Successful ABX testing to hear the difference between Redbook Audio vs upsampled to 192/24
Aug 20, 2013 at 4:19 AM Post #76 of 136

stv014

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Jul 17, 2011
Posts
3,493
Likes
271
By the way, the -0.000002923047 s delay I measured in Test_File_Foobar_192_24.wav is -82.500078528 samples at 28.224 MHz (the least common multiple of 44.1 kHz and 192 kHz). So, it might be exactly -82.5 samples or -0.000002923044 s in fact without measurement errors. Still, I got good enough null testing results in the audio band with the measured delay.
 
Aug 20, 2013 at 10:57 AM Post #77 of 136

UltMusicSnob

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Aug 14, 2013
Posts
177
Likes
11
Quote:
OK. Once you complete the testing, I will reveal what the files are. That is, assuming that someone else does not also want to try it.
normal_smile .gif


I **very much** wish other folks would try it. I grant it's time-consuming, but at least one pair in depth.
 
Aug 20, 2013 at 11:37 AM Post #78 of 136

mikeaj

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Jan 10, 2010
Posts
1,639
Likes
109
Quote:
I **very much** wish other folks would try it. I grant it's time-consuming, but at least one pair in depth.

 
I tried with one of the earlier samples (16/44.1 vs. 24/192) and got 13/25. I tried to listen for soundstage or whatever (usually this is something I never listen for) but admittedly couldn't even pick out a real difference in the sighted warm-up listening.
 
That said, I don't have 192 kHz playback gear, so it needed to convert to 96 kHz.
 
Aug 20, 2013 at 12:39 PM Post #79 of 136

UltMusicSnob

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Aug 14, 2013
Posts
177
Likes
11
Quote:
 
I tried with one of the earlier samples (16/44.1 vs. 24/192) and got 13/25. I tried to listen for soundstage or whatever (usually this is something I never listen for) but admittedly couldn't even pick out a real difference in the sighted warm-up listening.
 
That said, I don't have 192 kHz playback gear, so it needed to convert to 96 kHz.


Yeah, I already had the playback device for other purposes, my external audio interface on a PC dedicated solely to Digital Audio Workstation duties. I don't have any audiophile stereo gear at all, everything goes into the music production home gear.
 
Aug 20, 2013 at 1:22 PM Post #80 of 136

UltMusicSnob

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Aug 14, 2013
Posts
177
Likes
11
Quote:
 
I tried with one of the earlier samples (16/44.1 vs. 24/192) and got 13/25. I tried to listen for soundstage or whatever (usually this is something I never listen for) but admittedly couldn't even pick out a real difference in the sighted warm-up listening.
 
That said, I don't have 192 kHz playback gear, so it needed to convert to 96 kHz.


I don't really have a good vocabulary for it. I **always** start out listening for tonality, meaning frequency spectra, and it **never** works. Of course, that's how one listens when mixing, creating sound designs, working on guitar technique right or left hand, setting up the amp, on and on. But listening for "differences" in files which do *not* differ tonally is a weird idea to begin with, and these all-192s are even less describable than the earlier 44.1 / 192 comparisons.
 
Aug 20, 2013 at 9:20 PM Post #81 of 136

UltMusicSnob

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Aug 14, 2013
Posts
177
Likes
11
B versus F:
confused_face(1).gif
 
 
I may have over-acclimated to all these 192's or something. I did get a run of 14/20 once, but I'm going to call that one a chance fluke, since I've tried so many sets. Eventually you can hit a number that way, just random, but in this case it followed small groups of 3 or 4 that did not indicate I was warmed up, and then I was unable to even remotely replicate it at all. There may be an audible difference somewhere in this signal to be found, but the features I've been looking for previously, I cannot find in this pair. So, white flag on this one. I'm wondering about trying to hear past whatever coloration the Xonar sound card analog Line Out section might contribute (if the Xonar analog after D/A was involved in F).
 
Completely undermined my judgment. I walked away for awhile and then came back and replicated an earlier round (44.1 versus 192 directly) just to see if it was possible (0.2% chance of guessing, so that was ok).
 
Aug 22, 2013 at 5:37 PM Post #84 of 136

nick_charles

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Feb 26, 2008
Posts
3,180
Likes
334
Quote:
OK, so you can hear a difference between B and any of the other files, with the exception of F ?
 
Is anyone else interested in trying the test ?

 
I'll have a go, I've already tried the pair you quoted in post #6 - where do I get the other samples
 
Aug 22, 2013 at 6:18 PM Post #86 of 136

UltMusicSnob

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Aug 14, 2013
Posts
177
Likes
11
Quote:
OK, so you can hear a difference between B and any of the other files, with the exception of F ?
 
Is anyone else interested in trying the test ?


I'll give F another shot while nick_charles tests, plus try to replicate previous pairs. We're only doing B against the rest, as I understand it.
I also want to see what happens with the Beyerdynamic DT 48's, which are not nearly as bassy as the 770s, and maybe brighter in the upper range as well.
 
Aug 22, 2013 at 6:29 PM Post #87 of 136

UltMusicSnob

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Aug 14, 2013
Posts
177
Likes
11
Quote:
 
If you can hear above 22kHz, if you upsample a 44.1kHz file to 192kHz, if the new information from 22.05 - 96 is only silence there is nothing to hear.  A 192kHz recording will have 22.05-96 information for example the cymbal and xylophone.  If your tweeter stops at 20kHz it can cause IMD, if your tweeter play up to 96kHz it will not cause IMD.
 
The human ear has no antennae for 30kHz waves, however is theory the human skin antennae so is advice you listen the 192kHz recording naked.


These are only upsampled from original CD at 44.1 kHz, so there's no original information above  22.05 anyway.  Reproduction is through DT 770 Pro's.
 
Aug 22, 2013 at 7:37 PM Post #88 of 136

nick_charles

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Feb 26, 2008
Posts
3,180
Likes
334
Sorry I tried all pairs with B I tried listening for gaps, volume differences, L to R movement of image, blips when switching , the whole lot - did get a few runs of 3 right but never better than guessing over 10 trials or more - might try again tomorrow but if there is an audible difference between the samples it seems beyond my capabilities..
 
Aug 22, 2013 at 10:42 PM Post #89 of 136

UltMusicSnob

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Aug 14, 2013
Posts
177
Likes
11
Two rounds of replication for A versus B. Going *very* slowly, comparing back to B and A multiple times for every single choice, plus short rests between.
Would be better to go 10 for 10, but I've only seen that once, not on these all-192's.
DT 48's did not help on F, think the 770's are just better all around.
 
      
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top