Can you tell the difference and find the original?

86 views
Skip to first unread message

grill

unread,
Jan 30, 2012, 6:26:53 PM1/30/12
to SurroundSound
I'm offering you a WXYZ comparison test to check the audio evaluation
capability of your ears and mind. The hotlinked Hotfile link below
leads you to a DVD-audio disc image that contains four 5.1 24/96
tracks of the same audio material encoded as:

- unaltered original MLP 5.1 24/96,
- DTS 5.1 (755 kbps),
- DTS 5.1 (1510 kbps),
- DTS 24/96 5.1 (1510 kbps).

DTS-HD MAS 2.50.20 was used for DTS encoding and AudioMuxer with
ArcSoft DTS decoder was used for DTS decoding.

Your task is to determine the correct encoding order, at least to find
the original without using audio evaluating softwares. You can PM me
your guess and I'll send you the right answer back. Bravehearts can
reply publicly. Btw, I meant this to be a funny game so don't take it
too seriously (although there is no trick or scam in the testing
material).

http://hotfile.com/list/1973773/7086aff

Stephen Disney

unread,
Jan 30, 2012, 9:50:11 PM1/30/12
to surrou...@googlegroups.com
If anyone nails it, he'll just say they cheated...
S


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SurroundSound" group.
To post to this group, send email to Surrou...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to SurroundSoun...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/SurroundSound

Steven Sullivan

unread,
Jan 30, 2012, 10:17:08 PM1/30/12
to surrou...@googlegroups.com
I'm game. Presumably all four should sound different, and best to worst
would be 1, 4, 3, 2, in the list below?

Steven Sullivan

unread,
Jan 30, 2012, 10:06:35 PM1/30/12
to surrou...@googlegroups.com
Given the caliber of responses to date, I would have to at least consider
that possibility, don't you think?

Lokkerman

unread,
Jan 31, 2012, 1:37:43 AM1/31/12
to surrou...@googlegroups.com
Grill
I'll have a go over the weekend so do not post until then
Lokks

Dave Cooper

unread,
Jan 31, 2012, 5:00:00 AM1/31/12
to surrou...@googlegroups.com
Oh good, an ambisonic test, oh sorry read it wrong   lol
 
 
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SurroundSound" group.
To post to this group, send email to Surrou...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to SurroundSoun...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/SurroundSound


-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2012.0.1901 / Virus Database: 2109/4776 - Release Date: 01/30/12

elshagon

unread,
Jan 31, 2012, 4:20:57 PM1/31/12
to SurroundSound
Too bad there's not an ac3 (dolby digital) track also, that's where
you see a huge drop in quality.

On Jan 31, 2:00 am, "Dave Cooper" <davecooper1...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Oh good, an ambisonic test, oh sorry read it wrong   lol
>
>   I'm offering you a WXYZ comparison test to check the audio evaluation
>   capability of your ears and mind. The hotlinked Hotfile link below
>   leads you to a DVD-audio disc image that contains four 5.1 24/96
>   tracks of the same audio material encoded as:
>
>   - unaltered original MLP 5.1 24/96,
>   - DTS 5.1 (755 kbps),
>   - DTS 5.1 (1510 kbps),
>   - DTS 24/96 5.1 (1510 kbps).
>
>   DTS-HD MAS 2.50.20 was used for DTS encoding and AudioMuxer with
>   ArcSoft DTS decoder was used for DTS decoding.
>
>   Your task is to determine the correct encoding order, at least to find
>   the original without using audio evaluating softwares. You can PM me
>   your guess and I'll send you the right answer back. Bravehearts can
>   reply publicly. Btw, I meant this to be a funny game so don't take it
>   too seriously (although there is no trick or scam in the testing
>   material).
>
>  http://hotfile.com/list/1973773/7086aff
>
>   --
>   You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SurroundSound" group.
>   To post to this group, send email to Surrou...@googlegroups.com
>   To unsubscribe from this group, send email to SurroundSoun...@googlegroups.com
>   For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/SurroundSound

grill

unread,
Jan 31, 2012, 5:29:26 PM1/31/12
to SurroundSound
I can add/change/omit tracks or give more info if the test proves to
be too difficult. We are not in a hurry so take your listening time. I
may invite the best assessor for a bottle of Hungarian wine during his
next visit to Budapest :-)
> >   Version: 2012.0.1901 / Virus Database: 2109/4776 - Release Date: 01/30/12- Idézett szöveg elrejtése -
>
> - Idézett szöveg megjelenítése -

elshagon

unread,
Jan 31, 2012, 5:45:40 PM1/31/12
to SurroundSound
Free wine! I'm in. Well worth the trip to Budapest!

ArnoldLayne

unread,
Jan 31, 2012, 6:30:08 PM1/31/12
to SurroundSound
Are we talking Tokaji? Make way for the winner (me)!!
> > > - Idézett szöveg megjelenítése -- Ocultar texto de la cita -
>
> - Mostrar texto de la cita -

elshagon

unread,
Feb 1, 2012, 2:02:10 AM2/1/12
to SurroundSound
Here's my guess (I'm brave so I'll post it here):
Track #1 DTS 5.1 (1510 kbps) this was a bit of a guess
Track #2 This is the DTS 24/96 5.1 (1510 kbps)
Track #3 The unaltered MLP (this was the easiest one for me to figure
out and I hope I'm right)
Track #4 DTS 5.1 (755 kbps) may have this one mixed up with track #1

You can PM me and let me know if I'm off, the two I was pretty sure of
is track 2 and 3. Track 3 is definitely the original MLP I believe.

grill

unread,
Feb 1, 2012, 3:02:38 AM2/1/12
to SurroundSound
Thanks Elshi, PM sent.
> > > - Mostrar texto de la cita -- Idézett szöveg elrejtése -

Steven Sullivan

unread,
Jan 31, 2012, 6:33:08 PM1/31/12
to surrou...@googlegroups.com
Difficult? I thought the differences between lossy and lossles, between
standard rez and high, were supposed to be obvious?

>> 01/30/12- Id�zett sz�veg elrejt�se -
>>
>> - Id�zett sz�veg megjelen�t�se -

grill

unread,
Feb 1, 2012, 10:02:30 AM2/1/12
to SurroundSound
Some of us may think or hear different. We'll see it from the replies,
although we won't be able to get a scientific proof here as I mentined
it iin another thread.
> >http://groups.google.com/group/SurroundSound- Idézett szöveg elrejtése -

Lokkerman

unread,
Feb 1, 2012, 12:55:31 PM2/1/12
to surrou...@googlegroups.com
here we go again you can deal with this twat as I'm too cowardly ;-))

Steven Sullivan

unread,
Feb 1, 2012, 1:01:52 PM2/1/12
to surrou...@googlegroups.com
OK, but here's a tip: to better *approach* scientific proof, it's best for
people NOT to post their guesses publicly until *after* everyone's answers
are in, to ensure subjects' answers are independent, i.e., they aren't
influenced by other subjects' answers.

>> >http://groups.google.com/group/SurroundSound- Id�zett sz�veg elrejt�se

elshagon

unread,
Feb 1, 2012, 4:20:20 PM2/1/12
to SurroundSound
I think it's difficult to tell the differences between high bitrate
dts and mlp. DTS can sound pretty good. Where you see the big
dropoff is with dolby digital. I find it a matter of listener fatigue
when you listen to the lower bitrate surround such as ac3, the mlp and
dts sound fuller and you can listen louder and longer without getting
tired. Before Steven comes on and says "hogwash" well, it's what I
hear and what I feel. I think a better test and easier to tell the
difference is comparing an ac3 and .mlp file, or a dts and ac3 file.
To me they're really easy to pick out, unlike the current test where
you need to listen for quite a while and carefully. The problem might
be to have the files appear the same and play at the same volume for
testing fairness.
> >> >http://groups.google.com/group/SurroundSound-Id zett sz veg elrejt se

Lokkerman

unread,
Feb 1, 2012, 4:45:28 PM2/1/12
to surrou...@googlegroups.com
First of all I  will send my comments to Grill over the weekend as I  said I would. But an interesting thing has cropped up - I find I had time enough for a quick listen on my study set up which is  the only  set up that I now have a DVD-A player (Pioneer 565a) as I have for the moment de-commissioned my Denon as for my reference system as I prefer my "tuned" HTPC.
The interesting thing is that the DVD-A didn't half try hard to mask the evident smear, bordering on drop-outs on two of the tracks (we can guess which these are) which on my study PC was almost unlistenable to me.
Now when I've listened on  my reference system I will pass on my comments to Grill, not that I haven't made a judgement already.

>> >http://groups.google.com/group/SurroundSound- Idézett szöveg elrejtése
>> -
>>
>> - Idézett szöveg megjelenítése -

grill

unread,
Feb 1, 2012, 4:50:46 PM2/1/12
to SurroundSound
Considering the releasing format choices of the labels I just thought
testing DTS would be much more interesting and informative for us.
> > >> >http://groups.google.com/group/SurroundSound-Idzett sz veg elrejt se
> > >> -
>
> > >> - Id zett sz veg megjelen t se -
>
> > > --
> > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > > "SurroundSound" group.
> > > To post to this group, send email to Surrou...@googlegroups.com
> > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > > SurroundSoun...@googlegroups.com
> > > For more options, visit this group at

Lokkerman

unread,
Feb 1, 2012, 5:03:05 PM2/1/12
to surrou...@googlegroups.com
Grill - can you let us know what the track background is please as I am interested only on what studio equipment was used - i.e. was this a DSD master or PCM  or analogue to PCM?
BTW for those who want to hear the genuine differences on each track just compare section 2.20 to 2.45 on each and listen for decay, smear and compression. Please  - answers to that question.

grill

unread,
Feb 1, 2012, 5:26:30 PM2/1/12
to SurroundSound
I'm not quite sure, my bet is PCM but definitely not DSD.
> > > >> >http://groups.google.com/group/SurroundSound-Idzett sz veg elrejt
> > se
> > > >> -
>
> > > >> - Id zett sz veg megjelen t se -
>
> > > > --
> > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> > Groups
> > > > "SurroundSound" group.
> > > > To post to this group, send email to Surrou...@googlegroups.com
> > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > > > SurroundSoun...@googlegroups.com
> > > > For more options, visit this group at
> > > >http://groups.google.com/group/SurroundSound
>
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "SurroundSound" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to Surrou...@googlegroups.com
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > SurroundSoun...@googlegroups.com
> > For more options, visit this group at

Steven Sullivan

unread,
Feb 1, 2012, 5:07:11 PM2/1/12
to surrou...@googlegroups.com
Actually just using 2.0 tracks instead of 5.1 would probably have made the
test more sensitive. As Floyd Toole notes in his book, surround itself is
more forgiving, masking in a number of audio flaws.

>> >> >http://groups.google.com/group/SurroundSound- Id�zett sz�veg


>> elrejt�se
>> >> -
>> >>
>> >> - Id�zett sz�veg megjelen�t�se -
>> >
>> > --
>> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>> Groups
>> > "SurroundSound" group.
>> > To post to this group, send email to Surrou...@googlegroups.com
>> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> > SurroundSoun...@googlegroups.com
>> > For more options, visit this group at

grill

unread,
Feb 1, 2012, 6:50:24 PM2/1/12
to SurroundSound
Once this test closes I can prepare any kind of testing material at
the group's request. However, I'm interested and feeling much better
in surround audio environment :-)
> >> >> >http://groups.google.com/group/SurroundSound-Id zett sz veg

realafrica

unread,
Feb 1, 2012, 6:59:28 PM2/1/12
to SurroundSound
I have PMed my test results to grill.
I wonder how my old ears are doing on such a difficult test.
I look forward to the results.

grill

unread,
Feb 2, 2012, 3:24:26 AM2/2/12
to SurroundSound
Thanks Realafrica, PM sent.

Stephen Disney

unread,
Feb 2, 2012, 5:32:10 AM2/2/12
to surrou...@googlegroups.com
I don't care to play name the lossy... but I am emailing my choice for the lossless track.
S

Thanks Realafrica, PM sent.

Stephen Disney

unread,
Feb 2, 2012, 5:44:23 AM2/2/12
to surrou...@googlegroups.com
It was just a 10 minute listen with no headphones and a fair amount of ambient noise.  Even so, it seemed pretty clear to me.  I put myself at risk of being wrong by not devoting more attention, but I wanted to take a few minutes to participate at any rate. ;)
S

Peter Cawthron

unread,
Feb 2, 2012, 6:01:57 AM2/2/12
to surrou...@googlegroups.com
You seem to have got away with that one.

P.

-----Original Message-----
From: surrou...@googlegroups.com [mailto:surrou...@googlegroups.com]
On Behalf Of Steven Sullivan
Sent: 01 February 2012 18:02
To: surrou...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [SurroundSound] Re: Can you tell the difference and find the
original?

"....post their guesses...."

grill

unread,
Feb 2, 2012, 6:19:37 AM2/2/12
to SurroundSound
Thanks Stephen, PM sent.

On febr. 2, 11:44, Stephen Disney <sthunderroc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It was just a 10 minute listen with no headphones and a fair amount of
> ambient noise.  Even so, it seemed pretty clear to me.  I put myself at
> risk of being wrong by not devoting more attention, but I wanted to take a
> few minutes to participate at any rate. ;)
> S
>
> On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 5:32 AM, Stephen Disney <sthunderroc...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>
>
> > I don't care to play name the lossy... but I am emailing my choice for the
> > lossless track.
> > S
>
> > On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 3:24 AM, grill <gr...@index.hu> wrote:
>
> >> Thanks Realafrica, PM sent.
>
> >> On febr. 2, 00:59, realafrica <paul.gam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > I have PMed my test results to grill.
> >> > I wonder how my old ears are doing on such a difficult test.
> >> > I look forward to the results.
>
> >> --
> >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> >> "SurroundSound" group.
> >> To post to this group, send email to Surrou...@googlegroups.com
> >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> >> SurroundSoun...@googlegroups.com
> >> For more options, visit this group at

Stephen Disney

unread,
Feb 2, 2012, 6:29:18 AM2/2/12
to surrou...@googlegroups.com
Thanks... and may I say that you chose wisely with your test material.  Nothing so obvious as a full range orchestral recording.  This was purely on the artifacts (so to speak) of the codecs as Lokks pointed out.  My tip... reverb often displays tell tale signs as well...
S

Steven Sullivan

unread,
Feb 1, 2012, 7:42:57 PM2/1/12
to surrou...@googlegroups.com
I rarely listen in 2.0 myself. But the nice thing about 2.0 is it's easy
to set up ABX tests via foobar2000. Though for a fact, I've never even
tried doing that with 5.1, so I'm not sure what the software would do.

>> >http://groups.google.com/group/SurroundSound- Id�zett sz�veg elrejt�se

Steven Sullivan

unread,
Feb 1, 2012, 10:24:38 PM2/1/12
to surrou...@googlegroups.com
So...I burned these to DVD-R at work (very fast downloads there), then
began ripping the tracks at home so I can more easily play them digitally,
and it's telling me that *all four* tracks on the disc are MLP? And
there's nothing in the VIDEO_TS folder?

Is that right?

I could go back to the .iso file and rip right from that as a virtual DVD,
if something went wrong with burning.

ROBERT COOGAN

unread,
Feb 2, 2012, 5:31:19 AM2/2/12
to surrou...@googlegroups.com
Steve your pedantry fails to extend to the fact that this is the
SurroundSound forum.

Suggest you search for a "vanilla stereo" forum if you are that interested
in stereo.

Message-----
From: Steven Sullivan
Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2012 10:07 PM


To: surrou...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [SurroundSound] Re: Can you tell the difference and find the
original?

Actually just using 2.0 tracks instead of 5.1 would probably have made the

>> >> >http://groups.google.com/group/SurroundSound- Idézett szöveg
>> elrejtése
>> >> -
>> >>

>> >> - Idézett szöveg megjelenítése -

realafrica

unread,
Feb 2, 2012, 3:32:04 PM2/2/12
to SurroundSound
Grill will confirm I expect, but I thought what he did was transcode
the original to different DTS and then made MLP of them all to diguise
them as real MLP files.
So what are you doing Steven applying the rules of the test, to listen
and make a decision based on your hearing without using any sound
analysis progammes or gadgets?
Or are you trying to circumvent the rules because you can't trust your
ears?
What is telling you, as you say, "that *all four* tracks on the disc
are MLP? And there's nothing in the VIDEO_TS folder? "
LOL

grill

unread,
Feb 2, 2012, 6:16:02 PM2/2/12
to SurroundSound
Guys, please don't offend Steven and keep this game cool and fair. He
might have better ears than yours even if he's not so familiar with
5.1 PC setup.
> > if something went wrong with burning.- Idézett szöveg elrejtése -

Steven Sullivan

unread,
Feb 2, 2012, 11:49:49 PM2/2/12
to surrou...@googlegroups.com
I'm more puzzled than offended. If I were to scope out the 'real'
formats, what advantage would it offer me? And no, I have never made a
claim about my hearing. What are you guys reading?

>> > if something went wrong with burning.- Id�zett sz�veg elrejt�se -


>>
>> - Id�zett sz�veg megjelen�t�se -
>

Steven Sullivan

unread,
Feb 2, 2012, 11:51:54 PM2/2/12
to surrou...@googlegroups.com
And btw what is telling me' is DVD Audio Extractor, which I always use to
exrtact files from all .iso or DVD discs, because I play everything by
digital streaming from a hard drive if I can.

>> > if something went wrong with burning.- Id�zett sz�veg elrejt�se -
>>
>> - Id�zett sz�veg megjelen�t�se -
>

realafrica

unread,
Feb 3, 2012, 1:07:38 PM2/3/12
to SurroundSound
Well I think I may have reacted badly there.
Steven appeared to be pretty offensive with his 'clever' remarks
earlier on, but maybe he just has an unfortunate way with words. I
don't think it's a case of English not being his 1st language, as he
seems to be very well spoken otherwise. He's just annoying with his
attitude and I should not have let him get to me. In a way, my no
longer replying to him was my way of stepping back from it all. I
intend to try to keep that stance and not be baited by him.

I apologise to Steven for anything I may have said, whenever, if it
gave him offence at all.

Grill may be right about Steven maybe having better hearing than me,
after all my ears are over 60.
I didn't do very well on this test that's for sure.
It just goes to show how good DTS can be when handled with care, eh?

I still maintain there is a very clearly audible difference between
16bit/44.1 and 24bit/96khz.
How Steven can disagree on that is mind boggling!

grill

unread,
Feb 3, 2012, 1:18:21 PM2/3/12
to SurroundSound
Thanks Realafrica. I'm just trying to involve and keep in this game
(and not war) as many participants as possible. The more guesses the
more chance to see the truth.
> > >http://groups.google.com/group/SurroundSound- Idézett szöveg elrejtése -

Lokkerman

unread,
Feb 3, 2012, 1:29:00 PM2/3/12
to surrou...@googlegroups.com
i didn't get the order of DTS right but then DTS I don't like in any form (apart MA), however there is a case to look at the audio smearing i pointed out in my earlier mail - perhaps a job for you Grill as you're great at this kind of analysis and we should be able to compare waves with the master.

Britre

unread,
Feb 3, 2012, 7:30:43 PM2/3/12
to SurroundSound
In the last week I have done extensive research on the subject of
digital recording and its flaws and astounding specs just to
participate a bit more knowledgeable in this discussion. i have not
had the opportunity to compare the recordings offered for comparison
but.... I think it would be proof in favor of Lokks theory on what
sounds best is best specs be dammed.

Specs: All redbook CD's spec out at 44/16 or in some cases they can be
done at 48/16. Anything above 22Khz or so is filtered out with brick
wall filters to avoid us humans hearing the error correction circuitry
in action which also does proove we can hear above 20Khz despite what
equipment and record companies think.
Oversampling, dithering, sound mapping ect all help the digital format
achieve a closer approximation to analog wave forms. Notice I said
"approximation" as it is almost 100% agreed among scientists you need
600Khz recording to even be close to what a professional analog open
reel tape format can achieve. Little known fact never brought up is
that most digital recording up until the mid 90's (about the time the
loudness wars started) were actually 44.1/14 bit PCM renderings. How
is that for resolution. It is also regarded that due to the way
digital is reproduced only BDA has the ability to truly reproduce high
Res digital material with the exception of vinyl which can reproduce
higher res but has physical limitations such as surface noise and
vinyl irregularities. When a fully digital recording is transfered to
a pro Analog tape deck it can exceed anything available to us as
consumers which would truly be a test of if we can hear a difference
between low res (redbook CD) and that high res source. Thats right
friends at this time in history the lowest resolution product is
redbook CD reproduction. MP3 is simply compressed redbook and does not
count in our discussion.

So, bearing all that in mind we go back to our test presented here. If
Lokks had the ability to press a vinyl of the test and offer it to us
I am sure you would all hear significant differences or better yet
offered a professionally mastered tape then you could imediately
identify the original, compressed version, altered version ect.

If you are listening to it the way it was presented you are brick wall
filtered regardless of what you are listening to it on which means
there is no difference in the resolution really. It is what sounds
better to the listener and as we all hear different we will all say
different things sound better. I personally like good vinyl and the
way the loud and soft dynamics present themselves and the fact you
actually have to listen several times to try to hear everything
contained in the recording. Most digital esspecially made now looses
that flavor. Example. Get a copy of Alice Cooper Welcome 2 My
Nightmare 2 on CD, it really could have sounded awesome but all the
detail is gone, everything is at the same level and fatigue sets in
after the third track. Then listen to the original first nighmare on
vinyl, you can't stop listening because everytime you hear it you hear
more detail.

So in conclusion I support Lokks statement as to what you hear is what
is good. Resolution bits and bytes do not matter because they will
always be the same regardless of what they appear on and are played
through. Only your amps, speakers, room and ears will be the tell tale
of what is good. Oh wait, forgot air pressure which is significany in
how sound reproduces anyplace. Try listening to Lokks test on the
moon, I bet all the tracks sound low res and smear the highs.

As I write this I am listening to a first pressing Teaser And The
Firecat by Cat Stevens. I have this in all the formats offered and
this vinyl exceeds the sound of any of the other formats. Crisp highs,
clear transients, realistic acoustic insturments and no muddiness.
This was pressed in 1970 and came from analog tape. it has 50-60 db S/
N at best and my phono cart is rated 18khz to 48khz. My room is
14X15.I can hear a huge difference between this and the compact disc
and even bigger differences between the MFSL digital 200 gram vinyl
and this. How could that be when the CD is supposed to be the best
resolution out there according to society? Because it sounds good to
me and my ears. Just like Lokks stated. This is my 2 cents.
> >http://groups.google.com/group/SurroundSound- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Stephen Disney

unread,
Feb 4, 2012, 4:17:28 AM2/4/12
to surrou...@googlegroups.com
Next test Grill... Hirez vs redbook.
S

grill

unread,
Feb 4, 2012, 4:28:06 AM2/4/12
to SurroundSound
Britre, thanks for your useful input. After all you've made me very
curious what would be your opinion about this testing material. Btw,
to my best knowledge the album I chose the track for this test from
had been recorded between 2007-2008.
> > >http://groups.google.com/group/SurroundSound-Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Idézett szöveg elrejtése -

grill

unread,
Feb 4, 2012, 4:37:34 AM2/4/12
to SurroundSound
yep, the next test would a surround track in 16/48, 24/48 and 24/96.
The main task for the assessors would be to pick up 16/48.
> > > >http://groups.google.com/group/SurroundSound-Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "SurroundSound" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to Surrou...@googlegroups.com
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > SurroundSoun...@googlegroups.com
> > For more options, visit this group at
> >http://groups.google.com/group/SurroundSound- Idézett szöveg elrejtése -

Stephen Disney

unread,
Feb 4, 2012, 4:45:35 AM2/4/12
to surrou...@googlegroups.com
I suspect if done well, this test would be tougher.  Couldn't you do redbook 16/44 and then bump it back to the needed resolution for inclusion?
S

grill

unread,
Feb 4, 2012, 6:22:42 AM2/4/12
to SurroundSound
Hmm... And how about this? The next test would contain two groups of
tracks. The surround original (O24/96) would be carefully chosen, it
should have effective 24 bit and musical content above 22 kHz. Its
downsampled versions would be D24/48 and D16/48. D16/48 would be
upsampled to U24/48 and U24/96. The two groups would be the following:
Group I: O24/96, D24/48, D16/48
Group II: D16/48, U24/48, U24/96
The assessors would be told about these two groups but they would not
know which would be which. And of course all the six tracks would be
unknown for them. The guessers' main task would be:
a) to pick up the group (Group II) (which would effectively contain
only 16 bit materials) and
b) to pick up D16/48 in the succesfully identified Group I.
If the assessors fail because of the toughness of this groupped test
then I can disclose Group I and task b) would be still to do.
> > > > > >http://groups.google.com/group/SurroundSound-Hidequoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted
>
> ...
>
> tovább »- Idézett szöveg elrejtése -

grill

unread,
Feb 4, 2012, 6:50:53 AM2/4/12
to SurroundSound
Oh, sorry, Group II makes no sense in our context because all tracks
but original ought to be upsampled to 24/96 to keeo the test as blind
as possible.

Peter Cawthron

unread,
Feb 4, 2012, 7:02:18 AM2/4/12
to surrou...@googlegroups.com

-----Original Message-----
From: surrou...@googlegroups.com [mailto:surrou...@googlegroups.com]
On Behalf Of Britre
Sent: 04 February 2012 00:31
To: SurroundSound
Subject: [SurroundSound] Re: Can you tell the difference and find the
original?

"it is almost 100% agreed among scientists you need 600Khz recording to even
be close to what a professional analog open reel tape format can achieve"

Source, please?


"It is also regarded that due to the way digital is reproduced only BDA has
the ability to truly reproduce high Res digital material with the exception
of vinyl which can reproduce higher res but has physical limitations such as
surface noise and vinyl irregularities."

Excluding dbx encoding, what is the best that can be achieved with vinyl in
terms of dynamic range and channel separation, please?


I have a tape recorder with 0% W&F, >104bB dynamic range and around 100bB
channel separation. If I got a stereo master tape from a studio's DAW at
24/192 would my tape recorder be better than BDA? Would it be better than
vinyl?

(I am only discussing high-resolution stereo at present.)

P.

Britre

unread,
Feb 4, 2012, 11:25:07 AM2/4/12
to SurroundSound
"it is almost 100% agreed among scientists you need 600Khz recording
to even
be close to what a professional analog open reel tape format can
achieve"


Source, please?


Give me a day or two and I will dig that up again for you. Sorry I do
not have it at my fingertips due to the imense amount of reading I
did.


"It is also regarded that due to the way digital is reproduced only
BDA has
the ability to truly reproduce high Res digital material with the
exception
of vinyl which can reproduce higher res but has physical limitations
such as
surface noise and vinyl irregularities."


Excluding dbx encoding, what is the best that can be achieved with
vinyl in
terms of dynamic range and channel separation, please?


This is a tricky question because due to the physical problems vinyl
has it creates a mesureable limit on those figures. Dbx encoding is
not going to give vinyl any greater dynamic range, channel separation
or S/N then it has it will only mask the flaws electronically. You can
not however beat tape with vinyl or digital. Your next question is
proof of that if indeed those specs are correct.


I have a tape recorder with 0% W&F, >104bB dynamic range and around
100bB
channel separation. If I got a stereo master tape from a studio's DAW
at
24/192 would my tape recorder be better than BDA? Would it be better
than
vinyl?


Better than BDA but perhaps not better sound than a analog recording
of the same material. Digital audio while very good has flaws that no
matter what would occur. Sampling is the biggest hurdle in that mess.
However, it is my opinion and supposedly could be proved that your
tape deck would be a more accurate approimation of the DAW source then
a BDA disc could play back on todays audio equipment. Remember I
stated it was the Amp, Speakers, room and air that dictate how it
sounds, not the source. Don't mis read however, source is primary to
that food chain.

(I am only discussing high-resolution stereo at present.)


I think this is a very important point as one issue with surround
sound is masking and phase cancellation. It is what made and broke
Quad sound. You can mask a sound in the front and cool it comes from
the rear. You can mush up the bass giutar and it envelopes you, You
can brick wall filter the right channel and the left now is louder.
Question being is that considered accurate reproduction of source? I
say no. But, hey it sounds good so that can't be too bad right?

Digital audio is the same thoery. All audiophiles want accuracy and
strive to get as close as possible. Digital is one step forward but is
not the great world we all were told it was.

I would like to see that test mentioned here put forth. Could you
tell a 44/16 source upsammpled to the highest res source blind
compared to our cherished redbook CD and a good biscuit of Vinyl. I
bet the vinyl would win on all the high end setups and the highest res
source would win on all the rest.


P.


On Feb 4, 6:02 am, "Peter Cawthron" <peter_cawth...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:
> P.- Hide quoted text -

Britre

unread,
Feb 4, 2012, 11:30:08 AM2/4/12
to SurroundSound
I am trying to J-download now but it keeps saying host problem. So I
must manually downlaod ARGGGGG!
> > > >http://groups.google.com/group/SurroundSound-Hidequoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Idézett szöveg elrejtése -
>
> > - Idézett szöveg megjelenítése -- Hide quoted text -

grill

unread,
Feb 4, 2012, 11:39:47 AM2/4/12
to SurroundSound
Based on the replies I got to date, to the sceptic members who are
still hesitating to jump into this test I can say:
human can be capable of telling the differences among unknown original
hi-res surround audio and its unknown DTS coded counterparts and of
picking the original up as well. Of course, nobody's able to
scientifically prove it in this sort of open test. Nevertheless, I am
convinced.

Peter Cawthron

unread,
Feb 4, 2012, 11:51:48 AM2/4/12
to surrou...@googlegroups.com

-----Original Message-----
From: surrou...@googlegroups.com [mailto:surrou...@googlegroups.com]
On Behalf Of Britre
Sent: 04 February 2012 16:25
To: SurroundSound
Subject: [SurroundSound] Re: Can you tell the difference and find the
original?

"Dbx encoding is not going to give vinyl any greater dynamic range, channel
separation or S/N then it has it will only mask the flaws electronically."

I don't have a dbx decoder at present but I'm sure a genuine increase in SNR
is achieved.

As for the "telling the difference" debate I don' have a dog in that
particular fight, as Justin (Sean) said. I like to rip my vinyl to digital
tape (DTRS) at 24/192 for stereo and 24/96 for quad. I get a convenient
'snap-shot' in time of that vinyl.

P.

--


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"SurroundSound" group.
To post to this group, send email to Surrou...@googlegroups.com To
unsubscribe from this group, send email to
SurroundSoun...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/SurroundSound

-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com

Version: 2012.0.1913 / Virus Database: 2112/4786 - Release Date: 02/03/12

grill

unread,
Feb 4, 2012, 12:01:45 PM2/4/12
to SurroundSound
Britre, the links seem to be working fine in my J-D.
> > > > >http://groups.google.com/group/SurroundSound-Hidequotedtext -

grill

unread,
Feb 4, 2012, 12:24:36 PM2/4/12
to SurroundSound
'As for the "telling the difference" debate I don' have a dog in that
particular fight, as Justin (Sean) said. I like to rip my vinyl to
digital
tape (DTRS) at 24/192 for stereo and 24/96 for quad. I get a
convenient
'snap-shot' in time of that vinyl.'

I see one important thing from these sorts of tests. To give some
facts to the argument with the labels whether or not there is a VALID
demand for releasing surround titles in hi-res.

On febr. 4, 17:51, "Peter Cawthron" <peter_cawth...@yahoo.co.uk>
> For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/SurroundSound
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG -www.avg.com
> Version: 2012.0.1913 / Virus Database: 2112/4786 - Release Date: 02/03/12- Idézett szöveg elrejtése -

Britre

unread,
Feb 4, 2012, 12:40:24 PM2/4/12
to SurroundSound
If I still had mine I would sell it to you. It does nothing for
cassette tape either but mask hiss and highs. Anytime you compress you
loose. You can never decompress again exactly.

Are we talking specifically about DBX encoded material or simply using
an expander on ordinary stereo material? CX encoding was a simmilar
experiment in the early to mid eighties which proved to be a poor
method at best. Compression works great on TV or at the movies or on
your guitar amp but has no place or need in a quiet listening room. It
is also said some MP3 related products including your iPhone use
expansion de compression in the outputs so those cheesy headphones
sound good. Now, can we theorize our cheaper computer sound outputs
with single DSP might have the same effect?

And further perhaps a few of our testers are listening to the material
that very way through a computer sound card? Question? Now what may
sound clearer and better to the listener? Pure uncompressed audio at a
cutoff of 20K or de compressed audio electronically expanded to sound
like it has a fuller range?

On Feb 4, 10:51 am, "Peter Cawthron" <peter_cawth...@yahoo.co.uk>
> For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/SurroundSound
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG -www.avg.com
> Version: 2012.0.1913 / Virus Database: 2112/4786 - Release Date: 02/03/12- Hide quoted text -

Peter Cawthron

unread,
Feb 4, 2012, 1:04:57 PM2/4/12
to surrou...@googlegroups.com

-----Original Message-----
From: surrou...@googlegroups.com [mailto:surrou...@googlegroups.com]
On Behalf Of Britre
Sent: 04 February 2012 17:40
To: SurroundSound
Subject: [SurroundSound] Re: Can you tell the difference and find the
original?

"Are we talking specifically about DBX encoded material"

Yes, dbx vinyl.

"your iPhone"

I don't own any Apple product. Saint Stephen might have been a good
marketeer but he didn't invent the portable music player (Sony), music
downloads (Napster) or the WIMP interface (Xerox PARC). The last one being
created 11 years before he copied it on the Macintosh.

P.

Britre

unread,
Feb 4, 2012, 1:08:06 PM2/4/12
to SurroundSound
I think it can be agreed your method and ability to rip your archived
vinyl to tape is the highest res we can achieve currently. I do wish I
had the equipment to do so but my income does not support my habit.

Knowing all that I know about digital, and listening I find the best I
get from any disc format is compact disc standard. I think it may very
well be my CD player DAC is far superior to what my Combo player can
put out and since it is a fixed reproduction method it is a this or
nothing proposition. The original source whether reel tape or vinyl is
always a shy bit better but the digital medium is closer than anything
else to date. Just to keep from a long discussion about tape open reel
is great at 15 or 30 ips but dropouts and tape rot make that medium
unforgiving. DAT while a more permanent and better medium, is too
expensive to do correctly. You need to invest in what Grill has to do
it right.

So my take is that SACD, DVD-A or V, and BDA still has the issues that
compact disc reproduction have. While specs dictate they are better,
digital science seems to say those mediums can't reproduce any better
than our lowly compact disc. They can only hold more data.

To validate surround material in high res: take our WYWH Guthrie disc.
The Quad remaster blows equals it's vinyl counterpart, is night and
day with the tape counterpart and the Guthrie remix. It sounds
beautiful. I am pretty sure Guthrie and mastering people never touched
it and that is why it sounds good in the digital relm. It is as
accurate as I ever heard it in my 35 years of hearing it hundreds of
times. For all I know it may even still have the RIAA curve thrown at
it. That is the sort of high rez material we need and remember that is
640k. So do the numbers really mean anything?

Even the worst of 50's recordings sound detailed because someone
cared. Going back to my Alice Cooper example someone cared until the
final mix and master where everything somehow got extra loud and there
is now no difference between Alice's voice, the orchestrations and the
guitar work. It is all equally loud and unlistenable even in a
airplane. It is sad. Why have high res just to reproduce crap?

Hope I am still on subject ;)
> > - Idézett szöveg megjelenítése -- Hide quoted text -

Britre

unread,
Feb 4, 2012, 6:46:48 PM2/4/12
to SurroundSound
Ok. I am baffled? What does DBX encoded vinyl have to do with digital
audio recording and sampling rates? And would you be taking the time
and effort to decode your DBX vinyl to Digital? There are so few of
those titles and fewer decoders so I am just curios where you are
going?

On Feb 4, 12:04 pm, "Peter Cawthron" <peter_cawth...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:

Peter Cawthron

unread,
Feb 5, 2012, 4:44:18 AM2/5/12
to surrou...@googlegroups.com

-----Original Message-----
From: surrou...@googlegroups.com [mailto:surrou...@googlegroups.com]
On Behalf Of Britre
Sent: 04 February 2012 23:47
To: SurroundSound
Subject: [SurroundSound] Re: Can you tell the difference and find the
original?

"Ok. I am baffled?"

Indeed. Hence your fantastical claims that "it is almost 100% agreed among


scientists you need 600Khz recording to even be close to what a professional

analog open reel tape format can achieve" and "only BDA has the ability to
truly reproduce high Res digital material with the exception of vinyl".

I simply pointed out that one of the worst analogue mediums, vinyl - could
be improved upon with dbx to CD-like levels of SNR.

I won't make such fantastical claims as you. I'll just say a commercially
released quarter-track 7 ½ ips RTR album is a better representation of the
musical experience envisaged by the artist/producer than vinyl, 8 track,
cassette or Red Book CD. And that applies to quadraphonic as well as stereo.

P.

Lokkerman

unread,
Feb 5, 2012, 9:42:50 AM2/5/12
to surrou...@googlegroups.com
I have some R2R masters using DBX and a Teac x1000M DBX the DBX goes so wildly out of calibration I cannot play the masters back. So my take DBX can sound good but rarely does as it needs setting up all the time.
When I recalibrate the Teac again I will dump the masters in 192/24 on the hub.
I also think that in analogue 7.5 ips tape sounds better than any other analogue medium - tighter bass and better sense of timing for a start.

Britre

unread,
Feb 5, 2012, 10:35:35 AM2/5/12
to SurroundSound
I see.....

I can not disagree that a commercially produced 7.5 RTR on good pro
grade tape (not that cheap brown Scotch mylar rust tape) can and
usually does beat any other commercial medium but would go so far as
to say if we had 15 or 30 ips availaible commercially it would have
increased the bar for digital audio right from the gate and we may
have had 192/24 before the digital revolution took over. This would
have ment the compact disc redbook standard would not have been
written and history would not be in Sony/Phillips/Magnavox hands.

This was also my biggest problem with the DBX system, it would sound
excellent one minute, pump the next, hiss, then not hiss, it is sort
of like the Jethro Tull Aqualung remaster ;P

On Feb 5, 8:42 am, Lokkerman <phil.steep...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have some R2R masters using DBX and a Teac x1000M DBX the DBX goes so
> wildly out of calibration I cannot play the masters back. So my take DBX
> can sound good but rarely does as it needs setting up all the time.
> When I recalibrate the Teac again I will dump the masters in 192/24 on the
> hub.
> I also think that in analogue 7.5 ips tape sounds better than any other
> analogue medium - tighter bass and better sense of timing for a start.
>
> On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 9:44 AM, Peter Cawthron
> <peter_cawth...@yahoo.co.uk>wrote:
> >http://groups.google.com/group/SurroundSound- Hide quoted text -

realafrica

unread,
Feb 5, 2012, 7:06:22 PM2/5/12
to SurroundSound
Thank you for all that excellent input Britre.
and.....
Where is Steven?
It's unusual not to have heard from him on this subject, after this
length of time.
> > > > >http://groups.google.com/group/SurroundSound-Hidequotedtext -

grill

unread,
Feb 6, 2012, 1:13:08 PM2/6/12
to SurroundSound
To date I received guesses from 6 participants but not Steven. As
those participants who have guessed already know the right answer
therefore we can be waiting others for awhile to join.
> ...
>
> tovább »- Idézett szöveg elrejtése -

grill

unread,
Feb 6, 2012, 1:20:35 PM2/6/12
to SurroundSound
Or we never disclose the right answer and this game can be played
until this thread and upload are alive.

Steven Sullivan

unread,
Feb 6, 2012, 2:39:25 PM2/6/12
to surrou...@googlegroups.com
For me , it will require burning the image to disc (done) and setting up
playback on my currently-disconnected Oppo (not done), and finding time to
do the listening (not done). It hasn't been on the top of my 'things to
do' list. Then again, I didn't set up the test, and my own results will
be just one data point in it, so I don't feel any particular urgency.
Maybe I'll get to it this weekend.

As for the rest, most of what Britre wrote (the parts that are correct at
least -- not all of it is. The 600kHz claim is absurd for example) I
would have expected people to know already, who claim e.g. to hate/hear
lossy, redbook, or whatever. So maybe I'm understanding better now why
there has been such incredulity and hostility to some of my claims.

-S.

>> tov�bb �- Id�zett sz�veg elrejt�se -

Lokkerman

unread,
Feb 6, 2012, 3:29:06 PM2/6/12
to surrou...@googlegroups.com
I personally have no hostility  to your claims, you are free to make them and the world is a better place for it, so long as you do not denigrate my point of view by saying what I can hear is impossible, implying that I imagine it; that is what  many folks and me, find offensive.

So please take your time we can all wait on your comments when they come but please do no knock others for their views.

Personally being a R2R person I don't believe that 60Khz is anywhere near what you would get out from analogue tape and not 600KHz, (giving a "straight" Nyquist sampling of 120Khz) but you can sure hear a difference when you sample at 96/24 from a reel as compared to redbook, which was the point to the exercise.


>> tovább »- Idézett szöveg elrejtése -
>>
>> - Idézett szöveg megjelenítése -

>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "SurroundSound" group.
> To post to this group, send email to Surrou...@googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> SurroundSoun...@googlegroups.com
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/SurroundSound
>


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SurroundSound" group.
To post to this group, send email to Surrou...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to SurroundSoun...@googlegroups.com

grill

unread,
Feb 6, 2012, 3:34:54 PM2/6/12
to SurroundSound
Steven, I'm tending not to disclose the correct order so you can take
your listening time as you wish. I already got wrong answers so we can
agree that this test is tough. To tell the truth, I think I couldn't
guess right on it.

Steven Sullivan

unread,
Feb 6, 2012, 3:38:15 PM2/6/12
to surrou...@googlegroups.com
> In the last week I have done extensive research on the subject of
> digital recording and its flaws and astounding specs just to
> participate a bit more knowledgeable in this discussion. i have not
> had the opportunity to compare the recordings offered for comparison
> but.... I think it would be proof in favor of Lokks theory on what
> sounds best is best specs be dammed.
>
> Specs: All redbook CD's spec out at 44/16 or in some cases they can be
> done at 48/16. Anything above 22Khz or so is filtered out with brick
> wall filters to avoid us humans hearing the error correction circuitry
> in action

Incorrect. The filtering is done to avoid introducing distortion into the
20-20kHz band -- the part we *can* hear. It has nothing to do with the
'error correction circuitry'. Look up 'aliasing'.

>which also does proove we can hear above 20Khz despite what
> equipment and record companies think.

No, it doesn't. It is simply following from the criteria set up by the
Nyquist theorem, for accurate digital sampling.

> Oversampling, dithering, sound mapping ect all help the digital format
> achieve a closer approximation to analog wave forms.

Do you understand what any of those three things are?

And do you understand that analog recording methods also require methods
to help them output the best approximation of the original sound?


> Notice I said
> "approximation" as it is almost 100% agreed among scientists you need
> 600Khz recording to even be close to what a professional analog open
> reel tape format can achieve.

Nonsense. The best analog tape can have a 'usable' range out to past
30kHz, but its response is not LINEAR ('flat') at either the low or the
high end of that range. (And of course with each playback you are
smudging the high frequencies more and more.) A 600kHz SR for a PCM
digital system would give you a flat frequency response from 0 to 300 kHz,
something no analog recording system even begins to approach. I have
never seen anyone propose such a thing so where are you getting this from?


> Little known fact never brought up is
> that most digital recording up until the mid 90's (about the time the
> loudness wars started) were actually 44.1/14 bit PCM renderings. How
> is that for resolution.

It's better than analog. The best pro reel-to-reel tape (which is better
than vinyl) offers dynamic range of ~72dB. Meanwhile , 14 bits works out
to ~84 dB of DR.


> It is also regarded that due to the way
> digital is reproduced only BDA has the ability to truly reproduce high
> Res digital material with the exception of vinyl which can reproduce
> higher res but has physical limitations such as surface noise and
> vinyl irregularities.

Do you understand that 'noise' and 'resolution' are intimately related
concepts, and that the former tends to reduce the latter? Vinyl
absolutely cannot reproduce 'higher res' than digital, unless you're
talking about 8-bit!


> When a fully digital recording is transfered to
> a pro Analog tape deck it can exceed anything available to us as
> consumers which would truly be a test of if we can hear a difference
> between low res (redbook CD) and that high res source.

Transferring it to any analog tape will actually reduce its objective
quality. You will add various kinds of measurable, possibly audible,
distortion, for sure.


> Thats right
> friends at this time in history the lowest resolution product is
> redbook CD reproduction. MP3 is simply compressed redbook and does not
> count in our discussion.


Well, no, mp3 can be compressed Redbook or some other input format, like
96/24. And it is not 'simply' compression, it is a lossy *perceptual*
encoding method that relies on psychoacoustic models to 'decide' what
information can be discarded to minimuze the audible impact of file size
reduction.


> So, bearing all that in mind we go back to our test presented here. If
> Lokks had the ability to press a vinyl of the test and offer it to us
> I am sure you would all hear significant differences or better yet
> offered a professionally mastered tape then you could imediately
> identify the original, compressed version, altered version ect.

Why do you imagine that to be true?


> If you are listening to it the way it was presented you are brick wall
> filtered regardless of what you are listening to it on which means
> there is no difference in the resolution really.

This makes no sense. All recording technologies have usable bandwidth
limits. So do human ears. And you still don't understand what
'resolution' means.

> It is what sounds
> better to the listener and as we all hear different we will all say
> different things sound better. I personally like good vinyl and the
> way the loud and soft dynamics present themselves and the fact you
> actually have to listen several times to try to hear everything
> contained in the recording. Most digital esspecially made now looses
> that flavor. Example. Get a copy of Alice Cooper Welcome 2 My
> Nightmare 2 on CD, it really could have sounded awesome but all the
> detail is gone, everything is at the same level and fatigue sets in
> after the third track. Then listen to the original first nighmare on
> vinyl, you can't stop listening because everytime you hear it you hear
> more detail.

How was the CD mastered? Was the dynamic range purposely compressed?

More to the point, if you recorded the vinyl to digital, and compared them
blind and level-matched in playback , would you be able to tell them apart
reliably? With 16/44 recording? 24/96?


> So in conclusion I support Lokks statement as to what you hear is what
> is good. Resolution bits and bytes do not matter because they will
> always be the same regardless of what they appear on and are played
> through.

I can't even tell if this makes sense or not. Bit depths are certainly
not the same on Redbook vs 96/24. Resolution (in objective terms) aren't
either.

> Only your amps, speakers, room and ears will be the tell tale
> of what is good. Oh wait, forgot air pressure which is significany in
> how sound reproduces anyplace. Try listening to Lokks test on the
> moon, I bet all the tracks sound low res and smear the highs.

Has to be a joke. No sound transmission in a vaccuum.


> As I write this I am listening to a first pressing Teaser And The
> Firecat by Cat Stevens. I have this in all the formats offered and
> this vinyl exceeds the sound of any of the other formats. Crisp highs,
> clear transients, realistic acoustic insturments and no muddiness.
> This was pressed in 1970 and came from analog tape. it has 50-60 db S/
> N at best and my phono cart is rated 18khz to 48khz.

'Rated' how? -3dB at ....?


> My room is
> 14X15.I can hear a huge difference between this and the compact disc
> and even bigger differences between the MFSL digital 200 gram vinyl
> and this. How could that be when the CD is supposed to be the best
> resolution out there according to society? Because it sounds good to
> me and my ears. Just like Lokks stated. This is my 2 cents.

Or maybe the mastering is very different between the three. And one
playback method also introduces 'euphonic' distortion. (Guess which one
that is)

Steven Sullivan

unread,
Feb 6, 2012, 3:48:50 PM2/6/12
to surrou...@googlegroups.com
> I personally have no hostility to your claims, you are free to make them
> and the world is a better place for it, so long as you do not denigrate my
> point of view by saying what I can hear is impossible, implying that I
> imagine it; that is what many folks and me, find offensive.

Did I actually write that what you claim to hear is 'impossible'?

I certainly have never written that audible difference between lossless
and lossy is *impossible*. It isn't.

I use words like 'likely' and 'unlikely' for a reason.

I have said your claims of difference can be mistaken, for some very
normal, very common reasons related to us (human beings) not being perfect
perceivers, especially when we already 'know' what we are listening to.
(That is what 'sighted' listening is.)


THAT seems to be what sticks in your craw, but you're arguing with science
there, not me.

> So please take your time we can all wait on your comments when they come
> but please do no knock others for their views.

It is not 'knocking' except when someone appears to operate from a stance
that anything they claim to 'hear' must always be a real audible
difference, just by virtue of them 'hearing' it. They're just plain wrong
there.


> Personally being a R2R person I don't believe that 60Khz is anywhere near
> what you would get out from analogue tape and not 600KHz, (giving a
> "straight" Nyquist sampling of 120Khz) but you can sure hear a difference
> when you sample at 96/24 from a reel as compared to redbook, which was the
> point to the exercise.

And again...your 'sureness' here is supported by what method, exactly? Is
it one where common sources of mistakes have been taken care of?


Lokkerman

unread,
Feb 6, 2012, 5:26:32 PM2/6/12
to surrou...@googlegroups.com
Steven

You  appear to have now moved a long way, keep on at it please. I've already done the blind test so I have faith in what I say. Now listen to your Oppo and then listen to my comments posted previously about the artifacts I noted, within the time period I noted, then go compare the sound waves with an analyser; I think you may find your science there.

Tell me, yes pray tell me, why some of us heard defects in the replay with digital years ago, yet have become fervent supporters of digital that is well recorded and higher resolution

My sureness is supported by what drives me to make these comments and to keep this forum going, my love of the music and appreciation for it. I can hear the difference and years of recording and playback and a bit of audio design thrown in gives me my tacit knowledge.

Absolute science, that is so called checked and peer reviewed, is renowned for being accurate; (lol) remember cold fusion, swine flu, Thalidomide, Piltdown  man, N Rays? You are probably just as gullible believing  that peer approved "scientific" papers are 100% accurate. Did you conduct the tests yourself, if not how do you know the evidence is accurate? Same stance really with sighted tests.

What I suggest is that you climb down your tree, start to see others, less "scientific" but equally genuine opinions - "cubism" was a good example of polarised opinion this time in art, and then investigate as to the why that we feel passionately this way.

My point is, that surely your audio experience cannot be the same as mine because  if it was you would be trying to find out why and then doing a scientific paper on your findings and then not being so aggressively defensive about people that are not so.

One final point, I have always tested my own views in my state of the art double blind testing centre using a brilliantly trained laboratory technician - my wife.

She doesn't do music well (although she trained to play a piano) and has expressions about music that don't match the established reviewing fraternities descriptions;  - common one "sounds boomy" , she can normally pick a 96/24 out in an adjacent room, probably due to the lack of the loudness war. Try EC -  Reptile CD versus DVD-A in stereo then #5.1. (this is 88/24 BTW, lol) However what she did note is that the Beatles remasters sounded better on 24bit than 16 and that Love sounds even better on #5.1. Not science, just absolute incontrovertible reality. I rest my case m'lud!! But then as Smiley said you know Anne..... (my wife's name is not Anne BTW, I'm not being literal.....)

Lokks

Steven Sullivan

unread,
Feb 6, 2012, 6:51:46 PM2/6/12
to surrou...@googlegroups.com
> Steven
>
> You appear to have now moved a long way, keep on at it please. I've
> already done the blind test so I have faith in what I say. Now listen to
> your Oppo and then listen to my comments posted previously about the
> artifacts I noted, within the time period I noted, then go compare the
> sound waves with an analyser; I think you may find your science there.
>
> Tell me, yes pray tell me, why some of us heard defects in the replay with
> digital years ago, yet have become fervent supporters of digital that is
> well recorded and higher resolution

From what I recall of your post, you had to find and focus on short
segments like reverb tails to 'hear' differences.

I myself could probably differentiate 16 bit from 24 bit if I play back
the lowest-level signals (the ends of reverb tails as they fade into
background), at unnaturally high levels. (This is how they did it in the
famous Myer & Moran SACD vs Redbook test, as a matter of face.) Similarly,
there are musical samples that will be particularly good at showing up
lossy artifacts; developers seek these out and use them to tune lossy
codecs. So no one says lossy will always be indistinguishable from
source.

That doesn't mean one is justified in claiming they could tell 16 from 24
'routinely', or that these differences are 'obvious', or something that
they can tell 'right away', or writing "OH NOES THEY'RE ONLY RELEASING
THIS ON DTS OR DUBLY DIGITAL, WHAT A SHAMEFUL DISGRACE"...which is the
sort of thing 'audiophiles' do.

> My sureness is supported by what drives me to make these comments and to
> keep this forum going, my love of the music and appreciation for it. I can
> hear the difference and years of recording and playback and a bit of audio
> design thrown in gives me my tacit knowledge.
>
> Absolute science, that is so called checked and peer reviewed, is renowned
> for being accurate; (lol) remember cold fusion, swine flu, Thalidomide,
> Piltdown man, N Rays? You are probably just as gullible believing that
> peer approved "scientific" papers are 100% accurate. Did you conduct the
> tests yourself, if not how do you know the evidence is accurate? Same
> stance really with sighted tests.


I'm afraid much of this gobbledygook, starting with the phrase 'absolute
science', bears no resemblance to any words or stance I have written or
taken here or elsewhere. So you're knocking down a straw man there.

As for how one determines that tests are accurate, that's where detailed
description of methods and results and their analysis helps a lot. And
anyone who knows that, knows why 'I trust my ears and experience' is just
not sufficient.


> What I suggest is that you climb down your tree, start to see others, less
> "scientific" but equally genuine opinions - "cubism" was a good example of
> polarised opinion this time in art, and then investigate as to the why
> that
> we feel passionately this way.


'Seeing' opinions about audio is one thing, assuming that all such
opinions are equally likely to be based in fact, is quite another. I
don't do that. And I tend to avoid the former too, because others'
subjective opinions about audio quality, divorced from any other lines of
evidence, are about as boring to me as can be. The bench test writeups in
'Stereophile' are far more informative than the subjective burbling about
'veils being lifted' and such in the accompanying review. But that's,
like, just my opinion, man.


> My point is, that surely your audio experience cannot be the same as mine
> because if it was you would be trying to find out why and then doing a
> scientific paper on your findings and then not being so aggressively
> defensive about people that are not so.

Am I offensive or defensive? You can't seem to decide.

Forgive me if I'm not interested in writing a paper on why *your*
experience is different from *mine*. If nothing else, I doubt you'd submit
to the time and methods it would take to really explore the matter
scientifically.


> One final point, I have always tested my own views in my state of the art
> double blind testing centre using a brilliantly trained laboratory
> technician - my wife.


> She doesn't do music well (although she trained to play a piano) and has
> expressions about music that don't match the established reviewing
> fraternities descriptions; - common one "sounds boomy" , she can normally
> pick a 96/24 out in an adjacent room, probably due to the lack of the
> loudness war. Try EC - Reptile CD versus DVD-A in stereo then #5.1. (this
> is 88/24 BTW, lol) However what she did note is that the Beatles remasters
> sounded better on 24bit than 16 and that Love sounds even better on #5.1.
> Not science, just absolute incontrovertible reality. I rest my case
> m'lud!!

> But then as Smiley said you know Anne..... (my wife's name is not Anne
> BTW,
> I'm not being literal.....)
>

Rather an utter empty waste of words , that 'final point', wasn't it,
guv'nor?

-S.


Stephen Disney

unread,
Feb 7, 2012, 7:16:53 AM2/7/12
to surrou...@googlegroups.com
The reverb tales were my tip... listened to on an average quality system that currently has a 60hz hum (a recent grounding issue), with pets in the next room, at the same volume I listen to everything else.  And as Lokks pointed out, there are many other giveaways... mostly in the highs (cymbals, acoustics, violin, etc) but also in the tightness of lower frequencies etc.  And You really loose credibility by suggesting that disdain for Dolby Digital is an audiophile trope.  I am FAR from audiophile.  I think its mostly silly, and I'm too poor to buy into the equipment hype.  But listening to the surround channels of Dolby Digital are like running a saw through your eardrums.  The artifacts are blatant and undeniable.  As I said before, I mostly like DTS and will take it when offered (so long as lossless isn't available).  I have the ability to tune out artifacts I don't like usually.  (Though DD and surround upmixing technique artifacts... SPEC for instance... is usually more than I choose to stomach.)  But its the reality I live in... however mistaken I may be.  I find it interesting that you choose to invalidate the test results before even trying it... you now admit that many could hear a difference just not routinely.  So when it comes out that a significant portion of testees (after all, we are in fact testing ourselves) have successfully picked out the lossless version of a song that I have never once heard before after stating that we could and being told that we had "likely" mistaken our own hearing abilities, how will you explain that away?  Improper testing conditions?  Statistical success?  Coincidence?  And how will you explain it when you hear the difference?... and I sadistically hope you do...
S

Stephen Disney

unread,
Feb 7, 2012, 7:28:57 AM2/7/12
to surrou...@googlegroups.com
You know, in daily listening, one doesn't need to analyze the reverb tails or anything else.  All this subconsciously adds up to a lesser listening experience.  When we hear the hi rez lossless, we perceive the difference whether routinely audible or not.  Being routinely audible doesn't change the fact that all the artifacts are there and decreasing the quality of the experience.  As a listener who has trained their ears to expect a certain quality, it is not snobish to purposely avoid a lossy encoding or lower rez file where you know such artifacts will be found... especially if a there is an alternative.  You must know this.  You admit to owning an oppo and a library of SACD and DVD-A recordings.  That's quite a waste of money when a nice CD would "likely" work just as well.
S

Steven Sullivan

unread,
Feb 7, 2012, 9:46:14 AM2/7/12
to surrou...@googlegroups.com
> I find it interesting that you choose to invalidate the test results
> before
> even trying it... you now admit that many could hear a difference just not
> routinely.

None of this is true. You made all this up. Why?


Steven Sullivan

unread,
Feb 7, 2012, 9:50:53 AM2/7/12
to surrou...@googlegroups.com
> You know, in daily listening, one doesn't need to analyze the reverb tails
> or anything else. All this subconsciously adds up to a lesser listening
> experience. When we hear the hi rez lossless, we perceive the difference
> whether routinely audible or not. Being routinely audible doesn't change
> the fact that all the artifacts are there and decreasing the quality of
> the
> experience. As a listener who has trained their ears to expect a certain
> quality, it is not snobish to purposely avoid a lossy encoding or lower
> rez
> file where you know such artifacts will be found... especially if a there
> is an alternative. You must know this.

Lossy vs lossless encoding and "high rez' vs 'lower rez' aren't the same
things; they don't even operate on the same principles.

> You admit to owning an oppo and a
> library of SACD and DVD-A recordings. That's quite a waste of money when
> a
> nice CD would "likely" work just as well.
> S

I bought such releases for the hope of a better remastering (better
source, better EQ), and/or a surround mix. I bought an Oppo because it
could play them. The Oppo isn't even necessary anymore, hence it is
typically disconnected.

So, any more imaginary arguments against me you care to make?

>

grill

unread,
Feb 7, 2012, 10:50:37 AM2/7/12
to SurroundSound
Regarding the hi-res vs. low-res argument, next week I can prepare a
test disc containing unknown 5.1 24/96 original and its downconverted
(24/48, 16/48) counterparts, the latter ones in 24/96 upconverted
form. The main task would be to pick up 16/48. However, using a
spectrum analysis software it would be very easy for the participants
to determine the original. So can this kind of test make any sense?

Steven Sullivan

unread,
Feb 7, 2012, 10:59:33 AM2/7/12
to surrou...@googlegroups.com
Spectrum or waveform analysis can help someone pick lossy from lossless
too. So it's no worse or better to do a hi-vs-standard res test this way .
As you said from this start, this isn't a standard scientific test -- if
it was, there wouldn't be an opportunity for anyone to 'cheat' this way.

Not sure it needs to be 'surround' though, unless the proposition is also
that surround is more 'revealing' of these differences than two-channel or
mono.

>> - Id�zett sz�veg elrejt�se -
>>
>> - Id�zett sz�veg megjelen�t�se -
>

grill

unread,
Feb 7, 2012, 1:57:48 PM2/7/12
to SurroundSound
Ok, thanks. I just thought that an audio spectrum analysis could be
much easier performed to find out the differences between 48 kHz and
96 kHz than between DTS 24/96 and the 24/96 original.
Personally I'm interested in testing surround and imo this would be a
bit more unique but I accept the will of majority, ofc.
> >http://groups.google.com/group/SurroundSound- Idézett szöveg elrejtése -

Lokkerman

unread,
Feb 7, 2012, 3:21:51 PM2/7/12
to surrou...@googlegroups.com
you could cheat this way but  then you would cheat yourself; I may be too old or my ego ain't big enough to want to cheat besides I personally don't have the time to do wave analysis not when we have specialists like you Grill; i think the test is for yourself...

elshagon

unread,
Feb 7, 2012, 3:50:09 PM2/7/12
to SurroundSound
Well it would be hard to do it on anything but an honor system. I
just loaded up the multichannel FLAC from Beck's Sea Change and also
the AC3 files from the same album. The difference is immediately
noticeable to me. I know Steven I'm looking at the files when I click
play, but one could convert both to flac and name them #1 and #2 to
make it a little less identifiable. Point is that with Grill's test
it took some time to pick out and sort which was which, but with the
AC3 vs. .MLP the difference is immediately noticeable to me.
> > > >http://groups.google.com/group/SurroundSound-Idézett szöveg elrejtése

Britre

unread,
Feb 7, 2012, 3:52:45 PM2/7/12
to SurroundSound
When I read Stevens Oppo comment I understood completely he may have
that becuase it was a utilitarian player and if your going to buy buy
one that plays all and does it well. So many formats so few players
that will do them all...My stuff also sits off to the side unless
needed such as my $3,000 laserdisc player, and other such equipment I
may rarely use but still need for some software.

We need to get real with all this. First off Steven is just pointing
out "reverb Trails" have nothing to do with identifying the tracks in
the test. Also he is pointing out that certain terms such as High Res,
Low Res, DTS, Aliasing, Oversampling are irrelevant to the discussion.
Correct Steven?

One issue with the test is if you happen to pick the better sounding
track first, all the rest will sound bad to you. Try this test. Make a
cassette if you can of your favorite song. Now listen to Compact disc
of the same thing. Sounds way better right? do it in opposite order
but take a day so your audio memory is not fresh. Just the cassette
now, you don't have a compact disc player. Hey that sounds pretty
good! This being because you have no reference to compare. Just the
opposite can happen too. You can have vinyl for years, buy the CD and
the vinyl is better. Remember specs dictate it is not but it sure does
sound 100 times more dynamic than our 96 db compact disc. But is it
the source used for the vinyl is higher quality than the one used for
the CD? I said before and now again source is everything, specs and
methods are not as critical. Surround is nice because it gives your
system less work with complicated source material but room setup and
the mixing of the source material are so critical in getting it right
it is the very reason everything should not be in surround sound. In
fact sometimes it is good to be like John Lennon and work only in a
monophonic world.

I won't tell you how I did on the test but I will tell you it is
harder than identifying reverb and transparency. You first need to
know how to listen and that takes some experience. I spent lots of
time in high end and low end audio shops with your typical know it
alls who put their nose up at just about everything unless it costs
lots of dollars and spec'd out at space age numbers. And then put the
simplist most basic music you could find and stated how awesome it
sounded! Well of course because the equipment is not reproducing
anything except a few insturments or electronic bleeps. Duh! The
people now turn their nose up at that cherished stuff of the past
claiming 7 channel BDA is ultimate and then, geez play a 3 peice jazz
ensamble to show how great it sounds, See! 7 channels for 3
insturments!

Personnally I like lots of action and the more the better because it
challenges me to listen carefully to hear it all. The test did indeed
contain a track of that sort and as you give it a go a fair amount of
times you then start to hear what is and is not in certain places.
Finnally without any doubt in my mind the test peice is a high quality
recording altered digitally to reproduce differently four times. You
can hear a difference and personal preference is key however, only the
most discriminating setups will reproduce a difference. I guarantee
your PC soundcard will not unless you have a couple thousand dollar
DAC installed.

96/24 does produce a difference on some musical content due to the
limitations of the 44/16 standard. More headroom can benefit some
material. But then again as pointed out some people simply can't or
fail to hear the detail they are trying to embrace. It is all up to
the individual.

Lokkerman

unread,
Feb 7, 2012, 4:52:40 PM2/7/12
to surrou...@googlegroups.com
I completely  disagree about the soundcard and DACs I picked my Xonar  Because  it had the same Burr-Brown DACs as my Denon and it didn't cost $1000's there is a difference and that is down to a filter (probably in the on-board sound processor firmware) I guess to be around 26khz on the Denon which is not present on the Xonar. One thing is I did experiment on was PSU's and a 750 watter sounds better than a 350 watter for those of you that believe in the darkside, lol. I'm now speaking within a magic circle to protect me now Steven. ;-P

Mark

unread,
Feb 7, 2012, 6:23:15 PM2/7/12
to surrou...@googlegroups.com
I have been reading this thread with interest but I think this thread has changed
significantly, or did I miss something?

Wasn't this about Rebook vs Hi Res (ie 16/44 vs 24/96 etc), not about lossless vs lossy.

Sorry if I have missed something..

Stephen Disney

unread,
Feb 7, 2012, 6:58:01 PM2/7/12
to surrou...@googlegroups.com
You are correct sir.
S

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SurroundSound" group.
To post to this group, send email to Surrou...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to SurroundSound-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

Stephen Disney

unread,
Feb 7, 2012, 6:59:09 PM2/7/12
to surrou...@googlegroups.com
I'm with Lokks yet again.  I took the test using a PC Soundcard.  And I started with track 1, then 2, 3, 4.
S

Stephen Disney

unread,
Feb 7, 2012, 7:00:16 PM2/7/12
to surrou...@googlegroups.com
Again... invalidating the results before you even try the test.  This has all been acknowledged.
S

>> - Idézett szöveg elrejtése -
>>
>> - Idézett szöveg megjelenítése -

Stephen Disney

unread,
Feb 7, 2012, 7:04:19 PM2/7/12
to surrou...@googlegroups.com
On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 6:51 PM, Steven Sullivan <ssu...@panix.com> wrote:


I myself could probably differentiate 16 bit from 24 bit if I play back
the lowest-level signals (the ends of reverb tails as they fade into
background), at unnaturally high levels.  (This is how they did it in the
famous Myer & Moran SACD vs Redbook test, as a matter of face.) Similarly,
there are musical samples that will be particularly good at showing up
lossy artifacts; developers seek these out and use them to tune lossy
codecs.  So no one says lossy will always be indistinguishable from
source.


I didn't make anything up... you admitted you could probably differentiate.  And by admitting it is possible after all (after insisting it was a misperception) you invalidate the need for the test.
S

Stephen Disney

unread,
Feb 7, 2012, 7:09:17 PM2/7/12
to surrou...@googlegroups.com


On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 9:50 AM, Steven Sullivan <ssu...@panix.com> wrote:
> You know, in daily listening, one doesn't need to analyze the reverb tails
> or anything else.  All this subconsciously adds up to a lesser listening
> experience.  When we hear the hi rez lossless, we perceive the difference
> whether routinely audible or not.  Being routinely audible doesn't change
> the fact that all the artifacts are there and decreasing the quality of
> the
> experience.  As a listener who has trained their ears to expect a certain
> quality, it is not snobish to purposely avoid a lossy encoding or lower
> rez
> file where you know such artifacts will be found... especially if a there
> is an alternative.  You must know this.

Lossy vs lossless encoding and "high rez' vs 'lower rez' aren't the same
things; they don't even operate on the same principles.

You know you don't own the patent on knowledge.  I'm pretty sure everyone here understands this.  But the point is that, whether lossy vs lossless or low rez vs hi rez, there are artifacts/identifying qualities that add up to the perception of a lesser listening experience whether you can scientifically quantify it or not.  Now who's countering with strawmen?
S

Steven Sullivan

unread,
Feb 7, 2012, 7:58:03 PM2/7/12
to surrou...@googlegroups.com
Grill himself was careful (and that's good!) to note that the test is not
scientific. So did *he* 'invalidate' it first?

The test provides better-than-average data -- that's to say, better than
just the standard, useless, 'sighted' reports. But there are controls that
could make it more bulletproof. Grill understands that. Do you?

-S.

>> >> - Id�zett sz�veg elrejt�se -
>> >>

>> >> - Id�zett sz�veg megjelen�t�se -

Steven Sullivan

unread,
Feb 7, 2012, 8:03:54 PM2/7/12
to surrou...@googlegroups.com
You wrote that I claimed many could do this. I didn't write that. Many
wouldn't even know what to listen for, or where to find it in a musical
selection. And not all musical selections will provide the opportunity.
(Grill wisely chose a selection with large dynamic range)

I also never wrote, or implied, that no one could ever distinguish DTS
from lossless. I write in terms of 'likelihood' for a reason.

So why did you try to imply otherwise?


-S.

Steven Sullivan

unread,
Feb 7, 2012, 8:09:25 PM2/7/12
to surrou...@googlegroups.com


That lossy compression has characteristic artifacts, more or less audible
depending on degree of data compression/codec used/sample used, is not in
doubt. Audibility of high vs standard res, and the reasons behind it, on
the other hand, is *very* controversial. If you really understood that
then you would not lump the two comparisons together.

Steven Sullivan

unread,
Feb 7, 2012, 8:20:01 PM2/7/12
to surrou...@googlegroups.com
> Ok, thanks. I just thought that an audio spectrum analysis could be
> much easier performed to find out the differences between 48 kHz and
> 96 kHz than between DTS 24/96 and the 24/96 original.

Well, if you know how to read a spectral view, or a waveform, the use of
lossy encoding is about as obvious as the use of 'standard' vs 'hi res'
(though in the latter case, if the source was already 'standard res', then
'high res' won't be much different! There are certain cases where the
'high res' release was sourced from standard resolution audio.)


> Personally I'm interested in testing surround and imo this would be a
> bit more unique but I accept the will of majority, ofc.

My own vote would be for 2-channel, which I can much more easily adapt to my
setup, and to ABX presentation -- as well as use headphones, for maximum
discrimination.

-S.

>> >http://groups.google.com/group/SurroundSound- Id�zett sz�veg elrejt�se

Stephen Disney

unread,
Feb 7, 2012, 10:30:08 PM2/7/12
to surrou...@googlegroups.com
Yup.  I get it.  Maybe you could present a counter test that is more bulletproof?
S

>> >> - Idézett szöveg elrejtése -
>> >>
>> >> - Idézett szöveg megjelenítése -

Stephen Disney

unread,
Feb 7, 2012, 10:54:19 PM2/7/12
to surrou...@googlegroups.com
We are obviously not talking about the public at large, we are talking about people in this group who claim to have good ears and whom you have tried to educate about the tricks the mind can play and the misperceptions you feel we likely are subject to and how that diminishes the authenticity of our claims.  There are over 90 emails in this thread... I don't have time or patience to quote you verbatim every time I post.  This is still you dancing around my point with semantics and nit picks.  The GIST of your argument is that when tested, those who THINK they hear a difference LIKELY are not really.  Certain members claimed we could.  I believe you probably can too, and are just trolling and being argumentative for argument's sake.  What I originally asked has yet to be answered.  When those who claimed they could are shown to have been able to back up their claims, how will you counter?  Coincidence?  Improper test procedure?  Statistical success? etc...  And that whether lossy vs lossless "OR" low rez vs hi rez, there are artifacts/identifying qualities that add up to the perception of a lesser listening experience whether you can scientifically quantify it or not.  (I understand that they are two different comparisons of two different things with two different sets of, I would argue, audible differences or artifacts as fits the example.  The end is the same... a lesser quality listening experience in my opinion, whether subconsciously perceived or determinately analyzed and noted.)
S

Steven Sullivan

unread,
Feb 8, 2012, 12:07:15 AM2/8/12
to surrou...@googlegroups.com
> Yup. I get it. Maybe you could present a counter test that is more
> bulletproof?
> S

No, you *don't* get it. I already noted at least one obvious aspect that
wouldn't pass muster in an actual scientific study of this sort. If you
got it, you'd have got that.

But instead of me repeating it, ask grill if you can write these test
results up. When you do, make sure the methods section reports that
subjects self-administered the test and submitted their responses by
email. Submit the paper to a reputable journal. See what the reviewers
have to say about improving the work.


-S.


PS, no offense to grill, who acknowledged up front that this isn't a
scientific study...which doesn't stop it from being an *interesting* one.


Steven Sullivan

unread,
Feb 8, 2012, 12:49:41 AM2/8/12
to surrou...@googlegroups.com
> We are obviously not talking about the public at large, we are talking
> about people in this group who claim to have good ears and whom you have
> tried to educate about the tricks the mind can play and the misperceptions
> you feel we likely are subject to and how that diminishes the authenticity
> of our claims. There are over 90 emails in this thread... I don't have
> time or patience to quote you verbatim every time I post. This is still
> you dancing around my point with semantics and nit picks. The GIST of
> your
> argument is that when tested, those who THINK they hear a difference
> LIKELY
> are not really. Certain members claimed we could. I believe you probably
> can too, and are just trolling and being argumentative for argument's
> sake. What I originally asked has yet to be answered. When those who
> claimed they could are shown to have been able to back up their claims,
> how
> will you counter? Coincidence? Improper test procedure? Statistical
> success? etc...

To be *rigorous* about it, a positive result could have several causes
that couldn't be ruled out without further information:
1) real audible difference, due to formats. (true positive)
2) real audible difference, due to something else (false positive)
3) difference not heard, 'correct' answer due to chance (false positive)

And if we could narrow it down to (1), there would still be the
interesting question of how much the result depends on the particular
sample music and encoding methods chosen; both are factors well known to
influence audibility of lossy artifacts -- another being training. There
would even be the question of what effect just knowing beforehand that the
choice here was between lossless (GOOD!) and lossy (EVIL!), has on
*preference*. These are all variables that a scientific study would
investigate, or at least address in discussion. (See Sean Olive's classic
series of studies in JAES, for a great example of work that investigates
the relative contributions of multiple variables to listeners' loudspeaker
preferences.)

Btw if you don't quote me verbatim that's fine. Just don't mangle my
meaning if you paraphrase.


> And that whether lossy vs lossless "OR" low rez vs hi
> rez,
> there are artifacts/identifying qualities that add up to the perception of
> a lesser listening experience whether you can scientifically quantify it
> or
> not. (I understand that they are two different comparisons of two
> different things with two different sets of, I would argue, audible
> differences or artifacts as fits the example. The end is the same... a
> lesser quality listening experience in my opinion, whether subconsciously
> perceived or determinately analyzed and noted.)
> S

And again, what are the plausible artifacts of standard rez vs high res?
Various artifacts of lossy compression are pretty well characterized.
(Which doesn't mean they are routinely perceived.)


lokkerman

unread,
Feb 8, 2012, 6:29:18 AM2/8/12
to SurroundSound
The entire subject of compression is in part right at the centre of
this debate, whether introduced as lossy for file compression or for
audible effect - "The Noise war"
On Stephen's earlier comments - I totally agree about the holistic
nature of the "sound" - this is what makes people like me make my
judgement and it doesn't take a lot of training neither, I used my
wife as an example earlier, and she ususlay hates me having music on
at all.

Finally on the base recording for the test although this material was
dynamic I felt it sounded smeared in parts and my thoughts were maybe
not all the instruments were what they seem and what I mean by that is
for example, was some of the rhythm guitar in fact sampled and maybe
keyboards?

Britre

unread,
Feb 8, 2012, 8:36:29 AM2/8/12
to SurroundSound

>
> Finally on the base recording for the test although this material was
> dynamic I felt it sounded smeared in parts and my thoughts were maybe
> not all the instruments were what they seem and what I mean by that is
> for example, was some of the rhythm guitar in fact sampled and maybe
> keyboards?
>
This brings to light am interesting point in the matter. If you sample
a sound at lets say 16 bits whatever frequency, then use it in a peice
of music at 96/24 which now has taken a lossy sound and tried to
create lossless does it have that same effect on the listener when you
later go all over the map reproduction wise?

Which would indicate if you uncompress a MP3 or even compressed FLAC
do you loose artifacts from the original? Alot of rippers swear by
FLAC compressed for size consratints and DTS is compression
decompression in surround. It is also sometimes the case artists use
compression to relay parts of albums for their work back and forth
which poses other questions about todays recording methods.

ROBERT COOGAN

unread,
Feb 8, 2012, 2:21:09 AM2/8/12
to surrou...@googlegroups.com
Tune in next week for the great butter vs margarine debate on the dairy
spread forums.

grill

unread,
Feb 8, 2012, 6:34:44 PM2/8/12
to SurroundSound
Low-fat or hi-fat? Please specify :-)
> For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/SurroundSound- Idézett szöveg elrejtése -
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages