[jcx]

relative advance from 2007 "good quality" is possible to see in numbers that we expect are far beyond human hearing thresholds
 
ESS Sabre, some at the margin new releases in AKM top line, Schiit taming the AD5791 would seem to be pretty much the monolithic audio DAC offerings since
 
 
but as an example no one has advanced with publication quality listening tests jitter thresholds despite the huge amount of ink and hardware pushing the numbers race to 10s of picoseconds
 
which is particularly odd since its relatively simple to software simulate varying levels, frequency statistic jitters and apply them to test signals or music to do a "staircase" threshold listening test with one of the 10 picosecond jitter DACs
 
I wouldn't be surprised if the threshold could be extended downwards by factors of several - but we now have 3 orders of magnitude between actual human listening tested jitter thresholds and ad copy, guru assurances of needed performance, current hardware
 
Ashihara 2005 didn't seem to move the threshold meaningfully vs Benjamin and Gannon

 

[sonitus mirus]

   
It's a matter of perspective (philosophically).....
 
YOU can make the claim that YOU don't hear any difference.
And I can make the claim that I sometimes do hear a difference.
 
I am no more obligated to "prove" that I do hear a difference than you are to prove that you don't hear one. However, someone else reading both our statements, and trying to determine which will prove "true" to them in their situation, is probably looking for some sort of objective "truth". And we can safely assume that someone reading about that test is actually doing so because they hope to determine whether THEY can expect to hear a difference or not, and they can only reasonably do that if they are provided with enough details to determine whether the results of that test are likely to agree with their situation or not, and how well they coincide. (As long as the situations are similar, a test conducted using more people, and more variety of equipment and sources, seems more likely to have produced results that will "be right" for more people.)
 
To me, that test was conducted several years ago, using equipment that, while it was certainly considered to be "good" at the time, almost certainly does NOT perform at the same level as modern equipment; and they also used a limited variety of equipment. I know personally that in 2007 I owned a DAC that was considered to be "high-end", yet I've replaced it since then with one that performs and sounds better. Therefore, even knowing that a high-res file sounded no different than a CD to me, on the DAC I owned in 2007, wouldn't specifically suggest that the same would be true with my current equipment... and with current high-res music sources. (Therefore, while I have no specific reason to disbelieve the results of that test, I also don't have what I consider compelling reasons to assume that they're still true either. Now, if I had exactly the same equipment as that used in the test, I would consider it much more likely that my experiences with it would be much similar.)
 
 
 

 
I have no way to prove that I can't hear a difference, and I could always fake it; but there are ways to show that a difference can be heard, and this can be verified.  That was the point of my snarky reply that I can't hear a difference without even making an attempt.  My claims would be empty and unverifiable.

 

[castleofargh]

  It's a matter of perspective (philosophically).....
 
YOU can make the claim that YOU don't hear any difference.
And I can make the claim that I sometimes do hear a difference.
 
I am no more obligated to "prove" that I do hear a difference than you are to prove that you don't hear one. However, someone else reading both our statements, and trying to determine which will prove "true" to them in their situation, is probably looking for some sort of objective "truth". And we can safely assume that someone reading about that test is actually doing so because they hope to determine whether THEY can expect to hear a difference or not, and they can only reasonably do that if they are provided with enough details to determine whether the results of that test are likely to agree with their situation or not, and how well they coincide. (As long as the situations are similar, a test conducted using more people, and more variety of equipment and sources, seems more likely to have produced results that will "be right" for more people.)
 
To me, that test was conducted several years ago, using equipment that, while it was certainly considered to be "good" at the time, almost certainly does NOT perform at the same level as modern equipment; and they also used a limited variety of equipment. I know personally that in 2007 I owned a DAC that was considered to be "high-end", yet I've replaced it since then with one that performs and sounds better. Therefore, even knowing that a high-res file sounded no different than a CD to me, on the DAC I owned in 2007, wouldn't specifically suggest that the same would be true with my current equipment... and with current high-res music sources. (Therefore, while I have no specific reason to disbelieve the results of that test, I also don't have what I consider compelling reasons to assume that they're still true either. Now, if I had exactly the same equipment as that used in the test, I would consider it much more likely that my experiences with it would be much similar.)

both sides have to try and prove their points! else it's just random people making empty claims. and nobody cares about those guys crying wolf and talking about the end of the world in the subway. proof is what makes it all meaningful.
except that one cannot prove that he doesn't hear a difference. even if we add in the test some control samples that should be heard to try and trick cheaters, we can never know for sure that the subject will not notice those control sounds, play along and then lie for the rest. we would need to go out of our ways to make something that can never totally become proof. only strong inclinations to believe when the number of people getting the same result increases massively.
on the other hand, if 1 guy can hear a difference, all he has to do is get statistical significance in any blind test with any gear to absolutely prove he heard a difference. we can later argue the reason for the difference, but not the claim. 
 
that's a freaking massive difference and I cannot agree about both sides having the same responsibility on the matter. I can't prove that I can't jump over the wall, I can only show that I can fail. while the guy who can do it has the power to demonstrate he can pass over it. it's pretty clear who should bring proof.
so as an individual who likes to listen to music, nobody give 2 ***** if I can or cannot hear a difference, or jump over a wall. and if I'm honest with myself and want to know, I can test myself all I want and find out(what I do once or twice a year when I get new gears).
  but as a person making the claim for the world to read, the very fact that I can prove it is reason enough for others to expect that I back up my claim and do prove it.
 
you're trying to present an equilibrium that clearly never existed. objective science only offers readily available tools for proof to one side. the side that suspiciously enough, is so massively composed of people who reject those tools. at some point it stops being a simple matter of choice, and becomes hypocritical.
if I was so adamant about convincing people that highres and CD audibly sound different, and had the tools to do it, I know what I would do...

 
 
now where I join you, it's about gears. as a personal test, it only matters to me what I can hear with my own equipment, but as proof of an audible difference, it could make sens to use gears that indeed have the best fidelity possible. although I'm not sure any transducer is up for the task. in fact it's a huge point in my reason to doubt the purpose of highres in general. we're trying to improve everything that is already great and pretend to test it with transducers magnitudes below in fidelity. it feels like insisting on giving a V8 engine to a car with square tires.

 

[KeithEmo]

I think you will find that the reason more testing is not done is simply cost....
 
Real testing, with proper controls, and large samples, costs money. Therefore, it is only going to be sponsored by a company who stands to profit from the results. (Pharmaceutical companies don't ever test drugs that don't stand to make them a profit if the tests are successful.)
 
Companies who sell expensive interconnect cables (based on people's belief that they make a big difference) have little incentive to risk performing tests that might fail to prove that their product is better; and even a test that showed a slight but insignificant improvement would be a commercial liability. And the companies who sell cheap interconnects sell huge volume, based on people's assumption that their cables are just as good as the expensive ones, so what incentive would they have to pay for tests to confirm that? They'd have to sell a lot of $5 cables to offset the cost of the tests.
 
Likewise, many studios now sell high-res versions of their standard offerings, and many more plan to in the future - all based on the widely accepted assumption that they're better. The status quo is probably better for their business than running tests that might show that the difference is imaginary, or even that the difference is real, but simply less significant than people now think. Again, there is nobody who would stand to make money by proving that the CD you already have is just fine, so you needn't buy the high-res version, or that you can save money by buying the regular version, so nobody with any incentive to sponsor the tests.
 
And, even though you might assume that audio magazines and other authorities make their living by providing useful information, the reality is that the ongoing controversy provides for a lot more entertaining editorial copy than would a short summary of the results of a test that answered the question once and for all.  
Again, with DACs, there are enough reasons why various DACs sound different that the question would require some thorough testing to fully answer it. And, while many companies sell product partly based on claims of superior jitter performance, for which they charge a large premium, there are far fewer who profit by the opposite.... and, also again, companies who sell low-cost DACs with poor performance probably sell mostly on low cost and volume, and so wouldn't sell enough extra product as the result of doing tests to prove that nobody can tell the difference to recoup the costs of doing the tests.
 
You also need to remember that a lot of the audiophile market is built on superlatives. Just as not everyone who owns a Ferrari has gotten it up past 120 mph, but they're still happy that they own "a performance car", many audiophiles would be quite willing to pay extra for a product with better numbers, even if they weren't certain they would hear the difference - just to "have the best". (Personally, I would cheerfully pay for a higher-res copy of an album I liked, just to have "the best copy available", even if I didn't notice any difference. I've also occasionally paid extra for a certain piece of audio equipment, not because of its actual audio performance, but because it had a nicer cabinet or knobs. However, I'd certainly like to have a clear picture of what I'm spending that extra money for - and I do believe everyone should have the information necessary to make their own informed decision without being misled.)
 
Quote:

  relative advance from 2007 "good quality" is possible to see in numbers that we expect are far beyond human hearing thresholds
 
ESS Sabre, some at the margin new releases in AKM top line, Schiit taming the AD5791 would seem to be pretty much in the monolithic audio DAC offerings since
 
 
but as an example no one has advanced with publication quality listening tests jitter thresholds despite the huge amount of ink and hardware pushing the numbers race to 10s of picoseconds
 
which is particularly odd since its relatively simple to software simulate varying levels, frequency statistic jitters and apply them to test signals or music to do a "staircase" threshold listening test with one of the 10 picosecond jitter DACs
 
I wouldn't be surprised if the threshold could be extended downwards by factors of several - but we now have 3 orders of magnitude between actual human listening tested jitter thresholds and ad copy, guru assurances of needed performance, current hardware

 

[KeithEmo]

I agree with most of what you said....
 
I'm also not uncomfortable when someone says: We tested this with a bunch of people, and a bunch of different equipment; none of them could hear a difference, so you probably won't either. I'm also perfectly happy when someone says that quite a few tests have been run, and so far they all seem to show that very few if any people can hear the difference between high-res files and regular CD quality files a significant percentage of the time.
 
My problem with this discussion is that it's not ALL "gullible people buying high-res files because the store says they're better" - or, at least, nobody's proven that it is. Most of the online stores that sell high-res files do in fact offer free samples (or, at worst, you'll get to hear for yourself by buying one album). Now, while I agree wholeheartedly that we humans are very suggestible, and so it is in fact possible that the people who think they hear a difference are all imagining it, it's also possible that the people who think they DON'T hear a difference may be the ones with the more vivid imagination. I'm simply pointing out that I don't think the science that's been done so far reaches the level of proving CONCLUSIVELY which is the case.... and I'm quite convinced that the folks who think it has are either misinterpreting the facts (or perhaps they don't fully understand the science of testing and test analysis).
 
In other words, I would always advise someone to see for themselves if they can hear a difference, and certainly not to spend extra money for a high-res version of something simply because someone told them it sounds better. However, I would also advise them not to assume that the high-res version can't possibly sound better "because science has proven that it doesn't". (I believe that both of those would be setting unfair expectations based on incomplete information.)
 
(As I've mentioned in other posts, it's been my personal experience that some high-res versions of albums do sound clearly better than their CD quality counterparts - but I simply can't be sure if it's because the higher sample rate really matters, or because the mastering is better, or possibly a combination of both... so, at this point, it seems safer to judge each album release on its own merits. )
 
Quote:

  both sides have to try and prove their points! else it's just random people making empty claims. and nobody cares about those guys crying wolf and talking about the end of the world in the subway. proof is what makes it all meaningful.
except that one cannot prove that he doesn't hear a difference. even if we add in the test some control samples that should be heard to try and trick cheaters, we can never know for sure that the subject will not notice those control sounds, play along and then lie for the rest. we would need to go out of our ways to make something that can never totally become proof. only strong inclinations to believe when the number of people getting the same result increases massively.
on the other hand, if 1 guy can hear a difference, all he has to do is get statistical significance in any blind test with any gear to absolutely prove he heard a difference. we can later argue the reason for the difference, but not the claim. 
 
that's a freaking massive difference and I cannot agree about both sides having the same responsibility on the matter. I can't prove that I can't jump over the wall, I can only show that I can fail. while the guy who can do it has the power to demonstrate he can pass over it. it's pretty clear who should bring proof.
so as an individual who likes to listen to music, nobody give 2 ***** if I can or cannot hear a difference, or jump over a wall. and if I'm honest with myself and want to know, I can test myself all I want and find out(what I do once or twice a year when I get new gears).
  but as a person making the claim for the world to read, the very fact that I can prove it is reason enough for others to expect that I back up my claim and do prove it.
 
you're trying to present an equilibrium that clearly never existed. objective science only offers readily available tools for proof to one side. the side that suspiciously enough, is so massively composed of people who reject those tools. at some point it stops being a simple matter of choice, and becomes hypocritical.
if I was so adamant about convincing people that highres and CD audibly sound different, and had the tools to do it, I know what I would do...

 
 
now where I join you, it's about gears. as a personal test, it only matters to me what I can hear with my own equipment, but as proof of an audible difference, it could make sens to use gears that indeed have the best fidelity possible. although I'm not sure any transducer is up for the task. in fact it's a huge point in my reason to doubt the purpose of highres in general. we're trying to improve everything that is already great and pretend to test it with transducers magnitudes below in fidelity. it feels like insisting on giving a V8 engine to a car with square tires.

 

[L8MDL]

Personally, I don't need or care about tests. I buy the highest resolution file available for the music I play. I have not heard ANYONE say the high res versions are WORSE - given the same mastering, of course. In the world of quality, price is no object! I do, however, use cheap interconnects...

 

[KeithEmo]

I have to agree - and disagree - with you on that one.
 
One of the main reasons that 16/44k was chosen as the format for CDs was the limited amount of data storage available on a CD. In the engineering world, whether the CD format has "just enough" bandwidth or not is irrelevant - having an extra few hundred percent of safety margin would be nice anyway. Now that downloads are replacing plastic discs, and both storage space and download bandwidth are getting so cheap, one might argue that there's simply no reason (other than artificially inflated sale prices) not to use a higher file resolution. At current prices for a USB hard drive, an album at CD quality uses somewhere between one and two cents worth of storage space; going up to 24/192 raises that to about a dime; neither of which is significant compared to the cost of the album when I buy it.
 
So, would I have paid an extra $5000 to get a 400 HP turbocharged V8 engine in my Nissan Versa? Definitely not.
 
But, if someone offered me the upgrade for $50, and it also got better mileage....? Sure, why not.
 
Therefore, I do believe that high-res files are "the future" - simply because, being technically superior, whether the difference can be heard or not, is still "philosophically" a good thing. To me, the only real question is whether the difference justifies PAYING more. And, to be honest there, I suspect that the market will "shake out" in the next few years, and, by 2025, we'll all be buying super-res 32 bit 768k files for whatever equates to the current price of a CD in 2025 dollars. (Or, perhaps, by then, we'll all be subscribed to streaming services, and won't have any files at all.)
 
 
Quote:

...........  
 
now where I join you, it's about gears. as a personal test, it only matters to me what I can hear with my own equipment, but as proof of an audible difference, it could make sens to use gears that indeed have the best fidelity possible. although I'm not sure any transducer is up for the task. in fact it's a huge point in my reason to doubt the purpose of highres in general. we're trying to improve everything that is already great and pretend to test it with transducers magnitudes below in fidelity. it feels like insisting on giving a V8 engine to a car with square tires.

 

[RRod]

Therefore, I do believe that high-res files are "the future" - simply because, being technically superior, whether the difference can be heard or not, is still "philosophically" a good thing. To me, the only real question is whether the difference justifies PAYING more. And, to be honest there, I suspect that the market will "shake out" in the next few years, and, by 2025, we'll all be buying super-res 32 bit 768k files for whatever equates to the current price of a CD in 2025 dollars. (Or, perhaps, by then, we'll all be subscribed to streaming services, and won't have any files at all.)

 
They really shouldn't be the future, because bits and samples aren't what's wrong with audio today. A return to reasonable mastering and a societal move back towards considering music (and performing arts other than movie acting) important would do more for sound than anything hi-res can offer.

 

[sonitus mirus]

Personally, I don't need or care about tests. I buy the highest resolution file available for the music I play. I have not heard ANYONE say the high res versions are WORSE - given the same mastering, of course. In the world of quality, price is no object! I do, however, use cheap interconnects...

 
High resolution files could sound worse.
 

https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html
 
192kHz digital music files offer no benefits. They're not quite neutral either; practical fidelity is slightly worse. The ultrasonics are a liability during playback.
 
Neither audio transducers nor power amplifiers are free of distortion, and distortion tends to increase rapidly at the lowest and highest frequencies. If the same transducer reproduces ultrasonics along with audible content, any nonlinearity will shift some of the ultrasonic content down into the audible range as an uncontrolled spray of intermodulation distortion products covering the entire audible spectrum. Nonlinearity in a power amplifier will produce the same effect. The effect is very slight, but listening tests have confirmed that both effects can be audible.

 

 

[L8MDL]

The Xiph article you quote is from 2012 and has been surpassed by current technology. Any article showing digital music using a "stair-step" image should be questioned. New equipment and transfer techniques have totally eliminated any concerns about high frequency feedback and other problems.

 

[RRod]

The Xiph article you quote is from 2012 and has been surpassed by current technology. Any article showing digital music using a "stair-step" image should be questioned. New equipment and transfer techniques have totally eliminated any concerns about high frequency feedback and other problems.

 
One point of the article is to show how the stairstep interpretation is wrong…

 

[castleofargh]

The Xiph article you quote is from 2012 and has been surpassed by current technology. Any article showing digital music using a "stair-step" image should be questioned. New equipment and transfer techniques have totally eliminated any concerns about high frequency feedback and other problems.

stair steps are only mentioned/showed in the article to say how it is a false representation ^_^. maybe read before you judge?

 

[L8MDL]

Touché! I had read the article long ago and just skimmed it over. The rest of my comment stands, however. Certainly there will be bad hi-res files but they are fast becoming the rare exceptions rather than the rule.

 

[arnyk]

  Personally, I would very much like to see a "public challenge", where a content provider, a DAC vendor, a speaker vendor, and an amplifier vendor, would get together and try to provide a sample of high-resolution music that was "so good that it couldn't be reproduced on a CD without audibly obvious degradation". Several makers of DACs and studio ADCs could then attempt to disprove the claim by showing that, when their equipment was inserted into the signal chain, none of the audience could hear a difference.

 
It is my contention that the demo above will never happen because producing it requires way too much work and too much altruism. I won't say that in general the people who promote the overpriced gear listed know for sure that they would fail, but I do think that their doubts have probably greatly inhibited their enthusiasm and energy for doing such a thing.
 
Fact is that people have tried to do DBTs illutsrating that in accordance with their vision of science, and the results have fallen well short of the sort of technical success that a good commercial venture requires. Here is a recent example and the debate that it stimulated: The Meridian typical DAC boondoggle
 

 

[arnyk]

The Xiph article you quote is from 2012 and has been surpassed by current technology. Any article showing digital music using a "stair-step" image should be questioned. New equipment and transfer techniques have totally eliminated any concerns about high frequency feedback and other problems.

 
Interesting  attempt to invalidate what many find to still be good evidence and still a good read. BTW, it can be found at https://xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html
 
The stair step content of the article (under "Sampling fallacies and misconceptions)" is obviously there to show the fallacy of the argument which is still probably being made on some forum, some place. Therefore, discrediting the Xiph article because it mentions this fallacy would be an example of leaping to a conclusion, and is itself invalid.
 
The article does not mention high frequency feedback at all.  It does mention intermodulation distortion which is something completely different. Thus the reader has provided evidence that the articles biggest fault may be that it surpasses his understanding of the relevant technology.
 
Also, the intermodulation distortion that was mentioned in the article was mentioned in the context of playback and monitoring equipment, which obviously cannot be addressed by "New equipment and transfer techniques" as they are part of the production process, and mass media producers have no control over the listener's playback equipment choice.