[bigshot]

Transparency does exist. If the sound is audibly the same, it’s transparent. Transparency is a word with both a technical meaning and a connotative meaning. When we talk about audible transparency, we are talking about the denotation, not the connotation.

 

[gregorio]

I would not, but it would not be fair to assume that the audible effects of jitter are not masked by anything at all.

First of all, what audible effects of jitter? You haven’t determined there are any and Secondly, audio masking only happens in the ear and requires a similarly or higher level signal to mask it, both of which would be apparent in various measurements or more obviously in a null test.

If we see improvements in various areas, it's worthwhile to check whether this may have been a bottleneck in previous testing would it not?

Assuming there are any audible bottlenecks.

But posts in the realm of "Well I don't think it matters" or "No one else has shown a difference so why are you trying" are not constructive at all.

If any improvement is below the level of audibility then it doesn’t matter as far as listening is concerned. It will only matter to those who place importance on better inaudible specifications. I didn’t say and don’t believe that you shouldn’t try just because no one else has shown a difference. If you did really demonstrate a difference, I for one would find that interesting, although I wouldn’t know if that result had any practical implications until it was investigated formally and reproduced by others.

In regards to methodology, this is the setup:

I have a few issues/potential issues of varying concern.

Why are you converting to 705kHz? With such a relatively high data rate, there’s the potential concern of output/transfer errors. EG. Are you hearing differences between filters or errors due to an abnormal digital audio transfer rate, from your computer or DAC? This isn’t a big concern because even if there are errors they should be random and not bias the result but it is potentially a point of failure (of methodology).

The Holo May is also a slight concern. The R2R topology is one of those esoteric/pathological design topologies which can indeed be audible. It’s only a slight concern because the Holo May appears to perform virtually as well as standard topology DAC but again, why not eliminate this potential “point of failure”/criticism if you can?

A more serious point of concern, please state the test SPL reference. Obviously, one could ABX a small, quiet section (say the fade out), whack up the amplification by XdB and then pretty much any artefact at any level can be made audible.

In your second section, I think you should not combine tests, say a filter + dither test. Test for them individually, the idea being to try and make sure that the only single variable changing is the one you’re testing. Having 2 simultaneous variables introduces more potential points of failure and if you manage to falsify the null hypothesis, you don’t know why, which of the variables caused it.

Again, the SPL reference please. TDPF dither is trivially easy to hear (and distinguish) at even just a fairly modestly elevated level.

Also, very high and “stupid” number of taps, are you absolutely certain you’re actually testing the difference between filters and not the difference between artefacts caused by the software/computer while trying to calculate them?

G

 

[Eagle_Driver]

I can see how 24-bit/192 kHz digital audio can sound worse than even 8-bit/32 kHz audio, much less 16-bit/44.1 kHz:

If a DAC is capable of 24-bit/192 kHz processing, then the analog output stages must be capable of rejecting this IM distortion caused by extraneous ultrasonic frequencies. Unfortunately, most analog outputs in consumer devices are mediocre to poor at this job. This makes a proper 24/192 device (that is, one that sounds even meaningfully better than a device that's restricted to 16/48) prohibitively expensive to manufacture - so much that only the extremely affluent can afford it.

That said, 24- or 32-bit recording does have its advantages in production and mastering as dithering the final output down to 20- or even 16-bit will not affect the sound all that much. But recording at too high of a sampling rate will be pointless, as many of the artifacts caused by ultrasonic frequencies will carry over into the downconverted-to-44.1 final output file. That makes it much harder on analog output stages to handle. Consumer, and even some audiophile/high-end, analog outputs just aren't good enough.

 

[castleofargh]

Bias isn’t the only consideration. How well you’ve isolated the variable you’re testing for is just as important.

Yes, that's why I say it's my cognitive bias to favor controlled test even before I know how well it was setup. A better man would only look at each test independently without a priori.

 

[bigshot]

Yeah. Sometimes it’s best to break a question down into several tests leading to the hypothesis, rather than one with a bunch of variables all at play at once.

 

[Ryokan]

I bought a remastered cd from Amazon and got a free mp3 download which I listened to while waiting for the cd to arrive and after initially liking it switched to the original mp3 file (256kbps) which sounded better! Hoped the flac equivalent sounded better as this is a 25th anniversary remaster and it does thankfully. So this isn't that flac sounds better than mp3 but Amazon's software is obviously worse than mine - Jetaudio. Anyone buying just the mp3 file won't be getting a good quality rip.

 

[gregorio]

So this isn't that flac sounds better than mp3 but Amazon's software is obviously worse than mine - Jetaudio. Anyone buying just the mp3 file won't be getting a good quality rip.

It all depends when the mp3 was created and by whom. It’s often quite difficult to verify the provenance of an MP3, they can sometimes be a transcode from a lower bit rate or created quite a while ago when encoders were of poorer quality.

G

 

[Ryokan]

It all depends when the mp3 was created and by whom. It’s often quite difficult to verify the provenance of an MP3, they can sometimes be a transcode from a lower bit rate or created quite a while ago when encoders were of poorer quality.

G

I thought buying an mp3 download from Amazon would be the best quality. In future I'll try and buy the cd and rip it myself, they're often only slightly more expensive and sometimes cost the same as other download sites which is crazy.

 

[gregorio]

I thought buying an mp3 download from Amazon would be the best quality.

Maybe it was when it was created (if it’s an old mp3). Maybe it was batch created by an intern using inappropriate settings or transcoded from another mp3 or other format. There’s no way to know for sure, sometimes even an mp3 provided by the record label is dodgy.

In future I'll try and buy the cd and rip it myself, they're often only slightly more expensive and sometimes cost the same as other download sites which is crazy.

That’s really the only way to be sure but even then, you need to make sure the CD is authentic and not a dodgy knock off.

G

 

[Ryokan]

Maybe it was when it was created (if it’s an old mp3). Maybe it was batch created by an intern using inappropriate settings or transcoded from another mp3 or other format. There’s no way to know for sure, sometimes even an mp3 provided by the record label is dodgy.

In this instance it's an anniversary remaster 2021 I expected it to sound better than the original.

That’s really the only way to be sure but even then, you need to make sure the CD is authentic and not a dodgy knock off.

G

I mostly only buy cd's from reputable companies or the artists themselves, sometimes from second hand shops where the price is low enough not to worry.

 

[bigshot]

I thought buying an mp3 download from Amazon would be the best quality.

A lot of music has been mastered and remastered multiple times. Who knows which mastering they used when Amazon generated the MP3? They might use the same MP3s for all the releases of that album. Or the digital download might be mastered differently than the CD. Amazon uses MP3 256 VBR, which is a transparent format. So if it doesn't sound the way you want it to, it's probably due to mastering.

 

[Ghoostknight]

A lot of music has been mastered and remastered multiple times. Who knows which mastering they used when Amazon generated the MP3? They might use the same MP3s for all the releases of that album. Or the digital download might be mastered differently than the CD. Amazon uses MP3 256 VBR, which is a transparent format. So if it doesn't sound the way you want it to, it's probably due to mastering.

well i would hope that if amazon offers mp3 that go with the CD that its actually the same mastering as the CD (preferably derived from the CD directly or from the original master of the CD) if not than this is nonsense by amazon

tho, isnt this easly checkable by audacity?

 

[bigshot]

I don't know if you can tell for sure with any download service if the lossy file is made right off the CD. If the files are supplied by the record label, they might have a specific kind of mastering for digital downloads that is different than for SACD/blu-ray or CD or radio play.

 

[Ghoostknight]

what kind of different mastering are we talking about?

i just know that for example for streaming service the loudness level gets adjusted but everything else stays the same, atleast to my knowledge CD is always the "original" mastering and most of the time there is different LP Mastering, but not much beside that (well maybe a radio mastering too?)

its not like that for each album 10 different mastering exist, well volume adjusted ones for the different streaming services but not like "completely different" masterings like LP vs CD (and im excluding "remastered" here since its always very obvious to tell from the album title)

atleast my assumption would be that download portals also offer the normal "original" CD Mastering

Edit: but maybe amazon gets their mp3 from amazon music, which may be indeed a different mastering, atleast volume-wise

 

[bigshot]

It's my understanding that there are multiple masterings for different venues and purposes.