Can you hear the difference between 16bit and 24bit audio files?

[Le Concombre Masqué]

What is the basis for saying this?

 

I have never found conversion messy with the right tools and I started doing this when dCS made it possible over a decade ago. Same with DP on a computer now.

based on my experiences with Audiogate and JRiver, compared to the pcm source

[Le Concombre Masqué]

as i wrote previously, I could physically sense a greater density of the air moved by the 24 bits files on a full range system ; interesting to read that most of the correct respondents used headphones

 

Just to take this topic a little more on the initial focus,

here's yet another interesting post by Archimago, investigating more deeply the 20 guys (out of 150+) that answered correctly to all the questions of the blind test:

 

Archimago's Musings: 24-Bit vs. 16-Bit Audio Test - Part IIa: The 20 Correct Respondents...

 

Worth reading as well.

Cheers.

[Skeptic]

interesting to read that most of the correct respondents used headphones

Personally, I find that headphones are much more resolving than speakers. I've yet to hear any speaker setup which compares to the detail offered by even modestly priced headphones.

 

It doesn't mean that headphones are better than speakers, just that they're very different.

 

Speakers generally give a better sense of "space" than headphones do (though there is DSP which can help with that) and are often more relaxing to listen to.

[Teresa]

I would recommend using a player which converts on playback rather than offline conversion.

 

Thanks, both my Teac DAC and Pure Music upsample to high resolution PCM not DSD. However since l like AIFF better than ALAC or FLAC I think not doing any real time unpacking or upsampling might be why it sounds so great.

 

When you want to store a copy of the originals (because there may be something you prefer to 5.6MHz DSD at some point in the future) and a duplicate as 2xDSD, the disk space requirements grow considerably.

 

I will still have my WAV versions I use for my Gateway laptop, since it's a portable I use the internal DAC which doesn't do DSD, I will be deleting the AIFF versions I use with Pure Music / iTunes combo on my Mac Mini though.

 

It may be counterintuitive, but a lossy process can still result in something that you prefer the sound of.

 

It may simply be that your DAC does a much better job playing DSD than PCM, so converting to DSD - while being a lossy process - still sounds better in your system.

 

Possibly. So far the few files I've heard have more room ambiance and resonance in voices, which could be freeing the music from the effects of sharp filters necessary even for high resolution PCM.

 

Not sure what DSD does but I love the results!

[Jud]

We disagree. That definition is not accurate in all situations, though it is accurate in all situations where it does apply.

 

Consider the specific instance we are talking about here, it is certainly at least misleading to most people.

 

As for the CS definition, mathematical transforms must be reversible to be considered lossless- most commonly found when discussing data compression. This is not the case here and the term "lossy" is being bantered around in an extremely inaccurate manner, designed to instill FUD.

 

The transform from PCM to DSD is perfectly reversible if one uses a log or secondary data store to provide the information necessary to do the reverse transform. This is absolutely no different than using logs and journaling in database systems to provide consistently reversible transactions or other data transforms. And when I say perfectly reversible, I mean I wrote the transforms this evening, and while the code is crappy, it works.

 

All of which appears to me as just another case of someone stirring up FUD for some reason that is utterly unfathomable to me. Admittedly, I may be a little sensitive on this subject. And no I did not write the test code in HLASM.

 

Paul

 

Are you saying you have a computer algorithm to do a bitperfect reversal of a DSD file back to PCM, in the absence of the original PCM file for comparison? If so, you would be the first, and should consider commercialization and perhaps employment with the NSA. If on the other hand you require the original PCM file for comparison, why go through the hassle of a re-conversion algorithm when you already have the result, i.e., the original PCM file?

 

That is all anyone is saying with regard to the mathematical/computer science definition of "lossy." The fact that you feel there are sound quality criticisms implied by this, which I don't think anyone is trying to say, doesn't mean the definition used in the field is wrong.

 

I like how DSD sounds. I don't have the computer power to upconvert conveniently from PCM to DSD inline, so I don't know whether it would improve sound quality in my system, but it well could. Peace.

[Paul R]

Are you saying you have a computer algorithm to do a bitperfect reversal of a DSD file back to PCM, in the absence of the original PCM file for comparison? If so, you would be the first, and should consider commercialization and perhaps employment with the NSA. If on the other hand you require the original PCM file for comparison, why go through the hassle of a re-conversion algorithm when you already have the result, i.e., the original PCM file?

 

Sure, but I journaled all the changes to the data when upsampling and transcoding. That is basically more trouble than keeping the original. (grin) I am sure other folks have done similar things before, and besides, I could not afford the pay cut to work for the NSA.

 

(Edit: Mmm... That sounds a tad bit arrogant, and I did not mean it that way. I imagine it would be about the same level of effort as you remembering some reference or principle, looking up the reference, and writing yourself some notes about it. Not being a lawyer, I do not know that, but I imagine it so. This was no great feat by any stretch of the imagination. Most of the time was spent looking up the file formats.)

 

That is all anyone is saying with regard to the mathematical/computer science definition of "lossy." The fact that you feel there are sound quality criticisms implied by this, which I don't think anyone is trying to say, doesn't mean the definition used in the field is wrong.

 

Perhaps, but a misapplied definition is a wrong usage.

 

And, if that is what is being said, it is not what everyone is hearing. A few people have asked me about it in private. I don't have any problems with someone saying something along the lines of "LPCM -> DSD conversions usually do not meet the mathematical definition of lossless, but are effectively and for audio purposes, lossless. You do not loose any audio information."

 

That is a far cry from equating LPCM-> DSD to being lossy in the same manner of LPCM-> MP3, which is lossy by all possible definitions.

 

I like how DSD sounds. I don't have the computer power to upconvert conveniently from PCM to DSD inline, so I don't know whether it would improve sound quality in my system, but it well could. Peace.

 

I am surprised I like the difference. Offline up conversion to my ears sounds even better, at least using AudioGate.

 

I honestly do not feel that I am ever going to want to go back to storing the audio as PCM when DSD sounds better to me. In terms of fidelity to the original performance, even a converted DSD file *seems* to be much closer than a 16/44.1 Redbook file.

 

However, I have the space to store and backup all everything in both formats, and do. I have been wrong a time or two before in my life. Time will tell.

 

Which reminds me, I can not always tell the difference between a 16bit and 24 bit file using only my ears, but I can between 16bit and 1bit (i.e. DSD) files.

[RealAudio]

Are you saying you have a computer algorithm to do a bitperfect reversal of a DSD file back to PCM, in the absence of the original PCM file for comparison? If so, you would be the first, and should consider commercialization and perhaps employment with the NSA. If on the other hand you require the original PCM file for comparison, why go through the hassle of a re-conversion algorithm when you already have the result, i.e., the original PCM file?

 

That is all anyone is saying with regard to the mathematical/computer science definition of "lossy." The fact that you feel there are sound quality criticisms implied by this, which I don't think anyone is trying to say, doesn't mean the definition used in the field is wrong.

 

I like how DSD sounds. I don't have the computer power to upconvert conveniently from PCM to DSD inline, so I don't know whether it would improve sound quality in my system, but it well could. Peace.

 

Native DSD is simply a sony brand name applied to pulse width modulation (or the more generic case pulse density). Conversion is fairly trivial, the proof is that you can download dsd and that there dacs that handle dsd and pcm audio. Given there so few native DSD recording, that algorithm and a token (now a metro card) will get you a NYC subway ride.

[Le Concombre Masqué]

headphones are... for the head... i love my music physical, be it a solo cello

Personally, I find that headphones are much more resolving than speakers. I've yet to hear any speaker setup which compares to the detail offered by even modestly priced headphones.

 

It doesn't mean that headphones are better than speakers, just that they're very different.

 

Speakers generally give a better sense of "space" than headphones do (though there is DSP which can help with that) and are often more relaxing to listen to.

[elcorso]

I should have warned all that when you update Korg to 3.0 it erase the previous version, thanks God I have a copy in my backup. 3.0 is only now for Korg gear owners. They should at least have had the decency to warn us of this before the "update"!...

 

The following are my very personal preferences (taste, or what you want to name it). I own several DACs, some excellent for DSD, others to PCM. When I convert to DSD128 is because I think the music and recording worth the time and the space for music storage. I have plenty of storage room.

 

- Any (good) recording, from 16/44 to 24/192, improves a lot when converted to DSD128.

 

- I like better hard drive conversion than that make on the fly.

 

- I feel 'increased dynamics' from PCM (or perceived as well) means distortion, is fixed by DSD conversion. The same as 16 versus 24 bits?

 

- "Density of air" perceived by Le Concombre Masqué could be the same: Distortion from the brick wall filters in PCM?... I would like better to treat room acoustics.

 

- I prefer to listen to music by speakers than headphones.

 

- A lot of DSD SQ opinions come from people with little or no experience in DSD listening.

 

Happy listening!

 

Roch

[Le Concombre Masqué]

no distorsion, my pcm is butter smooth, 24 bits make the air between my speakers belonging to another location, not my room

I should have warned all that when you update Korg to 3.0 it erase the previous version, thanks God I have a copy in my backup. 3.0 is only now for Korg gear owners. They should at least have had the decency to warn us of this before the "update"!...

 

The following are my very personal preferences (taste, or what you want to name it). I own several DACs, some excellent for DSD, others to PCM. When I convert to DSD128 is because I think the music and recording worth the time and the space for music storage. I have plenty of storage room.

 

- Any (good) recording, from 16/44 to 24/192, improves a lot when converted to DSD128.

 

- I like better hard drive conversion than that make on the fly.

 

- I feel 'increased dynamics' from PCM (or perceived as well) means distortion, is fixed by DSD conversion. The same as 16 versus 24 bits?

 

- "Density of air" perceived by Le Concombre Masqué could be the same: Distortion from the brick wall filters in PCM?... I would like better to treat room acoustics.

 

- I prefer to listen to music by speakers than headphones.

 

- A lot of DSD SQ opinions come from people with little or no experience in DSD listening.

 

Happy listening!

 

Roch

[Jud]

Native DSD is simply a sony brand name applied to pulse width modulation (or the more generic case pulse density). Conversion is fairly trivial, the proof is that you can download dsd and that there dacs that handle dsd and pcm audio. Given there so few native DSD recording, that algorithm and a token (now a metro card) will get you a NYC subway ride.

 

You've missed the point. Conversion from PCM to DSD is close to trivial, it's done in a reasonably cheap chip in nearly every DAC going. What Paul and I were discussing was the following process, which is, so far as anyone knows, mathematically impossible: (1) Begin with PCM file; (2) convert to DSD; (3) without reference to the original PCM file, use a mathematical algorithm/digital filter to convert the DSD file back to a bit-perfect copy of the original PCM file. Because this entire conversion/reconversion process cannot be done (the original conversion is not reversible by pure mathematical means), this makes the conversion to DSD technically "lossy" as defined in math and computer science terms. This means exactly nothing in musical terms as far as which version has better sound quality.

[jhwalker]

You've missed the point. Conversion from PCM to DSD is close to trivial, it's done in a reasonably cheap chip in nearly every DAC going. What Paul and I were discussing was the following process, which is, so far as anyone knows, mathematically impossible: (1) Begin with PCM file; (2) convert to DSD; (3) without reference to the original PCM file, use a mathematical algorithm/digital filter to convert the DSD file back to a bit-perfect copy of the original PCM file. Because this entire conversion/reconversion process cannot be done (the original conversion is not reversible by pure mathematical means), this makes the conversion to DSD technically "lossy" as defined in math and computer science terms. This means exactly nothing in musical terms as far as which version has better sound quality.

 

Thanks, Jud. That's all I was trying to say, as well.

[gmgraves]

We disagree. That definition is not accurate in all situations, though it is accurate in all situations where it does apply.

 

Consider the specific instance we are talking about here, it is certainly at least misleading to most people.

 

As for the CS definition, mathematical transforms must be reversible to be considered lossless- most commonly found when discussing data compression. This is not the case here and the term "lossy" is being bantered around in an extremely inaccurate manner, designed to instill FUD.

 

The transform from PCM to DSD is perfectly reversible if one uses a log or secondary data store to provide the information necessary to do the reverse transform. This is absolutely no different than using logs and journaling in database systems to provide consistently reversible transactions or other data transforms. And when I say perfectly reversible, I mean I wrote the transforms this evening, and while the code is crappy, it works.

 

All of which appears to me as just another case of someone stirring up FUD for some reason that is utterly unfathomable to me. Admittedly, I may be a little sensitive on this subject. And no I did not write the test code in HLASM.

 

Paul

 

 

Paul.

 

Somebody in this discussion (and from the above, it's obviously not you) doesn't understand the technical meaning of the word lossy. It's not a negative, and doesn't indicate that any musical information is either lost or altered. It simply means that the original bit-for-bit data cannot be reconstructed In other words, if you take a music file and get that file's checksum, and then convert that file to some other format and then convert it back, and you don't get the same checksum, then that conversion is referred to as lossy. There are a number of technical terms that might seem like they're saying one thing when they are actually saying something entirely different. Another example is the technical term "ideal amplifier". I used that term on another forum once and instantly got a whole group of people's panties in a bunch. "Nobody can tell me what the ideal amplifier is, I'll make my own decisions about that!" Well, the quality of the amplifier has nothing to do with the term "ideal amplifier", nor does it indicate the proverbial 'straight wire with gain'. Ideal amplifier is concerned with a number of parameters that cannot be met but which are used as a theoretical design goal. These parameters include: an infinite input impedance, zero output impedance. zero offset, infinite common mode rejection, etc, etc. But these people who took extreme umbrage at my use of that term couldn't understand that at all and kept insisting that what might be an ideal amplifier for me, might be unlistenable to them. They simply couldn't understand (even after I and several others tried to explain it to them) what the term actually meant. This type of thing causes a lot of confusion especially when a technical term infers one meaning but actually has another altogether different meaning to those who often use the term in an technical capacity

[elcorso]

I can't find any Beethoven recorded in DSD from the San Francisco Symphony, releases yes, but in SACD, then I guess transferred from PCM, because they state 'recorded in PCM 24/96' in their web page. The only Beethoven's recordings in DSD are from LSO Live. I ask this because I'm very interested in DSD recordings.

 

Please illuminate me because of my bad English. The "lossy" definitions I found:

 

- Lossy file compression results in lost data and quality from the original version.

 

- Lossless and lossy compression are terms that describe whether or not, in the compression of a file, all original data can be recovered when the file is uncompressed.

 

- In information technology, "lossy" compression is the class of data encoding methods that uses inexact approximations (or partial data discarding) for representing the content that has been encoded.

 

Thanks,

 

Roch

[gmgraves]

I can't find any Beethoven recorded in DSD from the San Francisco Symphony, releases yes, but in SACD, then I guess transferred from PCM, because they state 'recorded in PCM 24/96' in their web page. The only Beethoven's recordings in DSD are from LSO Live. I ask this because I'm very interested in DSD recordings.

 

Please illuminate me because of my bad English. The "lossy" definitions I found:

 

- Lossy file compression results in lost data and quality from the original version.

 

- Lossless and lossy compression are terms that describe whether or not, in the compression of a file, all original data can be recovered when the file is uncompressed.

 

- In information technology, "lossy" compression is the class of data encoding methods that uses inexact approximations (or partial data discarding) for representing the content that has been encoded.

 

Thanks,

 

Roch

 

 

Oh, I get your confusion now. When I said DSD, I meant SACD and you thought I was talking about downloadable DSD files. No, I use DSD and SACD interchangeably sometimes, because except for the SACD proprietary disc formatting, SACD is DSD. Sorry if I caused you some confusion.

 

Your lossy and lossless file compression definitions are correct.

 

the use of "lossy" in information technology is somewhat vague. Let's just say that in data conversion, a round-trip conversion is considered lossy when the reconstructed data has a different checksum from the original digital file.

[Teresa]

I should have warned all that when you update Korg to 3.0 it erase the previous version, thanks God I have a copy in my backup. 3.0 is only now for Korg gear owners. They should at least have had the decency to warn us of this before the "update"!...

 

Agreed. When I downloaded AudioGate 3.0 I learned the Twitter activation was no longer supported and one could only use AudioGate with the activation code that comes with Korg's DACs and digital recorders. The manual said non-Korg owners could use AudioGate Lite which offers only 44.1k and 48k sampling rates and no format conversions, a very crippled version.

 

Thanks goodness, like you I had the old Audiogate 2.3.1. on my Seagate backup.

 

The following are my very personal preferences (taste, or what you want to name it). I own several DACs, some excellent for DSD, others to PCM. When I convert to DSD128 is because I think the music and recording worth the time and the space for music storage. I have plenty of storage room.

 

- Any (good) recording, from 16/44 to 24/192, improves a lot when converted to DSD128.

 

- I like better hard drive conversion than that make on the fly.

 

- I feel 'increased dynamics' from PCM (or perceived as well) means distortion, is fixed by DSD conversion. The same as 16 versus 24 bits?

 

- "Density of air" perceived by Le Concombre Masqué could be the same: Distortion from the brick wall filters in PCM?... I would like better to treat room acoustics.

 

- I prefer to listen to music by speakers than headphones.

 

- A lot of DSD SQ opinions come from people with little or no experience in DSD listening.

 

Happy listening!

 

Roch

 

Yes to me also DSD128 is worth the extra drive space which is a little larger than 24/192 AIFF.

 

I did several conversions with the gain at 0dB and noticed some going over zero into the orange but not lighting the "Clip" light. Still it had me worried so I did a google search and found people who use -3dB in PCM to DSD conversions so I listened to a file both ways and the -3dB did sound just a tad better once the volume is adjusted on my preamp.

 

I also found out you actually have to be online to convert because you have to send the tweets, if off-line a message comes up and says I'm not connected to the internet. This is really a lot of work to convert all my PCM to DSD. Looks like I'm going to be very busy converting all my PCM to 5.6MHz DSD.

[Skeptic]

I did several conversions with the gain at 0dB and noticed some going over zero into the orange but not lighting the "Clip" light. Still it had me worried so I did a google search and found people who use -3dB in PCM to DSD conversions so I listened to a file both ways and the -3dB did sound just a tad better once the volume is adjusted on my preamp.

It should be -6dB, not -3dB.

[Teresa]

It should be -6dB, not -3dB.

 

Oops! That should have read -3 dB‐SACD which would be -9 dBFS in PCM. I just read the User's Guide to AudioGate, and it seems to be fine to go up to +3dB‐SACD. It was some of my PCM 24 bit files from non-audiophile labels that went to +1 or +2 dB‐SACD, I didn't notice any of the audiophile recordings going over 0 dB-SACD. However that +1 to +2 dB-SACD alarmed me, so I backed down to -3 dB‐SACD.

 

From the AudioGate user's guide:

 

During song playback and during export, AudioGateʹs level meter shows the peak values of the output data following sample rate conversion...

 

Normally, you will adjust the GAIN (see page 21) so that the peak value of the 1‐bit output data stays within the 0–+3 dB‐SACD range.



It is not necessarily the case that the output signal has clipped at the point that 0 dB‐SACD or +3 dB‐SACD is exceeded; however when the integrator of the Delta‐Sigma modulator reaches a specific amount, the clip indicator will light and the signal will be output in a clipped state.

 

The conversion algorithm of most PCM <‐> DSD converters (including AudioGate) is designed so that by default, 0 dBFS = 0 dB‐SACD.

 

None of the files I converted to DSD128 caused the Clip light to come on, looks like I could have left things at the default 0 dB‐SACD.

[Boris75]

(...)this makes the conversion to DSD technically "lossy" as defined in math and computer science terms. This means exactly nothing in musical terms as far as which version has better sound quality.

 

+1.

[howlingfeedback]

I think to many people just want to prove others wrong, they really don't care about music fidelity, its nothing more than one upmanship just to be able to shout from the rooftops ha bloody ha I proved you lot a bunch of fools.

 

To my ears 24/96 is a better quality than 16/44, if I record good ol plastic, its at 24/96 to quote Jimmy Page, gives it more head room,

Tests will always be subjective to all kinds of various difficulties, I for one don't give a damn, I enjoy my music at high rez and thats the way it will stay

[gmgraves]

Personally, I find that headphones are much more resolving than speakers. I've yet to hear any speaker setup which compares to the detail offered by even modestly priced headphones.

 

It doesn't mean that headphones are better than speakers, just that they're very different.

 

Speakers generally give a better sense of "space" than headphones do (though there is DSP which can help with that) and are often more relaxing to listen to.

 

 

To me, no speaker can equal the resolving power of a pair of Stax SR-007 or SR-009 electrostatic headphones. Isodynamic 'phones like those from Audeze or Hi-FiMan are a close second, and there might be others like the Sennheiser HD-800 which could be in the same category as the isodynamic models, but I'd have to have a longer audition of them than I have had thus far. Koss, it seems, also still makes a pair of electrostatic phones that sell for about $1K, but I've never even seen a pair, much less heard them, so I can't comment. But one of the things that I value highly in playback is image and soundstage and this, headphones don't do at all - regardless of quality.

 

To illustrate my point, I have an ancient pair (from the 1970's) of JVC binaural microphones/headphones. These 'phones have, molded into the outside of their ear-cups, a pair of electret condenser microphones surrounded with a plastic pair of ear-like ridges. These phones usually sit on a fuzz-flocked styrofoam head with a microphone stand socket on the bottom of the neck and can be used in that fashion or worn by someone while making a binaural recording. They weren't great headphones, even by the standards of the day, but one doesn't have to use them for playback and they are good enough to demonstrate what is wrong with headphone imaging.

 

What I did as a demonstration of how poor headphones are generally, as far as soundstage and imaging is concerned, was to place the headphones on the "artificial head" and feed the mikes into a recorder (the last time I did this was on my Sony WMD-6 Walkman-Pro cassette recorder). My very simple experiment was to take my key-ring and jingle my keys as I walked around the head while recording. When I played the recording back (on the JVC phones or others - I usually used my Sony MDR-V6 headphones for this demonstration), the following characteristics were immediately apparent: the keys on the right or the left of the center of the front of the dummy-head were certainly in the right place, but as the keys moved to the center in front of the head, the image does not move in front of the listener as one would expect, but rather, it moves inside the listener's head. When the keys move to the side again, the image moves to that side and when clearly on the side of the dummy-head, they sounded like that's where they were, just as one would expect. When moving to the back of the head, though, all sense of three-dimensionality completely collapses. The listener cannot tell where the keys are coming from because the image has moved back inside of the listener's head. The keys could be in front, the keys could be in back, there are simply no clues to resolve this aural question. Lest you think that this phenomenon is a product of the binaural mikes, you can try this experiment yourself: Switch your playback to mono while wearing your headphones. With speakers, when you do that, the image collapses to the center of the soundstage, I.E. halfway between the right and left speakers, but remains in front of you just as it should. With headphones, the image collapses to the center of your head, halfway between your ears. The same thing happens when you play most commercial jazz recordings. The backup is on the left and the right and the vocalist/solo instrument player is in the center because when recorded, it was mixed equally into the right and left channels. Most jazz recordings are what they call phantom three-channel stereo. This was started by jazz recording pioneers such as Rudy Van Gelder in the late 1950's, and has, over the years, become more-or-less the traditional way to record small ensemble jazz.

 

The results should be clear to anyone who values soundstage and imaging. Headphones do not do image correctly because they simply cannot. Stax tried to fix this problem with a line of ear speakers called the "Sigma". These 'phones had the electrostatic elements mounted perpendicular to the ear at the front of the rectangular ear-cup in an effort to move the apparent sound-source "out-front" of the listener's ears to more accurately mimic a pair of loudspeakers. A friend who once owned a pair tells me that they were moderately successful in that mono sources sounded like they were coming from directly in front of the listener's nose rather than inside the listener's head. He also said that because of the way the ear-cups were designed, the Stax Sigmas had very little in the way of bass. Somebody must have liked the effect because they still make three similar models, that work the same way as the Sigmas: the SR-307, 407, and 507. Whether the newer models have addressed the bass deficiency, I have no idea.

[Skeptic]

But one of the things that I value highly in playback is image and soundstage and this, headphones don't do at all - regardless of quality.

Not by themselves, as headphones - even open headphones - isolate the ears.

Sounds in the real world never hit your left ear without also being heard by your right, after a delay and a change in frequency response. (due to your head being in the way)

 

 

DSP can help a lot. At the end of the day, you're still wearing headphones, but simply plugging headphones into a stereo amp is always going to have imaging problems.

 

 

https://fongaudio.com/demo/

 

I did not buy the product, because it is overpriced in my opinion (though perhaps not when compared to the Smyth Realiser) but mostly because I couldn't find a speaker preset that I liked enough to spend $150. The rooms they put you in always sounded bad to me - especially in the lower frequencies, which were often "one-note" and "boomy".

 

There is a decent selection of demos on that page though, and I recommend you try them all, as some work better than others depending on your headphones.

It's even better if you go through the trouble of getting the trial, especially if you have multichannel sources, as you can pick the preset which sounds best to you (there are a lot more available in the trial than the demo page) and you can toggle it on/off as you're listening.

 

Running the trial with a number of different sources, there were times where I actually had to pull my headphones off and see if a noise I had just heard in a movie was coming from another room in the house. It's not always that effective, but it shows that the problem is not necessarily the headphones themselves.

 

 

There are many other products which do this as well. After a bit of configuration, Redline Monitor does a good job improving the imaging without affecting the sound much.

 

 

But my main point was that it doesn't surprise me if people are listening for subtle details, that most of the people who identified any were using headphones.

While they might have imaging problems, they are often a lot more detailed than speakers.

[sandyk]

But my main point was that it doesn't surprise me if people are listening for subtle details, that most of the people who identified any were using headphones.

While they might have imaging problems, they are often a lot more detailed than speakers.

 

That's not surprising given the closer coupling to the ears and further attenuation of extraneous background noise.

Even an Air Conditioner running in quiet mode can degrade low level detail and ambience when listening through speakers.

[gmgraves]

Not by themselves, as headphones - even open headphones - isolate the ears.

Sounds in the real world never hit your left ear without also being heard by your right, after a delay and a change in frequency response. (due to your head being in the way)

 

 

DSP can help a lot. At the end of the day, you're still wearing headphones, but simply plugging headphones into a stereo amp is always going to have imaging problems.

 

 

https://fongaudio.com/demo/

 

I did not buy the product, because it is overpriced in my opinion (though perhaps not when compared to the Smyth Realiser) but mostly because I couldn't find a speaker preset that I liked enough to spend $150. The rooms they put you in always sounded bad to me - especially in the lower frequencies, which were often "one-note" and "boomy".

 

There is a decent selection of demos on that page though, and I recommend you try them all, as some work better than others depending on your headphones.

It's even better if you go through the trouble of getting the trial, especially if you have multichannel sources, as you can pick the preset which sounds best to you (there are a lot more available in the trial than the demo page) and you can toggle it on/off as you're listening.

 

Running the trial with a number of different sources, there were times where I actually had to pull my headphones off and see if a noise I had just heard in a movie was coming from another room in the house. It's not always that effective, but it shows that the problem is not necessarily the headphones themselves.

 

 

There are many other products which do this as well. After a bit of configuration, Redline Monitor does a good job improving the imaging without affecting the sound much.

 

 

But my main point was that it doesn't surprise me if people are listening for subtle details, that most of the people who identified any were using headphones.

While they might have imaging problems, they are often a lot more detailed than speakers.

 

 

I've tried similar products in the past, and while they help a bit, they do nothing to alleviate the problem of headphones being able to project an image either in front of the listener or behind the listener.

[sandyk]

I've tried similar products in the past, and while they help a bit, they do nothing to alleviate the problem of headphones being able to project an image either in front of the listener or behind the listener.

George

In general this is the case, but using decent headphones with a better than average headphone amplifier, some recordings such as "The Storm" from a Chesky Hybrid SACD can sound frighteningly real , with both depth and the illusion of height.

 

Regards

Alex