Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Evaluation of Sound Quality of High Resolution Audio (Read 21262 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Evaluation of Sound Quality of High Resolution Audio

Reply #50 –
I see three problems.

First, you are trusting that someone else did a proper job of preparing the 16/44.1 sample.

Second, you are assuming that your system handles both sample rates equivalently.

Third, and this is most important, you are not doing double blind testing.

If you want to do a proper comparison then we can help you with that. Until then everything that you say is just wasting our time.

Re: Evaluation of Sound Quality of High Resolution Audio

Reply #51 –
@GUTB

And of course you're just about to post some actual tangible proof of these claims?

No? Well, OK then. Don't be surprised if no one believes you.

Or are you just looking to get a rise out of someone for a cheap laugh?

Re: Evaluation of Sound Quality of High Resolution Audio

Reply #52 –
Yup. Control the variables, control your comparison. Come back once you've done that and can present non-anecdotal results.

Also, it's not about ME. YOU have made the claims. Back them up as you've agreed to when registering on this forum, or face moderator action.
"I hear it when I see it."

Re: Evaluation of Sound Quality of High Resolution Audio

Reply #53 –
Quote from: GUTB on
So....I gather you WON'T just head over to 2L, download some comparisons and listen for yourself?
I just did, downloaded the first thing that happened to look interesting to me ["MQA stereo"], ran an audibility test, and can show with pretty good statictical significance that I actually heard a difference, between the two files:
Code: [Select]
foo_abx 2.0.1 report
foobar2000 v1.3.9
2016-03-11 09:26:30

File A: 2L-120_01_stereo-44k-24b.mqa.flac
SHA1: 7642041dba686a45c92aef9f155c3abf376e2dc7
File B: 2L-120_01_stereo-44k-16b.flac
SHA1: 2cf801cd72359d432f5b6e9a93ff95d9e135c87f

Output:
DS : Primary Sound Driver
Crossfading: NO

09:26:30 : Test started.
09:30:08 : 01/01
09:30:18 : 02/02
09:30:26 : 03/03
09:30:36 : 04/04
09:30:49 : 05/05
09:31:08 : 06/06
09:31:14 : 07/07
09:31:48 : 08/08
09:31:48 : Test finished.

 ---------- 
Total: 8/8
Probability that you were guessing: 0.4%

 -- signature -- 
52bf8445c07faae01837418bf7556cbab8792cfb
But there's no difference in the sound of the music, as they [and Meridian] would have us believe and they seem to have successfully duped countless numbers of buyers into believing:
"It sounds best through an MQA decoder which confirms this studio recording as you listen, but even with no decoder you will enjoy the deblur of the recording side. Using pioneering scientific research into how people hear, MQA technology captures the full magic of an original audio performance in a file size that's small enough to stream or download"

In truth there is only a difference in the artifacts of their processing/conversion which could be from any number of reasons such as the use of different forms of dither, noise shaping spectral balances, etc.

Oh, by the way, the headphones I used cost me $39.99, new, shipped.
---

It's funny how you belittle ABX yet you yourself I assume have never even used it.

Re: Evaluation of Sound Quality of High Resolution Audio

Reply #54 –
In regards to MQA quality, I have no comment. Technical analysis of the compression format has been done, and it appears to operate by advanced noise shaping techniques. I think it will probably flop commercially as Meridian appears to be demanding in-lab certification testing for DAC components, and that's simply too high of hurdle for such a sluggish and apathetic industry.

In order to "control" the variables, I used JRiver to convert the DSD-256 file to a 16/44.1 FLAC. The result is identical or almost identical to the 16/44.1 version downloaded from the 2L website -- it seems to me that the converted FLAC sounds a little worse, but audio memory and smearing is kicking in so those differences may still be just in my head.

Next up, I will set up a low vs high cost listening chain to see if the differences are still present or as significant. The purpose of doing that is to see what kind of impact on high-resolution playback hardware has.

Re: Evaluation of Sound Quality of High Resolution Audio

Reply #55 –
You'd better eliminate the impact of listener bias first.

Nobody here will take you seriously if you don't, and with good reasons.

Re: Evaluation of Sound Quality of High Resolution Audio

Reply #56 –
Quote from: pelmazo on
You'd better eliminate the impact of listener bias first.

Nobody here will take you seriously if you don't, and with good reasons.

What am I supposed to do besides listening to both versions? How can I listen to the material without being myself?

Re: Evaluation of Sound Quality of High Resolution Audio

Reply #57 –
Quote from: GUTB on
Next up, I will set up a low vs high cost listening chain to see if the differences are still present or as significant. The purpose of doing that is to see what kind of impact on high-resolution playback hardware has.

Nope.  You'd be wasting your time, you haven't even gotten out of the starting gate.  Go back to where you were, convert your DSD to 32/192 PCM (because that is what are actually listening to) , convert that to Redbook, repeat listening  *using ABX*  to compare 32/192 file to Redbook.







Re: Evaluation of Sound Quality of High Resolution Audio

Reply #58 –
Quote from: GUTB on
What am I supposed to do besides listening to both versions? How can I listen to the material without being myself?
Of course you can't quit being yourself. Eliminating the impact of listener bias doesn't mean to make listener bias disappear, which is impossible. It is about preventing listener bias from skewing the test result. You need a test design that achieves this. Just sitting down and listening to some material in a completely uncontrolled fashion doesn't achieve it. It even makes you look arrogant, because you look as if you thought you could be impartial just by virtue of your will, or your hearing abilities.

Re: Evaluation of Sound Quality of High Resolution Audio

Reply #59 –
Quote from: krabapple on
Quote from: GUTB on
Next up, I will set up a low vs high cost listening chain to see if the differences are still present or as significant. The purpose of doing that is to see what kind of impact on high-resolution playback hardware has.

Nope.  You'd be wasting your time, you haven't even gotten out of the starting gate.  Go back to where you were, convert your DSD to 32/192 PCM (because that is what are actually listening to) , convert that to Redbook, repeat listening  *using ABX*  to compare 32/192 file to Redbook.
Even better, convert the Redbook back to 32/192 so that you eliminate possible differences in how different sample rates are rendered.

Re: Evaluation of Sound Quality of High Resolution Audio

Reply #60 –
Quote
I'm currently burning in a new DAC

Hi. I make widgets. Everyone at my company is well aware that my widget is substandard until it is burned in. It would be trivial for me to burn it in before I release it for sale. However, I have chosen to release my product in a crippled form. Please help me understand that logic.

Or, please define the concept to "burn in" .
It is at my mains voltage, or yours?
What happens with voltage spikes?
Must I burn in over a contiguous time frame?
Have I broken my widget if my neighborhood looses power for a few moments?

Answers would be quite helpful and provide me piece of mind for sleep.

BTW, I've a new coffee grinder. It has multiple startup capacitors. Quickly obtaining perfect spin speed is important. Do you think I should change out the caps? Maybe pretty blue ones would ensure it is working to it best capacity?

Re: Evaluation of Sound Quality of High Resolution Audio

Reply #61 –
I don't know what's in your coffee grinder, but my DAC has WIMA and ELNA caps in addition to 2 large Nichicon KG Gold Tune output caps. It also has 4 high-end op amps and two transformers (a torodial and an R-core). As you may (?) know, high-end audio capacitors are known to require a burn-in period for optimal performance. Unlike many cable manufacturers that are able to offer products pre-burned in by "cooking" them with high power current for several hours, capacitors and other electronics do not enjoy being cooked in that manner. I do know that when I first listened to the DAC, it sounded literally no different from the Modi 2 Uber. After the third day of continous burn-in, the audio has substantially improved and now it clearly sounds better than the Modi -- although, not by a HUGE amount, as the main improvement is probably coming from the high quality components and probably not much from the fact that it's a Sabre. Next upgrade to the DAC is a power cable which I expect to come in soon; they offered to pre burn-in the cable for 3 days, but I declined because I wanted to hear any changes during burn-in for myself.

When I had the HD600, it required an enormous amount of burn in, at least a hundred hours, before it started sounding like I thought it should. I didn't really notice any changes with my TH900 or my HE-6, or the changes were gradual enough I didn't notice them happening.

And just today my custom amp arrived from China. First impression is disappointing -- it's clean, but lacks low end heft and I feel the highs are lacking that sparkle that is really hyped up by the TH900. I'll try plugging my HE-6 + Black Dragon v2 into it but considering I can turn the pot the maximum on the TH900 I don't expect much. Maybe I'll open up and take some pictures before I set it up for it's long-term burn in.

Re: Evaluation of Sound Quality of High Resolution Audio

Reply #62 –
Quote from: GUTB on
ABX testing has an absolutely abysmal track record -- not just because of poor testing procedures, but mainly because the human auditory system is so unreliable.
100% agree with this. That's why placebophiles always wanted to cheat.

Quote
That is why the only way to reliably identify a subjective aspect of audio quality is in a relaxed environment in which the sound of the material and the equipment is well-understood by and ingrained into the listener; the very first exposure to a change represents the most pronounced perception of a difference, and further listening with A/B comparisons is needed to target and describe small changes. The brain will begin smearing differences, filling in "gaps", and eventually make even large differences diminish. Throw in the stress of an ABX test just poisons the test further, and making participants have to identify specific pieces of gear among several is just begging for a null result.
You can train or relax yourself in any way you want between test sessions. During the actual test, you can only use your EARS to examine the differences, if any hints are provided during the actual test, then it is not a LISTENING test anymore.

Quote
To sum up, ABX testing is bad because it fails to accurately gauge differences perceived by listeners under normal listening conditions. It's basically worthless.
To sum up, all non-blind tests are not only bad, but also completely useless because of expectation bias and placebo effect.

Re: Evaluation of Sound Quality of High Resolution Audio

Reply #63 –
Quote from: GUTB on
I don't know what's in your coffee grinder, but my DAC has WIMA and ELNA caps in addition to 2 large Nichicon KG Gold Tune output caps. It also has 4 high-end op amps and two transformers (a torodial and an R-core). As you may (?) know, high-end audio capacitors are known to require a burn-in period for optimal performance. Unlike many cable manufacturers that are able to offer products pre-burned in by "cooking" them with high power current for several hours, capacitors and other electronics do not enjoy being cooked in that manner. I do know that when I first listened to the DAC, it sounded literally no different from the Modi 2 Uber. After the third day of continous burn-in, the audio has substantially improved and now it clearly sounds better than the Modi -- although, not by a HUGE amount, as the main improvement is probably coming from the high quality components and probably not much from the fact that it's a Sabre. Next upgrade to the DAC is a power cable which I expect to come in soon; they offered to pre burn-in the cable for 3 days, but I declined because I wanted to hear any changes during burn-in for myself.

When I had the HD600, it required an enormous amount of burn in, at least a hundred hours, before it started sounding like I thought it should. I didn't really notice any changes with my TH900 or my HE-6, or the changes were gradual enough I didn't notice them happening.

And just today my custom amp arrived from China. First impression is disappointing -- it's clean, but lacks low end heft and I feel the highs are lacking that sparkle that is really hyped up by the TH900. I'll try plugging my HE-6 + Black Dragon v2 into it but considering I can turn the pot the maximum on the TH900 I don't expect much. Maybe I'll open up and take some pictures before I set it up for it's long-term burn in.

Your DAC has electrolytic output capacitors?

Re: Evaluation of Sound Quality of High Resolution Audio

Reply #64 –
"Burn in" simply extends ownership beyond the return period. The End.

Re: Evaluation of Sound Quality of High Resolution Audio

Reply #65 –
Quote from: GUTB on
As you may (?) know, high-end audio capacitors are known to require a burn-in period for optimal performance.
I design pro audio equipment for a living, and decades of experience have not been able to convince me of this "knowledge", nor has anyone been able to demonstrate its veracity to me. If it were true, I would see it as a strong reason for not using those "high-end audio capacitors". Why should anyone use components with such undesirable properties, and even pay a premium for them, when you can have good, unencumbered alternatives?

It is far more likely that the only one being burned in is yourself. As you may (?) know, people's perception is known to adapt to sounds, to a very large degree in fact. Most people wouldn't call it burn-in, but the effect is the same, only stronger.

So, before you continue raving about your bricolage, of which you're undoubtedly proud, you should come back to the real issues that were pointed out to you several times already.

Re: Evaluation of Sound Quality of High Resolution Audio

Reply #66 –
Quote from: GUTB on
I don't know what's in your coffee grinder, but my DAC has WIMA and ELNA caps in addition to 2 large Nichicon KG Gold Tune output caps. It also has 4 high-end op amps and two transformers (a torodial and an R-core). As you may (?) know, high-end audio capacitors are known to require a burn-in period for optimal performance. Unlike many cable manufacturers that are able to offer products pre-burned in by "cooking" them with high power current for several hours, capacitors and other electronics do not enjoy being cooked in that manner. I do know that when I first listened to the DAC, it sounded literally no different from the Modi 2 Uber. After the third day of continous burn-in, the audio has substantially improved and now it clearly sounds better than the Modi -- although, not by a HUGE amount, as the main improvement is probably coming from the high quality components and probably not much from the fact that it's a Sabre. Next upgrade to the DAC is a power cable which I expect to come in soon; they offered to pre burn-in the cable for 3 days, but I declined because I wanted to hear any changes during burn-in for myself.

When I had the HD600, it required an enormous amount of burn in, at least a hundred hours, before it started sounding like I thought it should. I didn't really notice any changes with my TH900 or my HE-6, or the changes were gradual enough I didn't notice them happening.

And just today my custom amp arrived from China. First impression is disappointing -- it's clean, but lacks low end heft and I feel the highs are lacking that sparkle that is really hyped up by the TH900. I'll try plugging my HE-6 + Black Dragon v2 into it but considering I can turn the pot the maximum on the TH900 I don't expect much. Maybe I'll open up and take some pictures before I set it up for it's long-term burn in.
If you want to be taken seriously on here, I'd suggest you stop digging the hole you're in. There isn't a shred of evidence (of the hard science type) that supports "burn-in" for *any* solid-state electronic component. Furthermore, capacitors are capacitors, the existence of audio-grade is a myth, even though some are so named. Electrolytic capacitors require forming, whereby the dielectric film is produced and this is done at manufacturing stage. Beyond that there is nothing. Terms you might like to look up would include "infant mortality rate" and "mean time between failures", both of which relate to reliability. In reality, any "burn-in" you perform only brings you (hopefully not far) towards the ultimate failure point of the equipment and gets you past the "infant mortality" point.

If you really want to prove "burn-in" exists in electronic (solid-state) components, buy two, run one for 1000 hours and then compare in a controlled, double-blinded fashion and show us the outcome.

Re: Evaluation of Sound Quality of High Resolution Audio

Reply #67 –
Quote from: GUTB on
To sum up, "ABX" testing is bad
Only to trolls who haven't been banned yet. This site requires blind/controlled tests (aka "ABX" dogwhistle to the low IQ crowd). Whether you believe or not. This thread is about evaluation of said blind tests results, by those who understand the need, not those who don't.
Go troll elsewhere, at least contain it to your own "evaluation" thread where your "long term" daydreams can be expressed. We'll see how long the mods let that nonsense last.
Loudspeaker manufacturer

Re: Evaluation of Sound Quality of High Resolution Audio

Reply #68 –
Quote from: GUTB on
What am I supposed to do besides listening to both versions?
Off topic per TOS #5. This thread is about an upcoming HRA paper, not your fantasies.
Loudspeaker manufacturer

Re: Evaluation of Sound Quality of High Resolution Audio

Reply #69 –
Has anyone seen a follow-up study by Meridian as announced in their "typical digital audio filters" AES paper from oct. 2014 ?
Quote
Although these results are encouraging, this was a small pilot study intended to establish that there is a valid question of whether or not standard sample rates and bit rates are sufficient to encode every aspect of the auditory experience. Future work planned includes the investigation of quantization, TPDF dither with and without noise-shaping, filters such as those used to limit noise in DSD playback, minimum-phase filters and apodizing filters. We also plan to investigate the effect of training on tasks like this, and also to investigate what makes certain pieces of music more suitable for demonstrating differences in signal processing.

Re: Evaluation of Sound Quality of High Resolution Audio

Reply #70 –
Other than this, no.
Haven't seen anything from Dr Reiss either.

cheers,

AJ
Loudspeaker manufacturer

Re: Evaluation of Sound Quality of High Resolution Audio

Reply #71 –
Quote from: GUTB on
What am I supposed to do besides listening to both versions?

Nothing. Absolutely nothing, and that is the point of doing listening tests while adhering to the findings of science about things like listener bias and experimental bias.

Quote from: GUTB on

How can I listen to the material without being myself?

I guess that depends on who you think you are. Right now, it appears that you abhor science and seek to reinforce anti-scientific beliefs as opposed to actually listening accurately  and critically.

Re: Evaluation of Sound Quality of High Resolution Audio

Reply #72 –
In that paper there are "findings" that are not supported by innovative theoretical or practical background. Also bit rate and frequency is mixed together in the tests. One cannot hear a difference between 24/48 and anything above (like 24/192 kHz) simply because there is no difference (nothing "missing") - 48 kHz rate can sample all frequencies that we can hear (44.1 is a little bit on the edge but stilll probably no audible difference).
If somebody hears difference 24 bit to 16 bit (24/48 - 16/48) I would like to know about it, up to now I saw the benefits of 24 bit mainly in better handling and resampling possibilities and not being neccessary to add any dither which artificially changes the original recording. This does not negate my opinion that having and using 24 bit tracks for common use is beneficial given todays technology.
The fact that anything lossless compared to MP3 is different (MP3 being inferior) is not surprising.

The paper is good as a overview of listening perceptions under described conditions, but does not bring any breaktrough to hi-res adoption.