[RRod]

   
Well, the word "presence" did come up.

I remember a while back on HydrogenAudio when a guy showed up and claimed to be able to detect lossy encodes that didn't suffer from the regular more well-defined artefacts. I seem to remember it had something to do with the stereo image. As you might expect, the HA regulars were mighty skeptical, and prodded him at length to see if there was any truth in his claims. In the end they finally concluded that there was, and he just had to be an extreme outlier, and a potentially valuable resource for developers of lossy codecs.
 
All that said, you're completely right that it's usually stuff like warbling and pre-echo artefacts that reveals the lossy file when the properly golden eared takes the test. Personally I've only managed to do this once, and I'm not totally convinced that it even was an entirely fair trial.
 

 
Reading more, and "air" does come up! Somebody talking about 24/192, of course… The OP tester seems pretty grounded in reality so like I said, I'm willing to accept a platinum-eared outlier for compression algorithms. It just affirms that I could never be a compression codec designer, because I'd be pulling my hair out trying to fix people's "focus" detection 

 

[bfreedma]

   
Ask the person who said it. I can't tell you.
 
By the way, since you're an HD 800 owner, did you compare it with any other headphones in its price range? (I'm particularly interested in comparisons with the AKG K812.)

 
It would be great if you would stop cross posting posts you can't explain.  Particularly those discussing headphones you haven't heard.

 

[Music Alchemist]

  It does matter. With Living Stereo and Mercury Living Presence recordings, they set the orchestra up on a stage and put a spread of two or three mikes in front of the  band. Nothing else. Those mikes captured not only the left/right but the secondary depth cues with perfect naturalness. When you hear that on a well designed two channel speaker system, you can close your eyes and precisely locate each instrument in space. It's not like Pink Floyd where stuff is moving in and out of phase and shifting all over the place. Perhaps it's something you have to hear to understand.

 
Translation: it's a better soundstage. An inferior soundstage does not cease to be a soundstage.
 

  Soundstage is not three dimensional, at least with a two channel system. It's a flat plane in front of you. The secondary depth cues will give an illusion of depth, but to actually get true three dimensional depth, you need multichannel.

 
I said that it is an illusion attempting three-dimensional sound, not that it is three-dimensional.
 

  It would be great if you would stop cross posting posts you can't explain.  Particularly those discussing headphones you haven't heard.

 
I'm sorry, I didn't realize I wasn't allowed to post references to things I want to look further into. I never claimed to be knowledgeable about it.

 

[James-uk]

I've got a reasonable 2.1 stereo set up and its nothing compared to my HD800 in terms of clean , precise , detailed , controlled bass/ perfect mid range and clear detailed treble. Yeah the soundstage and impact cannot be recreated by a headphone the same but I don't have to worry about EQ or room treatment etc . My ocd means I'm never satisfied with my room acoustics for a start and I can only change that so much. Enjoyable headphone listening requires a willingness to allow your brain to forget about the limitations of headphones ie visceral impact and 'soundstage'. I find that when I allow myself to switch of and just enjoy the music with the HD800s nothing comes close to them that I've listened to. I actually prefer the HD800 soundstage to my speakers when I just switch off and go with the music like I should. Let's just say the stereo 'headstage' illusion the Hd800 creates is remarkable.

 

[James-uk]

Oh and in answer to your question I think science says you should buy an ipad>spotify > cheap usb cable >O2/odac > headphone that measures well (frequency response is down to preference ) I decided on HD800 because technically it is near 'perfect' and 2nd to none (possibly sr009 but it's close) and i like its frequency response, to my ears it sounds neutral. Scientifically you would then have a transparent headphone set up .

 

[Music Alchemist]

 
Since you mentioned the O2, would you say it sounds just as good as your HDVD 800 with the HD 800?
 
I have the Schiit Magni 2 Uber and was thinking I wouldn't need to get another amp if I got the HD 800.

 

[James-uk]

Since you mentioned the O2, would you say it sounds just as good as your HDVD 800 with the HD 800?

I have the Schiit Magni 2 Uber and was thinking I wouldn't need to get another amp if I got the HD 800.

Sold the hdvd800 . Brought a benchmark dac1 instead. all 3 sound the same . Maybe hdvd800 very slightly warmer due to higher output impedance but that is my sighted evaluation . Probably fail blind ABX .
You wouldn't need another amp that will be plenty good enough, overkill infact just like O2 and benchmark.
Edit: only got dac1 for optical input (ps4) and 2 headphones out (sometimes the mrs comes and joins in on the listening with her Hd600)

 

[bigshot]

  The link, ABX logs.  I'm serious. Seems legit on the surface.

 
I would like to see the test administered by someone else. Never underestimate the temptation for golden eared audiophiles to deliberately cheat the test to manufacture their own evidence. Logs can be rigged. There was another guy who claimed this kind of thing around here, and as soon as someone suggested sending him files prepared by someone else that were prepared so he couldn't tell them apart, he disappeared.

 

[bigshot]

  Translation: it's a better soundstage. An inferior soundstage does not cease to be a soundstage.
I said that it is an illusion attempting three-dimensional sound, not that it is three-dimensional.

 
You seem to think I'm criticizing synthetic soundstage created in the mix. Not at all. Most rock albums are mixed this way, and it's a fine way to present music. But although it can have elements of realism, it isn't the same as real, natural soundstage.
 
The way Living Presence miked their recordings was the speaker equivalent of binaural. The left/right spread was absolutely perfect because it was captured in real space in perfect proportion and perspective, and the secondary depth cues, which were also perfect because they were captured from life, added an even greater dimension to the soundstage. You could sit down with a 24 track master where every instrument was tracked individually and place all the elements left to right and add slight reverbs to simulate secondary depth cues and work and work and work and still not get close to what Living Stereo achieved. You recognize it because it's real. It's like the difference between a drawing and a photograph. One may allow for more creativity to exaggerate and play around with shapes, but the other one is instantly recognizable as being real.
 
The Living Stereo recordings were designed to be played on speakers that were about eight feet apart. The soundstage was intended to give a "photographic" impression of being in the concert hall in the best seat in the house with the band spread out in front of you. It doesn't do that at all on headphones, but with speakers, the effect is vivid and undeniable.

 

[RRod]

   
I would like to see the test administered by someone else. Never underestimate the temptation for golden eared audiophiles to deliberately cheat the test to manufacture their own evidence. Logs can be rigged. There was another guy who claimed this kind of thing around here, and as soon as someone suggested sending him files prepared by someone else that were prepared so he couldn't tell them apart, he disappeared.

 
That's the problem with online ABX results; you either trust em or you don't. More and more I feel like I should tell people "do an ABX for yourself and take from it what you will, but don't expect me to believe the outcome online." I do doubt in this case that the tester bothered to rig logs with 80+ trials, but it's not exactly hard or time-consuming to do with a PC in front of you. But I'm willing to believe these and recommend people just test for themselves the audibility of various lossy algorithms and bit rates. Besides, people like me with ears blown out from playing actual music live shouldn't exactly be the torch-bearers of lossy audibility ^_^

 

[miceblue]

So if you claim something without doing an ABX test, you're scrutinized. Then if you do the ABX tests, you're still scrutinized. Then if you do an ABX test with photos showing the setup, someone will scrutinize you about something. So I guess it's a lose-lose-lose situation any way you look at it. Lol

I guess the only correct answer is that there is no audible difference between anything because no matter what test you do, you're screwed anyway. XD

 

[reginalb]

So if you claim something without doing an ABX test, you're scrutinized. Then if you do the ABX tests, you're still scrutinized. Then if you do an ABX test with photos showing the setup, someone will scrutinize you about something. So I guess it's a lose-lose-lose situation any way you look at it. Lol

I guess the only correct answer is that there is no audible difference between anything because no matter what test you do, you're screwed anyway. XD

 
Well, there are instances where it's been scientifically shown that the only difference between hi-resolution audio at 192k and around 50-60k within the range audible to humans is that there can be audible distortion (a bad thing if you want accurate music) added. There are measurable audible differences between MP3 at 320k and FLAC, but what is removed are sounds that are masked, so they would be (theoretically) inaubible within the context of the song to a human. It's certainly possible that there are ears out there that can hear the difference, but it must be noted that under carefully controlled conditions, differences haven't ever been identified during blind ABX testing. There is a reason that it is important that results from research can be replicated by others, and that it is peer reviewed. 
 
You don't know who is on the other end of the computer on the internet. I could easily be someone that benefits from the sale of high resolution music and hardware, or vice versa. So it's important to always be skeptical. Do some testing yourself, and buy and use what you want to. That is RRod's point, I think. Do what makes you happy, and you'll be a lot happier. 

 

[Greenears]

   
The only thing that makes me fishy there is quotes like this:
"No compression artifact giveaways here, I had to fight to the death by locking onto the vocals. Same thing with the other tracks, it seems that the loss of some treble information gives female vocals less attack and focus."
 
So basically, the stuff that actually gets cut by these algorithms he/she couldn't hear. Instead it's something ethereal; I was almost waiting for the term "air" to come up. Still, all the stuff dropped is in the audible band so I'm willing to believe some young stud with perfect ears can eek out differences. Though I must say as I've gotten more experience with all the pitfalls of doing proper ABX, I almost want to just avoid the concept entirely in online conversations ^_^

 
Well, what I came away with is that I'd really like to get my hands on that vocal.  I did try during my 24 v 16 testing odyssey to lock onto vocals a number of times and got nowhere.  I did look a bit at the filenames but I haven't had time to find them.
 
I think it's hard to dismiss an actual log.  But nevertheless his own writing suggests it is very very close.  We may yet find out it was encoded CBR not VBR, so that would make it moot since VBR may solve it.  If it was VBR it still won't dissuade me from listening in MP3 320 VBR and feeling that I am having an audiophile experience.  In practical terms I find the lossy vs lossless a bit academic - you have to archive in FLAC in case you need to transcode it several times, you don't want to do that from lossy.  So I will always have lossless available, and really lossy is for on-the-road or compatibility where it really doesn't matter.

 

[bigshot]

Never underestimate the desire to cheat the test.

 

[bigshot]

I don't think there is any improvement with MP3 320 VBR. As soon as you get to 320 it maxes out. I hear it does make a difference in AAC though, because AAC can go above 320 with VBR.