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

[sandyk]

11 minutes ago, Confused said:

That said, I think Mark’s blind test is legitimate for giving a good idea of a red book versus hi res comparison,

 

High Resolution LPCM does not stop at 24/96 as Mark Waldrep's LPCM recordings do.

Some like myself,find for example, that Barry Diament's recordings in 24/192, with genuine musical content to >55kHz (!)

sound a little better than the same in 24/96. There are also some recordings available as high as 384kHz.

I note also that Mark Waldrep is now recording in DSD as well.

[mansr]

23 minutes ago, sandyk said:

Diament's recordings in 24/192, with genuine musical content to >55kHz (!)

How do you know it's genuine when you can't hear it?

[JoeWhip]

I have known Mark Waldrep for quite a few years now. I do not believe he records in DSD. 

[Allan F]

 

8 minutes ago, JoeWhip said:

I have known Mark Waldrep for quite a few years now. I do not believe he records in DSD. 

 

Dunno if he has implemented it but: AIX Records to Include DSD

[Archimago]

3 hours ago, sandyk said:

 

 Since when has the norm among the community got to do with Audiophiles ? Why should Audiophiles accept what is "good enough" based on the data points of the masses, not all of whom will have equipment of the calibre needed to extract the best from our recordings ?

 

This speaks to what I wrote about above with the self-selection of audiophiles who submit blind test results.

 

"Good enough" for the masses is not what I'm referring to. If the kinds of guys that typically take the blind tests show an inability to differentiate something like 24-bit vs. 16-bit audio or if they are not able to differentiate what would constitute extremely high levels of harmonic distortion for the present test, then it says something about the perceptual limits even of this unique group of audiophiles.

 

Before the formal McGill test on MQA, my results already suggested that people could not tell the difference between decoded MQA and 24/96. Likewise, before the current general belief that 24-bit audio is unnecessary for the home, my test already showed that even guys who owned expensive gear were not able to tell a difference. Even those who felt they were "very sure" they heard differences were generally no better than if they had guessed.

 

Furthermore, I can look into the results and identify the "golden ears" subgroup. When I can, I will contact these people and try to see what made them specially gifted to detect differences - more often than not, the ability is actually a curse (ie. they are able to hear the difference between MP3 and lossless because of previous hearing damage!).

 

When there is enough data and good number of submissions, one can go beyond just the "norm" and actually look for "talent".

 

Quote

Good enough has got us low bit rate .aac encoded audio ,and MQA  for example .

 Note also the last paragraph of my reply, where Audiophiles and the technical people working together can achieve far more than any statistics can ever do. If you have been reading some of John Dyson's posts you would be aware that a small group of members (currently 10) from both sides are already doing this via Group PMs , and achieving some truly spectacular results with quite a few older recordings, which also shows  that we don't need new formats like the flawed MQA to achieve the highest possible quality from the CD medium. 

 

P.S. 

 We also appear to be rewriting some of the text book limitations of hearing, where we are now frequently noticing differences of the order of 0.4dB (or lower) !!!

 

Sounds good. Hope the project is going well and looking forward to the results!

 

0.4dB??? I typically make sure average amplitude differences are <0.1dB for blind tests between samples if I can. I have seen people show bias between tracks at 0.1dB difference.

[sandyk]

12 minutes ago, Archimago said:

0.4dB??? I typically make sure average amplitude differences are <0.1dB for blind tests between samples if I can. I have seen people show bias between tracks at 0.1dB difference.

Yes, we have heard differences that low too. This was just a very recent example for the latest decoding of Suzanne Vega- Solitude Standing.

 It's good to see you acknowledge these perceived low levels because several members sneer when you suggest this.

Quote

 When I can, I will contact these people and try to see what made them specially gifted to detect differences - more often than not, the ability is actually a curse (ie. they are able to hear the difference between MP3 and lossless because of previous hearing damage!).

As I mentioned previously, this does apply to me too, but I also hear differences between well recorded 24/96 and 24/192 where the original recording was 24/192.

[Ralf11]

36 minutes ago, mansr said:

How do you know it's genuine when you can't hear it?

 

How do you know your "hearing" of differences is genuine when you don't test?

[sandyk]

42 minutes ago, mansr said:

How do you know it's genuine when you can't hear it?

 It is easily verified in an Audio Editing program that it isn't noise.

In this case Barry Diament also uses microphones that are only 1dB down at 40kHz.

[esldude]

16 hours ago, semente said:

 

I can't think of anything more tedious than comparing files of different resolution, except perhaps comparing the effects of cables...

 

I've done that once with PlayClassics' files, and that's it for me.

I doubt that any of these recordings is as good/fit-for-purpose anyway...

I'm not speaking of you in particular here.  We have regular reports to pick on example of the obvious difference footers for your speaker cable make.  Apparently it engages the interest of some audiophiles who claim a significantly different sound.  Yet record both conditions and let people pick what is different and it becomes tedious.  That tells you something.

[sandyk]

15 minutes ago, esldude said:

I'm not speaking of you in particular here.  We have regular reports to pick on example of the obvious difference footers for your speaker cable make.  Apparently it engages the interest of some audiophiles who claim a significantly different sound.  Yet record both conditions and let people pick what is different and it becomes tedious.  That tells you something.

 

 That your USB recorder and microphones aren't good enough perhaps ?

 (No, I don't use footers for speaker cables)

[Allan F]

19 hours ago, semente said:

I can't think of anything more tedious than comparing files of different resolution, except perhaps comparing the effects of cables.

 

However, while tedious, comparing the effects of cables can be a lot more rewarding in the long run. The results may have a positive impact on the sound quality of everything played by your system. Hopefully, it is not something that one does on anything even remotely approaching a regular basis. 

[marce]

9 hours ago, sandyk said:

 

High Resolution LPCM does not stop at 24/96 as Mark Waldrep's LPCM recordings do.

Some like myself,find for example, that Barry Diament's recordings in 24/192, with genuine musical content to >55kHz (!)

sound a little better than the same in 24/96. There are also some recordings available as high as 384kHz.

I note also that Mark Waldrep is now recording in DSD as well.

Why?

[sandyk]

1 hour ago, marce said:

Why?

#555 by Archimago appears to give some of the answers, but raises more questions. Moreover, it is often possible to train others to hear the same differences.

Quote

…...Furthermore, I can look into the results and identify the "golden ears" subgroup. When I can, I will contact these people and try to see what made them specially gifted to detect differences - more often than not, the ability is actually a curse (ie. they are able to hear the difference between MP3 and lossless because of previous hearing damage!).

 

[mansr]

11 hours ago, sandyk said:

 It is easily verified in an Audio Editing program that it isn't noise.

How do you know it's not distortion?

 

11 hours ago, sandyk said:

In this case Barry Diament also uses microphones that are only 1dB down at 40kHz.

What is the frequency response of your speakers?

[marce]

2 hours ago, sandyk said:

#555 by Archimago appears to give some of the answers, but raises more questions. Moreover, it is often possible to train others to hear the same differences.

 

I am on about content to 55kHz, wot is the point any modulation of sound within the human hearing range is already done.

I wonder how many real golden eareed people there are out there... I do remember reading a paper many years ago and the number was not huge. As for us older ones 14kHz is probably all we can hope for.

[pkane2001]

17 minutes ago, marce said:

I am on about content to 55kHz, wot is the point any modulation of sound within the human hearing range is already done.

I wonder how many real golden eareed people there are out there... I do remember reading a paper many years ago and the number was not huge. As for us older ones 14kHz is probably all we can hope for.

 

This was posted elsewhere... and yes, they used statistics, sorry! Not so golden ears in the golden years  Hey, at least I seem to be doing a little better than the average for my age group. 

 

Quote

A sample of 411 otologically normal men and women 16–70 years of age was assessed for both ears using a high-frequency audiometer (Fig. 2.3). The study showed that considerable high-frequency (>10 kHz) hearing loss already starts in the 30–39-year age group and increases considerably in the next decade for both females and males.

 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/high-frequency-hearing-loss

 

 

[JoeWhip]

14 hours ago, Allan F said:

 

 

Dunno if he has implemented it but: AIX Records to Include DSD

Watched the video. He does not say he records in DSD, just that he will be offering a DSD recordings from other labels on the revised itrax site. 

[Archimago]

7 hours ago, JoeWhip said:

Watched the video. He does not say he records in DSD, just that he will be offering a DSD recordings from other labels on the revised itrax site. 

 

From my discussions with Mark over the years and in person last September at RMAF 2019, clearly he's not a proponent of DSD.

[sandyk]

9 hours ago, mansr said:

How do you know it's not distortion?

 

What is the frequency response of your speakers?

 

You should already be aware that I mainly use headphones with a quoted response to 40kHz as I have stated it already on several occasions. In addition my HA has a -3dB response at 1.5mHz

.Quite a few members, including Jud, IIRC, have speakers that go close to that as well.

 

 

[JoeWhip]

3 minutes ago, Archimago said:

 

From my discussions with Mark over the years and in person last September at RMAF 2019, clearly he's not a proponent of DSD.

I have known a Mark for years and know that well. In fact we talked about that a good bit at CAF 2019. That is why I was surprised by the posting. Also, I don’t think that he is currently making any new recordings on the AIX label.

[Archimago]

Just now, JoeWhip said:

I have known a Mark for years and know that well. In fact we talked about that a good bit at CAF 2019. That is why I was surprised by the posting. Also, I don’t think that he is currently making any new recordings on the AIX label.

 

Yup. He mentioned he's not making new recordings at this time.

[Ralf11]

8 hours ago, marce said:

I am on about content to 55kHz, wot is the point any modulation of sound within the human hearing range is already done.

I wonder how many real golden eared people there are out there... I do remember reading a paper many years ago and the number was not huge. As for us older ones 14kHz is probably all we can hope for.

 

most characters follow a normal distribution curve - unless there is very strong selection on a trait, you can expect hearing to be distributed more or less like ht. is in a popn.

 

then there is the issue of hearing performance factors other than the high freq. limit (for sine waves)... a spectrum of golden colors if you will

[Archimago]

19 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

You should already be aware that I mainly use headphones with a quoted response to 40kHz as I have stated it already on several occasions. In addition my HA has a -3dB response at 1.5mHz

.Quite a few members, including Jud, IIRC, have speakers that go close to that as well.

 

 

 

@sandyk,

From your equipment list, I see you're using AudioTechnica ATH-W1000's right? I don't know about AT's specs and what they mean by 40kHz, but back in 2011, Tyll Hertsens measured some ATH-W1000x "Grandioso"s:

https://www.innerfidelity.com/images/AudioTechnicaATHW1000X.pdf

 

Frequency Response:

 

Looks like it must be at least -20dB by 30kHz.

 

%THD+N:

Nothing surprising there for headphone measurements and distortion amounts... 

 

I don't think it matter that your HA goes to 1.5MHz -3dB if these are your headphones (or any headphones!) :-).

 

[sandyk]

3 minutes ago, Archimago said:

 

@sandyk,

From your equipment list, I see you're using AudioTechnica ATH-W1000's right? I don't know about AT's specs and what they mean by 40kHz, but back in 2011, Tyll Hertsens measured some ATH-W1000x "Grandioso"s:

https://www.innerfidelity.com/images/AudioTechnicaATHW1000X.pdf

 

Frequency Response:

 

Looks like it must be at least -20dB by 30kHz.

 

%THD+N:

Nothing surprising there for headphone measurements and distortion amounts... 

 

I don't think it matter that your HA goes to 1.5MHz -3dB if these are your headphones (or any headphones!) :-).

 

They are currently ATH M70x . I will correct that

 We all appear to be missing the boat here. There has to be way more to it than simple frequency response, after all,I am almost 81, yet I am apparently still able to provide worthwhile input in John Dyson's research. I also have a 21mm benign Acoustic Neuroma pressing on my right ear canal, caused by >40 years with Telstra in Telephone Exchange maintenance..

[Archimago]

Just now, sandyk said:

They are currently ATH M70x . I will correct that

 We all appear to be missing the boat here. There has to be way more to it than simple frequency response, after all,I am almost 81, yet I am apparently still able to provide worthwhile input in John Dyson's research. I also have a 21mm benign Acoustic Neuroma pressing on my right ear canal, caused by >40 years with Telstra in Telephone Exchange maintenance..

 

Hope the acoustic neuroma is remaining stable over time, @sandyk.

 

To be honest, I don't know if we are truly "missing the boat" here at all. My experience and experiments tell me that we're actually not missing anything and that what is predicted by orthodox testing holds true for the vast majority of people, including audiophile hobbyists despite the apparent higher prevalence of "golden ear" claims.

 

Anyone can claim whatever they want online. If I claim "I have the ability to see into the infrared spectrum" and that I have "night vision" in pitch blackness, what should be your response? Should any of us assume to accept that person's claims? I hope not because it just doesn't seem to ring true with personal experience and what we know of the people around us! (Yeah, I know there are some studies suggesting sensitivity to near-infrared but we're talking experimental conditions and level of resolution not functional in real life.)

 

So too with these claims of hearing all kinds of things in audio... Should I assume that an 80 year old can perceive 20kHz (much less the idea that content to 40kHz makes a difference!) because that person said so when clearly such an ability is highly unlikely?

 

Extreme claims need evidence. This is partly also why I put out these blind tests. Those who believe they have excellent hearing acuity, please do the blind test like the current "high harmonic distortion" one. Honestly, @sandyk, if you take this test and submit your response in a way that I can identify your submission... And indeed you are able to identify the correct order of low --> high harmonic distortion samples at age 80 with an acoustic neuroma, I would certainly be impressed and will back you up on your hearing abilities!