It seems non-audiophiles never tire of proving that everything sounds the same.

[Thaiman]

Dear fr0g

While many people seem to like your posts I have to be the un-poppular one say that I do disagree with most however I do totally understand the logic behide your points.

You posted, "CD is as good as SACD or HD recordings..(or CAN be. Many SACDs and HD downloads are simply better masterings - This can be tested by downsampling HD downloads and ABX testing) - This has saved me a fortune".

They can be the same but only in the musical term. by that I do mean you can enjoy listen to both format equally but as this was post in Hifi forum and not music forum, people may read your post and think there is no reason to go Hi-rez as the standard CD sound the same! If you have good enough tools for the job then the different between the formats are considerbly large imo.

MP3 or AAC at 256 KBps and above is indistiguishable to CD for most people including me (again through ABX testing). This hasn't changed anything other than I feel happier listening to Spotify (or rather WiMP for me for the moment). I still buy CD and FLAC downloads.

Only if that is the truth! again, I haven't got a clue which equipments you are using but compressed files in my system sound different than the non-compressed ones, still very enjoyable however.

You also posted, Active speaker technology is superior. I have done a bit of auditioning at pro audio shops recently, and a good pair of £400 pro monitors will outperform any speaker/amp combination you can get at the price. This makes sense in a number of ways...The amplifier is made for the speaker load rather than being overengineered to cater for wildly varying loads, the active crossover has less distortion and is more efficient and of course, the box count is down.

Active speakers is suuperior? Yes, but not any more superior than passive ones. The problem here is not all hifi company are "jack of all trade", for example, Naim may made a damm good electronics but their speakers range never seem to took off, even with the die hard naim fans would agree with that. Another point that against Active speakers system would be the limitation of catering the sound to suite your need.

and before you asked...yes, I have heard a few Active rig in my own listening room which inclue A.D.A.M tensor, Meridian and older ATC model.

The mind can be tricked into hearing differences where there are none".

and mind can also tricked into hearing no different where there are obviously there. how empty is your glass?

5/5 on an ABX is not statistically valid. (I did this myself with 2 tracks that I later found were the same). For a good ABX result you should be looking at 10 to 20 passes with no fails.

Why would you want to do that? even once let alone 10 or 20 times? If it is sound good to your ears so be it! I don't listen to music to please anyone else but myself. I don't care if that's foo or not if I am happy with the products and it can take me places, in musical term, then money is well spendt.

More people from both sides of the argument should cease using absolutes. While it is fine to say "X has less distortion than Y" or "X sounds better than Y to me", it is incorrect to say "X sounds rubbish".

Yes, agree with that, measurement in engineering and enjoyable sound are totally different thing. If the measuring graph look bad but sound good to your ears then it is a good product for you.

 

[shooter]

Independant studies have found jitter to be a non issue..

Could you expand on this further?

 

[Anonymous]

like a lot of things in audio, jitter isn't a problem.

http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/ast/26/1/50/_pdf

For shooter 69..

There's many other such studies published online..

 

[fr0g]

Dear fr0gWhile many people seem to like your posts I have to be the un-poppular one say that I do disagree with most however I do totally understand the logic behide your points.You posted, "CD is as good as SACD or HD recordings..(or CAN be. Many SACDs and HD downloads are simply better masterings - This can be tested by downsampling HD downloads and ABX testing) - This has saved me a fortune". They can be the same but only in the musical term. by that I do mean you can enjoy listen to both format equally but as this was post in Hifi forum and not music forum, people may read your post and think there is no reason to go Hi-rez as the standard CD sound the same! If you have good enough tools for the job then the different between the formats are considerbly large imo.

I believe there are some differences in available SACD/HD compared to the CD, and it is entirely down to the master. I believe that in these cases the CD buying public is being poorly treated, all in the name of the loudness war.However, If you feel their is a difference given the same master, then as I said, just enjoy it. However the next bit...

Why would you want to do that? even once let alone 10 or 20 times? If it is sound good to your ears so be it! I don't listen to music to please anyone else but myself. I don't care if that's foo or not if I am happy with the products and it can take me places, in musical term, then money is well spendt.

If you "did" do this, then you would "know" that you could hear a difference. I believe that you hear a difference, but until I see real evidence, then I also believe there is no difference..Two different things entirely

You also posted, Active speaker technology is superior. I have done a bit of auditioning at pro audio shops recently, and a good pair of £400 pro monitors will outperform any speaker/amp combination you can get at the price. This makes sense in a number of ways...The amplifier is made for the speaker load rather than being overengineered to cater for wildly varying loads, the active crossover has less distortion and is more efficient and of course, the box count is down. Active speakers is suuperior? Yes, but not any more superior than passive ones. The problem here is not all hifi company are "jack of all trade", for example, Naim may made a damm good electronics but their speakers range never seem to took off, even with the die hard naim fans would agree with that. Another point that against Active speakers system would be the limitation of catering the sound to suite your need. and before you asked...yes, I have heard a few Active rig in my own listening room which inclue A.D.A.M tensor, Meridian and older ATC model.

Yes, some "single" manufacturers could not successfully make an active speaker. However, ANY passive speaker that is made active will produce better results. As for sound to suit your need...That's entirely understandable, but then that is on path 2... ie you are adding colouration to the sound to make it sound better to you. As far as the actual performance of the speaker, it will be superior. The amps will match the load and the distortion inherent in a passive crossover will be removed. This isn't an area of expertise for me, but there are plenty of write ups online about the theory.

The mind can be tricked into hearing differences where there are none".and mind can also tricked into hearing no different where there are obviously there. how empty is your glass?

Exactly. The point being, is that when you are doing an objective test of 2 components, then your ears are not the best tools.

MP3 or AAC at 256 KBps and above is indistiguishable to CD for most people including me (again through ABX testing). This hasn't changed anything other than I feel happier listening to Spotify (or rather WiMP for me for the moment). I still buy CD and FLAC downloads.Only if that is the truth! again, I haven't got a clue which equipments you are using but compressed files in my system sound different than the non-compressed ones, still very enjoyable however.

Again, I said "most people". However I don't actually believe that there is an audible difference. I have yet to see any proof. If you believe there is a difference, then again...enjoy...but wouldn't you like to be sure?

Dear fr0g

While many people seem to like your posts I have to be the un-poppular one say that I do disagree with most however I do totally understand the logic behide your points.
You posted, "CD is as good as SACD or HD recordings..(or CAN be. Many SACDs and HD downloads are simply better masterings - This can be tested by downsampling HD downloads and ABX testing) - This has saved me a fortune". They can be the same but only in the musical term. by that I do mean you can enjoy listen to both format equally but as this was post in Hifi forum and not music forum, people may read your post and think there is no reason to go Hi-rez as the standard CD sound the same! If you have good enough tools for the job then the different between the formats are considerbly large imo.

I believe there are some differences in available SACD/HD compared to the CD, and it is entirely down to the master. I believe that in these cases the CD buying public is being poorly treated, all in the name of the loudness war.However, If you feel their is a difference given the same master, then as I said, just enjoy it. However the next bit...

Why would you want to do that? even once let alone 10 or 20 times? If it is sound good to your ears so be it! I don't listen to music to please anyone else but myself. I don't care if that's foo or not if I am happy with the products and it can take me places, in musical term, then money is well spendt.

If you "did" do this, then you would "know" that you could hear a difference. I believe that you hear a difference, but until I see real evidence, then I also believe there is no difference..Two different things entirely

You also posted, Active speaker technology is superior. I have done a bit of auditioning at pro audio shops recently, and a good pair of £400 pro monitors will outperform any speaker/amp combination you can get at the price. This makes sense in a number of ways...The amplifier is made for the speaker load rather than being overengineered to cater for wildly varying loads, the active crossover has less distortion and is more efficient and of course, the box count is down. Active speakers is suuperior? Yes, but not any more superior than passive ones. The problem here is not all hifi company are "jack of all trade", for example, Naim may made a damm good electronics but their speakers range never seem to took off, even with the die hard naim fans would agree with that. Another point that against Active speakers system would be the limitation of catering the sound to suite your need. and before you asked...yes, I have heard a few Active rig in my own listening room which inclue A.D.A.M tensor, Meridian and older ATC model.

Yes, some "single" manufacturers could not successfully make an active speaker. However, ANY passive speaker that is made active will produce better results. As for sound to suit your need...That's entirely understandable, but then that is on path 2... ie you are adding colouration to the sound to make it sound better to you. As far as the actual performance of the speaker, it will be superior. The amps will match the load and the distortion inherent in a passive crossover will be removed. This isn't an area of expertise for me, but there are plenty of write ups online about the theory.

The mind can be tricked into hearing differences where there are none".and mind can also tricked into hearing no different where there are obviously there. how empty is your glass?

Exactly. The point being, is that when you are doing an objective test of 2 components, then your ears are not the best tools.

MP3 or AAC at 256 KBps and above is indistiguishable to CD for most people including me (again through ABX testing). This hasn't changed anything other than I feel happier listening to Spotify (or rather WiMP for me for the moment). I still buy CD and FLAC downloads.Only if that is the truth! again, I haven't got a clue which equipments you are using but compressed files in my system sound different than the non-compressed ones, still very enjoyable however.

Again, I said "most people". However I don't actually believe that there is an audible difference. I have yet to see any proof. If you believe there is a difference, then again...enjoy...but wouldn't you like to be sure?

 

[Anonymous]

The point being, is that when you are doing an objective test of 2 components, then your ears are not the best tools.

:rofl:

Sorry, so we should use our feet, hands or backside to listen then? :shifty:

 

[fr0g]

The point being, is that when you are doing an objective test of 2 components, then your ears are not the best tools.

:rofl:

Sorry, so we should use our feet, hands or backside to listen then? :shifty:

You're doing really well. Three times you haven't really read what I said. The clue is in the word "objective". For a "subjective" test, then your ears are all you have...

 

[Anonymous]

You're doing really well. Three times you haven't really read what I said. The clue is in the word "objective". For a "subjective" test, then your ears are all you have...

Well thank you, good to seeing I'm making sense of some of your clues at least

And the point of doing an "objective" test, which doesn't use one's ear is....? when all that matters is that is sounds good to MY ears.

If the point you're making is: If an objective test (using equipment of some sort) determines that there is no difference, then a person cannot possibly hear any difference since it has been proved no difference exists, then I don't agree. Most likely that will be the case, but not guaranteed 100%, the ear is a very sensitive thing. I'd rather trust my ears and be guided (not ruled) by the science.

 

[Alec]

You're doing really well. Three times you haven't really read what I said. The clue is in the word "objective". For a "subjective" test, then your ears are all you have...

If the point you're making is: If an objective test (using equipment of some sort) determines that there is no difference, then a person cannot possibly hear any difference since it has been proved no difference exists, then I don't agree.

Wha?!?!?! You're not a psychologist are you?

I'm out after my next post or I may get into bother.

 

[fr0g]

You're doing really well. Three times you haven't really read what I said. The clue is in the word "objective". For a "subjective" test, then your ears are all you have...

Well thank you, good to seeing I'm making sense of some of your clues at least

And the point of doing an "objective" test, which doesn't use one's ear is....? when all that matters is that is sounds good to MY ears.

If the point you're making is: If an objective test (using equipment of some sort) determines that there is no difference, then a person cannot possibly hear any difference since it has been proved no difference exists, then I don't agree. Most likely that will be the case, but not guaranteed 100%, the ear is a very sensitive thing. I'd rather trust my ears and be guided (not ruled) by the science.

Let me try to clarify.

The ears are not the best tools for the job. But as you so succinctly put, they are the only tools we realistically have, and are actually the best tools we have when deciding subjective preference.

I did not mean to imply that we can measure certain things any other way once we have a list of kit we wish to demo, just that you have to be careful not to be tricked by your own wish for one component to be better than the other.

When it comes to things that "can" be objectively tested easily, such as codecs and bit-rates, we can do...

a) properly objective tests such as plotting spectrums and jitter analysis. This will tell us that a 192/24 file is A LOT BETTER than a 44.1/16 file. The next step is then audibility. Given the limits of human hearing there is no logical reason why the high resolution file should sound any better. We can't hear up to 96 KHz and the dynamic range available in 16 bits is more than we can use.

So we then need to do b) Subjective testing with the only truly valid method...ABX. If you can spot the difference enough times in a row then you have a statistical probability that there is a difference.

Of course many people don't want the hassle and are happy to trust their ears...and that's absolutely fine.

But logically, 16/44.1 is enough. And after testing it for myself, I'm happy to believe that it is. Comjecture to the contrary is exactly that, conjecture..until someone proves me wrong...at which point I'll re-evaluate.

 

[Alec]

I should add, I remain deeply skeptical as to the validity of that article proving anything...The differences remarked upon were extremely minor and, without more, I would put this down to expecting to hear (almost needing to hear) a difference. It certainly was not a scientific study, nor do WHF suggest it was.

And they copped an awful lot of flac (teeheehee) for it, the evidence of which is probably still on the site if you look for it.

For some it brought to mind that guy from Happy Days water skiing over an animal from the superorder selachimorpha.

Enjoy the rest of the thread, folks.

 

[lindsayt]

Wow, lot of posts in this thread since I last looked in a few days ago. I think this thread covers an interesting subject.

OK, I will take a DAC that I can buy new for £250 with my old laptop PC and an amp that I bought new 30 years ago for £99 and can be bought 2nd hand now for £30 with my favourite speakers that I have in my house. I will plonk them all on the floor. Use a power cable that I got off a redundant piece of computer equipment for the DAC, plus the standard leads that came with the laptop and amp. Use £3.49 interconnects and some spare Cat 5 networking cable for speaker cables.

Would anyone here like to come up with a $20k or $50k system - one that uses a state of the art digital source, the most expensive amplifiers, the swankiest speakers, the worlds most expensive power, interconnect and speaker cables, the snaziest equipment supports, the most expensive mains conditioner to compare against my system? Just to see if there's a pareto or not? Whether 80% of the sound quality in a digital source system comes from 20% of the components - that 20% being the speakers.

Thats a joke, right? Reminds me of a system comparison I saw recently that really was a joke.

Of course, the system I'd put together would be based on a streamer of some sort. Mine would have standard mains cables, but would use a conditioner.

Well, my post was intended to be mildly humourous whilst also making a serious point with a serious offer. With hi-fi systems are we playing a game of no trumps? Or are we playing a game with trumps where Speakers are trumps? If my hand consists of the Ace of speakers, the 4 of digital sources, the 3 of amps, the 2 of cables, will that be good enough to beat someone else's hand of the King of speakers the Ace of digital sources, the Ace of amps and the Ace of cables? Would my speakers trump everything in the challenging system? Let's find out.

What components, cables, supports and mains conditioner would you choose David, to give yourself the best chance of coming up with a system that would sound better than my mullet system?

Would anyone here like to come up with a $20k or $50k system - one that uses a state of the art digital source, the most expensive amplifiers, the swankiest speakers, the worlds most expensive power, interconnect and speaker cables, the snaziest equipment supports, the most expensive mains conditioner to compare against my system?

Yep - I'm up for it! Bring it on!

Excellent! Someone else with an enquiring mind. Would you propose your rather nice Naim system from your signature as the one to put up against my mullet system?

 

[WinterRacer]

WAV et al have to go through lots of processing before being emitted as an SPDIF stream. Jitter is caused by inaccuracies in the timing clock in the device and nothing to do with file conversion prior to transmission.

In the scheme of things there are far bigger things (even in hi-fi) to worry about than WAV vs Flac.

Yes, we agree However on the same principle, the use of different HDDs could not have any difference on the SQ, but the recent WHF review says otherwise. So I remain open minded as to whether audible differences can be explained logically.

The Squeezebox Touch Toolbox also suggests using Windows 7 over Linux, FLAC over WMA and the lowest possible compression (biggest file, '0') for FLAC conversion. None of these should make a difference, but the author clearly thinks otherwise. I think whatever differences may exist, they are too small to worry about.

My biggest worry is what to listen to next... :cheers:

The recent TBQ did say HDDs might affect SQ, but what they actually tested was different NAS devices (which is really just a low powered computer). From the feedback to this site, it's clear that a lot of people had issues with that article; I think we can safely say its results were not conclusive and controversial with many (me included).

Regarding ABX testing, I like to know that I'm spending my hard earned money on something other than the placebo effect.

However, my biggest issue with the hi-fi business is that all this talk of cables, jitter, HDDs affecting SQ, etc. detracts from genuine advances in music reproduction and ends up putting a lot of people off.

 

[Anonymous]

With hi-fi systems are we playing a game of no trumps? Or are we playing a game with trumps where Speakers are trumps? If my hand consists of the Ace of speakers, the 4 of digital sources, the 3 of amps, the 2 of cables, will that be good enough to beat someone else's hand of the King of speakers the Ace of digital sources, the Ace of amps and the Ace of cables? Would my speakers trump everything in the challenging system? Let's find out.

There are no trumps...its more like a game of poker. You might have excellent cards (expensive equipment) on the face of it - Q, K, A etc. and I have low numbered cards (cheap equipment). However my pair of 2s and 3s beats your Ace high (my cheap system has greater synergy and balance).

Of course, the higher cards/better equipment have much greater potential to be winners, but its not guaranteed.

 

[lindsayt]

Ah yes, but that's exactly the point of my posts in this thread. Are you sure there are no trumps? Are you sure there's no pareto? Are you sure that 80% of the sound quality of digital source systems is not dependant on the speakers?

Also are you sure synergy is so important? In my proposed system there's no particular synergy at all. In fact traditional wisdom would say that there is a lack of synergy between my amp and speakers.

And what would it mean if my mullet chucked-together system sounded at least as good as, if not better than than a system made up of ultra components? OK it wouldn't mean that all CD players, amps, cables sound the same, but it might mean that the difference in sound quality between these items is not as significant or important as some people suppose.

 

[paradiziac]

Phew, it's a shame JD and AE Jim didn't get the last word for such an admirable thread rescue attempt...

==

I think you choose whatever gives you the presentation you like, even a "neutral" sound is still a preference. Most folks end up with what they like and then argue that it's the best for everyone. One man's meat...

==

Regarding the other point RE: ABX, I also found Foobar's ABX plugin gave useful insight into the fallibility of my own ears. Differences I imagined I heard I couldn't in fact ABX, so I stopped worrying about them.

 

[John Duncan]

One does one's best...

 

[fr0g]

Regarding the other point RE: ABX, I also found Foobar's ABX plugin gave useful insight into the fallibility of my own ears. Differences I imagined I heard I couldn't in fact ABX, so I stopped worrying about them.

clap clap clap. Exactly. While the thread originator had opposite ideas, this one simple to try point is one that causes derision and hatred in the opposite camp. And for the life of me, I don't know why.

 

[oldric_naubhoff]

Would my speakers trump everything in the challenging system? Let's find out.

I like you Lind. I really do . mostly for your nonconformist views. but even more so that they are absolutely correct. I presume years of wisdom speak through you.

I guess many people realise that speakers are the weak link. however, I suspect that few people realise how much a weak link it really is. there are few exceptions to the rule and I suspect that this Ace of yours would be one of the exceptions. let me guess; original Quads ESL?

 

[John Duncan]

Anyway, to the OP - I have just definitively proved that a hifi amp sounds different from an AV receiver of similar power and cost...

 

[Anonymous]

Regarding the other point RE: ABX, I also found Foobar's ABX plugin gave useful insight into the fallibility of my own ears. Differences I imagined I heard I couldn't in fact ABX, so I stopped worrying about them.

clap clap clap. Exactly. While the thread originator had opposite ideas, this one simple to try point is one that causes derision and hatred in the opposite camp. And for the life of me, I don't know why.

I think scientific (ok, not the stuff of Einstein, but you know what i mean) tests are welcomed, and their findings evaluated and used constructively, in all manner of things, without the kind of scrutiny and mistrust that some people cast over them, when they contradict what they say they hear when listening to music.

And i think the reason is all to do with the emotion of music, tempered with the personal gratification some people feel, when they've made minor system changes that science say shouldn't change the sound.

 

[manicm]

The converted files have been demonstrated to be identical, so that identical files are being played. They would not be identical if there were variations in jitter.

You're completely missing what Dr Lodge has said. Yes the files may be identical when decoded to WAV using whatever software on a PC, but during playback FLAC, ALAC, WMAL all have to be decoded by the player, incurring processing overhead however miniscule, and this is where, my friend, that jitter could occur.

 

[manicm]

It's the point that modern playback systems are so powerful as to render any small conversion algorithm irrelevant. The FLAC is converted to PCM before playback. Jitter isn't an issue.

WAV and FLAC sound identical because they are identical at the point at which it matters.

Wow, that is a sweeping statement, and utter nonsense IMHO. Jitter isn't an issue? Really???

I recall WHF did a readers review where they tried different NAS hard drives which according to your statements above should make no difference since the digitally stored music is identical. But the readers were able to tell a difference, or perhaps they were imagining it all? If hard drives can make a difference, it stands to reason that may other factors can make a difference too...networks, cabling, racks, main cables etc. I'm not saying they do make a difference, only that they might, and no one can prove either way. Certainly the absence of any difference can never be proved.

Gotta agree with Dr Lodge here, fr0g, with whom Naim would agree as well - in their latest standalone streamers they're making a big deal about reducing instruction/algorithm set sizes in their players to reduce processing overhead as much as possible which they believe affects the sound. So it's not just about throwing fast chips at the board.

 

[manicm]

As for lossless and wav, there isn't an audible difference. This has been measured. It's probably why they called it lossless.

Please substantiate this with 'scientific fact' - where has this been measured???? Yes the bits and bytes add up, but you've got scientific proof that they sound alike? I'm not denying the perfect rip, but as far as playback goes I'd like some proof.

Naim would clearly disagree with you here, and so would Wadia.

EDIT: I had previously crossed this post out, but what the hell, Igglebert I challenge you to provide the measurements in playback to reveal no difference.

No one will do this as it would require large listening tests, which no one will bother to set up or be involved in because the science (yup) says the wiggly lines look the same.

I'd like to see the results of Naim and Wadia's extensive, large scale listening tests, or the figures and graphs they have based their theory on.

Oh now now now, don't distort the tune smart Alec Mr Igglebert claimed to have SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE (or 'MEASUREMENTS') that lossless and uncompressed sound the same. I patiently await...

 

[fr0g]

The converted files have been demonstrated to be identical, so that identical files are being played. They would not be identical if there were variations in jitter.

You're completely missing what Dr Lodge has said. Yes the files may be identical when decoded to WAV using whatever software on a PC, but during playback FLAC, ALAC, WMAL all have to be decoded by the player, incurring processing overhead however miniscule, and this is where, my friend, that jitter could occur.

And you are completely missing the point. Jitter is not a relevant factor until after the conversion has taken place. (and even then, studies show, it still isn't)

It's the point that modern playback systems are so powerful as to render any small conversion algorithm irrelevant. The FLAC is converted to PCM before playback. Jitter isn't an issue.

WAV and FLAC sound identical because they are identical at the point at which it matters.

Wow, that is a sweeping statement, and utter nonsense IMHO. Jitter isn't an issue? Really???

I recall WHF did a readers review where they tried different NAS hard drives which according to your statements above should make no difference since the digitally stored music is identical. But the readers were able to tell a difference, or perhaps they were imagining it all? If hard drives can make a difference, it stands to reason that may other factors can make a difference too...networks, cabling, racks, main cables etc. I'm not saying they do make a difference, only that they might, and no one can prove either way. Certainly the absence of any difference can never be proved.

Gotta agree with Dr Lodge here, fr0g, with whom Naim would agree as well - in their latest standalone streamers they're making a big deal about reducing instruction/algorithm set sizes in their players to reduce processing overhead as much as possible which they believe affects the sound. So it's not just about throwing fast chips at the board.

Agree all you like. My personal belief is that the company you mention are milking it. Processing overhead was a non-issue 10 years ago. What do you think the processing changes in the sound these days? A £50 Nokia phone can do it, so I imagine a £3000 streamer could manage quite well...don't you?

 

[fr0g]

[

Oh now now now, don't distort the tune smart Alec Mr Igglebert claimed to have SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE (or 'MEASUREMENTS') that lossless and uncompressed sound the same. I patiently await...

With claims like this, that border on the mystical, it's the claim that needs scientific evidence, not the one with logic on his side.

An analogy would be to say that you are patiently awaiting proof of the non-existance of the tooth fairy.