Audio Blind Testing

[STC]

10 hours ago, sandyk said:

 Why ? In any case, neither do I have OR want an Apple device for Audio or any other use.

Are all the Phasure Forum members for example, imagining all the improvements they hear with their Phasure NOS DACs using XXHE , with the different OS's and various XXHE engines ?

Peter St.doesn't rely just on his own hearing, he relies on numerous reports back from other members about which version OS used, and which XXHE engine sounds best.

Several years ago, silverlight from NYC and myself exchanged copies of a Norah Jones track from the hybrid SACD "Come Away With Me." Geoff ripped his using a Mac and mine was ripped using a Windows P.C.  Geoff preferred my uploaded version despite them having the same .md5 checksums.

 MANY members use programs to minimise the Start Up programs when ripping or playing music. This can be done manually or using programs such as "Fidelizer"

Why would anybody in their right mind take as definitive any comparison tracks generated by unknown computers, by people like yourself who don't even believe that these things matter and take measures such as I have already mentioned to reduce the effect of the OS in use ? Quite a few members also use stripped down versions of an OS.

 In addition, with Windows XP at least, quite a few people, including myself found that Ripping in SAFE MODE resulted in netter sounding rips and playback.

Even a Broadband Modem being disconnected from a PC when ripping CDs may result in a small SQ improvement.

 Obviously you don't believe that all this additional RF/EMI matters !

 

See also this thread :

https://www.computeraudiophile.com/forums/topic/38000-operating-systems-and-there-sound-signatures/

 

 

Quote

Are all the Phasure Forum members for example, imagining all the improvements they hear with their Phasure NOS DACs using XXHE , with the different OS's and various XXHE engines ?

 

Currently, there are 2992 members in Phasure Forum. Are you telling me all of them took part in experiment? In any forum, especially a manufacture's one, it is difficult to be the dissenting voice. Only those, who heard the difference would have reported and many who couldn't most likely didn't give any feedback. You are only using the reported members' feedback to justify your position but how about those who took part but didn't. I know that not many would want to reveal their findings for fear of being wrong. So what's the total number actually took part in the experiment?

 

Quote

Peter St.doesn't rely just on his own hearing, he relies on numerous reports back from other members about which version OS used, and which XXHE engine sounds best.

 

In the end, he relied on others' hearing. It is still the same. I have seen demo where using certain resonator the audiance could hear the effect as described by the host. Humans are easily influenced. It is well documented.

 

Quote

Several years ago, silverlight from NYC and myself exchanged copies of a Norah Jones track from the hybrid SACD "Come Away With Me." Geoff ripped his using a Mac and mine was ripped using a Windows P.C.  Geoff preferred my uploaded version despite them having the same .md5 checksums.

 

Mac and Windows audio output is different. Despite, disabling internal soundcard DSP, some Mac laptop couldn't produce the desired effect for some experiment conducted in New York University. So it is possible and I don't doubt you.

 

Quote

....by people like yourself who don't even believe that these things matter.....

 

You misunderstood my position. DBT to me is to prove what difference matters and what not. Take the example of Crown and Classe, I can hear the difference and so too almost everyone else. But take away the side by side comparison and ask them which amplifier is playing then the ability to associate the signature sound of the amplifier disappears unless your entire musical choice revolves around a few limited tracks. Throw in a well recorded but unfamiliar track and all the distinguishing ability of the audiophile disappears. No one could confidently identify any well made amplifier or DAC or CD player by their signature sound. What ever difference you hear can only be heard with side by side comparisons. Once the sound quality crosses the threshold of good quality there is no way to tell what medium or format or resolution or amplifier without side by side comparison.

 

Once during a listening session at my place the guest was not happy with sound quality of a local press CD. He told his  SACD or XRCD resissue sounded so much better. Frankly, I am happy with the local press CD . Meanwhile, I burned a MP3 copy to play them in my car. Since 3 of them said that the SACD/XRCD sounded better I just accepted it.

 

After a couple ofweeks, my friends came over again and brought the superior CD with them. I played my CD first and then he passed his CD. While putting back the CD in the box, I saw my MP3 dics and decided to play that disc without telling them. It was meant to be a joke to show how awful was their so called superior CD.. However, they were praising the SQ of MP3 discs thinking it was the SACD/XRCD. After that I told them I am going to play my CD again but switched to theirs. The same guys now described the sound as hollow. I did not reveal what I had done to them for fear of ruining the happy moment.

 

It is possible two identical track to sound different. This is not a mystery. 

 

 

[esldude]

16 minutes ago, STC said:

 

 

Currently, there are 2992 members in Phasure Forum. Are you telling me all of them took part in experiment? In any forum, especially a manufacture's one, it is difficult to be the dissenting voice. Only those, who heard the difference would have reported and many who couldn't most likely didn't give any feedback. You are only using the reported members' feedback to justify your position but how about those who took part but didn't. I know that not many would want to reveal their findings for fear of being wrong. So what's the total number actually took part in the experiment?

 

 

In the end, he relied on others' hearing. It is still the same. I have seen demo where using certain resonator the audiance could hear the effect as described by the host. Humans are easily influenced. It is well documented.

 

 

Mac and Windows audio output is different. Despite, disabling internal soundcard DSP, some Mac laptop couldn't produce the desired effect for some experiment conducted in New York University. So it is possible and I don't doubt you.

 

 

You misunderstood my position. DBT to me is to prove what difference matters and what not. Take the example of Crown and Classe, I can hear the difference and so too almost everyone else. But take away the side by side comparison and ask them which amplifier is playing then the ability to associate the signature sound of the amplifier disappears unless your entire musical choice revolves around a few limited tracks. Throw in a well recorded but unfamiliar track and all the distinguishing ability of the audiophile disappears. No one could confidently identify any well made amplifier or DAC or CD player by their signature sound. What ever difference you hear can only be heard with side by side comparisons. Once the sound quality crosses the threshold of good quality there is no way to tell what medium or format or resolution or amplifier without side by side comparison.

 

Once during a listening session at my place the guest was not happy with sound quality of a local press CD. He told his  SACD or XRCD resissue sounded so much better. Frankly, I am happy with the local press CD . Meanwhile, I burned a MP3 copy to play them in my car. Since 3 of them said that the SACD/XRCD sounded better I just accepted it.

 

After a couple ofweeks, my friends came over again and brought the superior CD with them. I played my CD first and then he passed his CD. While putting back the CD in the box, I saw my MP3 dics and decided to play that disc without telling them. It was meant to be a joke to show how awful was their so called superior CD.. However, they were praising the SQ of MP3 discs thinking it was the SACD/XRCD. After that I told them I am going to play my CD again but switched to theirs. The same guys now described the sound as hollow. I did not reveal what I had done to them for fear of ruining the happy moment.

 

It is possible two identical track to sound different. This is not a mystery. 

 

 

Been there, and done something like that. 

 

Now let the excuses flow.  People want to believe in something special.  Excellent post. 

[sandyk]

9 minutes ago, STC said:

Currently, there are 2992 members in Phasure Forum. Are you telling me all of them took part in experiment?

 

 Of course they didn't all report back, but if the bulk of members who tried the update reported  positively, then you will find that many who didn't participate will then update, just as many C.A. members do when there are quite a few favourable reports about a product. However. my experiences with Peter, formed from quite a few uploads that I have sent him, is that he is usually correct if he believes that something is an improvement. Like myself, Peter hears a little differently with each ear, which highlights some phase anomalies etc.

I never cease to be amazed that some people can actually prefer MegaPoop3 !

To me, it sounds dull and lifeless, as any further reduction in HF response, due to my age and Industrial related hearing damage is very obvious. The same applies with .aac 187kiobits which is the maximum used by VEVO and YouTube.

I used to save quite a few .mpeg2 music videos before the change to .aac audio, as they used 16/48 .

I stopped using my very good PLL Pioneer FM Stereo tuner shortly after several stations started to use automated .mp3 carts.

.

[sandyk]

13 minutes ago, esldude said:

Throw in a well recorded but unfamiliar track and all the distinguishing ability of the audiophile disappears

 

 Not necessarily. It depends entirely on how much better one component is than another.

At a listening session a while back, they played an unfamiliar  recording with a female singer which had a very wide stereo image and good depth. However, when played using the laptop instead, there was a lot of "grit" accompanying  the wide image, despite her voice being central in the image. It was using sub-optimal USB Audio. 

[STC]

59 minutes ago, sandyk said:

Like myself, Peter hears a little differently with each ear, which highlights some phase anomalies etc.

 

Generally, human cannot tell absolute phase unless a certain part of his brain function is non functional. Google for more info on this. And it is interesting to find that both of you have phase anomalies. Also, some boutique amplifiers couldnt reproduce the DSP effect I mentioned earlier because of phase inconsistency.

 

Mmmm.......

[fas42]

14 hours ago, STC said:

After a couple ofweeks, my friends came over again and brought the superior CD with them. I played my CD first and then he passed his CD. While putting back the CD in the box, I saw my MP3 dics and decided to play that disc without telling them. It was meant to be a joke to show how awful was their so called superior CD.. However, they were praising the SQ of MP3 discs thinking it was the SACD/XRCD. After that I told them I am going to play my CD again but switched to theirs. The same guys now described the sound as hollow. I did not reveal what I had done to them for fear of ruining the happy moment.

 

 

Which is why one has to dump any notions of worrying about whether one version of anything, sounds "better" than another ... the only criterion worth considering, is whether there is anything that disturbs, irritates, strikes you as being "wrong" in the playback - the goal is to eliminate everything that causes those moments.

[fas42]

13 hours ago, sandyk said:

 

I never cease to be amazed that some people can actually prefer MegaPoop3 !

To me, it sounds dull and lifeless, as any further reduction in HF response, due to my age and Industrial related hearing damage is very obvious. The same applies with .aac 187kiobits which is the maximum used by VEVO and YouTube.

I used to save quite a few .mpeg2 music videos before the change to .aac audio, as they used 16/48

 

My experiences are different ... data compressed versions can be fine to listen to; the settings used in the compression can do the damage, and the ability of the playback not to be impacted by the processing to decompress is also relevant - HF content can be preserved to the level necessary for audible insignificance. My most telling experiment was a live AC/DC track, at a low resolution MP3 rate; played direct, the drums sounded terrible! Converted that audio sample to WAV, and upsampled to hi res standards - remarkable improvement in the clarity of those drums! ... not one ounce of extra data was recovered, but the ability of the playback chain to get the best out of the material was greatly assisted.

[sandyk]

1 hour ago, fas42 said:

HF content can be preserved to the level necessary for audible insignificance.

 

 That's not what was found in  a thread here sometime back where they showed the Spectrum BEFORE and AFTER .mp3.

I am surprised that with your highly revealing system that you are also unable to hear the difference between .flac decoded "on the fly", and the original .wav file, let alone a .wav file converted to .flac and back again to .wav , as Cookie Marenco mentions in my signature.

Dale ,who hangs out mainly in the Headphone area of the forum also thought the same about .mp3 until I demonstrated to him in another forum that it did dumb down some material. IIRC, the material used was "Yello-Bostich (Reflected)"

.mp3 didn't do wonders for the thunder at the end of the track either!

 

Cookie has even commented about hearing the SQ differences between  different .flac compression settings.

 If it is so damn good, why did they much later on bother providing an uncompressed version  of .flac ?

[sandyk]

1 hour ago, fas42 said:

My most telling experiment was a live AC/DC track, at a low resolution MP3 rate; played direct, the drums sounded terrible! Converted that audio sample to WAV, and upsampled to hi res standards - remarkable improvement in the clarity of those drums!

 Frank

 You can't recover the data that .mp3 discards, especially the HF area which has a large part to play in how a drum sounds, at least SOME drums as in the attached. Note the VERY fast rise times of the envelope.

I tried similar quite a while back and it still sounded like crappy .mp3.

 

Alex

[esldude]

15 hours ago, sandyk said:

 

 Of course they didn't all report back, but if the bulk of members who tried the update reported  positively, then you will find that many who didn't participate will then update, just as many C.A. members do when there are quite a few favourable reports about a product. However. my experiences with Peter, formed from quite a few uploads that I have sent him, is that he is usually correct if he believes that something is an improvement. Like myself, Peter hears a little differently with each ear, which highlights some phase anomalies etc.

I never cease to be amazed that some people can actually prefer MegaPoop3 !

To me, it sounds dull and lifeless, as any further reduction in HF response, due to my age and Industrial related hearing damage is very obvious. The same applies with .aac 187kiobits which is the maximum used by VEVO and YouTube.

I used to save quite a few .mpeg2 music videos before the change to .aac audio, as they used 16/48 .

I stopped using my very good PLL Pioneer FM Stereo tuner shortly after several stations started to use automated .mp3 carts.

.

I wonder about MP3 and age.  

 

Our hearing in some respects is like a 32 band analyzer.  Unlike a hardware analyzer those bands move around to center what is loudest in each band.  With age the sharpness of those filters worsen.  So you presumably get some overlap between bands.  It manifests itself into something of a reverse cocktail party effect.  At one time you could focus on particular sounds, maybe conversation in a crowded room.  With age you have trouble not hearing the background noise and making sense of it. Another effect is perceived in crowds like at sporting events.  The sounds of people all around become an irritating cacophony when with better younger hearing you weren't so bothered by it. 

 

I wonder if MP3 might not be more obvious and more bothersome to someone whose hearing filters have deteriorated. 

[esldude]

1 hour ago, fas42 said:

 

My experiences are different ... data compressed versions can be fine to listen to; the settings used in the compression can do the damage, and the ability of the playback not to be impacted by the processing to decompress is also relevant - HF content can be preserved to the level necessary for audible insignificance. My most telling experiment was a live AC/DC track, at a low resolution MP3 rate; played direct, the drums sounded terrible! Converted that audio sample to WAV, and upsampled to hi res standards - remarkable improvement in the clarity of those drums! ... not one ounce of extra data was recovered, but the ability of the playback chain to get the best out of the material was greatly assisted.

Frank's magic hearing strikes again.  Upsampled to hirez standards and experienced hirez standards from a compressed low rez original.  

 

 

[Ralf11]

I suspect we could find some music where few could tell mp3 from Redbook, or other

 

Interesting thought re age - certainly possible - would make a nice gerontology grant appl. to NIH...

[sandyk]

19 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

I suspect we could find some music where few could tell mp3 from Redbook, or other

 

Interesting thought re age - certainly possible - would make a nice gerontology grant appl. to NIH...

 Not everybody who has damaged hearing is ancient !

 I expect that due to teenagers wandering around listening to loud music much of the time with earphones, that we are going to see far more middle aged people with greatly degraded hearing in the not too distant future, just as we are going to see many more people needing eyesight correction , perhaps with Laser surgery, from squinting at tiny little screens, especially when they are moving around.

How many people these days bother to observe Occupational Health and Safety Standards about the amount of time they spend in front of a monitor without taking a regular break ?

Telstra had strict O.H &S standards in that area, as well as with heavy lifting etc..

[mansr]

6 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

I suspect we could find some music where few could tell mp3 from Redbook

That's easy. The simpler the music, the better mp3 fares. Complex music with many simultaneous sounds tends to get muddled losing much of the low-level detail. Percussive sounds often suffer from a pre-echo effect (nothing to do filter ringing). Solo piano usually comes out OK, jazz and orchestral less so.

[Ralf11]

Yes, I know - mine was damaged at about age 12 - lightning struck a tree next to me on a Boy Scoot camping trip, creating a notch hearing loss at 4 kHz.

 

Unfortunately, it did NOT prevent me from hearing the differences between expensive and very expensive components...

 

You are right about the teens.  maybe hearing loss will make them into visual artists...

[STC]

Sometimes, it is hard to distinguish MP3(320kps) if the original source lacked enough HF. Another aspect to consider is the way the compression is made. Most of us resort to joint stereo compression vs stereo as joint stereo will always be the default setting. Usually, the joint stereo MP3 can sound slightly different and the overall balance of music skewed. 

 

This is subjective observation of mine but it is also written elsewhere that joint stereo compression sounds inferior to stereo.

[Sonicularity]

A good recording converted to a high bitrate lossy compression file played over most modern DACs with just about any ordinary amp that can handle the peaks and does not clip will sound identical to almost everyone on this planet with nearly every transducer available.  Math, a rudimentary understanding of a human's physiological and psychological aspects of hearing, and the technical specifications of the hardware used to play sound have confirmed all of this to be a generally acceptable fact to most sane individuals.

[fas42]

1 hour ago, esldude said:

Frank's magic hearing strikes again.  Upsampled to hirez standards and experienced hirez standards from a compressed low rez original.  

 

 

Hmmm ... " the drums sounded terrible! Converted that audio sample to WAV, and upsampled to hi res standards - remarkable improvement in the clarity of those drums" == " experienced hirez standards from a compressed low rez original." ... that's an interesting jump ... .

 

Maybe, I'm just saying the playback chain performs better when being fed with a source file of a different format - I would say, something like adjusting the tracking force on a TT cartridge to better suit the recording ... of course, here we're comparing that terrible mechanical world, with the marvellous magical world of digital audio, where absolutely nothing that one does in any area can possibly have the slightest impact on the subjective SQ - because, men in lab coats have proved it ... with measurements! ... Don't you love science ...

[fas42]

1 hour ago, Ralf11 said:

I suspect we could find some music where few could tell mp3 from Redbook, or other

 

Interesting thought re age - certainly possible - would make a nice gerontology grant appl. to NIH...

 

At one stage, I went quite a number of rounds of using LAME, over quite a spectrum of settings to see how well the encoding could render differences audibly indistinguishable, from the original. Could never quite achieve that, but the "mutilated" version was still very acceptable, just a slight variation of timbre at times - it certainly wasn't, "this is unlistenable to, now!!"

 

MP3 playback will vary enormously; from hideous, to "no-one noticed!" - all depends on how careful the encoding was, and the playback setup.

[fas42]

Just on YouTube, it is possible to download versions of the clip's audio where there's a clean spectrum all the way to 20kHz - the content may not be a perfect match to the original, but it's still there ...

[sandyk]

10 minutes ago, fas42 said:

Just on YouTube, it is possible to download versions of the clip's audio where there's a clean spectrum all the way to 20kHz - the content may not be a perfect match to the original, but it's still there ...

 

 An .mp3 file may be able to do that too, if you drop the player down the lift well of a skyscraper, due to Doppler effect !

[fas42]

7 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

 An .mp3 file may be able to do that too, if you drop the player down the lift well of a skyscraper, due to Doppler effect !

 

MP3 can go as high as you want, to 20kHz, if the right encoder is used, and appropriate settings; the YT stuff using opus at 160k gives the full spectrum.

[sandyk]

35 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

MP3 can go as high as you want, to 20kHz, if the right encoder is used, and appropriate settings; the YT stuff using opus at 160k gives the full spectrum.

 

Given that most .mp3 users originally tried to cram as many songs as possible on a small amount of storage space, you are highly unlikely to find many (if any) remaining .mp3 songs using those settings.

 You must come from the same school that has dumbed down DAB Broadcasting by using such ridiculously low bitrates, so that most people don't even know what DAB is ?

DAB is highly unlikely to replace FM Stereo in Au. any time soon  for that reason.

 

Quote

1. The abstract, accessible at http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=16969:-

AES E-LIBRARY

Perceived Audio Quality of Realistic FM and DAB+ Radio Broadcasting Systems

The perceived audio quality of a digital broadcasting system (such as DAB+) is dependent on the type of coding and bit rates selected. Because of bandwidth constraints, the required number of channels, and conflicting auxiliary services, audio quality is sometimes degraded. In designing a broadcast system, it is necessary to have well-defined criteria for minimally acceptable quality. Two studies explored quality criteria and how quality degrades for various bit rates. For DAB+ the subchannel rate should not be less than the currently available maximum of 192 kbits/s for a stereo signal, which would be comparable to the quality of a modern FM system. Rates below 160 kbit/s can significantly degrade certain types of program material. To be truly perceptually transparent, bits rates of close to 300 kbits/s may be needed when using the current generation of coders.

Authors:

Berg, Jan; Bustad, Christofer; Jonsson, Lars; Mossberg, Lars; Nyberg, Dan

 

Affiliations:

Luleå University of Technology, Piteå, Sweden; Swedish Radio, Stockholm, Sweden; Swedish National Laboratory of Forensic Science - SKL, Linköping, Sweden

(See document for exact affiliation information.)

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_radio_in_Australia

 

What a farce !

[Sonicularity]

Google streams mp3 at 320 kbps CBR encoded using Lame 3.98.2 and I doubt many here could identify a difference between that and any other higher bitrate lossless or HiRes version on any equipment with practically every song.  With most of the music it is technically ridiculous to even attempt such a feat, as there is not any reason why the mp3 version would not be absolutely transparent from the lossless version.  There are some tricky songs to encode given the format's limitations, but the instances where a difference might be identified are amazingly small and mostly go unnoticed.   Where is the evidence to show otherwise?  I've been looking and still haven't found any.   Bob Stuart even found that mp3 is preferred over HiRes when he submitted his meta-analysis marketing paper.  With training even...training on something.

[fas42]

49 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

Given that most .mp3 users originally tried to cram as many songs as possible on a small amount of storage space, you are highly unlikely to find many (if any) remaining .mp3 songs using those settings.

 You must come from the same school that has dumbed down DAB Broadcasting by using such ridiculously low bitrates, so that most people don't even know what DAB is ?

DAB is highly unlikely to replace FM Stereo in Au. any time soon  for that reason.

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_radio_in_Australia

 

What a farce !

 

Of course, the real answer is that data compression, excessive or otherwise, is not necessary, as bandwith and storage get cheaper and cheaper - ummm, we'll leave NBN out of this! - but habits die hard ... the technical crowd get excited by the fact that they can do something, and therefore, do it - bugger the consumer!!