[Thad-E-Ginathom]

   
If your right ear has more frequencies gone than your left then that could mess things up, .. ... ...

 
Yep. My ears are more than a bit lacking when using them both, and are certainly not matched.
 
Oh for the perfect hearing of youth (and the lucky few).

 

[arnyk]

Or just looking at the file extension

 
 
Yes - the advantages of sighted listening!   Your identification of the UUTs is always perfect and your pet theories, no matter how far off the wall,  are always verified.
 
This contrasts with messing around with Lady Science, who will bite your hand for the heck of it, falsify your theories on the spot, and generally lay waste to your illusions in a heart beat.

 

[interpolate]

Why bother with high-fidelity if your only aim is to point out the negatives of superlative testing?
 
To be fair, people should just accept what they like and forget what the scientists are saying.

 

[Mambosenior]

...people should just accept what they like and forget what the scientists are saying.

Absolutely! The trouble, many times, is that some people attempt to equate "what they like" WITH scientific principles WITHOUT understanding scientific principles.

I never understood why there are subjective posts in the (clearly marked) "Sound Science" forum. A war of words always ensues.

 

[Ruben123]

Just found it at pono's thread and dropping it here... http://www.audiostream.com/content/abx-tests-prove-hi-res-audio-legit#iIDZ557EtGQgqfPt.97

 

[RRod]

Just found it at pono's thread and dropping it here... http://www.audiostream.com/content/abx-tests-prove-hi-res-audio-legit#iIDZ557EtGQgqfPt.97

 
If memory serves there were issues found with that particular test. If Arny pops on I'm sure he can give all the sordid details. It just goes to show that there is some import in making sure that the ultimate answers to such questions come from some kind of rigorous testing environment, not, you know, the interwebz.

 

[goodyfresh]

So recently I used dBpoweramp to convert/downsample some 24/96 and 24/192 files down to 24/48, and proceeded to do some A/B testing.  Wasn't quite sure if I really was hearing a difference or not, so I had my roommate help me with doing some blind-testing, and sure enough, nope, no real audible difference, at least for me.  Not using any of my equipment. . .whether straight from the computer, or using my Fiio X3ii as a USB DAC (which sounds better than the computer on its own, obviously), and whether using the V-Moda M-80's, the Shure SE215, or the Sony MDR-1A, I was completely incapable of identifying any difference between the higher-and-lower res lossless files in blind testing.  I then proceeded to convert some tracks all the way down to 320kbs Mp3 lossy, and again. . .I couldn't hear a difference, seriously!  Is somethign wrong with my ears that I couldn't hear a difference between the 320kbs lossy and the lossless, or is it really just not an audible difference, objectively speaking, for anyone?

 

[RRod]

  So recently I used dBpoweramp to convert/downsample some 24/96 and 24/192 files down to 24/48, and proceeded to do some A/B testing.  Wasn't quite sure if I really was hearing a difference or not, so I had my roommate help me with doing some blind-testing, and sure enough, nope, no real audible difference, at least for me.  Not using any of my equipment. . .whether straight from the computer, or using my Fiio X3ii as a USB DAC (which sounds better than the computer on its own, obviously), and whether using the V-Moda M-80's, the Shure SE215, or the Sony MDR-1A, I was completely incapable of identifying any difference between the higher-and-lower res lossless files in blind testing.  I then proceeded to convert some tracks all the way down to 320kbs Mp3 lossy, and again. . .I couldn't hear a difference, seriously!  Is somethign wrong with my ears that I couldn't hear a difference between the 320kbs lossy and the lossless, or is it really just not an audible difference, objectively speaking, for anyone?

 
In honest testing the difference should be subtle if it is detectable, and probably only then with certain kinds of "killer" sound bits (castanets seem to get a lot of mention). One thing to try is to gradually reduce the MP3 bitrate down until you can hear differences, note where those differences are, then see if you can pick them up at the next higher rate.
 
The issue with many people's claims about something like 320mp3 isn't so much that they claim they hear a difference, but that this difference is *night and day*, which if you play around with testing these things you might end up having a hard time believing.

 

[goodyfresh]

   
In honest testing the difference should be subtle if it is detectable, and probably only then with certain kinds of "killer" sound bits (castanets seem to get a lot of mention). One thing to try is to gradually reduce the MP3 bitrate down until you can hear differences, note where those differences are, then see if you can pick them up at the next higher rate.
 
The issue with many people's claims about something like 320mp3 isn't so much that they claim they hear a difference, but that this difference is *night and day*, which if you play around with testing these things you might end up having a hard time believing.

I see.  Have YOU ever been able to hear differences, however subtle, in objectively-done A/B (preferably blind) testing between 320kbs lossy and lossless FLAC files?

 

[RRod]

 
I see.  Have YOU ever been able to hear differences, however subtle, in objectively-done A/B (preferably blind) testing between 320kbs lossy and lossless FLAC files?

 
No, but I also am not god's gift to hearing. 256mp3 seems fine enough for me, but I run with AAC anyway because why not use the better codec for the same bitrate? At 192 I can start picking out things if I really, really tune in. Some people would claim to hear differences with 320mp3 whilst listening to earbuds on a train…

 

[money4me247]

  I see.  Have YOU ever been able to hear differences, however subtle, in objectively-done A/B (preferably blind) testing between 320kbs lossy and lossless FLAC files?

It is possible. I've tried a ton of blind testing. Depends more on the source track. Some masters/source tracks have elements that you can pick up differences, but it does take quite a while to find spots that you can reliably consistently identify. Always an extremely extremely subtle difference from my experience and hard to believe that certain people view it to be a 'night-and-day' difference after blind testing. Basically takes a while even finding a spot on a track where you think you can hear that type of subtle difference before you can even run your back-and-forth ABx guessing.
 
I would agree that generally for pleasure listening or musical enjoyment, there is no real need to go above 320kbps. The difficulty to consistently reliably identify differences cannot be overstated at this level. Hard enough here that I am extremely skeptical of subjective claims of being able to detect above CD-quality or lossless FLAC files. That along with the scientific explanation behind higher bit depth and sampling rates (which basically strongly implies if not already conclusively states) that it makes to difference chasing higher bits depths & sampling rates provided that the bit depth & sampling rate used covers the audible spectrum of frequency ranges that human can hear. The standard CD bit depth and sampling rate already covers that, so hard to really say what the true benefits of beyond CD quality audio does.
 
However, the importance of having a nice master cannot be understated and that can & will make a extremely large difference in sound quality. Funny how that sort of thing ever gets discussed though.
 
edit: also would like to note that some dacs have filters or whatever that can make differences between different formats more exaggerated. but that is really a problem with the dac... not the source file.

 

[goodyfresh]

  It is possible. I've tried a ton of blind testing. Depends more on the source track. Some masters/source tracks have elements that you can pick up differences, but it does take quite a while to find spots that you can reliably consistently identify.
 
I would agree that generally for pleasure listening or musical enjoyment, there is no real need to go above 320kbps. The difficulty to consistently reliably identify differences cannot be overstated at this level. Hard enough here that I am extremely skeptical of subjective claims of being able to detect above CD-quality or lossless FLAC files. That along with the scientific explanation behind higher bit depth and sampling rates (which basically strongly implies if not already conclusively states) that it makes to difference chasing higher bits depths & sampling rates provided that the bit depth & sampling rate used covers the audible spectrum of frequency ranges that human can hear. The standard CD bit depth and sampling rate already covers that, so hard to really say what the true benefits of beyond CD quality audio does.
 
However, the importance of having a nice master cannot be understated and that can & will make a extremely large difference in sound quality. Funny how that sort of thing ever gets discussed though.

This seems like as good a place as any to once again post this meme:
 


LMAO!  That guy can totally hear the difference between high and low sample-rates, guys!  And just look at how smart and sophisticated he looks!  Wow!

 

[money4me247]

 
This seems like as good a place as any to once again post this meme:
 


LMAO!  That guy can totally hear the difference between high and low sample-rates, guys!  And just look at how smart and sophisticated he looks!  Wow!

 
hahaha! actually dogs may be able to hear that high. humans though... nope. our ears just can't do it.

 

[XenHeadFi]

I see.  Have YOU ever been able to hear differences, however subtle, in objectively-done A/B (preferably blind) testing between 320kbs lossy and lossless FLAC files?

A long time ago, I test a LAME MP3 (256 VBR Q9) made from a CD that I ripped using EAC that was encoded in FLAC. I used Foobar's ABX plugin and could not tell the difference. I then read that differences might be found in high frequency transients, so I listened extremely intently to just high frequency transients. I finally heard a "flutter"/"wobble" of the top ring from a bell/triangle-type thing in the MP3 that was not in the FLAC. From this, I decided that my MP3 settings were more than sufficient for portable use (high sound quality, small-ish file sizes). I only heard the difference when I wasn't listening to the music, but trying to find a sound signature.
 
EDIT: Oops, forgot my LAME settings. Here is part of the command from my PYTHON script: lame --quiet --vbr-new --add-id3v2 -V 0 -h -b 256. So "-V 0" that means highest quality VBR and "-q 2", recommended PsychoAcoustical modeling.

 

[goodyfresh]

   
hahaha! actually dogs may be able to hear that high. humans though... nope. our ears just can't do it.

That's the point, man.  Dogs CAN hear that high.  I've heard many stories (and in one case, actually seen it happen in real life, a while back!) about certain high-res (96Khz or above) masters of certain songs that, when played back on certain systems with frequency-responses going all the way up to 50Khz or more, will make dogs start flipping-out and going berserk, because they can hear the higher ultrasonic content in the music that humans can't   My buddy back in West Virginia had a nice system with JBL monitor speakers, and when he'd play certain Pink Floyd and other songs in hi-res, his Shiba Inu would start to totally lose its ****, it was hilarious

 
 

  A long time ago, I test a LAME MP3 (256 VBR Q9) made from a CD that I ripped using EAC that was encoded in FLAC. I used Foobar's ABX plugin and could not tell the difference. I then read that differences might be found in high frequency transients, so I listened extremely intently to just high frequency transients. I finally heard a "flutter"/"wobble" of the top ring from a bell/triangle-type thing in the MP3 that was not in the FLAC. From this, I decided that my MP3 settings were more than sufficient for portable use (high sound quality, small-ish file sizes). I only heard the difference when I wasn't listening to the music, but trying to find a sound signature.

That's a pretty enlightening story! Thanks for sharing