Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Testing audiophile claims and myths
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Testing audiophile claims and myths - Page 168

post #2506 of 3037
Quote:
Originally Posted by analogsurviver View Post

Just downloaded first three samples - for the fourth, I would have to create an acount with Google. Also just installed ABX comparator in foobar 2000. 

I have to learn to use the ABX comparator properly for blind testing etc ( ANYTHING but computer geek myself ) - but the first thing that comes to mind is that one track sounds mellow and the other sharp - depending how you queue them in test. They also differ in appearent loudness - the sharper is a bit louder than the mellow one. Or something in this direction. I will listen more properly after I figure out how to use ABX properly - but the differences among first three tracks is clearly audible to me.

I listened with JVC HA-S500 headphones.

I will double check the sharing permission on that last file. The abx in foobar is pretty easy once you know how to do it. Maybe i can do a quick walk through on using it

Cheers
post #2507 of 3037
Objective experiment taking place regarding high res audio. http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2014/04/internet-test-24-bit-vs-16-bit-audio.html?m=1

Anyone can take part In the comfort of their own home with their equiptment .
post #2508 of 3037
Quote:
Originally Posted by James-uk View Post

Objective experiment taking place regarding high res audio. http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2014/04/internet-test-24-bit-vs-16-bit-audio.html?m=1

Anyone can take part In the comfort of their own home with their equiptment .

I downloaded the files. Although I could upload the 96/24 files to my Korg recorder(s), I will wait till I purchase/get my ifi nano DSD DAC - so that any ABX (using Foobar 2000) can be also made, Korg does not allow for single person blind tests.

 

I am MUCH more into 1 bit DSD than any PCM, but this should also be interesting for educational purposes. I have downloades practically all 2L free samples in anything equal to or better than 94/24, including the complete samples you made your excerpts from.

 

I am REALLY interested how DXD ( PCM at some think sinfully spendthrift frequency/bit depth rates ) compares to DSD128 - will have to wait for the ifi nano DSD DAC to find out.

post #2509 of 3037

About the files posted for listening tests.  Each listener would have different gear and some might have gear that is more transparent revealing details more or people with better perception.  Lots of variables.  How to account for that?

post #2510 of 3037
Have each participant do enough trials to determine whether they can hear a difference, or whether it's just random chance.
post #2511 of 3037
The idea of the test is to see if people can hear the difference in the comfort of their own home with their equipment. You can spend as long as you like (until June at least) comparing the files and having multiple sessions trying to compare the 2. If it is so obvious that 24 bit is better and enough people participate then the results wil be pretty conclusive. Obviously it's not a solid test without flaws and it's open for abuse especially by people that want them to sound the same. The questionnaire is aimed at trying to prevent sabotage. Ultimately if the difference is clear then no matter how many people can't hear the difference there will be a significant number that can so that will say a lot on its own.
post #2512 of 3037
Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverEars View Post
 

About the files posted for listening tests.  Each listener would have different gear and some might have gear that is more transparent revealing details more or people with better perception.  Lots of variables.  How to account for that?

You just can't. But it is helpful for each person to determine what he/she can hear with the equipment at hand and his/hers hearing. After the results will be revealed, it may well help people to decide to upgrade to the gear supporting better resolution.

 

We are lucky - never before has been ( near to ) cutting edge technology so affordable :

 

http://www.head-fi.org/t/683406/ifi-audio-nano-idsd-announced

 

There are of course better sounding devices - adding a couple of zeroes to the right hand side of the price tag...

post #2513 of 3037
Quote:
Originally Posted by analogsurviver View Post

 

 

There are of course better sounding devices - adding a couple of zeroes to the right hand side of the price tag...

That is by no means clear, nor has it been established in any scientifically valid study (assuming that the linked device doesn't have any blatant design flaws). There are of course better measuring devices, but to date, no study has shown the audibility of improvements beyond what is achievable in a fairly low-cost device.

 

In other words, that device probably sounds exactly the same as my ODAC that I use at work, which sounds exactly the same as my Denon receiver at home, which sounds exactly the same as my dad's Sony blu-ray player at his house.


Edited by cjl - 4/21/14 at 9:59am
post #2514 of 3037
Not necessarily conclusive... Unless the test is being administered by a neutral third party there is possibility that people will cheat the test. I wouldn't underestimate the power of ego to undermine honesty. A lot of people around hear are pretty doggone investeded in having superhuman hearing.

I've seen people cheat the test before on Head-Fi. There will be a bunch of negatives and one or two positives from people who are very vocal about their ability to hear what they theoretically shouldn't be able to hear.
post #2515 of 3037
Quote:
Originally Posted by analogsurviver View Post

We are lucky - never before has been ( near to ) cutting edge technology so affordable :
http://www.head-fi.org/t/683406/ifi-audio-nano-idsd-announced

My $120 Sony blu-ray player sounds exactly the same as that, even without an SACD in the tray.
post #2516 of 3037
The result we show nobody can tell the difference . Because nobody will be able to tell the difference. Of course some will guess correctly by pure chance but so long as enough participate this won't be statistically proven.
post #2517 of 3037
Quote:
Originally Posted by cjl View Post
 

That is by no means clear, nor has it been established in any scientifically valid study (assuming that the linked device doesn't have any blatant design flaws). There are of course better measuring devices, but to date, no study has shown the audibility of improvements beyond what is achievable in a fairly low-cost device.

I still have to order the ifi nano DSD DAC - because i "need" it for demoing my own DSD recordings without having to upload them to the Korg recorders each and every time ( time consuming, Korg has USB 2.0 and HDD is only 40 GB, expandable for sure to 80 GB, with possible option for 120 GB ( not all HDDs will work...)) - and searching for a particular movement or spot within that movement on the Korg is a major PITA compared to the computer/mouse. In plain English - if a performer wants to hear the same composition played at three different concerts, all of the  three concerts have to be uploaded to the recorder ( about 15MB/sec, recorder limited, 11 min of audio in DSD128 = 1 GB ), you can not "force" the recorder to skip to the requrired section one iota faster than it wants to ( it will go to start of the track ...)  - so convinience of DSD capable DAC is desperately needed. 

 

What I do KNOW FOR CERTAIN is that ifi could not afford the use of high quality capacitors in nano DSD DAC - both because of the size of the unit (small, portable) and cost considerations.  It is perhaps one of if not THE most effective use of $ in (computer, digital) audio today - but even if they somehow got the good caps for free, they would not fit into so small an enclosure. Therefore, I have no illusions ifi could possibly rival or even exceed the sonic performance of my modified Korg.

 

I have two Korg units - one modded and another still stock. It IS night and day difference between the two - but rest of the system has to be good enough.

 

You are unlikely to see such a study any time soon - because ifi already uses componentry at least at the same level as laboratory measuring instruments. Measuring instrument should be at least one order of magnitude better than Device Under Test.

post #2518 of 3037
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post


My $120 Sony blu-ray player sounds exactly the same as that, even without an SACD in the tray.

Try http://www.discogs.com/Omnibus-Wind-Ensemble-Music-By-Frank-Zappa/release/1820934

 

If you can not hear the difference between the CD and SACD layers of this disc -  then nothing can help you. Even on the $ 120 Sony Blu-ray player.

 

Earlier CD only release is MUCH worse - and all policarbonates are eclipsed by the original vinyl LP release, now next to unobtainium.

 

Recording and mastering of this calibre is scarce, so more "mainstream" repertoire worth of DSD ( SACD is only an encrypted form of it ) is hard to recommend.

Omnibus Wind Ensemble does have a Mozart etc disc, should Zappa prove too much to stomach. 


Edited by analogsurviver - 4/21/14 at 10:54am
post #2519 of 3037

What are the audiable differences between pcm and dsd?, the only difference I see is dsd recordings can store and playback even more inaudiable frequences than 192khz pcm.

post #2520 of 3037
You got it.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Testing audiophile claims and myths