Proven: Good Old Redbook CD Sounds the Same as the Hi-Rez Formats

Everything Else
41
Elk said: Yes. You have faith that there must be a difference, based solely on anecdotal experience. When faith is questioned, believers often become "suspicious." It cannot possibly be true! I believe otherwise! Therefore, the science is wrong!


Those people who do not here difference between cables, low/hi-rez material, etc are actually very happy people, because they do not have to spend extra money on more expensive stuff. Boombox or an MP3 player might be the best solution for them - everything sounds the same, no difference.

The problem is that I do hear the difference. I do not care what you call it "faith", "placebo", "experience", "personal taste" or absense of them. My wife hears the difference. Even friends of ours who do not "believe" in any "audiophile crap" and "snake oil" can clearly hear how different can cables "sound" (to their great surprise).

But if professional sound engineers claim that it's a "red herring"... Probably this is why we blame CD sound? ;)
42
Elk said: They were testing the audibility of an inserted A/D/A loop.

No, they were testing hi-rez vs low-rez, weren't they?

Elk said: if there are alternative methods this does not invalidate the method used.

Again no, if the used method was plain wrong.

And again, low-rez vs hi-rez - everybody on this forum can test it. Just do it! Stop "believing"! =))
43
Alekz said: But if professional sound engineers claim that it's a "red herring"... Probably this is why we blame CD sound?

No professional sound engineers have called out your "arguments" as Red Herrings. I have. I have also explained why. I suggest you address the fatal flaws in your "arguments" rather than engage in ad hominem. Your choice (I'm hard to offend and am amused by such nonsense in any event.)

Alekz said: No, they were testing hi-rez vs low-rez, weren't they?

Not quite. The paper is "Audibility of a CD-Standard A/D/A Loop Inserted into High-Resolution Audio Playback." Also, see the edit in my post above. (And read the actual paper and accompanying materials.)

Alekz said: Again no, if the used method was plain wrong.

You have failed to identify anything which invalidates the study. I appreciate you expect and desire the results to be different. The authors have similarly expressed they also expected different results and had hoped to quantify the perceptual differences between the audio streams. They were surprised.

However, predicting different results than what is shown does not invalidate the test method. Instead, it helps establish that our presumptions are wrong. The most successful experiment is that which provides an entirely unexpected result. This is when we learn.

Alekz said: Again no, if the used method was plain wrong.

You have failed to identify anything which was "plain wrong." You have merely postulated the results "should" be different. Such assumption and speculation is why we dispassionately test.

The equipment was excellent (and the subjects agree the ABX switch and associated equipment was transparent), a standard rigorous ABX protocol employed, SACD advocates could bring in their preferred SACDs (no one can complain of poor reference disks or lack of familiarity), experienced listeners who know what they are listening for and are motivated to hear a difference. Standard, routine statistical analysis. Accounting for potential variables in listener groups (hearing acuity, etc.) Peer review. Pretty dry and tidy.

Alekz said: The problem is that I do hear the difference.

No one is arguing with what you hear. The question is why. Is it a real, discernible difference? Is it expectation bias? etc. This is why we blind test. In a blind test one has no choice but to rely on your ears as this is all that is left.

Again, why do the claimed "clearly heard" benefits of DSD over PCM disappear when the listener no longer knows it is DSD?

Alekz said: Even friends of ours who do not "believe" in any "audiophile crap" and "snake oil" can clearly hear how different can cables "sound"

Of course they do: You tell them there is a difference, you describe what they will hear, you demonstrate and Lo, Behold! they hear it! May the gods be praised! You already know why this is completely unreliable.

I am afraid this discussion is at its end. While I enjoyed your argument: "the cables are good enough to capture, record, process and distribute DSD - but the fairy dust leaks out when these cables are used on playback," it is impossible to suspend disbelief sufficiently to take such assertions seriously.

44

Just a diversion

Attached files

45

What… NO FAIRYS???



What Next, NO SANTA?

Without fantasies we would be somewhat bland sapiens.

If I remember correctly, one of the first “cornflake” posts had to do with how much the brain actually interacts with our listening skills.

The differences between left and right hemisphere interpretation is large.

It is also responsible for many “aha” moments when someone discovers what was previously unnoticed.

Tune in tomorrow for Roe vs Wade.

Long live the Tooth Fairy.

Cap’n Crunch

46
Elk said: All studio engineers have had the experience of carefully adjusted EQ on a particular track until it is perfect, hearing every change of the knob. And then they discover the track was not active and no changes were made.

True. I did this just last night. Twice in the same session! =))
47

very interesting thread guys. lots of great information but it hasn’t changed my perspective (read opinion) in any way. have spent countless hours listening to the same albums in redbook vs 88/24 and above. in most cases (60-70%), i preferred the higher resolution. in a few…the redbook actually sounded better (10% ish??). some…i could tell no difference at all (20-30%). there are so many variables involved (outside of my system/my room/my ears) that making a blanket statement would be impossible for me. a half ars guess would point to the actually master recording being the key variable in play… but again…i said half ars guess



at the risk of sounding redundant…the devil is always in the details >:) . …many of which i’m clueless on.



enjoyed the read though…it definitely made me think about both sides of the debate.

48
Elk said: Of course they do: You tell them there is a difference, you describe what they will hear, you demonstrate and Lo, Behold! they hear it! May the gods be praised! You already know why this is completely unreliable.

Ha-ha, completely wrong! :D He did not know what I was doing. I just replaced one cable in one channel and asked

"Hear?"
"What was that???"
"I've just replaced the interconnect"
"WWWHHHHHHHHHATTTT???? It's not possible!!! It's just ... a piece of ... copper!!!!"

You should see their faces =)) For my friend it was a life time experience :D
49
Gordon said: "Who tastes not, knows not."

Exactly.
50
Gordon said: Without fantasies we would be somewhat bland sapiens.

We may not need fantasies, but we certainly need creativity and the ability to look at the same phenomenon from different perspectives.

wglenn said: True. I did this just last night. Twice in the same session!

It is fascinating, and almost troubling to experience. You "know" you are changing the sound by twisting the knob, and absolutely "hear" the changes you are making. Yet you have changed nothing as the EQ was never engaged.

This is a powerful demonstration of the power of belief. We believe we are making a change and thus hear it - even though there is nothing to hear.

Levi said: lots of great information but it hasn't changed my perspective (read opinion) in any way.

The study and discussion is not necessarily intended to change anyone's opinion. Your experience is your experience. No one is arguing with what anyone individual states he/she hears.

On the other hand, the study participants also all believed they could hear a difference between SACD and 44/16. The fact they could not identify SACD - on excellent equipment - supports the conclusion there is no audible difference. It also is proof 44/16 can fully capture SACD's analog output.

Fascinating.

Many of us are convinced there is a difference. Yet, there is little physiological reason there can be. 44/16 accurately reproduces beyond 20kHz. Very few can hear 20kHz, even fewer just a little bit higher. Why would capturing higher frequencies make any difference?

Yet, many are convinced the sound is different. Why?

This is exactly when we should dispassionately study the phenomenon. We should not be able to hear a difference, but many are convinced they do.

So . . .

Are we really hearing a difference?
- or -
Do we "hear" a difference because we believe we should?
- or -
(insert plausible hypothesis here).

This study, and others like it, are solid evidence even experienced, knowledgeable listeners do not actually hear a difference - even if we may think we do.

It is also a plausible explanation why inexperienced listeners do not hear a difference. They do not possess the psychological and emotional overlay and, thus, rely on their ears alone.

A separate, but interesting, phenomenon are the statements of high-resolution proponents. They assert the difference is mind-blowing and the improvements easy to appreciate on even modest equipment.

But if questioned by a hard study, they argue the equipment was inadequate, the cables deficient, the listeners morons. While card-carrying subjectivists, they often also call out for measurements. Irony at its best.

So which is it? Easy to hear stunning improvements or exceedingly fragile minute improvements only trained members of the cloth can possible appreciate when played on specialized equipment?
51
Alekz said: "Hear?"
"What was that???"
"I've just replaced the interconnect"
"WWWHHHHHHHHHATTTT???? It's not possible!!! It's just ... a piece of ... copper!!!!"

This interchange alone leads the subject. This is a great example of why any test must be double blind: neither the proctor or the subject knows whether A or B is under test.

Then there is the tedium of multiple trials and identifying which is which. After 20 or so trials are his determinations sufficiently better than chance? The statistics are solidly against him. :)

Of course, your friend may be . . . The One.

I suggest a quick call to the Amazing Randi.
52
Elk said: Of course, your friend may be . . . The One.

Yeah, he's the one who can't care less about the sound, sound quality and equipment. But he would meticulously count "visible pixels" :D When I bought new speakers, he had absolutely no intention of "having a listen", but he enthusiastically rushed into the room to "have a look".
Elk said: The statistics are solidly against him.

What statistics?
53

Whenever the audibility of different cables is seriously addressed, the test subjects end up choosing any one cable roughly 50% of the time - the same as random guessing.



Your friend may be the person who truly can reliably identify a given cable in a multiple trial ABX, but the chances are slim.



OTOH, if he can - contact the Amazing Randi and pick up $1,000,000.

54
Elk said: Your friend may be the person who truly can reliably identify a given cable in a multiple trial ABX, but the chances are slim.

I can do it. My wife can do it. Anybody with ears can do it. Depends on the cables and the system of course. In some systems nothing makes any difference ;) And the quality of any system is determined by the weakest link.

I remember, my hi-end dealer taught me a lesson once. I tried several amps in my home system, but I could not "reliably prefer any of them". They all sounded a bit "the same" with little differences, despite the price gap (something like 1000 vs 4000).

Then they replaced the speakers and asked again.

The expression on my face said it all. Yes, instead of upgrading the amp, I upgraded the speakers. And only a year later I replaced the amps, because with the new speakers the difference between amps was way too noticeable ;)
55

Oh, BTW, the cables that I showed to my friend were: Linn Interconnect (160€) and Transparent Music (€450). No golden ears needed :wink:

56
I can do it. My wife can do it. Anybody with ears can do it.

Except in a double-blind.

In both the SACD v. 44/16 A/D/A, and the study addressing SACD v. high-resolution PCM, the subjects similarly claimed they could readily tell one from the other. But, when tested, their results were equivalent to random. They could, in truth, not hear a difference.

The same thing occurs when cables are subject to objective testing. Listeners no longer can reliably identify one from another.

There is absolutely no reason a double-blind diminishes anyone's ability to hear. One is still comparing two setups, back to back, using whatever time and source one would like.

This is exactly what we do as enthusiasts when comparing two options for purchase. The only difference is in this latter case, we know which product we are listening to. We magically can then hear "huge" differences. :-?

This is what is fascinating. As audiophiles, we "hear" large differences in formats, equipment and tweaks - "revelatory" differences. Yet, we can no longer hear them when we do not know to what we are listening.

Why?
57

It’s easy to blindly test various formats, filters, up/downsampling, etc - you just need another person to switch between tracks or DAC settings. With cables, amps, DAC’s it’s much more difficult. Plus we have quite short audio/visual memory.

58

If we have sufficiently accurate memory to compare cables sighted, there is no reason this memory should disappear on a blind test. :slight_smile:



Plus, it takes no longer for another to swap cables than it does for one of us to perform the task.



Cables are a perfect subject for an ABX. Many assert there is a easy to hear difference. Yet, as we all know, there is no reason for this to be the case based on the physical characteristics of the wires. Thus, it is worthwhile establishing whether we can really hear a difference.



So far, to my knowledge, all such tests have demonstrated that listeners cannot consistently identify two different cables. Yet, once again, the subjects claim they can readily hear differences when the test is sighted.



So what happens on an ABX that they can no longer hear the difference? It sure looks like the differences heard are not real, but the result of confirmation bias/expectation bias.



Alekz said: It’s easy to blindly test various formats, filters, up/downsampling, etc - you just need another person to switch between tracks or DAC settings.


Yes, but the setup is critical so that there is no tell-tale switching indications as to which version is active, and levels are precisely matched. For example, on many hybrid SACDs the SACD layer is a dB or two louder, making it inherently sound better.



Of course, SACD manufactures do not do this on purpose, it is mere coincidence.

59
Elk said: Yes, but the setup is critical so that there is no tell-tale switching indications as to which version is active, and levels are precisely matched. For example, on many hybrid SACDs the SACD layer is a dB or two louder, making it inherently sound better.

Hence why I suggested to take a good hi-rez recording and downsample it to 16/44 (levels matched) with a good computer program.
60
Elk said: If we have sufficiently accurate memory to compare cables sighted, there is no reason this memory should disappear on a blind test.

There are cables and there are cables. For some cables no ABX needed at all, because the diff is clear and obvious But if you compare, let's say, power cables within the same price category the difference can be negligible. Plus you have to switch the equipment off.