Presented without comment:
Archimago's Musings: 24-Bit vs. 16-Bit Audio Test - Part II: RESULTS & CONCLUSIONS
Archimago's Musings: 24-Bit vs. 16-Bit Audio Test - Part II: RESULTS & CONCLUSIONS
Study Shows Listeners Cannot Distinguish Between CD-Quality and High-Resolution Music
- Thread starter Orko
- Start date
Re: Study Shows Listeners Cannot Distinguish Between CD-Quality and High-Resolution M
There were separate tests for very expensive systems as well as for audio hardware reviewers who one assumes would have revealing systems. The results were the same... or, as in the case of the reviewers, worse.
There were separate tests for very expensive systems as well as for audio hardware reviewers who one assumes would have revealing systems. The results were the same... or, as in the case of the reviewers, worse.
Thad E Ginathom
Well-Known Member
Re: Study Shows Listeners Cannot Distinguish Between CD-Quality and High-Resolution M
Whenever these tests fail, it is not the underlying principles that are at fault, it is always the equipment or the ears. This must be understood. Spend enough on the equipment, have the right ears ...and the impossible becomes obvious.
Or, maybe the DAC in use is just not as good at 44.1 as it is at other sampling rates. Not every audiophile is suggestible: some of them must be hearing something.
The Two Great Blessings
That, without knowing it, the scientists who developed the basis of digital sound heaped upon the marketing departments of the 21st century:
1. They called it sampling. It's only samples: that means it's not all there; stuff is left out. Right?
2. That damned step graph that made us all think that digital audio actually worked that way.
Oh, and
3. The fact that 44.1kHz was probably not the ideal sampling rate to use anyway.
Whenever these tests fail, it is not the underlying principles that are at fault, it is always the equipment or the ears. This must be understood. Spend enough on the equipment, have the right ears ...and the impossible becomes obvious.
Or, maybe the DAC in use is just not as good at 44.1 as it is at other sampling rates. Not every audiophile is suggestible: some of them must be hearing something.
The Two Great Blessings
That, without knowing it, the scientists who developed the basis of digital sound heaped upon the marketing departments of the 21st century:
1. They called it sampling. It's only samples: that means it's not all there; stuff is left out. Right?
2. That damned step graph that made us all think that digital audio actually worked that way.
Oh, and
3. The fact that 44.1kHz was probably not the ideal sampling rate to use anyway.
Last edited:
Re: Study Shows Listeners Cannot Distinguish Between CD-Quality and High-Resolution M
It has been long established that HiRez got nothing do with musical enjoyment. Technically, vinyl is far inferior to CD and yet it somehow still considered to sound better than CD to many audiophiles. If you are reading the Ambiophonics thread, you would have realized that even in the 50s experiment conducted at the time using speakers and playback equipment( what can be considered primitive to our current technology) audience were unable to tell the difference between live and recorded music.
What matters about musical enjoyment is the ambiance. Therefor, it is no surprise to see people unable to distinguish beyond 16bit. The REDBOOK standard was set after an extensive research. That's our limit and anything more is pointless.
I have posted the link where the DSD files used in the experiment in thread 129 here.
It has been long established that HiRez got nothing do with musical enjoyment. Technically, vinyl is far inferior to CD and yet it somehow still considered to sound better than CD to many audiophiles. If you are reading the Ambiophonics thread, you would have realized that even in the 50s experiment conducted at the time using speakers and playback equipment( what can be considered primitive to our current technology) audience were unable to tell the difference between live and recorded music.
What matters about musical enjoyment is the ambiance. Therefor, it is no surprise to see people unable to distinguish beyond 16bit. The REDBOOK standard was set after an extensive research. That's our limit and anything more is pointless.
I have posted the link where the DSD files used in the experiment in thread 129 here.
Thad E Ginathom
Well-Known Member
Re: Study Shows Listeners Cannot Distinguish Between CD-Quality and High-Resolution M
Astonishingly enough these kind of tests, and results, go back even further, having been done with 78rpm discs played on acoustic-horn gramophones. Even then, the audio industry was already learning tricks, and the small orchestra had adjusted its sound to be as close as possible to the gramophone.
Astonishingly enough these kind of tests, and results, go back even further, having been done with 78rpm discs played on acoustic-horn gramophones. Even then, the audio industry was already learning tricks, and the small orchestra had adjusted its sound to be as close as possible to the gramophone.
Re: Study Shows Listeners Cannot Distinguish Between CD-Quality and High-Resolution M
I believe there is only one reference to Edison's demo and in the same article how subsequent modern demo conducted by Acoustic Research elimated the bias. In the experiment conducted by Briggs, the switch over noise gave away the trick. Ralph Glasgal of Ambiophonics Institute witnessed the demo. It is so fascinating that despite hard evidence that you can't tell the difference, many would want to argue and believe otherwise.
Can you walk in to a listening room and confidently tell whether the sound is 24 or 16 bit? It is a myth. HiRez is only useful for recording engineers. I have quite a good collection of SACd and DSD; and I know I couldn't tell the difference. Would challenge you to do the same.
But of course you will hear a difference when there is modification to the signal. When I bought the Mytek it did not sound as good as my Theta DAC until I realised the output of Mytek is 4V vs 2V. There are a lot of things involved in audio and unfortunately audiophiles rather believe reviewers' opinions rather than science.
I believe there is only one reference to Edison's demo and in the same article how subsequent modern demo conducted by Acoustic Research elimated the bias. In the experiment conducted by Briggs, the switch over noise gave away the trick. Ralph Glasgal of Ambiophonics Institute witnessed the demo. It is so fascinating that despite hard evidence that you can't tell the difference, many would want to argue and believe otherwise.
Can you walk in to a listening room and confidently tell whether the sound is 24 or 16 bit? It is a myth. HiRez is only useful for recording engineers. I have quite a good collection of SACd and DSD; and I know I couldn't tell the difference. Would challenge you to do the same.
But of course you will hear a difference when there is modification to the signal. When I bought the Mytek it did not sound as good as my Theta DAC until I realised the output of Mytek is 4V vs 2V. There are a lot of things involved in audio and unfortunately audiophiles rather believe reviewers' opinions rather than science.
Thad E Ginathom
Well-Known Member
Re: Study Shows Listeners Cannot Distinguish Between CD-Quality and High-Resolution M
But not because they have any misunderstandings (well, some do: they are not all engineers by training as well as profession) about something called "resolution." It is simply so that they can add more sound together and still have headroom.
But not because they have any misunderstandings (well, some do: they are not all engineers by training as well as profession) about something called "resolution." It is simply so that they can add more sound together and still have headroom.
Re: Study Shows Listeners Cannot Distinguish Between CD-Quality and High-Resolution M
Anyone with first hand experience of comparing NormalRez and HighRez in their own setup using the same song?
What's your experience?
Anyone with first hand experience of comparing NormalRez and HighRez in their own setup using the same song?
What's your experience?
sound_maestro
Member
Re: Study Shows Listeners Cannot Distinguish Between CD-Quality and High-Resolution M
Do 320kbps mp3 files really sound better? Take the test!
Do 320kbps mp3 files really sound better? Take the test!
Thad E Ginathom
Well-Known Member
Re: Study Shows Listeners Cannot Distinguish Between CD-Quality and High-Resolution M
Well, yes, except that "Rez" is not the word. I digitised some stuff at 16/44 and 24/96 and then spent a while trying to tell the difference. It's a few years ago (my hearing was better then) and it drove me mad because every time I thought I'd found something in the 24/96 that I wasn't getting in the 16/44, I went back ...and there it was. The more one listens to the same music, the more (or different) stuff one notices in it: that's part of music listening, but people don't admit that it happens, whether we want it to or not, when we are testing or critical-listening. It does.
I had barely started taking an interest in this stuff at that time. I didn't know much about blind testing, single or double or whatever. I think I got as far as clicking a mouse so I couldn't remember how many clicks, but, "sighted" or "slightly blind," I could not determine any reliable, repeatable difference. It was as much about self observation as sound observation.
Actually, at that time, I went ahead with the 96 --- on the basis that I might invite some bats for dinner, or that someone who could hear stuff I couldn't might listen one day. But that somebody is still going to be listening within the limits of being a human, not a dog or a bat, so it probably wasn't worth it.
As time goes on, I inevitably acquire 96K (and even 192, although I have to resample that) music. So far, from somebody's digitisation of vinyl to commercial downloads, I can say that it is all superb music. It is natural to get seduced by the numbers and start wondering. In these instances, I do not have 16/44 identical sources to compare, but generalising, when I turn to something that is 16/44 I find the foot is tapping and the soul is soaring just as much, and I cannot take seriously claims that, inherently, 34/96 is more or less "involving" than the 16/44 that has been keeping me happy for a decade or two.
I don't think I need to: I suspect that 128 would sound just as good to me as 320 --- but I have to admit that the areas in which I would start looking for differences, things like the tail of a cymbal crash, are where my HF hearing loss now makes it tough for me anyway.
Can I tell the difference if something is really low bit-rate, as in some internet streaming? Yes, certainly, even for speech, but only after a while. It is fatiguing. But I haven't blind tested.
Can I tell the difference when something seems to have gone wrong with my PC/mediaplayer resampling? Yes again: the desire is to stop listening, rather than to tap the foot. Regardless of up or down sampling.
This has become my music-listening rule/habit: whenever possible, do not even think of the file format, sample rate, etc --- just listen. I came to this when Wolfgang's Vault stopped selling FLACS and started selling 320 MP3. I was uncomfortable with that. The discomfort got in the way of the music, so I threw out the discomfort. but...
This is my rule when acquiring music: lossless compression. In a word, FLAC. But, when necessary, one just has to take what's available.
Yes, I doubt that I can tell the FLAC from the 320-MP3, but call it principle or call it prejudice, FLAC remains my choice. It is also a lot simpler to edit when need be. I am much more concerned with that than I am with the sample rate.
However, it might not have been the best choice for the standard. I've been reading some off JJ Johnston's posts (Gearslutz, Hydrogen Audio) and it seems that, not for any unhearable-by-humans-anyway high-frequency content, but for easier reconstruction filter design, Sixty would have been a better magic number than 44.1. The world didn't go there.
Well, yes, except that "Rez" is not the word. I digitised some stuff at 16/44 and 24/96 and then spent a while trying to tell the difference. It's a few years ago (my hearing was better then) and it drove me mad because every time I thought I'd found something in the 24/96 that I wasn't getting in the 16/44, I went back ...and there it was. The more one listens to the same music, the more (or different) stuff one notices in it: that's part of music listening, but people don't admit that it happens, whether we want it to or not, when we are testing or critical-listening. It does.
I had barely started taking an interest in this stuff at that time. I didn't know much about blind testing, single or double or whatever. I think I got as far as clicking a mouse so I couldn't remember how many clicks, but, "sighted" or "slightly blind," I could not determine any reliable, repeatable difference. It was as much about self observation as sound observation.
Actually, at that time, I went ahead with the 96 --- on the basis that I might invite some bats for dinner, or that someone who could hear stuff I couldn't might listen one day. But that somebody is still going to be listening within the limits of being a human, not a dog or a bat, so it probably wasn't worth it.
As time goes on, I inevitably acquire 96K (and even 192, although I have to resample that) music. So far, from somebody's digitisation of vinyl to commercial downloads, I can say that it is all superb music. It is natural to get seduced by the numbers and start wondering. In these instances, I do not have 16/44 identical sources to compare, but generalising, when I turn to something that is 16/44 I find the foot is tapping and the soul is soaring just as much, and I cannot take seriously claims that, inherently, 34/96 is more or less "involving" than the 16/44 that has been keeping me happy for a decade or two.
I don't think I need to: I suspect that 128 would sound just as good to me as 320 --- but I have to admit that the areas in which I would start looking for differences, things like the tail of a cymbal crash, are where my HF hearing loss now makes it tough for me anyway.
Can I tell the difference if something is really low bit-rate, as in some internet streaming? Yes, certainly, even for speech, but only after a while. It is fatiguing. But I haven't blind tested.
Can I tell the difference when something seems to have gone wrong with my PC/mediaplayer resampling? Yes again: the desire is to stop listening, rather than to tap the foot. Regardless of up or down sampling.
This has become my music-listening rule/habit: whenever possible, do not even think of the file format, sample rate, etc --- just listen. I came to this when Wolfgang's Vault stopped selling FLACS and started selling 320 MP3. I was uncomfortable with that. The discomfort got in the way of the music, so I threw out the discomfort. but...
This is my rule when acquiring music: lossless compression. In a word, FLAC. But, when necessary, one just has to take what's available.
Yes, I doubt that I can tell the FLAC from the 320-MP3, but call it principle or call it prejudice, FLAC remains my choice. It is also a lot simpler to edit when need be. I am much more concerned with that than I am with the sample rate.
However, it might not have been the best choice for the standard. I've been reading some off JJ Johnston's posts (Gearslutz, Hydrogen Audio) and it seems that, not for any unhearable-by-humans-anyway high-frequency content, but for easier reconstruction filter design, Sixty would have been a better magic number than 44.1. The world didn't go there.
Last edited:
Shivam
Well-Known Member
Re: Study Shows Listeners Cannot Distinguish Between CD-Quality and High-Resolution M
No wonder I still enjoy my CDs.
'Hi-Rez' or not but at least the music released as 'Hi-rez' has good recording and mastering most of the time.
No wonder I still enjoy my CDs.
'Hi-Rez' or not but at least the music released as 'Hi-rez' has good recording and mastering most of the time.
Re: Study Shows Listeners Cannot Distinguish Between CD-Quality and High-Resolution M
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/91-au...-high-resolution-audio-test-ready-set-go.html
There are some music files in standard and hi-res formats (originally hi-res). You can download, listen and decide for yourself. Ofcourse a lot depends on the capabilities of the system and the listener too. If you are not able to find a difference, good for you. Translates into lot of savings.
I for one am quite impressed with almost all 24 bit recordings. May be for the reason Shivam has mentioned. Those who create hi-res albums sell it at higher price. To sell it at a higher price, they need to sound better. In order to achieve that, they record and master it well.
If CD was introduced with lot of research, I am sure DVD which is 24 bit would have been too. 44.1 khz may define the frequency limit, but what limits 16-bit is not clear to me yet.
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/91-au...-high-resolution-audio-test-ready-set-go.html
There are some music files in standard and hi-res formats (originally hi-res). You can download, listen and decide for yourself. Ofcourse a lot depends on the capabilities of the system and the listener too. If you are not able to find a difference, good for you. Translates into lot of savings.
I for one am quite impressed with almost all 24 bit recordings. May be for the reason Shivam has mentioned. Those who create hi-res albums sell it at higher price. To sell it at a higher price, they need to sound better. In order to achieve that, they record and master it well.
If CD was introduced with lot of research, I am sure DVD which is 24 bit would have been too. 44.1 khz may define the frequency limit, but what limits 16-bit is not clear to me yet.
Re: Study Shows Listeners Cannot Distinguish Between CD-Quality and High-Resolution M
A lot of things depend on how we convert HiRez to CD standard. it depends on the converter itself. The filter it uses, etc, etc. I personally prefer HiRez (DSD) direct recordings.
I am not saying there can be no difference. But those difference doesnt matter as you cant be sure unless you click side by side and listen to the sound within a short span of a time. I am a music lover and what matters to me is recording that sounds good and create the ambiance of realistic being there feeling. I dont need to click side by side before deciding which sounds better.
An experiment:-
Ask someone to buy 20 Hi REZ CD (new or unfamiliar ones) and another 20 of ordinary CD standard, also different once from the HiRez Cds (or download to your pc). Ask them to play each CD without you knowing which is which every night. You make a guess. After 40 days. compare your selection and with the person who was putting the CD or playing the tracks. If you can get 95% percent correct then go ahead and purchase whichever version you like the most. Otherwise stick to the cheapest.
That is manufacturer and recording engineers problem. Do you know JRiver filters DSD files at 22kHz? Even though you can by pass it, I would rather stick to 22kHz. My DSD sounds better with that filter.
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/91-au...-high-resolution-audio-test-ready-set-go.html
There are some music files in standard and hi-res formats (originally hi-res). You can download, listen and decide for yourself. Ofcourse a lot depends on the capabilities of the system and the listener too. If you are not able to find a difference, good for you. Translates into lot of savings.
I for one am quite impressed with almost all 24 bit recordings. May be for the reason Shivam has mentioned. Those who create hi-res albums sell it at higher price. To sell it at a higher price, they need to sound better. In order to achieve that, they record and master it well.
If CD was introduced with lot of research, I am sure DVD which is 24 bit would have been too. 44.1 khz may define the frequency limit, but what limits 16-bit is not clear to me yet.
A lot of things depend on how we convert HiRez to CD standard. it depends on the converter itself. The filter it uses, etc, etc. I personally prefer HiRez (DSD) direct recordings.
I am not saying there can be no difference. But those difference doesnt matter as you cant be sure unless you click side by side and listen to the sound within a short span of a time. I am a music lover and what matters to me is recording that sounds good and create the ambiance of realistic being there feeling. I dont need to click side by side before deciding which sounds better.
An experiment:-
Ask someone to buy 20 Hi REZ CD (new or unfamiliar ones) and another 20 of ordinary CD standard, also different once from the HiRez Cds (or download to your pc). Ask them to play each CD without you knowing which is which every night. You make a guess. After 40 days. compare your selection and with the person who was putting the CD or playing the tracks. If you can get 95% percent correct then go ahead and purchase whichever version you like the most. Otherwise stick to the cheapest.
That is manufacturer and recording engineers problem. Do you know JRiver filters DSD files at 22kHz? Even though you can by pass it, I would rather stick to 22kHz. My DSD sounds better with that filter.
Last edited:
Re: Study Shows Listeners Cannot Distinguish Between CD-Quality and High-Resolution M
I guess issues like this make the debate more complicated: A New Low For HDTracks | Metal-Fi Rant
I guess issues like this make the debate more complicated: A New Low For HDTracks | Metal-Fi Rant
Thad E Ginathom
Well-Known Member
Re: Study Shows Listeners Cannot Distinguish Between CD-Quality and High-Resolution M
From my browsing over the past few days, a picture is emerging that some sellers/labels are more sincere than others, and that some might be pushing it a bit when they sell under the banner "High Definition Music. The World's Greatest-Sounding Music Downloads." To say the least. It is a road on which we have to very careful where we put our feet.
Absolutely not. They need to persuade people that it sounds better. Audiophiles, it seems, are wonderfully susceptible to suggestion: what a wonderful market!
And no wonder many new-vinyl players also still enjoy their CDs --- and the other way around: I still enjoy my vinyl.
The vinyl digitising I mentioned above would have been done with extraordinary care and attention. Far, far more than I am prepared/able to lavish on the task. They were also made from clean LPs, and that is something that I, mostly, don't possess. I'm fairly sure that this matters much more than the sample rate.
I have a few 96K digital albums that were re-mastered and, again, they sound great, and, again, it is (IMnot-so-HO ) that that matters more than the sample rate.
It would be nice if it were true that all this so-called-high-rez (I refuse to acknowledge that term as meaningful) was remastered better than before, with higher DR, etc etc. Undoubtedly that is true of some issues of some music, but in many instances we might be buying the same stuff in larger files. It's boring to have to use spectral analysers before buying, not to mention barely understanding what I see there.
There are lots of reports on the internet of this stuff being found to be CD content shelved at 22KHz. jai1611's link is the first I've seen so far of something that can be shown to be MP3 origin!
Music Industry: Caveat Emptor!
From my browsing over the past few days, a picture is emerging that some sellers/labels are more sincere than others, and that some might be pushing it a bit when they sell under the banner "High Definition Music. The World's Greatest-Sounding Music Downloads." To say the least. It is a road on which we have to very careful where we put our feet.
Absolutely not. They need to persuade people that it sounds better. Audiophiles, it seems, are wonderfully susceptible to suggestion: what a wonderful market!
And no wonder many new-vinyl players also still enjoy their CDs --- and the other way around: I still enjoy my vinyl.
The vinyl digitising I mentioned above would have been done with extraordinary care and attention. Far, far more than I am prepared/able to lavish on the task. They were also made from clean LPs, and that is something that I, mostly, don't possess. I'm fairly sure that this matters much more than the sample rate.
I have a few 96K digital albums that were re-mastered and, again, they sound great, and, again, it is (IMnot-so-HO
) that that matters more than the sample rate.It would be nice if it were true that all this so-called-high-rez (I refuse to acknowledge that term as meaningful) was remastered better than before, with higher DR, etc etc. Undoubtedly that is true of some issues of some music, but in many instances we might be buying the same stuff in larger files. It's boring to have to use spectral analysers before buying, not to mention barely understanding what I see there.
There are lots of reports on the internet of this stuff being found to be CD content shelved at 22KHz. jai1611's link is the first I've seen so far of something that can be shown to be MP3 origin!
Music Industry: Caveat Emptor!
Order now for just ₹19,990.00
Similar threads
