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

Page 12 - Seeking answers? Join the What HiFi community: the world's leading independent guide to buying and owning hi-fi and home entertainment products.

BenLaw

Well-known member
Nov 21, 2010
475
7
18,895
Visit site
manicm said:
BenLaw said:
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.

I'm not missing the point, and I can't put the response better than fr0g:

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

But there's no point entering a debate with you as you are wedded to the idea that wav and flac sound different, any evidence to the contrary be damned. Fr0g has very reasonably stated a number of times, and I concur, that he would happily revise his views if there were evidence to contradict them / prove the contrary. Your approach, on the contrary, smacks of the fundamentalist religionist.
 

CnoEvil

New member
Aug 21, 2009
556
14
0
Visit site
After nearly 280 posts, and a lot of debate, has anyone actually changed their viewpoint (on anything).....if not, then it's a proper hifi thread.

The other remark that caught my attention was Frog's comment that the idea of Hifi is "to strive for the closest to optimal, distortion- free sound as is possible"; and that there were too distinct paths: 1] Accurate or 2] Coloured, where the latter isn't considered hifi.

This is a well reasoned argument, and perfectly logical, but I have this thought to add....I think the term "Hi-Fidelity", or" Hifi", was coined as a marketing term used to describe the more realistic sound that the new-fangled LP stereo records played on expensive equipment brought about, compared to the old Gramophone.

The idea behind any system, is to be as faithful as possible to what the real thing sounds like, and that the term "Hifi" should/does encompass all decent components, whether Valve, Hybrid or Class A/ AB/D.....if certain makes are classed as "non-hifi",this is being a little hard on the effort of a lot of brands; and anyway, who would be the arbiter of what would make the grade.
 

matthewpiano

Well-known member
CnoEvil said:
After nearly 280 posts, and a lot of debate, has anyone actually changed their viewpoint (on anything).....if not, then it's a proper hifi thread.

The other remark that caught my attention was Frog's comment that the idea of Hifi is "to strive for the closest to optimal, distortion- free sound as is possible"; and that there were too distinct paths: 1] Accurate or 2] Coloured, where the latter isn't considered hifi.

This is a well reasoned argument, and perfectly logical, but I have this thought to add....I think the term "Hi-Fidelity", or" Hifi", was coined as a marketing term used to describe the more realistic sound that the new-fangled LP stereo records played on expensive equipment brought about, compared to the old Gramophone.

The idea behind any system, is to be as faithful as possible to what the real thing sounds like, and that the term "Hifi" should/does encompass all decent components, whether Valve, Hybrid or Class A/ AB/D.....if certain makes are classed as "non-hifi",this is being a little hard on the effort of a lot of brands; and anyway, who would be the arbiter of what would make the grade.

A very good point Cno.

Ultimately what this thread has turned into is a discussion of semantics, combined with a a discussion of 'difference' between two camps both of whom are essentially asking the other to provide proof that they are right.

Can it really move the argument on any further?
 

fr0g

New member
Jan 7, 2008
445
0
0
Visit site
CnoEvil said:
The other remark that caught my attention was Frog's comment that the idea of Hifi is "to strive for the closest to optimal, distortion- free sound as is possible"; and that there were too distinct paths: 1] Accurate or 2] Coloured, where the latter isn't considered hifi.

Rather twisting my original meaning I think. I didn't get a "God doesn't play dice" quotemine at least. And no I'm not comparing my futile efforts with the great Albert Einstein, but you get my drift.

And nothing is ever "too" distinct. I like distinction no matter how much there is.
 

CnoEvil

New member
Aug 21, 2009
556
14
0
Visit site
fr0g said:
CnoEvil said:
The other remark that caught my attention was Frog's comment that the idea of Hifi is "to strive for the closest to optimal, distortion- free sound as is possible"; and that there were too distinct paths: 1] Accurate or 2] Coloured, where the latter isn't considered hifi.

Rather twisting my original meaning I think. I didn't get a "God doesn't play dice" quotemine at least. And no I'm not comparing my futile efforts with the great Albert Einstein, but you get my drift.

And nothing is ever "too" distinct. I like distinction no matter how much there is.

There was no deliberate attempt to twist anything.....maybe a misunderstanding of what you were trying to say. You certainly made it sound like Path 2 is valid, but "not Hifi".

I am not saying you are wrong per se, only opening up another point of view.
 
T

the record spot

Guest
I've just been at a very interesting lecture tonight at Edinburgh University in honour of Alan Turing. The lecture was one of four given by Professor Ray Dolan, one of the world's most eminent neuroscientists.

I mention it as while the lecture was organised by the British Computer Society and the Institute of Engineering and Technology, the subject matter for much of the time centred round perception, belief and influences. This wasn't at a particular level in terms of examples and certainly not audio, but it gave an insight into the mechanics of the brain at a deep interior level and how we establish belief and opinions (including the origins of establishing inferences via Bayesian theory or Bayesian probability).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_probability

One of the very interesting things that came out, was the influence of Dopamine in improving the function of working memory. So, for all of you that argue that people have very dodgy memory capabilities, get them to have a bit more Dopamine and find out if their interconnects are as good as they thought they were...
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
manicm said:
Dr Lodge said:
fr0g said:
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.
Well to be fair, and i'm not being funny here, but if you're going to charge £3k for a digital streamer, you're going to have to try to justify that price, which kinda gives a motive to be creative in describing what it can do, or needs to be able to do or deal with, if you will..
 

Craig M.

New member
Mar 20, 2008
127
0
0
Visit site
CnoEvil said:
The idea behind any system, is to be as faithful as possible to what the real thing sounds like...

unless i'm getting hold of the wrong end of the stick, i'm not sure i agree with you. for example, the sound of a given instrument or voice will vary considerably depending on the acoustics of the space it's in at the time, how does your 'hifi' know what that particular instrument, in that particular acoustic space, sounds like? wouldn't it be safer if it just attempted to replay the recording rather than trying to second guess what the 'real thing' sounded like at that time and in that place?

again, unless i'm getting hold of the wrong end of the stick...
 

fr0g

New member
Jan 7, 2008
445
0
0
Visit site
CnoEvil said:
fr0g said:
CnoEvil said:
The other remark that caught my attention was Frog's comment that the idea of Hifi is "to strive for the closest to optimal, distortion- free sound as is possible"; and that there were too distinct paths: 1] Accurate or 2] Coloured, where the latter isn't considered hifi.

Rather twisting my original meaning I think. I didn't get a "God doesn't play dice" quotemine at least. And no I'm not comparing my futile efforts with the great Albert Einstein, but you get my drift.

And nothing is ever "too" distinct. I like distinction no matter how much there is.

There was no deliberate attempt to twist anything.....maybe a misunderstanding of what you were trying to say. You certainly made it sound like Path 2 is valid, but "not Hifi".

I am not saying you are wrong per se, only opening up another point of view.

No worries. I seem to have been misunderdtood a lot on this thread :) Michael J Fox seems to insist on misunderstanding me, but it's all good.

But essentially I do believe path 1 is more "Hi-fi" in the strictest meaning of the words "High" and "Fidelity", but that isn't to say path 2 is "wrong". What it usually is though, is more expensive, painful and drawn out. And from personal experience and internet chatter, it seems that most people who start or revert to path 1, don't go back...They aren't mutually exclusive paths, but for me at least, trying to understand the science at the same time as striving for the best I can afford leads to a far more zen-like end result.
 

CnoEvil

New member
Aug 21, 2009
556
14
0
Visit site
BenLaw said:
fr0g said:
John Duncan said:
Looks like somebody's wrong on the internet again...

I wish I'd never got involved :)

I, and I imagine others, are glad you did :) You've been reasoned and polite, as the thread as a whole has, for the most part.

I totally agree, and my comment was certainly not meant to be an attack, or in any way confrontational.
 

fr0g

New member
Jan 7, 2008
445
0
0
Visit site
Craig M. said:
CnoEvil said:
The idea behind any system, is to be as faithful as possible to what the real thing sounds like...

unless i'm getting hold of the wrong end of the stick, i'm not sure i agree with you. for example, the sound of a given instrument or voice will vary considerably depending on the acoustics of the space it's in at the time, how does your 'hifi' know what that particular instrument, in that particular acoustic space, sounds like? wouldn't it be safer if it just attempted to replay the recording rather than trying to second guess what the 'real thing' sounded like at that time and in that place?

again, unless i'm getting hold of the wrong end of the stick...

I agree, Audio playback equipment at its "highest fidelity" should be striving to play back the contents of the medium as faithfully as it can. It's up to the folks recording, mastering and mixing to try and achieve reality, if that is in fact what they want to do.
I guess with classical music, that should be the case, even if it's an unachievable utopia (with current technology).

Although I guess if you have a 1000 sq metre "listening" room and 50 speakers, it may be close - could be nightmarishly costly if you think the "synergy" is wrong after the installation though. :)
 

BenLaw

Well-known member
Nov 21, 2010
475
7
18,895
Visit site
fr0g said:
Audio playback equipment at its "highest fidelity" should be striving to play back the contents of the medium as faithfully as it can. It's up to the folks recording, mastering and mixing to try and achieve reality, if that is in fact what they want to do.

I guess with classical music, that should be the case, even if it's an unachievable utopia (with current technology).

Although I guess if you have a 1000 sq metre "listening" room and 50 speakers, it may be close - could be nightmarishly costly if you think the "synergy" is wrong after the installation though. :)

The best post yet, nice one :)
 

manicm

Well-known member
Craig M. said:
i think manicm should shut us all up, and post the results of his flac/wav ab-x test. :help: :)

It is not and never was my intention of proving any scientific fact or results for what some of us perceive differences of whatever nature be it between lossless/uncompressed or others. Paul Stephenson has not provided any scientific evidence as far as I can tell, but truly believes Naim can hear differences.

If Naim have an agenda then so do Linn. And as someone posted here, if our ears are unreliable what must I rely on, my posterior??? Please!!!!!

I'm not denying any scientific evidence or measurements, but a corollary stands that you also need to prove that during playback there are no differences between different formats. And none has been provided.

Please also feel free to brand WHF as howling heretics if their recent NAS/streaming test was anything to go by. Also for e.g. in their Marantz streamer how they found the exact same file sounded a bit better through USB than streamed.

And does fr0g (or was it someone else) really believe we're complete fools to believe there's no audible difference between MP3 and CD, does he???

It's this kind of thoroughly offensive condascension that I can't swallow, or won't. To quote Sting - I'm too full to swallow my pride.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I just saw this thread (http://www.whathifi.com/forum/this-week-i-have-mostly-been-listening-towatching/how-did-i-miss-this-album) and it struck me that it represents what Hi-Fi means to me personally (and not a mention or hint of worrying about FLAC/WAV/ABX - it's just about the appreciation of the music).

Not knocking the thread at all by the way, I'm learning from the debate but I'm just reminding myself that I enjoyed the music before I knew about lossless, FLAC and WAV, it just sounds better now.
 

CnoEvil

New member
Aug 21, 2009
556
14
0
Visit site
Craig M. said:
unless i'm getting hold of the wrong end of the stick, i'm not sure i agree with you. for example, the sound of a given instrument or voice will vary considerably depending on the acoustics of the space it's in at the time, how does your 'hifi' know what that particular instrument, in that particular acoustic space, sounds like? wouldn't it be safer if it just attempted to replay the recording rather than trying to second guess what the 'real thing' sounded like at that time and in that place?

again, unless i'm getting hold of the wrong end of the stick...

I think that although we are coming at this from different perspectives, I don't think we are that far apart.

There are so many variables at play, that it's next to impossible to end up with a "definitive accurate"......no two people can agree on what this is anyway.

If one is familiar with what natural instruments / human voice sound like, (as in an orchestra/opera) this (for me) is the benchmark to use......so system synergy matched to the room is the key.

I find that I can argue myself round in a complete circle without effort....reminds me of the Chicken and Egg.

The only safe thing to do, is to get what gives pleasure and forget about what's theoretically better or more accurate.....its all very personal and people don't like their strongly held beliefs trashed and will usually defend them robustly (because there is passion involved/and they're blokes!).
 

Craig M.

New member
Mar 20, 2008
127
0
0
Visit site
to attempt to get back to the original question, this (click me) i would say sums up for me why controlled blind testing is the only way, and why we really can't 'trust our ears' when trying to decide if one thing is better than another. it's a bit long winded, so i will quote what i think are the main things standing in the way of just sitting down and listening.

1) LEVEL DIFFERENCES. If one amplifier played louder than the other, then it will sound better. Louder music sounds better to us. That is why we like to listen to our music loudly.

The gain and power of amplifiers varies. Therefore, for a specific volume control setting on the preamp used in the test, different amplifiers will play at slightly different loudness levels.

But the audiophile in the example above probably didn't even attempt to set the preamp level at exactly the same level for both amplifiers. He probably just turned up the level to where it sounded good to him. He made no attempt to match the levels at all because he was unaware that this was an uncontrolled variable.

In any case, the amps probably would have had different loudness levels even if the preamp setting was identical. This is because amplifiers have different gain and power levels.

Note that human hearing is extremely sensitive to loudness. Scientific tests show that we can hear and accurately detect very tiny differences in loudness (1/4 dB is possible). At the same time, we don't recognize obvious differences in the level of music until there are a couple of dB of difference. This is due to the transient and dynamic nature of music, which makes subtle level differences hard to recognize.

Therefore when music is just a little louder, we hear it as "better" rather than as "louder." It is essential that you understand that two identical components will sound different if one simply plays a little louder than the other. The louder one will sound better to us even if the two actually sound identical.

This is a serious problem in listening tests. Consider the amplifier test above and for purposes of this discussion, let's assume that both amplifiers sound exactly the same, but that the new one will play a bit louder because it has slightly more gain. This means that the new amp will sound better than the old one in an open loop test even though the two actually sound identical.

The audiophile will then draw the conclusion that the new amp is better and will spend $10,000 to buy it. But in fact, the new amp didn't really sound any better and it was the difference in loudness that caused the listener to perceive that it was better.

So the audiophile would have drawn a false conclusion about the new amp sounding better. This erroneous conclusion cost him $10,000. I think you can see from this example that you absolutely, positively must not have more than one uncontrolled variable in your tests.

2) TIME DELAY. Humans can only remember SUBTLE differences in sound for about two seconds. Oh sure, you can tell the difference between your mother's and your father's voices after many years. But those differences aren't subtle.

Most audiophiles are seeking differences like "air", "clarity", "imaging", "dynamics", etc. that are elusive and rather hard to hear and define. They are not obvious. We cannot remember them for more than a few seconds. To be able to really hear subtle differences accurately and reliably requires that you be able to switch between the amplifiers immediately.

Equally important is that you should make many comparisons between the components as this will greatly improve the reliability of your testing. This is particularly important when dealing with music as different types of music have a big influence on the sensitivity of what you can hear during your testing. You really need to test with many types of music using many comparisons.

Open loop testing only provides a single comparison, which is separated by a relatively long delay while components are changed. This makes it very difficult to determine with certainty if subtle differences in sound are present.

3) PSYCHOLOGICAL BIAS. Humans harbor biases. These prejudices influence what we hear. In other words, if you EXPECT one component to sound better than another -- it will.

It doesn't matter what causes your bias. The audiophile in the previous test had a bias towards the new amp, which is why he brought it home for testing. He expected it to sound better than his old amp, so it did. It was especially easy for his bias to influence him due to the time delay involved as he changed cables.

That bias may have been because he expects tubes to sound better (or worse) than transistors, or that the new amp had (or didn't have) feedback, or it was more expensive than his old amp, or that it looked better, or that he read a great review on it, or that is had a particular class of operation, etc. Bias is bias regardless of the cause and it will affect the performance that an audiophile perceives. It must be eliminated from the test.

Don't think you are immune from the effects of bias. Even if you try hard to be fair and open-minded in a test, you simply can't will your biases away. You are human. You have biases. Accept it.

4) CLIPPING. Clipping is when an amplifier is being driven beyond its power and voltage abilities. This produces massive amounts of distortion, compression of the dynamic range, loss of clarity and detail, a sense of strain, harshness, and generally bad performance.

It doesn't matter what good features an amplifier has -- if it is clipping, it is performing horribly and any potentially subtle improvements in sound due to a particular feature will be totally swamped by the massive distortion and general misbehavior of an amplifier when clipping. Therefore no test is valid if either amplifier is clipping.

If one amplifier in the above test was clipping, while the other wasn't, then of course the two will sound different from each other. The amp that is clipping will sound worse than the one that isn't. But you must not test a clipping amp (that is grossly misbehaving) to one that isn't clipping (and is performing well). That is not a valid test at all and doesn't tell you how an amp sounds when it is performing properly and within its design parameters.

Most audiophiles simply don't recognize when their amps are clipping. This is because the clipping usually only occurs on musical peaks where it is very transient, and does not occur at the average power level. Transient clipping is not recognized as clipping by most listeners because the average levels are relatively much longer than the peaks. Since the average levels aren't obviously distorted, the listeners think the amp is performing within its design parameters -- even when it is not.

Peak clipping really messes up the performance of the amplifier as its power supply voltages and circuits take several milliseconds to recover from clipping. During that time, the amp is operating far outside its design parameters, has massive distortion, and it will not sound good, even though it doesn't sound grossly distorted to the listener.

Instead of distortion, the listener will describe a amp that is clipping peaks as sounding "dull" (due to compressed dynamics), muddy (due to high transient distortion and compressed dynamics), "congested", "harsh", "strained", etc. In other words, the listener will recognize that the amp doesn't sound good, but he won't recognize the cause as simple amplifier clipping. Instead, he will likely assume that the differences in sound he hears is due to some minor feature like feedback, capacitors, type of tubes, bias level, class of operation, etc. rather than simply lack of power.

But his opinion would be just that -- an assumption that is totally unsupported and unproven by any evidence. Most likely his guess would not be the actual cause of the problem.

Because different audiophiles will make different assumptions about the causes of the differences they hear, it is easy to see why there is so much confusion and inaccuracy about the performance of components when open loop testing is used.

It is easy to show that most speaker systems require about 500 watts to play musical peaks cleanly. Most audiophiles use amps with far less power. Therefore audiophiles are comparing clipping amps most of the time. This variable must be eliminated if you want to compare amplifiers operating as their designers intended.

5) The last uncontrolled variable is the amplifier. This is the one variable that we want to test. So we do not need to control it.

The above information should make it clear why open loop testing is fraught with error and confusion. It is easy to see why we can easily be tricked by open loop testing, particularly when there is a significant time delay which will allow bias to strongly influence what we hear and make it difficult to recognize level differences. All these uncontrolled variables simply make it impossible to draw valid conclusions from open loop testing, even though we may be doing our best and being totally sincere in our attempt to determine how the two components sound.

a controlled ab-x test would be a right pain to setup, but given the above i would trust the results of one every time over the usual 'subjective' listening test.
 

Craig M.

New member
Mar 20, 2008
127
0
0
Visit site
manicm said:
And does fr0g (or was it someone else) really believe we're complete fools to believe there's no audible difference between MP3 and CD, does he???

well, there are plenty of mp3/wav comparison files on various forums available to download and compare yourself. once the bit-rate passes a certain point, i'm not aware of anyone who can reliably differentiate between them. i know i can't.
 

steve_1979

Well-known member
Jul 14, 2010
231
10
18,795
Visit site
Craig M. said:
well, there are plenty of mp3/wav comparison files on various forums available to download and compare yourself. once the bit-rate passes a certain point, i'm not aware of anyone who can reliably differentiate between them. i know i can't.

I used to think that it was easy to tell the difference MP3 and lossless until I tried and failed to tell the difference in ABX tests. I now realise that my own ears/mind had been fooling me.
 

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts