[Sonic Defender]

  For me lossy vs lossless is about a sense of fullness vs lacking it. Like I think the reason most people dont notice much difference is because they aren't using the right criteria, which is usually a sense of resolution, since that is what lossless quality is referred to. Hi-res. But from a technicality point of view all lossless quality is, is all the data existing and heard vs lossy has literal bits of missing data based on an algorithm that determines the least audible bits of sound to remove. Doing this to me causes a sense of simplicity to the sound, its pretty subtle but once you notice it you always will notice it. All my 320kbps music sounds great in regards to resolution, but its really obvious theres bits of data missing int he sound and frequencies. think of it like a series of lines, the thicker lines being the most noticed sounds and frequencies, and then each line drawn next to the original thick line gets thinner and thinner, and the algorithm says it will delete those most outer thinnest lines and just leave the thick line. Well when you hear lossless and you hear all the lines, and then compare it to lossy where those smaller thin lines are missing, to me it creates this lack of fullness, as if there are just empty black spaces in the sound. It actually made lossless sound worse to me the first month I started listening to it because there was always sound, always data, always something making noise. Compared to being used to lossy where you get used to the emptiness in a way, the lack of data an start thinking its normal. but once I got used to lossless after a month, I instantly noticed how much was missing in lossy. Of course the only real exception to this was simple electronic music like hardstyle or house. There isnt that much detail or extra sounds in the first place, so not much changes between the formats. In those cases you can get away with 320kbps and not miss anything. Otherwise I feel lossless cd quality audio should be standard, as the minimum. And have the lossy qualities be special case situations for saving space, in the same way higher res qualities are special case for getting a little more out of the sound, but are not needed for being able to hear all the data in a file.
 
Also to keep this slightly on topic lol, you only really notice all these differences when using headphones like the he-560 or of similar quality, and of course the gear to drive them.

While I have not tried the testing yet, for me the problem I have is that if you don't have something that is very testable, instead you have a very subjective impression that will differ widely from listener to listener, how can we draw any conclusions from that? For me I would need to be told something like: in song x on this equipment at this SPL from 2:45 until 2:53 in the track notice the difference in the bass line as with the compressed version ..... If the differences can't be identified in this manner than it is extremely hard to have any confidence at all in the findings. Not trying to be a dick here, and I would love for a difference to be audible, I just need some very identifiable evidence that moves away from the subjective. I think this is very reasonable as unlike when we discuss the innately subjective subject of what sounds good, we are discussing what should be heard everytime if it is audible, or at least for people with normal hearing range.

 

[money4me247]

  While I have not tried the testing yet, for me the problem I have is that if you don't have something that is very testable, instead you have a very subjective impression that will differ widely from listener to listener, how can we draw any conclusions from that? For me I would need to be told something like: in song x on this equipment at this SPL from 2:45 until 2:53 in the track notice the difference in the bass line as with the compressed version ..... If the differences can't be identified in this manner than it is extremely hard to have any confidence at all in the findings. Not trying to be a dick here, and I would love for a difference to be audible, I just need some very identifiable evidence that moves away from the subjective. I think this is very reasonable as unlike when we discuss the innately subjective subject of what sounds good, we are discussing what should be heard everytime if it is audible, or at least for people with normal hearing range.

+1! I think a detailed accurate description of variation between lossless and compressed with the time would be very helpful for people who are trying to discern the differences

 

[saxelrod92]

 
While I have not tried the testing yet, for me the problem I have is that if you don't have something that is very testable, instead you have a very subjective impression that will differ widely from listener to listener, how can we draw any conclusions from that? For me I would need to be told something like: in song x on this equipment at this SPL from 2:45 until 2:53 in the track notice the difference in the bass line as with the compressed version ..... If the differences can't be identified in this manner than it is extremely hard to have any confidence at all in the findings. Not trying to be a dick here, and I would love for a difference to be audible, I just need some very identifiable evidence that moves away from the subjective. I think this is very reasonable as unlike when we discuss the innately subjective subject of what sounds good, we are discussing what should be heard everytime if it is audible, or at least for people with normal hearing range.

Makes sense, and technically I think the repeatable differences are there objectively. The problem is that the main difference is not related to any one specific sound/frequency/instrument/area in the music. It is a wide general affect as a whole. The specific thing to be listening for is the affect of having less data in the sound, this would be very subtle to hear if you focused on a specific instrument or part of a song because this could mean slightly less ambient decay at the end of a note before the next note is played, or some very faint micro-detail not there. Stuff that you would almost never hear if you listened JUST for that one part. but when this is being combined into a whole song, it becomes noticeable that something is missing, you can feel something is missing as a whole. for lossy music. Like when I first started listening to lossless music is always sounded too noisey, because all the missing micro barely audible sounds are now there and as a whole produced more sound for my brain to pay attention to, which coming from years of lossy listening was overwhelming and got translated as too noisey. then I got used to it and now lossy is a bit empty, lifeless, duller (read that as ridiculously subtle though) but noticeable enough that a difference exists.
 
So i dont know how you could do it using specific time stamps, because the differences are not there in any specific area. You have to look at it as a whole, otherwise you dont notice it.

 

[SBranson]

You have to look at it as a whole, otherwise you dont notice it.

 
Though you mention lossy vs lossless I can hear definite and specific differences between lossless 16/44 and 24/96 on certain tracks.
Whether another could hear what I want to point out may or may work.  I am confident that I could a/b accurately despite all the rhetoric that hi-rez is a money grabbing scam.
 

 
While I have not tried the testing yet, for me the problem I have is that if you don't have something that is very testable, instead you have a very subjective impression that will differ widely from listener to listener, how can we draw any conclusions from that? For me I would need to be told something like: in song x on this equipment at this SPL from 2:45 until 2:53 in the track notice the difference in the bass line as with the compressed version ..... If the differences can't be identified in this manner than it is extremely hard to have any confidence at all in the findings. Not trying to be a dick here, and I would love for a difference to be audible, I just need some very identifiable evidence that moves away from the subjective. I think this is very reasonable as unlike when we discuss the innately subjective subject of what sounds good, we are discussing what should be heard everytime if it is audible, or at least for people with normal hearing range.

 
I don't see the need for your non-subjective identifiable evidence.  If you can hear the difference then what difference does it make what others say.  Just try it out and if you can't hear the differences then for you there aren't any.  Doesn't mean that others can't hear them.
Just like sight varies, some people can not hear pitch at all or have ever truly tried to listen carefully.  It's something that has to be practiced and learned as it requires focused attention.  Food critics, wine tasters, perfumers...  they aren't just born that way, they cultivate the skill to focus carefully on a specific sense.  Go in the woods with an experienced hunter... they see a lot more than someone who doesn't know how to see.
All this call for "objective" facts and references will only serve for you to listen and convince yourself that there is a difference as much as the objectivists think that those who believe in cables and burn in are only fooling themselves into thinking there is a difference.
If it's in your mind to affirm or deny then the answer is pretty much set.   

 

[ThurstonX]

  Though you mention lossy vs lossless I can hear definite and specific differences between lossless 16/44 and 24/96 on certain tracks.
Whether another could hear what I want to point out may or may work.  I am confident that I could a/b accurately despite all the rhetoric that hi-rez is a money grabbing scam.

 
I'm not disputing what you say, because I hear it, too.  But someone pointed out that 24/96 tracks could very well be remastered versions compared to a previously released CD.  Just something to bear in mind in a general sense.  After some cable making is finished, I want to try to convert some 24/96 FLACs to 16/44.1 using SoundForge and the best dithering plug-in I have, and then take this Pepsi Challenge.

 

[Wildcatsare1]

^Though this all started out as an ABX test of Mp3's versus FLAC of the same recording. Too me the Mp3's sound "wooly", lacking body and presence versus FLAC recordings. My concern is that it will be music that we all are not familiar with, perhaps on equipment we don't know, but in my open label testing it is very apparent when switching between formats, with music I am familiar with, on my equipment, I am looking forward to seeing if we can replicate that, Thurston, may we borrow the Lab?

 

[ThurstonX]

^Though this all started out as an ABX test of Mp3's versus FLAC of the same recording. Too me the Mp3's sound "wooly", lacking body and presence versus FLAC recordings. My concern is that it will be music that we all are not familiar with, perhaps on equipment we don't know, but in my open label testing it is very apparent when switching between formats, with music I am familiar with, on my equipment, I am looking forward to seeing if we can replicate that, Thurston, may we borrow the Lab?

 
If I weren't about to crash in anticipation of 6 hours of sleep before having to make an airport run, I'd happily snap a pic of its present state.  Suffice it to say, there's schiit everywhere 

 

[money4me247]

  Though you mention lossy vs lossless I can hear definite and specific differences between lossless 16/44 and 24/96 on certain tracks.
Whether another could hear what I want to point out may or may work.  I am confident that I could a/b accurately despite all the rhetoric that hi-rez is a money grabbing scam.
 

There was an article posted on head-fi that clearly states that viewpoint is incorrect.
 
Due to Nyquist sampling theorem, there is no audible benefit from improved sampling rates. Nyquist theorem proves mathematically that perfect reproduction of a signal is possible as long as the sampling frequency is greater than twice the maximum frequency being sampled. Hence, the minimum sampling rate of 40kHz allows for 100% accurate reproduction of 20Hz-20kHz (which is the full range of human hearing). Most microphones used in recording do not even pick up sound above 20kHz. Also, it appears that increased sampling rates can actually introduce additional distortion. The main practical benefit of higher sampling rates is that designers can make sampling converters less expensive as there is apparently more wiggle room for design/implementation at higher sampling rates.
 
There is a small caveat that the author mentioned about possible differences in sonic performances in blind tests. However, the underlying cause is not the sampling rates but actually the converter itself. It appears that there are design short-cuts that audio manufacturers may take which causes their converter to underperform at a certain sampling rates. So it appears that any improvement in sonic performance from increased sampling is simply from the converter not optimally designed for a lower sampling rate. Therefore, the sampling rate does not matter as long as you have a well designed converter. If you are actually hearing sound quality differences in a blind test, that just means your converter is not well-optimized for a certain sampling rate. 
 
sources:
http://www.trustmeimascientist.com/2013/02/04/the-science-of-sample-rates-when-higher-is-better-and-when-it-isnt/
http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html
 
footnote: the Nyquist sampling theorem was discovered prior to digital audio and it is the foundation that allowed digital audio to be possible.

 

[Soundsgoodtome]

I've come to the conclusion that the remasters of hdtracks are better..but not with all. Take for example MJ's Xscape album, the sample clips on hdtracks also have the same distortion as the CD.

I wonder which record company uses the same masters on hdtracks and CDs. Certainly there's a few with the same masters. Chesky maybe?

 

[Bill-P]

Well, if it's any worth to the discussion at hand...
 
The Fostex HP-P1's DAC, which I guess is operating at 44.1KHz 16-bit as that's the limit of most iOS devices that it supports, sounds cleaner and more detailed than the internal built-in DAC of my MacBook operating at 96KHz 24-bit... with the same track in hi-res FLAC and then in Apple Lossless format
 
And the same track, at either 44.1KHz 16-bit or 96KHz 24-bit on the MacBook, sounds the same.
 
I think there are way too many variables in play to really tell whether or not hi-res music does make the difference...
 
But I can tell with certainty that if the headphone is capable of it, then it'll be able to reveal differences between different sources.
 
And a good DAC will just... sound better regardless.

 

[SBranson]

  There was an article posted on head-fi that clearly states that viewpoint is incorrect.
 
...If you are actually hearing sound quality differences in a blind test, that just means your converter is not well-optimized for a certain sampling rate. 
 

 
But it isn't incorrect given my set-up.  I'm not going to dismiss something that sounds better because you quote a theorem.  The theorem functions in a perfect scenario as you mention in the caveat.
Nothing you say can refute my claim that I find hi-rez tracks better on my current gear than the lower rez formats.
 
Anyway... this is off topic... I'm done.

 

[money4me247]

  But it isn't incorrect given my set-up.  I'm not going to dismiss something that sounds better because you quote a theorem.  The theorem functions in a perfect scenario as you mention in the caveat.
Nothing you say can refute my claim that I find hi-rez tracks better on my current gear than the lower rez formats.
 
Anyway... this is off topic... I'm done.

hahah... of course. I didn't mean it like that, so sorry. I simply meant that the view that there is something inherent in higher sampling rates that improves sound quality is incorrect. I was not trying to dismiss your experiences. It is entirely possible that you are hearing a difference between higher sampling rates and lower sampling rates.
 
However, that is most likely due to your current gear having a converter that is performing sub-optimally at lower sampling rates, rather than any inherent sonic quality improvement of the higher sampling rate. It is mathematically impossible for higher sampling rates above the threshold of twice the maximum frequency response to have any perceivable improvement in sound reproduction, so the higher sampled track is the exact same thing as your lower sampled track.
 
In light of this information, I personally do not think it makes any sense to invest more money for higher sampling rates.
 
Note: there is nothing wrong with the theorem. it is a problem with the converter. additionally, there are confounding variables like improved bitrate for your high-resolution tracks compared to the lower bitrate of the low-resolution tracks & differences in encoding format.

 

[Wildcatsare1]

^Then by all means don't waste your money, but why do you feel compelled/entitled too tell us what we hear, or how to spend our money? Please fell free to post the links or PM them too me regarding DAC's operating sub optimally when lower sample rates sound inferior, I really do want to read it and improve my understanding of different viewpoints on this issue. Thanks

 

[Bill-P]

By the way... here's something to consider: I could never hear above 19 KHz before. Even 19KHz is a bit faint. That's no matter the source gears, and no matter the headphone.
 
Then... I got into DIY. And with a less aggressive low-pass filter, output directly from the Fostex HP-P1's DAC... guess what? I could hear up to 21KHz clear as day, and 22KHz is just barely audible.
 
So... seriously, I am starting to think that due to following some written rules that say that people can't hear above 20KHz, amp makers have been purposefully filtering out anything above 20KHz using analog filters since... forever. And then that results in this whole "oh, I can't hear above 18-19KHz so I must be having tinnitus or my hearing must be bad".
 
But seriously, I can hear 21KHz with my DIY amp. Clear as day. 22KHz is actually also slightly audible. But any other amp in my possession would simply top out at 19KHz.
 
So theorems and what-nots may not be true for everyone. And I think this applies to a broader range than these theories imply.
 
Either that or my ears must be golden, but I don't think they are... since I can't pick out differences between low-res and hi-res music.

 

[money4me247]

^Then by all means don't waste your money, but why do you feel compelled/entitled too tell us what we hear, or how to spend our money? Please fell free to post the links or PM them too me regarding DAC's operating sub optimally when lower sample rates sound inferior, I really do want to read it and improve my understanding of different viewpoints on this issue. Thanks

I had the links in my previous posts. here is the peer-reviewed scientific source: http://lavryengineering.com/pdfs/lavry-sampling-theory.pdf
 
The more consumer-orientated discussions on the topic that I had previously linked in my previous post:
http://www.trustmeimascientist.com/2013/02/04/the-science-of-sample-rates-when-higher-is-better-and-when-it-isnt/
http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html
 
lol. I am not telling anyone how they hear or how to spend their money. I am just providing some background information about the issue as currently understood in the scientific community. From my understanding of the actual scientific information out there, current sampling rates already achieves perfect sound reproduction, so it is unlikely that higher sampling rates has any positive benefits on sound quality. Considering the common "low-res" sampling rates available now are 44.1kHz or 48kHz already allows for perfect reproduction of sound up to 22 kHz - 24kHz, well above the commonly quote range for human hearing or even Bill-P's anecdote.
 
No offensive is meant by any of my comments. My stance is not belligerent or preachy or anything like that! lol. You can choose what to do with this information. I just wanted to stated the facts I found and my personal views. It appears from my research that any audible differences in sound quality can be attributed other variables rather than sampling rates, and I think it is important for the audiophile consumers & other newcomers of this hobby to have access to this knowledge. I think it definitely helps audiophiles everywhere to have a clear understanding of exactly which variables have the most impact on their sound quality, so we can make informed decisions.