I've met people who say they can reliably detect high-res audio vs. CD-res audio in double-blind listening tests, but they admit the difference is extremely subtle.
Audiophiles tend to 'say' lots of things. I have no doubt those people believe every word of what they say.
When I say I can't hear the difference between an iPod and decent CD player, most audiophiles get a bit irate, calling into question the quality of my equipment and/or ears. I have in the past recorded the outputs from the CD player and iPod - same track of course, and then edited the recordings into a single file, posted it on a file sharing site and asked the detractors to listen to it and tell me where the edit points are.
The responses I have gotten vary from absolute silence to the A/D converter isn't good enough.
Same thing happens with the compressed music sounds awful compared to CD argument, I rip a 223 kbps AAC track and splice parts into the equivalent AIFF file, post it up and ask the golden ears to tell me where the splices are. More silence.
Don't get me wrong, I actually enjoy high fidelity audio reproduction and have a few pieces of equipment related to it, but the related BS is hard to stomach. I guess I am more of a listener than a gear fetishist.
These were professional recording engineers, who may or may not also be audiophiles, and who had just given an hour-long talk about double-blind testing and how it shows that differences you thought were there (and were huge) when testing "sighted", are actually not detectable. As I said, the tests they did were double blind so they hadn't fooled themselves into thinking they could hear a difference. Of course, they could have lied to me about the tests being double-blind; I didn't witness them.
I shall utter the three words that strike mortal terror into the hearts of audiophools - double blind testing.
Well the great thing about Hybrid CD's is you can switch between the SACD layer and the regular CD layer on the fly.....and I've done my own double blind testing. SACD is noticebly better. In fact when I listen to a regular CD it sounds like crap.
Of course it helps having decent equipment to play on and not some crap you picked up at your local Best Buy.
Well the great thing about Hybrid CD's is you can switch between the SACD layer and the regular CD layer on the fly.....and I've done my own double blind testing. SACD is noticebly better. In fact when I listen to a regular CD it sounds like crap.
Of course it helps having decent equipment to play on and not some crap you picked up at your local Best Buy.
Please describe how you performed your double-blind test. Genuinely interested…
Please describe how you performed your double-blind test. Genuinely interested…
Was blind folded (really), had my bud switch between SACD and CD on a number of my favorite discs. Because I couldn't see I had no way of knowing where he started (ie on SACD or on CD) - I just let my ears decide.
Also, the study being referred to said that a majority couldn't tell the difference - which obviously means that there were some who could.
But what do I know I also love Vinyl and Laserdiscs
Oh and if your likely response (assuming your just trying to prove a point) is that it wasn't a true double blind test, don't waste your time. Obviously it was as fair a test as I could make it. I can make an observation of say that when I hold something in my hand and let go that it falls to the ground - just because I don't do a thesis paper on it and apply for grant money and have it reviewed in a scientific journal doesn't make my observation any less valid.
The tests were conducted for over a year using different systems and a variety of subjects. The systems included expensive professional monitors and one high-end system with electrostatic loudspeakers and expensive components and cables. The subjects included professional recording engineers, students in a university recording program, and dedicated audiophiles. The test results show that the CD-quality A/D/A loop was undetectable at normal-to-loud listening levels, by any of the subjects, on any of the playback systems.
cnocbui, sounds like you should send your spliced up files to pondosinatra and ask him to tell you where the splices are.
I would be glad to. You up for that pondosinatra? I'll post the two files and you tell us where the joins are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pondosinatra
Do you actually have a SACD player? I'm sure to you your compressed music sounds great, but what do you have to compare it to?
I also play my iPod through my setup, but to say it sounds marvelous in comparison is simply ridiculous.
I said they sound marvelous, I didn't say they sound better. The CD player I have compared to is a Micromega Stage 2 as well as a more modern DVD player of no real repute.
No I don't have a sacd player, for the same reason I didn't buy one of those green marker pens and why I buy my speaker cable on the basis of what the cross sectional area of the conductors is.
I would be glad to. You up for that pondosinatra? I'll post the two files and you tell us where the joins are.
A more accurate test would be to splice half a song from say 'Stop Making Sense' on CD and then from the Blu-Ray in DTS-HD (there is no SACD unfortuneatly). But even then, listening to the results through a pair of iPhone buds or your Labtec computer speakers is pointless.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cnocbui
No I don't have a sacd player, for the same reason I didn't buy one of those green marker pens and why I buy my speaker cable on the basis of what the cross sectional area of the conductors is.
Ah yes, the I can run my HDMI using coat hangers type....
Scoff if you will but the equipment makes a huge difference. My first foray into SACD was with an older Sony 5 platter hooked up to an ancient Yammy receiver. SACD's sounded great, but better than CD? I probably would have been hard pressed to tell the difference.
Fast forward to now that I have a top end Pioneer SACD player hooked through a dedicated stereo amp with analog connects and the difference is jaw dropping.
I get what you (and others) are saying - that a lot of people get caught up in the hype as to what's better. But sometimes it actually is better.
A more accurate test would be to splice half a song from say 'Stop Making Sense' on CD and then from the Blu-Ray in DTS-HD (there is no SACD unfortuneatly). But even then, listening to the results through a pair of iPhone buds or your Labtec computer speakers is pointless.
Er, I think you've misunderstood the point of the test. You get the file in PCM format and you can play it on whatever you want (e.g. burn it to CD and play it on your HiFi). You made disparaging remarks about lossy compression* so don't you think it would be interesting to find out if you can really hear it?
* of course, at some point you can hear artefacts and a decent system is more revealing. 128 kbps mp3 is horrid but I think I wouldn't be able to tell the difference between 256 kbps AAC and uncompressed.
A more accurate test would be to splice half a song from say 'Stop Making Sense' on CD and then from the Blu-Ray in DTS-HD (there is no SACD unfortuneatly). But even then, listening to the results through a pair of iPhone buds or your Labtec computer speakers is pointless.
Ah yes, the I can run my HDMI using coat hangers type....
Scoff if you will but the equipment makes a huge difference. My first foray into SACD was with an older Sony 5 platter hooked up to an ancient Yammy receiver. SACD's sounded great, but better than CD? I probably would have been hard pressed to tell the difference.
Fast forward to now that I have a top end Pioneer SACD player hooked through a dedicated stereo amp with analog connects and the difference is jaw dropping.
I get what you (and others) are saying - that a lot of people get caught up in the hype as to what's better. But sometimes it actually is better.
Well you failed the hearing test - point proven I think.
Earlier I said:
Quote:
most audiophiles get a bit irate, calling into question the quality of my equipment and/or ears.
Prescient of me, non?
I use a pair Sony MDR-D77 headphones and B&W 802 Nautilus speakers.
There is science behind HDMI, there is not a jot behind the supposed superiority of cables. Funny you should mention coathangers. They are galvanised steel and theoretically fairly poor conductors compared to copper. Audiophiles could not tell the difference between coat hangers and monster speaker cables
Intersting link. I'll pass it by the folks at AVS and see what they say
Funny that you espouse that cables don't matter yet use a high end pair of speakers...why not use the cheapest you can find? After all the movement of air is the movement of air, non?
Fun discussion but I'm off to listen to my favourite SACD.
Hmmm. I'm confused. Are you or are you not willing to do the test?
Quote:
Originally Posted by pondosinatra
Funny that you espouse that cables don't matter yet use a high end pair of speakers
That's not funny at all. I'm surprised I have to say this, but cables and speakers are not the same! Loudspeakers are by far the biggest determinant of sound quality: the difference between models is both audibly and measurably enormous.
Hmmm. I'm confused. Are you or are you not willing to do the test?
That's not funny at all. I'm surprised I have to say this, but cables and speakers are not the same! Loudspeakers are by far the biggest determinant of sound quality: the difference between models is both audibly and measurably enormous.
Well you just contradicted yourself. You can't say on one hand that cables don't make a difference because it's simply the physics of electrons travelling down a conductor and materials, length, build quality etc. are irrelevant, and at the same time say speakers have a huge impact on sound - after all it's just air being pushed around.
As for bitrates not making a difference, you would also assert that one wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a movie in Dolby 5.1 at 6.144 Mbit/s and in DTS-HD at 24.5 Mbit/s ?
Well you just contradicted yourself. You can't say on one hand that cables don't make a difference because it's simply the physics of electrons travelling down a conductor and materials, length, build quality etc. are irrelevant, and at the same time say speakers have a huge impact on sound - after all it's just air being pushed around.
Yes I can, because speakers are not "just pushing air around" in the same manner that cables "just facilitate the drifting of electrons". The physics of electrons travelling in metal mean that when you try and measure the frequency response of a cable, it'll be flat from DC to several MHz, depending on its length and geometry. Try and measure the distortion of a cable and you will fail because it is many orders of magnitude below the measurable limit, and none of the measurements will vary depending on the room in which you use the cable. However, the physics of "just pushing air around" means that if you do the same measurements on loudspeakers, there is a huge difference between models (even the very best can not achieve flat frequency response from 20 to 20 kHz and typically have HF distortion of a few %), and those things change with polar position and the acoustic environment in which the speaker is operating. A loudspeaker might measure flat frequency response from dead in front, but not when measured 30° off axis. This directionality of loudspeakers significantly affects their perceived sound quality. Excellent article for anyone who is interested in this: science in the service of art.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pondosinatra
As for bitrates not making a difference, you would also assert that one wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a movie in Dolby 5.1 at 6.144 Mbit/s and in DTS-HD at 24.5 Mbit/s ?
I'd be perfectly happy to take part in a test to determine whether or not I can hear the difference. Will you take cnocbui's test or not?
Yes I can, because speaker are not "just pushing air around" in the same manner that cables facilitate the drifting of electrons.
Will you take the test or not?
This really wouldn't address what was stated - that comparing a song from your iPod to a SACD recording was ridiculous - you can't 'rip' a SACD so that point will never be able to be proven or disproven.
The next best thing would be a comparison between a song off of iTunes and the same song off a CD. However that was never my argument - which was that I prefer SACD over CD.
We then went on to arguing over cables and on that one we'll have to agree to disagree.
However I'd still do this test as I'm curious if I can tell between an AAC file and the same thing from a Redbook CD.
I would have a few conditions....
- the song is something I'm familiar with (I have a wide range of tastes)
- that it not be something spliced, but that it be two full recordings (or a decent time snapshot ie. 2 minutes)
The CD if ripped would have to be the same bitrate as a store bought CD - 1.4Mb/s I believe. Conversely I don't think it's fair using a song with the maximum bitrate (256k?) in iTunes, some of my songs are at that higher bitrate but most aren't - I'll have to check when I get home - however I'm not suggesting they be at the lowest setting either (128k) either.
And of course I'm assuming that you'd be honest with the results...
The next question is, even if through some rigorous test you can tell the difference, does it really matter to the point that you would choose to cut your device capacity by 75%? If the answer is yes, then it definitely looks more like snobbery than sense.
The next question is, even if through some rigorous test you can tell the difference, does it really matter to the point that you would choose to cut your device capacity by 75%? If the answer is yes, then it definitely looks more like snobbery than sense.
I'd argue not everyone needs to carry around 1500 songs with them at all times. So in my case I couldn't care less. I think my iPod capacity is currently at about 15 - 20%. For the most part I'd rather listen to music at home in a dedicated listening room.
As for the 'cables don't matter' argument, my friend has a degree in electrical engineering and he wholeheartedly disagrees.
Comments
I've met people who say they can reliably detect high-res audio vs. CD-res audio in double-blind listening tests, but they admit the difference is extremely subtle.
Audiophiles tend to 'say' lots of things. I have no doubt those people believe every word of what they say.
When I say I can't hear the difference between an iPod and decent CD player, most audiophiles get a bit irate, calling into question the quality of my equipment and/or ears. I have in the past recorded the outputs from the CD player and iPod - same track of course, and then edited the recordings into a single file, posted it on a file sharing site and asked the detractors to listen to it and tell me where the edit points are.
The responses I have gotten vary from absolute silence to the A/D converter isn't good enough.
Same thing happens with the compressed music sounds awful compared to CD argument, I rip a 223 kbps AAC track and splice parts into the equivalent AIFF file, post it up and ask the golden ears to tell me where the splices are. More silence.
Don't get me wrong, I actually enjoy high fidelity audio reproduction and have a few pieces of equipment related to it, but the related BS is hard to stomach. I guess I am more of a listener than a gear fetishist.
Audiophiles tend to 'say' lots of things.
These were professional recording engineers, who may or may not also be audiophiles, and who had just given an hour-long talk about double-blind testing and how it shows that differences you thought were there (and were huge) when testing "sighted", are actually not detectable. As I said, the tests they did were double blind so they hadn't fooled themselves into thinking they could hear a difference. Of course, they could have lied to me about the tests being double-blind; I didn't witness them.
I shall utter the three words that strike mortal terror into the hearts of audiophools - double blind testing.
Well the great thing about Hybrid CD's is you can switch between the SACD layer and the regular CD layer on the fly.....and I've done my own double blind testing. SACD is noticebly better. In fact when I listen to a regular CD it sounds like crap.
Of course it helps having decent equipment to play on and not some crap you picked up at your local Best Buy.
Well the great thing about Hybrid CD's is you can switch between the SACD layer and the regular CD layer on the fly.....and I've done my own double blind testing. SACD is noticebly better. In fact when I listen to a regular CD it sounds like crap.
Of course it helps having decent equipment to play on and not some crap you picked up at your local Best Buy.
Please describe how you performed your double-blind test. Genuinely interested…
Please describe how you performed your double-blind test. Genuinely interested…
Was blind folded (really), had my bud switch between SACD and CD on a number of my favorite discs. Because I couldn't see I had no way of knowing where he started (ie on SACD or on CD) - I just let my ears decide.
Also, the study being referred to said that a majority couldn't tell the difference - which obviously means that there were some who could.
But what do I know I also love Vinyl and Laserdiscs
Oh and if your likely response (assuming your just trying to prove a point) is that it wasn't a true double blind test, don't waste your time. Obviously it was as fair a test as I could make it. I can make an observation of say that when I hold something in my hand and let go that it falls to the ground - just because I don't do a thesis paper on it and apply for grant money and have it reviewed in a scientific journal doesn't make my observation any less valid.
Just sayin.
I think what he's saying is that he's glad he listens to music, rather than listening to his HiFi, if you see what I mean.
Bingo, well put.
AES paper involving extensive trial: http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=14195
The tests were conducted for over a year using different systems and a variety of subjects. The systems included expensive professional monitors and one high-end system with electrostatic loudspeakers and expensive components and cables. The subjects included professional recording engineers, students in a university recording program, and dedicated audiophiles. The test results show that the CD-quality A/D/A loop was undetectable at normal-to-loud listening levels, by any of the subjects, on any of the playback systems.
And yet again:
http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?...blind+shootout
Blind Shootout SACD vs. 8 Redbook CD Players
Results: Winner was a Cary 306/200 playing redbook CD
Sony 9000ES was second playing SACD
My iPod, and now my Samsung phone, are both sources that sound marvelous through my systems. I still like CDs, they make handy sources to rip from
...My iPod, and now my Samsung phone, are both sources that sound marvelous through my systems...
Do you actually have a SACD player? I'm sure to you your compressed music sounds great, but what do you have to compare it to?
I also play my iPod through my setup, but to say it sounds marvelous in comparison is simply ridiculous.
cnocbui, sounds like you should send your spliced up files to pondosinatra and ask him to tell you where the splices are.
I would be glad to. You up for that pondosinatra? I'll post the two files and you tell us where the joins are.
Do you actually have a SACD player? I'm sure to you your compressed music sounds great, but what do you have to compare it to?
I also play my iPod through my setup, but to say it sounds marvelous in comparison is simply ridiculous.
I said they sound marvelous, I didn't say they sound better. The CD player I have compared to is a Micromega Stage 2 as well as a more modern DVD player of no real repute.
No I don't have a sacd player, for the same reason I didn't buy one of those green marker pens and why I buy my speaker cable on the basis of what the cross sectional area of the conductors is.
I would be glad to. You up for that pondosinatra? I'll post the two files and you tell us where the joins are.
A more accurate test would be to splice half a song from say 'Stop Making Sense' on CD and then from the Blu-Ray in DTS-HD (there is no SACD unfortuneatly). But even then, listening to the results through a pair of iPhone buds or your Labtec computer speakers is pointless.
No I don't have a sacd player, for the same reason I didn't buy one of those green marker pens and why I buy my speaker cable on the basis of what the cross sectional area of the conductors is.
Ah yes, the I can run my HDMI using coat hangers type....
Scoff if you will but the equipment makes a huge difference. My first foray into SACD was with an older Sony 5 platter hooked up to an ancient Yammy receiver. SACD's sounded great, but better than CD? I probably would have been hard pressed to tell the difference.
Fast forward to now that I have a top end Pioneer SACD player hooked through a dedicated stereo amp with analog connects and the difference is jaw dropping.
I get what you (and others) are saying - that a lot of people get caught up in the hype as to what's better. But sometimes it actually is better.
A more accurate test would be to splice half a song from say 'Stop Making Sense' on CD and then from the Blu-Ray in DTS-HD (there is no SACD unfortuneatly). But even then, listening to the results through a pair of iPhone buds or your Labtec computer speakers is pointless.
Er, I think you've misunderstood the point of the test. You get the file in PCM format and you can play it on whatever you want (e.g. burn it to CD and play it on your HiFi). You made disparaging remarks about lossy compression* so don't you think it would be interesting to find out if you can really hear it?
* of course, at some point you can hear artefacts and a decent system is more revealing. 128 kbps mp3 is horrid but I think I wouldn't be able to tell the difference between 256 kbps AAC and uncompressed.
A more accurate test would be to splice half a song from say 'Stop Making Sense' on CD and then from the Blu-Ray in DTS-HD (there is no SACD unfortuneatly). But even then, listening to the results through a pair of iPhone buds or your Labtec computer speakers is pointless.
Ah yes, the I can run my HDMI using coat hangers type....
Scoff if you will but the equipment makes a huge difference. My first foray into SACD was with an older Sony 5 platter hooked up to an ancient Yammy receiver. SACD's sounded great, but better than CD? I probably would have been hard pressed to tell the difference.
Fast forward to now that I have a top end Pioneer SACD player hooked through a dedicated stereo amp with analog connects and the difference is jaw dropping.
I get what you (and others) are saying - that a lot of people get caught up in the hype as to what's better. But sometimes it actually is better.
Well you failed the hearing test - point proven I think.
Earlier I said:
most audiophiles get a bit irate, calling into question the quality of my equipment and/or ears.
Prescient of me, non?
I use a pair Sony MDR-D77 headphones and B&W 802 Nautilus speakers.
There is science behind HDMI, there is not a jot behind the supposed superiority of cables. Funny you should mention coathangers. They are galvanised steel and theoretically fairly poor conductors compared to copper. Audiophiles could not tell the difference between coat hangers and monster speaker cables
http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/03/a...ter-cable-and/
If anyone else wants to have a listen to the files I will pop them up.
Well you failed the hearing test - point proven I think.
Um no, not at all.
Audiophiles could not tell the difference between coat hangers and monster speaker cables
http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/03/a...ter-cable-and/
Intersting link. I'll pass it by the folks at AVS and see what they say
Funny that you espouse that cables don't matter yet use a high end pair of speakers...why not use the cheapest you can find? After all the movement of air is the movement of air, non?
Fun discussion but I'm off to listen to my favourite SACD.
Cheers!
Um no, not at all.
Hmmm. I'm confused. Are you or are you not willing to do the test?
Funny that you espouse that cables don't matter yet use a high end pair of speakers
That's not funny at all. I'm surprised I have to say this, but cables and speakers are not the same! Loudspeakers are by far the biggest determinant of sound quality: the difference between models is both audibly and measurably enormous.
Hmmm. I'm confused. Are you or are you not willing to do the test?
That's not funny at all. I'm surprised I have to say this, but cables and speakers are not the same! Loudspeakers are by far the biggest determinant of sound quality: the difference between models is both audibly and measurably enormous.
Well you just contradicted yourself. You can't say on one hand that cables don't make a difference because it's simply the physics of electrons travelling down a conductor and materials, length, build quality etc. are irrelevant, and at the same time say speakers have a huge impact on sound - after all it's just air being pushed around.
As for bitrates not making a difference, you would also assert that one wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a movie in Dolby 5.1 at 6.144 Mbit/s and in DTS-HD at 24.5 Mbit/s ?
Well you just contradicted yourself. You can't say on one hand that cables don't make a difference because it's simply the physics of electrons travelling down a conductor and materials, length, build quality etc. are irrelevant, and at the same time say speakers have a huge impact on sound - after all it's just air being pushed around.
Yes I can, because speakers are not "just pushing air around" in the same manner that cables "just facilitate the drifting of electrons". The physics of electrons travelling in metal mean that when you try and measure the frequency response of a cable, it'll be flat from DC to several MHz, depending on its length and geometry. Try and measure the distortion of a cable and you will fail because it is many orders of magnitude below the measurable limit, and none of the measurements will vary depending on the room in which you use the cable. However, the physics of "just pushing air around" means that if you do the same measurements on loudspeakers, there is a huge difference between models (even the very best can not achieve flat frequency response from 20 to 20 kHz and typically have HF distortion of a few %), and those things change with polar position and the acoustic environment in which the speaker is operating. A loudspeaker might measure flat frequency response from dead in front, but not when measured 30° off axis. This directionality of loudspeakers significantly affects their perceived sound quality. Excellent article for anyone who is interested in this: science in the service of art.
As for bitrates not making a difference, you would also assert that one wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a movie in Dolby 5.1 at 6.144 Mbit/s and in DTS-HD at 24.5 Mbit/s ?
I'd be perfectly happy to take part in a test to determine whether or not I can hear the difference. Will you take cnocbui's test or not?
Yes I can, because speaker are not "just pushing air around" in the same manner that cables facilitate the drifting of electrons.
Will you take the test or not?
This really wouldn't address what was stated - that comparing a song from your iPod to a SACD recording was ridiculous - you can't 'rip' a SACD so that point will never be able to be proven or disproven.
The next best thing would be a comparison between a song off of iTunes and the same song off a CD. However that was never my argument - which was that I prefer SACD over CD.
We then went on to arguing over cables and on that one we'll have to agree to disagree.
However I'd still do this test as I'm curious if I can tell between an AAC file and the same thing from a Redbook CD.
I would have a few conditions....
- the song is something I'm familiar with (I have a wide range of tastes)
- that it not be something spliced, but that it be two full recordings (or a decent time snapshot ie. 2 minutes)
The CD if ripped would have to be the same bitrate as a store bought CD - 1.4Mb/s I believe. Conversely I don't think it's fair using a song with the maximum bitrate (256k?) in iTunes, some of my songs are at that higher bitrate but most aren't - I'll have to check when I get home - however I'm not suggesting they be at the lowest setting either (128k) either.
And of course I'm assuming that you'd be honest with the results...
The next question is, even if through some rigorous test you can tell the difference, does it really matter to the point that you would choose to cut your device capacity by 75%? If the answer is yes, then it definitely looks more like snobbery than sense.
I'd argue not everyone needs to carry around 1500 songs with them at all times. So in my case I couldn't care less. I think my iPod capacity is currently at about 15 - 20%. For the most part I'd rather listen to music at home in a dedicated listening room.
As for the 'cables don't matter' argument, my friend has a degree in electrical engineering and he wholeheartedly disagrees.