Audibility of "typical" Digital Filters in a Hi-Fi Playback
Reply #198 – 2014-11-16 21:20:35
To borrow a communication style I've seen used recently: So let me get this straight... If I were to spend exorbitant amounts of money on speakers, I might possibly hear a difference between 24/96 content and an improperly dithered 16/44 version. This would be a hypothesis to be tested in another listening test. This one found differences in the system they tested. The outcome says nothing one way or the other about lesser systems. FYI, I passed all of my double blind ABX tests using my laptop and headphones. Does that mean everyone with every laptop and headphone can hear the same? Of course not. These points aside, if a very expensive speaker managed to do something everyday speakers cannot do with respect to bring out small differences in how the content was encoded, that by itself is quite significant. That high-end hardware brings with it better resolution of audio and with it, potentially lend claim that if someone hears a difference on a high-end system and you cannot, it could very well be due to the system cost/performance.Can the differences always be attributed to the actual content and not the equipment and/or SRC algorithm? The paper analyzes the content and demonstrates that this is indeed very good content as far as having a noise floor that is well below the threshold of hearing in the playback system/test. Does that prove that it played a critical role in this test? We don't know. We can either validate or invalidate the null hypothesis. We cannot validate alternative hypothesis without running another set of tests. The SCR algorithm is very specifically documented in the paper so I leave it to everyone to read it. And I answered the bit about equipment above.If yes, what assurances do I have that spending exorbitant amounts on content will provide a difference in my listening experience? On Amazon I routinely see MP3 albums being cheaper than CD. I buy the CD. So the "exorbitant" difference in cost is not a scientific question but a personal choice. Either you care about the differential or you don't. Either you think you will always hear the same or you won't. No one is twisting your or my arm to buy higher resolution audio for higher price. I don't always do that. It depends on what the music is. Giving a video example, for some movies I have no issue watching the DVD my wife buys. But if she comes home with the next Star Trek movie in DVD instead of Blu-ray, I will be grumpy. Very grumpy. So the cost difference is orthogonal to the discussion. That is a economic consideration between as the buyer and the content provider/distributor. We don't judge if a four bedroom house brings more happiness to you than three, so don't ask us about the same difference in music fidelity . And no, there is no guarantee. That is like asking for a guarantee that you will like some music better. You have to be a smart shopper. Have good ears that can detect such distortions and if your theory is right, proper hardware to play it.If no, how am I to know for certain when the differences are only attributable to the content? I don't know. If I just hand you a CD what can you tell about its quality as it sits there? Can you swear it will sound better than the MP3 to you in all cases?What do these differences sound like, and under what circumstances will I hear them? No one can tell you that. How you will hear the difference is something you must experience. You know how to do that with compressed music, right? If you had not, would the concept of pre-echo have any meaning to you if I wrote it? It wouldn't right? Same here. Instead of hoping to win a written argument, spend some time seeing if you too hear the differences some of us have reliably reported through ABX testing. If you do, you will then speak first hand about what we are talking about. And if you do not, then you can sign off from this thread knowing that increased fidelity beyond CD is of no value to you. ===========I answered your questions as you put to me. But none of it may matter! Not at all. Because the high resolution stereo master may very well NOT be subject to loudness compression. If so, then the difference will be "huge." Night and day and that sort of thing. Before you ask me again if that is guaranteed, no. It is not. Seek out reviews on WBF Forum, Computer Audiophile, etc. web site where people discuss such things including posting spectrums and such, and you will walk into your purchase with open mind. The other benefit is that you can download the high resolution master, but you cannot with the CD. I for example downloaded the L2 sampler that was used in the Stuart tests. Lovely, lovely music. That is why I bought it. I sampled it, it was beautiful music. 1.3 gigabyte download that happened in a few minutes in the background. Done. No trip to store. No ripping when my laptop doesn't even have an optical disc reader. If these things are not worth it to you, then ignore it. But my hope is that you don't keep throwing word arguments at me and not looking at the larger argument.