Interesting PONO Article

[E-Stat]

Just because you say 'decades of math' IS NOT proof. It is a statement. That is not objective proof. Please show us this math.

I'm glad we agree! Please view post # 51 where you find the following unsubstantiated and dismissive text that is clearly not objective proof. Specifically, it is the logical fallacy called "false authority". That's content-free posturing.

"Pono can and does stae items clearly contrary to materials science, physics, and electrical engineering principals "

The problem is you are dealing with a subjective subject. I have stated that I CAN hear differences between high res files and the same music non-high res. You cannot mathematically prove it wrong. If a person says they can hear a difference, take them at their word.

We remain on the same page sharing the same experiences.

 

[E-Stat]

I have and do every day 9my own system). The quote means nothing - it is a statement of opinion not fact. UNTIL YOU ACTUALLY SHOW THE MATH, ETC THAT PONO IS LYING, ALL YOU ARE STATING IS OPINION.

We're on the same side of the fence with this issue. I agree that Reynolds531's statement is most certainly just opinion.

My daily player is also a high rez player and. like you I regularly listen to high resolution albums. Unlike the experience-free here who quote theory as to why they think folks don't hear what they hear!

BTW, the "decades of science" pearl of wisdom is frankxbe's term I quoted from post #77.

 

[ev13wt]

Here is my results:
Track from: http://www.linnrecords.com/linn-downloads-testfiles.aspx
File: Excerpt taken from Primer Solo de Concierto para Clarinete track 4 from "Vibraciones del Alma" by Maximiliano Martin and Scott Mitchell.
File downsampled with Foobars PPHS resample to 44.1 / 16Bit

Equipment: Asus Sonar XT with Beyerdynamic DT-770 600Ohm

foo_abx 2.0 report
foobar2000 v1.3.7
2015-02-02 15:58:24

File A: test192.flac
SHA1: cd2c49f5cf291282da3c6f60223b2a67d182fd6b
Gain adjustment: +3.68 dB
File B: test192 downsampled.flac
SHA1: 87118152d90fabbd5a8d55c1c822eab8b09e0a77
Gain adjustment: +3.65 dB

Output:
ASIO : ASUS Xonar ASIO driver
Crossfading: NO

15:58:24 : Test started.
16:04:30 : 00/01
16:07:00 : 00/02
16:10:35 : 01/03
16:13:04 : 01/04
16:14:22 : 02/05
16:16:02 : 03/06
16:17:32 : 04/07
16:21:04 : 05/08
16:22:10 : 05/09
16:23:47 : 06/10
16:27:14 : 06/11
16:31:48 : 07/12
16:32:42 : 07/13
16:33:39 : 08/14
16:34:30 : 09/15
16:36:04 : 09/16
16:36:04 : Test finished.

----------
Total: 9/16
Probability that you were guessing: 40.2%

-- signature --
bbbae8f8926c5d6107ca723114d466353122ff3f


Please repeat my test, be sure to copy the signature into the thread as well. I will repeat this test later. If you want, give me your tracks that you used in the other thread so I can do that one.

 

[ev13wt]

Here is my downsampled clip: http://www.filedropper.com/test192downsampled


My soundcard makes an audible click every time I swith from 192 to 44.1, so I had to take my headphones off each time I switched from A to B to X to Y.

I need to trust you here that if your DAC does this as well that you do it too, or switch to another (OFF) source each time you click.

 

[ecrumpler]

Does anyone have any specific methods they use when trying to discern different file resolutions? I had some education from an engineer friend who used to make audio gear. Long story short, I listen to cymbals and focus on transients when trying to tell the difference between mp3 and 16bit 44.1. I can nail a double blind nearly 100% of the time. 16bit to 24bit is much harder to tell, but on a good system the secrets lie in the transients again. An mp3 of any quality has a grainy representation of a cymbol. I am a professional musician and stand near cymbals several times a week so maybe this is more apparent for me. An mp3 is simply incapable of producing a proper cymbal tone; it takes more information.

I for one believe everyones ears are able to hear these differences. The pictures of sound that our ears present to our brain are complex. If you don't know where to look, you will miss things. Being willingly or unwillingly ignorant to these signs is just fine. For me, once I was taught how to hear it, the differences were glaring. I've taught my fiance some of these techniques and she can now pick out an mp3 as well. It's not hard on a good system. I mean, just because I can't throw a wicked curve ball doesn't mean I need to deny it's possible existence...

 

[E-Stat]

I had some education from an engineer friend who used to make audio gear. Long story short, I listen to cymbals and focus on transients when trying to tell the difference between mp3 and 16bit 44.1. I can nail a double blind nearly 100% of the time. 16bit to 24bit is much harder to tell, but on a good system the secrets lie in the transients again.

That has been my experience and that of others. Here's one of the conclusions from the following study:

"This finding provides support for theories that high-resolution formats better reproduce the details of transients and room acoustics."

There is a retired "insider" of digital products who has aced ABX test between Redbook and 192/24 content. His secret?

"The differences were track and experiment specific. In one case for example I listened for a faint notes of a background instrument and how it differed from the other version. In another, I would listen to how the channels separated. In another it would be the tonal quality. These are very subtle things that are hard to put in words...

What this means is that the larger picture remains the same in these samples. All the "normal" characteristics you listen for will be the same. This is why many can't find differences. Their sense of what is different is like listening to two different speakers. They are not used to trying to distinguish between samples where the "high order bit" is the same. It is the subtle, secondary aspects that may be different. Focusing on them in the midst of what else is going on in the music is challenging. "

Further, he also comments on transients from this post:

"At the other extreme but difficult concept to understand are high frequency transients. There is no redundancy per se in a signal that all of a sudden sharply shoots up for a few milliseconds and then goes back down. The lossy encoder's frame now expands before and after the transients most likely. As it attempts to requantize (roughly speaking truncating frequency bands), it will spread that distortion to before and after the transient. What is after the transient will be masked usually. But not nearly as much for what comes before the transient. We call this type of distortion "pre-echo," i.e. echo that happens before the signal itself. As you can imagine, this type of distortion can be quite annoying depending on the amount of it."

That pre-ringing occurs with Redbook filters, too.

I for one believe everyones ears are able to hear these differences. The pictures of sound that our ears present to our brain are complex. If you don't know where to look, you will miss things. Being willingly or unwillingly ignorant to these signs is just fine. For me, once I was taught how to hear it, the differences were glaring.

Very well said. It has nothing to do with the "golden ears" canard.

 

[eyekon218]

curious here --

My daily player is also a high rez player

what player?

I regularly listen to high resolution albums.

can you please list 3 of the albums you listen to and where you sourced them from?

also, what kind of headphones are you using?

 

[ev13wt]

Does anyone have any specific methods they use when trying to discern different file resolutions? I had some education from an engineer friend who used to make audio gear. Long story short, I listen to cymbals and focus on transients when trying to tell the difference between mp3 and 16bit 44.1. I can nail a double blind nearly 100% of the time. 16bit to 24bit is much harder to tell, but on a good system the secrets lie in the transients again. An mp3 of any quality has a grainy representation of a cymbol. I am a professional musician and stand near cymbals several times a week so maybe this is more apparent for me. An mp3 is simply incapable of producing a proper cymbal tone; it takes more information.

I for one believe everyones ears are able to hear these differences. The pictures of sound that our ears present to our brain are complex. If you don't know where to look, you will miss things. Being willingly or unwillingly ignorant to these signs is just fine. For me, once I was taught how to hear it, the differences were glaring. I've taught my fiance some of these techniques and she can now pick out an mp3 as well. It's not hard on a good system. I mean, just because I can't throw a wicked curve ball doesn't mean I need to deny it's possible existence...

Please download foobar and it's abx comparator plugin. Choose a sub 30 second sample of your favorite cymbal sounds. Encode with MP3 but please with at least 256 rate. Place both files into the foobar track window, select both and right click, select abx. Post results here.

Upload the files with a free file uploader so we can repeat your test.

 

[ecrumpler]

Please download foobar and it's abx comparator plugin. Choose a sub 30 second sample of your favorite cymbal sounds. Encode with MP3 but please with at least 256 rate. Place both files into the foobar track window, select both and right click, select abx. Post results here.

Upload the files with a free file uploader so we can repeat your test.

Awe man, If I had that kind of time... Trust your ears, that's what my friend used to say a 100 times a discussion. And, I'm on a mac, do they even make Foobar for osX?

 

[Naptown Rob]

Here is my results:
Track from: http://www.linnrecords.com/linn-downloads-testfiles.aspx
File: Excerpt taken from Primer Solo de Concierto para Clarinete track 4 from "Vibraciones del Alma" by Maximiliano Martin and Scott Mitchell.
File downsampled with Foobars PPHS resample to 44.1 / 16Bit

Equipment: Asus Sonar XT with Beyerdynamic DT-770 600Ohm

foo_abx 2.0 report
foobar2000 v1.3.7
2015-02-02 15:58:24

File A: test192.flac
SHA1: cd2c49f5cf291282da3c6f60223b2a67d182fd6b
Gain adjustment: +3.68 dB
File B: test192 downsampled.flac
SHA1: 87118152d90fabbd5a8d55c1c822eab8b09e0a77
Gain adjustment: +3.65 dB

Output:
ASIO : ASUS Xonar ASIO driver
Crossfading: NO

15:58:24 : Test started.
16:04:30 : 00/01
16:07:00 : 00/02
16:10:35 : 01/03
16:13:04 : 01/04
16:14:22 : 02/05
16:16:02 : 03/06
16:17:32 : 04/07
16:21:04 : 05/08
16:22:10 : 05/09
16:23:47 : 06/10
16:27:14 : 06/11
16:31:48 : 07/12
16:32:42 : 07/13
16:33:39 : 08/14
16:34:30 : 09/15
16:36:04 : 09/16
16:36:04 : Test finished.

----------
Total: 9/16
Probability that you were guessing: 40.2%

-- signature --
bbbae8f8926c5d6107ca723114d466353122ff3f


Please repeat my test, be sure to copy the signature into the thread as well. I will repeat this test later. If you want, give me your tracks that you used in the other thread so I can do that one.

I (and I'm willing to bet, most others) have absolutely no idea what the f&ck I'm looking at here. Therefore, this tells me nothing...

 

[E-Stat]

what player?

Full details of my systems may be found here.

can you please list 3 of the albums you listen to and where you sourced them from?

All from HD Tracks.

Kind of Blue-Miles Davis
Goldfinger Soundtrack - John Barry
Nutcracker/Tchaik - Previn / LSO

The greatest number of high rez recordings I've heard was at a Chicago area dealer's sound room. Positively phenomenal sounding. Brian Walsh at Essential Audio

also, what kind of headphones are you using?

Don't have any "cans" per se. I use Shure SE535 earbuds with iPhone/iPad.

Listening is done through the main system over Sound Lab U-1s.

 

[ev13wt]

Awe man, If I had that kind of time... Trust your ears, that's what my friend used to say a 100 times a discussion. And, I'm on a mac, do they even make Foobar for osX?

Trust your ears, but never trust your brain and eyes!

https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/abxtester/id427554135?mt=12

Takes eyes and brain out of the equation. An ABX test of a cymbal hit with 16 repetitions will take you about 20 minutes.

 

[ev13wt]

I (and I'm willing to bet, most others) have absolutely no idea what the f&ck I'm looking at here. Therefore, this tells me nothing...

It is very simple. Close to the bottom is the result in plain English: Probability you where guessing: 40%

If it is 0-10% one could say you heard a difference.


The AB comparaotr for foobar is simple. You select two tracks in the playlist and start the AB comparator (right click, select). Make sure that you have "level matching (gain)" selected and DSP chain (playback) off.

Then you listen to A by clicking the button. Then B. Then X then Y. If you are sure if X is A then Y must be B, you click the corresponding button. You repeat this test as many times as you like (16 is standard) and it gives you the results in a text window that you can copy and paste here.

 

[fredgarvin]

Don't dis parrots - they are very smart. In fact, it has been shown that sometimes they will even use tools.

Also, this is a discussion. Name calling is not a discussion it is an impairment to that. Prove to them why they are wrong - name calling does nothing.

Your post is the antithesis of what AK stands for.

'Parroting' is not a bird. Nor is it a 'name'. There was no name calling in his post. Perhaps a parrot might know those words?

par·rot
ˈperət/

verb
1.
repeat mechanically.
"encouraging students to parrot back information"
synonyms: repeat (mindlessly), repeat mechanically, echo
"they parroted slogans without appreciating their significance"

Your welcome.

 

[Andyman]

That has been my experience and that of others. Here's one of the conclusions from the following study:

"This finding provides support for theories that high-resolution formats better reproduce the details of transients and room acoustics."

There is a retired "insider" of digital products who has aced ABX test between Redbook and 192/24 content. His secret?

"The differences were track and experiment specific. In one case for example I listened for a faint notes of a background instrument and how it differed from the other version. In another, I would listen to how the channels separated. In another it would be the tonal quality. These are very subtle things that are hard to put in words...

What this means is that the larger picture remains the same in these samples. All the "normal" characteristics you listen for will be the same. This is why many can't find differences. Their sense of what is different is like listening to two different speakers. They are not used to trying to distinguish between samples where the "high order bit" is the same. It is the subtle, secondary aspects that may be different. Focusing on them in the midst of what else is going on in the music is challenging. "

Further, he also comments on transients from this post:

"At the other extreme but difficult concept to understand are high frequency transients. There is no redundancy per se in a signal that all of a sudden sharply shoots up for a few milliseconds and then goes back down. The lossy encoder's frame now expands before and after the transients most likely. As it attempts to requantize (roughly speaking truncating frequency bands), it will spread that distortion to before and after the transient. What is after the transient will be masked usually. But not nearly as much for what comes before the transient. We call this type of distortion "pre-echo," i.e. echo that happens before the signal itself. As you can imagine, this type of distortion can be quite annoying depending on the amount of it."

That pre-ringing occurs with Redbook filters, too.


Very well said. It has nothing to do with the "golden ears" canard.

This is WAAAAYYYY too much work for the average non-audiophile listener. Hell, it's too damn much work for me.

Sorry, but this is part of the "night and day" hyperbole crapola that drives me nuts here. It isn't that obvious ever and it takes a lot of work and focus, more than most want to expend. Night and day is me playing my smartphone through its cheesy speakers vs. the main rig. If it's something you "listened for a faint notes of a background instrument and how it differed from the other" it's a difference, but it' isn't night and day,

At least not in my book....

 

[fredgarvin]

Why on earth would anyone actually need to hear a 192/24 source played back on a really nice system to be able to pontificate on its merits?

They don't need to because they like their i phone. It has science, physics and electrolytes!

 

[Naptown Rob]

It is very simple. Close to the bottom is the result in plain English: Probability you where guessing: 40%

If it is 0-10% one could say you heard a difference.

Ah. the lack of headers leads to murkiness.

So this was a test of how you hear.
Not anybody else.
And by that, I do not in any way mean how well you do on a hearing test. I'm speaking of how you perceive and experience audio. What kind of an "ear" you've got. And, more particularly, how you experience audio being reproduced by the headphones you were using. (Nice soundcard, BTW).

"If it is 0-10% one could say you heard a difference."?
No, at those figures ( zero %?!) it's not "one could say", it's more like "well, it's pretty obvious & inarguable."
"One could say" would really be more like 35 or 40% or below, correct? Keeping in mind that 0% is actually never a possibility...

 

[fredgarvin]

This is WAAAAYYYY too much work for the average non-audiophile listener. Hell, it's too damn much work for me.

Sorry, but this is part of the "night and day" hyperbole crapola that drives me nuts here. It isn't that obvious ever and it takes a lot of work and focus, more than most want to expend. Night and day is me playing my smartphone through it's cheesy speakers vs. the main rig. If it's something you "listened for a faint notes of a background instrument and how it differed from the other" it's a difference, but it' isn't night and day,

At least not in my book....

But your book isn't the only one, there are other books with a more sophisticated vocabulary. Lets face it, there are people out there that have developed a discernment and appreciation for audio to a level that you apparently have not. There is nothing wrong with being satisfied with the system you enjoy or with drinking box wine, but it's just doesn't support the idea that other people cannot or shouldn't enjoy and discern the benefits of drinking fine wines. It's a matter of educating ones palate.

 

[RobInONT]

Ah. the lack of headers leads to murkiness.

So this was a test of how you hear.
Not anybody else.
And by that, I do not in any way mean how well you do on a hearing test. I'm speaking of how you perceive and experience audio. What kind of an "ear" you've got. And, more particularly, how you experience audio being reproduced by the headphones you were using. (Nice soundcard, BTW).

"If it is 0-10% one could say you heard a difference."?
No, at those figures ( zero %?!) it's not "one could say", it's more like "well, it's pretty obvious & inarguable."
"One could say" would really be more like 35 or 40% or below, correct?

For a sample size that small (16), You need a confidence level of around 95% for the result to be statistically significant.

 

[Andyman]

But your book isn't the only one, there are other books with a more sophisticated vocabulary. Lets face it, there are people out there that have developed a discernment and appreciation for audio to a level that you apparently have not. There is nothing wrong with being satisfied with the system you enjoy or with drinking box wine, but it's just sounds like stubbornness and ignorance to state that other people cannot or shouldn't enjoy and discern the benefits of drinking fine wines. It's a matter of educating ones palate.

I didn't say that there wasn't a difference. I said it was a lot of work and it's not night and day or black and white.

I said there were subtle differences, but that's what they are, subtle nuances.