Zp 24/96

I have found that my ECM albums bought on ITunes in 256kbps lossy files sound as good as my lossless CD rips - and better than some that aren't as well mastered.
Another data point on this subject in the linked article about Pono makes interesting reading:
https://www.yahoo.com/tech/it-was-one-of-kickstarters-most-successful-109496883039.html
The title is apt - The Emperor has no clothes.

Are you saying your MP3 downloads sound as good as your ripped cd's ? If so, how can that be since MP3 by definition doesn't include all the information.

BTW....if you still have those Spends, those are nice speakers but I think they would open up with some more current behind them.

I've been a party to lots of A/B showdowns and the results were mostly "my dog is better than your dog, period". No one wins and everyone goes home mad.

I would agree with this - and it's usually the case that the "experimenters" (if you can call them that) don't understand what they are really testing nor the scientific method.

Even outside of the testing issues encountered in sensory comparison tests and absent the distortion introduced by the equipment you mention, if the "experimenters" were actually using science, they could only make a hypothesis and develop proof for it, but never completely discount the null hypothesis.

Basically, in layman's terms - a positive result establishes, to a certain level of confidence, the reality of different perceptible acoustic differences, a null result, or a failure to reliably detect a difference, does not indicate the nonexistence of that difference.

The simple fact is that sensory comparisons based on memory are 100% fallible and, as such, are not good science. This isn't to say that all the hi-res acoustics and fancy mumbo-jumbo are actually audibly better -- it's to say that testing it is virtually impossible.

Leaning on these tests and relying on them - as many objectors seem to - is truly as much a laughable concept as people that stamp their feet about how much of an audible difference there is between them.

There is a reason eye-witness testimony is viewed incredulously in trials. Any prosecutor, worth his weight in salt, knows that even the most honest and sincere eyewitness testimony is not always credible. Observing an event is not the same as actually remembering the event accurately. Human memory is not a Tivo with the ability to replay with accuracy.

Are you saying your MP3 downloads sound as good as your ripped cd's ? If so, how can that be since MP3 by definition doesn't include all the information.

Well they're probably AAC for a start, today's codecs are an awful lot better than the original ones were but perhaps the main reason is because beyond a certain bitrate it really is very difficult to tell the difference.

I use 320Kbps mp3 in my car and in that environment (which isn't the best obviously) I can't tell any difference between that and 24-bit FLAC, never mind 16-bit FLAC.

I'll ask again, show me the peer reviewed scienctific study that discounts properly conducted double-blind audio tests as "bad science." there is none. They are accepted as valid science. And nobody is saying the null argument is proven. That is a logical fallacy, and no self-respecting scientist will ever claim a negative is proven. What they are claiming is the differences that may exist cannot be detected by human subjects in properly conducted double-blind tests. So quit putting words in people's mouths. And if your own version if mumbo jumbo is valid science, then link to the studies which show it. :rolleyes:

If so, how can that be since MP3 by definition doesn't include all the information.

Because, by definition, information does not equal audio.

For instance, I could apply a low-level background noise to a track which most people could not hear. They would not be able to tell the difference between that and the original track in blind testing, even on high-end equipment in acoustically isolated rooms.

That is information, but it is information that cannot be heard. It is a huge error to think that every piece of information or data in digital file formats is audible.

The whole point of lossy audio compression standards like MP3 is that they attempt to minimise the audible affects of the data loss. As the compression level is increased that becomes impossible to do without obvious audible changes, but as the compression levels decrease the differences become increasingly small. There will be a point at which, for a given track, even though a lot of the original "information" has been removed and the file size is smaller, the differences will be inaudible.

Opinions vary on where this point is but most tests suggest that at 320bit/s CBR, MP3s are mostly indistinguishable from the original uncompressed CD.

Cheers,

Keith

Basically, in layman's terms - a positive result establishes, to a certain level of confidence, the reality of different perceptible acoustic differences, a null result, or a failure to reliably detect a difference, does not indicate the nonexistence of that difference.


I'll ask again, show me the peer reviewed scienctific study that discounts properly conducted double-blind audio tests as "bad science." there is none. They are accepted as valid science. And nobody is saying the null argument is proven. That is a logical fallacy, and no self-respecting scientist will ever claim a negative is proven.

Guys, I honestly think you are both agreeing with each other without knowing it. I don't want to see this turn into an argument on that basis.

To summarize, I think we (as in myself, jgatie, gtyper, and Buzz) all agree that:

* Double Blind tests (with the assumption they are properly conducted) can specifically prove the case in which there are clear, obvious, and statistically significant differences, but cannot disprove any differences absolutely.

* If there were gross differences between standard res and hires formats they would show up and be conclusively proved in double blind tests. The absence of such results after many years and several tests is enough to conclude that gross (meaning "obvious" or "night and day" to use the words of the hires zealots) differences do not exist.

* The existence of subtle audible differences cannot be completely dis-proven using DBT (or any other proposed scientific methods), but the results are stacked more against them than they are for them. I think all of us probably agree that, in many if not most (or all) cases, the differences between standard res and hires may not be audible.

* Based on hires differences being subtle at best, they will not be audible to most people. I saw a figure somewhere (I don't have a reference) which said that less than 0.05% of people in the UK spend more than £2000 on any room on their audio setup.I personally feel that that is way below the level of spend you need to resolve hires if it is audible.

* The reasons for wanting hires extend beyond pure audibility (for example, the mere presence of superior material, the complexity/inconvenience of down-converting and multiple libraries, the marketing benefits, etc.)

Of course I may be wrong, but I think we are actually all pretty much in agreement with these principles. In which case, the discussion can probably evolve.

I think the big problem of this discussion is that it's all black and white when the reality is grey.

Cheers,

Keith

There is a difference between perceiving and caring about something.

For example, if someone changes the speed on their turntable, this will cause a pitch change in the music. I will be aware of this, but I will not cross the room to deal with it because I don't care. If the record is not flat or the hole is not exactly centered, there will be cyclic pitch changes (once per revolution). This drives me crazy and is one of the reasons why I have never enjoyed vinyl.

And this is a puzzle. In my experience off center is rampant, yet I don't recall any reviewers mentioning this. I guess this could have been the luck of the draw -- reviewers receive flat, well centered copies -- or perhaps reviewers have a higher threshold for "don't care" in this case.

Majik, I appreciate you trying to moderate, but on these points I believe gtyper does not agree:

* Double Blind tests (with the assumption they are properly conducted) can specifically prove the case in which there are clear, obvious, and statistically significant differences, but cannot disprove any differences absolutely.

* If there were gross differences between standard res and hires formats they would show up and be conclusively proved in double blind tests.

He said as such earlier in the thread when he discounted DBT's that were conducted on compression codes which showed people were indeed able to statistically hear the difference (emphasis mine):

For the record, I come from a science research background - and my opinion is that a blind test in this regard (regardless of the results) is not necessarily good science.

. . .

I did a little digging and found a report wherein the difference between 44.1khz and 96khz was statistically significant. People could, based on the results, find a difference. But, even though I might agree with the assertion, I disagree with the testing methodology and thus believe it not capable of being able to prove anything. I find the test incorrect and I'm sure if you looked at the results - the actual conclusion would be inconclusive. I would argue, that the correlation between the data would not be grouped in a method that would lead one to the original assertion.

It's the nature of using the wrong test methodology. Unfortunately, we don't have a different methodology for comparison other that actually looking at the raw physics and making assumptions on whether or not people can hear the difference.

. . .



And needless to say, on his points above, I most assuredly disagree. Which is why I ask for peer-reviewed articles that back up his assertion that DBT's of audio are not "good science." So far he's produced none.

Opinions vary on where this point is but most tests suggest that at 320bit/s CBR, MP3s are mostly indistinguishable from the original uncompressed CD.

Cheers,

Keith

Yep, opinions certainly vary, but I would agree on car audio differences are going to be harder to discern. On home audio even of mediocre quality I would beg to differ though.

MP3 was created to conserve space at a time when space was at a premium. Today it isn't. Why anyone would buy a file with missing information is beyond me. You can't get that info back by upsampling it either because it's just not there. I get the convenience of MP3, especially to transfer between portable audio devices, but as a main listening file....wouldn't be my first choice.

Majik, I appreciate you trying to moderate, but on these points I believe gtyper does not agree

Actually, I do. Note Majik said:

"[i]Double Blind tests (with the assumption they are properly conducted) can specifically prove the case in which there are clear, obvious, and statistically significant differences, but cannot disprove any differences absolutely.[/i]"

I agree whole-heartedly with this statement. My point, and perhaps I haven't been fully clear, I do not agree with ABX testing methodology for subtle differences. There have been numerous instances where Double Blind AB testing has yielded consistent results in subtle differences but the same test data in an ABX environment fail to produce statistically significant data. This implies a flaw inherent in the test itself and/or a weakness in our sense memory.

Any psychologist will tell you that human memory, especially short term, is a very weak point. This is known and accepted, whether or not you wish to assign any credence to it is another matter.

What I am arguing is that the ABX testing methodology is unsound and poor science for what you're trying to prove in this instance.

I question why we have come to accept ABX methodology for audio to be the gold standard, yet rarely do other sense comparisons use? Why aren't we reviewing the testing methodology to ensure it is actually giving us proper results?

Let's use the Double Blind ABX test for something we know is different. Take shades of the same primary color group. Test it similar to the ABX audio test with the null hypothesis being "One cannot perceive the difference between shades." I am almost certain, in an ABX situation, the null hypothesis would not be disproven. Yet, we know when the colors are placed touching each other (direct visual comparison), the perceptible difference is there thus proving the null untrue. This would point to a flaw in the methodology.

Human's ability to rely on memory for sensory comparison is simply weak. Sound being probably the weakest. Trying to test subtle differences without direct comparison is flawed in the way it is being handled.

Which is why I ask for peer-reviewed articles that back up his assertion that DBT's of audio are not "good science."

I promise you that I spent a good deal of time coming up with a reply. Unfortunately, the system logged me out and it was lost to the ether. I did not cite peer-reviewed articles, but did mention some studies I knew of that showed certain aspects of what I'm talking about but mentioned I was far too lazy to look them up. Now I'm doubly lazy, and half cross-eyed.

The reasons for wanting hires extend beyond pure audibility (for example, the mere presence of superior material, the complexity/inconvenience of down-converting and multiple libraries, the marketing benefits, etc.)

At the end of the day, that's all I care about. I don't care about the difference. I'm not even convinced there is one, as I've stated numerous times.

I simply take offense to the ABX test used, in my opinion, improperly.

There is a difference between perceiving and caring about something.

For example, if someone changes the speed on their turntable, this will cause a pitch change in the music. I will be aware of this, but I will not cross the room to deal with it because I don't care. If the record is not flat or the hole is not exactly centered, there will be cyclic pitch changes (once per revolution). This drives me crazy and is one of the reasons why I have never enjoyed vinyl.

And this is a puzzle. In my experience off center is rampant, yet I don't recall any reviewers mentioning this. I guess this could have been the luck of the draw -- reviewers receive flat, well centered copies -- or perhaps reviewers have a higher threshold for "don't care" in this case.
I'd have to say I think it's your imagination, I've been listening to vinyl for 30 years and I've never heard that phenomenon or found vinyl with an off centre hole, in fact I don't see how it could even happen given the hole is created by the pressing process, which seems to make it impossible for it to be off centre.

I promise you that I spent a good deal of time coming up with a reply. Unfortunately, the system logged me out and it was lost to the ether. I did not cite peer-reviewed articles, but did mention some studies I knew of that showed certain aspects of what I'm talking about but mentioned I was far too lazy to look them up. Now I'm doubly lazy, and half cross-eyed.

Sorry, but without peer-reviewed studies, this is all audiophile hogwash, meant to cloud the results of accepted science. If you haven't got peer-reviewed science, then it's not science. The study I have cited has been peer-reviewed and no one, despite all the money Naim and others stand to lose, have stepped up to debunk it in a scientific journal.

And as far as you agreeing with the tests for gross differences, you also derided a study that showed gross differences between compression techniques using double-blind methods. Forgive me if I find your claims to accept them for non-subtle differences a backslide from your earlier statements.

Oh, and I would appreciate it if you would apologize for saying I or any other proponents of double-blind audio tests implied in any way that negative results proved no differences, which is antithetical to the scientific method. I know I never did, and I don't appreciate you putting words in my mouth in an attempt to state I and others like me are just as bad as the audiophile snakeoil fans.

the_lhc,

By the way, you are not alone. I just discovered a discussion about off-center. FWIW, I was not a participant in this discussion.

NAKAMICHI developed a turntable to deal with this.

Edit: Added link (that I originally omitted)