or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Audio theory, Setup and Chat › 24/192 Music Downloads and why they make no sense
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

24/192 Music Downloads and why they make no sense - Page 21

post #601 of 761
Quote:
Originally Posted by krabapple View Post

I'm curious about the unique rising level between about 3'30" and 5'00'


There also appears to be a pretty big difference (only on one channel?) during the more quiet part at 5:00-5:40 on the 'brown' version. Almost like that channel kinda drops out, relative.
post #602 of 761
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raymond Leggs View Post

It takes too long to synch lossless files to most mp3 players

I use FLACs on my Sansa Fuze and Clip. But for me, synching is a start and forget operation.
post #603 of 761
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

I use FLACs on my Sansa Fuze and Clip. But for me, synching is a start and forget operation.

Don't you think we will have USB3/thunderbolt mp3 players soon
post #604 of 761
Quote:
Originally Posted by hd_newbie View Post

Don't you think we will have USB3/thunderbolt mp3 players soon

Could be, but I know of no existing players that are hindered by the limits of USB2. The basic problem is probably the speed of flash memory.
post #605 of 761
I think I could contribute a few things to this discussion. I was educated as theoretical physicist in quantum theory and gravitation and also worked in Radio Astronomy aperture synthesis with VLBI and developed programs for image reconstruction in 2D, phase reconstruction, things like that. I am active in computer science and IT for quite some time now, so my previous knowledge can be rusty.

My equipment is relatively simple: an Oppo BDP-95 source connected via XLR directly to the Ayre V-5xe Evolution amplifier (which is Stereophile recommended at any price in 2012). This drives two Monitor Audio PL300 speakers connected via top class bi-wired cables. The room is not acoustically treated but is a good size room with generous ceilings, good distance from the walls etc. Acoustic treatment might help to further improve things but as things are, I am very happy with the results, although I am quite possibly losing some resolution due to going to the amp directly with no pre-amp in place. I run the test below at the same volume setting set directly in Oppo. The listening position is approximately 12 foot from the speakers, which are toed in just a little but are not facing me directly.

What I am looking for in music is definition and realism. I am extremely happy with the recordings from HDTracks I have so far acquired. To me, the difference is extremely obvious, I would use even a stronger word, perhaps, overwhelming. I enjoy Classical Rock, classical orchestral music and progressive rock but I do listen to many other genres of music--and watch Blu-rays, but that is a separate story.

In this post, I won't go theoretical but will simply reproduce four snapshots from the Spectrum Analyzer app running on iPad 3. To clarify, the iPad is recording using the built-in mic what it hears at my sitting position, so we have a full path from the source to the speakers and via air to the iPad and to myself. The test subject are the Yes, Close to the Edge album's title track with two episodes: the first guitar attack and the second guitar attack in the first 1 1/2 minutes or so of the track. I have a CD and an HDTracks 192/24 recording and I am simply taking the full sweep of Fourier with audio sample rate of 44100 Hz with 2048 sample Fourier transform.

Episode one
CD version


HD 192/24 version


Episode two
CD version


HD 192/24 version


I will make relatively few comments as, I am sure, you will be able to pick out many differences in these versions.

I can hear in a double blind test with my partner a marked difference between these passages, with the HD version sounding much sharper, with all the transients and attacks sounding whip-like, life-like, and also very pleasing on the ear and really beautiful.

The CD and HD snapshots have hotspots very similar in color under 2KHz. I can analyse the snapshots further but it is clear the volumes are the same and the highest levels are the same. However, the snapshots are remarkably different.
  1. Quite obviously the transients go much higher in the HD versions.
  2. In the first passage, the HD version has sharp ticks between 9KHz and 11KHz prior to the attack at around 5.7 seconds offset (the snapshots need to be aligned by hand between CD and HD). The CD version has those washed out.
  3. The transients are much sharper in the HD version.
  4. The horizontal stripe around 7K from the offset of about 15 seconds stands out very clearly on the HD version and is washed out on the CD version.
  5. In passage 2, you can observe the lower left-hand corner. Note how the signal goes to blue quite clearly between the horizontal stripes in the HD version. The CD version is all washed out.

Bottom line. These are just random observations. You can find as many differences as you like but it is obvious that the CD version looks like a blurred out version of the HD snapshot. All troughs are filled up and the peaks are washed out horizontally--creating smudged attacks--and vertically, creating a halo around each note.
Edited by warrior-kid - 6/3/13 at 6:40am
post #606 of 761
Congratulations, you have discovered that different masterings tend to sound different. And look different, in spectral view.

What you have not done is demonstrate that it has anything to do with 'high definition' format. And no, the CD version is not a 'blurred version' of the HD version.
post #607 of 761
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnarus View Post


Obviously. You should try it sometime.

No, you really can't. No one can.

Well, they might, *if* they listen to the very end of a fadeout tail, at very high level, and also *if* no dither or noise shaping was used for the 16 bit version.

But during normal listening? No, no one is likely to hear a real difference between those bit depths. (As Meyer and Moran demonstrated.)
post #608 of 761
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post


Interestingly enough this paper is neither an AES conference paper or a JAES article." At least I can't find it published that way. It appears to be a rewrite of a 1988 (24 year old!) article in the now-long-departed Audio magazine. It's a corporate white paper that has no standing as an industry standard or recommendation.





The paper by Stuart -- who was, of course, developing a commercial lossless compression scheme for 'high rez' formats at the time -- *was* originally a white paper but also WAS eventually published in JAES, in 2004, a special issue on High Resolution Audio, as "Coding for High-Resolution Audio Systems". It was an article, not a convention paper, presentation, etc. (He;s a co-author on another paper in the same issue, on MLP specifically)

It did NOT contain any cited references to blind tests demonstrating audibility of the higher sample rates. It merely referred to anecdotes and arguments from authority on that point.

It DID elicit a strongly critical response from some JAES members, in a letter to the editor.

Which ultimately it DID lead to the Meyer and Moran study of audibility of a 'redbook' conversion inserted into a 'high rez' playback chain. (The result: no audible difference at normal listening levels)
Edited by krabapple - 6/3/13 at 3:13pm
post #609 of 761
Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlesJ View Post


Perhaps for studio archival works for future use or posterity?

Yup. That's what DSD was originally designed for. There's reason its sample rate is a simple multiple of 44.1
post #610 of 761
Quote:
Originally Posted by krabapple View Post

Congratulations, you have discovered that different masterings tend to sound different. And look different, in spectral view.

What you have not done is demonstrate that it has anything to do with 'high definition' format. And no, the CD version is not a 'blurred version' of the HD version.

I have hundreds of CD's and many dozens of HD recordings. Can you explain to me why the HD is ALWAYS better?

Can you tell me why on the Game of Thrones Blu-ray the intro composition ending with gentle acoustic session sounds entirely life-like while the Dolby Digital version sounds completely washed out?

Tell me what equipment you have to be able to hear the difference?

Also, If you heard it and also saw the original iPad screengrab, you'd have seen the CD as blurred. In fact, I could pick a few spectral bands and compute the distribution sample variance, and I can promise you there will be a statistically significantly larger spread of Fourier samples over time for HD.

I love this album and I paid more to get the version that is statistically better resolving and sounds a million dollar better. So tell me, why am I not supposed to enjoy it? Can you give me a version of this very album in CD that looks and sounds the same? The answer is no, you can't.

I can also tell you that all the albums I bought in HD music sound absolutely gorgeous on my equipment. The Fragile album mentioned before strikes the first chord like ripping the guitar strings so you get a heart jump. Animals have learnt how to react to sharp noises and that is why we perceive far better the edges and sharp sounds, requiring very high frequencies that have nothing to do with constant high-frequency tones that we cannot hear. It is those frequencies that I am not hearing in any CD's I have.
post #611 of 761
Quote:
Originally Posted by warrior-kid View Post

I have hundreds of CD's and many dozens of HD recordings. Can you explain to me why the HD is ALWAYS better?


Do you know why double blind listening tests exist?

Quote:
Can you tell me why on the Game of Thrones Blu-ray the intro composition ending with gentle acoustic session sounds entirely life-like while the Dolby Digital version sounds completely washed out?

One is lossy compressed, the other isn't? (and then throw in a big helping of expectation bias)

Quote:
Tell me what equipment you have to be able to hear the difference?

Apparently,whatever you have is enough, right?

Quote:
Also, If you heard it and also saw the original iPad screengrab, you'd have seen the CD as blurred. In fact, I could pick a few spectral bands and compute the distribution sample variance, and I can promise you there will be a statistically significantly larger spread of Fourier samples over time for HD.

It really depends on where you look. and what makes you think that what you call 'blurred ' is actually analogous to what is heard?

Quote:
I love this album and I paid more to get the version that is statistically better resolving and sounds a million dollar better. So tell me, why am I not supposed to enjoy it? Can you give me a version of this very album in CD that looks and sounds the same? The answer is no, you can't.

No, I can't BECAUSE THEY ARE MASTERED DIFFERENTLY. I have about 5 or six diferent masterings of Close to the Edge, myself. They all will 'look' different in spectral view.

Do you undertand what mastering is?

Quote:
I can also tell you that all the albums I bought in HD music sound absolutely gorgeous on my equipment. The Fragile album mentioned before strikes the first chord like ripping the guitar strings so you get a heart jump. Animals have learnt how to react to sharp noises and that is why we perceive far better the edges and sharp sounds, requiring very high frequencies that have nothing to do with constant high-frequency tones that we cannot hear. It is those frequencies that I am not hearing in any CD's I have.

No. It's different mastering choices: tape source, EQ, compression, noise reduction.
post #612 of 761
How about out of your five versions of Close to the Edge you send me the first two minutes of the BEST CD you have and I will do the same test again?

On the double blind test: did you read my original post?

You said: "It really depends on where you look. and what makes you think that what you call 'blurred ' is actually analogous to what is heard?"

You cannot mean it. If I prove the signal is more resolving statistically, you cannot go against that.
post #613 of 761
On the same note, if anyone has the first minute of the Yes Fragile CD--the best mastering you have, can you please send it to me so I could compare?
Edited by warrior-kid - 6/3/13 at 12:29pm
post #614 of 761
Quote:
Originally Posted by warrior-kid View Post

If I prove the signal is more resolving statistically, you cannot go against that.

What does "resolving" even mean? It's not a standard audio parameter. So first you have to explain what you (think you) mean with that term, and then explain how it could be proven "statistically."

--Ethan
post #615 of 761
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethan Winer View Post

What does "resolving" even mean? It's not a standard audio parameter. So first you have to explain what you (think you) mean with that term, and then explain how it could be proven "statistically."

--Ethan
Ethan,

Thanks for writing. I am not an audio engineer, but it is clear that you are, I respect that. I am, however, a physicist and a mathematician. What I am seeing in the signal is (a) the notes and overtones are standing higher against their background, (b) the transients and edges are sharper in the HD version. Is there a measure in audio signal engineering practice that takes account of that--you are the specialist, you could tell. From the mathematical and signal processing standpoint, there is a signal that in a narrow frequency band has a larger Variance (the standard statistical measure of variability) of the random variable denoted by sound pressure in a small frequency band represented by the Fourier transform bins. It is true that it cannot be proven which signal is necessarily correct. Maybe, it was smoothed out that way when the guitar played it. However, what one can easily see is that the peaks observed horizontally, along the time axis, are sharper in the HD version, so the Variance will be higher. I will still maintain that that version is more true to the original performance. Why? Because it would be virtually impossible to "resolve" two peaks that are merged together in the original recorded output and introduce a sharpening filter that would have produced those neatly stacked horizontal and vertical lines and structure you see in the HD version. Therefore, such signal is more true to life.

Again, to answer your direct question, possibly, there is no audio measure that captures how the notes are expanded and how the transients are smoothed out. However, based on pure signal theory, measuring the sharpness of peaks is easy and can be done statistically--although, again, may not be what the audio engineers do routinely.
Edited by warrior-kid - 6/3/13 at 2:36pm
post #616 of 761
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post


Truth is that they may or may not do all that.


It's an artistic choice or a business decision.


They may also do it to recordings released in other formats.


Or, they may do none of it. It is a privilege of ownership.

However, the original master can just as easily and just as justifiably be processed similarly before its released in a so-called hi-rez format.

The fact is with HDtracks (by Bruce of Puget Sounds' own admission on Amir's site), what gets sent to Puget Sounds by the labels for HDTracks release could be almost anything - digital copies of the original master tapes, a digital copy of a previous remastering, digital copy of a production master, upconverted digital copy of a 'standard rez' source, digital source copied to analog then back to digital, copies of copies.... this is why the true 'resolution' of these tracks appears to be all over the map when analyzed by software. Puget Sounds (and therefore its client, HDtracks) apparently has no control over what gets sent to it by labels. Any claims that HDTracks downloads are sourced from 'original tapes' neatly elides a range of possible sources, some more 'original' than others.
post #617 of 761
Quote:
Originally Posted by warrior-kid View Post

Bottom line. These are just random observations. You can find as many differences as you like but it is obvious that the CD version looks like a blurred out version of the HD snapshot.
I aligned and examined them in Photoshop and indeed they are that. But that is as it should be. When high resolution music is resampled to 44.1 Khz, that mathematical process reduces samples but also applies a low-pass filter. That low-pass filter will naturally get rid of high frequencies and hence results in the blurring that you observed with your eyes. The issue at hand is that the ear does the same thing. That is, since it can't hear above 20 KHz, it also acts as a low-pass filter. So in that sense what you are looking at on that display is the signal prior to arriving in the ear.

In addition to that "blurring," the CD version has lower amplitude in higher frequencies. Whether that is due to resampling that had a gentle roll off and hence also took down some of the amplitude before 20 KHz or this is a different master, is hard to say. If your hearing is better than my aging ear that no longer hears that high frown.gif, it would be conceivable that you could hear the difference in blind testing.

Ultimately as we discussed earlier in this thread, the best reason to go for HD music is not that it is better necessarily due to its high sampling rate and bit depth but that it has less chance of having compressed dynamics. No guarantee of course but there is a better chance that you get the original "master" than the one dumbed down for mass distribution on CD or iTunes.

Good initiative by the way to investigate things on your own smile.gif.
post #618 of 761
Quote:
Originally Posted by warrior-kid View Post

Ethan,

Thanks for writing. I am not an audio engineer, but it is clear that you are, I respect that. I am, however, a physicist and a mathematician. What I am seeing in the signal is (a) the notes and overtones are standing higher against their background, (b) the transients and edges are sharper in the HD version. Is there a measure in audio signal engineering practice that takes account of that--you are the specialist, you could tell. From the mathematical and signal processing standpoint, there is a signal that in a narrow frequency band has a larger Variance (the standard statistical measure of variability) of the random variable denoted by sound pressure in a small frequency band represented by the Fourier transform bins. It is true that it cannot be proven which signal is necessarily correct. Maybe, it was smoothed out that way when the guitar played it. However, what one can easily see is that the peaks observed horizontally, along the time axis, are sharper in the HD version, so the Variance will be higher. I will still maintain that that version is more true to the original performance. Why? Because it would be virtually impossible to "resolve" two peaks that are merged together in the original recorded output and introduce a sharpening filter that would have produced those neatly stacked horizontal and vertical lines and structure you see in the HD version. Therefore, such signal is more true to life.


Are you aware that the translation of what is seen on a spectral view, is not automatically relevant to *what can be heard*?

Which is to say, not all measured differences are audible.

And also to say, as I have already, that there are differences between the various remasters that are due to things OTHER THAN 'resolution', that can be vastly more responsible for what you are hearing (and seeing).

Instead of me sending you 2 min clips of the copies of CttE that I have (and it's *more* than five, I've been a Yes fan since 1972) how about you do this experiment: take your HDtracks version, downconvert it to 16/44 with decent software (I'd use Audition with TPDF dither), then look at the spectra. Then , far more importantly, do an ABX comparison of the two versions, and see how well you identify them in 16 trials.
Edited by krabapple - 6/3/13 at 3:35pm
post #619 of 761
I have collected vinyl starting in the late 50's, and survived many of the fads of various reproduction methods. Recently I upgraded my Oppo BDP-83se to an Oppo 103 for various reasons. I wanted to play cd's bypassing my tubed Audio Research SP-8 which is glorious on vinyl, but designed very early in the digital era, and not know for a superb auxiliary stage. Secondly, I wanted remote volume as I find there is a sweet spot of volume and running back and forth between the chair and preamp grows old, as do I. Also, the ability to play digital files directly through a USB port(s) on the Oppo would allow additional capability. I also was getting a WD wireless router to also send from the upstairs computer to the downstairs Oppo. I was blown away the first time I made wave files, transferred them to a 16 GB USB, and attached directly to the Oppo. It is connected directly to an Aragon 2002A which drives Apogee Duetta Signature Ribbons. Nirvana. The digital wave files blew away the CD playback. They also blew away the SACD playback, and here's why I can say that. The Oppo allows, when a USB is connected, to switch between a CD or SACD and the USB wave file. It also syncs the two at the same point in the same song.on the CD, but not the SACD. But, a simple button pushing allows the A/B between the SACD and the wave file. Nothing changes in the system other than the choice between USB and CD.

No comparison. Talk about Harry Pearson's description of veils being removed! Imaging, timbre, definition throughout the range, especially clarity of high frequencies are immediately obvious. Then I took it to the next stage and copied to waves to a external hard drive and connected that. Seems identical to the USB. Imaging and definition of individual placement of instruments, the subtle dynamic impact of each such as an acoustic guitar, a cello, and that most difficult piano all became layers closer to sounding like .....real. I also tried some FLAC files, and they were very similar, but at least with my system, the "air" and overall effect was more lifelike with the wave files. The same wave files playing through the wireless router from the computer seemed to lack the "air" and high frequencies. I was a percussionist my whole life, and know cymbals and the trap stuff intimately. I have never heard them reproduced with the proper "sheen" on my system as using this combination. Wondering if anyone has explored waves or flacs directly into an newer Oppo.

I have many audiophile CD's, and would never settle for just playing them in the CD format after listening to what I have heard over the last three weeks of backing them up as waves and attaching direct to the 103.
post #620 of 761
Quote:
Originally Posted by warrior-kid View Post

How about out of your five versions of Close to the Edge you send me the first two minutes of the BEST CD you have and I will do the same test again?


Do the experiment I propose, instead. *THEN* we could talk about the role of 'high resolution' plays in this.
Quote:
On the double blind test: did you read my original post?


Yes : and, leaving aside other important questions regarding exactly how you did your DBTs (like, did you level match? make sample order random? etc) ...do you know what they are for? And why they are necessary?

If you do, you'd know they can be tests of difference, or tests of preference. In a case like yours, 'difference' isn't going to be much in question; these are different masterings, with different EQ at the very least. Identifying 'X' in an ABX-type DBT is probably not going to be that hard. So, yours was a DBT of preference. Had you listened to the new version (and thereby formed a preference) *before* you did the DBT?

Quote:
You said: "It really depends on where you look. and what makes you think that what you call 'blurred ' is actually analogous to what is heard?"

You cannot mean it. If I prove the signal is more resolving statistically, you cannot go against that.


*If* in fact you've done that, it doesn't prove it's responsible for what you heard. Psychoacoustics will trip up this sort of objective 'purism' every time. I could show you spectra of a high-bitrate MP3 and its lossless source that look distressingly different....yet you'd be hard pressed to hear a difference. That's thanks to a little science trick called 'perceptual encoding'. Since THAT works, do you really expect me to get excited about some comparative 'blurring' on a spectra of two different *remasters*??
post #621 of 761
Quote:
Originally Posted by chidancer View Post

I have collected vinyl starting in the late 50's, and survived many of the fads of various reproduction methods. Recently I upgraded my Oppo BDP-83se to an Oppo 103 for various reasons. I wanted to play cd's bypassing my tubed Audio Research SP-8 which is glorious on vinyl, but designed very early in the digital era, and not know for a superb auxiliary stage. Secondly, I wanted remote volume as I find there is a sweet spot of volume and running back and forth between the chair and preamp grows old, as do I. Also, the ability to play digital files directly through a USB port(s) on the Oppo would allow additional capability. I also was getting a WD wireless router to also send from the upstairs computer to the downstairs Oppo. I was blown away the first time I made wave files, transferred them to a 16 GB USB, and attached directly to the Oppo. It is connected directly to an Aragon 2002A which drives Apogee Duetta Signature Ribbons. Nirvana. The digital wave files blew away the CD playback. They also blew away the SACD playback, and here's why I can say that. The Oppo allows, when a USB is connected, to switch between a CD or SACD and the USB wave file. It also syncs the two at the same point in the same song.on the CD, but not the SACD. But, a simple button pushing allows the A/B between the SACD and the wave file. Nothing changes in the system other than the choice between USB and CD.

wait...you're syaing the .wav files you *ripped from CDS* sounded better than the CDs themselves?

And btw, unless you did these comparisons blind, something did change...in your head. (and I'm assuming that the Oppo does not alter output levels or DSP for different input source -- something you'd better check.)

Quote:
No comparison. Talk about Harry Pearson's description of veils being removed! Imaging, timbre, definition throughout the range, especially clarity of high frequencies are immediately obvious. Then I took it to the next stage and copied to waves to a external hard drive and connected that. Seems identical to the USB. Imaging and definition of individual placement of instruments, the subtle dynamic impact of each such as an acoustic guitar, a cello, and that most difficult piano all became layers closer to sounding like .....real. I also tried some FLAC files, and they were very similar, but at least with my system, the "air" and overall effect was more lifelike with the wave files. The same wave files playing through the wireless router from the computer seemed to lack the "air" and high frequencies. I was a percussionist my whole life, and know cymbals and the trap stuff intimately. I have never heard them reproduced with the proper "sheen" on my system as using this combination. Wondering if anyone has explored waves or flacs directly into an newer Oppo.

Oh, now *lossless compressed* versions sound worse than the .wavs they're made from? How exactly does that happen? This 'sounds' like a classic case of 'sighted' listening.
Quote:
I have many audiophile CD's, and would never settle for just playing them in the CD format after listening to what I have heard over the last three weeks of backing them up as waves and attaching direct to the 103.

A proper ABX comparison of some of these phenomena might open you back up to that option. Personally, I play everything from FLAC files on a hard drive, simply because it's so damn convenient.

As it stands there is no plausible technical reason for real audible differences to exist between the CD, ripped .wav, and FLAC, assuming you are doing it right.
post #622 of 761
Quote:
Originally Posted by krabapple View Post

Yes : and, leaving aside other important questions regarding exactly how you did your DBTs (like, did you level match? make sample order random? etc) ...do you know what they are for? And why they are necessary?

If he did the test with his buddy (I believe he said this in one of his previous posts) then it is not double blind. Double blind means that neither the people performing the test know what it is that they're testing for, (they're simply told to collect data) nor do the people who are subject to the test.

Hence, the term double blind.....
Edited by bo130 - 6/3/13 at 6:03pm
post #623 of 761
Quote:
Originally Posted by krabapple View Post

wait...you're syaing the .wav files you *ripped from CDS* sounded better than the CDs themselves?

And btw, unless you did these comparisons blind, something did change...in your head. (and I'm assuming that the Oppo does not alter output levels or DSP for different input source -- something you'd better check.)
Oh, now *lossless compressed* versions sound worse than the .wavs they're made from? How exactly does that happen? This 'sounds' like a classic case of 'sighted' listening.
A proper ABX comparison of some of these phenomena might open you back up to that option. Personally, I play everything from FLAC files on a hard drive, simply because it's so damn convenient.

As it stands there is no plausible technical reason for real audible differences to exist between the CD, ripped .wav, and FLAC, assuming you are doing it right.

I love it when people question something without taking the time to consider the possibility of it being true. I have been a musician my whole life, and an audiophile. I have listened to music through systems for over 50 years. I have performed with symphonies, combos, big bands and many musical groups. My ears are trained as a musician's, especially in percussive instruments and cymbals.

Flac files I have been told take longer to shall we say unwind as there is a double process which wave files do not go through. What I hear is verifiable by anyone who performs the same process on my system. Perhaps the wave file is played easier and with more information through the decoder than from the CD. Whatever it is, it is, and anyone would hear the difference. It has also been verified by many others through Oppo, so your premise that someone can't listen through an A/B whether blind or not and hear a major difference just means there is something you don't know about. Because you don't understand it, doesn't mean it's not possible, or in this case, actual. Anyone in the Chicago vicinity is welcome anytime to learn something new about an audiophile manner of vastly improving your music system. It is a major sonic upgrade.
post #624 of 761
Quote:
Originally Posted by bo130 View Post

If he did the test with his buddy (I believe he said this in one of his previous posts) then it is not double blind. Double blind means that neither the people performing the test know what it is that they're testing for, (they're simply told to collect data) nor do the people who are subject to the test.

Hence, the term double blind.....

DB just means that neither subject nor administrator of the test knows beforehand the identity of the thing being listened to at the moment .

It does not mean they can't know what things they are comparing, or what they are being 'tested for'... just as a patient and adminsitrators in a DB drug trial are both 'allowed' to know that the trial involves giving *either* a certain drug or a placebo.
Edited by krabapple - 6/4/13 at 12:14am
post #625 of 761
Quote:
Originally Posted by chidancer View Post

I love it when people question something without taking the time to consider the possibility of it being true. I have been a musician my whole life, and an audiophile. I have listened to music through systems for over 50 years. I have performed with symphonies, combos, big bands and many musical groups. My ears are trained as a musician's, especially in percussive instruments and cymbals.

Another self-proclaimed golden ear. Big whoop. And if you've been playing percussion in bands for *over 50 years*, your hearing is probably, shall we say, somewhat compromised at this point .
Quote:
Flac files I have been told take longer to shall we say unwind as there is a double process which wave files do not go through. What I hear is verifiable by anyone who performs the same process on my system. Perhaps the wave file is played easier and with more information through the decoder than from the CD. Whatever it is, it is, and anyone would hear the difference. It has also been verified by many others through Oppo, so your premise that someone can't listen through an A/B whether blind or not and hear a major difference just means there is something you don't know about. Because you don't understand it, doesn't mean it's not possible, or in this case, actual. Anyone in the Chicago vicinity is welcome anytime to learn something new about an audiophile manner of vastly improving your music system. It is a major sonic upgrade.

What;s funny is you seem to think you 'understand' how FLAC files and computer audio work, well enough to make stark (and starkly ridiculous) claims like this..

Nothing you wrote has been 'verified' sir. Quite the contrary. If, in fact, there is a huge audible difference between FLAC and WAV and CD on your system, it's broken.
post #626 of 761
Quote:
Originally Posted by chidancer View Post


I love it when people question something without taking the time to consider the possibility of it being true.

There is actually little chance of that in this case. If memory serves Krabapple has a PhD in a technical research area, and has been an audiophile for at least all of his adult life. He is an able participant in some of the more technically demanding audio forums around.
Quote:
I have been a musician my whole life, and an audiophile. I have listened to music through systems for over 50 years. I have performed with symphonies, combos, big bands and many musical groups. My ears are trained as a musician's, especially in percussive instruments and cymbals.

None of which necessary grants you anything but a well-worn Visa card. ;-)
Quote:
Flac files I have been told take longer to shall we say unwind as there is a double process which wave files do not go through.

On a modern PC The extra processing involved with playing FLAC files involves trivial amounts of CPU and memory use. It was not an issue 10 years ago when FLAC was introduced, so it is far less of an issue today.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FLAC

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=92235&view=findpost&p=778179
Quote:
What I hear is verifiable by anyone who performs the same process on my system.

An inherently flawed listening test?
Quote:
Perhaps the wave file is played easier and with more information through the decoder than from the CD. Whatever it is, it is, and anyone would hear the difference.

You may be surprised to know that very many highly experienced listeners disagree with. If you had more than a second or third hand familiarity with the technology, you would know why.
Quote:
It has also been verified by many others through Oppo, so your premise that someone can't listen through an A/B whether blind or not and hear a major difference just means there is something you don't know about.

There is nothing about a technical background in music that inhibits a technical background in audio.

The idea that FLAC files sound different from the corresponding .wav files is an well-known audiophile myth. By the time they reach the system DAC they are bit-perfect copies of each other. You might want to google FLAC audiophile myth to inform yourself about the contrary viewpoint that you obviously have not considered in your rush to judgement of others on the exactly the same grounds.
Quote:
Because you don't understand it, doesn't mean it's not possible, or in this case, actual.

Words for us all to live by...
Quote:
Anyone in the Chicago vicinity is welcome anytime to learn something new about an audiophile manner of vastly improving your music system. It is a major sonic upgrade.

And what might that be? ;-)
post #627 of 761
krabapple's PhD didn't do much for his people skills. Why the attacks? If people can hear it then shrug and move on. Calling them a liar puts you in the gutter.

I can't hear a difference. I don't have the equipment to set up proper test so I can't swear to it, but with rudimentary comparison I detect no difference.

Here's the thing about high resolution audio formats. If it didn't make a difference they probably wouldn't exist. Unlike the cable debate where there is no scientific evidence of benefit, for this there is. If you can produce evidence to the contrary with that PhD do it. Or just walk away.
post #628 of 761
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nethawk View Post

krabapple's PhD didn't do much for his people skills.
His PhD is in biology: http://www.avsforum.com/t/918365/james-randi-s-attack-on-high-performance-audio/1170#post_12018051. Kudos to him for getting such an advanced degree but it is in an unrelated area to the topic at hand. We have a ton of Doctors with opposing views so clearly that type of education doesn't automatically make you proponent of one side of the argument.
Quote:
Why the attacks? If people can hear it then shrug and move on. Calling them a liar puts you in the gutter.
Well said. We are in a forum to share ideas and have fun doing it. Nothing takes out the fun more than someone getting angry or frustrated about the other side's ideas which is how these posts come across. If the science is on our side, let that speak for it, not the negative emotions within the post....
post #629 of 761
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nethawk View Post

krabapple's PhD didn't do much for his people skills. Why the attacks? If people can hear it then shrug and move on. Calling them a liar puts you in the gutter.


OK, so you think earning a PhD has some positive correlation with people skills, and you think calling someone's beliefs absurd is the same as calling them a liar. Not sure where that puts you, other than on the far side of right.

Quote:
I can't hear a difference. I don't have the equipment to set up proper test so I can't swear to it, but with rudimentary comparison I detect no difference.

Others have done far more elaborate comparison, and come up with the same result.
Quote:
Here's the thing about high resolution audio formats. If it didn't make a difference they probably wouldn't exist. Unlike the cable debate where there is no scientific evidence of benefit, for this there is.

Yet 'audiophile cables' still exist. How can this be???
Quote:
If you can produce evidence to the contrary with that PhD do it. Or just walk away.

What scientific evidence are you touting for the benefit of high rez for the home listener, exactly?

You seem to have a chip in your shoulder about this whole PhD thing, which I didn't even bring up -- what's up with that?
post #630 of 761
Quote:
Originally Posted by warrior-kid View Post

What I am seeing in the signal is (a) the notes and overtones are standing higher against their background, (b) the transients and edges are sharper in the HD version. Is there a measure in audio signal engineering practice that takes account of that

Yes, it's called frequency response. Differences at frequencies higher than can be heard are irrelevant.

--Ethan
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Audio theory, Setup and Chat
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Audio theory, Setup and Chat › 24/192 Music Downloads and why they make no sense