Hearing difference in Audio Quality

[Mr_Sukebe]

These DBTs you mention. You ran them? If not, do you understand their context and the potential for bias that whoever ran them has?

Just answer the question, do you actually have any experience of listening/testing better kit or not. It's a very simple question.

 

[dowie]

you're going around in circles now, you already asked and I already answered that question:

Nope I don't just as I don't arrange double blind tests of the medicines I buy etc...

Yes I grew up with some pretty good kit in my living room at my parents (which did get upgraded over time) as my dad has some good kit (and lots of old good kit) and plenty of hi fi magazines I used to read through as a kid(thus I've seen these BS claims come and go over a few years), one of my best friends has a pretty expensive set up too... I however live in a flat in London and have a couple of reasonable bookshelf speakers on stands and an AV receiver and my blu ray player is a PS3! (and a big sofa + thick carpet in the room - which is rather more impotent than spending way more money on a "superior" amp that in reality isn't any better at sending an analogue signal to the bookshelf speakers with minimal distortion - something that any decent modern amplifiers can do)

I've got no need for much more than that currently as my neighbours have small children! At some point I might well invest in a 4k TV and PS4, if I move to a house I might well buy some new speakers and upgrade the receiver if I require some more features etc..

I'm not going to get into oh but have you listened to XYZ piece of equipment or specifics as it has little relevance to the point I'm making which you don't seem to be following.

You're going to have to be more specific re: what context you're referring to wrt DBTs?

The point however is quite straight forwards re: sighted tests being flawed and therefore a claim about some tiny difference that can only be heard after hours of listening being dubious.

With digital sources and the fact that amplification with minimal distortion is pretty much a solved problem just as conversion of that digital source is then (given the amp is sufficient for the speakers) you've only really got speakers and the room set up to worry about... the kettle leads to power this stuff, the interconnects, the speaker cable... this stuff has all been debunked, amplifiers generally too, unless you want some tube sound because you love the "warmth"(distortion).

 

[jpaul]

The whole argument appears to exist purely to generate an argument online. Just a total waste of everyone's time.

I agree I think that is his motive.

I wouldn't be surprised if the "Schiit" products are just more of the same.

so do you think they are not good value for money then ? (or you have not personally used one)

DBT tests, even if genuinely performed would/should not be the only criteria for a purchase anyway - build and design quality and company pedigree/support being other factors

 

[dowie]

I agree I think that is his motive.

I could say the same thing about people making the "woo" like claims... I certainly don't think a forum like this should be an echo chamber of dubious claims and the skeptical viewpoint is pretty damn valid here!

The subject of the thread is hearing the difference in audio quality - above CD quality there generally isn't going to be a perceptible difference. In fact in some cases (with older material) the original recording is going to limit things... but that likely won't stop tidal or whomever else from selling some upsampled higher bitrate version.

DBT tests, even if genuinely performed would/should not be the only criteria for a purchase anyway - build and design quality and company pedigree/support being other factors

I'm not claiming otherwise - build quality is a perfectly reasonable factor to consider. My objection is to people rubbishing DBTs or throwing in obviously silly things about subtle differences that can be heard after hours of listening while doing that listening sighted (ergo exposing themselves to rather larger biases that DBTs seek to avoid).

 

[Mr_Sukebe]

so do you think they are not good value for money then ? (or you have not personally used one)

Haven't ever heard one, so the reality is that I have no idea. They might be the best thing since sliced bread, but as already stated, I'd base my decision on actually trying one.
For all that, as mentioned, I've previously made some effort to hear the "latest and greatest" and generally came away unimpressed.

 

[Mr_Sukebe]

Dowie>
Sorry mate, but your comments come across akin to a Honda Jazz driver trying to tell others about the difference in handling between a Gallardo and 458.
If you get the chance, go try some genuine upper end gear and then come back and tell us there's no difference in amplifiers.

 

[dowie]

Honda Jazz driver?? Oh thanks! And you're coming across as a homeopath who still doesn't get that its just water!

Anyway, silly comments aside, I'm probably not going to convince you re sighted tests having an obvious and well documented bias and I don't want to disrupt thread re: DBT so I'll bow out now and just leave this here for you or anyone who is interested in why there are obvious and well documented flaws in sighted tests (thus my point that you certainly can't rely on them to then claim some subtle difference that can only be heard after hours of listening):

(if you don't have time to watch the whole thing skip to 12mins in and watch for like a couple of minutes for a very clear illustration of bias in sighted tests)

etc...

 

[Haggisman]

5/6, only one I got wrong was the Hip Hop one, possibly because most of the sounds were very digital in nature anyway so the compression doesn't affect them as much?

Using a corsair gaming headset plugged into on-board audio on a cheapo old gigabyte motherboard

 

[Irish_Tom]

I got 2/6 on the test in the OP, but for the other four I chose the 320kbps, so I'd say the 128kbps was clearly "wrong" but I couldn't tell much difference between uncompressed and 320kbps.

That's with a 2015 Macbook Pro and Bose QC15s.

 

[jpaul]

is there an online test that enables you to download the samples ? I can't see how to do that with the OP link ?
(as discussed earlier unless you know what your browser and sound mixer are doing, and have turned off sound processing the whole experiment could be flawed)

I have NOT tried this test yet http://abx.digitalfeed.net/
it still does not seem to allow download, but may give a more statistically significant result.

 

[rubberduck]

Agree with Dowie on this one. At what time do we reach a point where things really can't get any better in terms of the accuracy of signal conversion? Let's put it another way, I am sure there are certain areas of experimental physics research that rely on digital to analogue (and vice versa) conversions. I wonder if there is any research happening now at MIT & Harvard etc. that fundamentally could not have been possible 20 years ago simply because the signal conversion technology was not up to snuff? Happy to be proved wrong if a PhD level physicist in acoustics etc. cares to chip in?

 

[jpaul]

he did not substantiate this strawman theory, the video/evangilist he was echoing was just talking about dbt ... if you read up on circuit design, high end convertors can invest more in circuit/pcb design and better quality components to provide less noisy conversion, higher snr, but the challenge is developing mixed signal chips silicon processes to be able to deliver the same high quality within budget for consumer products.

 

[Mr_Sukebe]

...At what time do we reach a point where things really can't get any better in terms of the accuracy of signal conversion? ...

My question to you, bearing in mind the bias and BS sprouted all over, why trust anyone but your own experiences?
As already stated, most electronics are at least "competently" designed, meaning that functionally, they'll deal with most requirements. Post that, you're into digging through marketing twaddle and pseudo science.

So if you want to understand what might be possible, surely the easiest way is to go out and have a listen.
After all, we'll make the effort to road test a car, so why not have a listen if you're going to blow a wad.

Some examples of where I've been able to listen to kit that is rather better at demonstrating what's possible:
- Local dealers. OK for most mid-range gear
- More specialist dealers. I found a ground south east of London who happily let me have a listen to a bunch of DACs and valve amps
- Whilst in Singapore, called in at the Adelphi. They had a system that had apparently been used previously by Michael Jackson. Well I say a system, more of a room. Checkout Westlake systems
- In Bangkok on holiday, had my first opportunity to hear a set of JBL Everest 9800s. Very rare in the UK, awesome
- Scalford show. Show where the exhibitors are just punters like us. However, some of the gear that is shown is amazing (and not just expensive, there's usually quite a bit of home built gear)
- Near Boston (US). Called in at a dealer whilst out there a couple of years ago. Got to hear a pair of Rockport Altairs driven by suitable electronics.

All I've done with the above is help to understand what's possible if you have a shed load of cash. However, back in the real world, helps to define for yourself what to aim for.

 

[Mr_Sukebe]

Sorry, double post.

 

[Psycho Sonny]

I'm on the fence on this one - there is a lot of BS and myths often perpetuated by people who've never done any real testing of their own and often people are talking about distortion which isn't always a negative but... but also I can't completely agree with Dowie and those making similar claims based on 100s of hours messing about with DIY DACs and amps.

there is some truth to things like as long as it's copper wiring (with nothing else mixed in) and of a decent thickness for the length of the run there is no need to spend stupid amounts on wires and cables.

as in a decent £15 metre long cable. will sound just as good as a £100 metre long cable. given that the £15 metre long cable is pure copper of a decent thickness.

however the longer you go the more you need to spend. some companies will skimp on the quality of the cable and focus on drivers. for instance you can buy upgraded cables for phillips fidelios for only £15. the cable that comes with it therefore is of poor quality however no need to spend £200 on a decent one, £15 will do the job.

then you have hd600's and hd650's they come with decent cables. in order to upgrade you need to spend a minimum of £200 and up to £400. however i'm guessing you could make the same cable yourself for less than £50. so yes a lot of snake oil in the cost but not in the quality.

DAC's are not cheap to make and most tend to colour the sound somewhat. you normally have bright sounding dac's, warm and neutral. it's personal preference.

so i could spend £600 on one DAC and £600 on another and they sound different. better =/= different.

sound is very subjective. otherwise everyone would focus on neutral amps, neutral headphones and neutral dac's with no equalisation at all. humans prefer a warm sound naturally. the shrill of highs will fatigue your ears if overdone and sound unpleasant.

if all you have ever bought is cheap stuff under £100 then you know no better. once you start dabbling in the £100-£300 market and that is for each piece. up to £300 on each a dac, amp, headphones, so up to £900 total. that is when you essentially hit the sweet spot in terms law of diminishing returns. after that you are paying more and more for small improvements.

i have a £120 dac/amp and the DAC is amazing in it but the amp isn't that good. so then i bought a £150 amp to compliment it but then it's a waste of the amp in the dac. so i should sell it and get a £100-£200 dac but it's good enough for me.

if you do your research and buy something recommended by audiophiles on head fi you can't go wrong.

for instance apparently the main weak spot is the power source in my £120 dac/amp. however i would need to spend £200 to get a better one. spending £200 for a power source for a £120 dac/amp makes zero sense. best to just buy better in the first place.

so yes someone selling me a £200 power source would be deemed snake oil. as i would be better off taking that £200 adding it to my original budget and buying a £320 dac/amp.

which is why i guess a lot of people don't spend £200-£400 on cables for their hd600's and hd650's.

it's the law of diminishing returns.

99% of people would be happy with spending say £500 max on a full setup. as in <£500 divided by dac/amp and headphones. there are people who will spend £800 just on headphones alone for instance but they are IMO not worth it unless you have money to burn.

however to say a £500 setup is a waste of money is ludicrous. it will sound a hell of a lot better than a £100 setup.

 

[Rroff]

then you have hd600's and hd650's they come with decent cables. in order to upgrade you need to spend a minimum of £200 and up to £400. however i'm guessing you could make the same cable yourself for less than £50. so yes a lot of snake oil in the cost but not in the quality.

Largely the reason people see a difference with the 600 series cables is that the cables tend to be long = more capacitance and the headphones have a fair amount of capacitance as a package - when someone drops one of the raved about opamps like the AD797 into their amplifier it could easily be destabilised if the circuitry doesn't extend its capacitive load capabilities or worse the circuitry impacts the opamp's native capabilities - a more expensive cable might be enough to tip it back into stability or change the distortion from the instability but the actual solution would be the amp's output circuitry.

 

[Psycho Sonny]

Largely the reason people see a difference with the 600 series cables is that the cables tend to be long = more capacitance and the headphones have a fair amount of capacitance as a package - when someone drops one of the raved about opamps like the AD797 into their amplifier it could easily be destabilised if the circuitry doesn't extend its capacitive load capabilities or worse the circuitry impacts the opamp's native capabilities - a more expensive cable might be enough to tip it back into stability or change the distortion from the instability but the actual solution would be the amp's output circuitry.

which is why i said rather than dropping £200-£400 on a cable you should have just bought a better dac/amp in the first place and added the cable budget onto the dac/amp budget.

 

[JasonM]

Things that do make a difference.

Buying good separates (even second hand from the bay will do)
Good speakers (ok you need these)
Good source (something that's at least not garbage)
Speaker positioning (move your speakers)
Speaker cables (pure copper of a good thinkness, the German DCSK cable is good)
Good interconnects (Maplins RCA cables are neutral and high quality)
Mains filters (the cheap £40 Tacima's do make a difference)
Isolating speakers from floor (2p coins stacked on top of each other to start with)
Checking bolts are tight that hold speakers in place (Even Yamaha speakers ship with loose speakers bolts, cost of an Alan key)

Blind tests have shown the difference between 320kbps and lossloss under any conditions is almost impossible to tell. However those things I listed above are easy to make an improvement, combine them together and you can make a dramatic difference to your audio listening quality.

 

[supafly]

I think age is a big factor in hearing the difference. Remember Napster, back then comparing CD to MP3 there was no contest, just so much more life in CD. But last few years, I struggle to hear improvement between normal and hifi tidal. I have top end source and monitors/reference speakers and it used to be so apparent when younger.

 

[Dr.EM]

On the test I got 4 out of 6, picking 320k mp3 on Jay-Z (it's a pretty brutally limited master to begin with) and more disappointingly on Suzanne Vega. But this is on small (but good, DIY build) full-range speakers using a (again DIY) mini-amplifier and Asus Xonar D1 internal soundcard. The difference on 128k mp3 is glaring in all instances. I expect I can get 100% on my main system, certainly if it were with familiar tracks. If you're trying to hear the differences as in this test I'd say tune your ears into the stereo separation and the transients at high frequencies (for instance, the attack on the ride cymbal on Coldplay is a dead giveaway) and you'll quickly find the limitations of 320k mp3, though it is still decent and enjoyable to listen to when encoded properly.