Conclusive "Proof" that higher resolution audio sounds different

[jkeny]

As always, John, there is more than one way to view this. One is on face value. Using what is a proven method for discerning subtle differences, the differences were only discernible when isolated and analyzed by listeners trained to identify them. The other is to assume that the very analytical process that made the differences audible to the trained listener makes them inaudible to others, but that these subtle differences they can't hear when they try, will become obvious, over time, when they don't. I get what you and Orb are saying. But it sounds like you guys are talking yourselves into it to me.

Yea, it's always the way - when we hold a particular viewpoint we see others viewpoints as delusional - it sounds to me like you are talking yourself out of it

It should be easy enough to test. Find some audiophiles with hi-res files they're very familiar with from long-term listening. Downsample the files to 16/44.1. Then test the hi-res files against the down sampled ones. Don't rush them or put them in a strained situation. Let them listen as long as they want, go back and forth as much as they like. Take as many breaks as they like. See if they can beat the flip of a coin.

I don't imagine anyone is going to be doing that test.

Tim

Yes, probably not a practical test so it doesn't help in concluding anything. The possibility is there that their long term listening is picking up stuff that short A/Bing just can't or doesn't spot easily. It's my experience anyway.

 

[jkeny]

.

Well, first of all Orb, there are plenty of people in this hobby who think THD is not important.

Yes, too gross a measurement, not well related to what we hear. But I doubt anyone is saying that distortion is not important?

I don't really know, honestly. I just know it's very easy to avoid THD. Redbook? Not so much. And all my logic is telling you is that we should pay the most attention to that which is the most audible.

Tim

Sure, look after the big stuff but don't ignore the little stuff - it has a tendency to accumulate - you know pennies/pounds, etc.

 

[Orb]

.

Well, first of all Orb, there are plenty of people in this hobby who think THD is not important. I don't really know, honestly. I just know it's very easy to avoid THD. Redbook? Not so much. And all my logic is telling you is that we should pay the most attention to that which is the most audible.

Tim

So you never debated about euphonic distortion being liked in amps in any threads here on WBF or being critical of tube amps (not all have thd beyond 3.5% when used within spec) compared to SS?
BTW I agree it is not just about THD, but I could had sworn you get involved in those two topics I mention.
Anyway ignores the fact again another example of just how hard it is to pass, when such distortion may have a long term effect on tolerance-threshold/preference.
Cheers
Orb

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

So you never debated about euphonic distortion being liked in amps in any threads here on WBF or being critical of tube amps (not all have thd beyond 3.5% when used within spec) compared to SS?
BTW I agree it is not just about THD, but I could had sworn you get involved in those two topics I mention.
Anyway ignores the fact again another example of just how hard it is to pass, when such distortion may have a long term effect on tolerance-threshold/preference.
Cheers
Orb

Of course I have. I've also said that as you get to cleaner, more powerful tube amps, where the distortion is greatly reduced and the headroom is greatly expanded, they sound more and more like good solid state.

Tim

 

[jkeny]

Of course I have. I've also said that as you get to cleaner, more powerful tube amps, where the distortion is greatly reduced and the headroom is greatly expanded, they sound more and more like good solid state.

Tim

So does this mean that as THD moves below 3% THD it gets better sounding in long term listening but yet below 3% THD can't be audibly differentiated in A/B blind listening as per Orb's example? Or is it the headroom that is the curveball you've just thrown in there?

 

[jkeny]

Tim,
I just happened upon this quote (regarding neutrality) from you in another thread I was reading:

I'll have to set my objectivist's hat down for a second to say, this is NOT something that can be revealed in and AB/X test. It takes listening over time, to a lot of recordings you're familiar with,

I'm not squaring this up with what you are saying here

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Tim,
I just happened upon this quote (regarding neutrality) from you in another thread I was reading:


I'm not squaring this up with what you are saying here

That's because you're not really listening to what I'm saying here, john. You're too busy digging up what I've said out of this context, diverting the conversation to THD, and speculating about what might be revealed someday in the future. What I'm saying here is that what Amir has discovered and reported here indicates that while there is a difference between RB and hi res, it is so small that it requires listeners trained in recognizing those differences, and the isolation and repetition of the passages most revealing of those differences to hear them; I'm saying that we have, based on what Amir has discovered and we are discussing here in this thread, every reason to expect these differences to be inaudible under normal listening conditions.

Everything else is speculation, and a good bit of it is completely at odds with the facts presented in this thread.

Go read the rest of the post you quoted above and its context in the thread it came from. You'll understand that it doesn't require squaring up with what I'm saying here.

Tim

 

[RogerD]

The difference btween RB and HR is true HR has more information present. It is system dependent,more so then person dependent. IMHO.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

The difference btween RB and HR is true HR has more information present. It is system dependent,more so then person dependent. IMHO.

That's not supported here either, roger. In fact, Amir consistently differentiated between them using pretty.modest equipment. It's fine if you guys believe hi res is clearly superior, and that given enough time and system quality that superiority will be revealed, but there's nothing in this story, this data, backing that up. Amir's results and how he achieved them are, in fact, saying something very different from that.

Tim

 

[RogerD]

That's not supported here either, roger. In fact, Amir consistently differentiated between them using pretty.modest equipment. It's fine if you guys believe hi res is clearly superior, and that given enough time and system quality that superiority will be revealed, but there's nothing in this story, this data, backing that up. Amir's results and how he achieved them are, in fact, saying something very different from that.

Tim

If it is indeed high resolution it will be presented with more information present in that version. That's why they call it high resolution. Do most people think that high resolution is a ripoff? Even if you use modest gear,there is more information present and audible. My system is designed to highlight that information. So I guess I'm in a small minority. And it is not subtle,I guess I'm lucky,but I prefer thinking hard work is responsible.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

If it is indeed high resolution it will be presented with more information present in that version. That's why they call it high resolution. Do most people think that high resolution is a ripoff? Even if you use modest gear,there is more information present and audible. My system is designed to highlight that information. So I guess I'm in a small minority. And it is not subtle,I guess I'm lucky,but I prefer thinking hard work is responsible.

Ok

 

[amirm]

I thought I had post other people's results. If not, here is an example on AVS: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/91-au...cott-s-hi-res-audio-test-74.html#post25915361

OK, for this test I used my DIY PC. Audio is coming from of the video card's HDMI output (ATI Radeon R9 200 series). Processing is via Pioneer Elite SC-55 in Pure/Direct mode. I listened through a pair of Behringer B215XL speakers. I made one goof, but ultimately it was just as easy to tell 16/44.1 from 24/96 as it was with the laptop/headphones combo.

foo_abx 1.3.4 report
foobar2000 v1.3.2
2014/07/21 09:48:16

File A: E:\AVS\Foobar ABX\Jangling Keys\keys jangling band resolution limited 4416 2496.wav
File B: E:\AVS\Foobar ABX\Jangling Keys\keys jangling full band 2496.wav

09:48:16 : Test started.
09:50:38 : 01/01 50.0%
09:50:45 : 02/02 25.0%
09:50:54 : 03/03 12.5%
09:51:02 : 04/04 6.3%
09:51:09 : 05/05 3.1%
09:51:14 : 06/06 1.6%
09:51:22 : 07/07 0.8%
09:51:29 : 07/08 3.5%
09:51:37 : 08/09 2.0%
09:51:43 : 09/10 1.1%
09:51:47 : 10/11 0.6%
09:51:53 : 11/12 0.3%
09:51:56 : Test finished.

----------
Total: 11/12 (0.3%)

Mark (above poster) initially thought there was no way to tell the files apart and simply voted randomly. But after reconsideration, managed to find the right spot and characteristic to keep getting positive results.

Note that he is using speakers.

 

[amirm]

And his follow on post:

I now have positive results from two totally different systems.

As far as I'm concerned, at least as far as these key jangling files go, the difference between 24/96 and any of the other files is totally and reliably detectable—including the 16/44 version.

 

[Bruce B]

Has anyone seen/taken the Phillips Golden Ear challenge?

 

[esldude]

I think all of that reinforces what seems obvious, to me anyway -- these differences are insignificant to the point of meaningless. If somebody does some long-term listening and manages to show solid evidence that, over time, casual listening for pleasure can reveal what was only immediately audible through this definitively unnatural listening process, I'll be happy to be wrong. But that seems more like wishful thinking than a real possibility.

Tim

+1

The idea with special attention to a tiny segment allows one to barely distinguish a difference seems like a big leap (maybe a huge leap) to the idea it validates the idea longer term casual listening can uncover differences not heard otherwise. Plenty of other knowledge about senses along with past history of testing would seem to lean heavily in the opposite direction.

 

[esldude]

That's not supported here either, roger. In fact, Amir consistently differentiated between them using pretty.modest equipment. It's fine if you guys believe hi res is clearly superior, and that given enough time and system quality that superiority will be revealed, but there's nothing in this story, this data, backing that up. Amir's results and how he achieved them are, in fact, saying something very different from that.

Tim

I would +1 this posting as well.

Listening to a specific portion of a signal not all like music in make up, using short segments with some difficulty eventually resulted in positive discrimination. The opposite of long term listening.

If one makes the supposition long term listening is superior and more sensitive that is fine. You can test yourself using Foobar if you wish. Leave your computer running and there is no reason not to listen to A and B for days at a time, then switching to X and making your choice. All my experience, and what little knowledge I have upon such matters says the results are not at all likely to be better. Not likely to be as good. Not likely to be reliably effective at all.

Something so difficult to discern under peculiar conditions seems very likely to be swamped by mood, extraneous noise changes, stress, health and a host of other factors which change unpredictably and uncontrollably over long term listening.

What is likely is one is quite likely when doing such long term auditioning sighted to convince and become comfortable with the idea item A is better than or worse than item B. To have the feeling quite strongly. This is a common human tendency whether or not there are any differences.

 

[Orb]

Of course I have. I've also said that as you get to cleaner, more powerful tube amps, where the distortion is greatly reduced and the headroom is greatly expanded, they sound more and more like good solid state.

Tim

Sorry Tim, therefore if you say 3% thd does not matter due to what others say and the fact it takes trained listeners to even hear down to this % with blind comparison (plus the quote from Keith Howard), then you really have nothing to say about "euphonic" distortion or being critical of most tube amps (because much of your dislike regarding tubes is general), this reduces your complaint to only the weakest tube SETs used beyond spec.
Does feel you are applying different rules to passing hirez; especially when as we say ABX is about identifying differences and does not correlate with long term listening (could say the same about moderate high thd) and tolerance-threshold/preference.

You keep saying such as

every reason to expect these differences to be inaudible under normal listening conditions

But as some keep saying you are seriously and wrongly taking a conclusion too far due to the challenges of doing blind ABX comparisons for subtle differences.
BTW do you also have a very cheap DAC because it takes a trained listener to be able to tell differences with most filters; seems you take a bit of what some know about ABX and ignore the rest of what they know about ABX or blind comparison listening

Anyway I will be watching those other threads like a hawk I say.. A Hawk!!!
Sorry for digressing from the real point.
Thanks
Orb

 

[Orb]

I would +1 this posting as well.

Listening to a specific portion of a signal not all like music in make up, using short segments with some difficulty eventually resulted in positive discrimination. The opposite of long term listening.

If one makes the supposition long term listening is superior and more sensitive that is fine. You can test yourself using Foobar if you wish. Leave your computer running and there is no reason not to listen to A and B for days at a time, then switching to X and making your choice. All my experience, and what little knowledge I have upon such matters says the results are not at all likely to be better. Not likely to be as good. Not likely to be reliably effective at all.

Something so difficult to discern under peculiar conditions seems very likely to be swamped by mood, extraneous noise changes, stress, health and a host of other factors which change unpredictably and uncontrollably over long term listening.

What is likely is one is quite likely when doing such long term auditioning sighted to convince and become comfortable with the idea item A is better than or worse than item B. To have the feeling quite strongly. This is a common human tendency whether or not there are any differences.

As I keep saying, many really do not appreciate the challenges for ANY subtle ABX test.
History has shown with some results we should all be using lossy recordings/no need for more than 30fps in visual-games/do not even need 16bits/no difference between 720 and 1080 for under 40" screens/bit resolution for visual/no need for greater than true 60hz screens/etc/plasma vs lcd on performance (earlier days of lcd)/etc.
There is a big list when one considers also visual and diverse blind comparison, some eventually have changed.
Sure Amir and JA can think of a few examples where it takes a well trained subject to pass some things one takes for granted these days.

Cheers
Orb

 

[jkeny]

It seems to me that we are all making suppositions (except maybe Orb)
The evidence presented here says nothing about whether 24/96 is BETTER sounding than 16/44 - all that can be concluded is that they are different (it could be 16/44 actually sounds better)
The evidence here says nothing about long term testing results
The evidence here also says nothing about how difficult it is to pass an ABX test:
- it seems there are two ways, do it like Amir & others where training oneself to differentiate a particular section(s) is required
- OR do it like others did reported by Amir & me - use relaxed listening & just choose ( I suggest that this is akin to long term listening)

We already have evidence that <3% THD is not differentiable in ABX yet I would suggest is very much differentiable in long term listening & I'm sure there are other examples

 

[jkeny]

That's because you're not really listening to what I'm saying here, john. You're too busy digging up what I've said out of this context, diverting the conversation to THD, and speculating about what might be revealed someday in the future.

I'm sorry, Tim, I have not been on WBF for a while but I see most things are still the same - you accusing me of not understanding what you are saying & making assumptions that I'm off searching for your other posts. I was looking through some latest threads that I thought I might be interested in & came across that particular post of yours in the the "Neutrality & Timbrel pallette" thread. It struck me as cogent to your position here so I quoted a part of it - here is the full paragraph quoted

The other interesting concept is "neutrality," not in the objective sense of a comparison of the incoming and out-going signals, but as a subjective characteristic of sound reproduction. I think neutrality is actually more substantive and easier to describe and identify than "musical" or the benchmark of the "original event," and I think that has been exemplified here as well. When a component reveals the differences between recordings more clearly (brass doesn't all sound the same), it is more neutral -- more of the recording is coming through, the component is putting on less of its own sonic stamp. More neutral. More transparent. I'll have to set my objectivist's hat down for a second to say, this is NOT something that can be revealed in and AB/X test. It takes listening over time, to a lot of recordings you're familiar with, but ultimately, I think it is a lot more substantive than "musicality" or the benchmark of the "original event."

I hope you don't want me to repost the entire post - that just the paragraph will do for context?

What I'm saying here is that what Amir has discovered and reported here indicates that while there is a difference between RB and hi res, it is so small that it requires listeners trained in recognizing those differences, and the isolation and repetition of the passages most revealing of those differences to hear them;

Yes, indicates to you as an opinion but not as an established fact & your suppositions could well be wrong unless you have further evidence to support your position - do you accept that?

I'm saying that we have, based on what Amir has discovered and we are discussing here in this thread, every reason to expect these differences to be inaudible under normal listening conditions.

Again, this is just an opinion & is not supported by the evidence. It is a supposition not supported by any other evidence, AFAIA.

Everything else is speculation, and a good bit of it is completely at odds with the facts presented in this thread.

In fact you are guilty of exactly what you are saying here "speculation, and a good bit of it is completely at odds with the facts presented in this thread" (sorry if this is quoting you out of context More evidence points to the fact that ABX when using focussed listening is very difficult to obtain positive results but examples of "relaxed listening" are also evidence that it is possible to pass it in this manner & it requires no particular effort (so in this I disagree with my earlier statements where I agreed with Orb about the difficulty of ABX testing).

Go read the rest of the post you quoted above and its context in the thread it came from. You'll understand that it doesn't require squaring up with what I'm saying here.

Tim

The only other meaning I can gather from re-reading your post I quoted is that you think neutrality cannot be tested using ABX for practical reasons? I don't think this is what you meant, however, as you say "more of the recording is coming through, the component is putting on less of its own sonic stamp. More neutral. More transparent." - I don't see why you are saying this could not be practically tested in ABX. You also say "When a component reveals the differences between recordings more clearly (brass doesn't all sound the same), it is more neutral" & I don't understand why this can't be tested using ABX.

The only conclusion I could draw was that you felt ABX not suitable & long term listening more suitable but please correct my conclusion, if it's wrong