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

[semente]

John Atkinson wrapped the technical evaluation of the T+A DAC 8 DSD with the following comment:

 

Measuring the T+A DAC 8 DSD, I was reminded of something David Rich, erstwhile reviewer for The Audio Critic, wrote at the beginning of this century: "Eventually all we'll be doing is writing about the sounds of digital filters." With the DAC 8 DSD's measured behavior and sound quality so dependent on which of its four digital filters is in use, it's difficult to make any absolute value judgment.

 

Perhaps it's not absurd to speculate that higher than 48kHz sample-rates have the potential to render the filtering inaudible.

 

Wouldn't that be great?

[sandyk]

28 minutes ago, Archimago said:

 

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

 

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!

 

 Yes, the Acoustic Neuroma has remained stable for quite a few years now.

 I have already stated that I have no interest in participating in more statistics gathering, preferring to work in an area that may benefit people, NOT confirm what is already pretty well known . Fairly recently I also participated in a challenge demanded of me by FrederickV, and had NO problems hearing and describing the differences between the original 24/96 and the downsampled version in a 24/96 container.

Nowhere do I claim to be able to directly hear these very high frequencies, ONLY them being there or NOT being there.  Neither do I feel the need for further confirmation of what I have previously reported. 

If you don't accept the results of 6 correctly performed sessions of DBTs, as well as the reports from Barry Diament and quite a few other members, then that's your problem, not mine. 

You will now also have seen that I have provided further examples of this including Videos. 

 

[fas42]

19 hours ago, Allan F said:

 

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. 

 

There is only one approach that works in the long term, I've found ... it is a completely useless. pointless exercise trying to determine whether there is a difference between two approaches, in any area ... all that matters is whether one approach actually reduces the level of distortion or noise in what you're hearing - anything else is counting angels on the head of that, ummm ...

[Archimago]

1 hour ago, sandyk said:

 

 Yes, the Acoustic Neuroma has remained stable for quite a few years now.

 

Good to hear.

 

1 hour ago, sandyk said:

 I have already stated that I have no interest in participating in more statistics gathering, preferring to work in an area that may benefit people, NOT confirm what is already pretty well known . Fairly recently I also participated in a challenge demanded of me by FrederickV, and had NO problems hearing and describing the differences between the original 24/96 and the downsampled version in a 24/96 container.

 

Not sure I'll agree that this is "pretty well known" but hey, if this is true @FredericV, that's pretty cool.

 

1 hour ago, sandyk said:

Nowhere do I claim to be able to directly hear these very high frequencies, ONLY them being there or NOT being there.  Neither do I feel the need for further confirmation of what I have previously reported. 

If you don't accept the results of 6 correctly performed sessions of DBTs, as well as the reports from Barry Diament and quite a few other members, then that's your problem, not mine. 

You will now also have seen that I have provided further examples of this including Videos. 

 

 

Guess I must have missed this... What DBT's and which videos?

[Ralf11]

it's not that you can't see into the infrared, it's the crummy resolution in the IR that really matters

 

 

if you don't believe me, just ask a pit viper

[sandyk]

2 hours ago, Archimago said:

Guess I must have missed this... What DBT's and which videos?

Archimago

 I will take this to PM

 

Alex

[marce]

15 hours 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.

 

 

But not ears!

[sandyk]

8 hours ago, marce said:

But not ears!

 So according to you, Hi Res and DSD are a complete waste of time, and 16/44.1 is as good as it gets.

 You are probably a Climate Change Denier too ? 

[Ralf11]

Sandy, are you posting from Christmas Island?

[Rexp]

I would say hi-res is indeed a waste of time, what do we think of this, recorded in 1979?   https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1YpJOYP8Lx4Wk9QZm9NdUF6dzQ/view?usp=drivesdk

[sandyk]

21 minutes ago, Rexp said:

I would say hi-res is indeed a waste of time, what do we think of this, recorded in 1979?   https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1YpJOYP8Lx4Wk9QZm9NdUF6dzQ/view?usp=drivesdk

 

 Mediocre ?

[marce]

11 hours ago, sandyk said:

 So according to you, Hi Res and DSD are a complete waste of time, and 16/44.1 is as good as it gets.

 You are probably a Climate Change Denier too ? 

Please keep the conversation focused, did I mention high res, no. I am referring to content above 20kHz. That we cannot hear and is pointless on a recording.

[marce]

13 hours ago, sandyk said:

You are probably a Climate Change Denier too ? 

Yes I blame it all on Earth's Axial precession and those bloody scientist with their measurements and physics.

Statistically you use the D button more than the rest of the forum put together, I would be worried about RSI😊.

Sorry I forgot how old we all are, content above 14kHz is stretching it for us old people...

[sandyk]

28 minutes ago, marce said:

Statistically you use the D button more than the rest of the forum put together

 

It's preferable to continuing pointless discussions with closed minded know-it-alls !

 

 I most certainly have greatly reduced sine wave response to you even, but I still have no trouble hearing the differences between FredericV's X and Y files, with the original 24/96 down converted to 16/44.1 and both put in the same 24/96 containers.

Let's see how good YOU are ! The links still work and are :

http://klinktbeter.be/hushhush/x.wav
http://klinktbeter.be/hushhush/y.wav

 

BTW,  Archimago has also reported that people with hearing damage are often able to hear things that others are unable to hear .

 

[marce]

28 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

 

 

BTW,  Archimago has also reported that people with hearing damage are often able to hear things that others are unable to hear .

 

Yes I hear voices in my head...

They tend to pick up on different things , looked into it quite a lot over the years as my Son has a neurotical deafness problem with big dips at 6kHz and 8kHz (cant find his curves as I am at work), but watched him go through speech therapy from the age of 3 to 13 to overcome the problem. Try playback with these frequencies (or other heavily attenuated, its interesting what you pick up on, bit like Bell telephone transmissions all being harmonics of the human voice).

Will try the files tonight when I find my headphones.

[John Dyson]

About Alex' comment from Archimago that hearing damage can make certain aspects of sound more or less obvious.   I have 100%, definitely found that to be the case for myself.  A few months ago, I had some hearing damage worse than usual, and the damage changed my perception of sound in a way that certain kinds of distortion became more obvious.

 

I am not sure that there is normally an improvement in senstivity to certain things after hearing damage, but instead such hearing damage changes the perception in the brain/hearing system as a whole.  The change in empahsis is like moving a veil from one place to the other.

 

In my case, the loss of HF (as I remember) enabled me to be hyper sensitive to MD/IMD in the midrange where I would not normally be quite as sensitive.   I am sure that my EARS could hear the MD/IMD all along, but there appeared to be a hearing system re-emphasis such that the MD/IMD was more obvious.

 

Maybe a re-allocation of mental/neurological processes to the MF range because of the rather gross loss of HF content?   Almost like the loss of HF content freed up some 'cpu power' for detecting MD/IMD in the midrange???

 

I do know that distraction of any kind makes me less able to discern distortion, and maybe there is only so much CPU available for audio processing in the brain/hearing system?

 

John

 

[mansr]

If you have a hearing impairment at specific frequencies, then obviously sounds at those frequencies will not be able to mask (weaker) sounds that would be imperceptible with normal hearing. This could have interesting implications for perceptual codecs like mp3 that rely on masking both to discard parts of the input and to hide artefacts they introduced. When the masking frequency is removed, what remains may well be quite distorted by the encoder. None of that suggests in any way that ultrasonic frequencies are ever audible to anyone.

 

Regarding normal age related hearing loss, a person with an upper limit of, say, 12 kHz who is trained in listening for distortion may well be better than an untrained young person at detecting it as long as it falls in the frequency range they can still hear. There is nothing remarkable about that. It also does not suggest that the older person would somehow be able to hear ultrasonics at 50 kHz.

 

When the CD format was created, the parameters (sample rate and resolution) were chosen such that it could capture any sound reasonably audible to humans. Had studies shown that humans could hear up to 30 kHz, they would have used a higher sample rate (and perhaps made the discs larger). Why is this so difficult for some to accept?

[audiobomber]

I know for certain that I cannot hear to 20kHz. Could it be that higher sample rates sound better because interpolation is more accurate?

[John Dyson]

1 hour ago, audiobomber said:

I know for certain that I cannot hear to 20kHz. Could it be that higher sample rates sound better because interpolation is more accurate?

When changing sample rates, there can be a lot of variables other than a theoretically perfect sample rate conversion.   Also, before making the claim that one or the other sounds better, a carefully constructed and well controlled double blind test would be helpful before even getting started.

 

One more thing -- sometimes defects (or technically less-good audio) can sound better than perfect audio.  How would one argue for or against this claim?  Double blind test.   One should not try to use their own idea of 'common sense' to mislead themselves either way.  Such 'common sense' will sometimes make a person, even if technically very knowledgeable into feeling foolish, even with the best intentions.

 

A good example of where the can be a significant difference in sound -- use of filters whose transition band and frequency response bumps change the sound.  This notion about the transition characteristics is one very reasonable explanation for the difference in linear phase and other kinds of filters, even given very similar transition bands.   If a filter is not linear phase .vs linear phase, the various components will arrive at different times -- along with signal level differences vs. frequency, each are a plausible technical reason for a sound difference.  Myself, with my old ears, I find that less than 0.1dB difference in some frequency ranges make a very noticeable difference.  It is not a matter of absolute level difference, but instead the difference results from the relative levels of constituent signals in the recording, depending on the content.

 

Instead of a part-time avocation, I *critically* listen to audio for working-day time lengths for well over 40Hrs/wk, and after a LOT of experience, it is amazing about the variables that people don't naturally consider when trying to evaluate various qualities of a recording or a system.  After reading this, please don't get the idea that I am 'set in my ways', and 'just don't know' -- I believe that there is plenty of evidence that I am accepting of new or different ideas, and have been able to  publically change my mind and accept my own sense of 'feeling foolish'.

 

Being relentlessly scientific would eliminate a lot of controversy.  The key is that 'being scientific' definitely doesn't mean 'being closed to new ideas that hadn't been previously considered.'   Sometimes using good scientific method is not the same as making absolute technical claims based on knowledge from an EE201 class.   Learning never stops, even for experts.

 

John

 

[Sonicularity]

1 hour ago, John Dyson said:

A good example of where the can be a significant difference in sound -- use of filters whose transition band and frequency response bumps change the sound.  This notion about the transition characteristics is one very reasonable explanation for the difference in linear phase and other kinds of filters, even given very similar transition bands.   If a filter is not linear phase .vs linear phase, the various components will arrive at different times -- along with signal level differences vs. frequency, each are a plausible technical reason for a sound difference.  Myself, with my old ears, I find that less than 0.1dB difference in some frequency ranges make a very noticeable difference.  It is not a matter of absolute level difference, but instead the difference results from the relative levels of constituent signals in the recording, depending on the content.

 

 

A .1dB (SPL) difference would equate to just over a centimeter in distance from the reference source. In what context is this difference very noticeable?  

[audiobomber]

@John Dyson Have you read the initial post? This thread is about a double blind test of true vs. faux 96/24 files. I heard differences and submitted my results. I'm waiting now to hear the outcomes.  

[John Dyson]

3 hours ago, audiobomber said:

@John Dyson Have you read the initial post? This thread is about a double blind test of true vs. faux 96/24 files. I heard differences and submitted my results. I'm waiting now to hear the outcomes.  

I was following up on a comment made.  I am arguing for careful comparison, essentially supporting your request.

 

John

 

[John Dyson]

3 hours ago, Sonicularity said:

 

A .1dB (SPL) difference would equate to just over a centimeter in distance from the reference source. In what context is this difference very noticeable?  

Again, this is not a diversion away from the request for comparison, I am supporting the need for care.

 

Absolute SPL isnt usually very critical when compared to the relative modifications inside the signal.  Rate conversions/etc, don't really make a huge difference on levels -- the general levels can be made to match perfectly.  It is the relations between the components -- those are CRTICAL and fragile.

 

The absolute levels are much less important than the relative levels vs freq and somewhat phase for coherent elements (times of arrival) in the signal.  Very slight filter differences can change the relative levels for the signal components.  Be careful in the comparisons.

John

[Teresa]

On 1/28/2020 at 3:47 AM, mansr said:

...What is the frequency response of your speakers?

 

Not directed at me. However, my speakers are Infinity Reference Standard 7 Kappa, which have a frequency response of 37Hz - 45kHz +/- 3dB, they use EMIT tweeters.

 

On 1/29/2020 at 4:37 AM, marce said:

But not ears!

 

I don't believe that anyone has ever claimed that ultrasonic frequencies are heard by anyones ears but are experienced in other ways.

 

I think Chandos Records explanation is perhaps the closest to the truth:

 

Quote

...Recording at the 44.1 kHz sample rate, the highest frequencies generated will be around 22 kHz. That is 2 kHz higher than can be heard by the typical human with excellent hearing. However, in this case we use the 192 kHz sample rate, which will translate into the potentially highest frequency of 96 kHz. The theory is that, even though we do not hear it, audio energy exists, and it has an effect on the lower frequencies which we do hear , the higher sample rate thereby reproducing a better sound.

 

12 hours ago, mansr said:

 ...When the CD format was created, the parameters (sample rate and resolution) were chosen such that it could capture any sound reasonably audible to humans. Had studies shown that humans could hear up to 30 kHz, they would have used a higher sample rate (and perhaps made the discs larger). Why is this so difficult for some to accept?

 

Mans see the above quote from Chandos Records, I have never read a claim that humans can hear much above 20kHz. Teen age girls have been measured to as high as 23kHz, most adults can't hear above 15kHz and older adults it's closer to 12kHz or lower. Ultrasonic overtones may be important to how realistic the fundamental tones in the audible range sound.

[Hifi Bob]

Quote

The theory is that, even though we do not hear it, audio energy exists, and it has an effect on the lower frequencies which we do hear , the higher sample rate thereby reproducing a better sound.

 

Sorry, but this is nonsense.

 

“an effect on the lower frequencies which we do hear” would be non-linear distortion that might or might not occur dependent on the playback chain and room characteristics—i.e. quasi-randomly.  If a bit of thickening up of some sounds is desirable, much better to apply it during production—in the audible band, of course; this gives the best chance of the listener hearing it “as the artist intended”.