Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Samson]

This is NOT intended to be a provocative post, I'm keen to hear genuine opinions based on listening.Hi Rez music seems to be one of the least objectionable areas for those that think audiophiles are nuts.......

I'm an audiophile with a high-end system and hear differences in things like cables,yep,pure sacrilege in this forum I believe.What I dont hear is differences in Hi rez 24bit 192 k sound ! I think its a croc,well mostly. What I have heard from places downloading hi rez is hi rez digitisations of the original master tapes (or sometimes not even that).They sound no better than the poorly recorded master tapes....garbage in,garbage out, just now highly resolved garbage. I have amassed multiple recordings in high rez from the stones and many other artists with claims of being remastered in hi rez, all with the same conclusion, they are no better than the 16/44 versions (to my ears).The same goes for DSD,SACD (tons of them out of japan) etc....and believe me I want to hear a difference ! The Beatles catalogue which was re-engineered I believe by George Martin does sound better to me but I have them in 16 bit/ 44 ! I have heard some good sounding stuff that was recorded in Hi rez and played back at high rez....but like the old Chesky stuff, its music you dont want to really listen to.I believe they sound good because they were well recorded by artists and engineers that cared about quality. Typically people selling hi rez music players put on great sounding hi rez music but it sounds just as great in 16/44, like Rebecca Pidgeon, because it was well recorded in the first place. I can play some tracks recorded in the 1950's or earlier,Louis armstrong with ella fitzgerald, Harry Belafonte and some stuff recorded with old valve mics, that will knock your socks off from an audiophile sound quality, well at least compared to many of the crappy productions of most CD's recorded decades later.Then again some CD's sound fabulous. So the promise of high rez high-end sound, for me at least, is just that, a promise. Interestingly there was a "scientific" article explaining why hi rez sounds worse due to intermodulation distortion I think but I dont believe that either.

Pick up a copy of a Holly Cole Cd or download it. Even if you dont like the music (which I do, especially the Tom waits covers album Temptation) the sound quality is great. Much of Mary Black stuff, old cds, but pretty good sound.Also try jennifer warnes the Hunter….all 16/44.Then play a 24/192 remastered recording of the stones and it sound awful.

Where I was really hoping the hi rez would really help was for music which typically sounds bad on any recording and that is busy or congested soundtracks and harsh tones of the human voice when belting out at loud volumes.

[jmschnur]

I am finding a general improvement upscaling to 88.4 for my ripped CDs.

[ajowers]

I have spent a good bit of money trying to gain an improvement.  I purchased the Audiophilleo USB->SPDIF device which is then connected to my REGA DAC and then into my system.  My speakers are the GoldenEar Triton II Towers which have a very good midrange.

I have downloaded quite a bit of 24/96 to 24/192 music (which my hardware is able to reproduce with out any recoding).  I only put faith in new music or recently recorded rather than high res versions of old music from 70's or 80's for example.  Most of that music was recorded to tape and may not have the quality that modern equipment can produce.

The jury is still out for me.  My question: Can I tell the difference in the 16 bit version and the 24 bit version of the same recording.  I have tested this and I am not sure I can tell.  It may be that my audio equipment is not good enough to reveal the differences.

Good recordings sound really good while bad ones sound bad (not related to the bit rate/freq).  I have not yet determined that the higher res samples sound better.

My integrated amp is by Audio Refinement and chinese manufacture of a YBA design from 10+ years ago.  It is solid state.  I have not used tube equipment but my gut feel tells me that what people like about tube equipment is a pleasing sound derived actually from a distortion.  I feel that some really high end solid state equipment may in fact more faithfully reproduce what was recorded regardless of whether the listener actually likes what he is hearing (it may sound better with a tube system for example). 

I tend to lean towards the solid state as a purist for this reason but am hankering to try tubes anyway )

[jmone]

When I first looked at this I could absolutely hear the difference between the High Res and CD release.  Then JimH pointed out what I was hearing was simply a different mix and it turns out he was right.  I made from the same source various lower res/bit depth versions including lossy MP3 and unless they were really compressed they all sounded the same to me.

So my conclusion was that High Res released by simply be a Better/Different mix and if available then would be my preference.  I'm not sure however I miss much from the CD release of Justin Bieber "Believe"

The real answer of course is if you can hear the difference but with out an good A/B test rig you can convince yourself of pretty much anything.

[Samson]

I have spent a good bit of money trying to gain an improvement.

 

You and I both
all reference quality Mark Levinson front ends, reference gryphon sonata dual mono pre-amps and power monoblocks, gryphon cables and Thiel CS 5i flagship speakers of their day. Never imagined I would partly replace the levinson transport for an asio driver/RME usb pass-through to my 30.6 levinson DAC.

I only put faith in new music or recently recorded rather than high res versions of old music from 70's or 80's for example.  Most of that music was recorded to tape and may not have the quality that modern equipment can produce.

I agree but some older stuff can sound surprisingly good which made me think that recording to analogue tape is not the limiting factor.

Can I tell the difference in the 16 bit version and the 24 bit version of the same recording.

 

Totally concur. This really is the issue, given the same recording session with high quality engineering and equipment, is the 16/44 different in sound to the 32/192.One might argue that you should stick to the resolution of the digital master tape to avoid any sound degradation from a conversion step. One also assumes that even if there was a difference, the law of diminishing returns would apply, perhaps 24/96 is (or is not) the limit.

I have tested this and I am not sure I can tell.

 
me neither

Good recordings sound really good while bad ones sound bad (not related to the bit rate/freq).  I have not yet determined that the higher res samples sound better.

absolutely agree (garbage in, garbage out)

 I have not used tube equipment but my gut feel tells me that what people like about tube equipment is a pleasing sound derived actually from a distortion.

I have used tubes and do agree with you.It is a lovely warm euphonic sound.All my gear now is solid state but it  arguably isn't as easy to get a pleasing sound free of harshness and glare which I feel is characteristic of most mid-fi solid state systems.

I feel that some really high end solid state equipment may in fact more faithfully reproduce what was recorded regardless of whether the listener actually likes what he is hearing (it may sound better with a tube system for example).

me too.

I tend to lean towards the solid state as a purist for this reason but am hankering to try tubes anyway )

hey, its all part of the fun

I think audiophiles become amoured with the beauty of sound itself, like hearing the burnished warm tones of a saxophone note or the incredible richness of a single guitar string hanging in the air. The transient suspension of disbelief whereby the instrument is in the room with you, not a canned facsimile. It is a very sensuous experience defying statistics or measurement. Then when you combine beautiful sound subserving beautiful music...goosebump time!

[Samson]

JimH pointed out what I was hearing was simply a different mix and it turns out he was right.

Yeah its my conclusion also, thus far. Lovingly re-engineered stuff, whether re-mixed,some over dubs or other enhancements within the artistic 'license' of the original, can sound better and worth looking for.

 I'm not sure however I miss much from the CD release of Justin Bieber "Believe"

I hear ya  

The real answer of course is if you can hear the difference but with out an good A/B test rig you can convince yourself of pretty much anything.

I also believe we can convince ourselves only to hear measured differences but Im not convinced blind a/b testing is necessarilly the answer either. Over the decades I have come to doubt the validity,reliability,sensitivity and specificity of many scientific testing methods (medical specialist neurology,neuropsychology and rehabilitation). Absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of abscence but I totally agree we can convince ourselves of just about anything. Not such a bad thing, hey doctors bank on at least a 30% placebo effect, makes us look good .

[kstuart]

The problem with most examples is that you are comparing apples and oranges.  So, a well-known professional mastering engineer has created downloads of the same samples in 16/44.1 and high resolution and you can compare yourself !  Go to:

http://www.soundkeeperrecordings.com/format.htm

[Samson]

The problem with most examples is that you are comparing apples and oranges.  So, a well-known professional mastering engineer has created downloads of the same samples in 16/44.1 and high resolution and you can compare yourself !  Go to:

http://www.soundkeeperrecordings.com/format.htm

I actually have compared similar audiophile digital files recorded in Hi rez at the same session and then converted to different bit depths/sample rates. Thank you for this reference I will have a listen !

[astromo]

The problem with most examples is that you are comparing apples and oranges.  So, a well-known professional mastering engineer has created downloads of the same samples in 16/44.1 and high resolution and you can compare yourself !  Go to:

http://www.soundkeeperrecordings.com/format.htm

I actually have compared similar audiophile digital files recorded in Hi rez at the same session and then converted to different bit depths/sample rates. Thank you for this reference I will have a listen !

I had similar thoughts to kstuart and we've had some fun talking audio quality odds and ends before around compression-dynamic range in terms of is it measurable or is it purely a phenomenon that's in the ear of the beholder:
http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=77129.0

Some links in this post to some quantitative comparison work from external sources might interest you:
http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=20920.0

Most of my collection is old school CDs at 16/44.1 and I'm more interested in making sure I avoid remastered recordings that steer clear of compressed, over loud recordings rather than chasing resolution. But I'll give the link kstuart put up a whirl and test out my ears when I get the chance. Thanks for that.

[Samson]

I had similar thoughts to kstuart and we've had some fun talking audio quality odds and ends before around compression-dynamic range in terms of is it measurable or is it purely a phenomenon that's in the ear <snip>
Most of my collection is old school CDs at 16/44.1 and I'm more interested in making sure I avoid remastered recordings that steer clear of compressed, over loud recordings rather than chasing resolution. But I'll give the link kstuart put up a whirl and test out my ears when I get the chance. Thanks for that.

Hi astromo,

as a student of all things brain and neuroscience here's what I think. The measurements are meaningless in the context of perception because we are not sure that what we are measuring is what we are hearing. There may well be very interesting statistical correlations which may or may not be meaningful. The only way to tell is by comparison to the gold standard, and that is the ear/brain perceptual machinery of a human being. And yes, this is subject to all the subjective influences you can think of,literally.

Unless I can hear a difference, It doesnt matter what the numbers say. The fact is sound waves are not 'heard' until transduced in the ear and interpreted by the brain as a sound. Measuring physical properties of the stimulus may be part of the equation sometimes but sometimes not and then again we may be hearing something we don’t even know how to measure. Even when there are high correlations to a measurement, don’t be fooled, it doesn’t mean there is a causal relationship. Nor does concordance.  Concordance quantifies the variance of one variable at any level to the other. In fact, two variables can be highly correlated but be highly discordant, i.e. they do not correspond well, either they are too high or too low compared with the other variable.

After over 30 years of studying the brain I now am absolutely and indignantly certain that it is best described in highly technical terms as...a magical black box

Perhaps now it may be surprising if I say I am indeed very interested in measurements of brain and cognitive functions including all things to do with music and sound. I want to know if the physical correlations actually do translate into any meaningful perceptual experience. For example, if measurements of dynamic range consistently correlate with the way people describe  some character or attribute they are hearing then sure, it seems reasonable to try and manipulate ie modulate that sensory stimulus to achieve a desired perception. But the gold standard still remains perception and perception of sound, not sound of numbers.

So ultimately it is the character of the sound or the sound attribute I am interested in .It is more important for me to be able to discern these subjective characteristics than to know the various measurements of the stimulus. If others can hear something in terms of the character of the sound that I cant hear then i want to know why. Yes it could be physiological but just as likely it could be perceptual. The latter being very much amenable to training and learning. Alternatively it could be cow dung. 

You mentioned dynamics. it is usually pretty obvious to my ear if a piece of music has a large dynamic range. There are lots of loud notes and lots of soft notes. I dont need a machine to tell me that. I bought one of the original dbx sound expanders/compressors for home hifi about 30 years ago.It changed my perception of the sound pretty much as advertised and was good for dinner parties where the S/N ratio needed to be just right to match the background conversation. .

Audiophiles often talk about the microdynamics in music as contributing to a life-like sound quality.I believe I can perceive this too. The analogy is the difference between contrast and "tonality" in images. One being difference between smallest and largest value on a tone histogram and the other being the distribution of tones throughout the picture....as in "nice tonality of the skin shades"....or there was a complete lack of harshness in the upper mid tones of a singers voice. Whether this character can actually be explained or indeed measured in the "upper mid frequencies" is irrelevant to me, its just part of the vocabulary we use to describe music. Whats important is whether or not its "harsh" sounding, a completely subjective quality.

Is "intensity" a useful concept? For me it is useful as a subjective description only if we have a common vocabulary to identify what we are perceiving (or fooling ourselves that exists).Its measurement is  not important for me. It may or may not be correlated with the dynamics of the piece  or several other variables like overall loudness levels, how harsh it sounds, how lean or full it sounds etc. To say intensity is somehow mathematically related to a formula determing how much of the song is loud is fine if everyone agrees to follow this nomenclature. But what if you turn the volume down to where the loudest sounds are now quiet? Is it still "intense" because a higher percentage of the song is relatively louder?

Are  dynamically compressed songs "loud" and/or intense as some people say? Not really, they are flat, loud if the volume is absolutely up and soft if the volume is absolutely low. Softest sounds are brought up above the noise background and louder sounds brought down so as not to be intrusive. Exactly what you want at that dinner party! Arguably then, compressed sounds are the opposite of intense and are only as loud as the volume setting.

When someone says that is nice laid back music we all know what it means within certain boundaries of taste. I know you can try and define it as beats per min or some such other number but why bother? Okay its a bit of a gimmick you can computer analyse your library and it will tell you what to listen to if you want say all up tempo music. Id rather decide for myself.

Audiophiles also talk about "transient response".I think I know what they mean from a subjective perceptual experience but IMO they make the same mistake of trying to tie it to a measured physical parameter of the stimulus. Mixing subjective descriptions with assumed causal relationships to a statistic. Once you've made this assumption it opens the observer up to be 'corrected' based on being at odds with some measured data. For me transient response  has to do with the perception that the sounds/notes start and stop sharply when called for. It imparts a sense of crispness and pacing to the music, better defined and with for example better articulated bass.You can go on to consider whether cone speakers do this better than large surface panels or whatever.

Hi Rez music? Once again the proof of the pudding is in the eating IMHO.In short don't "chase" numbers of any kind,trust your ears and that thing between them,IMHO

[jmone]

Hi Rez music? Once again the proof of the pudding is in the eating IMHO.In short don't "chase" numbers of any kind,trust your ears and that thing between them,IMHO

I agree, but what we need is for users to be able to reliably verify that there is a perceived difference before getting all excited about some tweak or change.  I still like simple blind AB test such claims.

[Samson]

I agree, but what we need is for users to be able to reliably verify that there is a perceived difference before getting all excited about some tweak or change.  I still like simple blind AB test such claims.

blind AB testing is far from flawless as a testing method. It is more valid when in reverse ie testing how accurately we can detect the presence of a known non-varied physical parameter. We then talk in terms of inter-observer reliabilty and same person test re-test reliability.Fact is our perceptual abilities fluctuate and vary, are subject to learning/conditioning, fatigue etc.In other words REAL differences will not always be reliably verified.

People often cite the example of audiophiles with well trained ears not being able to distinguish this or that difference in blind ab testing.It is a compelling argument holding some face validity until you realize people also fail in detecting a constant on test-retest challenges. It starts to bring in the  questions of how to improve the reliabilty of the testing situation itself rather than assuming the thing being tested does not exist.

If we are anxious or under pressure to perform our perceptual abilities can often fail us. Similarly our ability to perceive can very quickly fatigue or get confused. Their are all sorts of confounding influences.

On the other hand I totally get that differences do not exist just because we say they do. I would agree that if a validly perceived difference is very hard to consistently detect under ideal listening situations  then its likely not to be that important. Notwithstanding, we still judge the numbers by our ears not the other way round IMO.Perception is still the gold standard by which we judge subjective phenomena like music.

[astromo]

Hi Rez music? Once again the proof of the pudding is in the eating IMHO.In short don't "chase" numbers of any kind,trust your ears and that thing between them,IMHO

Samson

I agree with you and kstuart in that you offer similar advice of "trust your ears" (or equivalent). In one of the posts that I mention it would kick you on to some blog posts from an audio engineer over at computeraudiophile. I have an engineering background (not audio) and what appeals to me is the good sense of his commentary that's grounded in the practicalities of applied science.

Regarding high resolution audio he offers the benefit of his work experience by way of commentary here:
http://www.computeraudiophile.com/blogs/mitchco/criteria-eval-sq-high-res-masters-181/
and then some audio science:
http://www.computeraudiophile.com/blogs/mitchco/16-44-vs-24-192-experiment-163/
So, this last post offers some audio science to support your opening post that high res audio is "a croc, well mostly".

I seem to remember mitchco commenting somewhere on the shortcomings of what I'd call the weakest link in the recording and sound reproduction chain, setting the overall quality to the end listener. What makes sense to me is that the highest sampling rate and bit depth in the world can't make up for excessive compression, other poor mastering techniques, a dud microphone or audio pickup, shortcomings in the studio building design, artist playing skill or how the artists are feeling when they lay down a track. It's a holistic system that will be brought down by the weakest link.

I've yet to investigate the site offered by kstuart to use my ears to decide but I suspect that I'll struggle to tell the difference. mitchco points out that hearing acuity is lost with age, so I'm not going to have the ears that I had 10 years ago. I'll see if I can get help with the listening comparison, so that I can go at it truly blind.

I would point out further that if an individual has satisfied themselves that a tool like the dynamic range meter matches their listening preferences, so that they believe there's a good correlation with what they hear and what the meter tells them, then that's all they need for a useful tool. I think this aligns with some of your comments. I'll have to re-read your posts to be sure. Your language is not psycho-babble but it's certainly technical in areas outside my familiarity, so it takes some effort.

It may be self delusion but if the individual finds a tool useful, then they won't care whether it should or shouldn't work. The tool works for them. You could always test out the dynamic range meter results and see what you think.

[Samson]

Samson
 what appeals to me is the good sense of his [Mitcho] commentary that's grounded in the practicalities of applied science.Regarding high resolution audio he [Mitcho] offers the benefit of his work experience by way of commentary here:
http://www.computeraudiophile.com/blogs/mitchco/criteria-eval-sq-high-res-masters-181/

Yes I agree he makes a lot of sense and comes to the same conclusion as I do but from our different backgrounds.Some crazy engineers in the 1980's butchered the audio file thinking it should technically sound better...you know, if some number/s say it should. Audiophiles listened and resoundingly said "Wow "digital" sounds like sh*t comapared to my beloved vinyl". Of course there were lots of possibilities to explain this but I bet this butchering was one. Importantly Mitcho was not only a sound engineer but used his ears and said this engineering treatment sounds woeful.The loudness trap to me was, as said, a wholesale buthering of the audio track.Technically they destroyed the dynamics of the track by artificially bringing up the volume of the softer sounds.This is neither compression (squashing both ends) nor expansion (stretching both ends) but an internal butchering messing with both macrodynamics and microdynamics.

As to whether a DR analyzer can accurately reflect this I have my doubts.Maybe it can flag the track as being suspect.But again all you have to do is listen, one sounds great one sounds like doo doo (crap) !. Now all you have to do is define doo doo as a character or descriptor of the sound. Audiophiles might say things like it sounds flat (adynamic, but this begs the conclusion that it is assoc with a measurable quantity), canned, squeezed, and other descriptors.This is similar to many perceptual areas where developing or learning a vocabulary starts to train the actual perceptual acuity.

 A sommelier might say this white wine tastes "crisp" and "lively".As a novice wine taster it is a strange description but then you start to taste similar characters in other wines and start to even look for them, you become more discerning.You begin to train your palate.Of course it could be subjective nonsense but then you would have to say millions of people suffer the same delusion.Then you are told this wine has a high acidity,low pH number.Someone then connects the dots between acidity and "crispness,liveliness". Caution I say. Maybe it does ,maybe it doesn’t.

and then some audio science:
http://www.computeraudiophile.com/blogs/mitchco/16-44-vs-24-192-experiment-163/
So, this last post offers some audio science to support your opening post that high res audio is "a croc, well mostly".

Yes I have seen these before including the referenced article as to why 24/192 is worse due to intermodulation distortion ie a measurement, a number. With respect to Mitcho the "diffmaker" is also based on a measurement, but in this case in support of there being no difference (I think, I havent read it all properly yet).Mitcho does howver say, and where this concurs with my views totally….

"While it may not be possible to show whether alteration is having effects directly on the listener, it is possible to determine whether an audio signal has been changed."

I agree with you it is tempting to support subjective judgements with such audio science but keeping things in perspective, IMO they are guides only, not definitive proof as some would have you believe.

Like I said before, I am all for trying to make meaningful correlations of the physical stimulus to how we perceive that experience. It means we can manipulate the stimulus to hopefully get a desired affect or eliminate an undesirable affect. But lets not throw the baby out with the bath water by replacing perceptual skills with numbers to judge a musical experience. Yes I know numbers are 'neater'. Like Steve Martin said in one of his movies, "Life is so messy, I hate messy !

What makes sense to me is that the highest sampling rate and bit depth in the world can't make up for excessive compression, other poor mastering techniques, a dud microphone or audio pickup, shortcomings in the studio building design, artist playing skill or how the artists are feeling when they lay down a track. It's a holistic system that will be brought down by the weakest link.

Hallelujah, brother, I pray at your altar …. And no I'm not a religious man .." I  swear there aint no heaven but I pray there aint no hell". BTW have a listen to the original recording of  "And When I Die" by Blood,sweat and tears (they use that lyric in the song) , what a knock-out for the time !

I've yet to investigate the site offered by kstuart to use my ears to decide but I suspect that I'll struggle to tell the difference. mitchco points out that hearing acuity is lost with age, so I'm not going to have the ears that I had 10 years ago.

I have, see my post here.

Re your listening acuity dropping with age. We are still talking numbers again,lol, arent we !? Look I certainly do believe hearing deteriorates with age for most of us. But just to give a different slant on it I repeat below my post from somewhere else…

Yes we all know music can be enjoyable even in a truncated narrow frequency range but can you hear stuff thats not there..., huh?! I believe the physical measurement is only one part of the perceptual equation. It is likely people learn to perceive frequencies that they cant literally hear.... abit like Beethoven composing music when deaf. If you hear the lower harmonics of a note it is not outrageous to consider the possibility that the brain extrapolates to "hear" what it thinks it should.After all you dont need to have a left foot to feel a  left foot....maybe you have heard of phantom pain? With music it may well be that this works only with familiar music ie where the brain has a strong memory of the sound/music. The brain is an amazing place,people with strokes that cant utter a word can sometimes sing clearly.people can be born without, or aquire the inability, to not recognize human faces.Although neurologically completely differnent concepts to hearing stuff, the brain can be  a strange and mysterious place. (crazy idea from a medical specialist in neurolgy,neuropsycholgy and rehabilitation)

Pasted from <http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=77190.0>

I would point out further that if an individual has satisfied themselves that a tool like the dynamic range meter matches their listening preferences, so that they believe there's a good correlation with what they hear and what the meter tells them, then that's all they need for a useful tool. I think this aligns with some of your comments.

Yes it does but I just question what you are using the tool for? Is it to select good quality music? If so, why not just listen. Where I see the utility of such a tool is in changing the audio engineering practices. In other words if you fiddle with parameter x like the tool tells us, lets have a listen and see if the tool got it right. Specifically if we like dynamic range then increasing this in the mastering process should mean we like it more , right? My gut is screaming, "dude, leave that knob alone. Step slowly away from that console and I'll put the gun down !"

I'll have to re-read your posts to be sure. Your language is not psycho-babble but it's certainly technical in areas outside my familiarity, so it takes some effort.

Im so sorry,this is my fault. I hate people that explain things in terms of other things which in themselves need to be defined.I am more than happy to clarify what I have said.One of the problems is typing as it flows out of my brain unlike a published article I would read and proof multiple times.

It may be self delusion but if the individual finds a tool useful, then they won't care whether it should or shouldn't work. The tool works for them. You could always test out the dynamic range meter results and see what you think.

I'll give it a go coz I respect you opinion and honesty

[Samson]

So, a well-known professional mastering engineer has created downloads of the same samples in 16/44.1 and high resolution and you can compare yourself !  Go to:

http://www.soundkeeperrecordings.com/format.htm

I listened to "Maria" samples from Americas album in 16/44 - 24/96 - 24/192 from Soundkeeper Recordings.

My RME usb Babyface DAC played all sampling rates and bit depths according to the source file. Then using the babyface in pass-through mode, straight into my Reference Mark Levinson 30.6 DAC with its dedicated power supply. The Levinson only plays up to 24/96 (so not the 24/192).

The remainder of the system being Gryphon Sonata dual mono pre-amp with separate dual mono power supplies. Gryphon Reference Monoblock amps, Gryphon cabling, and Thiels CS 5i Cone speakers (there superseded but former flagships and still arguably the best in the Thiel stable).

I heard no differences in comparing bit depth/sample rates using the same DAC. The 24/192 theoretically should have sound better as this was how it was recorded and with all other depths/samplings being conversions.

Through the RME Babyface the soungstage was  flat, lacking depth front to back. The drums appeared far left of soundstage followed by piano far right of soundstage and then saxophone coming in just above and forward to the piano. Double Bass was indistinct and poorly localized compared to the other instruments.

Through the Mark Levinson 30.6 the Soundstage widened and deepened slightly with the saxophone now being slightly further to the right and certainly more forward in position . There was more 'air around the instruments' giving a greater transparency as if a pillow had been removed from in front of speakers. It seemed to showcase the timbral accuracy of the instruments and over all was much more engaging to listen to.

[mschneid]

nGreat thread.  I will need to digest it.   For another informed opinion take a look at the AVS site .   They have a current interview with the recording engineer from the Sheffield Labs 2 track direct to analog vinyl fame.  The point of the interview is his experience and focus on production of hi res 24/192 recordings and capturing the essence of performance with his 2 track direct to disc style.  

A couple of the relevant take home points is that his listening reference point is the highly modified gear of his studio booth which he believes is extremely high resolution state of the art.  this matches his recording studio with many custom built elements including his A to D converter.

He reports that the performance artists can't distinguish their live performance from his high resolution recordings played back in his high resolution system.

Of course he repeats the same take as this thread that high resolution formats do not fix any issues in the creation of, the performance, and its recording.

Its an especially great listen if you were familiar with some of those performances.

[astromo]

Here's some more to stir the pot but this time it's going the other way.

(I only saw this last night) A few weeks back, Mitchco put out a post on Bit Perfect Audibility Testing with the objective of determining how far away from bit-perfect a difference in sound quality is audible:
http://www.computeraudiophile.com/content/520-fun-digital-audio-%96-bit-perfect-audibility-testing/
So, something else to test your ears with.


As a side note, this caused me to dig out some further work, being a comparison between the Windows and Mac platforms for MC:
http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=79159.0
http://www.computeraudiophile.com/content/513-jriver-mac-vs-jriver-windows-sound-quality-comparison/
that was also put together by Mitchco.

[jmone]

Not true!  As soon as I know which one is the Hi Rez version I can pick it every time! 

[Samson]

Not true!  As soon as I know which one is the Hi Rez version I can pick it every time!  

Me too, I pick it with my eyes not my ears, it says HiRez on the label.This is also how I pick good wine, the price is written on the bottle !   [EDIT, just kidding]

Mschneid and astromo, thanks for the references, I will read and get back to you.Thanks again.

David

[6233638]

I really need to set up a good ABX comparison, and maybe my audio hardware just isn't good enough - but my general opinion is that it doesn't make a difference.

I have quite good hearing for my age - up to about 18kHz. Though I don't know how to "properly" test it - I just know that at my normal listening level, I can play up to about 17-18kHz tones, and beyond that it's silent. I have to say it's quite surprising, as I did some stupid things when I was young. (though it wasn't something I did often, there were times when I had speakers/headphones up as loud as they could go…)

I've yet to find anything that has convinced me that ultrasonic sounds (i.e. anything above 20kHz - or 18kHz in my case?) are audible, or can be "experienced" as some people claim. So in that respect, as long as it is properly anti-aliased, 44.1kHz seems like it should be more than enough.

And looking at the spectrum of files which go above 48kHz, it's mostly all just noise up there, if anything.
Nothing which actually seems to be related to the music, and should probably be filtered out anyway.


Similarly, I've not found anything to convince me that 24-bit is better than 16-bit, and I have very sensitive hearing.
For example, I hear all sorts of noises coming from electronics - particularly wireless devices - that no-one else seems able to hear. I can hear a "pulsing" noise when my Logitech Anywhere MX mouse is switched on. I've never seen anyone else complain about that - and this is my second one that's done it, so it isn't faulty.
It's the same thing with a lot of computers (not desktops though, as the fans tend to drown it out) I can usually tell when they are in a power-saving mode or not. The aggressive power saving used in OS X and MacBooks/MacBook Pros is very annoying - using a program to stop the CPU idling helps a lot.


Anyway, it absolutely is better to output 24-bit from Media Center if you're making use of things like ReplayGain which attenuates the volume digitally, requiring you to increase the gain on your amplifier (essentially lowering the SNR) but when you're talking about source files, I don't know that I've heard any difference between 16-bit and 24-bit - at least not at normal listening levels.

With low-level tones, and turning the gain up, I can hear the difference between 16-bit and 24-bit. But that's an artificial test, not one which applies to music.

I've heard a few engineers say things along the lines of "I would prefer a 24/44 file to a 16/384 file" and I can believe it.
But I do also wonder if they're simply talking about the source file they have for mastering. When you're manipulating a file in the mastering process, you want as much bit-depth as possible.
I don't know that they actually think there's a difference between 16-bit and 24-bit for playback of a mastered file.


So I don't think it's worthwhile to be purchasing "HD" or "High Res" audio for either of those reasons.
However if it has been remastered for these formats, you do often get a better quality master from them, which will sound better.
It's nothing to do with the high resolution format, but simply that the people producing the high resolution files are also the kind of people that want to avoid things like dynamic range compression.

The mastering is what makes the difference between a good file and a bad one. The format doesn't seem to matter. (as long as it's lossless)
The one thing I can't speak with any authority on is DSD though, but only because I haven't heard any native DSD - only DSD converted to PCM. I am highly sceptical that it would sound any better.

[mwillems]

I've yet to find anything that has convinced me that ultrasonic sounds (i.e. anything above 20kHz - or 18kHz in my case?) are audible, or can be "experienced" as some people claim. So in that respect, as long as it is properly anti-aliased, 44.1kHz seems like it should be more than enough.

I agree completely with the rest of your post, but I can confirm from personal experience that I at least "experience" sound above my hearing threshold, although not in a way that makes me want to seek it out: 

I can't hear much above 16 KHZ (17 on a good day, but it's pretty attenuated).  A few years back, I got a new HF speaker driver and I suddenly started getting splitting headaches whenever I listened to music.  I couldn't figure it out for the life of  me.  A good friend of mine had the same tweeters, and I was listening to his setup and noticed that I had no headache listening to his gear.  We tried a number of things before having a look at the frequency response graph.  The drivers had a huge (10 dB) peak at 18,500Hz, which my friend (being more sophisticated than I) had already notch EQ'ed out.  I dutifully went home and measured mine and tried the notch, with the result that the headaches instantly stopped. 

We later tried A/B testing (not truly double blind, but I had my friend switch the notch on and off without telling me which position it was in) and I could hear no audible difference between the two, but within a few minutes of him turning the notch off the headache dutifully came back. 

Just an anecdote, obviously, not a study, and certainly not an argument in favor of high res music (if anything, the opposite).

[6233638]

That's a good point actually, and something I can agree with.
I suppose I should have qualified my comment about ultrasonic sounds being about them having a positive effect with music, rather than headache-inducing noise. (or simply nothing at all)

Considering how shrill high-frequency sounds are, I do wonder if we actually want anything above 20kHz anyway. (if that)

[mwillems]

That's a good point actually, and something I can agree with.
I suppose I should have qualified my comment about ultrasonic sounds relating to having a positive effect with music, rather than headache-inducing noise. (or simply nothing at all)

Considering how shrill high-frequency sounds are, I do wonder if we actually want anything above 20kHz anyway. (if that)

That's kind of where I'm at on the issue.  If you look at the spectra of the fundamentals and harmonics of most musical instruments there's just not much up there past 15 or 16: http://www.independentrecording.net/irn/resources/freqchart/main_display.htm.  Some cymbal and violin harmonics at around 16 or 17, but that's really it. There aren't many things you'd expect to intentionally find in music recordings in the ultra-high frequency range.  

I start my own low pass filtering at around 19 or 20, and the only difference I "hear" is slightly less listener fatigue.  But I'm willing to concede that everyone's ears are different, and mine don't go as high as some.  I had a friend who could reliable hear a 20 KHz tone into his late twenties.  But even if the folks mastering the music have golden ears and can hear what was going on at 20KHz, they certainly couldn't hear what was going on at 22 or 24KHz.  So I feel no obligation to try and reproduce it.

[mschneid]

mwilliems

I think you provide evidence for how limited we are in deciding these issues.   The analytical method is insufficient because you  experience the limits of A B testing.  In your circumstance, you have a measurable feature, (your HF bump) and you can't distinguish it in A B tests.   However,  integrating sound perception over time in the real world forces you to fix the problem.

What happens when you haven't ID d clear features to test for???  eg redbook versus high resolution formats and gear?

My view is that one's Principles and Values trump one's Standards and Ideals in the matter of high resolution audio files and listening.
My principle is to always shoot for the state of the art in performance, recording and playback.
I don't fall into the pit of conflating this with the perfect and ideal.   I can completely enjoy my current level of music and gear and aspire to collecting high res files and superior gear to play these back because they are the state of the art.  The key in doing this is to be clear on what I Value and how much I Value it..

I don't let standards,  (A B test results, published reviews, Consumer Reports, Cnet, AV Forum, Audiogon, etc etc including self imposed standards,) dominate or decide what I value.

So, my demo's of the high resolution formats and gear in concert with my principles and values lead me want to upgrade and recommend (despite my limited experience) audiophiles to move to high res music..... as they say... YMMV  (and the details matter when you want to communicate to others).

[mwillems]

mwilliems

I think you provide evidence for how limited we are in deciding these issues.   The analytical method is insufficient because you  experience the limits of A B testing.  In your circumstance, you have a measurable feature, (your HF bump) and you can't distinguish it in A B tests.   However,  integrating sound perception over time in the real world forces you to fix the problem.

What happens when you haven't ID d clear features to test for???  eg redbook versus high resolution formats and gear?

My view is that one's Principles and Values trump one's Standards and Ideals in the matter of high resolution audio files and listening.
My principle is to always shoot for the state of the art in performance, recording and playback.
I don't fall into the pit of conflating this with the perfect and ideal.   I can completely enjoy my current level of music and gear and aspire to collecting high res files and superior gear to play these back because they are the state of the art.  The key in doing this is to be clear on what I Value and how much I Value it..

I don't let standards,  (A B test results, published reviews, Consumer Reports, Cnet, AV Forum, Audiogon, etc etc including self imposed standards,) dominate or decide what I value.

So, my demo's of the high resolution formats and gear in concert with my principles and values lead me want to upgrade and recommend (despite my limited experience) audiophiles to move to high res music..... as they say... YMMV  (and the details matter when you want to communicate to others).

I recognize the obvious flaws of my testing technique.  Reasoning about perception becomes tricky when we discuss sub-liminal (or supra-liminal) phenomenon, that we can only perceive by their second order consequences.  And my post was more of a sidelight (just noting that I find loud ultrasonic noises both inaudible and unpleasant for reasons other than audition), and that most musical instruments don't make noises above our range of hearing.  

Obviously many people with good ears really enjoy hi resolution music.  I haven't personally heard a convincing theory that explains *why* high sample rates should make a positive difference for playback, but it seems pretty obvious that they *do* sound better to many, many people (even when the source master is the same).  And enjoyment and explanations are not mutually dependent on each other, I don't need to understand why something pleases me in order to enjoy it    

As you say, we must each find our own way with our own ears  

[astromo]

mwilliems, machines and -string of numbers- thanks for your insights into some further aspects of practical listening. I enjoyed the read.

[Samson]

Great to see the debate continues with 'sound' reasoning on both sides - sorry, couldn’t resist.

As an audiophile and then working with things perceptual in my profession I have always had a strong interest in the area. I do hear differences with cables and even some power cords. Yes I have what was once a state of the art system and I consider that I have trained ears. For the record, test tones attenuate [EDIT after 4k and diappear] at 16Khz for me but doesn’t mean you cant have 'golden ears' IMO.

A major point for me is that I am not sitting necessarily in subjectivist or objectivist camps. If I hear a different sounding cable I will say so, and disagree with objectivists saying "that’s impossible because…". If hi rez does NOT sound any different to me I will say so, but not because it aligns with objectivists explaining why it can't.

Picking a few points from the discussion. I agree that probably anything above 4 kHz becomes progressively amusical (non musical). Theory is that the 2nd and 3rd order harmonics pass out of audible range and notes lose their timbre or character, it all starts sounding the same. Was it a mistake that a piano's highest octave ends around 4 kHz? I have seen this discussed many times with advocates of the amusicality above 4k and advocates of its just the mechanical limitation of building a wooden box with strings inside.

Music, and for that matter sound don’t become such until interpreted by the brain. Until then they are just variations in a physical parameter, SPL or whatever. Yes the physical stimulus it is the beginning of the chain but by no means the end. Could we perceive (as opposed to hear in the conventional sense) above 20 k ? Quite possibly. Would it be pleasant, probably not….but who's to say how some things may affect the somatosensory cortex. The simple perception of visual "brightness" has as much to do about the background light as the luminosity of the light source stimulus. Perhaps a clunky example but just suppose then, that supra-audible frequencies somehow modulate the way we hear audible frequencies. Im not saying they do, just that perception can not be defined in measured bits of data. Hey I once knew a doctor who just used to look at patients charts as "How are you?" was a bit too subjective,lol.

The fact is I don’t hear differences in Hi rez PCM or DSD, I hear massive differences in the way the music is recorded/mastered and that is audible (to me) even on el cheapo systems. On High end systems it is breath taking.

Of course the artistry and gestalt of the actual performance matters hugely but not to the sound quality per se. When you get both right, goosebumps and tears !

Do I procure Hi rez files, yeah, of course. Maybe one day the technological superiority will translate into something I can hear/perceive. Also as mentioned, if you start manipulating files then better to start with more data, just like image files and avoiding posterization.

[kstuart]

Samson wrote: "Me too, I pick it with my eyes not my ears, it says HiRez on the label.This is also how I pick good wine, the price is written on the bottle."

Then you don't know much about wine, sorry.

For example, there are several top Bordeaux wine houses.  One of them "Petrus" sells for much more than the others.   Is it better ?    You won't find anyone who says so.  It's more expensive due to supply and demand.  Its total output of cases is much less than the other houses, so it costs more.  If you are a CEO and want to impress your knowledgeable guests, you might buy some.  Or you could just be an OCD Bordeaux collector.

I notice that a majority of "objective" audio posts mention the ridiculous price of some audio products.  That shows that those posts are just as emotional and subjective as the audiophile posts.  Clearly, the price is irrelevant to any objective scientific assessment of anything audio.

If you could enter the mind of the "objective" audio fan when he sees an $11,000 price tag on a cable, you could then describe the real basis of the objective audio movement.

[Samson]

Samson wrote: "Me too, I pick it with my eyes not my ears, it says HiRez on the label.This is also how I pick good wine, the price is written on the bottle."

Then you don't know much about wine, sorry.

Hi, kstuart. it was said in sarcasm.I have edited it. I totally agrre with you.

An interesting story (warning: meandering anecdote ). When I first started on wine tasting trips to the vineyards 30 odd years ago my interest was piqued by the vineyard owner who said taste these two wines and tell me what you think. I basically didn’t think much of anything. I guess they tasted a bit different but I wasn’t really sure how. Did my taste buds not work ? 30 years later I can critque the difference between a Sav blanc and a chardonnay in some detail, or one sav blanc c/w another.Along the way I learnt a vocabulary to express said perceptions. Which came first, vocabulary or perception ? I have opinions on this but my point, thirty odd years ago I wasn’t actually tasting much difference, a bit like looking but not seeing and listening without hearing.They are all learnt phenomena subject to training and conditioning - perceptual skills. We are born with a toolset of senses but not a manual of how to use them.

Anti- audiophiles get caught up with the data, a measured number, in reality quite possibly crude surrogate measurements of the physical stimulus supposedly causally correlated with what we perceive. The greatest "signal processing" pathway exists between anatomical transducer and somatosensory cortex.

I notice that a majority of "objective" audio posts mention the ridiculous price of some audio products.  That shows that those posts are just as emotional and subjective as the audiophile posts.  Clearly, the price is irrelevant to any objective scientific assessment of anything audio.If you could enter the mind of the "objective" audio fan when he sees an $11,000 price tag on a cable, you could then describe the real basis of the objective audio movement.

Money? Just another surrogate measurement ! The trap here is of course that sometimes surrogate measurements correlate and concord with the outcome. A $70 bottle of wine probably will taste better than a $7 wine. But it is not the money that makes it so per se. These are statistical tricks. To paraphrase Mark Twain, there are lies, damm lies….and statistics. Paraphrasing George Burns, If you live to be 100 you've got it made, not many people die in that category !

Do objectivists colour their perception of  music by the expense of the equipment or other numbers based on measured properties ? Absolutely, just as much as subjectivists colour theirs with what we want to believe. We are all at heart subjectivists ;-)
"The human mind is so constituted that it colours with its own previous conceptions any new notion that presents itself for acceptance." - J. Wilhelm.

I'm the guy in the pic !

[johnjen]

Just to throw my 2¢ in on this.

My system is just now able to resolve enough to be able to identify WHAT is different between 96K and greater files, from the base 44K files.

It always seemed like they (HiRez files) added a degree of smoothness, or perhaps had a lack of an edge, is a better descriptor, before now.  But the change was vague and nondescript.

I'm just now beginning to hear WHAT is changing, as opposed to THAT something changed.

And just to expand on this slightly, my system is VERY simple, intentionally.

Simple makes it FAR easier to hear differences in changes, or not, as the case may be.

JJ

[astromo]

Money? Just another surrogate measurement ! The trap here is of course that sometimes surrogate measurements correlate and concord with the outcome. A $70 bottle of wine probably will taste better than a $7 wine. But it is not the money that makes it so per se. These are statistical tricks. To paraphrase Mark Twain, there are lies, damm lies….and statistics. Paraphrasing George Burns, If you live to be 100 you've got it made, not many people die in that category !

Do objectivists colour their perception of  music by the expense of the equipment or other numbers based on measured properties ? Absolutely, just as much as subjectivists colour theirs with what we want to believe. We are all at heart subjectivists ;-)
"The human mind is so constituted that it colours with its own previous conceptions any new notion that presents itself for acceptance." - J. Wilhelm.

I'm the guy in the pic !

From the article mentioned below:

In the world of wine (regarded as an art form by at least some connoisseurs), being told the price of a bottle affects a drinker's appreciation of the liquid in the glass in ways that can be detected by a brain scanner.

The Economist reported this study into comparing modern violins with age old uber-expensive rivals like Stradivarius' instruments:
http://www.economist.com/node/21542380
Samson, right up your alley. Out of interest, what do you think of the blinding technique (including blinding out odour)?

[Samson]

From the article mentioned below:
The Economist reported this study into comparing modern violins with age old uber-expensive rivals like Stradivarius' instruments:
http://www.economist.com/node/21542380
Samson, right up your alley. Out of interest, what do you think of the blinding technique (including blinding out odour)?

What i think about Blinding tests is here

basically I think it is a much misunderstood procedure incorrectly thought to be absolute proof that a difference between perception A and B does or doesnt exist. One problem is sensory perception normally has a wide degree of variation and fluctuation subject to many variables. It makes it hard to interpret tests.

In medical research we do double blind, randomly selected, controlled (using control group), Prospective (not retrospective, not observational, not cross sectional,.not..), crossover (swapping) studies to try and interpret tests. We bank on a 30% placebo effect (thats not equivalent to 'imagined' by the way) and we do sophisticated statistical analysis like significance levels, hazard ratios, likelihood ratios....I could go on and on. The point is you would think it is pretty conclusive when you go to that much trouble but it isn't. Not even close.

A quick anecdote (yawn). When I was a medical student over 30 years ago the Obstets and Gynae professor told us (after extensive "blind' testing), "we think the oral contraceptive pill doesn't cause breast cancer, although we know female hormones may influence these kinds of tumours. We balance the proliferative effects of oestrogen with progesterone". okay. About a year or two ago I spoke with a O & G doctor who did her PhD thesis on this subject.30 years on and billions of 'woman years' later. I asked the same question and got nearly the same answer verbatim ! Now whether or not you develop disease A is different to perceptual testing but my point is all tests must meet rigorous criteria. Does the test have sufficient Sensitivity, Specificity, Reliability, Validity...boring stuff. The AB test has a degree of 'face validity' ...until you know better.

People of course will 'value' , in every sense of the word, a Stradivarius over a less famous brand. Does it sound better is a matter of opinion. Can you tell the difference? Personally I dont know. I would tend to believe expert musicians with a lifetime of experience. If many experts agree there is usually a reason why, reasons formed over many years of 'testing'. "Failure' on a quick AB test tells me that there is not a HUGE difference on the day, if the result is reproducible, that about it.

It is very hard to prove things in the area of medical science and even harder in the social sciences and nearly impossible when there is inescapably a subjective element. Double blind ab testing, listen to a, now listen to b.....which is best?, is inherently flawed as a test. It doesnt cut the mustard.


Oh the thing about the brain scan. Yes absolutely. Certain 'functional' and PET images have revealed many fascinating things about emotions and sensory perception. Pain is a hot topic and so called 'central sensitization' or pain 'amplification' ( I often use the analogy of a HiFi amplifier to patients). Other areas everyone can relate to like feeling nausea when remembering something really unpleasant. Like the patient who literally vomits months after finishing chemotherapy, when the name of the drug is mentioned. Is the nausea not real? Imaginary ? Nuts? The point is you dont need the physical stimulus to elicit a feeling OR a sensation, the nervous system creates it. Very clever, signal processing without the signal (not the external one anyway), and that area of the brain lights up, literally. Now what do you suppose that all might mean for listening to music ? Just a thought.

[icstm]

Samson,

I humbly have to disagree with much of what you have written.
There are a couple of assertions you make that cause me much trouble.

First your take on ABX double blind testing.
Though for sure the subjects current “mood” going into the test can affect the result, it does not change the fact regarding the perceivable differences (or otherwise) between A and B. There is no better test. If you want to use a different actuator, such as particular brain activity in the cortex, rather than the subject pressing a button or making a sound, I am happy with that, but the test is still the same.

Second is when you make statements like this:

“Audiophiles also talk about "transient response".I think I know what they mean from a subjective perceptual experience but IMO they make the same mistake of trying to tie it to a measured physical parameter of the stimulus.

When Audiophiles describe something vaguely, they do so because they cannot articulate what they mean using normal terminology. It is not that this is shorthand for some well understood phenomenon, it is shorthand for “there is a short temporal different that I cannot quite articulate or describe”. To suggest that a listening experience should not be “tie[d] to a measured physical parameter of the stimulus” is nonsense.

If you are familiar with fMRI and PET, then let me put this to you. For the brain to imagine it needs stimulus. A person in a totally black quiet room and imagine, as they have experiences outside of that room. A patient who has never felt, heard, seen, tasted, smelt, anything, who has had no input from the central nervous system, has no capacity to imagine. Sure, our brain is a closed rather than open loop system, but there needs to be input and perturbations to set the ball rolling.

When we are talking about the appreciation of music, we are directly considering the impact on ourselves of the stimuli of the sound we hear.

[Lutra]

A lot of replies went over my head. 

Anyway, to the OP, the answer is a resounding no.  I can't hear the difference.  I can't even hear the difference between lossless FLAC and Quicktime's AAC encoder at 130kbps.  Fact is the people who can hear the best are 20 years and younger.  I'll be 30 in another year, and hearing tests with my equipment put me at about 16.8khz these days.  Needless to say, given the same mastering engineer and tracks, 44khz is more than enough for me.    Only time I'll buy a high rez release is if the tracks are mastered differently and I think I can get a better quality recording than one I already have (e.g. the new Jurassic Park 20th anniversary release vs. the 1993 cd release).

[kstuart]

Lutra - did you try the professionally encoded samples of the exact same recording found at:

http://www.soundkeeperrecordings.com/format.htm

?

[Lutra]

Yes, I have.  If there's a difference, I can't hear it.  So in this case, I wouldn't spend the extra money for a 24/96 copy.