BLIND TEST INVITE: Do digital audio players sound different?

[Archimago]

Greetings guys and gals. For those who might be unaware, I opened up another one of these "Internet Blind Tests" this past weekend to have folks test out some samples and report back on what they hear. As you might recall, the last time we did this was back in 2017 with MQA.

The question this time is actually much more "basic". It's one where one can find all kinds of opinions but I have yet to see any clear data using modern devices which the consumer has easy access to. Do CD/digital players converting 16/44.1 sound the same/different? If so, how different?

Come and try the "Blind Test": INTERNET BLIND TEST: Do digital audio players sound different? (Playing 16/44.1 music.)

4 "blinded" devices to listen to from different classes, 4 sample excerpts to try. Which device(s) sound best? Is there a big difference? Lemme know! It might affirm your opinion, or maybe you'll be surprised by your results...

Test closes on April 30, 2019. Plenty of time to listen and let me know. As usual, once the test closes, I'll let you guys know which devices were used in the recordings and how people voted. Plus I'll show you the measured results as well. Feel free to spread this around.

Have fun listening!
Arch

[Archimago]

On 1/29/2019 at 3:46 AM, STC said:

Arch, thank you for your continuous effort to help those who want to be helped. Meanwhile, why not also include one with the volume being level matched. IME, that is usually the deciding factor provided other measurements do not produce any audible effect.

 

Thanks for the note STC. For this as you can see, the volume is closely matched :-).

 

 

[Archimago]

On 1/29/2019 at 5:46 AM, pkane2001 said:

 

The few files I checked all match to around 0.01dB or better.

 

@Archimago: were the digital players set to upsample 44.1K content to 96K? It appears that different filters were applied to different captures, all above 22.05KHz, with different noise shaping.

 

 

No special upsampling done. The >22kHz content are from the devices themselves and of course the small amount of modulator noise from the ADC.

 

I used the default settings (or at least a common setting) for the devices.

[Archimago]

On 1/29/2019 at 11:36 AM, Ralf11 said:

Thx for doing this!  Will give it a try as time permits

Ya got until end of April 🙂

 

[Archimago]

On 1/29/2019 at 2:23 PM, jabbr said:

Looks reasonable at first glance and since you are including Cécile McLorin Salvant as a test, the process might be enjoyable.

 

Question: how have you validated this as a test procedure? Its not immediately obvious to me that this works as a test procedure -- it might but I'm not sure -- might be valid in certain cases but not others etc etc

 

?What validation are we looking for in this experiment?

 

These are all 16-bit devices being recorded using the same equipment capable of greater resolution at higher-than-16/44. I know the cables I use and the ADC is capable of this higher resolution based on other tests. There are of course things I cannot control for but I trust that within reason, if there are very significant audible differences, the home listener with good equipment can at some level detect the significant.

 

All I can say is that when I reveal the devices used, I think audiophiles will recognize that the price points and types of devices being used are quite different! 

[Archimago]

On 1/29/2019 at 3:16 PM, Miska said:

 

It just barely catches the first image band between 22.05 - 44.1 kHz and a little bit of next between 44.1 kHz and 48 kHz. One of the devices is clean though. The ADC anti-alias filter fixes rest by improving the reconstruction by removing further image frequencies. Strongest image for most current DACs is around 352.8 kHz.

 

Of course playback system then defines how much overlay of these come back again at different frequencies from the DAC, since it is now running at different rate family than the original source.

 

This doesn't really replicate real device playback performance, but at least it captures some apparent differences. So it gives kind of hint or shadow of how the device actually did.

 

 

I'll have to disagree with you @Miska about this though: "This doesn't really replicate real device playback performance". IMO, high quality 24/96 capture is all we need especially with these devices...

[Archimago]

On 1/29/2019 at 9:08 PM, fas42 said:

Finally - after blundering doing the download several times, - had a quick listen ... for a particular track, very obvious differences between some of the devices, without going to any trouble optimising the playback. Now, what's causing that? Differences as mentioned above affecting my simple playback chain - or has the device playback variation been captured - will be interesting to do some exploring ...

 

Great @fas42. Looking forward to your submission... Hopefully it's already in :-).

 

 

[Archimago]

On 2/4/2019 at 1:38 AM, Miska said:

 

I think this test captures relevant phase errors, because largely their practical impact reaches only up to about 30 kHz.

 

I'm not sure which ADC anti-alias filter setting @Archimago used in this test... They also have some impact on the result, depending on the setting.

 

Hi @Miska, I'm using the RME's linear phase sharp filter at 24/96 on the ADC side.

 

Prior to putting up this test, I ran the devices through some testing of the filters and evaluated the performance with the music I chose. Yes, with test tones, I can see the filter imperfections quite well on a wideband capture to check for extreme amounts of high frequency material up to 384kHz.

 

This was not a problem with the music used.

 

Perhaps in the next couple weeks I'll put something up on the blog to show what I mean using what I would consider is the "worst" device in the blind test...

 

[Archimago]

On 2/6/2019 at 7:03 AM, Arpiben said:

@Archimago

On due time will you provide the four 16/44.1kHz original samples played in DAPs A,B,C&D?

 

Yes Arpiben,

Will put a package together with the original 16/44 music used when the test concludes...

 

[Archimago]

On 2/15/2019 at 6:36 AM, hopkins said:

I listened to all four versions of the four songs and could not tell them apart - but it did seem to me that the sound quality was quite poor. Complete lack of dynamics. To check, I downloaded from Qobuz a single track - the McLoren Salvant (a waste of one euro) - and played that back on my system, against the other versions. Even playing the Qobuz download (WAV, 16/44) at lower volume it is immediately obvious that the quality is far superior than the ADC conversion that has been done.

 

The test only reveals that DAC + ADC + DAC <> DAC ! Waste of time...

 

Strange experience ("complete lack of dynamics") since the dynamic range of the recordings remain the same as the original... Plus I can run the test samples through digital subtraction with the original and demonstrate excellent null with the high quality device in the 4 samples.

 

Perhaps you should double check your gear with 24/96 playback. Another possibility is that the Qobuz track has a different mastering from the CD I used and you prefer that version?

 

[Archimago]

BTW, I know there is an "official" 24/96 version of the McLorin Salvant out there...

 

Also, the 24-bit test samples are of lower level than the original by about -2dB. Make sure to volume correct if trying to compare with an original CD / download.

[Archimago]

As promised, some discussions about the digital filter effects with real music and specifically with the 16/44.1 test and a couple of the devices I used:

 

https://archimago.blogspot.com/2019/02/musings-measurements-on-why-2496.html

 

 

[Archimago]

Reminder... Blind test closes tomorrow!

 

Enter any last-24-hour results now :-).

 

[Archimago]

Big thank-you to the participants!

 

Unblinded:

http://archimago.blogspot.com/2019/05/blind-test-results-part-1-do-digital.html

 

Discussions to follow...