Hi-Res - Does it matter? Blind Test by Mark Waldrep

[fas42]

3 hours ago, gmgraves said:

Now it is possible to optimize one’s system for vinyl playback because there are so many variables. There’s the ‘table itself, the arm, the cartridge, the phono preamp, all of these affect playback quality, but with digital, you really only have the DAC and will not just affect playback of Hi-Res material, but of standard resolution material as well. You can’t separate the two. It’s like trying to optimize your phonograph set-up for 45 RPM LPs over 33.3 RPM LPs. The same equipment plays both and there is simply nothing you can do to make your system favor one over the other.

As we seem to be caught in a circular argument, there is no need to respond, Frank. I have nothing more to say on the subject, and you just seem to be restating your position, and I simply do not buy your conclusions. See you in another thread!

 

For someone who has played with electronics, George, you don't seem to have much insight as to what's going on 😉 ...you see, a DAC is a machine, just like a TT is a machine - and everyone who plays with machines knows that a particular beast will just do a better job with some 'materials', input for a myriad number of perhaps subtle reasons. Including making 45 RPM sound better than 33.3 RPM - didn't you know there is a whole mini industry doing special issues of 45's versions of 33 RPM material - because they "sound better", 😉.

 

It appears that you have a belief that digital audio, and DACs, are some type of impenetrable "magic" - not for mortal men to try and fathom the dark secrets within ... well, I don't have time for sort of thinking; a $100,000 DAC in a rig that makes it sound like crap is a piece of crap - and should be thrown in the bin if you "can't fix it". There are always subtleties that can make or break kit - my interest is in understanding why this occurs, in each particular instance.

[fas42]

Talking of hearing, I'm now at an age where I'm certainly aware of changes in how I perceive sounds - multi-tasking is one of the losses I really notice; if someone is talking to me about something I need to take notice of, and the TV is going at the same time - this I find harder to deal with, as compared to only a couple of years ago.

[gmgraves]

3 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

For someone who has played with electronics, George, you don't seem to have much insight as to what's going on 😉 ...you see, a DAC is a machine, just like a TT is a machine - and everyone who plays with machines knows that a particular beast will just do a better job with some 'materials', input for a myriad number of perhaps subtle reasons. Including making 45 RPM sound better than 33.3 RPM - didn't you know there is a whole mini industry doing special issues of 45's versions of 33 RPM material - because they "sound better", 😉.

 

It appears that you have a belief that digital audio, and DACs, are some type of impenetrable "magic" - not for mortal men to try and fathom the dark secrets within ... well, I don't have time for sort of thinking; a $100,000 DAC in a rig that makes it sound like crap is a piece of crap - and should be thrown in the bin if you "can't fix it". There are always subtleties that can make or break kit - my interest is in understanding why this occurs, in each particular instance.

I have no such belief. But you and I are simply not communicating on this issue, and beyond that, I have no further comment to offer except to say that I haven’t “played” with electronics, I happen to have a degree in the field and many years as a circuit designer and semiconductor engineer under my belt. 

[fas42]

Fair enough.

[Archimago]

On 11/5/2019 at 1:47 PM, The Computer Audiophile said:

Interesting. 
 

When I talked to Archimago at Axpona he mentioned the possibility that people with certain types of hearing damage may be prone to hearing high resolution files. This was only based on his very very very limited sample, but it’s kind of interesting. 

 

Yeah, this was RMAF in September when we spoke, @The Computer Audiophile...

 

Based on my online bind tests over the years with MP3 vs. lossless and MQA vs. Hi-Res Lossless particularly, I reached out to some of my "golden ears" folks who were able to consistently hear differences. What I noticed was that there was a distinct group of folks who seemed to hear the difference probably because they had abnormal hearing. For example, one fellow admitted that he had hearing damage from previous injury so he's missing certain frequencies and so could tell the difference between what would normally be very similar sounding material to most of us. Another fellow found that a certain signal consistently made his tinnitus worse so could differentiate them (this could have been MQA 🙂).

 

This discussion happened with Mark Waldrep at his booth and I encouraged Mark to follow-up on this. Maybe he can specifically followup with the folks in his blind test who perform exceptionally well and see if there is a similar finding...

 

On 11/6/2019 at 12:31 PM, mcgillroy said:

The reputable German computer mag c‘t did an MP3 hearing test ca. 2006 where they had one participant with a very high success rate.

Turned out he had a hearing damage and he was able to identify certain phasing artifacts of MP3 encoders. If I am not mistaken the person also worked in the audio field, perhaps on hearing aids.

 

The test was done on professional equipment in a recording studio.

 

Maybe some German reader can find the particular article.

 

Yup. Probably this kind of phenomenon happening in some of the folks I talked to as well. Of course, being long distance blind tests, I had no way to examine what kind of hearing anomalies these individuals had.

 

What this has taught me is that even if someone claims to be a "golden ear" audiophile and in fact can differentiate clearly between MP3 vs. lossless, or hi-res, it's important NOT to feel envious or think that one can or should aspire to this... It might in fact be the complete opposite and you really do not want that guy's hearing ability! 😉

[The Computer Audiophile]

6 minutes ago, Archimago said:

 

Yeah, this was RMAF in September when we spoke, @The Computer Audiophile...

 

Based on my online bind tests over the years with MP3 vs. lossless and MQA vs. Hi-Res Lossless particularly, I reached out to some of my "golden ears" folks who were able to consistently hear differences. What I noticed was that there was a distinct group of folks who seemed to hear the difference probably because they had abnormal hearing. For example, one fellow admitted that he had hearing damage from previous injury so he's missing certain frequencies and so could tell the difference between what would normally be very similar sounding material to most of us. Another fellow found that a certain signal consistently made his tinnitus worse so could differentiate them (this could have been MQA 🙂.

 

This discussion happened with Mark Waldrep at his booth and I encouraged Mark to follow-up on this. Maybe he can specifically followup with the folks in his blind test who perform exceptionally well and see if there is a similar finding...

 

 

Yup. Probably this kind of phenomenon happening in some of the folks I talked to as well. Of course, being long distance blind tests, I had no way to examine what kind of hearing anomalies these individuals had.

 

What this has taught me is that even if someone claims to be a "golden ear" audiophile and in fact can differentiate clearly between MP3 vs. lossless, or hi-res, it's important NOT to feel envious or think that one can or should aspire to this... It might in fact be the complete opposite and you really do not want that guy's hearing ability! 😉

Thanks for the correction. RMAF of course :~)

 

Very interesting topic.

 

Note to self, stop neurotic audiophiles form purposely damaging hearing in order to pass blind high resolution test. 

[Archimago]

12 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Thanks for the correction. RMAF of course :~)

 

Very interesting topic.

 

Note to self, stop neurotic audiophiles form purposely damaging hearing in order to pass blind high resolution test. 

🙂

 

Looks like you've been to a few too many audiophile shows Chris...

 

As per other aspects of human cognition and perception, once we start looking at the extremes, deviating from the "neurotypical", we are bound to find a few cases here and there of remarkable abilities.

 

I suspect most of us would not necessarily desire to have such abilities if there is a price to pay like being able to enjoy the music and experience how it was meant to be heard! YMMV.

[Ralf11]

most traits follow a bell shaped curve, or nearly so - not surprising when you realize most traits are quantitative or partly quantitative (not the Mendelian inheritance they "lied" to you about as a freshman)

[fas42]

Blokes spend too much time 'analysing' what to listen to - females who couldn't give a damn about the audiophile game, casually listening, are usually spot on; when it's 'off' they're quickly bored, and move on; when it's 'right', they hang around, and ask for other stuff to be played ...

[Rexp]

8 hours ago, Archimago said:

🙂

 

Looks like you've been to a few too many audiophile shows Chris...

 

As per other aspects of human cognition and perception, once we start looking at the extremes, deviating from the "neurotypical", we are bound to find a few cases here and there of remarkable abilities.

 

I suspect most of us would not necessarily desire to have such abilities if there is a price to pay like being able to enjoy the music and experience how it was meant to be heard! YMMV.

It's a bit like wine, if you enjoy plonk, good for you, its much cheaper than a good Bordeaux, but please know you are not a connoisseur and are missing out big time and you're not qualified to advise others. 

[Rt66indierock]

2 hours ago, Rexp said:

It's a bit like wine, if you enjoy plonk, good for you, its much cheaper than a good Bordeaux, but please know you are not a connoisseur and are missing out big time and you're not qualified to advise others. 

Or as I would say if you can’t tell me why  the former lead singer of the band Tool and Highway 47 are important in the wine world you are Just a wine snob. And unqualified.

[Ralf11]

2 hours ago, Rexp said:

 you are not a connoisseur

 

what kind of sewer?

[Rexp]

43 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

Or as I would say if you can’t tell me why  the former lead singer of the band Tool and Highway 47 are important in the wine world you are Just a wine snob. And unqualified.

A connoisseur is an expert in matters of taste, and a wine snob presumably buys wine on the basis of the label or cost, not sure your point? 

[Rt66indierock]

6 hours ago, Rexp said:

A connoisseur is an expert in matters of taste, and a wine snob presumably buys wine on the basis of the label or cost, not sure your point? 

I questioned your expertise.

[Ralf11]

There are no experts in matters of taste.

 

I hope you are familiar with the very strong effects of confirmation bias on wine "experts" tasting perceptions...  Hint: the label is critical.

 

Not to say that there aren't real differences.  I really like that Romanee plonk.

[Miska]

1 hour ago, Ralf11 said:

There are no experts in matters of taste.

 

I hope you are familiar with the very strong effects of confirmation bias on wine "experts" tasting perceptions...  Hint: the label is critical.

 

Not to say that there aren't real differences.  I really like that Romanee plonk.

 

I'm bad person, I don't value labels or brands. I value my taste. But certainly wines taste different. And so do whiskies and dark rums. Shiraz and Pinot Noir don't taste the same. And there's no way to objectively state that one wine is better than the other.

 

It is like one scientist not long ago stating in a magazine that "all salts taste the same". Meaning that all pure NaCl tastes the same. He continued adding that "impurities in some salts may make it taste different". He quite didn't get that those "impurities" were the essential difference between rock salt and sea salt. And that those were precisely the small but very important difference. And that the 99% of NaCl was the uninteresting boring and largely unimportant side detail.

 

[Ralf11]

it may not be the impurities but the grain size for salts

 

mea culpa, I have 3 different kinds of salt + regular salt for cooking....

[marce]

8 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

it may not be the impurities but the grain size for salts

 

mea culpa, I have 3 different kinds of salt + regular salt for cooking....

I concur, I have different grain sizes, for a salt and pepper steak or chicken I use large grains and larger lumps of pepper, you get a stronger hit of each as you encounter a piece, whereas finely ground pepper and salt gives you an overall salty/peppery taste. Depends on the dish and the taste experience you want.

A good example of expectation bias, was people being given cheese and onion in a salt and vinegar packet, they all got the flavour wrong!

[Rexp]

1 hour ago, marce said:

I concur, I have different grain sizes, for a salt and pepper steak or chicken I use large grains and larger lumps of pepper, you get a stronger hit of each as you encounter a piece, whereas finely ground pepper and salt gives you an overall salty/peppery taste. Depends on the dish and the taste experience you want.

A good example of expectation bias, was people being given cheese and onion in a salt and vinegar packet, they all got the flavour wrong!

So you're an expert in the taste of salt? I mean in comparison to the average Joe who could care less? 

[mansr]

1 hour ago, marce said:

A good example of expectation bias, was people being given cheese and onion in a salt and vinegar packet, they all got the flavour wrong!

Which brand? If it was the boring Walkers, I'm not surprised. There's hardly any correlation between the flavour name and the actual ingredients.

[pkane2001]

1 hour ago, Rexp said:

So you're an expert in the taste of salt? I mean in comparison to the average Joe who could care less? 

 

One wouldn’t care only if their mouth is not resolving enough.

[Confused]

My apologies for the on topic post here, but has this "Hi-res" test actually started yet?  I signed up a while ago, but heard nothing since.  Has the test not started or have I missed something?

 

I notice that most posters in this thread have very established views, but I am interested in trying the test myself, if only for my own interest in what I can discern with my own ears in my own system.

 

I much prefer New World wines to a French Bordeaux by the way, but that's just me.

[jabbr]

On 11/7/2019 at 10:44 PM, Archimago said:

Based on my online bind tests over the years with MP3 vs. lossless and MQA vs. Hi-Res Lossless particularly, I reached out to some of my "golden ears" folks who were able to consistently hear differences. What I noticed was that there was a distinct group of folks who seemed to hear the difference probably because they had abnormal hearing. For example, one fellow admitted that he had hearing damage from previous injury so he's missing certain frequencies and so could tell the difference between what would normally be very similar sounding material to most of us. Another fellow found that a certain signal consistently made his tinnitus worse so could differentiate them (this could have been MQA 🙂).

 

It has been reported in the literature that ultrasonics can affect tinnitus. This is by definition a non-linear effect ie the ultrasonics are not directly heard, rather modulate the hearing system. 

 

The reason this is so important is that it provides a clear cut mechanism for the audibility of ultrasonics — not that you can hear, for example, a 30 kHz tone, rather that the full range sound of a cymbal might sound different than the 20 kHz stopband filtered recording of this cymbal. 

 

There are many people who are certain that Redbook CD contains all that we can possibly hear because of something they read about concerning the cochlea. The fact that ultrasonics modulate hearing means this belief is not grounded in certainty. 

[esldude]

3 hours ago, jabbr said:

 

It has been reported in the literature that ultrasonics can affect tinnitus. This is by definition a non-linear effect ie the ultrasonics are not directly heard, rather modulate the hearing system. 

 

The reason this is so important is that it provides a clear cut mechanism for the audibility of ultrasonics — not that you can hear, for example, a 30 kHz tone, rather that the full range sound of a cymbal might sound different than the 20 kHz stopband filtered recording of this cymbal. 

 

There are many people who are certain that Redbook CD contains all that we can possibly hear because of something they read about concerning the cochlea. The fact that ultrasonics modulate hearing means this belief is not grounded in certainty. 

Wasn't this only at very high sound levels where the ultrasound was making the air non linear?

[Miska]

4 hours ago, jabbr said:

The reason this is so important is that it provides a clear cut mechanism for the audibility of ultrasonics — not that you can hear, for example, a 30 kHz tone, rather that the full range sound of a cymbal might sound different than the 20 kHz stopband filtered recording of this cymbal. 

 

I'm personally along the lines of Oohashi research. If I take out just the ultrasonic part, I cannot hear anything. But I can hear difference between content that has ultrasonics removed vs content that has ultrasonics left intact. So the baseband part is fundamental, with it's extension.

 

My view is that hearing is not like FFT splitting frequencies apart and analyzing those independently of each other. Instead, it is more like wavelet analysis where things are matched against certain custom filters. For example things like transient leading edges. There frequency content defines shape of the initial attack wavelet. If you remove any part of it, it breaks down more or less; the shape doesn't match anymore. IOW, it is different to have separate uncorrelated discrete tones, vs having correlated combination of harmonics that define exact shape of a waveform.

 

There's also some research, that if you remove initial attack phase of instrument sound, and leave only the steady state part, it becomes much harder to detect the actual instruments. Thus the initial attack part of the signal is very fundamental.