Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Audible limitations of 16/44

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Lets stay on topic please
    no up sample compares it's simple redbook playback
    I'll try to post songs each will have 16/24 bit depth
    and I'll also put up formats
    flac
    aiff.
    speakers cust infinity IRS V , new caps and LPS , magnets etc.
    mark levivson pre no 26 amps no 33
    digital three cust servers , win ser 2016 , AO
    Dacs lampi various

    Comment


    • Tech7738
      Tech7738 commented
      Editing a comment
      Please realize there are significant differences between down sampled 24 > 16 vs early redbook native pre over sampling filters.

  • #32
    Originally posted by Alrainbow View Post

    Tech lets remove the tech of 24 bit in a math conclusion.
    Yes no dacs do 24 bit. But the observation remains the same
    My point was ADCs (not DACs) can’t perform to real 24 bit.

    I’m not challenging your validity of observation, though I question the root cause.

    Comment


    • #33
      Correct there is. And the CD player we use has various filters. Better ones detect and apply the best one
      some older dacs had filters to pic too. Always came down to one being better and the rest bad lol.
      Now play back software has many options too.
      But for this purpose it does not matter it's a rip to various formats only.
      The down samples are owned or are sacd conversations
      a
      speakers cust infinity IRS V , new caps and LPS , magnets etc.
      mark levivson pre no 26 amps no 33
      digital three cust servers , win ser 2016 , AO
      Dacs lampi various

      Comment


      • Tech7738
        Tech7738 commented
        Editing a comment
        You always have a reconstruction filter of some sort. Unfortunately it must be a different filter for different sampling frequencies, so to be valid for a bit depth comparison only you’d need to change only bit depth not sampling frequency. Your source would have to be 24/44 or 24/48 truncated to 16/44 or 16/48. Bit rate down sampling comparisons include too many other variables.

    • #34
      Tech 7738 said earlier on this thread: "I know this will blow up in my face, but, oh well, it had to happen sooner or later....we already have all the measurement capabilities we need to explain all aspects of sound, but applying measurements to audibility is a bit of a blind spot. We can easily, and do so regularly, measure aspects that are completely inaudible. It's about data correlation. There are things we can directly correlate, and others that take a bit of digging. For example, we haven't talked about why early Red Book did have issues that didn't initially show up in measurements. But those measurements can be done, and do explain it, and could have been done even then. You won't see them published in a spec sheet, not now, not ever, but that doesn't mean they don't exist."

      I find this fascinating. I have always thought and was always told we do not have all the measurements the human ear can discern. I know instruments can quantify things we can't hear, but that is another discussion. What I did not know is measurements do or can cover all of what an ear discerns. Even depth or sound stage? Presence of instruments in their own space? Warmth and fatness of instruments? I'm seriously curious about this.
      JLH

      Comment


      • mep
        mep commented
        Editing a comment
        You might not be the one with questions, but you appeared to have the answers.

      • jonathanhorwich
        jonathanhorwich commented
        Editing a comment
        I went to other techs on it and a site I highly respect for the vast tech talent on it and got my answer which did not agree with the above, "we already have all the measurement capabilities we need to explain all aspects of sound..." Not at all. But let's leave this for another thread if at all because most of us on the site go by our ears for our own enjoyment. I only use limited measurements for tuning up my decks, etc.

      • Tech7738
        Tech7738 commented
        Editing a comment
        What question did you ask?

    • #35
      Originally posted by jonathanhorwich View Post
      I went to other techs on it and a site I highly respect for the vast tech talent on it and got my answer which did not agree with the above, "we already have all the measurement capabilities we need to explain all aspects of sound..." Not at all.
      What's going on here is precisely why this will become an illegal topic here. There is now an attempt at discrediting me, but the other techs/site is not stated, the question asked of them not stated, their reply not stated, other than it was in alleged disagreement.

      If you asked them "Can we measure soundstage?" then the only correct answer would be "no". If you asked "Can we measure "presence of instruments in their own space", the only correct answer would be "no". And so on.

      Wrong questions! Of course there is no Soundstage-O-Meter, etc. Those aspects are psychoacoustic and exist only in the mind of the listener as a result stimulii of their ear-brain systems. Until someone installs an RG45 jack in the back of the skull with network node behind it, we're not doing those measurements. But we can measure all aspects of a wave, and that includes the aspects that cause alteration in soundstage, etc.

      And, I made that plain in my first statement about this. I said, "...we already have all the measurement capabilities we need to explain all aspects of sound, but applying measurements to audibility is a bit of a blind spot. We can easily, and do so regularly, measure aspects that are completely inaudible. It's about data correlation. There are things we can directly correlate, and others that take a bit of digging. "

      Does that sound like "I can measure sounstage"? It shouldn't, and that was not the intention. But there...it happened, and I got shot at for it. Predictable, though I wish it weren't.

      We can measure all aspects of a physical wave, electrical or acoustic. We can see in measurements things that are both audible and inaudible. The problem is correlation with audibility, because it's so darn complex. We cannot directly measure a lot of perceptual qualities, but that doesn't mean we cannot measure the root causes and mechanisms, and use that information to improve those qualities.

      I hope that is clear.

      Originally posted by jonathanhorwich View Post
      But let's leave this for another thread if at all because most of us on the site go by our ears for our own enjoyment. I only use limited measurements for tuning up my decks, etc.
      Yeah, right, "we go by our ears", and the corollary to that "I know what I hear". You can ignore this if you want, but it's been proven, long ago, you can present a listener with identical stimulii on two different occasions and the subjective judgment can be different. What does that tell us? Not that our ears are wrong, though that's what some audiophiles will think. Our ears cannot BE wrong. Our perception cannot BE wrong so long as we accept what our perception is telling us. But it also clearly says that you do Not know what you hear, though you DO accept it fully. And those ears are the same ones we trust implicitly?

      But then there's the reality. Perception is a combination of ear-brain hearing and a lot of other factors all input to the brain and out pops the subjective judgement. Does it matter if it's detached from measurable reality? No, because that's not the goal in the first place. All audio reproduction is illusion. There's not a bit of reality to it, only the strong suggestion of an unexperienced reality, one we have never had and can never have. So our subjective perception cannot be wrong. That doesn't mean we can't measure aspects of sound that, when taken into isolation from other factors, have predictable, repeatable, and quantifiable impact on subjective perception.

      Yes, we all use our ears for our own enjoyment. Do we always enjoy what we hear? Heck no. Anybody wonder why? Isn't there a quest for Audio Nirvana? Wouldn't that quest be most achievable if we knew what rocks we are climbing on, how high they are, and where the path lies? Do you believe everything you see...and hear? I doubt it, we've been fooled too many times. So then why not question...just a bit...that your ears may be not quite the precision instruments we'd like them to be?

      Now, if you don't ask these questions, and don't care about anything but what you hear and never ask why, then we are on different quests. Enjoyment can be had either way. However, nothing achieved in audio thus far was accomplished without objective study. Nothing.

      Here's why I think this happens: When our perception is challenged, our ego is too. And we just can't have that. "What do you mean I'm not hearing reality?" "Are you saying I can't hear?" Oh man, you might as well toss in a grenade. But believing only our ears takes us down a very crooked (and expensive) path that is always shy of reaching the goal. We cling to that path with a vise-like grip because to abandon it might just take a degree of humility we don't have in reserve.

      So you use "limited measurements for tuning up" your decks, huh? What do you do past the limits, ear-ball it? And that's better than those evil test instruments? Yeah, that's not me. I recognized I can't hear certain things that analysis reveals. I recognized that if you don't dive in deep and analyze and measure, the combination of inaccuracies will add up to a huge compromise. That's not ok if you want the best sound, especially out of your tape decks. Bias-by-ear? EQ-by-ear? Azimuth-by-ear? Ok, maybe that last one, but not the others.

      So, I'm not starting another thread about measurement, because I already know that "measurements are evil", and "we can't measure everything". Dead wrong, but it's just not worth the fight. Even the elusive and erratic subjective and perceptual qualities, like "soundstage", can be quantified and objectively evaluated using compiled and controlled subjective testing. What it gets down to is, some would rather preserve their ego than move forward on the quest to Audio Nirvana. Go for it, don't let me stop you.

      But if I'm going to engage in a debate of hearsay from another vaporous forum and argue with virtual experts, I'm out. Bring them on directly, and we'll maybe deal with it.

      If these are real questions, and not just bait, start that thread and I'll decide if it's worth my time.

      Comment


      • Tech7738
        Tech7738 commented
        Editing a comment
        "16/44.1 vs 24/192. I believe there is a measurable difference between the two format ."

        Yes, easily measured. Measured differences are not subtle.

        "I assume a decent stereo will be able to reveal a sonic difference ? Right or wrong?"

        The short answer is "probably not", but it's not that simple. Audible differences between 16/44 recordings and 24/192 recordings depend far more on factors other than bit rate and bit depth. Those other factors confuse the comparison significantly.

        The sonic difference confined solely to bit-rate and bit-depth between 16/44 and 24/192 has not been well established. However, what little work has been done on this tends to support that the differences are either extremely small, audible only under extreme conditions, or not audible at all. The bulk of controlled comparisons seem to support not audible at all.

        The sector that advocates 24/192 or other high res formats falls into two camps: those who swear there's a clear difference but are fully aware that they are listening to one or the other, and those who don't know if there's a difference but feel better capturing and reproducing a wider range of signals. The thing that is missing in both opinions is comparative controlled testing.

        To make things worse, the material we as consumers have access to for these comparisons include far too many uncontrolled variables. We would like to think the differences are only bit-rate and bit-depth, but it's usually far more different than that, negating the comparison. Frustrating, to be sure.

      • Kingrex
        Kingrex commented
        Editing a comment
        Are there any published auditory test you can share with us. Test between CD resolution to high resolution files. Also Trials of CD to vinyl or tape. It would be great if there were a website that contain a whole host of these type of test. Thanks

      • Tech7738
        Tech7738 commented
        Editing a comment
        The one published study from a few years ago has been widely criticized for it's test methods. Google Meyer and Moran, you'll find a ton written about it, the good, bad and ugly.

        Think about how one would go about performing this sort of test. The test material would start with original recordings made with identical ADCs, with similar filter technology but running at different sampling frequencies (with filters adjusted accordingly). No up-sampling or down-sampling. The test material would have to be varied in genre and content sufficiently to cover the gamut of styles and technical demands. The resulting files would have to be compared in a double-blind ABX test setup. The number of testers would have to be between 30 and 50 minimum, and more is much better. They would have to represent wide age ranges, as well as backgrounds. The test system and room would have to be stable and consistent for the duration of the test, and ideally several rooms and test systems would be used. The systems would have to have acceptable characteristics, hopefully with at least some ultrasonic capability (that's a tough one!). In all comparisons, a synchronized play-out system would be needed, as would a true ABX switching system. The data compiled would then show an indication of the ability to differentiate between two recordings of the same music, changing only in sampling frequency, bit depth and filter characteristics.

        This is not a small study, and it cannot be done casually. And that means time and resources ($$). And ideally a neutral researcher in academia, not a manufacturer.

        Simply providing files to download and have individuals test them is seriously flawed because they can be examined and their nature revealed quite easily, corrupting the test control. This has, of course, been tried in other forums with mixed results, but one clear outcome was the temptation to know which file was which is irresistible. Thus data corruption is not controlled.

        Informal and private tests have been done, and though not published (because they are not fully scientific or complete) the trend seems to be as I've alluded to. What we do not see is overwhelming positive discrimination of high-res files.

        Publishing less than unassailable studies with regard to topics as hot as this is obviously folly. Meyer and Moran would certainly attest to that.

        Comparing CDs, vinyl and tape is simply not possible without identical input signals, and that's pretty much impossible to do or even verify. However, in a private study I conducted in the mid 1980s, CD vs Vinyl vs master digital tape was compared using identical input signals to each, with the entire production process of the CD and vinyl closely monitored, with no "mastering" EQ or level changes permitted to either. While reliable discrimination between vinyl and CD was shown, it was based on noise and peak distortion only. The overall character was a surprising match for the CD. In other words, no digital harshness, no analog warmth. The CD matched the master, but then, it was a bit-perfect clone. I chose not to publish this as a "study" because the tester group was too small, and the collected data set too small. Thus, the "noise floor" of the collected listener subjective data was a bit on the high side.

        So, unfortunately, we are probably still stuck at anecdote, especially if we choose ignore what little trends seem to be visible. But again, what we do not see is anything even close to a 60% discrimination ratio of CD to high-res, once mastering changes have been eliminated. 50% is, of course, the equivalent of random guessing.

    • #36
      Tech7738 As an analog guy in a digital world, my take-away from what you wrote is that many of the comparisons of digital to analog don't take into account a lot of variables in the process, starting with source material itself; the higher rez may not be "better" sonically because even Redbook is sufficient, at least in terms of dynamic range and that digital media is not the multiple, but limited snapshots in time vs continuous waveform that most of us were taught is the reason why the CD initially didn't sound so good.
      Is that a fair summary?
      I don't delve into digital in a deep way, but it is reality in many aspects of life beyond audio; in audio, I found that for some reason, it sounded pretty horrible when the format was introduced and some of those same CDs, years later, can actually sound good. Was it the consumer playback hardware that made it sound (to my ears) bright and 'plasticy' with added 'grain' like fine mesh? Or filtering or other techniques used on the mastering or post-production end for manufacture?
      Occasionally, i'm shocked at how good a standard CD can sound, vinyl comparisons notwithstanding (and I have not invested heavily in digital playback but have a more than "pretty good" analog front end).
      My listening biases are grainless, see through midrange and the sense of harmonics, and timing of attack and decay, all of which seems to contribute to the spatial characteristics. If the midrange isn't right, I don't care how deep or powerful the bass is, or how spectacular the high frequencies are because I'm already turned off by compromised sound in the zone where it counts most to me.
      In essence, if I read you correctly, you are saying that Redbook can deliver (at least if you take out some of the variables of source, bad remastering, etc) as well as anything.
      And (I deliberately made this a separate sentence/question), that the higher rez formats don't bring much more to the table as a process or medium, despite the apparent improvements some realize using DSD, SACD, etc?
      I don't really have a dog in this horserace, and no axe to grind or ox to gore. No set up either, or snark (I don't do snark for several reasons, one of which is that I prefer learning over sparring). Thanks,
      A former DigiPhobe.

      Comment


      • #37
        This is a comparison I have recently made.

        I ripped some thousand Redbook CDs and also the Hybrid CD layers of my SACDs to my Brennan B2, which is a CD-only server. My goal was to make life easier with a User Interface that has a Search Line for artist, album, and song title, and to not have to handle the thousand Redbook CDs anymore. The Hybrid layer of the SACDs was a pure afterthought because it would work, but it allowed this test. The digital output of the Brennan CD-only server uses a Siltech glass fiber cable bent to minimal radii to connect to my external dual mono balanced output DAC and on to my main system preamp. The files on the Brennan CD-only server are all FLAC.

        My SACD player uses unbalanced interconnects to connect to my main system preamp (Ayre K5xeMP).

        I can start an SACD in my SACD player at the same time that I start its CD layer from that same disc on my server>DAC, and I can switch preamp inputs with my remote control and tweak any volume difference between the two while watching my tripod mounted SPL meter (so I know exactly the volume level readout difference on the preamp's volume level readout for those two layers from the same disc). I can go back and forth between the two inputs/layers very quickly numerous times as the same song is playing simultaneously on both.

        I think we can pretty safely agree that comparing the Hybrid CD layer to the SACD layer from the very same disc is a pretty fair comparison as they both had to have the same source. Plus this was done multiple times with multiple SACDs.

        SACD does sound better in a slightly more spacious and organic way, BUT not by that much anymore. Ten years ago the difference between the layers (tested differently) was very large, but today the Hybrid CD layer is really sounding very good and much closer to the SACD layer. I'm sure the external DAC running balanced outputs to the preamp is helping the Hybrid CD layer, and the SACD player can't take advantage of this with the SACD layer because it won't output the digital stream from an SACD.

        Many other Redbook CDs also now sound better than they ever did. Accordingly, it is currently my opinion that Redbook CD has now become a useful and very listenable source - when before it was just a thousand jewel boxes taking up space.

        Comment


        • #38
          Originally posted by Bill Hart View Post
          In essence, if I read you correctly, you are saying that Redbook can deliver (at least if you take out some of the variables of source, bad remastering, etc) as well as anything.
          That's something of a loaded statement. There are variables related to the format that may have an impact (see below), but they are tiny compared to the differences made during mastering. It's almost impossible to do a valid comparison. However, I also don't think that Redbook is a strong limiter either. What I mostly see is that the comparison includes too many other variables to be able to isolate the impact of any given format with any repeatability. But I will say that Redbook can reproduce all the audible content of any standard analog formate. Another loaded statement, and I have carefully worded it. So why go higher? Because we can, it's cheap, and lets us stop worrying. As to real, audible benefit... the jury is out and may never return. The technical limitations are not in dynamic range, but in what happens at the extreme high end. But a lot of what could go wrong is not related to the specific quantization, but rather how it's filtered.
          Originally posted by Bill Hart View Post
          And (I deliberately made this a separate sentence/question), that the higher rez formats don't bring much more to the table as a process or medium, despite the apparent improvements some realize using DSD, SACD, etc?
          And this one is loaded even more. It's yet another comparison problem. So much of what is out there in "hi-res" is 16/44 or 16/48 or 24/48 original upsampled to 24/96 or higher. That really doesn't improve anything in the bit stream. However, there could be differences in the reconstruction filtering process. Taken to extreme, the original 16/44 recorder and player reconstruction (and anti-aliasing) filters were all analog, set to cut befor .5 Nyquist, and were high order filters. You could pick your topology, Chebychev, Butterworth (probably not), and elliptical, with various tuning variations between them. Many suffered from a type of intermodulation distortion that is difficult to test for, but can be seen with a specific set of multi-tone high frequency signals as products folded down into the upper mid-band. But then we moved to over-sampling filters, which is what we have now. They do far better in this job, and so while a good IMD test would be revealing (and never done), what you end up with is testing the performance of your DAC filters rather than the true capabilities of the data format. Going to a higher bit rate and depth, and maintaining that without resampling throughout the production chain reduces the chances of the DAC filters causing an issue. But they often don't anyway, so it's not a hard/fast rule.

          DSD has problems. It's not really hi-res, but it sure is hi-rate. It's also impractical to use in the production environment, it has to be converted to PCM for any editing or processing, then re-converted to DSD for release. I call foul on that one. But again, if there are differences in the result, it's more likely a test of the DAC filters than anything endemic to the format. If the SACD layer is just a clone of the Redbook layer because that's how the original was recorded, then we're comparing filters again, and that will change with player design, etc. Strictly, a DSD copy of a PCM stream is a degradation, a generation loss. It will not improve anything. But, if you find an SACD hybrid where the DSD layer is native DSD (sorry, can't even imagine how that would be done), then you might have something more to compare. Again, you have to know what the comparison is, actual total audio path from recorder to analog in your home? Or is it just a change in storage and delivery of the same information?

          And then we get to the big comparison problem. Sighted comparisons (you know what you're listening to) are biased. That's not really an arguable point, though also not well understood. What we find is that the differences we think we hear doing a sighted comparison between two things become far less apparent, may vanish altogether, when we no longer know what we are hearing. This is part of basic scientific research, but it's really hard to accept on an individual level. A carefully controlled, double-blind test of DSD vs PCM has not really been done, or at least published. The individual almost certainly lacks the comparator system and the source material to pull it off. So we sometimes get the "DSD/SACD sounds better" result when it may not be real. Sometimes...and some of it could be real too, but we don't have a handle on the total provenance. And there are reasons why DSD/SACD should NOT sound better too. And you don't have to look too hard to find all of that.
          Originally posted by Bill Hart View Post
          I don't really have a dog in this horserace, and no axe to grind or ox to gore. No set up either, or snark (I don't do snark for several reasons, one of which is that I prefer learning over sparring). Thanks,
          A former DigiPhobe.
          No problem. I'm not a "phobe" on either side, not analog, digital, hi-res, DSD, nothing. My only phobia is not knowing why. But my personal desires are self serving. I'll listen if it's good, no matter what the medium is. I'm also aware of the chances of "good" are closely coupled to the medium.

          Comment


          • Bill Hart
            Bill Hart commented
            Editing a comment
            Thank you. I'll chew on this a little.

        • #39
          Originally posted by chrisfromri View Post
          I think we can pretty safely agree that comparing the Hybrid CD layer to the SACD layer from the very same disc is a pretty fair comparison as they both had to have the same source. Plus this was done multiple times with multiple SACDs.
          I don't think I could say that. First, the SACD DSD layer cannot have the exact same source because it's a resampling and totally different means of coding. If the DSD layer was recorded DSD native and not passed through a PCM post-production stage, that's very different from a PCM produced recording that is resampled to DSD, which is more typical. The best DSD could do is replicate PCM perfectly, it can't clean anything up or improve anything. The worst it does is add it's own layer of resampling errors, which is actually what happens. Yeah, multiple SACDs.

          Was your comparison sighted?
          Originally posted by chrisfromri View Post
          SACD does sound better in a slightly more spacious and organic way, BUT not by that much anymore. Ten years ago the difference between the layers (tested differently) was very large, but today the Hybrid CD layer is really sounding very good and much closer to the SACD layer. I'm sure the external DAC running balanced outputs to the preamp is helping the Hybrid CD layer, and the SACD player can't take advantage of this with the SACD layer because it won't output the digital stream from an SACD.
          I think you nailed it there. What's different in the last 10 years (I'd go for 2 to 3x that) is in filters, both in the ADC and the DAC. It's not hard to see that the reconstruction filter for DSD is pretty easy to do, but reconstruction filters for PCM is not quite as easy. Today it's much better of course thanks to digital filtering.. But also, look at the total production chain. There are at least one other set of filters in there ahead of the ADC, and those will be reproduced faithfully by both PCM and DSD because you can't get rid of them. So improving them would also be interesting.
          Originally posted by chrisfromri View Post
          Many other Redbook CDs also now sound better than they ever did. Accordingly, it is currently my opinion that Redbook CD has now become a useful and very listenable source - when before it was just a thousand jewel boxes taking up space.
          Amazing, isn't it? Just about the time people are ready to abandon Redbook, it comes into its own. However, there are some spectacular CDs that were recorded in the 1980s too, some will bring a tear (in a good way), and I'm obviously excluding any AAD or ADD recording, especially the CD re-releases.

          Comment


          • #40
            This was just published, and is right on topic. Mark Waldrep is the owner of AIX records, and he has produced over 80 real, true, actual hi-res audio recordings (hi-res from the original recording, through post, all the way to release), John Siau is principle designer at Benchmark. John's comments are relevant to the thread.

            http://www.realhd-audio.com/?p=6545

            Comment


            • Steve Lefkowicz
              Steve Lefkowicz commented
              Editing a comment
              If you are Mark, why try to hide it? If you aren't Mark, why are you trying so hard to write like him?

            • Tech7738
              Tech7738 commented
              Editing a comment
              I'm not Mark, and I'm not trying to write like him. I just write how I write. I've met him in person twice. We shook hands. I would say that perhaps something rubbed off in the handshake, but I've written like this for years, so...

              Why is this important?

          • #41

            lots to read in that link. Thanks
            PAP Trio 10/Voxativ & PAP Trio 15 Horn speakers, Ampsandsound Casablanca monoblocks, First Sound Audio Mark 3SI preamp,
            Mojo Audio Deja Vu server, Mojo Audio Mystique V3 DAC, The Linear Solution Ethernet Switch, Blue Jeans Ethernet cablling,
            Akiko Corelli, Custom power strip direct wired to panel with OFC copper wire. Inakustik Ref Air 2404 Speaker cable. Genesis and Inakustik NF2404 Air Interconnects.

            Comment


            • #42
              Very nice read tech. Oddly one artifact I know exists that I have measured is not given any consideration lol.
              Next is what if we hear what's not measured
              i feel confident that my self and a few others here can predict red book and hi Rez. One can say there are many factors and they are right. But what about who can tell
              and have perceptions of it. It may be wrong in conceiving to be accurate of what we think has changed
              but it's still there.
              Lastly I never liked bench mark dacs while I'll bet it may Measure well it's not playing music.
              Analog os real and in fact it's all we have the rest while great is not analog.
              speakers cust infinity IRS V , new caps and LPS , magnets etc.
              mark levivson pre no 26 amps no 33
              digital three cust servers , win ser 2016 , AO
              Dacs lampi various

              Comment


              • #43
                Originally posted by Alrainbow View Post
                Very nice read tech. Oddly one artifact I know exists that I have measured is not given any consideration lol.
                What would that be?
                Originally posted by Alrainbow View Post
                Next is what if we hear what's not measured
                Everything heard can be measured because to hear a difference requires a change in the waveform arriving at the ear. All changes in waveform are measurable. The problem is in correlation between what is measured and what is and is not audible. That doesn't mean we cannot objectively measure whatever causes an audible change.
                Originally posted by Alrainbow View Post
                i feel confident that my self and a few others here can predict red book and hi Rez. One can say there are many factors and they are right. But what about who can tell
                and have perceptions of it. It may be wrong in conceiving to be accurate of what we think has changed
                but it's still there.
                If we were going to make an objective measurement that would stand up to scrutiny, we would first want to make sure the measuring technique was accurate, calibrated, and not influenced by some external factor (like noise or RFI to mention only two). We need to apply the same level of checks and balances to evaluating things using subjective listening. We don't calibrate our hearing, it's assumed to be "right", and that's fine because we are testing for a difference only. But there are external influences and factors that go unaccounted for, and thus become included in our results. This makes our aural observations subject to error. That doesn't mean the same thing as "wrong", but if we're going to beat up objective measurement tools to the point of minimum error, then why accept massive errors in our subjective measurements?

                For example, if you approach a red book vs hi-res comparison by being fully confident you and others can predict the outcome, then you do your test fully aware of which source you're listening to (assuming identical total audio paths...which is also in doubt), you have just influenced your data with an external factor. There's no reason the that objectively collected subjective observations should not be scrutinized to the same extent as objective measurements, but that's not what's going on here.
                Originally posted by Alrainbow View Post
                Lastly I never liked bench mark dacs while I'll bet it may Measure well it's not playing music.
                Analog os real and in fact it's all we have the rest while great is not analog.
                There's an example of personal preference bias. To resolve that you'd have to listen to test material that doesn't actually exist in commercially produced recordings (the same input signal passed through two recording and reproducing chains with no mastering changes, and with levels matched to within 0.1dB), and do so in a controlled double-blind test scenario. That is of course impossible, and that breeds and reinforces personal preference bias. You like what you like because you like it.

                If you look at Mark Waldrep's intro comments to that linked post, he says of Benchmark: "I consider their DACs to be among the finest on the planet — equally at home in my mastering room all these years AND in my home system." Now we have a problem: one person thinks Benchmark DACs are the best thing since sliced bread, another thinks they sound like burnt toast. They can't both be right, in absolute terms. One guy makes his living recording and mastering some of the highest quality recordings, but that alone isn't enough to clear things up. And so we would have to look for what other influences are at work and try to control them. Only when all external non-audio biases have been removed and controlled can we get down to objective evaluation AND subjective preference.

                But again, since all of that is practically impossible, we'll all just listen to what we like best without regard for bias.

                Comment


                • #44
                  Just coz you can make and design audio does not mean you have good ears on what music reproduced should like
                  there is a man named miska I think he makes HQ player
                  like many here he is way above my pay grade. Trouble is
                  while he measures all he does use a good desk computer to play what he makes. As such it has some great sounds and then some very odd ones too.
                  speakers cust infinity IRS V , new caps and LPS , magnets etc.
                  mark levivson pre no 26 amps no 33
                  digital three cust servers , win ser 2016 , AO
                  Dacs lampi various

                  Comment


                  • #45
                    To answer your questions Tech7738:

                    By both the Hybrid CD Layer and SACD Layer coming from the same source, I meant the same performance/mikes/mixing board/multi-track recording. This was one of the bugaboos of early SACD testing is that the SACD disc was often created from a completely different "take", and in fact a better one than the old Redbook CD was, so the SACD always won easily over the Redbook. By using both the Hybrid CD layer on the SACD and the SACD layer on the very same disc I eliminated the variability that it was a completely different performance/setup.

                    The first time I ran the test it was sighted because it was just me and I was figuring out the levels, and how to time and switch cleanly with the preamp remote between the two. After that I ran the test two more times and it was still sighted for me because I was running the test (though giving no audible clues), but it was NOT sighted for the two other participants who each had no idea which version I was playing when - and it was just their ears that could confirm the difference. So it was an unsighted test on two occasions with two individuals known to me that have a good ear. They could reliably tell the difference, and both said the difference was a smaller difference than they remembered from past tests. This is on a revealing system. On a less revealing system they might not have heard the difference reliably.

                    I agree that it is amazing that now my thousand Redbook CDs played from my CD-only (16/44) FLAC server and its DAC are so nice to listen to. One Redbook CD that stands out was the Three Blind Mice Sampler XRCD.

                    The really cool thing is that I was doing all of this ripping this to make space and add the convenience of a user interface search line when casually listening to the Redbook CD library, yet it turned out that more serious listening became possible as well.

                    In retrospect SACD should have allowed a digital output so that owners could take advantage of future DAC upgrades to improve the sound of the SACDs too.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X