High resolution audio. The science, or lack of...?

[altruistic.lemon]

Deleted (what's the point?)

Lemon.

Get the BEST album you own (SQ wise), then check out the DR using one of the available applications.

I doubt very much it is over 20.

Look here...

http://www.dr.loudness-war.info/

Looked and listened to the web site I suggested, frog the arrogant? No, but then, perhaps your system can't do High Res.

Really, I deleted the post because it's obvious this is another of your/AVI lets educate the clueless posts, so there's no point arguing since your clan is blind to anything else but the Word. I've noticed you never use facts to support your counter arguments, only unhelpful statements like nonsense, not true etc. You need to open your minds, that's how knowledge develops, not sledging those who offer opinions you don't like.

 

[fr0g]

Deleted (what's the point?)

Lemon.

Get the BEST album you own (SQ wise), then check out the DR using one of the available applications.

I doubt very much it is over 20.

Look here...

http://www.dr.loudness-war.info/

Looked and listened to the web site I suggested, frog the arrogant? No, but then, perhaps your system can't do High Res.

Really, I deleted the post because it's obvious this is another of your/AVI lets educate the clueless posts, so there's no point arguing since your clan is blind to anything else but the Word. I've noticed you never use facts to support your counter arguments, only unhelpful statements like nonsense, not true etc. You need to open your minds, that's how knowledge develops, not sledging those who offer opinions you don't like.

Not true, and you are (again) being illogical.

Yes I looked at the site. And to repeat myself again...It is irrelevant to the discussion. Pointless. Stop banging on about it.

I began by asking for science.

Even the WHF blog post linked above is now alluding to the facts.

And to repeat my stance... I know for a fact that many HD albums sound better.

The question is "Do they need to?" and are we being led up thegarden path?

I am as much an audiophile as the next man, and simply want the facts.

I have no problem with Linn, HDTracks etc charging more for an "audiophile" version of an album, what I don't like is the claim that it is because of the format (and the charging of a rather (IMO) excessive premium.)

 

[davedotco]

The empirical data is very easily checked.

1) Find a good quality high resolution (24/96 or better) file.

2) Down sample to 16/44.1.

3) Compare the two in a properly set up (phase correct, level matched, etc) blind test.

I have done this test in an informal manner with a third party doing the switching. Even on a quite decent system it was impossible to tell the difference.

This does not prove that there is no difference, just that any difference is inaudible.

A similar approach can be applied scientifically but it requires agreement on what level of distortion and noise is permisable.

There is always distortion and noise in any component but it has been suggested that if these are reduced below - 100dB then the component is deemed to be 'transparent'. This is not an agreed standard by any means but strikes me as a good starting point.

 

[Alec]

I don't care, but I don't think it proves that, Dave.

 

[davedotco]

I don't care, but I don't think it proves that, Dave.

I don't think that is what I said, did I?

 

[fr0g]

I don't care, but I don't think it proves that, Dave.

I don't think that is what I said, did I?

I think he means it doesn't prove that it's inaudible...a simple "to me" would fix it I guess.

Either way, I agree. I have done the test myself. It is indeed inaudible. Whereas some HD albums are indeed better than the released versions of the CD...

But then of course if I own the HD version I can then create an equally good version of it ON CD

 

[altruistic.lemon]

You meant inaudible to me, I take it? Once again, stating as fact something that isn't. Look beyond the dogmatic (or should I say frogmatic).

 

[BigH]

You meant inaudible to me, I take it? Once again, stating as fact something that isn't. Look beyond the dogmatic (or should I say frogmatic).

Lemon you are pointless.

 

[davedotco]

I don't care, but I don't think it proves that, Dave.

I don't think that is what I said, did I?

I think he means it doesn't prove that it's inaudible...a simple "to me" would fix it I guess.

Either way, I agree. I have done the test myself. It is indeed inaudible. Whereas some HD albums are indeed better than the released versions of the CD...

But then of course if I own the HD version I can then create an equally good version of it ON CD

I guess so. I was not really that clear.

I was really making two points.

Firstly, if the test I described is carried out with a sufficient number of listeners and the results are as I suggest, then this is as close to proof as you can get with empiracal data.

Secondly, I did an informal version of this test myself as described, I assumed that it would be clear that this was a personal response to a test and proves nothing. Perhaps I should have made this clearer.

 

[altruistic.lemon]

You meant inaudible to me, I take it? Once again, stating as fact something that isn't. Look beyond the dogmatic (or should I say frogmatic).

Lemon you are pointless.

Come on, mate, that was pretty funny - didn't you get it - dogmatic - frogmatic because name is frog?

 

[davedotco]

You meant inaudible to me, I take it? Once again, stating as fact something that isn't. Look beyond the dogmatic (or should I say frogmatic).

Given that I described my experience as an informal test I would have thought that the 'to me' was implicit.

Perhaps not.

Frogmatic......... :rofl:

 

[Alec]

You meant inaudible to me, I take it? Once again, stating as fact something that isn't. Look beyond the dogmatic (or should I say frogmatic).

Given that I described my experience as an informal test I would have thought that the 'to me' was implicit.

Perhaps not.

Frogmatic......... :rofl:

No, it isn't implicit, yes, you did say it, and f0g is right about what I meant. Maybe I, too, could have been clearer.

Anyway, I don't care anyway, and I'm at risk of looking like a supporter of our bitter, yellow friend, and no one wants that.

 

[fr0g]

You meant inaudible to me, I take it? Once again, stating as fact something that isn't. Look beyond the dogmatic (or should I say frogmatic).

bIS'ub tera' na'ran wIb qegh tey SoH.

 

[fr0g]

Frogmatic......... :rofl:

I like that.

I may patent it for my range of amphibian-based pleasure machines.

 

[chebby]

I may patent it for my range of amphibian-based pleasure machines.

 

[fr0g]

I don't care, but I don't think it proves that, Dave.

I don't think that is what I said, did I?

I think he means it doesn't prove that it's inaudible...a simple "to me" would fix it I guess.

Either way, I agree. I have done the test myself. It is indeed inaudible. Whereas some HD albums are indeed better than the released versions of the CD...

But then of course if I own the HD version I can then create an equally good version of it ON CD

I guess so. I was not really that clear.

I was really making two points.

Firstly, if the test I described is carried out with a sufficient number of listeners and the results are as I suggest, then this is as close to proof as you can get with empiracal data.

I agree. Although in a way, I don't. The "proof" is in the maths. Mind you, it's also nice to get "real world" verification and on that I agree with the sentiment..

 

[steve_1979]

Wow! You really are trying to argue that CD's have less dynamic range than LP's.

Grammer police alert! :shame:

That'll teach me for posting while rushing to get ready for work and in a 5 minute break at work. :doh:

Apologies to lindsayt for my misreading of his posts earlier.

 

[John Duncan]

Frogmatic......... :rofl:

I like that.

I may patent it for my range of amphibian-based pleasure machines.

 

[steve_1979]

I don't care, but I don't think it proves that, Dave.

I don't think that is what I said, did I?

I think he means it doesn't prove that it's inaudible...a simple "to me" would fix it I guess.

If you do what davedotco says* and use a large enough randomised sample of people to do the blind testing then it is safe to say that 16/44.1 is transparent to humans.

* 1) Find a good quality high resolution (24/96 or better) file.

2) Down sample to 16/44.1.

3) Compare the two in a properly set up (phase correct, level matched, etc) blind test.

 

[MakkaPakka]

It is very easy to properly blind test:

http://www.foobar2000.org/components/view/foo_abx

This will load to tracks into the memory and you can switch immediately with a button press. Can repeat the same section over and over of flick back and forth through a whole track.

 

[steve_1979]

It is very easy to properly blind test:

http://www.foobar2000.org/components/view/foo_abx

This will load to tracks into the memory and you can switch immediately with a button press. Can repeat the same section over and over of flick back and forth through a whole track.

I've done the Foobar ABX tests with 24/96 vs 16/44.1 vs 320kbps MP3 and they all sound the same to me (providing I downsample the 24/96 version myself instead of using the differently mastered versions that are supplied).

 

[davedotco]

Normally, when using empirical data to check mathematical theory you can 'do experiments' and physically measure the results.

With subjective data of the kind we are talking about above this is simply not possible, so we have designed experimental criteria, as outlined by steve above, to statisically 'measure' the results. Use sufficiant people and the results will be 'statisically' proven (or not). Again, with subjective empirical data, that is as close as you can get to stating that the result is a 'fact'.

Quite clearly doing your own test using the software mentioned above or in my case with the help of a third party does not 'prove' anything, I think that is self evident and would never deliberately claim otherwise.

In other threads I have encouraged anyone who has the chance to take part in a blind test to do so, whether formal or informal the results can be quite sobering and help give perspective in the way that systems sound and work.

 

[NHL]

Reading a lot of reviews, filters seems to be much more important than the noise treshold level.

 

[manicm]

The most important aspects of the scientific method are open-mindedness and observation. Some people listen and hear a difference - hundreds of thousands of people, actually. Others say that it isn't possible and quote equations and theorems to prove it. You'll have to decide who most resembles Galileo, and who most resembles the Pope.

Nail on the head. Bitperfect! :cheers:

 

[manicm]

I agree. Although in a way, I don't. The "proof" is in the maths.

And so completely ignore our ears, or the fact we have any...