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

Everything Else
61
Elk said: Yet, as we all know, there is no reason for this to be the case based on the physical characteristics of the wires.


That's true, unless the physical characteristics are in fact different from wire to wire - metallurgy, geometry, dialectric, effective length, characteristics like propagation speed, capacitance, etc. If people consistently find a difference between cables of different physical characteristics it - at least in my opinion - somewhat deepens the mystery about why different cable construction might have an audible effect.

One thing that I've always found a bit troubling about ABX is that, on the one hand, if there is a difference people are appreciating it seems reasonable to suppose that ABX should be able to reveal it, and the results should be better than random. Blindingly obvious, one might say.

But there is another aspect to this which I think deserves consideration, which is whether ABX is the right kind of protocol for testing very subtle changes - changes that are much less like seeing a light flashing in your peripheral vision at the eye doctor, and much more like contemplating the whole picture. The difference is like what Paul was mentioning in a post a few months ago that he sometimes gets asked on the spot to deliver verdicts on systems when it actually takes him a while to get into the sound and actually get what the system is doing (or not doing).

So here's what I think the difference in practice might be - I am reasonably confident I could correctly ABX the last speaker cable I had and the one I currently have - with respect to some precise characteristics of how they sound in my system on some carefully selected recordings. (This is pretty erudite business - and we pay for it!) There were things previously unheard, or heard differently, that were pretty obvious. Indeed, this is actually not a case where expectation bias is at work, since I had no general or specific expectations, and attended to what might be different (this is, incidentally, a really old concept of 'disinterested appreciation' about which people have been arguing about in its modernist version since at least 1711.) But when it comes to much more nuanced qualities audiophools often prize - eg 'a sense of ease' or 'non-fatiguing over several hours of listening' 'liquidity' etc - I am not sure that ABX is of much use. Impracticalities associated with testing, limits of aural memory, etc. probably put the methodology out to pasture for some kinds of qualities that we appreciate.
62
Alekz said: Hence why I suggested to take a good hi-rez recording and downsample it to 16/44 (levels matched) with a good computer program.

This is one of many test formats which have been employed. (This is however a different question than that addressed by the SACD v. inserted A/D/A study). The result is the same, regardless. Audiophiles suck at identifying "revelatory" when they are not told what they are listening to.

All audiophiles interested in this should try an ABX of properly downsampled high-resolution sources. (Foobar has an ABX plug-in.) You must be certain the high-resolution source is legitimately high-resolution and the downsampled version is just this, not mastered differently for CD. The levels need be identical. It is very sobering and a good dose of reality.

Alekz said: There are cables and there are cables. For some cables no ABX needed at all, because the diff is clear and obvious.

Just like the difference between SACD and 44/16 is obvious? Or DSD and PCM? =))

It is obvious only when you know what you are listening to. The "obviousness" disappears upon a proper ABX. Why?

David said: If people consistently find a difference between cables of different physical characteristics it - at least in my opinion - somewhat deepens the mystery about why different cable construction might have an audible effect.

Absolutely. What also intrigues me is that so many of us hear differences and are convinced the differences are real. Thus, as a group, we are either hearing something real or are mislead by our expectations. Fascinating stuff.

David said: . . . whether ABX is the right kind of protocol for testing very subtle changes - changes that are much less like seeing a light flashing in your peripheral vision at the eye doctor, and much more like contemplating the whole picture. The difference is like what Paul was mentioning in a post a few months ago that he sometimes gets asked on the spot to deliver verdicts on systems when it actually takes him a while to get into the sound and actually get what the system is doing (or not doing).

Three, observations:

First, audiophiles typically describe these differences as "clear and obvious" as Alekz just did above. If they are clear and obvious, it should be simple and quick to pick the better cable or better sounding format. This has not proven to be the case; it is far from simple.

Second, ABX does not require one to hurry. The subject controls the AX switch. He can take whatever time he would like, can go back and forth to compare, etc. These are not snap judgments. Often the subject can also bring sources with which he is intimately familiar, such as in the SACD v. 44/16 A/D/A study. The subject knows what he is listening for, there are no surprises or tricks. Thus, even if the differences are subtle they should be heard. If they cannot be perceived, there is no audible difference even though measurements may show there are differences.

Finally, some claim an ABX is inherently different than just listening to music. There is likely truth to this. However, one can take whatever time you would like and just listen to the music and then make your choice. The flaw in this argument is audiophiles are continually making judgments as to cables, formats, filter settings, FLAC v. Wave, etc. If we can routinely do this, we certainly are well-suited to performing the task in an ABX - just listen to the music and make your choice.

63

David, your last paragraph is particularly insightful so I am specially calling it out. I suspect you are correct in all respects.

64
Elk said: It is obvious only when you know what you are listening to. The "obviousness" disappears upon a proper ABX. Why?

Oh c'mon... I already mentioned at least one example when the tester did not know what I was doing. Oh yeah, another one is my wife, who usually is the first to ask: "It sounds differently now. You changed something, right?"

One necessary condition: the measuring instrument must be more precise, than the measured subject. Hence, the system must be transparent and revealing enough to "show" the difference. You can't test various formats on a boombox, because the obviousness disappears =))
65
David said: 'liquidity'

Actually, liquidity vs dryness is one of the very noticeable properties of audio components. Just as bright vs warm. For example, I chose Meridian CD player instead of Linn, because Linn had this "dry" house sound (dunno about the latest models). Meridian is an antipode in this case. Just as my audio dealer said:"Why did you choose Meridian? It sounds so .. wet ...". But I prefer to be on the "wet" side of the liquidity, than to have dry sound (apparently I'm overly sensitive to dryness).

Since we are talking cables as well... In my previous house we had a boomy/nasal sound. I tried virtually everything including various cables (at least a dozen interconnects). I remember one cable which was recommended (or shipped with?) for Mark Levinson equipment (I do not remember the name. Something like Madrigal?) It sounded stinging bright. I even asked the dealer if ML sounds so "dark" that it needed such a "radical" cabling. They confirmed ;)

66
Elk said: . If they are clear and obvious, it should be simple and quick to pick the better cable.

It's not that difficult if the equipment range is reasonable, and this is why audio dealers earn their money. They can recommend good/appropriate cables for your components or for your tastes. Of course, they must be familiar with the equipment. For example, over several years, my dealer knew what I prefer and usually made very good advices. If I asked for something to try at home they could say: "Sure, you can take it for the weekend, but you will not like the sound" and recommend something different. Again, usually they were correct (Linn vs Meridian was an exception, they preferred the Linn ;)
67
Alekz said: Oh c'mon... I already mentioned at least one example when the tester did not know what I was doing.

Which has been addressed; a single anecdote a study doth not make, not to mention the severe protocol failures. We have been through this.

Alekz said: One necessary condition: the measuring instrument must be more precise, than the measured subject.

This has similarly been discussed above in detail in the context of the SACD v. 44/16 A/D/A study. The equipment utilized was superb. Similarly, the DSD v. PCM involved excellent equipment. This argument remains a red herring.

Alekz said: It's not that difficult, and this is why audio dealers earn their money.

A dealer recommends a cable, it gets good reviews, you expect it to be better and . . . it is! Pure confirmation bias; see, e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
Unfortunately, this same "not difficult" disappears upon an ABX.

Then again, perhaps the study subjects should be the "wives" and "friends" audiophiles love to cite as their "proof" of claimed differences. Maybe these non-audiophiles will easily be able to identify the differences on an ABX and there will then be objective evidence of audible differences. :)

In summary, we are going in circles as you are merely repeating yourself.

You believe there is a difference. It appears, however, you refuse to accept such differences evaporate when objectively studied.

For me, I accept the differences are perceived by many and would like to know what explains this experience. One one hand, we have numerous anecdotal accounts of personal experience, let alone many random wives and friends. On the other, we have controlled studies which establish the claimed "not difficult" to hear differences cannot, in fact, be heard. What explains this intriguing dichotomy?

Having been a test subject in audio, as well as trained in such sensory oddities as spatial disorientation, my suspicion is many claimed revelatory differences in audio are psychologically based and not physically real.

I ask only that everyone be an open skeptic. Perhaps the differences are real, perhaps not.

This does not diminish an individual's experience however. What you hear is what you hear; that is, it is real for you. Moreover, if the difference you experience is worth the money you spent, it is a perfectly worthwhile purchase.
68

Is the concept of objective studies valid?

A study with test subjects who averagely listen to music around 10hrs per week for the last 10yrs; now that would be something! Maybe this can be compared to flavourists in the food industry; as audiophiles we have listened to recordings above average with respect to time, and are therefore much more likely to pick up the difference.

69

In both of the studies I have discussed in this thread, the test subjects were experienced listeners. You are correct; this is precisely what is needed and desired for this type of test.



In the SACD v. 44/16 A/D/A loop test, the test subjects were 60 members of the Boston Audio Society, audio professionals, students of a respected university audio program, and and other enthusiasts. The DSD v. PCM study was conducted with the use of Tonmeisters (akin to a German master’s degree in audio.)



In the SACD v. 44/16 A/D/A loop test, the test subjects also brought along their favorite SACDs, recordings the individual thought best represented the claimed improvements DSD brings. The subjects agreed the equipment was excellent and transparent so any difference would be possible to perceive. They came in certain they could pick out the SACD v. the A/D/A loop. Fascinatingly, they could not do so.



This is what is intriguing. As audiophiles we experience differences in formats, will describe these differences as significant, “revelatory.” Yet, when we do not know what we are listening to, the differences vanish. What’s up?



ABX is routinely used to test visual perception, psychoacoustic phenomena, etc. The subject pool always know what is being tested. An ABX is never designed to trick the subjects for this renders it useless as a valid study.



coopers154 said: Is the concept of objective studies valid?


It is for every other branch of science, including study of all forms of perception. Why not here?

70

Elk, in that case the test is the test and we must conclude there must be truth in it.

I did not realize at all that the test subjects where experienced listeners.



This finding do “compute” however with personal experience;

First of all: I do still very much like the SACD recordings I have purchased.

However, I recently improved my set up significantly by means of a high end pre-amp and equivalent cabling. Result is superb sound from both SACD as well as CD!!



I have found that now I’m sort of “done” with upgrading of my audio set, all is ok and difference between CD and SACD has diminished? How this is possible, no idea. Maybe SACD displays a larger difference when the “front end” still has a way to go. Once the front end is all ok, both SACD & CD is superb?



Maybe these findings & testresults can be compared with evaluation of “high end” digital pictures.

How much of a specialist does one have to be to “instantly” spot the differences between similar pictures? one taken with a full frame Canon 1DX, the other one with an even larger frame Digital Hasselblad?



I.e. there are absolutely differences still but too narrow in margin to be significantly spotted by experienced users. I think this is the cases for both Audio as well as photography.

71

apologies for my type writing; IPad doesn’t help in all cases :slight_smile:

72
coopers154 said: I have found that now I'm sort of "done" with upgrading of my audio set, all is ok


Good thing you put 'done' in quotation marks
:D
73
Elk said: A dealer recommends a cable, it gets good reviews, you expect it to be better and . . . it is! Pure confirmation bias; see, e.g., Unfortunately, this same "not difficult" disappears upon an ABX.

Wrong again :D I can decide what cables to test (for example, based on what they have in the "used/demo" category). I auditioned many cables that do not have any reviews. Or the dealer may give me something to try at home without any expectation sets. Just "try this and let us know what you think of it". Then I go back to my dealer with report and my reviews. They may agree, disagree and give an advice or the direction to move forward.

I always have my own opinion ;) Why don't you just try and decide for yourself, without referring to some weird tests or spooky theories?

I do not drink beer, because I do not like its taste, I do not care about any triple gagged tests, 3d party opinion or because the majority prefers it =)) I like milk from the Alps, and I do not care if the majority does not taste any difference between Austrian and Dutch milk.
74
coopers154 said: I have found that now I'm sort of "done" with upgrading of my audio set, all is ok


Good thing you put 'done' in quotation marks
:D


:-) Never been happier with the sound thus far, but you're right!

75
coopers154 said: I.e. there are absolutely differences still but too narrow in margin to be significantly spotted by experienced users. I think this is the cases for both Audio as well as photography.

This may well be the case.

Alekz said: Why don't you just try and decide for yourself, without referring to some weird tests or spooky theories?

I am unaware of any "weird tests" or "spooky theories." Well, other than the Belts. :)

Once again objective testing does not invalidate your personal experience. As I have oft stated, if you perceive a difference there is a difference for you.

Many are convinced they personally experience such differences. Yet, there is no scientific explanation for many. This raises the question: Are the perceptions real? Do they exist?

If not, we need to look somewhere else to explain the perceptions.

On the other hand, if the perceptions are quantifiable and demonstrably real, we need to look harder at the science and learn what we are missing.

So far, controlled testing does not support the audiophile claim there are differences.

Alekz said: Wrong again :D I can decide what cables to test.

Alekz, you need to remain consistent and commit to your own examples. Here is the actual thread of comments:

I stated "If they are clear and obvious, it should be simple and quick to pick the better cable."
You responded, "It's not that difficult if the equipment range is reasonable, and this is why audio dealers earn their money."
I responded: "A dealer recommends a cable, it gets good reviews, you expect it to be better and . . . it is! Pure confirmation bias; see, e.g., Unfortunately, this same "not difficult" disappears upon an ABX."

Of course, you can choose what cables to test. This is a separate scenario, but with its own host of confirmation bias issues. Whether you pick the cable or a dealer recommends it, the same problems with a sighted test remain.

I understand you do not like the result of the tests. You are convinced these differences are real. Many are. This is exactly why it is necessary to conduct blind ABX tests. It takes the audiophiles "knowledge" out of the equation and requires him to rely on his ears. In this way we can learn what is real.

This is the dream scenario for the subjectivist. Subjectivists assert "Rely on your ears!" This is exactly what an ABX does. Nothing but the ears matter. Why not believe the ears now that we know they do not discern a difference? Why are the ear no longer the valid measure of audiophile revelation?

The earth revolves around the sun, even though we all experience the sun revolving around the earth. Perception and reality often differ. This is why we study perception dispassionately and try and determine what is real applying well-established testing protocols. Why is this so threatening?

The question remains:

We can quickly and easily hear significant differences when we know what we are listening to. We cannot hear these differences on the same equipment and sources when we do not know to what we are listening. Why?
76
coopers154 said: Never been happier with the sound thus far . . .

This is, of course, all that matters. :-bd
77

@elk as I think I have suggested in the forums in the past, those who have the placebo effect should pay for it. :wink:



The studies are interesting and combined with other things we know about perception do raise interesting issues about perception and cognitive limits. Of course you have been careful to not over-draw conclusions. For example no statements have arisen to the effect that only ABX verifies experience. So would you agree that there are cases of equipment substitution where the effects could be obvious and could stand without ABX?



Let me give an example. The most recent wavestream beta has changed soundstaging here and I can clearly hear NEW detail on well-worn tracks. So, different and new. Do I really need ABX for that beyond curiosity to see if I can get it right better than random?

78
David said: So would you agree that there are cases of equipment substitution where the effects could be obvious and could stand without ABX?

Absolutely!

One that I have proffered is VHS v. DVD v. Blu-Ray. Given a decent high definition monitor it is easy for just about anyone to tell the difference, even if not vidiots. This is probably one of the major reasons high definition sells so easily and has complete mainstream acceptance.

David said: The most recent wavestream beta has changed soundstaging here and I can clearly hear NEW detail on well-worn tracks. So, different and new. Do I really need ABX for that beyond curiosity to see if I can get it right better than random?

This gets tougher. I cannot draw a bright-line rule.

We probably have all heard major differences with a component where we can easily tell the difference (unquestionably with speakers). No ABX needed. The decent preamp v. the superb preamp is a great example.

Where I believe we need to take a serious look is when there is no explanation for a difference and only audiophiles, and those led unwittingly into audiophilia such as the random spouse, can hear it. This intrigues me. Are we hearing something previously unexplained as to how audio frequencies are transmitted on wires, or are we misguided?

I would love it if we could routinely hear something unexplainable as it is a great reason to do more research. I want 500 audiophiles able to easily pick out cables, or DSD from PCM in an ABX.

Of course, we all have our preferences and beliefs. If you like the cables because they look great and are a joy to see and handle, this alone can justify the cost.
79
Elk said: I understand you do not like the result of the tests. You are convinced these differences are real.

I can not like or dislike the results. This is what they got using a right or wrong methodology, using right or wrong equipment, etc. I can question any parts of the tests (methodology, equipment, etc.). I can find the results useful or not and I can use the results in my daily life or not.

So far the test results contradict my experience and I voiced my concerns about the methodology. Hence I consider the test useless for myself (personally). However, I do find the whole procedure entertaining.

Anybody else should be free to "trust", "believe" and "follow" any test results they stumble upon.

80

As a matter of interest one contributor on Pinkfish posted some comparison files one orginal and one passed through Multiple A/D/D/A conversions. Can’t now remember whether the original was 16/44 or hirez/ In any event the files were distributed to anyone who wanted them and , guess what -when the votes were collated the preferences were randomly distributed. Everyone got to download and play on their own system in their own time.



I have seen similar results on forums for 16/44 vs 320 kbps mp3, 24/96 versus 16/44 and minimum phase versus maximum phase (deliberately as bad as can be made in terms of pre-ringing). Taken as a whole the evidence from controlled tests I have seen seems to go one way. Obviously one can pick holes in any one test but…



Taking part in any sort of blind test, be it A/B ABX or whatever is a humbling experience. I’m afraid that the line that “I’m so sure I hear differences. I know I do. That means that I can’t be wrong and that’s that” crops up over and over again. Sadly people are mistaken as to the extent to which their preferences come from something other than the sound. That’s just the way it works. Being mistaken means thinking something is the case when it isn’t. We all do it. Unfortunately this train of thought is uncomfortable: where will it end?