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.
That is perfectly true, but audiophiles usually state that compressed music is the spawn of the devil and sounds so obviously inferior that the idea of listening to it is beneath their contempt.
They usually claim the audible difference between compressed and source (CD usually) is huge, not subtle.
I know you personally have not made that claim, apart from making a remark about me listening to compressed music.
My reasoning sort of goes; if one can't hear a difference between compressed and uncompressed, then the chances of being able to hear even more subtle differences becomes less likely vis a vis CD vs SACD.
Quote:
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 ripped the track from CD as a WAV in iTunes. I had iTunes create a 223 kbps AAC version.
I loaded both tracks into Audacity and created a third track that consisted of sections from both the WAV and AAC then saved this third track as a WAV.
Quote:
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...
If you like, I can email a text file to Mr H which specifies the time details of the file specifying which sections are from which original file, prior to you stating results - if any. I will say that there is no trickery, the file does contain several sections from each format and is not an unmodified WAV or anything.
Your proposed methodology is flawed, it gives a listener a 50/50 chance of guessing which bit is which. It also relies on humans possessing an appreciable audio memory, something i don't think they do. My methodology should actually make it easier to distinguish differences. I don't see any reason why you would have to be familiar with a piece of music when listening for what is usually considered to be a big difference in SQ. I can only rip what I have on hand and there might not be a single CD we both happen to have. Lastly, I am being lazy and just posted a file I created a while ago so apart from uploading, no further effort was required on my part.
I would be prepared to exert myself to do a 192 kbps MP3 vs Source with a track of your choice if we happened to both have the CD.
Anyway, this is just for fun so no need to get too serious about it.
I think a test that pondosinatra would prefer would require a lot more data to be uploaded/downloaded, but it would still be feasible (plenty of free-to-use file exchange services out there). It would work as follows:
Rip a track from CD. Convert to 128 kbps AAC and back again. Also convert original CD rip to 256 and back again. Call the original rip AIFF, the 128 AAC and back again 128AIFF, and the 256 and back again 256AIFF. Now, duplicate each track four times to give you:
AIFF1
AIFF2
AIFF3
AIFF4
128AIFF1
128AIFF2
128AIFF3
128AIFF4
256AIFF1
256AIFF2
256AIFF3
256AIFF4
Now, get a third party who's not taking part, to rename these files 1 - 15 at random, keeping a note of the number->filename mapping (e.g. note that they changed "AIFF4" to "1", "256AIFF2" to "2" etc. etc.), then upload the tracks. The listener then has to determine which four tracks are the AIFF, which are the 128 AAC and back again, and which are the 256 AAC and back again. This requires the file lengths to be exactly the same so you can't tell just from different file sizes; not sure if this is easy to do or not due to potential for very minor time smearing on compression.
I would be interested to administer this test but really don't have the time.
On the cable front: In terms of phono stuff, there is some benefit to spending a small amount of money to upgrade from freebies, not for sound quality reasons but simply for mechanical build quality, especially if you are going to be plugging/unplugging often. In terms of speaker cable, broadly speaking the thicker the better. For signal cables I have the cheapest IXOS phonos, "ProSignal" scart and HDMI (sold by CPC (part of Farnell) in the UK); the HDMI cable cost £3.95. My speaker cable is some type of QED silver, which I essentially got for free when I bought some pricey KEF speakers.
They have been running ABX public trials of various compression codecs and compression rates for years. There is an app called Foobar2000 for PCs that apart from doing other things, has a facility for doing truly blind software invigilated ABX comparison of files. It's therefore open to anyone to do their own at home blind testing. Whether they will believe the results is another thing. Foobar2000 is free.
The long and the short is that quite a few people have done these blind ABX trials so there is now a body of evidence that indicates most people can't differentiate moderate levels of compression from source and often even low levels of compression from 160 kbps upwards it gets hard.
My speaker cables are called SpeedCable which at the time was sold by the metre and was cheap and thick enough. I had to get up and go and look because I had no idea what brand they were.
I tend to make all my own cables. I had an old Meridian pre amp that had DIN sockets and my professional use power amp has XLR sockets so rolling my own was the best option. For interconnects I used some Canare four twisted core shielded microphone cable. Same goes for the speaker cables which had to be XLR -> banana. My current Meridian pre amp has RCAs so I had to modify the existing cables. The CD player is connected to the pre amp with some free Sony RCA leads that came with something.
I ripped the track from CD as a WAV in iTunes. I had iTunes create a 223 kbps AAC version.
I loaded both tracks into Audacity and created a third track that consisted of sections from both the WAV and AAC then saved this third track as a WAV.
I'll download it tonight but won't get a chance until the weekend to listen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cnocbui
Your proposed methodology is flawed, it gives a listener a 50/50 chance of guessing which bit is which. It also relies on humans possessing an appreciable audio memory, something i don't think they do. My methodology should actually make it easier to distinguish differences. I don't see any reason why you would have to be familiar with a piece of music when listening for what is usually considered to be a big difference in SQ...
I realize just by guessing I'd have a 50/50 shot. That said, if I guessed wrong that would hugely prove your point would it not?
...My speaker cable is some type of QED silver, which I essentially got for free when I bought some pricey KEF speakers.
I'm sorry but I have issues with that based on your previous statements...
Here's a summary of how it comes across to me:
"Hey man what cables do you have?"
"I'm using some top end Monster cables"
"Well your an idiot because cables don't make any difference"
"Ok, well what do you have?"
"Oh I have a sweet pair of silver core Nordost Valhallas!"
Maybe we're just talking about different things. For me a digital cable is a digital cable. I'm just as content buying a HDMI cable off of Monoprice as I would be some expensive cable in a stereo store. And for speaker wire I realize that thicker is better. What I'm talking about is the analog interconnects. As I listen to my music in analog that's what interests me the most.
I'm sorry but I have issues with that based on your previous statements
You have issues with me using almost free cable? That's... weird. QED silver is low resistance and fat, and I couldn't have got any cable of comparable thickness any cheaper. I certainly wouldn't pay full price for it.
Comments
As for the 'cables don't matter' argument, my friend has a degree in electrical engineering and he wholeheartedly disagrees.
I have a First Class Masters and a PhD in electronic engineering, my thesis being in the area of audio power amplification; does that mean I win?
I have a First Class Masters and a PhD in electronic engineering, my thesis being in the area of audio power amplification; does that mean I win?
Holy cow! You should be on Jeopardy or somethin....
Ok...so what cables do YOU use? The freebie RCA ones that come with consumer equipment?
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.
That is perfectly true, but audiophiles usually state that compressed music is the spawn of the devil and sounds so obviously inferior that the idea of listening to it is beneath their contempt.
They usually claim the audible difference between compressed and source (CD usually) is huge, not subtle.
I know you personally have not made that claim, apart from making a remark about me listening to compressed music.
My reasoning sort of goes; if one can't hear a difference between compressed and uncompressed, then the chances of being able to hear even more subtle differences becomes less likely vis a vis CD vs SACD.
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.
You can download the file here: http://hotfile.com/dl/106252620/faa0...23aac.rar.html
I ripped the track from CD as a WAV in iTunes. I had iTunes create a 223 kbps AAC version.
I loaded both tracks into Audacity and created a third track that consisted of sections from both the WAV and AAC then saved this third track as a WAV.
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...
If you like, I can email a text file to Mr H which specifies the time details of the file specifying which sections are from which original file, prior to you stating results - if any. I will say that there is no trickery, the file does contain several sections from each format and is not an unmodified WAV or anything.
Your proposed methodology is flawed, it gives a listener a 50/50 chance of guessing which bit is which. It also relies on humans possessing an appreciable audio memory, something i don't think they do. My methodology should actually make it easier to distinguish differences. I don't see any reason why you would have to be familiar with a piece of music when listening for what is usually considered to be a big difference in SQ. I can only rip what I have on hand and there might not be a single CD we both happen to have. Lastly, I am being lazy and just posted a file I created a while ago so apart from uploading, no further effort was required on my part.
I would be prepared to exert myself to do a 192 kbps MP3 vs Source with a track of your choice if we happened to both have the CD.
Anyway, this is just for fun so no need to get too serious about it.
Rip a track from CD. Convert to 128 kbps AAC and back again. Also convert original CD rip to 256 and back again. Call the original rip AIFF, the 128 AAC and back again 128AIFF, and the 256 and back again 256AIFF. Now, duplicate each track four times to give you:
AIFF1
AIFF2
AIFF3
AIFF4
128AIFF1
128AIFF2
128AIFF3
128AIFF4
256AIFF1
256AIFF2
256AIFF3
256AIFF4
Now, get a third party who's not taking part, to rename these files 1 - 15 at random, keeping a note of the number->filename mapping (e.g. note that they changed "AIFF4" to "1", "256AIFF2" to "2" etc. etc.), then upload the tracks. The listener then has to determine which four tracks are the AIFF, which are the 128 AAC and back again, and which are the 256 AAC and back again. This requires the file lengths to be exactly the same so you can't tell just from different file sizes; not sure if this is easy to do or not due to potential for very minor time smearing on compression.
I would be interested to administer this test but really don't have the time.
On the cable front: In terms of phono stuff, there is some benefit to spending a small amount of money to upgrade from freebies, not for sound quality reasons but simply for mechanical build quality, especially if you are going to be plugging/unplugging often. In terms of speaker cable, broadly speaking the thicker the better. For signal cables I have the cheapest IXOS phonos, "ProSignal" scart and HDMI (sold by CPC (part of Farnell) in the UK); the HDMI cable cost £3.95. My speaker cable is some type of QED silver, which I essentially got for free when I bought some pricey KEF speakers.
You might find this site interesting http://www.hydrogenaudio.org
They have been running ABX public trials of various compression codecs and compression rates for years. There is an app called Foobar2000 for PCs that apart from doing other things, has a facility for doing truly blind software invigilated ABX comparison of files. It's therefore open to anyone to do their own at home blind testing. Whether they will believe the results is another thing. Foobar2000 is free.
The long and the short is that quite a few people have done these blind ABX trials so there is now a body of evidence that indicates most people can't differentiate moderate levels of compression from source and often even low levels of compression from 160 kbps upwards it gets hard.
My speaker cables are called SpeedCable which at the time was sold by the metre and was cheap and thick enough. I had to get up and go and look because I had no idea what brand they were.
I tend to make all my own cables. I had an old Meridian pre amp that had DIN sockets and my professional use power amp has XLR sockets so rolling my own was the best option. For interconnects I used some Canare four twisted core shielded microphone cable. Same goes for the speaker cables which had to be XLR -> banana. My current Meridian pre amp has RCAs so I had to modify the existing cables. The CD player is connected to the pre amp with some free Sony RCA leads that came with something.
...
You can download the file here: http://hotfile.com/dl/106252620/faa0...23aac.rar.html
I ripped the track from CD as a WAV in iTunes. I had iTunes create a 223 kbps AAC version.
I loaded both tracks into Audacity and created a third track that consisted of sections from both the WAV and AAC then saved this third track as a WAV.
I'll download it tonight but won't get a chance until the weekend to listen.
Your proposed methodology is flawed, it gives a listener a 50/50 chance of guessing which bit is which. It also relies on humans possessing an appreciable audio memory, something i don't think they do. My methodology should actually make it easier to distinguish differences. I don't see any reason why you would have to be familiar with a piece of music when listening for what is usually considered to be a big difference in SQ...
I realize just by guessing I'd have a 50/50 shot. That said, if I guessed wrong that would hugely prove your point would it not?
...My speaker cable is some type of QED silver, which I essentially got for free when I bought some pricey KEF speakers.
I'm sorry but I have issues with that based on your previous statements...
Here's a summary of how it comes across to me:
"Hey man what cables do you have?"
"I'm using some top end Monster cables"
"Well your an idiot because cables don't make any difference"
"Ok, well what do you have?"
"Oh I have a sweet pair of silver core Nordost Valhallas!"
Maybe we're just talking about different things. For me a digital cable is a digital cable. I'm just as content buying a HDMI cable off of Monoprice as I would be some expensive cable in a stereo store. And for speaker wire I realize that thicker is better. What I'm talking about is the analog interconnects. As I listen to my music in analog that's what interests me the most.
I'm sorry but I have issues with that based on your previous statements
You have issues with me using almost free cable? That's... weird. QED silver is low resistance and fat, and I couldn't have got any cable of comparable thickness any cheaper. I certainly wouldn't pay full price for it.