Debate Thread: Scott's Hi-res Audio Test - Page 78 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Baselworld is only a few weeks away. Getting the latest news is easy, Click Here for info on how to join the Watchuseek.com newsletter list. Follow our team for updates featuring event coverage, new product unveilings, watch industry news & more!


Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
Old 07-23-2014, 01:25 PM
Senior Writer @ AVS
 
imagic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 7,804
Mentioned: 66 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2888 Post(s)
Liked: 4549
Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlesJ View Post
Thanks. So then, this is telling me that all the positive outcomes posted tests are questionable outcomes and due to system issues?
That would be the most logical conclusion. It would appear to be a case of hi-res doing more harm than good, unless you own (and use for these A/B experiments) gear that is expensive enough to avoid distortion-related problems in the first place, thus allowing you to hear dead silence when playing those ultrasonic tones.
tubetwister likes this.

Mark Henninger
imagic is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 07-23-2014, 02:04 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Chu Gai's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: NYC area
Posts: 15,327
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 549 Post(s)
Liked: 858
Could it be that one would benefit from using a separate sound card and not relying on the one that's on the MB?

"I've found that when you want to know the truth about someone that someone is probably the last person you should ask." - Gregory House
Chu Gai is offline  
Old 07-23-2014, 02:07 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ratman's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Collingswood, N.J.
Posts: 15,354
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 533 Post(s)
Liked: 461
It depends.
Ratman is offline  
Old 07-23-2014, 02:09 PM
AVS Special Member
 
CharlesJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,534
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 241 Post(s)
Liked: 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by imagic View Post
That would be the most logical conclusion. It would appear to be a case of hi-res doing more harm than good, unless you own (and use for these A/B experiments) gear that is expensive enough to avoid distortion-related problems in the first place, thus allowing you to hear dead silence when playing those ultrasonic tones.
Well, at least my thinking process is on the right track, it seems. Thanks.
CharlesJ is offline  
Old 07-23-2014, 02:12 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Frank Derks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Region A,B,C
Posts: 1,988
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 165 Post(s)
Liked: 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chu Gai View Post
Could it be that one would benefit from using a separate sound card and not relying on the one that's on the MB?

Yes, the separate soundcard in my pc turns out to be a better performer than the 'build in' soundcard in my Oppo 105D blu-ray media player computer.
Frank Derks is offline  
Old 07-23-2014, 02:14 PM - Thread Starter
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,825
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1334 Post(s)
Liked: 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlesJ View Post
Thanks. So then, this is telling me that all the positive outcomes posted tests are questionable outcomes and due to system issues?
None at all. You are misunderstanding what Arny is saying. Look at the waveform after the 4K tone again:



You see that modulating sine wave? Those are the frequencies that are ultrasonic ("22+27 KHz, 32+36 Kz, and 38+42 Khz") and hence, inaudible.

What is audible is that there is a step function in these tones in a few places where the amplitude suddenly drops (i.e. you have an impulse function as I explained). That is what creates the click/pops and due to wide spectrum, will be audible regardless of which version of the file you listen to.

Let me know if this is not clear and I will post the full spectrum with annotation.
amirm is offline  
Old 07-23-2014, 02:18 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Frank Derks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Region A,B,C
Posts: 1,988
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 165 Post(s)
Liked: 102
I found them helpful as markers between the various test tone sections
Frank Derks is offline  
Old 07-23-2014, 02:18 PM - Thread Starter
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,825
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1334 Post(s)
Liked: 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by imagic View Post
That would be the most logical conclusion.It would appear to be a case of hi-res doing more harm than good, unless you own (and use for these A/B experiments) gear that is expensive enough to avoid distortion-related problems in the first place, thus allowing you to hear dead silence when playing those ultrasonic tones.
What???
amirm is offline  
Old 07-23-2014, 02:28 PM
Senior Writer @ AVS
 
imagic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 7,804
Mentioned: 66 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2888 Post(s)
Liked: 4549
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post
What???
I'm just sayin', if the ultrasonic content the the 24/96 version causes audible artifacts in the audible realm—for whatever reason—then isn't that what makes it sound different from the 16/44 version? That difference is all that's needed to pass an ABX test, after all.
RobertR and krabapple like this.

Mark Henninger
imagic is online now  
Old 07-23-2014, 02:34 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Frank Derks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Region A,B,C
Posts: 1,988
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 165 Post(s)
Liked: 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by imagic View Post
I'm just sayin', if the ultrasonic content the the 24/96 version causes audible artifacts in the audible realm—for whatever reason—then isn't that what makes it sound different from the 16/44 version? That difference is all that's needed to pass an ABX test, after all.

Listening to hi-res music isn't curing hearing damage and it doesn't stimulate inner ear hearing cell growth to cope with the extra bandwidth.
Frank Derks is offline  
Old 07-23-2014, 02:37 PM - Thread Starter
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,825
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1334 Post(s)
Liked: 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by imagic View Post
I'm just sayin', if the ultrasonic content the the 24/96 version causes audible artifacts in the audible realm—for whatever reason—then isn't that what makes it sound different from the 16/44 version? That difference is all that's needed to pass an ABX test, after all.
You were agreeing with this statement: "all the positive outcomes posted tests are questionable outcomes and due to system issues?" That is not the case with my system. There is no intermodulation, nor that is what I am subjectively hearing.

I also don't recall what you heard. Can you please describe what you heard with Arny's clip?
amirm is offline  
Old 07-23-2014, 02:38 PM
Senior Writer @ AVS
 
imagic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 7,804
Mentioned: 66 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2888 Post(s)
Liked: 4549
Truth be told, I'm struggling a bit with this IM distortion bit. Those tones Arny put at the end, they are energetic, to say the least. I was re-testing on my AVR and it actually shut down, and I could hear almost nothing.

I don't hear the IM distortion at anything approaching normal levels on my laptop and my PC—it's but a whisper. However, the obviousness of the IM distortion on my tablet got me thinking, in some cases it really would be loud enough to cause an obvious audible difference.

I need to know... do the miniscule IM distortion levels I hear in the two systems I used to ABX matter, or not? I understand the point about the 16/32 vs. 16/44 comparison, but as I noted I do hear frequencies up to about 17,000 Hz, which could easily account for that.

Mark Henninger

Last edited by imagic; 07-24-2014 at 05:11 AM.
imagic is online now  
Old 07-23-2014, 02:42 PM
AVS Special Member
 
RichB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 9,079
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 442 Post(s)
Liked: 312
Quote:
Originally Posted by imagic View Post
I'm just sayin', if the ultrasonic content the the 24/96 version causes audible artifacts in the audible realm—for whatever reason—then isn't that what makes it sound different from the 16/44 version? That difference is all that's needed to pass an ABX test, after all.
It is a definite possibility.
Since ultrasonics are in audible by definition, then shouldn't potential artifacts produced in the audible range be considered detrimental?

ABX tests with constant results, prove something, I just wonder what that is?

- Rich
krabapple likes this.

Oppo Beta Group

Oppo BDP-105D | Oppo HA-1 | Oppo PM-1 | Parasound A21 + A21 + A51 | Revel Salon, Voice, Studio | Velodyne HGS-15
For Sale: Revel Salons and Revel Studios (together or separately)
RichB is online now  
Old 07-23-2014, 02:43 PM
Senior Writer @ AVS
 
imagic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 7,804
Mentioned: 66 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2888 Post(s)
Liked: 4549
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post
You were agreeing with this statement: "all the positive outcomes posted tests are questionable outcomes and due to system issues?" That is not the case with my system. There is no intermodulation, nor that is what I am subjectively hearing.

I also don't recall what you heard. Can you please describe what you heard with Arny's clip?
I understand that you and JA have systems that handle hi-res properly. However, I wonder how much better than my laptop yours really is, if at all. Yes, I think it could be the case that 24/96 IM distortion is the giveaway for some, perhaps most systems.

I heard very faint IM distortion at the end of the 24/96 clip on my laptop and my PC/AVR combo. The levels were way up to hear it. On my tablet running Neutron player, the IM distortion was far louder.

I ran an experiment where I took away everything but the ultrasonic content from the 24/96 file. I played the result on my two systems where I ran ABX tests, I heard nothing. But, on my tablet, I heard (the relatively faint sound of) keys jangling instead of silence.

So, while it is present in minute quantities in my system, I can't say if it affected any results. My first impression is it did not affect my results, but at the same time my system is not totally free of it. However I cannot say IM distortion is not at all present, only that it is inaudible under the normal parameters of the test.

Last edited by imagic; 07-24-2014 at 06:10 AM.
imagic is online now  
Old 07-23-2014, 04:35 PM
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 14,530
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 851 Post(s)
Liked: 1214
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Derks View Post
I found them helpful as markers between the various test tone sections
Yes, they are completely intentional. Notice that in my initial instructions, I said to listen for them. I can make them go away, but why?
arnyk is offline  
Old 07-23-2014, 08:13 PM
AVS Special Member
 
tubetwister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: The Outer Limits....Don't trust any air I can't see ☺
Posts: 4,757
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1250 Post(s)
Liked: 581
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Derks View Post
Yes, the separate soundcard in my pc turns out to be a better performer than the 'build in' soundcard in my Oppo 105D blu-ray media player computer.
re/tubetwister

No surprise there some of the discrete cards are not bad at all these days I have one in my bedroom desktop with a built in headphone amp it's not bad at all ,not the best solution but not bad .

FWIW ,I did it (listened to the keys )did some ABX in Foobar 2000 all a with a studio interface connected to a desktop PC DAW and studio phones ,tried the mid field and near field monitors as well. I hear all the tones and clicks in the key jingle unaltered WAV files on my phones as well as the monitors but nothing that would otherwise convince me to spend any money on hires with the only reason being increased resolution quite the opposite actually .

Maybe that's why the device manufactures and hires content producers after all these years can not cite any independent or otherwise scientific proof of concept , that being hires in and of it self with all other things being equal and meeting the same conditions offers remarkably better playback reproduction than 24/96 or more importantly Redbook 16/44.1
The one valid argument may continue to be some of the hires content uses better recording and mastering techniques
and isn't available in any other format ,while that may be true in some instances that's another discussion.

I get the business end of it create a market to serve and then fill the need ( business 101) happens every day folks just hope they are on the right side of the fence and the fruit from the money tree falls on them .


Much beyond that I'm not convinced and I've heard all the straw man arguments including the "your system may not be resolving enough " The studio equipment here should be more than adequate .

ofc those with vested interests as always including the production /playback device mfrs and services ,
the content producers and distribution and re sellers including box stores and AV integrator are obligated in a business sense to support and market ,the hires formats ,services and equipment that doesn't necessarily prove to me that they are much beyond additional revenue business opportunities (Again business growth opportunities 101) .
Something I know quite a bit about btw having done it for multinationals for decades .



I'm curious why should anyone (myself included ) have to go to any extraordinary effort here at AVS or at home or anywhere 'trying to hear any difference ' it's ludicrous IMO (Although I have done it ) if the hires hypothisis were at least of some use to the average consumer the differences should be readily apparent much like 480i vs 1080p TV and not require any extraordinary effort to realize.

It's been like ~ 10 yrs already with no conclusive proof of concept .


I fell into that trap with SACD a few yrs back and a little more recently sampling some files here
and there including AVS and some commercial files.also .despite my better judgement .........same result here null .
I played around with most of the usual HT surround formats also there are some readily apparent benefits to surround sound when watching movies so I can get with that.

After all just how much resolution do you need to record and playback a recording from a decent Neuman studio microphone (s)

Been down this road with SACD also..... still have my Sony ES disc spinner collecting dust on the shelf .


I would personally have to conclude IMO at least for my purposes that this horse has been beat to death for over 10 yrs .
RobertR and krabapple like this.

"The wireless music box has no commercial value. Who would pay for a message sent to nobody in particular?"
- David Sarnoff's associates at RCA the 1920's -

Last edited by tubetwister; 07-23-2014 at 09:15 PM.
tubetwister is offline  
Old 07-23-2014, 08:30 PM
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 681
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 311 Post(s)
Liked: 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Derks View Post
Yes, the separate soundcard in my pc turns out to be a better performer than the 'build in' soundcard in my Oppo 105D blu-ray media player computer.

Hi Frank,

Would you mind sharing the make and model of your sound card. That's a impressive occurrence, I'd like to review the device, for my own personal use.

Thanks
Garidy is offline  
Old 07-23-2014, 08:41 PM - Thread Starter
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,825
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1334 Post(s)
Liked: 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by tubetwister View Post
I get the business end of it create a market to serve and then fill the need ( business 101) happens every day folks just hope they are on the right side of the fence and the fruit from the money tree falls on them .
What "business end" of it? Even a dollar store AVR claims to decode and playback 192khz/24-bit audio samples. No hardware maker stands to make a cent from capabilities that have existed for 10 to 15 years in consumer gear if not longer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tube
Much beyond that I'm not convinced and I've heard all the straw man arguments including the "your system may not be resolving enough " The studio equipment here should be more than adequate .
I can tell the difference on a stock laptop and its analog/headphone jack. Mind you, this is a properly engineered laptop. The rest and key part is knowing how to listen. And in this case, getting "lucky" that someone decided to put forward a revealing set of tracks -- by accident of course.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tube
ofc those with vested interests as always including the production /playback device mfrs and services ,
the content producers and distribution and re sellers including box stores and AV integrator are obligated in a business sense to support and market ,the hires formats ,services and equipment that doesn't necessarily prove to me that they are much beyond additional revenue business opportunities (Again business growth opportunities 101) .
Something I know quite a bit about btw having done it for multinationals for decades .
Well, the most "vested interest" in these discussions has nothing to do with anything in the industry. Rather, folks want to defend their claims on these forums tooth and nail. Never mind that none of it was gained through professional/educational training and experimentation. What they have read and claimed to be the audio "truth" must be right. If it is not, and in the face of very strong concrete data, must be corrupt. "All the people who stand to get rich if this were true." Right....

Quote:
Originally Posted by tube
I'm curious why should anyone (myself included ) have to go to any extraordinary effort here at AVS 'trying to hear any difference ' if the hires hypothisis were at least of some use to the avarage consumer the differences should be readily apparent much like 480i vs 1080p TV and not require any extraordinary effort to realize.
No one is waiting or asking to you do anything. We are here because vocal members here and in countless other forums constant post that no one has ever shown under "level matched, DBT ABX, properly done test" that these differences are audible. Well, now we have that data. It doesn't matter if you also hear it or don't hear it. All it takes is one positive identification to invalidate the claims.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tube
It's been like ~ 10 yrs already with no conclusive proof of concept .
Except now. I suggest reading the thread before making proclamations like this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tube
After all just how much resolution do you need to record and playback a recording from a decent Neuman studio microphone (s)
You need 20 bits or 120 db dynamic range. 16 bit is insufficient. See my article or references at the end to "scientific peer reviewed journal papers: at the end: http://www.**************.com/Librar...amicRange.html

Quote:
Originally Posted by tube
I would personally have to conclude IMO that this horse has been beat to death for over 10 yrs .
Hate to tell you this but you just declared no one can go to the moon right after moon landing was shown on TV! Of course, that was all fake and the whole thing was shot in a movie studio. But you didn't know that, right? Right.
stereoeditor and Garidy like this.
amirm is offline  
Old 07-23-2014, 10:04 PM
AVS Special Member
 
RayDunzl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 2,425
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 878 Post(s)
Liked: 1083
Ray's Occasional Overnight So Flame Me Opinion Piece:

It seems to me, a lowly pewter-eared spectator, that the industries
have devised various methods with which to assist the antique vintage 16/44
into being darn close to really just about almost good enough after all.

The mixmaster takes the (generally) less resolution restrained source,
rubs off the sharp edges with a little filter (hack) and a
little sample rate reduction (hack) and adds a little foggy dither (hack)
and crams it into the 16/44 container disk and ships it it over to
the trendsmongers to market, and eventually liquidate.

Someone else may take that and demote it some more for streaming
or portability, but let's ignore that for now.

The modern playback converter chain takes in the 16/44, turns it into
24 or 32 internally (hack), ups the sample rate (hack) and
(maybe) interpolates the new in-between samples to smoooooth
it out a little more (hack), and then presents those digits
to the actual D to A section for output.

Unless you have a non-oversampling non-resolution converting DAC.

Maybe thats what's making the 16/44 comparable/semi-undistiguishable
from native hi-res (within the bandwidth limitations of the 16/44).

Progress in converters has narrowed most differences. But its a little hacky.
tubetwister likes this.

I'll be back later...


links::: 1.5RQ > digits > 1177a > OpenDRC-DI > DEQ2496 > DAC2 > KCT > FPB 350mcx > reQuest + Cheezewoofer Wattless Deluxe > Sweetspot
RayDunzl is online now  
Old 07-23-2014, 10:31 PM
AVS Special Member
 
tubetwister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: The Outer Limits....Don't trust any air I can't see ☺
Posts: 4,757
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1250 Post(s)
Liked: 581
Quote:
Originally Posted by amir
What "business end" of it? Even a dollar store AVR claims to decode and playback 192khz/24-bit audio samples. No hardware maker stands to make a cent from capabilities that have existed for 10 to 15 years in consumer gear if not longer.
Except now. I suggest reading the thread before making proclamations like this.

re tubetwister
Opinions , experiences as well as legitimate questions are different from 'proclimations'


The business end of any transaction for profit (that usually being negotiable currency ) should be readily apparent
to anyone with at least an 8th grade education .

Have you seen Sony's divisional business unit operating statements
for all the business units involved (including Sony Music ) in hires et al. that sounds like an unfounded proclamation best. Somehow I don't think you see the potential of the big picture here business wise globally at scale ofc.
Sony music is the long game here not the players .

So I assume it would be safe to say the hardware manufactures maybe even Foxconn
should only produce hires devices. Seems like Apple ( you've heard of the I'm' sure ) has been doing pretty well
with their low res devices all along this argument does not hold water .

Quote:
Originally Posted by Armir
I can tell the difference on a stock laptop and its analog/headphone jack. Mind you, this is a properly engineered laptop. The rest and key part is knowing how to listen. And in this case, getting "lucky" that someone decided to put forward a revealing set of tracks -- by accident of course.

Yes people claim to be able to hear a lot of things even voices when no one is present !

I can probably discern many similar things . All my TV's sound different also as does my HT system and Studio system no surprise has nothing to do with source resolution in my examples though .
I've never heard a properly engineered laptop myself. doesn't mean they don't exist or necessarily sound that good or that bad some probably do and some may not not much of an argument to prove a marketing hypothesis.
Maybe they should find out who has the most "Golden ears " and then put them in the Smithstonian some day !

I've been listening to pretty good things for years maybe longer than you? One shoulden't have to be a trained listener to arguably enjoy superior playback , a fallacious yet repetitive argument in all the usual audiophool discussions .


Quote:
Originally Posted by amir
Well, the most "vested interest" in these discussions has nothing to do with anything in the industry. Rather, folks want to defend their claims on these forums tooth and nail. Never mind that none of it was gained through professional/educational training and experimentation. What they have read and claimed to be the audio "truth" must be right. If it is not, and in the face of very strong concrete data, must be corrupt. "All the people who stand to get rich if this were true." Right....
re tubetwister
Seems like you are defending your arguments with tooth and nail nothing convincing so far though vested interests from the investors ( SNY ) and othres in the business and related services all the way down to the retailer have everything to do with the discussion they are manufacturing ,marketing and producing the hardware and content and selling it to the end user and yes sometimes business opportunities produce wealth sometimes they do not .

Maybe you don't understand the meaning of vested interests as it applies to this discussion ?



Nobody said anything about corruption IMO you are misinterpreting market creation and business growth opportunities
maybe you missed that sort of business education .

Quote:
Originally Posted by Armir
No one is waiting or asking to you do anything. We are here because vocal members here and in countless other forums constant post that no one has ever shown under "level matched, DBT ABX, properly done test" that these differences are audible. Well, now we have that data. It doesn't matter if you also hear it or don't hear it. All it takes is one positive identification to invalidate the claims.
Tubetwister,
Test must be repeatable to verify results science 101 one test can be faulty or have unintended anomalies .
I have read every post in this thread even some without much merit ? not to do so before stating my position (opinions ) may have left me uninformed of any new found miracles or useful test data I did not find any ?

You mean this test ?
Did you ever straighten out that discrepancy with your ABX test results posted in this thread with the inventor of the test ? . ................IIRC he stated your test results are invalid something was maybe left out ? maybe you didn't see that ? .never mind makes no difference to me anyway . Since when did you suddenly become "WE"
pretty good trick how did you accomplish that ?


I thought I politely asked you in another thread not to trouble yourself with providing me directly with any data or hypothesis or opinions actually . The thing is .......I prefer to do my own research there are other members here that can attest to that ...... Maybe you did not see that I'll leave it at that .

btw this is a public forum and your name is not on the top in case you haven't noticed We are all within the forum guidelines in raising legitimate questions and stating our opinions and experiences perhaps you should start your own forum and require that everyone agree with your positions .


Quote:
Originally Posted by armir
You need 20 bits or 120 db dynamic range. 16 bit is insufficient. See my article or references at the end to "scientific peer reviewed journal papers: at the end: http://www.**************.com/Librar...amicRange.html


Hate to tell you this but you just declared no one can go to the moon right after moon landing was shown on TV! Of course, that was all fake and the whole thing was shot in a movie studio. But you didn't know that, right? Right.
Tubetwister wrote

EDIT: Unfounded analogy at best a misinterpretation also . I didn't declare anything outside of common business practices/conditions and current market conditions but only offered questions ,experiences and opinions regarding hires music perhaps you should look up the meaning of the word declare......


On the bit thing....................... there are many prominent folks if
in the industry that seem to think 16 bits is sufficient not to mention 20 bits are much less than what is being
marketed in today's hires formats so I fail to see how that bolsters the hires argument in general .

You are of course entitled to your opinions as are all of us here but opinions generally do not qualify as proof of concept or prove an unproven theory or hypothesis .

EDIT : I've been down the hi res road before with SACD and Sony ES spinners weren't exactly cheap or low quality back then neither was the media . It's sitting on a shelf collecting dust now but it still works .

EDIT : IMO a Good CD or 96/24 file with all other things and conditions being equal sounds as good as an SACD and some recently downloaded hires files in a sighted unscientific approximately level matched comparison to me admittedly possibly with some bias expectations . I've used the unsighted ABX /Foobar comparisons also under the same conditions with no reliable results to report YMMV . FWIW .
Note : These are opinions and experience recollections and not a declaration of scientific facts or data YMMV

"The wireless music box has no commercial value. Who would pay for a message sent to nobody in particular?"
- David Sarnoff's associates at RCA the 1920's -

Last edited by tubetwister; 07-29-2014 at 03:24 AM.
tubetwister is offline  
Old 07-23-2014, 11:12 PM
AVS Special Member
 
tubetwister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: The Outer Limits....Don't trust any air I can't see ☺
Posts: 4,757
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1250 Post(s)
Liked: 581
Quote:
Originally Posted by Garidy View Post
Hi Frank,

Would you mind sharing the make and model of your sound card. That's a impressive occurrence, I'd like to review the device, for my own personal use.

Thanks
Sure this one killed 2 birds with one stone ,decent PC audio ,DAC /ADC and headphone amp not the best ,not the worst but 'good enough 'for my purposes in a bedroom desktop drives my Sennheiser's well and it fit within the case


You can roll in different OP amps if you like just like the tube cognoscenti do on their tube amps and they sometimes have sonic differences and if know how to buy them they are cheap like $11.00 each instead of the $40.00 + that Asus charges no jewel case though !

They have some posts of the various Ti op amps and how they sound at Head Fi they only affect the headphone output and sometimes the differences are very slight IIRC they come with TI TPA6120A2 it will do 80mW @ 600 ohms Much more at lower impedence .some of the Radio Japan stuff is cool also but the OE one fine I have it in mine
I got a good deal on it in an E pay auction I didn't pay anything close to retail at all for STX well below actually.
don't pay retail for it tons of them on paybay .


ASUS Xonar Essence STX

If you are doing phones or 2 ch stereo from a PC Schitt has some excellent stuff starting out at about $99.00 definitely good stuff I've heard some of it I would look at this also and see what the Folks at Head Fi think about it

Inexpensive Xonar DGX and DSX are pretty good value proposition also much better than on board audio on cans .
DGX has headphone amp also .

"The wireless music box has no commercial value. Who would pay for a message sent to nobody in particular?"
- David Sarnoff's associates at RCA the 1920's -

Last edited by tubetwister; 07-24-2014 at 12:14 AM.
tubetwister is offline  
Old 07-24-2014, 12:13 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
NorthSky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Canada - West Island: Vancouver, South Direction: Go East, dts:x Films: Under the Skin, 3D, Birdman, X_Machina, The Zero Theorem, Interstellar
Posts: 11,656
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4902 Post(s)
Liked: 2026
Good couple last posts mister tubetwister.
tubetwister likes this.
NorthSky is offline  
Old 07-24-2014, 12:34 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Frank Derks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Region A,B,C
Posts: 1,988
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 165 Post(s)
Liked: 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Garidy View Post
Hi Frank,

Would you mind sharing the make and model of your sound card. That's a impressive occurrence, I'd like to review the device, for my own personal use.

Thanks

Nothing special


PC soundcard is a Creative X-fi 'Titanium Fatal1ty' (How they come up with these names...)


The soundcard is encased in a metal cover.


The front outputs are connected to a Dell soundbar (mounted under the monitor) that I use for it's headphone output.
The lack of IM might be because I use the soundbar as the headphone amp instead of the soundcards headphone output.
Frank Derks is offline  
Old 07-24-2014, 04:35 AM
AVS Special Member
 
tubetwister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: The Outer Limits....Don't trust any air I can't see ☺
Posts: 4,757
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1250 Post(s)
Liked: 581
Haven't used Creative S.C. for years had a few in the past, thought they were pretty good never had a problem with them and they played very well into powered 2.1 speakers .

"The wireless music box has no commercial value. Who would pay for a message sent to nobody in particular?"
- David Sarnoff's associates at RCA the 1920's -

Last edited by tubetwister; 07-24-2014 at 05:00 AM.
tubetwister is offline  
Old 07-24-2014, 05:23 AM
AVS Special Member
 
tubetwister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: The Outer Limits....Don't trust any air I can't see ☺
Posts: 4,757
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1250 Post(s)
Liked: 581
Notes FWIW
The Music is the long game at Sony as far as hires goes not the hardware IMO (and I've been told )it's never been about the hardware in this case they can sell that business to Foxconn (or somebody ) and probably will down the road .

Sony is reportedly possibly shopping their consumer electronics business around for possible future sale (my guess is Foxconn may want a piece of it they make a lot of Sony product now it's a good fit without major re tooling expense ) and Sony TV is already a Sony owned subsidiary the board isn't to keen on either business I'm told .
Foxconn may need product to make up for anticipated declining iPhone sales that's the rumor anyway .


Sony has divested or closed all of their significant Mexican and S/A manufacturing assets .
Ofc The Sony music and entertainment business will remain as core assets along with the Financial services and insurance and re insurance assets .
The Sony game unit * may * be sold to raise cash
for Sony's recent expansion into the medical patent data management and medical equipment business .

All information provided "as is" for informational purposes only, some of it may be speculative and none if it is intended for trading purposes or advice.

"The wireless music box has no commercial value. Who would pay for a message sent to nobody in particular?"
- David Sarnoff's associates at RCA the 1920's -

Last edited by tubetwister; 07-24-2014 at 05:41 AM.
tubetwister is offline  
Old 07-24-2014, 05:55 AM
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 14,530
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 851 Post(s)
Liked: 1214
Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlesJ View Post
Thanks. So then, this is telling me that all the positive outcomes posted tests are questionable outcomes and due to system issues?
Some are questionable and their listeners seem to have said as much quite clearly, much to their personal credit and credibility.

A few positive results may be reliable as far as they go.

Caveat Emptor!

The bottom line is that so few people have actually participated so far that no scientific conclusions seem possible at this time, even if all of the reported results were positive and reliable and many weren't.

On the one hand we have all these claims of "Mind Blowng Improvements" due to high resolution recordings, but in reality the actual differences, let alone audible benefits seem to have turned out to be on the elusive side. Just hearing a difference was far from being a uniform outcome. That doesn't seem to be a mind blowing difference to me!

I was blown away by the amount of equipment that failed the IM tests. If people were actually listing to a lot of high rez files with strong ultrasonic content this equipment would have been cycled out by their owners on the grounds of bad sound quality. AFAIK, none of the observed artifacts were exactly euphonic...

Last edited by arnyk; 07-24-2014 at 06:03 AM.
arnyk is offline  
Old 07-24-2014, 07:02 AM
Advanced Member
 
briansxx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 590
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 95 Post(s)
Liked: 70
Amirm wrote: All it takes is one positive identification to invalidate the claims.

Sorry--but this is not how science works. I know very little about audio engineering, but I am professionally a scientist. A given result may potentially support or potentially invalidate a hypothesis, but I know of no scientist who would reach a positive or negative conclusion based on a single result. In my own work, we examine the reasons we get results supportive of our hypotheses at last as rigorously as those which invalidate it. Remember, the core tenets of science are: "First, don't fool yourself. Second, you are the easiest person to fool." In this case (dogs excluded), are the differences humans hear between recordings captured at different parameters due to some sort of "sonic superiority" of high sampling rates and bit depths, or are they due to other factors (perhaps artifacts of the recording or reproduction process)? In other words, single (or even multiple) positive or negative results are not authoritative. They usually lead to more questions and further research. In this case, regardless of the "side" you're on, I suspect the surface hasn't even been scratched.

Best,

Brian
RichB, arnyk, FreeFire and 3 others like this.

Last edited by briansxx; 07-24-2014 at 07:07 AM.
briansxx is offline  
Old 07-24-2014, 07:06 AM
Senior Writer @ AVS
 
imagic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 7,804
Mentioned: 66 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2888 Post(s)
Liked: 4549
Quote:
Originally Posted by briansxx View Post
Amirm wrote: All it takes is one positive identification to invalidate the claims.

Sorry--but this is not how science works. I know very little about audio engineering, but I am professionally a scientist. A given result may support or invalidate a hypothesis, but I know of no scientist who would reach a positive or negative conclusion based on a single result. In my own work, we examine the reasons we get results supportive of our hypotheses at least as rigorously as those which invalidate it. Remember, the core tenets of science are: "First, don't fool yourself. Second, you are the easiest person to fool." In this case (dogs excluded), are the differences humans hear between recordings captured at different parameters due to some sort of "sonic superiority" of high sampling rates and bit depths, or are they due to other factors (perhaps artifacts of the recording process)? In other words, single (or even multiple) positive or negative results are not authoritative. They usually lead to more questions and further research. In this case, regardless of the "side" you're on, I suspect the surface hasn't even been scratched.

Best,

Brian
Great post! Thank you for putting into writing exactly what I was thinking.
briansxx and tubetwister like this.

Mark Henninger
imagic is online now  
Old 07-24-2014, 07:14 AM - Thread Starter
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,825
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1334 Post(s)
Liked: 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by briansxx View Post
Amirm wrote: All it takes is one positive identification to invalidate the claims.

Sorry--but this is not how science works. I know very little about audio engineering, but I am professionally a scientist. A given result may support or invalidate a hypothesis, but I know of no scientist who would reach a positive or negative conclusion based on a single result. In my own work, we examine the reasons we get results supportive of our hypotheses at last as rigorously as those which invalidate it. Remember, the core tenets of science are: "First, don't fool yourself. Second, you are the easiest person to fool." In this case (dogs excluded), are the differences humans hear between recordings captured at different parameters due to some sort of "sonic superiority" of high sampling rates and bit depths, or are they due to other factors (perhaps artifacts of the recording process)? In other words, single (or even multiple) positive or negative results are not authoritative. They usually lead to more questions and further research. In this case, regardless of the "side" you're on, I suspect the surface hasn't even been scratched.

Best,

Brian
Hi Brian. The use of the word "positive result" didn't mean that there is one sample. I have passed Arny's tests repeatedly. I have passed Scott's tests. I also passed Ethan's generational tests. All of these were claimed to be impossibilities. Yet, I passed them. Not in a subjective one-off test, but in many trials until probably of chance was zero. I tested on multiple set of headphones. And didn't use fancy hardware to play the content.

This collective data invalidates the following claims:

1. That "golden ears," the people with better abilities, do not exist. This led us to extrapolate from a test like Meyer and Moran to all people and members here. Clearly and conclusively we now know in this thread that people's listening abilities are not the same.

2. That no one can pass a "level matched, DBT, ABX" test of "high-res vs CD." Well, that is what folks have created and I passed it. The challenge was singular. That no such person exists. Well, we have shown that multiple people can do that. The challenge was also directed at me personally with Arny saying I would be the last person to run such a test. That is not how it turned out.

3. We say that the other camp doesn't accept DBT data. For that reason we say as a group subjectivists don't believe in "science." Well, our own camp sitting right here is doing everything in its power to not believe same data. And this is not a DBT that I cooked up myself. It is DBT after DBT that is created by likes of Arny who says he invented this scheme. I didn't even use my own program to pass these tests. I used what was given to me.

4. It was assumed that you needed "high-end" hardware to pass such tests. Well, my stock laptop allowed me to do that.

5. It was implied that the advocate of DBT testing had done such tests and had negative outcomes. Well, almost none of the vocal posters have told us the results of their tests, Arny himself included. Arny has been kind enough to say that his hearing is shot and he can't hear such differences. I don't recall such information ever being disclosed so clearly and crisply.

6. What went on here was testing per international ITU recommendations to find such differences. That training is important. That trained listeners are important.

I could go on but the key here is that we are not discussing the cure for cancer. We are discussing audio beliefs. The bar is not the same. Or else no one would have taken a single test run by Meyer and Moran seriously either. But seriously they took. Where were the people saying that one test can't be scientific? It was believed beyond questioning.

In summary, my positive results which have so far survived challenge after challenge, needs to change the landscape of these discussions moving forward. If it does not, then we really don't value listening tests or anything called "science."
stereoeditor likes this.

Last edited by amirm; 07-24-2014 at 07:18 AM.
amirm is offline  
Old 07-24-2014, 07:20 AM - Thread Starter
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,825
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1334 Post(s)
Liked: 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by imagic View Post
Great post! Thank you for putting into writing exactly what I was thinking.
How can you think that Mark where you yourself went from not hearing differences to clearly and solidly hear them? That doesn't inform you at all that there is more truth here than my one results? You don't think others like you could have a) ability to hear the differences right away as Frank did earlier or b) learn to hear them as you did?

If personal revelation doesn't do anything for us, what will?
amirm is offline  
 
Thread Tools


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