[jcx]

as stated the "sound science types" just want to know the conditions, sources used in the claimed ABX sample rate listening test discrimination - we are on record as being willing to accept the evidence of our ears
 
or even that of younger, genetically gifted or trained ears - when we can inspect the test files, conditions surrounding
such as the known confounder in some "ultrasonic hearing" tests as transducer or amplifier nonlinearity creating IMD products at expected to be audible levels in the "conventional" audio frequency range
 
there are even some queries about digital filtering for 44.1 - it is "tight" - but so far the evidence is poor - and the "audiophile" lauded equipment doesn't all point to the same "solution" - some "audiophile" products designs, claims are directly opposed but each rabidly supported by followers 
 
 
 
transparency about claims, even clues about where and what to listen for will change the story when the results can be vetted, replicated
 
Sound Science, Psychoacoustics isn't a closed subject - any Science dealing with human perception is too complicated for any single theory to be complete - we welcome new evidence

 

[JWolf]

  OH boy here we go.  The end of a good discussion.
 
Sound Science my ass. Listen and believe what you want. Enjoy music. No numbers or pseudo-facts should change your opinion of what you hear.
 
Sound Science can't prove that a fender strat sounds better than a estiban guitar.
Sound Science can't prove that this woman can sing better than that woman.
Just like Sound Science can't prove that the 24bit remix of that album sounds better than the 16bit version.
 
The ABX test is a scourge of audio.  People who can't hear seem to rely on them for cover.
It's a fatally flawed test, no amount of times running it matters.
 
20x, 50x, 100x.  1 test subject, 5 subjects, 50 subjects.  Doesn't matter.
 
All bad data.   Bad data = horrible results.

 
I can get 100% every time using the Foobar2000 ABX plugin. There's a bug in it where I can easily tell what tracks are the same without having to do any real listening. As for ABX, I don't need to do it just to satisfy others. I hear what I hear and if others don't believe me, then that's their loss.

 

[Brooko]

  I can get 100% every time using the Foobar2000 ABX plugin. There's a bug in it where I can easily tell what tracks are the same without having to do any real listening. As for ABX, I don't need to do it just to satisfy others. I hear what I hear and if others don't believe me, then that's their loss.

 
Thanks for clarifying - I can politely disregard your posts on the subject of HD from this point (I already ignore FFBookman's)
 
If you ever do want to participate in a properly controlled test - please feel free to PM me - and I'll see if we can set one up.  In the meantime - enjoy the music - its what we are all here for after all

 

[GreenBow]

   
Thanks for clarifying - I can politely disregard your posts on the subject of HD from this point (I already ignore FFBookman's)
 
If you ever do want to participate in a properly controlled test - please feel free to PM me - and I'll see if we can set one up.  In the meantime - enjoy the music - its what we are all here for after all

If anyone wishes to at least try to undserstand the science of why 44.1KHz can miss data we'll be glad to hear from you too. I have been blocking Musical Alchemist for weeks. (I can't actually believe Musical Alchemist wrote people not prepared to do A-B testing should not post in his thread linked. He/she is not a moderator.) Sick of reading the same thing from people not even prepared to listen to anyone else. Just because individals say they can not hear a difference doesn't mean other can not. To say so is just plain arrogance and ignorance. Niether is it even the topic of this thread.
 
Of course I don't want any more link to the Nyqusit Theorum which only explains one side of the story. It doesn't explain how you recreate the missing data, or what I have been saying from the beginning. That amplitude data is potentially lost in the higher frequencies, from which a lot of directional information comes. I.E. sounstaging, which is one aspect HD-audio fans say is better.
 
I saw the answer to the concept in a webpage about how the Chord Hugo recreates the analogue signal. I think I kept the link. However I did keep this link about the Chord Mojo which explains taps, interpolation, and why Chord DACs are better than other DACs.
http://www.the-ear.net/how-to/rob-watts-chord-mojo-tech
 
Interpolation is key, since it is down to the DAC to create the image of the sine wave where there is no data. The opposite side of that spectrum of course is more data points, i.e. HD-audio.
 
All sceptics of HD-audio, why not email Jude Mansilla founder of Head-Fi who uses HD-audio. Tell him he's wasting his time and money, and see how far you get.

 

[Brooko]

Yes but once again you completely fail to understand the very simple concept being asked. If the difference is inaudible - then does it matter? And all properly controlled blind tests seem to suggest that the difference is inaudible. Not just by me - but by any human. All the ones who claim to be able to hear a difference refuse to take a properly controlled test. What does that tell you?

I'd be extremely happy if just one person could show there is an audible difference - it would mean we all gain a little more knowledge.

And Jude is just like you or I - he is a data point. If he could pass a properly controlled blind test then that would be great too.

Feel free to also block me . It still won't change the fact that at this stage hi-res might make us feel better about what we're listening to, but when the rubber hits the road, it seems to have no bearing on what we are actually hearing.

 

[Music Alchemist]

  If anyone wishes to at least try to undserstand the science of why 44.1KHz can miss data we'll be glad to hear from you too. I have been blocking Musical Alchemist for weeks. (I can't actually believe Musical Alchemist wrote people not prepared to do A-B testing should not post in his thread linked. He/she is not a moderator.) Sick of reading the same thing from people not even prepared to listen to anyone else. Just because individals say they can not hear a difference doesn't mean other can not. To say so is just plain arrogance and ignorance. Niether is it even the topic of this thread.

 
My thread I linked to is about testing the claims of those who perceive a difference between lossless formats. The thread is not about merely listening to claims; it is about objectively testing those claims to see whether they stand up to scrutiny.
 
And it's Music Alchemist, not Musical Alchemist. hehe
 

Yes but once again you completely fail to understand the very simple concept being asked. If the difference is inaudible - then does it matter? And all properly controlled blind tests seem to suggest that the difference is inaudible. Not just by me - but by any human. All the ones who claim to be able to hear a difference refuse to take a properly controlled test. What does that tell you?

I'd be extremely happy if just one person could show there is an audible difference - it would mean we all gain a little more knowledge.

 
I completely agree with all of this! I was going to say basically the same thing in reply to the first quote above.

 

[Brooko]

Just to make it clear - I am actually in agreement that we should trust our ears - ie that we should rely on what is audible. So for Greenbow and others, I am not your enemy, and nor am I saying "science says!".  In fact the boot is actually on the other foot here - as I'm the one being quoted math (interpolation etc)

 
All I'm suggesting is that if you want to rely on your ears - then rely on them, and them alone. This requires a volume matched, blind test.
 
Experts in their field (Poppy Crumm from Dolby Labs, Ethan Winer etc) know that without this, our other senses take over and influence what we think we're hearing.  So if we really want the truth - why not try it?  What are we actually afraid of? That we might be wrong and actually learn something? That our entire belief system might be shaken?
 
Isn't that the point of all of this?
 
If you don't want to take the tests, and don't want to find out for sure - if you prefer to stick with high-res for your own system - then I have absolutely no issue with that.  What I take issue with is when people tell me high-res sounds better.  Not that it is there preference, not that it sounds better to them - BUT THAT IT IS BETTER PERIOD. If you make that statement, and you are so sure of it - then prove it.  Prove that you can tell the difference.  But prove it in a way that can't be questioned.  The test is simple. And if the proponents are so positive they can tell the difference - then please take the time to show me in a controlled test that you can.
 
Then I can change my current belief system, and we can all move on 

 
 

Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!

As an aside - so who you how human I am.  I have an iFi iDSD. My set-up (Foobar) allows me to up-res everything to DSD (I get a little aquamarine light on the iFi).  I know that I can't tell the difference sonically whether or not the light is on or not.  But it makes me feel better with it on.  Stupid I know. Somehow it adds to my listening pleasure. But for me to say DSD quality is better would be equally as wrong as stating high-res is better.  All this does is prove I'm human.

 

[JWolf]

   
Thanks for clarifying - I can politely disregard your posts on the subject of HD from this point (I already ignore FFBookman's)
 
If you ever do want to participate in a properly controlled test - please feel free to PM me - and I'll see if we can set one up.  In the meantime - enjoy the music - its what we are all here for after all

 
Just because I found a bug in the ABX plugin does not mean I exploited it and I didn't and never will cheat. There is a simple way to use the ABX plugin that does not invoke the bug and that's what did. I did not take advantage of it.
 
I just have to say that I think you are wrong and if you cannot hear any difference on well recorded music, then I suggest you go get your ears checked as something isn't right.
 
Now instead of comparing a downsampled track, the PROPER way to do it is to take the hi-res music and compare it to the best version available on CD. Why do it that way? You do it that way because the only way to get the downsampled tracks is to buy it first. You have to do the comparing with what's available to buy and no with what's not available to buy. You do it the PROPER way and you should hear even more of a difference. It doesn't matter why you hear this. What matters is that you do hear it.

 

[Brooko]

   
Just because I found a bug in the ABX plugin does not mean I exploited it and I didn't and never will cheat. There is a simple way to use the ABX plugin that does not invoke the bug and that's what did. I did not take advantage of it.
 
I just have to say that I think you are wrong and if you cannot hear any difference on well recorded music, then I suggest you go get your ears checked as something isn't right.
 
Now instead of comparing a downsampled track, the PROPER way to do it is to take the hi-res music and compare it to the best version available on CD. Why do it that way? You do it that way because the only way to get the downsampled tracks is to buy it first. You have to do the comparing with what's available to buy and no with what's not available to buy. You do it the PROPER way and you should hear even more of a difference. It doesn't matter why you hear this. What matters is that you do hear it.

 
Sorry - but this is pretty blatantly absurd.  The precise reason you can't abx the high-res from the CD is because it likely came from different masters.  So then you are abxing two different tracks. How can you tell if it's the high-res making the difference in that scenario?
 
The only way to tell for sure is take the highest resolution, and downsample to redbook, them compare the two.
 
This is pretty basic stuff when you think about it.

 

[JWolf]

   
Sorry - but this is pretty blatantly absurd.  The precise reason you can't abx the high-res from the CD is because it likely came from different masters.  So then you are abxing two different tracks. How can you tell if it's the high-res making the difference in that scenario?
 
The only way to tell for sure is take the highest resolution, and downsample to redbook, them compare the two.
 
This is pretty basic stuff when you think about it.

 
You have it wrong. If you are going to spend your money on music, you can only do so with what's available to buy. So what's out there is a CD and a hi-res download. Now if the CD is poorly mastered and the hi-res is properly mastered, then that's what you have to compare. You cannot buy downsampled tracks from the hi-res version. Sometimes you can buy a 16/44.1 from the the same place you can buy hi-res and in that case, buy your 16/44.1 music as it will be better than the CD since it's from the same master as the hi-res.
 
If CDs the music on CDs were the best you can get at 16/44.1 then there would be no need for SBM/DCC/MFSL/etc.versions that are better. So compare to the best available in 16/44.1 and the best available in hi-res and then see what you hear. Downsampling is irrelevant.

 

[Music Alchemist]

  You have it wrong. If you are going to spend your money on music, you can only do so with what's available to buy. So what's out there is a CD and a hi-res download. Now if the CD is poorly mastered and the hi-res is properly mastered, then that's what you have to compare. You cannot buy downsampled tracks from the hi-res version. Sometimes you can buy a 16/44.1 from the the same place you can buy hi-res and in that case, buy your 16/44.1 music as it will be better than the CD since it's from the same master as the hi-res.
 
If CDs the music on CDs were the best you can get at 16/44.1 then there would be no need for SBM/DCC/MFSL/etc.versions that are better. So compare to the best available in 16/44.1 and the best available in hi-res and then see what you hear. Downsampling is irrelevant.

 
But then you are not comparing two resolutions; you are (likely) comparing two different things from two different sources. It could be a different master, mix, or even a different recording altogether, in rare cases. Even when the same master is used, sometimes the conversion is botched as well, making it essential to take matters into your own hands. All of us can agree that some hi-res downloads sound better than some CDs. But that is beside the issue. The ONLY way to compare the two resolutions properly is to convert the files yourself. Otherwise, you are not isolating the variables. By the way, if you're willing, I would like for you to convert a 24-bit file (any one that sounds better to you) to 16/44.1 using the free trial of dBpoweramp, and then do an ABX test with 20 trials and share your results, preferably on my test thread, since such things are supposed to be in the Sound Science section.

 

[Brooko]

   
You have it wrong. If you are going to spend your money on music, you can only do so with what's available to buy. So what's out there is a CD and a hi-res download. Now if the CD is poorly mastered and the hi-res is properly mastered, then that's what you have to compare. You cannot buy downsampled tracks from the hi-res version. Sometimes you can buy a 16/44.1 from the the same place you can buy hi-res and in that case, buy your 16/44.1 music as it will be better than the CD since it's from the same master as the hi-res.
 
If CDs the music on CDs were the best you can get at 16/44.1 then there would be no need for SBM/DCC/MFSL/etc.versions that are better. So compare to the best available in 16/44.1 and the best available in hi-res and then see what you hear. Downsampling is irrelevant.

 
Actually I think we are finally agreeing on the same thing.  You're finally talking about the mastering being the difference - not the fact that one is high-res and one is not.  And that is something I totally agree with you on.

The biggest problem here is with companies sometimes intentionally crippling their available digital purchases - because the reality is that if the downsampling is done properly, there is no audible difference. But these companies know that people will pay a higher price for "high-res" - when they know that the difference is something they've manufactured.
 
The gain in quality is not because it is high-res, but because it is from a better original master.  And sadly it does mean that sometimes you do have to pay more for the better master.  I've done it many times - not because it is "hi-res", but because the master copy I want is available only in 24/96.
 
But for the likes of my portable systems - once I have the right master, I always downsample to redbook for space savings, and that means no audible fidelity is lost, but I still have the best quality - win/win.
 
All I can suggest - when you are looking to purchase music - is to follow the Dynamic Range Database - http://dr.loudness-war.info/.  Often this can give you an idea of the right master to follow without having to play the high-res game.

 

[Music Alchemist]

My policy is to buy albums I like in every available format.

 

[Roly1650]

Actually I think we are finally agreeing on the same thing.  You're finally talking about the mastering being the difference - not the fact that one is high-res and one is not.  And that is something I totally agree with you on.

The biggest problem here is with companies sometimes intentionally crippling their available digital purchases - because the reality is that if the downsampling is done properly, there is no audible difference. But these companies know that people will pay a higher price for "high-res" - when they know that the difference is something they've manufactured.

The gain in quality is not because it is high-res, but because it is from a better original master.  And sadly it does mean that sometimes you do have to pay more for the better master.  I've done it many times - not because it is "hi-res", but because the master copy I want is available only in 24/96.

But for the likes of my portable systems - once I have the right master, I always downsample to redbook for space savings, and that means no audible fidelity is lost, but I still have the best quality - win/win.

All I can suggest - when you are looking to purchase music - is to follow the Dynamic Range Database - http://dr.loudness-war.info/.  Often this can give you an idea of the right master to follow without having to play the high-res game.

Based on my experience of "the" hi-res download site, there's more than a fair chance that downsampling will give you the file the hi-res version started from. I'd be interested to know how many of the hi-res fans are checking to make 100% sure it is actually hi-res, look at a spectrum plot to find out for sure. Human senses being what they are it's easy enough to kid yourself you're hearing hi-res when it's nothing of the sort. I've got one 24/96 download that nulls perfectly with my RBCD circa 1987, so whatever it might be, hi-res isn't one of them, unless 24/96 cd's started to be made and no one told us.

 

[FFBookman]

Yes but once again you completely fail to understand the very simple concept being asked. If the difference is inaudible - then does it matter? And all properly controlled blind tests seem to suggest that the difference is inaudible. Not just by me - but by any human. All the ones who claim to be able to hear a difference refuse to take a properly controlled test. What does that tell you?

I'd be extremely happy if just one person could show there is an audible difference - it would mean we all gain a little more knowledge.

And Jude is just like you or I - he is a data point. If he could pass a properly controlled blind test then that would be great too.

Feel free to also block me

. It still won't change the fact that at this stage hi-res might make us feel better about what we're listening to, but when the rubber hits the road, it seems to have no bearing on what we are actually hearing.

Show me the tests that prove a real Fender strat sounds audibly better than a crap guitar.  There are none.
 
Show me the tests that prove a rick bass sounds audibly better than a squier bass. There are none.
 
Show me the tests that prove a DigidesignHD rack sounds audibly better than your laptop's mic jack. There are none.
 
Why is that?  Do you ever wonder?  Wouldn't Fender, Rick, and Digidesign want those results?  Of course they would. They would fund those tests all day.
 
They don't have them because you can't use a full scientific ABX listening test to prove quality exists.
 
Think, people.