I had a revelation! High resolution audio...

[Josh500 1,615]

I had a revelation... 

 

High resolution audio DOES sound better, a lot! Now, I know what many of you guys think (or maybe what you guys have been taught to think): a human can't tell the difference at that high range blah blah. And yeah, you're right, you can't ALWAYS hear the difference, and you can hear the difference ONLY if you use the right equipment.

 

But boy... WHEN you do hear it, it hits you like the biggest shock. I was listening to TFA earlier tonight, first to the mp3 at 320 kbps, then to the same track at high resolution at 9320 kbps. And my God, it just sounds so much better (everything more clear, lucid, and powerful), it was like a freaking revelation! You could have knocked me over with a feather!

 

It's just a question of what you're used to. You listen to mp3 all the time, you're constantly told you can't tell the difference, and you start believing it. You assume that's as good as it gets. But guess what? You can. You CAN hear the difference. It's subtle, but yes, by God, you can! It's a lie, and we've been fooled all along. You listen to a song at high res audio with the right equipment (a player capable of playing high res audio with the right earphones) and you will understand what I'm talking about. 

 

And I gotta say, finding this out for yourself the first time is an experience like no other.

 

 

[Datameister 2,095]

Have you done a bunch of blind listening tests, or is this based on listening to them while knowing which is which?

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Wasnt the TFA high res release phony?

[Loert 2,529]

Sometimes you can get too high resolution...Jurassic Park in 192kHz/24-bit FLAC hurts my ears sometimes!

[Josh500 1,615]

I really think you guys should listen for yourself. I can't put my finger on how exactly it sounds better, except that, if you listen to the same tracks one after the other, you hear an overall difference quality-wise, especially the passages that are heavy on strings, cymbals, and brass (trumpets). 

 

It's subtle but it's there.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Where did you get the high res version?

[Josh500 1,615]

I listened to the High Resolution tracks on a friend's player. I think he got it at prostudiomasters.

 

 

[A. A. Ron 1,747]

1 hour ago, Stefancos said:

Wasnt the TFA high res release phony?

 

Partially, yes. It contained upconverted material throughout.

[Biodome 714]

I've learned to always do an ABX test on these matters. I fail to discern any kind of difference when comparing 320kbps mp3 to a lossless version.

[A. A. Ron 1,747]

7 minutes ago, Biodome said:

I've learned to always do an ABX test on these matters.

 

And you're right to do so.

[Faleel 5,447]

Just now, amh1219 said:

 

And you're right to do so.

Audio discernment is the province of Audiophiles.

[A. A. Ron 1,747]

1 hour ago, Josh500 said:

I had a revelation... 

 

High resolution audio DOES sound better, a lot!

 

...

 

I listened to the High Resolution tracks on a friend's player. I think he got it at prostudiomasters.

 

Then your friend's equipment sounds better than yours.

[Sharkissimo 1,973]

Gotta love audiophile wankery.

[Josh500 1,615]

2 hours ago, Biodome said:

I've learned to always do an ABX test on these matters. I fail to discern any kind of difference when comparing 320kbps mp3 to a lossless version.

I haven't really heard any difference before when comparing other scores/albums, but this one is just so obvious... 

 

Maybe it was the equipment? Or maybe it's just that TFA is a case where the difference is particularly noticeable? Dunno. But like I said, you gotta listen for yourself to understand what I'm talking about...

 

[Biodome 714]

30 minutes ago, Josh500 said:

I haven't really heard any difference before when comparing other scores/albums, but this one is just so obvious... 

 

Maybe it was the equipment? Or maybe it's just that TFA is a case where the difference is particularly noticeable? Dunno. But like I said, you gotta listen for yourself to understand what I'm talking about...

 

Did you perform an ABX test? Cause mp3 are supposed to be transparent even with bitrates of around 190kbps. With better lossy formats, such as AAC, the differences become inaudible even at 128k.

Now I don't have great equipment, but I don't think good equipment would help. Check this video out, as example:

 

[Josh500 1,615]

Do I really need to go out of my way to prove to myself that what I'm hearing is just my imagination? 

 

No, not really. I tell you, I can definitely hear it (at least in this case--I think it's easier to hear the difference when it comes to multi-layered orchestral music) and I get more enjoyment out of it, and that's enough. The difference is so subtle that when all is said and done, it's ALL subjective. If you think the music sounds better, it is. If you don't, then it isn't, and there's no convincing you, either way.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

High res is a scam if the dynamic range has been compressed out, which has happened in some releases. Sure it might have more bytes and bits, but all the thump and oopmh has been flattened out. I end up looking for 80s CD versions to hear if they're any better and they usually are.

[Biodome 714]

1 hour ago, Josh500 said:

Do I really need to go out of my way to prove to myself that what I'm hearing is just my imagination? 

 

No, not really. I tell you, I can definitely hear it (at least in this case--I think it's easier to hear the difference when it comes to multi-layered orchestral music) and I get more enjoyment out of it, and that's enough. The difference is so subtle that when all is said and done, it's ALL subjective. If you think the music sounds better, it is. If you don't, then it isn't, and there's no convincing you, either way.

I don't want any proof. I'm just simply stating the fact that it is really easy to deceive yourself with these things. Without a controlled test, it's practically impossible to eliminate cognitive biases and you start imagining things that aren't actually there. For a long time, I've been convinced that I could hear the difference between lossy and lossless music files, and I would try and avoid mp3 files at any cost. But after some time I realized that I was reading too many audiophile opinions and I was suffering from biases. ABX test is simple and it allows you to be objective. These things can be measured and verified. There is no need to resort to subjectivity.

[Josh500 1,615]

If you really think about it, it's ALL subjective. If you believe that a particular piece of music is good, it is. If you don't, it isn't. If you think a particular piece of music has a good sound quality, it does. If you don't, it doesn't.

 

That said, there's almost as many videos proving that there IS a difference. What's more I can hear the difference myself... And like I said, that's enough for me. If you don't, though, I don't blame you; but don't hold it against me if I do.

 

 

But I think I'm starting to understand what's going on here, why people are so divided over this. Certain people in the industry have a vested interest in making sure that everybody believe that there is NO difference... That humans cannot make out the difference at that range. Except the thing is, sometimes (not always!), with the right equipment, some people can (probably not everybody--hell, everybody has a different set of ears). Oh yes.

[Biodome 714]

1 hour ago, Josh500 said:

If you really think about it, it's ALL subjective. If you believe that a particular piece of music is good, it is. If you don't, it isn't. If you think a particular piece of music has a good sound quality, it does. If you don't, it doesn't.

 

That said, there's almost as many videos proving that there IS a difference. What's more I can hear the difference myself... And like I said, that's enough for me. If you don't, though, I don't blame you; but don't hold it against me if I do.

 

 

But I think I'm starting to understand what's going on here, why people are so divided over this. Certain people in the industry have a vested interest in making sure that everybody believe that there is NO difference... That humans cannot make out the difference at that range. Except the thing is, sometimes (not always!), with the right equipment, some people can (probably not everybody--hell, everybody has a different set of ears). Oh yes.

No, it's not all subjective. An ABX test provides one with objective statistical data. You can with very high certainty determine whether you're simply guessing which sample is better, or whether you are really able to distinguish them.

If something sounds better to you, it is either:
1) Because it does indeed sound better (i.e. it is higher fidelity) and you are able to notice that fact, or...
2) Because you expect it to sound better, and thus it appears to sound better (i.e. cognitive bias)

It's as simple as that, really.

[Josh500 1,615]

Well, even if it's just cognitive bias--I don't believe it, but just for argument's sake let's assume it is--it doesn't really matter because it still sounds better IN MY MIND:

 

It comes down to these two:

 

A. It actually sounds better, and thus you enjoy it more.

 

B. You only think it sounds better, but you still enjoy it more. 

 

It's a win-win situation. But anyway, all I wanted to tell you guys was, try listening to HD of TFA or other orchestral music yourselves some time. You might be pleasantly surprised (under the right circumstances)... or maybe not.

 

 

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

Good luck to anyone hoping to distinguish between the CE3K CD and SACD.

[Biodome 714]

6 minutes ago, Josh500 said:

It's a win-win situation

Cognitive bias is equivalent to self-deception. If you consider that as a win, then I cannot convince you.

I am a skeptic, and I do not always trust my senses, because they are fallible. Thus when it comes to the high-fidelity debate, I will always try to eliminate as many variables as I can, and the ABX test is perfect for that. I know many audiophiles that arrogantly assume that what they hear is true and that their senses are infallible. I can never understand their reluctance to put their words to the test. It's as if they fear they could be wrong.

[Richard Penna 3,770]

In some cases I can tell the difference between 112k and 320k mp3, but it depends on the style of music. 96k definitely.

 

A lot of the time the 112k doesn't seem to reach the rear as much as the HQ equivalents.

[Datameister 2,095]

All your posts in this thread are beautiful, Biodome. Welcome to the forum!

 

Josh, it's interesting to me that the whole premise of your thread is to tell people that they're wrong - that there IS absolutely an audible difference - yet you have no interest in finding out if that statement is actually true. You make an assertion ("you CAN hear the difference") but you are opposed to actually finding out whether your own assertion is true - even though it's an assertion that is scientifically testable, and not at all subjective. Either a person can tell the difference, or they can't. Blind testing gives you a chance to objectively find out which is true.

 

I thought lossless WAV files sounded better to me than high-bitrate mp3s or AACs. I was wrong. When I did blind listening tests comparing the same passage in both formats, I performed no better than I would have if I'd been guessing. I misidentified about half of the lossless versions as having lossy compression and about half of the compressed versions as being lossless. Assuming I've controlled for other variables and taken a big enough sample size, this gives me strong, objective evidence that I cannot tell the difference between these formats, even though my highly fallible human brain is eager to convince itself otherwise.

 

If the truth doesn't matter to you, great...but it does seem odd to try to convince others of something you haven't even verified for yourself yet.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

Maybe Josh has the hearing of a bat and the rest of us are going deaf.

[Datameister 2,095]

In all seriousness, it's not outside the realm of possibility. Some people just have better ears. Only one way to find out, though...

[Dixon Hill 4,234]

I love how worked up this stuff gets everyone.

 

This being a subject of no small relevance to the thing we're all here to enjoy, that is, music and the listening experience, I've done all the usual tests that everyone on both sides usually prescribe, with the best equipment I could get my hands on.  My own experience is that from 256 (and obviously anything below) to 320, there is a detectable increase in clarity and detail and a more pronounced sense of space and dimension.  From 320 up, to FLAC or WAV or whatever, I reckon, for me anyway, it's pretty much all the same.

 

And Drax is right, whether or not dynamic range has been squashed plays a huge role in perceived sound quality.  Highly compressed music in WAV format is still going to sound relatively crappy and you'll constantly be twiddling with the volume to get it to sound natural and eventually your ears just get fatigued.

[Marian Schedenig 8,249]

On 7.5.2016 at 4:53 AM, Josh500 said:

But I think I'm starting to understand what's going on here, why people are so divided over this. Certain people in the industry have a vested interest in making sure that everybody believe that there is NO difference... That humans cannot make out the difference at that range. Except the thing is, sometimes (not always!), with the right equipment, some people can (probably not everybody--hell, everybody has a different set of ears). Oh yes.

 

That devious Harry Nyquist and his cunning business schemes!

 

Side note: Most of this thread uses the term "high resolution audio" but instead talks about different compression rates.

[Datameister 2,095]

41 minutes ago, Marian Schedenig said:

Side note: Most of this thread uses the term "high resolution audio" but instead talks about different compression rates.

 

True. Same basic idea applies either way, though - some people claim they can hear a difference, some claim they can't, and the only way to arrive at the (sometimes surprising) truth about each individual's perceptive abilities is through blind listening tests.

[justaguy 68]

On 5/7/2016 at 4:53 AM, Josh500 said:

But I think I'm starting to understand what's going on here, why people are so divided over this. Certain people in the industry have a vested interest in making sure that everybody believe that there is NO difference... That humans cannot make out the difference at that range. Except the thing is, sometimes (not always!), with the right equipment, some people can (probably not everybody--hell, everybody has a different set of ears). Oh yes.

And what about the possibility that the higher frequencies, theoretically unhearable for common man (20kHz up, probably even less for some of us), generated by hi-res files and good headphones/speakers, interfere with hearable spectrum of sound in a way that improves or alters it in some way making us perceive it as "better quality"/"sounding different"? Just thinking out loud...

[Koray Savas 2,251]

It doesn't matter guys! He's right and you're wrong!

[Biodome 714]

4 hours ago, zaddini said:

And what about the possibility that the higher frequencies, theoretically unhearable for common man (20kHz up, probably even less for some of us), generated by hi-res files and good headphones/speakers, interfere with hearable spectrum of sound in a way that improves or alters it in some way making us perceive it as "better quality"/"sounding different"? Just thinking out loud...

The only way I can envision this is if one uses some sort of bone conduction headphones. Otherwise, I don't know what kind of interference you have in mind.

[justaguy 68]

12 minutes ago, Biodome said:

The only way I can envision this is if one uses some sort of bone conduction headphones. Otherwise, I don't know what kind of interference you have in mind.

Nothing in particular - I don't have knowledge about how sound waves actually work and how they can interfere with each other - it's apparently just a stupid thought that formed in my brain that I had to let out. And thanks to letting it out I know it was stupid.

[Biodome 714]

15 minutes ago, zaddini said:

Nothing in particular - I don't have knowledge about how sound waves actually work and how they can interfere with each other - it's apparently just a stupid thought that formed in my brain that I had to let out. And thanks to letting it out I know it was stupid.

It's not a stupid thought. I mean, all waves, including sound waves, do interfere with each other. Unless you listen to a single tone, you will inevitably hear waves that interfere. This produces audible 'beats' or 'pulses' in some circumstances, like two water waves produce periodic, larger waves. I'm pretty sure there are YouTube videos where you can listen to that. Anyway, I'm no expert on waves either, so anyone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I wouldn't think your hearing range can be extended in this way. Frequences that are beyond your hearing range will still be beyond your hearing range, unless you bypass certain limitations (i.e. by using bones to conduct sound).

[A24 4,367]

What? I thought that was understood a long time ago that frequencies we aren't able to 'hear' are still affecting us in some way.

[Biodome 714]

2 minutes ago, Alexcremers said:

What? I thought that was understood a long time ago that frequencies we aren't able to 'hear' are still affecting us in some way.

It depends on what you mean by "some way". Not everything that affects us can be perceived by us.

[A24 4,367]

It either affects us or is doesn't. What is it?

[Biodome 714]

2 minutes ago, Alexcremers said:

It either affects us or is doesn't. What is it?

There are sonic weapons, for instance. Some of them are able to destroy your eardrums or even kill you, without you actually hearing the sound emitted by the weapon itself. So ultrasound can affect people, but we're talking about actually hearing it in music.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]