AVS Forum banner
1 - 20 of 127 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
275 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I just purchased a new receiver to take advantage of the new losless sound on br. I was previously running a proceed avp2. Just bought an onkyo 707 with preouts so I could keep using my proceed amp 5.


The sound is amazing compared to regular dd and dts. I wasn't sure if it would be that much better but it definitly is. My previous preamp used an optical input for audio. I read several threads on dd vs dd hd etc.


It's a very apparent upgrade for me. I heard alot of people say they couldn't tell much difference when they changed gear to take advantage of hdmi and the hd sound.


Just wanted to share my experience with anyone that may be on the fence. I didn't want to shelf a 6k preamp for a receiver, but it was well worth it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,923 Posts
Did you make sure you compared the two at the exact same volume? That should be simpler with Dolby Digital vs TrueHD because dialnorm should be applied the same way.


Also make sure there were not any compression processing that would have been applied to one and not the other.


Of course it does take time to switch and audio memory is short.


I mention all of this, because in a controlled listening test, people did not hear big differences. The most obvious was DVD rate lossy compared to lossless. It was apparently harder to tell Blu-ray rate DD (640 kbs) from lossless, which makes sense. Each channel would have been better than 64 kbs, and 64 kbs MP3 quality is excellent (that's 64 kbs / ch, for 128 kbs total.)


I just put Monsters v Aliens on and switching back and forth between PCM and bitstream revealed no obvious difference to me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,923 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by paligap /forum/post/19611468


Here we go. If you didn't do a triple blind test adhering to scientific protocol, don't you know you can't trust your ears?

You will note I did NOT say the person did not hear differences. I suggested that you need to take some basic precautions to insure you are comparing apples to oranges.


I also mentioned a listening test that showed that differences were not large with is a totally reasonable point.


And I did my own test with my own ears which are just as valid as anyone elses until proven otherwise
At least for differences which are claimed to be somewhat obvious. (Obviously people who's higher end hearing response is better are more likely to hear differences with compression, as it tends to effect high freq stuff like cymbals in my experience.)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22,119 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by paligap /forum/post/19611468


Here we go. If you didn't do a triple blind test adhering to scientific protocol, don't you know you can't trust your ears?

double blind will do...



and no, you can't trust your ears, if your eyes are seeing what is going on...



the test michael is referring to was with trained listeners on very "revealing" equipment... there's been others as well...


that being said, i'm glad the op is happy...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
672 Posts
I love it. "Trained listeners," "revealing equipment," and no, we can't trust our ears. If we can't listen to something and decide that it's an improvement, then what's the point of having audio equipment at all?



Numbers and tests are fine to a certain point, but ultimately we experience audio and video with our senses. There seems to be an effort to portray anybody's perception of improvement as placebo.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,807 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by paligap /forum/post/19611753


Numbers and tests are fine to a certain point, but ultimately we experience audio and video with our senses. There seems to be an effort to portray anybody's perception of improvement as placebo.

Numbers and tests are fine to a certain point, but ultimately we experience medicine with our bodies. There seems to be an effort to portray anybody's perception of improvement as placebo.




AJ
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
331 Posts
You guys listen with your ears? I usually have it up too loud and have to use things like the vibrations in my gut and how long it takes me before I need to run to the head to judge whether I liked it or not... :shrug:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
672 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by WiWavelength /forum/post/19611830


Numbers and tests are fine to a certain point, but ultimately we experience medicine with our bodies. There seems to be an effort to portray anybody's perception of improvement as placebo.




AJ

Okay, here's an original analogy: A man goes into a bar with a friend and tries a different kind of beer than his usual one. He tells his friend, "Hey, that beer tastes better than my usual brand."


His friend sniffs, "Did you do a double blind taste test?"


"Well--no," the man answers.


"Then it's only placebo," his friend intones. "I read a study that showed that people can't really tell the difference between the two."


The man looks at his friend and says, "Whatever. Cheers!"
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,923 Posts
Your analogy has a flaw. Beer most definitely tastes different. Few would say otherwise, and if they do say it, it's because they are drinking beer of the same style (e.g. mass market Pilsner.)


Also, I did a blind taste test between canned Budweiser and bottled Budweiser a few times. Result 100% I could detect which was which.


So...un helpful analogy, no offense.


With audio, people frequently make claims that there are these night and day differences among electronics which dissapear as soon as a more objective test is implement. Conclusion = people are overstating the situation.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,807 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by paligap /forum/post/19611998


Okay, here's an original analogy: A man goes into a bar with a friend and tries a different kind of beer than his usual one. He tells his friend, "Hey, that beer tastes better than my usual brand."


His friend sniffs, "Did you do a double blind taste test?"


"Well--no," the man answers.


"Then it's only placebo," his friend intones. "I read a study that showed that people can't really tell the difference between the two."


The man looks at his friend and says, "Whatever. Cheers!"

And then the bartender looks up and says, "Damn, you wanted to try that other beer, right? By accident, I poured you your usual brew."


Now, does the beer still taste better?


AJ
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,807 Posts
Try another relevant twist on your analogy...

Quote:
Originally Posted by paligap /forum/post/19611998


Okay, here's an original analogy: A man goes into a bar with a friend and tries a different kind of beer than his usual one. He tells his friend, "Hey, that beer tastes better than my usual brand."

And then the bartender chimes in, "Yeah, tastes great, doesn't it? Just replaced our cooler. Beer's five degrees colder than everybody else's."


So, which is the beer drinker's preference? The different beer? Or the colder temp?


AJ
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,318 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by WiWavelength /forum/post/19612118


Try another relevant twist on your analogy...




And then the bartender chimes in, "Yeah, tastes great, doesn't it? Just replaced our cooler. Beer's five degrees colder than everybody else's."


So, which is the beer drinker's preference? The different beer? Or the colder temp?


AJ

Hehe, got another spin... does he really like it because it is better, or just different? Let's say he walks back into the bar and they tell him they are out of that beer so he goes back to his original, and after tasting it again after a long while, he realizes he actually remembers why it was his favorite?


Ever have a plate of food when you are incredibly hungry and find it to be very tasty, only to try it again remembering the same experience but not with the same degree of hunger, only to find out it wasn't as good as you remember?


Moral of the story is we are a very impressionable species with many elements including mood contributing to our conclusions!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,186 Posts
the differences are there but it is very subtle...not a night and day difference...you would be better off spending the $$ on a new set of speakers to notice more of an improvement...even the experts locked inside Dolby Digital laboratories have trouble hearing any differences so anyone who claims that there is a huge (or even less then huge) difference is hearing the placebo effect


the main differences relate to imaging, spaciousness, top-end detail, and "air."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,923 Posts
I remember comparing 128 kbs with 256 kbs MP3 files. Very little difference from what I could hear (I am 45, and abused my hearing with loud rock and roll in my youth - I am sure many people who hear better than I did.)


But what I recall was harshness in high frequencies with the 128 kbs file. My friend would play them for me in a random order, and I could pick out the 256 kbs file as better. But it was a subtle difference to me, and not easy. I suspect the same for DD vs TrueHD.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
381 Posts
Ain't that the truth.


Your analogy has a flaw. Beer most definitely tastes different. Few would say otherwise, and if they do say it, it's because they are drinking beer of the same style (e.g. mass market Pilsner.)


Also, I did a blind taste test between canned Budweiser and bottled Budweiser a few times. Result 100% I could detect which was which.


So...un helpful analogy, no offense.

With audio, people frequently make claims that there are these night and day differences among electronics which dissapear as soon as a more objective test is implement. Conclusion = people are overstating the situation.[/QUOTE]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
664 Posts
I can't hear the difference between a 160Kb+ MP3 and FLAC (full resolution source). I can't reliably hear the difference between THD/DTS-HD and AC3, but can (on some BD disks) tell reliably; just not always.


I also can't hear the difference between cables, connectors, and solid state amps (of the same power ratings). I can hear the difference between tube amps and SS amps, pretty much 100% of the time (because I know what to listen for now).


I can always hear the difference between room correction software (on/off), and between different types (Pioneer to Audessey, for example).


I can always hear the difference between systems with a sub, and those without a sub.


I can usually hear the difference between 2 different speaker manufacturers. Not to say I can tell you which one I like better, but I can usually say "That's speaker 1, now that's speaker 2".


I can see the difference between some projectors (but not all).


I can tell (even without music) when a room has lots of treatment (the "dead"/no ringing sound.


So, given my "listening skill" you can probably tell where I spend most of my money. Room correction software, room treatments, subwoofers.. And probably soon on some high output amplifiers (not sure I'll hear the difference, but I'll certainly be able to play louder, should the urge ever strike me).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
672 Posts
It's amazing the mental gymnastics some will employ to assert that someone else isn't really experiencing an improvement in audio, but is, instead, a victim of the placebo effect. To each his own, I guess.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
27,366 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelJHuman /forum/post/19611340



I just put Monsters v Aliens on and switching back and forth between PCM and bitstream revealed no obvious difference to me.

Good observation. LPCM and Bitstreamed lossless tracks are bit for bit identical.
 
1 - 20 of 127 Posts
Top