We don't need no stinking hi-rez

[Sal1950]

So let me tell you about a little auditory illusion that humans are subject to.

 

Lch: High pitch - low pitch - high pitch - low pitch - high pitch

 

Rch: Low pitch - high pitch - low pitch - high pitch - low pitch

 

Humans will hear this as follows:

 

If right handed: Low pitch in one ear, then high pitch in the other, beginning in the right ear.

 

If left handed: Some will hear high pitch in one ear, then low pitch in the other, beginning with the left ear. Others will hear what the right-handers hear. A small percentage will be able to "flip" back and forth between these two. What no one will hear is what is actually happening, alternating pitches in each ear, low pitch in one ear playing simultaneously with high pitch in the other ear.

 

Jud, Your cheese has definitely slid off your cracker. Take your med's. LOL

[esldude]

a bit of a pain but I guess I can do it :-).

 

I wonder how accurate JRiver volume matching is ?

 

I am not a Jriver user. Does it do something like replay gain? If so I don't think it would sufficient for careful comparison purposes.

[esldude]

Jud, Your cheese has definitely slid off your cracker. Take your med's. LOL

 

No the illusion he describes is a common one. It isn't clear cut for some people. Probably works as he describes for the majority of people. Somewhere on the web is a version of it you can try along with a few others. I wish I remembered where it was.

 

Ahh, found it easily. The octave illusion. You need to use headphones. This page describes it.

 

http://deutsch.ucsd.edu/psychology/pages.php?i=202

 

This page has a sample file of it.

 

http://deutsch.ucsd.edu/psychology/play.php?i=6202

[Jud]

Sorry, I thought the test was about redbook vs. hi-res audio. Pitch is an interesting subject, but I don't see the relationship with audio resolution.

 

In the situation of the illusion there is nothing actually moving back and forth between channels, only alternating signals in each ear. In the situation you describe there are alternating signals in each ear and you say we should listen for something moving back and forth between channels. How do you know whether what you hear is actually what is coming from the headphones/speakers, or is it another manifestation of the same type of auditory illusion?

[Sal1950]

In the situation of the illusion there is nothing actually moving back and forth between channels, only alternating signals in each ear. In the situation you describe there are alternating signals in each ear and you say we should listen for something moving back and forth between channels. How do you know whether what you hear is actually what is coming from the headphones/speakers, or is it another manifestation of the same type of auditory illusion?

 

But just be sure to always trust your ears only.. LOL

[PopPop]

In the situation of the illusion there is nothing actually moving back and forth between channels, only alternating signals in each ear. In the situation you describe there are alternating signals in each ear and you say we should listen for something moving back and forth between channels. How do you know whether what you hear is actually what is coming from the headphones/speakers, or is it another manifestation of the same type of auditory illusion?

 

Well now, that IS novel, Jud. [emoji6]

[esldude]

But just be sure to always trust your ears only.. LOL

 

There is that isn't there Sal1950.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

Again not instantaneously. Surely you understand something about masking. You can't hear a quiet whisper standing next to a runway with a 747 taking off. If our hearing had 130 db of dynamic range instantaneously you could. Yes we can hear a goodly amount at very loud runway levels. And at another quiet location hear and understand a whisper. But not both at the same time.

 

I bet I could if it was a gorgeous blonde stranger whispering in my ear, "Hey handsome..". Hmmn, thats never happened to me so you must be right, it got masked by the louder sounds ! Explains a lot !

[Kees de Visser]

How do you know whether what you hear is actually what is coming from the headphones/speakers, or is it another manifestation of the same type of auditory illusion?

The null-hypothesis is that there isn't an audible difference between redbook and hi-res, at least on perfectly linear playback systems. If the alternating signal results in a stable image with no perceptible displacement, that seems an indication (though no final proof) for inaudible differences.

Some time ago I've noticed some distortion on hi-res material. When comparing them in an alternating test it became obvious that it was the headphone amp in my laptop clipping with the hi-res signal and not with the redbook one. Reducing pb level or inserting a separate headphone amp resolved this.

It's just another tool in the test toolbox

[Jud]

The null-hypothesis is that there isn't an audible difference between redbook and hi-res, at least on perfectly linear playback systems. If the alternating signal results in a stable image with no perceptible displacement, that seems an indication (though no final proof) for inaudible differences.

Some time ago I've noticed some distortion on hi-res material. When comparing them in an alternating test it became obvious that it was the headphone amp in my laptop clipping with the hi-res signal and not with the redbook one. Reducing pb level or inserting a separate headphone amp resolved this.

It's just another tool in the test toolbox

 

The basic point is that an experimental protocol should be designed to focus on the subject of interest and beyond that should be as simple as possible to avoid the potential for introducing confounding variables.

[Jud]

But just be sure to always trust your ears only.. LOL

 

There is that isn't there Sal1950.

 

As Dennis knows, I'm not a devotee of the "always trust your ears only" philosophy, just as I am not a devotee of any philosophy that would require always ignoring what our ears tell us even in the face of good measurements. (Though somehow, many of the poor little lambs who always trust their ears as well as many of the stubborn objectivists who put their trust in measurements manage to wind up with good satisfying audio systems without bankrupting themselves. Strange how that works out.) I'm a devotee of trying to figure stuff out.

 

One of the things we should be conscious of when trying to figure stuff out is being as sure as we can that we are actually testing what we want to test, rather than some other factor. In general that means keeping things as simple as possible. When you start doing things like flipping between resolutions in each ear, there's an excellent possibility you're bringing other factors into play beyond any audible difference that may or may not exist between different resolutions.

[Kees de Visser]

When you start doing things like flipping between resolutions in each ear, there's an excellent possibility you're bringing other factors into play beyond any audible difference that may or may not exist between different resolutions.

Do you think that those other factors will prevent the center image from moving, when it's expected to be stable, assuming no audible differences ?

[Jud]

Do you think that those other factors will prevent the center image from moving, when it's expected to be stable, assuming no audible differences ?

 

- If it moves, what difference is that due to, and what does it mean for inherent sound quality of the resolutions being tested?

 

- If it does not move, what is that due to, and what does it mean for inherent sound quality of the resolutions being tested?

 

For example:

 

- If the operations to decimate a recorded file to 24/96 and to decimate the same recorded file to 16/44.1 result in phase differences between the two files, and this affects imaging to the extent the image for the L-R combination appears to move laterally in your test, but that is the only audible difference, what does this say about comparative quality of the two resolutions?

 

- Now take the reverse situation - If the operations to decimate a recorded file to 24/96 and to decimate the same recorded file to 16/44.1 do not result in phase differences between the two files, and imaging is unaffected so there is no lateral movement, *but* there are other differences that are audible on close comparison, what does this say about comparative quality of the two resolutions?

 

So at the end of the day, what have you shown about sound quality differences, which is what you are specifically looking for, if you can get lateral movement with no quality difference, and no lateral movement when there is a quality difference?

[Kees de Visser]

what have you shown about sound quality differences, which is what you are specifically looking for, if you can get lateral movement with no quality difference, and no lateral movement when there is a quality difference?

I'm not looking for sound quality differences. I'm merely looking for any difference. With a decent SRC there don't have to be significant (audible) amplitude or phase differences below 20 kHz.

[Jud]

I'm not looking for sound quality differences. I'm merely looking for any difference.

 

So at the end of this process you don't care if you wind up knowing what sounds best?

 

If the answer to that question is "I do care," then what I am suggesting is that by generalizing your search method to look for any difference, you paradoxically risk a lower probability of ultimately finding what sounds best.

[Jud]

With a decent SRC there don't have to be significant (audible) amplitude or phase differences below 20 kHz.

 

So there are no "decent" minimum phase SRCs?

[Kees de Visser]

...by generalizing your search method to look for any difference, you paradoxically risk a lower probability of ultimately finding what sounds best.

I'd feel rather uncomfortable when a preference (sounds best) is found, but no audible difference. To me this indicates one or more variables are missing.

[Kees de Visser]

So there are no "decent" minimum phase SRCs?

I didn't say that and I suppose minimum phase SRC can be fine, but that can't be verified with this test, like you've pointed out.

Main goal for a SRC (at least for me) is perceptual transparency. If that can't be achieved at the desired SR, then the "sounds best" will be the best option.

[Sal1950]

As Dennis knows, I'm not a devotee of the "always trust your ears only" philosophy, just as I am not a devotee of any philosophy that would require always ignoring what our ears tell us even in the face of good measurements. (Though somehow, many of the poor little lambs who always trust their ears as well as many of the stubborn objectivists who put their trust in measurements manage to wind up with good satisfying audio systems without bankrupting themselves. Strange how that works out.) I'm a devotee of trying to figure stuff out.

 

One of the things we should be conscious of when trying to figure stuff out is being as sure as we can that we are actually testing what we want to test, rather than some other factor. In general that means keeping things as simple as possible. When you start doing things like flipping between resolutions in each ear, there's an excellent possibility you're bringing other factors into play beyond any audible difference that may or may not exist between different resolutions.

 

Have you ever considered a career in politics? You can spin and tap dance as good as any I've ever heard.

[esldude]

- If it moves, what difference is that due to, and what does it mean for inherent sound quality of the resolutions being tested?

 

- If it does not move, what is that due to, and what does it mean for inherent sound quality of the resolutions being tested?

 

For example:

 

- If the operations to decimate a recorded file to 24/96 and to decimate the same recorded file to 16/44.1 result in phase differences between the two files, and this affects imaging to the extent the image for the L-R combination appears to move laterally in your test, but that is the only audible difference, what does this say about comparative quality of the two resolutions?

 

- Now take the reverse situation - If the operations to decimate a recorded file to 24/96 and to decimate the same recorded file to 16/44.1 do not result in phase differences between the two files, and imaging is unaffected so there is no lateral movement, *but* there are other differences that are audible on close comparison, what does this say about comparative quality of the two resolutions?

 

So at the end of the day, what have you shown about sound quality differences, which is what you are specifically looking for, if you can get lateral movement with no quality difference, and no lateral movement when there is a quality difference?

 

You are over-thinking this. Phase or intensity is what will cause movement in the image. If you get lateral movement it will be from one of these. So the image will defocus or wander as the result of that.

 

Say you have a considerable response difference in the treble. This will effectively make one side louder for sound with energy in the treble and an otherwise good center image will bloat in that direction when say cymbals are active. Distortion if severe will add harmonics to the upper band and could pull an image that way. Genuine phase differences might rotate over time causing an image to wander back and forth or shimmer quickly. A fixed timing difference may just pull it to one side.

[Jud]

Have you ever considered a career in politics? You can spin and tap dance as good as any I've ever heard.

 

Spin this: I'm trying to learn by having friendly chats with knowledgeable people. You're not contributing anything useful or amusing.

[Jud]

You are over-thinking this. Phase or intensity is what will cause movement in the image. If you get lateral movement it will be from one of these. So the image will defocus or wander as the result of that.

 

Say you have a considerable response difference in the treble. This will effectively make one side louder for sound with energy in the treble and an otherwise good center image will bloat in that direction when say cymbals are active. Distortion if severe will add harmonics to the upper band and could pull an image that way. Genuine phase differences might rotate over time causing an image to wander back and forth or shimmer quickly. A fixed timing difference may just pull it to one side.

 

I think that's pretty much what I said. If what we're talking about is the result of competent SRC in the audible range, then there ought not to be tremendous variation in intensity, except possibly at the highest audible frequencies to which we're relatively insensitive.

 

So lateral movement is down to phase, which tells us nothing about audio quality.

 

What I heard when I had the two different sets of caps installed in my DAC was not an *offset* image, it was a centered but *non-integrated* image.

[sandyk]

What I heard when I had the two different sets of caps installed in my DAC was not an *offset* image, it was a centered but *non-integrated* image.

 

Years ago, I had a similar experience when using cheap 4.7uF polypropylene capacitors at the input to my Class A amplifier. Their measured capacitance was fairly close though. Replacing them with higher quality capacitors of the same value resulted in a fully integrated image, although not quite as good as removing them from the circuit by using DC coupling.

[sandyk]

DELETED.

Once again, "Quick Reply" took a long while to complete, and resulted in 2 identical posts. Earlier this morning C.A. was not responding to page changes etc. and Windows said that it was a site problem.

[esldude]

I think that's pretty much what I said. If what we're talking about is the result of competent SRC in the audible range, then there ought not to be tremendous variation in intensity, except possibly at the highest audible frequencies to which we're relatively insensitive.

 

So lateral movement is down to phase, which tells us nothing about audio quality.

 

What I heard when I had the two different sets of caps installed in my DAC was not an *offset* image, it was a centered but *non-integrated* image.

 

What I called shimmering could also sound like a non-integrated, but centered image. You might get that effect if a very small timing difference was causing comb filtering in the combined image. The shift could be too small to pick up as a position shift, yet the rapidly rotating phase would make the image seem non-integrated.

 

It would take some time and experience for what you hear when there are differences to make sense. I think you are at the point of trying it out and simply seeing what happens.

 

If you want to try 44/16 vs 96/24 why not convert 44/16 to 96/24 and then back to 44/16 and back to 96/24. Do this loop say 4 times. Each conversion will have the effect of implementing the brick wall filtering an additional time. Do 4 loops and leave it in 96/24 form. Drop the original 96/24 in one channel and the multi-sample rate converted 44/16 in the other. Just see if anything is apparent or not. Of course you also will be building dither upon dither. Still easy enough to do and see what the result sounds like.