What a fake audiophile looks like (video) - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 88 Old 01-07-2014, 08:53 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
kbeam418's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: 41.7080574, -83.5911255 N41° 42.4834', W083° 35.4675'
Posts: 368
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 44
These videos are full of s*** that can be proven wrong but you guys be the judge;

"Then one day you find ten years have got behind you no one told when to run you missed the starting gun."
kbeam418 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 88 Old 01-07-2014, 11:02 PM
AVS Special Member
 
A9X-308's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Australia; now run by adults.
Posts: 5,167
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 32 Post(s)
Liked: 43
I haven't had time to watch all of it yet, so why don't you start by telling us what you think is right and wrong in it? And why.
A9X-308 is offline  
post #3 of 88 Old 01-08-2014, 01:24 AM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
kbeam418's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: 41.7080574, -83.5911255 N41° 42.4834', W083° 35.4675'
Posts: 368
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by A9X-308 View Post

I haven't had time to watch all of it yet, so why don't you start by telling us what you think is right and wrong in it? And why.

Gladly will. First of all I'm going to admit that I haven't done my comparisons scientifically so please keep that in mind.

The guys in the video said that FLAC won't make a difference and provided a song to prove that. The song they chose was typical compressed junk and sounded like it was a lo-fi master to begin with, so of course there would be no difference between a FLAC and a 320 kbps, although I think at that bit rate it's going to be near impossible to tell a difference on headphones. Then we've got the setup they're are using, they admittedly are using on-board sound which has it's own set of problems, plus I notice a smiley face eq in the background eek.gif Not going to mention the ABX test because like I said I didn't do that.

They are spot on when it comes to cables.

Here's what really amused me; Tweedledee and tweedle dumb ass (pardon my french) though that sample rates only need to be 20k rolleyes.gif After that I stopped watching because I didn't want to have a heart attack after laughing so hard.

Tube amps are opinion but I haven't got that far yet.

My opinion on FLAC vs lossy (AAC and MP3) is that on a stereo, or good (think Sennheiser with good amp) headphones, paired with a piece of music that has A; good dynamic range, B; guitars and drums, and C; echo, and reverb, will show the differences between a 256k AAC file. I noticed this on the song "Dogs" by Pink Floyd which has a good section of instrumental music, at low level, with echo, which really reveals the difference between it and the vinyl version. I still prefer the iTunes version though because 2011 re-masters sound so much better. Just my .02.

"Then one day you find ten years have got behind you no one told when to run you missed the starting gun."
kbeam418 is offline  
post #4 of 88 Old 01-08-2014, 04:52 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 13,861
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 413 Post(s)
Liked: 1052
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbeam418 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by A9X-308 View Post

I haven't had time to watch all of it yet, so why don't you start by telling us what you think is right and wrong in it? And why.

Gladly will. First of all I'm going to admit that I haven't done my comparisons scientifically so please keep that in mind.

Like many people you managed to ignore the good advice that showed up on screen, which says get Foobar with the ABX plug in and do your own tests.

Doing good listening tests involving comparisons of MP3s to the original .wav files is pretty easy:

(1) Select a .wav file which should be BTW audibly indistinguishable from a well-played CD

(2) Convert the selected .wav file or the corresponding source CD track in a MP3 file at the desired bitrate.

(3) Convert the MP3 file back to .wav format.

(4) Examine the before and after .wav files using an audio editor such as Audacity to ensure consistent levels and timings. We need 1-2% tolerance on level and 5 milliseconds or better on timing.

(5) Compare using FOBAR2000 and its ABX plug in. A PC with a really good PC audio interface and monitoring loudspeakers, headphones or earphones is highly recommended.

As far as that PC with a good audio interface goes, you can test to see if you already have one by looking the Audio Rightmark score for your audio interface (usually shown in the Device Manager) on the web, or testing it yourself with the Audio Rightmark program (freeware). If your PC comes up short, I'd recommend a USB interface like the Behringer UCA 202 or a PCI or PCI-E card such as the Asus Xonar DGX or DSX. If your headphones or speakers come up short, I'd recommend the classic Sennheiser HD280, as prized by pros for years if not decades.
Quote:
The guys in the video said that FLAC won't make a difference and provided a song to prove that. The song they chose was typical compressed junk and sounded like it was a lo-fi master to begin with, so of course there would be no difference between a FLAC and a 320 kbps, although I think at that bit rate it's going to be near impossible to tell a difference on headphones.

Audiophiles frequently entertain people who have done a lot of listening tests with their knee-jerk demand that program material used in listening tests actually sound good or be some kind of audiophile demo disc. In fact some of the best program material for sorting audio gear sounds like crap.
Quote:
Then we've got the setup they're are using, they admittedly are using on-board sound which has it's own set of problems, plus I notice a smiley face eq in the background eek.gif Not going to mention the ABX test because like I said I didn't do that.

Audiophiles also frequently entertain people who have done a lot of listening tests with their knee-jerk demands that their own preferences in listening test environments be adhered to. The most important thing is that basic sound quality be good and that it be something that the listener is familiar with and likes on its own merits.

A lot of this posturing goes away when people actually do some DBTs of their own, which from the perspective of even people with limited DBT experience seem easy to understand.

In short, don't knock it until you have tried it.
Quote:
Here's what really amused me; Tweedledee and tweedle dumb ass (pardon my french) though that sample rates only need to be 20k rolleyes.gif After that I stopped watching because I didn't want to have a heart attack after laughing so hard.


Listen again. This information is at 6:30 in the video and they clearly say that "anything over 44,100 sampling is overkill, and that's actually overkill all by itself.
Quote:
Tube amps are opinion but I haven't got that far yet.

No tube amps are a somwhat mixed bag that ranges from good amps that are just too big, too unreliable and too expensive to be practica,l to technical jokes that sound different every time you hook up a different speaker.
Quote:
My opinion on FLAC vs lossy (AAC and MP3) is that on a stereo, or good (think Sennheiser with good amp) headphones, paired with a piece of music that has A; good dynamic range, B; guitars and drums, and C; echo, and reverb, will show the differences between a 256k AAC file. I noticed this on the song "Dogs" by Pink Floyd which has a good section of instrumental music, at low level, with echo, which really reveals the difference between it and the vinyl version. I still prefer the iTunes version though because 2011 re-masters sound so much better. Just my .02.

IMO your $0.02 is counterfeit ;-) until you do some actual listening with a DBT comparitor which is relatively easy to do, as I showed above.
arnyk is online now  
post #5 of 88 Old 01-08-2014, 05:35 AM
FMW
AVS Special Member
 
FMW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,556
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 131 Post(s)
Liked: 641
I don't watch internet videos for lack of bandwidth but I have done some bias controlled tests with various digital encoding formats. Since I find that a 320 MP3 is indistinguishable from a WAV, then by definition, it must also be indistinguishable from a FLAC. So if that's what the video said, then I agree with it.
FMW is online now  
post #6 of 88 Old 01-08-2014, 07:14 AM
AVS Special Member
 
mcnarus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 6,014
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Liked: 268
Quote:
These videos are full of s*** that can be proven wrong
Nope. Those guys are pretty much on track.

If you can't explain how it works, you can't say it doesn't.—The High-End Creed

mcnarus is online now  
post #7 of 88 Old 01-08-2014, 08:50 AM
Senior Member
 
JD NC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 269
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 40
Nice video. I think the 320kbps vs. FLAC argument will still continue to rage for the foreseeable future, but my own view is that it doesn't really matter. In every listening test I've done, blind or not, I rarely perceive any differences, and even when I do (or think I do), they were never significant enough that I'd ever be able to tell one way or the other under normal listening conditions. Therefore, for me, it ultimately doesn't matter whether the differences I "heard" were real or imagined, and it also means that 320kbps MP3/256kbps AAC is functionally as good as a CD or FLAC for playback, even on my higher end equipment, and that's the whole point, isn't it? This is a very good thing, because it means I don't have to scour used CD stores for albums I already have in high bitrate MP3 form. In many cases, I'm even able to use iTunes Match to "upgrade" lower bitrate files to the 256kbps AAC iTunes store version, so even if the file is a 128kbps MP3 (or worse), I now have an excellent copy. Most of my physical CDs are archived in lossless form, because why not, but my iTunes library is all 256kbps AAC whenever possible. it's very nice to be able to fit more music on my iPhone without losing fidelity, especially since the storage capacities of many portable devices seem to be plateauing.

I also liked that they addressed two things that often get lost in audiophile discussions:

1 - They acknowledge that perfectly accurate reproduction of the source material is not always the goal, and doesn't have to be. If you first heard Sgt. Pepper on an old turntable hooked up to a tube amp, reproducing that experience accurately is still a "high fidelity" effort, even if the equipment you're trying to mimic is "lo-fi" with respect to the source. Maybe you use a tube amp, or maybe you use an EQ to alter the sound, but it's good to remember that accuracy to the source is not always what's going to sound "right."

2 - Aesthetics still matter, even if they don't contribute to audio quality. As long as you understand that you're paying only for a pretty cable or case (or an intentionally ugly one in the case of some audiophile equipment) and that it won't make your music sound better, there's nothing wrong with spending your money on the prettier, or sturdier, or whatever items.

Finally, because this article can never be posted enough, here it is again:
"24/192 Music Downloads ...and why they make no sense"
http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

JD NC is offline  
post #8 of 88 Old 01-08-2014, 06:08 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
kbeam418's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: 41.7080574, -83.5911255 N41° 42.4834', W083° 35.4675'
Posts: 368
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Alright guys doing that ABX test now.

"Then one day you find ten years have got behind you no one told when to run you missed the starting gun."
kbeam418 is offline  
post #9 of 88 Old 01-08-2014, 06:52 PM
Advanced Member
 
FilmReverie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Grid
Posts: 652
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11 Post(s)
Liked: 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbeam418 View Post



Gladly will. First of all I'm going to admit that I haven't done my comparisons scientifically so please keep that in mind.

The guys in the video said that FLAC won't make a difference and provided a song to prove that. The song they chose was typical compressed junk and sounded like it was a lo-fi master to begin with, so of course there would be no difference between a FLAC and a 320 kbps, although I think at that bit rate it's going to be near impossible to tell a difference on headphones. Then we've got the setup they're are using, they admittedly are using on-board sound which has it's own set of problems, plus I notice a smiley face eq in the background eek.gif Not going to mention the ABX test because like I said I didn't do that.

Using my headphone setup [(benchmark dac1 -> DNA Sonett 1(balanced) -> hd800's(balanced)] the difference between 320kbps is immediately obvious in near on every piece of music I have ever heard. It to me is like comparing dvd to blu-ray. Admittedly most peoples headphone setups aren't near the level of this.

They are spot on when it comes to cables.

Not sure what they said and a dangerous topic but cables can and do make a difference. That doesn't mean you have to spend a huge amount on them (you don't), just make sure they are appropriate for there use and they aren't poorly made. So basically just common sense just like hdmi cables spending more doesn't mean better but there are some nasty hdmi cables out there that simply cause issues.

Here's what really amused me; Tweedledee and tweedle dumb ass (pardon my french) though that sample rates only need to be 20k rolleyes.gif After that I stopped watching because I didn't want to have a heart attack after laughing so hard.

Tube amps are opinion but I haven't got that far yet.

I like my tube amp, I don't have an opinion on if they are better worse then ss as the difference to my ears have been subtle.

My opinion on FLAC vs lossy (AAC and MP3) is that on a stereo, or good (think Sennheiser with good amp) headphones, paired with a piece of music that has A; good dynamic range, B; guitars and drums, and C; echo, and reverb, will show the differences between a 256k AAC file. I noticed this on the song "Dogs" by Pink Floyd which has a good section of instrumental music, at low level, with echo, which really reveals the difference between it and the vinyl version. I still prefer the iTunes version though because 2011 re-masters sound so much better. Just my .02.

Not really an opinion I wouldn't think, 256kbps aac sounds distorted when compared to flac with a good setup. I have yet to come across someone in person who disagrees with this when testing it. Now if your using some el chepo ear buds the difference is no longer audible as they do such a poor job reproducing sound. Now compare something like Nora Jones on cd to a higher quality format (like on hdtracks) and even cd can be improved on. Admittedly this is less obvious but I find to be notable mostly in female voices, acoustic guitar and large orchestral pieces. the same can be said about dts 1.5mbps tracks that where available on some dvd's do not sound as good as there loosless counterparts on blu-ray.

I haven't watched the videos (at a lunch break) but just some thoughts in bold.
FilmReverie is offline  
post #10 of 88 Old 01-08-2014, 08:05 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
kbeam418's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: 41.7080574, -83.5911255 N41° 42.4834', W083° 35.4675'
Posts: 368
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Okay guys I just ABX'd and got to say that arnyk, once again, has proved me wrong biggrin.gif I converted "Yet another movie" to 320 kbps and got 6 out of ten right. I then retested the same song, except I was using 256 kbps AAC (iTunes quality) and got 5 out of 10 correct. The last test was a little hard the though because the b**** above me complained that the music was too loud (it read 75 dB on my meter), got to love apartments.

"Then one day you find ten years have got behind you no one told when to run you missed the starting gun."
kbeam418 is offline  
post #11 of 88 Old 01-08-2014, 08:22 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
kbeam418's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: 41.7080574, -83.5911255 N41° 42.4834', W083° 35.4675'
Posts: 368
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by FilmReverie View Post

I haven't watched the videos (at a lunch break) but just some thoughts in bold.

Good post, I was using my stereo BUT was still relying on on-board sound. Plus as my latest post mentioned the fat b****above me complained. Hate that women mad.gif If my parents weren't home I would've cranked it up to the point of clipping. O well I could not tell a difference between AAC (at 256), or MP3 (at 320), so I don't know, I was focusing on things like echo.

The HD 800's are very revealing, from what I hear.

"Then one day you find ten years have got behind you no one told when to run you missed the starting gun."
kbeam418 is offline  
post #12 of 88 Old 01-09-2014, 01:47 AM
Member
 
Darvis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 27
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbeam418 View Post

Okay guys I just ABX'd and got to say that arnyk, once again, has proved me wrong biggrin.gif I converted "Yet another movie" to 320 kbps and got 6 out of ten right. I then retested the same song, except I was using 256 kbps AAC (iTunes quality) and got 5 out of 10 correct. The last test was a little hard the though because the b**** above me complained that the music was too loud (it read 75 dB on my meter), got to love apartments.

6/10 and 5/10 means you we're guessing, so yes, no discernible difference.

I feel for you, I always lived in apartment but in my first one the neighbors' kid was so loud all the time than I hadn't any remorse when putting out lots of watts, and in my present one I think the neighbor is a bit deaf.
Darvis is offline  
post #13 of 88 Old 01-09-2014, 02:56 AM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
kbeam418's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: 41.7080574, -83.5911255 N41° 42.4834', W083° 35.4675'
Posts: 368
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darvis View Post

6/10 and 5/10 means you we're guessing, so yes, no discernible difference.

I feel for you, I always lived in apartment but in my first one the neighbors' kid was so loud all the time than I hadn't any remorse when putting out lots of watts, and in my present one I think the neighbor is a bit deaf.

I have no problem with someone complaining about music being too loud, if they are quite! The person who complained works out during the day which is when I sleep. I complained and she said she "needs" to work out that's what pisses me off. When I can afford to move out I'll be renting a house.

"Then one day you find ten years have got behind you no one told when to run you missed the starting gun."
kbeam418 is offline  
post #14 of 88 Old 01-09-2014, 03:33 AM
Advanced Member
 
DotJun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 870
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 25 Post(s)
Liked: 43
Flac vs mp3. I would imagine the difference would be one of them being bit exact to the source while the other is psychoacoustic exact to the source. Whether a listener can tell a difference and/or have the equipment to allow them to hear the difference is up to that individual.
DotJun is online now  
post #15 of 88 Old 01-09-2014, 04:51 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 13,861
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 413 Post(s)
Liked: 1052
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbeam418 View Post

Okay guys I just ABX'd and got to say that arnyk, once again, has proved me wrong biggrin.gif

I didn't prove you wrong Kevin, I helped you find the truth about this topic, and presumably that's good for the rest of your life! ;-)

Another great holiday present!

I see people posting to this thread that should follow your example and enjoy the same benefits.

How difficult did you find it to actually go through the recommended steps with ABX?
arnyk is online now  
post #16 of 88 Old 01-09-2014, 04:55 AM
FMW
AVS Special Member
 
FMW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,556
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 131 Post(s)
Liked: 641
Quote:
Originally Posted by DotJun View Post

Flac vs mp3. I would imagine the difference would be one of them being bit exact to the source while the other is psychoacoustic exact to the source. Whether a listener can tell a difference and/or have the equipment to allow them to hear the difference is up to that individual.

That doesn't seem to be the case. Those of us who engage in bias controlled tests seem to agree that the differences between CD audio and high bit rate MP3 are not audible - by anyone. Those who hear differences are apparently experiencing hearing bias.
FMW is online now  
post #17 of 88 Old 01-09-2014, 05:00 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 13,861
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 413 Post(s)
Liked: 1052
Quote:
Originally Posted by DotJun View Post

Flac vs mp3. I would imagine the difference would be one of them being bit exact to the source while the other is psychoacoustic exact to the source. Whether a listener can tell a difference and/or have the equipment to allow them to hear the difference is up to that individual.

Yes, in the sense that if there is a difference, then listener effort, infrastructure, natural acuity and training matter quite a bit.

However an expensive or exotic listening environment is not required. A good PC with a <$30 audio interface and a pair of <$120 headphones is about as sensitive as anything.

I suspect that the leading cause of listener failure is people believing that a given test is going to be easy, and it isn't, and then they bail.

However both the preference tests of Sean Olive and over a decade of experience with coder and sample rate testing shows that people strongly tend to converge to the same results. True golden ears are very elusive. The known thresholds of hearing may be complex at times, but the standard references are very representative.

Would I be surprised if someone did an ABX test for FLAC versus 320k MP3? No, because it has been already reported by reliable sources. However doing it takes a lot of trials looking for pathological audio track segments. Probably 98% or more of all tracks and 99.9+% of all music segments if broken into 3 minute segments, will produce random guessing under even the most ideal circumstances.
arnyk is online now  
post #18 of 88 Old 01-09-2014, 05:01 AM
FMW
AVS Special Member
 
FMW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,556
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 131 Post(s)
Liked: 641
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbeam418 View Post

Okay guys I just ABX'd and got to say that arnyk, once again, has proved me wrong biggrin.gif I converted "Yet another movie" to 320 kbps and got 6 out of ten right. I then retested the same song, except I was using 256 kbps AAC (iTunes quality) and got 5 out of 10 correct. The last test was a little hard the though because the b**** above me complained that the music was too loud (it read 75 dB on my meter), got to love apartments.

Congratulations. Good work.
FMW is online now  
post #19 of 88 Old 01-09-2014, 08:51 AM
Senior Member
 
bordo32's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 207
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
The comparison results also depend on the listeners age, their experience listening those differences.
The result may vary and depend if the listener had chance, spent time to hone their tasting/auditioning/listening skills.
An example, when person gets his first glass of wine lets say at 21 year age, all red wines will taste the same to him.
Does not matter if any compression, oops I mean aging, was applied.
After awhile a person will start recognizing that wines taste differently but he still does not understand which is better, tastier.
Even further in time a person will hone his tasting skills (oops listener/auditioner skills) and start recognizing and understanding what is what.
When person become even much older he will start loosing his skills due to the aging, audio listeners will be loosing their ability to make an unbiased judgments as well, since their "microphones" will be degraded.

Not mentioning the character of music and the equipment level, that can make big big impact on the results.
bordo32 is offline  
post #20 of 88 Old 01-09-2014, 09:13 AM
FMW
AVS Special Member
 
FMW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,556
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 131 Post(s)
Liked: 641
Quote:
Originally Posted by bordo32 View Post

The comparison results also depend on the listeners age, their experience listening those differences.
The result may vary and depend if the listener had chance, spent time to hone their tasting/auditioning/listening skills.

What makes you think that? Do you have some test results?
Quote:
An example, when person gets his first glass of wine lets say at 21 year age, all red wines will taste the same to him.
Does not matter if any compression, oops I mean aging, was applied.
After awhile a person will start recognizing that wines taste differently but he still does not understand which is better, tastier.
Even further in time a person will hone his tasting skills (oops listener/auditioner skills) and start recognizing and understanding what is what.
When person become even much older he will start loosing his skills due to the aging, audio listeners will be loosing their ability to make an unbiased judgments as well, since their "microphones" will be degraded.

Never heard this before. Personally, I've never thought all red wines taste the same. Perhaps you have.
Quote:
Not mentioning the character of music and the equipment level, that can make big big impact on the results.

Immaterial. We aren't talking about preferences or quality judgement. We're simply talking about identifying A and B accurately. Pink noise should get the job done.
FMW is online now  
post #21 of 88 Old 01-09-2014, 09:36 AM
Senior Member
 
JD NC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 269
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by bordo32 View Post

The comparison results also depend on the listeners age, their experience listening those differences.
The result may vary and depend if the listener had chance, spent time to hone their tasting/auditioning/listening skills.
An example, when person gets his first glass of wine lets say at 21 year age, all red wines will taste the same to him.
Does not matter if any compression, oops I mean aging, was applied.
After awhile a person will start recognizing that wines taste differently but he still does not understand which is better, tastier.
Even further in time a person will hone his tasting skills (oops listener/auditioner skills) and start recognizing and understanding what is what.
When person become even much older he will start loosing his skills due to the aging, audio listeners will be loosing their ability to make an unbiased judgments as well, since their "microphones" will be degraded.

Not mentioning the character of music and the equipment level, that can make big big impact on the results.

Wine is actually a very good analogy to audio.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-07-22/wine-blind-taste-testing/4835208
Quote:
A study in the United Kingdom has found wine judges are no better than the general drinker at picking the most expensive wine in a blind taste test.

Oxford University psychologists found wine experts can judge faults in quality, and maybe the year the wine was made, but not always select the top-priced bottle.

Professor Charles Spence got Britain's top wine writers and judges to taste champagnes.

"It turned out they had no idea what the grape composition was, which sounds shocking.

"They couldn't pick the price, their preferences were just flat. So 400 pounds, $600-$700, tasted no better than a 15-pound ($30) champagne."

JD NC is offline  
post #22 of 88 Old 01-09-2014, 10:01 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ratman's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Collingswood, N.J.
Posts: 14,294
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 88 Post(s)
Liked: 251
Quote:
Originally Posted by bordo32 View Post

The comparison results also depend on the listeners age, their experience listening those differences.

When person become even much older he will start loosing his skills due to the aging, audio listeners will be loosing their ability to make an unbiased judgments as well, since their "microphones" will be degraded.

And when a person is younger their listening, reading, and comprehension skills are not finely tuned due to lack of practical experience and false bravado.
Ratman is online now  
post #23 of 88 Old 01-09-2014, 10:03 AM
Senior Member
 
bordo32's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 207
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
JD NC, Exactly, that quote tells that the judges and all ABX type of evaluations can produce unpredictable results, not necessarily tell the truth.
Different listeners (tasters) can experience different results, why trying to convince them that it is no differences between CD audio and high bit rate MP3:
Quote:
Those who hear differences are apparently experiencing hearing bias
It could be they really sound differently, not necessarily a hearing bias.
bordo32 is offline  
post #24 of 88 Old 01-09-2014, 10:07 AM
Advanced Member
 
DotJun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 870
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 25 Post(s)
Liked: 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

Yes, in the sense that if there is a difference, then listener effort, infrastructure, natural acuity and training matter quite a bit.

However an expensive or exotic listening environment is not required. A good PC with a <$30 audio interface and a pair of <$120 headphones is about as sensitive as anything.

I suspect that the leading cause of listener failure is people believing that a given test is going to be easy, and it isn't, and then they bail.

However both the preference tests of Sean Olive and over a decade of experience with coder and sample rate testing shows that people strongly tend to converge to the same results. True golden ears are very elusive. The known thresholds of hearing may be complex at times, but the standard references are very representative.

Would I be surprised if someone did an ABX test for FLAC versus 320k MP3? No, because it has been already reported by reliable sources. However doing it takes a lot of trials looking for pathological audio track segments. Probably 98% or more of all tracks and 99.9+% of all music segments if broken into 3 minute segments, will produce random guessing under even the most ideal circumstances.
I never said you need multi thousand dollar equipment. I just meant you shouldn't be doing abx with five dollar computer speakers.

Again, there are differences between flac and mp3. You only have to play them through an oscilloscope to see the difference. The flac will be bit perfect, while the mp3 will not. It's just the nature of lossy encoding. So yes, in this sense flac is superior.

Now, whether you as the listener are able to perceive said differences or not... Well that's up to each individual. Most people can't see a difference between jpg and ping, but that doesn't automatically make jpg better or as good as png.
DotJun is online now  
post #25 of 88 Old 01-09-2014, 10:11 AM
Senior Member
 
bordo32's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 207
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Now, whether you as the listener are able to perceive said differences or not... Well that's up to each individual. Most people can't see a difference between jpg and ping, but that doesn't automatically make jpg better or as good as png.
+1 and an agreement here
bordo32 is offline  
post #26 of 88 Old 01-09-2014, 11:36 AM
FMW
AVS Special Member
 
FMW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,556
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 131 Post(s)
Liked: 641
Quote:
Originally Posted by bordo32 View Post

JD NC, Exactly, that quote tells that the judges and all ABX type of evaluations can produce unpredictable results, not necessarily tell the truth.
Different listeners (tasters) can experience different results, why trying to convince them that it is no differences between CD audio and high bit rate MP3:
It could be they really sound differently, not necessarily a hearing bias.

No. Not when they can't be told apart in a bias controlled listening test.
FMW is online now  
post #27 of 88 Old 01-09-2014, 12:13 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 13,861
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 413 Post(s)
Liked: 1052
Quote:
Originally Posted by bordo32 View Post

The comparison results also depend on the listeners age, their experience listening those differences.

One big variable is whether or not the listeners play musical instruments. In modern times playing popular music carries with it an extreme probability of loudness-induced deafness which is seen even in teenagers.
Quote:
The result may vary and depend if the listener had chance, spent time to hone their tasting/auditioning/listening skills.

Of course.

Interestingly enough these considerations don't seem to apply to sighted evaluations. Some of us know why.... ;-)
arnyk is online now  
post #28 of 88 Old 01-09-2014, 03:45 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
kbeam418's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: 41.7080574, -83.5911255 N41° 42.4834', W083° 35.4675'
Posts: 368
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by DotJun View Post

I never said you need multi thousand dollar equipment. I just meant you shouldn't be doing abx with five dollar computer speakers.

Again, there are differences between flac and mp3. You only have to play them through an oscilloscope to see the difference. The flac will be bit perfect, while the mp3 will not. It's just the nature of lossy encoding. So yes, in this sense flac is superior.

Now, whether you as the listener are able to perceive said differences or not... Well that's up to each individual. Most people can't see a difference between jpg and ping, but that doesn't automatically make jpg better or as good as png.

You are correct! I looked at the wave forms on Audacity and there were some minor differences. Some of the wave forms were jagged and some weren't even there.

"Then one day you find ten years have got behind you no one told when to run you missed the starting gun."
kbeam418 is offline  
post #29 of 88 Old 01-09-2014, 05:25 PM
Advanced Member
 
FilmReverie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Grid
Posts: 652
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11 Post(s)
Liked: 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbeam418 View Post



Good post, I was using my stereo BUT was still relying on on-board sound. Plus as my latest post mentioned the fat b****above me complained. Hate that women mad.gif If my parents weren't home I would've cranked it up to the point of clipping. O well I could not tell a difference between AAC (at 256), or MP3 (at 320), so I don't know, I was focusing on things like echo.

The HD 800's are very revealing, from what I hear.

The difference between 256 and 320 is something I doubt I could hear (though I have not tested it). The difference between 256 and 320 and a cd (flac) or even better is notable on a good setup. Also if you are using speakers the room itself can of course cause issues and further reduce the difference. You shouldn't have to crank it up to hear the difference in any case. Though using on board audio is somewhat like using an old 480i display to try and see the difference between dvd and blu-ray. tongue.gif

I fell I should also add I listen nearly exclusively to classical music, movie scores and a little bit of jazz and thus haven't really tested the difference all that much in other kinds of music (I do enjoy the occasional rock band or similar but they are very few and far between). In any case if one has the music on cd and is copying the music to there pc/media box, storage is cheap, so why would one go with a lossy option? (unless of course you are talking for portable use).
FilmReverie is offline  
post #30 of 88 Old 01-09-2014, 06:03 PM
AVS Special Member
 
mcnarus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 6,014
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Liked: 268
Quote:
The difference between 256 and 320 and a cd (flac) or even better is notable on a good setup.
Only in your imagination.

If you can't explain how it works, you can't say it doesn't.—The High-End Creed

mcnarus is online now  
Reply 2 Channel Audio

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off