Audio Blind Testing

[STC]

Another good reference to understand biases when judging audio quality listening tests is here. Even repeating same samples several times can and often resulted in different sound quality.

[STC]

1 hour ago, sandyk said:

Read other areas of the forum, and you will also see quite a few reports by well qualified members, that even the O.S. itself can result in small audible differences with "bit perfect" files.

 

We can test this easily. Download the files from http://www.2l.no/hires/index.html? using your Apple device and another set with your Windows. Transfer all to your media player and do the blind test. 

[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. 

 

 

[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.......

[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.

[STC]

20 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

  In which case you must believe that the series of 6 separate (by date) DBTs that I refer to, were either not correctly performed, or that around 8 repeats per session , all with positive results is inadequate ?

 What are the odds against results such as those being false results or not meaning anything ?

 

Sandyk, I am unable to find the relevant post. The hificritic link returns page not found error. Could you please provide the link? Thanx.

[STC]

7 minutes ago, esldude said:

Whether you think it has been achieved or not, do believe in principle that there are limits to transparency to be achieved?

 

Good point. How do you know when tranparency is achieved?

[STC]

Why stop there? We can also get better ears. 

 

https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2014/11/this-hearing-aid-might-actually-be-better-than-a-human-ear/

[STC]

4 hours ago, esldude said:

Well for some pieces of gear when you can insert or remove it from the chain of reproduction and hear no change.  For others it would be a comparison where you listen to different gear level matched side by side and see if you hear a difference.  This is better done without knowing which is which imo.  A blind test of people with good hearing is another way.  Though actually not much useful to audiophiles in practice.  Designing gear beyond limits laid out by more rigorous academic hearing research is another approach.  If you get gear that works accurately in a measured sense down to the limits of physics.

 

Of course these typically don't convince audiophiles.

 

Unfortunately, this method is not consistent. You can spend months perfecting a reproduction of your favorite tracks only to discover that the sound is not perfect for another familiar track later.

 

Audio got no standard of reference. No human voice is alike and they are so unique that it can be used as voice recognition. There is no standard piano sound. The acoustic piano sound is different than a digital piano. Even a live string quartet is going to sound different and possibly horrible in your room. In short, the natural live sound is not consistent and varies according to the venue/surrounding.  A live guitar performance in your living room is going to sound different in your music listening room. There is no absolute reference in audio. It is always depended on your surrounding.

 

The next hurdle is reproducing the recorded sound in your system. All sound in nature is essential mono. There is no stereo sound. All reproduction using Stereophonics replay is inherently flawed. We have just learned to accept them as natural.  Stereo sound will always sound veiled but just like many things in life, after years of stereo sound exposure, we have learned to filter away the flaws. It is just like we have learned to ignore the nose which is always in our field of vision. If you have an original mono recording (one channel) of solo vocalist, listen to that with one speaker and then with two speakers and the veil will become apparent to you.

 

The idea of reproducing the sound in your room is to recreate high fidelity sound matching your room. It should sound like listening to actual performance with no hint of unnaturalness. A string quartet should sound like a string quartet performed in real space of the venue. That the transparency in audio we should go after, IMHO.

 

[STC]

34 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

" Sound like listening to actual performance with no hint of unnaturalness" also gives a specific listening characteristic with mono sound over stereo speakers - I have used other ways of describing this, but an apt one in this case is that it presents as if you had a single speaker in front of you, which is on rails, from left to right, and this mono source moves as you do, from left to right, tracking you as you move around, being always being in front of you, with respect to the real speakers.

 

 

I have to agree with Esldude reply to this. The source can move but not necessarily the same direction as yours. Occasionally, I do get the effect you described when someone is nagging but even then it is usually from the side or back.