the test because it is done blind through ABX - if you see what I'm getting at
    Manufacturer digital products www.Ciunas.biz
    "The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin.

  6. #26
    There's no victory here for anyone at the extremes. Those who have held the position that there cannot possibly be an audible difference between Redbook and high res have just had the bottom pulled out of that position. Those who have held that the difference is clearly audible, and especially those who have claimed that Redbook is not even hi-resolution, terrible, unlistenable...name your hyperbole...have just been shown that it takes a guy trained in hearing digital artifacts and who did so as a part of his job description, listening to the simplest of files, zeroing in on the parts of those files that reveal the artifacts the most...etc., etc., to hear what they've been claiming to be the difference between beautiful music and digital noise. This result hardly supports their position, but it does support that the odds are very high that very few of them could pass the test Amir took.

    That's got to be embarrassing to any who have the humility to suffer embarrassment.

    The next question, of course, is what did Amir hear? It would be interesting to re-run the test with the hi-res files brick walled above 20khz.

    Tim
    In high-end audio, you can't even fight an opinion with the facts.

  7. #27
    Addicted to Best! RogerD's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    BiggestLittleCity
    Posts
    2,848
    Quote Originally Posted by Phelonious Ponk View Post
    There's no victory here for anyone at the extremes. Those who have held the position that there cannot possibly be an audible difference between Redbook and high res have just had the bottom pulled out of that position. Those who have held that the difference is clearly audible, and especially those who have claimed that Redbook is not even hi-resolution, terrible, unlistenable...name your hyperbole...have just been shown that it takes a guy trained in hearing digital artifacts and who did so as a part of his job description, listening to the simplest of files, zeroing in on the parts of those files that reveal the artifacts the most...etc., etc., to hear what they've been claiming to be the difference between beautiful music and digital noise. This result hardly supports their position, but it does support that the odds are very high that very few of them could pass the test Amir took.

    That's got to be embarrassing to any who have the humility to suffer embarrassment.

    The next question, of course, is what did Amir hear? It would be interesting to re-run the test with the hi-res files brick walled above 20khz.

    Tim
    All digital is high resolution. Redbook is high resolution,but more micro and ambient information is discernable in so called "high resoltion". Everything boils down to system resolution.
    Speakers: ParAcas Satellites ParAcas Dual 16 subwoofer Velodyne FSR18 Fulton Little Maestros Mission speakers
    Electronics: Agtron Platinum Mono Blocks Accuphase C200 preamp Accuphase P300 amplifer Parasound amplifier ParAcas Sierra electronic crossover
    Digital: Monarchy NM24 DAC Sony DVD Transport
    Tuner: McIntosh MR78
    Cables: NBS Statement,Pro,Master Cables, Nirvana Digital SPDIF Cable
    Turntable: Linn LP12 Technics 1200
    RTR: Ampex 350,351,440BC,MR70
    Studer C37 60hz,Crown 2-844,824

  8. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by RogerD View Post
    All digital is high resolution. Redbook is high resolution,but more micro and ambient information is discernable in so called "high resoltion". Everything boils down to system resolution.
    Yes. It is.

    Tim
    In high-end audio, you can't even fight an opinion with the facts.

  9. #29
    [WBF Founding Member] Ron Party's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Oakland, CA
    Posts
    2,457
    Quote Originally Posted by amirm View Post
    Those issues are dismissed out of hand though. My tests pull that back in the realm of possibility and now, expecting a different explanation than "it can't happen."
    Hi Amir.

    I've been lurking at that AVS thread and the related ones since their inceptions. For now, at least, the tunnel vision objectivists about whom Terry wrote seem to have gone mute.

    I've been curious since you posted the results of your tests at AVS. What do you suppose is/are the technical reason/reasons why you were able to pass as you did? ADC and/or DAC? Conversion algorithms? Other?

    Before reaching any hang your hat here conclusions, I'd like to see more tests run with real music, of course, but also with different microphones, ADCs and DACs.
    Peace.

    Ron Party

  10. #30
    Addicted to Best!
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    3,022
    Ron,
    problem with using real music is that your trying to differentiate on a complex moving target, this is important to note when doing ABX.
    I mentioned in the past the only real way to really pass reliably ABX in these scenarios would be to use very short segment that will highlight-emphasise a specific trait that does not rely upon usual audiophile listening patterns-behaviour to music.
    I think J. Gordon Holt said something similar in the past, to reliably pass blind test it requires very specific sound-music-note "engineered" to assist in perceiving a trait-characteristic.
    This sound can be found in music but would be a very short window in a short segment, worst way is to try and analyse whole segment/music track for comparison.
    Engineered meaning time taken to find right music-sound-instrument note-etc played for the system-solution-components used.

    I would say longer listening segment/tracks would be useful in identifying potential preferences-tolerances-thresholds, but then the cognitive approach would be different while the aim of the test for many would be to argue whether they are audbly different.

    Cheers
    Orb
    Last edited by Orb; 07-14-2014 at 02:36 PM.

Page 3 of 156 FirstFirst 1234567891011121353103 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 109
    Last Post: 06-04-2016, 03:51 AM
  2. Replies: 41
    Last Post: 08-25-2015, 12:58 AM
  3. "Fast" and "slow" subwoofers: can we put them to bed?
    By twelti in forum Todd Welti Discusses Subwoofers In Rooms
    Replies: 50
    Last Post: 08-16-2015, 12:34 AM
  4. This is what "real" bass looks and sounds like
    By amirm in forum General Audio Forum
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 11-27-2012, 12:20 PM
  5. The "Best" Crash Proof Motor Bike
    By audioguy in forum Best Online and You Tube Videos Forum
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 08-11-2010, 07:34 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •