[SonyFan121]

I was able to successfully pass the Philips Golden Ear Challenge via a pair of Denon D5000 headphones using Schitt equipment that costs under $300.

You chose the right headphones for the job. All the other Denon/Fostex headphones i've heard are just "off" compared to the AH-D5000 imo. AH-D5000 is a true one-off I think. I shall be taking great care of mine's for years to come.

 

[SonyFan121]

I forgot to mention that I also tried that Philips Golden Ear Challenge years ago, unfortunately I can't remember what headphone exactly it was that I used, i've owned so many that i've forgotten which one it was, but I do know it wasn't the AH-D5000 I used as I didn't have that headphone at the time. I think it was a cheap sub $200 headphone. I do remember the test and that I done quite well, I remember being able to discern the difference between lossy and lossless samples of music, but I remember finding it more difficult nearer the end of the test.

 

[gregorio]

1) Can a human reliably detect the difference? Yes. Would the difference affect any practical aspect of how most people use it? No.
2) You sort of missed the point..... PROFESSIONAL BIKE RIDERS probably do get a little more speed, or something else, out of that $10k bike.
HOWEVER, many hobbyists just "like having nice equipment". Many hobbyists walk into a bike store, with their tax refund, which they consider "disposable income" and say "What's the best bike you have?" And many hobbyists buy a $2k camera to take (usually bad) pictures of their kids and their cat.
3) I might suggest you check out how much chrome trim costs... And fancy paint jobs... And real wood interior trim... They may impress the owner, or his friends, but they surely don't improve the actual performance of the car.
[3a] It is blatantly obvious to me that MOST hobbyists spend most of the money they do to get things they ENJOY.....
[3b] Which is quite different than "things that actually affect performance".

1. That is NOT true. I've owned a sports car, I did use/drive it differently on occasion and so does everyone I've ever known who owns a sports car.

2. Does that competition bike provide more performance? Does a $2k camera provide more performance than their phone camera? How a hobbyist takes advantage of that improved performance is up to them.

3. Do the sellers of chrome trims, fancy paint jobs and real wood interiors promise better performance or just better appearance?

3a. That is ABSOLUTELY UNTRUE!!! If a hobbyist buys a car or bike that promises better performance, then how is it NOT BLATANTLY OBVIOUS to you that they would be deeply unhappy if they did not get better performance? If however they buy something for their bike/car that purely affects appearance, then BLATANTLY OBVIOUSLY they are not bothered whether it improves performance. Also BLATANTLY OBVIOUSLY, if you look at all the reviews/impressions of audiophile equipment in other parts of head-fi, almost without exception the hobbyists buying/owning that equipment are being sold the promise of better performance and believe that's at least partly what they are buying! For example, how many audiophiles would still buy expensive audiophile cables if there were no promise/implication of performance improvement and they were sold purely on the basis of improved appearance? What about expensive audiophile amps and DACs? How is this not BLATANTLY OBVIOUS to you?

3b. Then why do you and other audiophile companies market your products with the implication/promise of audible performance improvement? Why don't you market purely on improved appearance, just like "chrome trim, fancy paint jobs and real wood interior trim"????

G

 

[KeithEmo]

I'm inclined to agree with that.... I also have spent far more on music than on equipment - which seems only reasonable.

I also have a quite serious question to ask you........
Let's just assume, for the same of this question, that we agree that a properly compressed lossy file CAN sound audibly identical to the original.....

Would you be willing to trust that the quality of a specific lossy file that you purchase lives up to that standard?
(Just because a lossy file CAN be audibly indistinguishable provides no assurance that every one will be of that quality level.)
If so, are there specific vendors who you would trust in that respect?

Here's the reason that I ask......

If I purchase a CD, and then RIP it, I can confirm that it is perfect and unaltered - using any ripping program that has AccurateRIP.
Then, of course, I can convert it into a lossless or a lossy copy with about the same amount of effort (very little).
And, if I do that, I will of course use a compression program that I have extensively tested and trust to do a proper job.
However, if I do that, then I have already had to purchase, and find storage space for, the lossless file or physical CD.
So, in that case, using a lossy format only really benefits me if I need a copy for some portable device with limited storage space.

Alternately, in some cases, I can purchase a copy that is already in a lossy format, like AAC or MP3.
And, if I go that route, I will indeed use less storage space, and also avoid having to convert it.
However, if I do that, I have no way to confirm that the specific lossy file I've purchased is indistinguishable from the original.
I can confirm that a "CD quality download" is identical to the CD using AccurateRIP or some such service...
However, since the equivalence of a lossy file is "perceptual", there is no equivalent option for lossy files...
(I must either trust whoever I bought it from to have done a perfect job.... or go back to square one and buy a lossless copy to compare it to.)

It sure seems like....
Along with any doubts I may have about the technology involved....
We are also being asked to rely even more on the particular vendor we purchase from....
(Which I also find somewhat problematic.)

Well, Oppo's R&D team asked me to evaluate the PM-1s and gave them to me, so winning the lottery isn't totally out of the realm of possibility. I totally understand not wanting to drop a grand on headphones. I don't really use cans enough to justify that much money myself. But if you have money to spend, the one place where more cash actually results in improved sound is transducers. I've spent much more on my speakers than the rest of my system. But even that is dwarfed by the money I've invested in music. Music is the best place of all to spend your money. Music is the number 2 focus of my life, so it's worth it.

 

[Zapp_Fan]

Just want to chime in that expectation bias has a very, very serious effect on what you hear. When it comes to your ears... "trust but verify".

More than once I've spent time turning knobs on VST plugins (say an EQ or a 'vintage tape sound' type plugin) and found that the change in sound was noticeable, but less than I expected.

Then I realize the plugin is actually bypassed and was doing nothing at all. But make no mistake, I HEARD a difference. There just wasn't one.

It's happened to me, it'll happen to you too!!

I can also make my tinnitus disappear temporarily just by wishing it to be so, under certain circumstances (while wearing earplugs in a quiet room). So, that's a pretty clear indication that my brain hears whatever it wants to hear, gear (including my cochlea / cilia) be damned.

 

[bfreedma]

I forgot to mention that I also tried that Philips Golden Ear Challenge years ago, unfortunately I can't remember what headphone exactly it was that I used, i've owned so many that i've forgotten which one it was, but I do know it wasn't the AH-D5000 I used as I didn't have that headphone at the time. I think it was a cheap sub $200 headphone. I do remember the test and that I done quite well, I remember being able to discern the difference between lossy and lossless samples of music, but I remember finding it more difficult nearer the end of the test.

I don’t believe that the Philips Golden Ear Challenge had lossy vs. lossless as part of the training/testing program. If I recall corrrectly, the tests were around the ability to differentiate elements like bass, timbre, and sound field depth.

 

[SonyFan121]

As I said, it was many years ago, so my memory of it is a bit hazy. With that said; I definitely remember having to listen to lossy samples of music with artifacts in them such as the high frequency "tzz" you often get only in low bitrate MP3's. There where lossless samples too. The reason I know I was able to differentiate is because I was not allowed to advance to the next stage without passing that part of the test, and I did. It was only nearer the end of the test in the next stage that i found difficult and thus I was unable to pass the whole thing.

 

[bfreedma]

As I said, it was many years ago, so my memory of it is a bit hazy. With that said; I definitely remember having to listen to lossy samples of music with artifacts in them such as the high frequency "tzz" you often get only in low bitrate MP3's. There where lossless samples too. The reason I know I was able to differentiate is because I was not allowed to advance to the next stage without passing that part of the test.

There was a section of the training/testing that included the ability to identify artifacts that can occur in compressed files, but I’m fairly sure it didn’t involve comparing lossless to lossy files. Only identifying artifacts which were less pronounced as the various test levels progressed.

The test is no longer online, but the link below is a reference to the exercise I’m recalling. Perhaps you’re thinking of another test.

https://www.innerfidelity.com/content/audiophile-workout-philips-golden-ears-training

 

[sonitus mirus]

I don’t believe that the Philips Golden Ear Challenge had lossy vs. lossless as part of the training/testing program. If I recall corrrectly, the tests were around the ability to differentiate elements like bass, timbre, and sound field depth.

The closest test was the Silver "Details" section where the listener was tasked with identifying mp3 artifacts between several different lossy compression formats. There was "Normal", 160kbps, 128kbps, 96kbps, 80kbps, and 64kbps. I don't believe "Normal" was lossless, but just a higher, undisclosed bitrate mp3.

This test was a pain in the butt and more difficult than anything presented at the next "Gold" level for me, and I failed multiple times with the 128kbps or 160kbps files at first, until I figured out how and what I needed to listen for to pass it every time. I would struggle with this part of the test every time until I retaught myself what to listen for. Even after I did figure out how to hear the differences consistently, I'd have to say I felt they were extremely trivial differences that I would never concern myself with ever, at least with the music sample being used in that test.

 

[KeithEmo]

Did your sports car get you to work any faster than an econo-box?
Around here, the amount of time it takes to get to work is determined almost entirely by traffic and speed limits.
I very much doubt that a Formula 1 racer would get me to work any faster than my Nissan.
(And I might also suggest that "going vroom vroom" is more a matter of appearance than practical performance for most of us.)

I'm trying to figure out what you think the difference is between.....
- a hobbyist who buys a fancy bike (even though it doesn't help him ride faster)
- a hobbyist who buys a fancy camera (even though it doesn't help him take better pictures)
- an audio hobbyist who buys an amplifier with better specs than he needs (even though he can't hear the difference)

They're all doing it partly because they just plain want to...
And, probably because, at some level, they do sort of expect it to offer them some intangible "benefit"...
A hobby is something you do for fun...
So, if you enjoy it, then it's working...

Here at Emotiva, we sell our equipment based on offering excellent performance for a good price.
We also offer a 30 day return policy - so we wouldn't gain much by making false promises (you'd just return what you bought if you were disappointed).
And, yes, some people buy more performance than they "need" - because it just makes them feel all warm and fuzzy....
(Which sounds a lot like why many people buy sports cars.)

To be quite honest, if someone were to claim that chome trim would make your car go faster, I doubt it would take long for people to catch on that it didn't.
(However, if you believe the messaging in the commercials, that new sports car will make your girlfriend more attractive, your kids better behaved, and the weather nicer.)
And, if someone was so saturated with expectation bias that they really imagined that their car DID go faster with the new trim installed, I don't think I'd blame the store... much.
And, maybe, if they offered a 30 day return policy on that chrome trim, or on some "audiophile equipment", the world would be a very different place.
(I wonder if they'd refund my money on that SUV if my kids were still the same screaming little monsters two weeks after I buy it as they were two weeks before.)

1. That is NOT true. I've owned a sports car, I did use/drive it differently on occasion and so does everyone I've ever known who owns a sports car.

2. Does that competition bike provide more performance? Does a $2k camera provide more performance than their phone camera? How a hobbyist takes advantage of that improved performance is up to them.

3. Do the sellers of chrome trims, fancy paint jobs and real wood interiors promise better performance or just better appearance?

3a. That is ABSOLUTELY UNTRUE!!! If a hobbyist buys a car or bike that promises better performance, then how is it NOT BLATANTLY OBVIOUS to you that they would be deeply unhappy if they did not get better performance? If however they buy something for their bike/car that purely affects appearance, then BLATANTLY OBVIOUSLY they are not bothered whether it improves performance. Also BLATANTLY OBVIOUSLY, if you look at all the reviews/impressions of audiophile equipment in other parts of head-fi, almost without exception the hobbyists buying/owning that equipment are being sold the promise of better performance and believe that's at least partly what they are buying! For example, how many audiophiles would still buy expensive audiophile cables if there were no promise/implication of performance improvement and they were sold purely on the basis of improved appearance? What about expensive audiophile amps and DACs? How is this not BLATANTLY OBVIOUS to you?

3b. Then why do you and other audiophile companies market your products with the implication/promise of audible performance improvement? Why don't you market purely on improved appearance, just like "chrome trim, fancy paint jobs and real wood interior trim"????

G

 

[bfreedma]

The closest test was the Silver "Details" section where the listener was tasked with identifying mp3 artifacts between several different lossy compression formats. There was "Normal", 160kbps, 128kbps, 96kbps, 80kbps, and 64kbps. I don't believe "Normal" was lossy, but just a higher, undisclosed bitrate mp3.

This test was a pain in the butt and more difficult than anything presented at the next "Gold" level for me, and I failed multiple times with the 128kbps or 160kbps files at first, until I figured out how and what I needed to listen for to pass it every time. I would struggle with this part of the test every time until I retaught myself what to listen for. Even after I did figure out how to hear the differences consistently, I'd have to say I felt they were extremely trivial differences that I would never concern myself with ever, at least with the music sample being used in that test.

That’s what I remember as well - thanks for the clarification and details.

I struggled with that section too and don’t believe I would notice the vast majority of the artifacts in the test during a “normal” listening session.

 

[SonyFan121]

Did your sports car get you to work any faster than an econo-box?
Around here, the amount of time it takes to get to work is determined almost entirely by traffic and speed limits.
I very much doubt that a Formula 1 racer would get me to work any faster than my Nissan.
(And I might also suggest that "going vroom vroom" is more a matter of appearance than practical performance for most of us.)

I'm trying to figure out what you think the difference is between.....
- a hobbyist who buys a fancy bike (even though it doesn't help him ride faster)
- a hobbyist who buys a fancy camera (even though it doesn't help him take better pictures)
- an audio hobbyist who buys an amplifier with better specs than he needs (even though he can't hear the difference)

They're all doing it partly because they just plain want to...
And, probably because, at some level, they do sort of expect it to offer them some intangible "benefit"...
A hobby is something you do for fun...
So, if you enjoy it, then it's working...

Here at Emotiva, we sell our equipment based on offering excellent performance for a good price.
We also offer a 30 day return policy - so we wouldn't gain much by making false promises (you'd just return what you bought if you were disappointed).
And, yes, some people buy more performance than they "need" - because it just makes them feel all warm and fuzzy....
(Which sounds a lot like why many people buy sports cars.)

To be quite honest, if someone were to claim that chome trim would make your car go faster, I doubt it would take long for people to catch on that it didn't.
(However, if you believe the messaging in the commercials, that new sports car will make your girlfriend more attractive, your kids better behaved, and the weather nicer.)
And, if someone was so saturated with expectation bias that they really imagined that their car DID go faster with the new trim installed, I don't think I'd blame the store... much.
And, maybe, if they offered a 30 day return policy on that chrome trim, or on some "audiophile equipment", the world would be a very different place.
(I wonder if they'd refund my money on that SUV if my kids were still the same screaming little monsters two weeks after I buy it as they were two weeks before.)

I believe your understanding of sports cars is seriously skewed. You can buy parts for a car that do make it go faster, particularly at high speeds. it's a long story involving physics, aerodynamics and gravity that I do not currently have the time to discuss.

 

[castleofargh]

Just want to chime in that expectation bias has a very, very serious effect on what you hear. When it comes to your ears... "trust but verify".

More than once I've spent time turning knobs on VST plugins (say an EQ or a 'vintage tape sound' type plugin) and found that the change in sound was noticeable, but less than I expected.

Then I realize the plugin is actually bypassed and was doing nothing at all. But make no mistake, I HEARD a difference. There just wasn't one.

It's happened to me, it'll happen to you too!!

I can also make my tinnitus disappear temporarily just by wishing it to be so, under certain circumstances (while wearing earplugs in a quiet room). So, that's a pretty clear indication that my brain hears whatever it wants to hear, gear (including my cochlea / cilia) be damned.

happened to me so many times that now I have a conditioned reflex making me look at the bypass buttons maybe 15 times in 5 minutes of tweaking some DSP. and yes, it "sounds" better with my settings and the plug in turned off. I can bet that there is somebody out there totally confident that the bypass doesn't really work and that his settings do improve the sound in bypass mode. I mean those guys sure that nothing is something exist for each and every topic we discuss, so I'm not taking a big risk.

 

[gregorio]

[1] Did your sports car get you to work any faster than an econo-box?
Around here, the amount of time it takes to get to work is determined almost entirely by traffic and speed limits.
[2] I'm trying to figure out what you think the difference is between.....
- a hobbyist who buys a fancy bike (even though it doesn't help him ride faster)
- a hobbyist who buys a fancy camera (even though it doesn't help him take better pictures)
- an audio hobbyist who buys an amplifier with better specs than he needs (even though he can't hear the difference)

1. Yes, on quite a few occasions it did, but I didn't buy a sports car to get me to work faster. I bought it for it's far superior acceleration and handling when having fun around twisty roads and it's superior performance was blatantly obvious. You even agreed the different performance of a sports car would be "reliably detectable" but now you're contradicting yourself and saying it wouldn't be detectable because traffic and speed limits would prevent you from ever using it. Why don't you make up your mind or better still, give it a rest with the non-analogous and irrelevant analogies??!

2. A hobbyist who bought a competition bike would expect and would get better performance and it would help him ride faster! It's ridiculous to say it wouldn't help him ride faster, have you never ridden a competition bike?
A hobbyist who buys a $2k camera gets a camera with obviously better performance, or are you saying that $2k cameras have the same performance as say an iPhone camera?
A hobbyist who buys an expensive audiophile amp is NOT getting better audible performance than a far cheaper amp.

Why is it that you always end-up going round in circles, obfuscating the most simple of logical points that even a child would comprehend? So here we go again, analogies that are NOT analogous and if anything demonstrate the exact opposite of the marketing point you're trying to push, and then we'll have several pages of you using nonsense arguments to defend your ridiculous analogies, eventually reaching the point of flying pigs and manned flights to Alpha Centuri.
Round and round and round we go, again!!!

G

 

[Phronesis]

Regarding sports cars ...

Yes, they all provide an interactive experience, so they're all different to drivers who are paying attention and sensitive to differences, regardless of the speeds at which the cars are driven. For that matter, for such drivers, all cars are different, not just sports cars.

You don't need to be near the performance limits of cars to notice the differences, and a given car will also behave differently depending on how it's being driven. This is all part of the fun of sports cars.

Audio gear is different because we don't interact with it and thereby change the behavior of the gear. The gear delivers a signal, and we respond to the signal with perception, so it's a one-directional process.