I agree that discerning above even CD resolution is damn near impossible, and if so it's got more to do with the 50% extra bits per sample than the 300% increase in sample rate. 24/48 is definetly a point of quickly diminishing returns, but we all know that bigger numbers sell things. My buddy called me yesterday to tell me about the receiver he just bought that supports 4320p video.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
-
Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.
Audiophiles
- Thread starter powertower
- Start date
dragonhawke
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2011
- Messages
- 212
Well no such content currently exists (4K resolution) but 70" and 80" LCDs are becoming mainstream...and I assume it won't be impossible to discern 1080p vs 4K at that size.
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2009
- Messages
- 8,430
Try this test and see how you do choosing between 128kps and 320kps.
Dont do it just once, do it several like 10-15 times. Anything less than 50% total answers right is no better than flipping a coin. If the differences between 128 and 320 are so drastic, the results should be very near 100% correct.
Dont do it just once, do it several like 10-15 times. Anything less than 50% total answers right is no better than flipping a coin. If the differences between 128 and 320 are so drastic, the results should be very near 100% correct.
Pretty brilliant website, although its stupid how he promotes a DAC magic on the bottom as if that will let people hear a difference.. lets do some blind testing between amps and DACs and anything thats functioning correctly will sound the same to 99.999999% of people
I can tell the difference between 128kbit and 320kbit, CBR. And it's almost always fleshed out in the cymbals for me. The first sample just so happens to have very prominent vocals and the drummer is pushed way back in the mix. That site's got a few issues, one being that simple vocal Jazz like the first sample, especially if it's compressed in a clever way a la with a wide VBR spread, won't get hurt too bad by a lower bitrate.
The quality of the source material has a lot to do with it too, as has been mentioned, the current state in the industry is quite sad for 2012.
The quality of the source material has a lot to do with it too, as has been mentioned, the current state in the industry is quite sad for 2012.
Last edited:
I wont claim that I can hear any difference between 16-bit lossless and 24-bit high resolution lossless, but I can absolutely hear a difference between 320k MP3 and FLAC.
Compression algorithms leave behind artifacts in the sound that a trained ear can hear. For example, i'm super sensitive to pre-echo which is apparent all the mainstream lossy codecs including MP3, AAC, and Vorbis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-echo
http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Pre_echo
For reasons such as this, I choose to keep all my music in lossless. Disk space isn't even a reason since years ago when drives became so large for so cheap.
Compression algorithms leave behind artifacts in the sound that a trained ear can hear. For example, i'm super sensitive to pre-echo which is apparent all the mainstream lossy codecs including MP3, AAC, and Vorbis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-echo
http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Pre_echo
For reasons such as this, I choose to keep all my music in lossless. Disk space isn't even a reason since years ago when drives became so large for so cheap.
I find this test rather annoying because all of the samples they chose are fairly sparse, quiet audio that doesn't need high bitrates to sound transparent. Throw in some typical highly-compressed hard rock or metal from the past decade, and I guarantee the results will be different. (I got 3/4 correct before giving up due to the stupidity of the clips).
Mr. B
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2008
- Messages
- 327
192kps sounds pretty good compared to lossless, but if you can't tell the difference between 128 and 320, something is wrong with your hearing or you have crappy equipment.
My stuff is firmly in "Mid-Fi" territory but I've migrated most of my music collection to FLAC. I have the space, I can easily transcode without a penalty in quality, and when the day comes that I have a kick-ass setup, I'll have the source material to match.
My stuff is firmly in "Mid-Fi" territory but I've migrated most of my music collection to FLAC. I have the space, I can easily transcode without a penalty in quality, and when the day comes that I have a kick-ass setup, I'll have the source material to match.
LeninGHOLA
Vladimir Hayt
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2009
- Messages
- 18,416
Most new receivers support 4k video, it's not the selling point.
Kinda suprised in the lack of trained/good ears in this thread. Mp3's just don't sound good to me, even up to 320kb. The 256kb stuff that iTunes sells is full of artifacts and easily stands out to lossless compression imo. Better equipment makes it very apparent, and is almost a curse as you'll notice the bad recordings or the compression in your music.
What portion of this isn't attributable to placebo probably has a lot to do with equipment. I've never owned nor heard a headphone more than half the price of the HD650 in your sig, for example. I imagine the bitrate of transparency would rise accordingly if we all had hi-fi setups.
Eh, at some point I just want to enjoy the music. I have thousands of dollars in hifi stuff in my living room with LP and SACD front-ends but I had to stop at the $3000 pre-amp as I wasn't gaining enough beyond that kind of price point. My mp3 listening is almost 100% in front of the PC and that's not critical listening, I'm multi-tasking and I just need some tunes.
I never understood classical afficianados, to me, their kind of nit-picking takes away from the listening experience...
....different strokes you know?
blgdinger
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2005
- Messages
- 202
This is really stressing me out man.
Anyone notice that when buying MP3s many of them are too loud? They amp up the volume and introduce clipping. I can see the clipping by opening them in Audacity. I then have to reduce the gain in foobar and have it permanently alter the volume level. I bought some from eMusic that were excessively loud. When I rip my own CDs to MP3 I never have this issue. Do these people even know wtf they are doing?
Especially now that it has been pretty much universally agreed upon that an integrated amp is superior to separates due to shorter electrical paths between sections. Yep, all those years they were telling you separate amp/preamp was superior were lies to make you spend more money.
Enjoy your placebos, but that is all it is.
I would do your own test because that test is using a poorly recorded song with distortion so is not very valid for testing with. foobar has an ABX testing component you can download.
Sure it is.
I don't know of too many people willing to spend $350 on something used for only ripping, plus needing to all kinds of Linux stuff that most people can't do.
ABX tests play on the fact that you lose the memory of how something exactly sounds almost instantly. Then the same jerk-offs who are pro-ABX, pro-lossy, and just old and cheap, can always literally just apply randomness to their results by lying. You could have two completely different songs on an ABX test and still make it look like a coin toss. It's just like society and law punishing a person for testing positive for marijuana, despite that it can stay in their system for ages, and doesn't indicate that they are high at that moment. People who call placebo are the people who are truly jealous of the golden ears. Artifacts are not hard to hear.
There are plenty of levels which are ridiculous. I absolutely loathe the people who still think something will sound the same despite differing physical measurements. Now, I also loathe the same people who think there can be a difference despite no measurable differences...people who think a cable carrying digital data makes a difference, and still don't understand that DACs internally reclock signals to TOTALLY eliminate jitter. The same kind of ass hats think jitter makes its way onto what is stored on a hard drive, too. I even saw someone recently who said that a digital audio signal coming from a file stored on a 7200 RPM drive will sound better than that same data coming from a 5400 RPM drive, or vice versa. Both camps use pseudoscience, because science is just a religion and faith-based like everything else (you still have to have faith that what you are perceiving is universal reality, and not only your own.)
There are plenty of levels which are ridiculous. I absolutely loathe the people who still think something will sound the same despite differing physical measurements. Now, I also loathe the same people who think there can be a difference despite no measurable differences...people who think a cable carrying digital data makes a difference, and still don't understand that DACs internally reclock signals to TOTALLY eliminate jitter. The same kind of ass hats think jitter makes its way onto what is stored on a hard drive, too. I even saw someone recently who said that a digital audio signal coming from a file stored on a 7200 RPM drive will sound better than that same data coming from a 5400 RPM drive, or vice versa. Both camps use pseudoscience, because science is just a religion and faith-based like everything else (you still have to have faith that what you are perceiving is universal reality, and not only your own.)
Last edited:
dragonhawke
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2011
- Messages
- 212
I don't know a lick of code myself actually, I just read the guides on the internet. I couldn't code my way beyond "Hello World" in C in high school computing...It's no more difficult than using a ripping program on the PC. You don't even need Linux, the software you compile in Windows and then install on the PS3.
As far as buying something just for ripping SACDs?...check out avsforum, gearslutz, etc...MANY people are buying PS3s *just* to back up their hi def audio. If the low supply of capable PS3s weren't an issue, a LOT of more casual users would be ripping Sacds...the challenge is to find the original, un-updated PS3.
I use it to play a lot of PS2 games incidentally, and there are also other benefits of custom firmware
being able to rip DSD is just icing on the cake.Plus I get to grin at all the proletariat arguing over 192kbps vs 320kbps comparisons while I'm listing to 16,934kbps MCH DSD
Last edited:
That's the thing, I wouldn't play games or do anything else with a PS3, so it would be a $350 SACD ripper. I don't see why people can't get DVD drives to just read SACDs. Plus if you want to keep DSD, you aren't going to find a regular DAC to sport that format. Multichannel is pointless. Speakers ruin audio because it bounces around a room. You can spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on a room that still won't sound as good as headphones under $1,000. I don't see the need for any lossless or HD format for speaker playback.
All i have to say is "lol"
Can't tell if... I can tell you that speakers are far better sounding than headphones.
You must have never listened a decent stereo set up.
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2009
- Messages
- 8,430
For the last 7 years Ive been a very serious competitor in car audio SQ contests (1 year in USACi and 6 years in MECA). Ive got countless hours sitting in countless cars tuning with processors that have 31 band EQ's by 6 channels, time alignment in .05 ms increments and 1/6th octave crossovers over 6 channels and using stereo systems costing $5000-15000 and listening for and finding differences of 1db. I can listen to a recording and not only tell you what parts are too hot or not enough but I can tell you what frequency theyre at. Ive racked up 4 state championships, a Rookie of the Year, was runner up at world finals 4 years in a row and am a member of MECA's hall of fame. Im not saying all this to make me look awesome or anything, Im just putting it out there to say that Ill stack my ears up against anybody this side of a professional recording engineer. I hear no difference between 128K and 320K. Ive tried that test among others and always wind up 50/50 in results. Ive also used test tracks from a CD and compared them to the same song bought off iTunes and they sound exactly the same.
That one guy above that got 71% right is the highest Ive ever seen on that particular test. But even then, if the differences are as drastic as those who think they can hear grass grow claim they are then those results should be 90+% every time but they never are.
grimster said:
This is just laughable. You golden ears claim distinct and drastic differences that are apparent to everyone, but when you fail to prove that you actually can hear those differences, your explanation is that theyre so small that you forget about them instantly? Ridiculous. I guarantee you that if you play me a track with a 3db boost at 80Hz then the same exact track without the boost, I could pick it out 10 out of 10 times. If the differences are so tiny and minute that you "instantly" forget about them, then Id argue there arent any differences at all.
I love to see the positions you guys will contort yourselves into to explain why you cant prove you can hear these plain as day differences.
At the end of the day, it doesnt matter to me at all. You guys want to buy the $80 extension cords, $50 cable risers, $300 power conditioners, $2000 tube amps and all the other snake oil, its none of my business. But it kills me when you insist these rip offs make a difference and youre a jerk off or whatever if you dont buy them and believe in them. You guys are worse than religious fanatics.
And this is the most laughable thing Ive ever heard in my life!! If you think headphones will sound better than speakers, then you really need to listen to some good speakers. A set of headphones with 2 maybe 3" drivers in a small enclosure will NEVER EVER sound better than a set of quality home speakers in a properly designed and built cabinet using drivers ranging from 1" to 8". Now Ill grant ya that these speakers need to be in a proper room or environment to sound their best but its not that hard to put them in that proper environment.
This is all very odd to me, because I don't even claim to be a real audiophile nor do I own audiophile-grade equipment, but 320kbps vs. 128kbps LAME MP3 is like night and day with loud/compressed source material (e.g., most modern rock, pop, etc.). Here's a 30-second clip I compressed twice using LAME, once at 320kbps and the other at -V6 (VBR 136kbps). The source was a FLAC rip. I scored 10/10 on ABX in foobar, and it took less than ten seconds for each attempt. This using shitty onboard laptop audio and $60 Sennheiser HD497 cans, no less.
Someone try and convince me the drums sound even remotely the same between these two clips.
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=LPZY5PKP
I can't take this thread serious anymore. I'm gonna go trade my rig in for a low range sound card, some apple earbuds, and use low resolution, low bitrate iTunes track. It's all placebo, just like you hunting the db's out in your "car audio", it isn't real.
RealityCrunch
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2011
- Messages
- 1,393
You'll get a lot of flack from the statement because ultimately sound is subjective. Some people will find their Logitech Z5500's to sound better than a pair of the most expensive loudspeakers money could buy, some simply find speakers to sound better than headphones no matter the quality differential, and personal experience with the equipment they've had the opportunity to compare the experiences with will influence the decision. Personally I try to listen to speakers whenever possible as I prefer the sound over headphones. The soundstage and feel of the music with a decent loudspeaker setup is quite incredible. However, whenever I want to listen to and analyze a recording closely or intimately, I use a pair of HD800s as the accuracy of the audio reproduction surpasses what I could achieve in a listening room with loudspeakers unless I spent exorbitant amounts of money on the setup.
When it comes to accuracy:cost, it's hard to beat headphones. Sound on the other hand, will be up to the individual
Last edited:
I agree that if you can't make out 128 from 320, your hearing is terrible. Or the part of your brain your ears connect to is broken. Even if you are listening to total crap, the artifacting is obvious. And putting $15,000+ worth of audio gear into a listening environment as poor as a car makes me lean toward broken brain.
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2009
- Messages
- 8,430
Yep, religious fanatics. Despite the fact that none of you golden ears can show you actually do hear the difference, if somebody says there isnt one, then theyre jerk offs, or their brains dont work. LOL! Whatever man.
RealityCrunch
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2011
- Messages
- 1,393
Does it matter if someone can or can't hear any difference? If you can hear a difference in the situations in which you listen to music and you have the option to improve the sound to your liking, then do it. If you can't hear the difference, then don't. Trying to convince one side or the other of our own viewpoint or hearing/technical capabilities is both meaningless and futile. Do whatever it is you want to do that fits your own needs, capabilities, and situation.
dragonhawke
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2011
- Messages
- 212
I disagree here...I have the Sennheiser HD650s and I don't think they are anywhere as detailed as my Revel Ultima Gem2s...
Direct comparison is useless without knowing the system specs of both rigs. I should hope you are correct though, you spent a ton on just a set of bookshelfs.
Hehe... that 128kbps vs 320 sounded about the same using onboard sound and simple Koss KSC75 clip-ons (I think I got 9/15 correct, which isn't very convincing). I failed.
Although, had I switched to a sound card, I'm estimating that I would have scored 80-90% accurate. That's about how well I do on these tests using this level of equipment (at 128kbps), historically.
Using great equipment, I was able to extend that ~80% (or higher) accuracy up to 192kbps (mp3).
Past that (mp3) bit-rate... well I doubt my hearing is good enough any longer. There was a time when I would consistently pick out small high-frequency differences at ~256kbps depending upon the material (A lot of mainstream hip-hop was indistinguishable), but my hearing and patience have suffered a few blows since that time.
Although, had I switched to a sound card, I'm estimating that I would have scored 80-90% accurate. That's about how well I do on these tests using this level of equipment (at 128kbps), historically.
Using great equipment, I was able to extend that ~80% (or higher) accuracy up to 192kbps (mp3).
Past that (mp3) bit-rate... well I doubt my hearing is good enough any longer. There was a time when I would consistently pick out small high-frequency differences at ~256kbps depending upon the material (A lot of mainstream hip-hop was indistinguishable), but my hearing and patience have suffered a few blows since that time.
dragonhawke
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2011
- Messages
- 212
Driven by a Yamaha RX-Z11, using an Oppo BDP-93 streaming DSD via HDMI. Line voltage held stable by an APC H15.
That's pretty damned good. I'll admit that I wasn't listening critically, and the background noise was high around the house (and I mentioned the shitty sound setup)... so I think your results are indicative of what would have happened under ideal conditions.
And yes, I find it's often about "picking out" differences. I generally choose certain sounds to analyze and compare.
Yes, I did kinda do it under ideal conditions. Turned the amp on, put on the HD650's and just pressed play a few times. I did a good A/B comparison and went to the test sample. A couple though, were nearly identical and took some critical listening. I really did not enjoy listening to Juliette Lewis. That was torture. I almost just clicked one to get it over with.
Yeah, I've heard good speakers...they're for movies. I don't need them ruining music. You don't need a sub, a woofer, a midrange, and a tweeter for headphones. They're right on your ear. Speakers need all those components because they need to fill a room with that sound. I'll keep headphones for everything.
How laughable that someone compared a 3dB volume difference for an ABX test versus hearing tiny little artifacts. You don't even need to pay attention to hear that. Until they invent a test to call out liars who just give random results on purpose, I won't buy into the BS. It's admitted over and over that all this stuff with hearing is psychological, so our ears are capable beyond our brain. Everyone perceives differently. They really should do experiments with these tests comparing sober people to people who like to high every day or do stuff like LSD or shrooms when listening to music.
How laughable that someone compared a 3dB volume difference for an ABX test versus hearing tiny little artifacts. You don't even need to pay attention to hear that. Until they invent a test to call out liars who just give random results on purpose, I won't buy into the BS. It's admitted over and over that all this stuff with hearing is psychological, so our ears are capable beyond our brain. Everyone perceives differently. They really should do experiments with these tests comparing sober people to people who like to high every day or do stuff like LSD or shrooms when listening to music.
