SMAC February 2013
- Thread starter jmathers
- Start date
ashok
Active Member
Looks like a great gathering at Don's place. I miss all you guys, and the SMAC meetings.
But I did go to the Frankenfest yesterday (see thread in Events and Happenings) and met a really nice bunch of audio enthusiasts in this area. Great time!
Any chance one of you could elaborate on the computer-audio presentation? I recently acquired the Meridian Audio Explorer, and am having fun listening to high-resolution music. I can make out differences between them and standard quality files (some obvious, some subtle), and am curious to see if any such differences emerged during the demo at Don's.
Thanks!!
But I did go to the Frankenfest yesterday (see thread in Events and Happenings) and met a really nice bunch of audio enthusiasts in this area. Great time!
Any chance one of you could elaborate on the computer-audio presentation? I recently acquired the Meridian Audio Explorer, and am having fun listening to high-resolution music. I can make out differences between them and standard quality files (some obvious, some subtle), and am curious to see if any such differences emerged during the demo at Don's.
Thanks!!
jmathers
Super Member
We miss you too!
I read your review of the Meridian (and a few others in the audio press), and if one were available in the area I would have picked one up. I'll probably do so once they are more widely available.
We compared basically mp3 with CD quality files - some mp3s were at 320kbps, others at 128. Also FLAC and WAV files. I think the consensus was: most people can't tell the difference. I also brought two 24/192 files which I had converted to 24/96, WAV, and MP3 - though we didn't do much with these.
I would like to narrow down a better way to compare them and include hirez files as well. We played two tracks at a time blind for about one minute each and then asked the group what they thought. Lots of disagreement on which was the better quality file.
I'd be interested in your opinion on perhaps a better way to make the comparisons? I want nothing to do with ABX tests. And I would like folks to come away from the session more curious than fixed in their opinions, since ideally the place to really listen and decide is on one's own system.
Jeff
agreed agreed agreed
Last edited:
ashok
Active Member
ABX testing will get contentious - so I agree that we should stay away from that.
What I find is that headphone listening really helps me focus and key in on differences. Perhaps you could have a dedicated headphone station where people can listen to the samples and make notes. If differences are heard, then they might be motivated to try the samples out in their own system.
What I find is that headphone listening really helps me focus and key in on differences. Perhaps you could have a dedicated headphone station where people can listen to the samples and make notes. If differences are heard, then they might be motivated to try the samples out in their own system.
VinylRob
Vinylphile
><((((º>`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·...¸><((((º>`·.¸¸.·´¯ `· .¸.·´¯`·...¸><((((º>
Ashok, I found that throughout the digital sample demo, most of the folks I sat with, as well as myself, found it interesting, heard difference large or small in every sample, but had a difficult time determining which was the higher/lower res files. In the room a less than 50% accuracy in our response was given with much confusion. For me, the Cat Stevens - Tea for the Tillerman track was the only obviously clear one where I could say I was not guessing at all. Curiously, this album on A&M vinyl is a beautiful example of how good a recording and mastering (of any format) can be, and something that I have listened to since its release in 1970, although very distinguishable between the various digital resolutions, it was very different sounding and fell far short of what a $1.00 bargain bin vinyl would have portrayed IMHO. The voice was small and disembodied, the guitar was lacking the reverb of sting and wholeness of the wood body tone and scale, and the ambient detail that sets the soundstage ques was a fraction of the original recording. My take on all that is that without the familiarity to this last tune, I would, like with the rest of the tracks, not have any point of reference to what it "could", or maybe "should" sound like and have a very difficult time with it all. All I know is the examples of this track sounded nothing like, but a pale comparison to the original, and the original sounded more like him live. What might this suggest? And how can we sort it out? For me, the demo created no answers, but a greater interest in what is going on, and a greater appreciation for how difficult the evaluation process could be.
Happy (SMAC demo) Listening!
Ashok, I found that throughout the digital sample demo, most of the folks I sat with, as well as myself, found it interesting, heard difference large or small in every sample, but had a difficult time determining which was the higher/lower res files. In the room a less than 50% accuracy in our response was given with much confusion. For me, the Cat Stevens - Tea for the Tillerman track was the only obviously clear one where I could say I was not guessing at all. Curiously, this album on A&M vinyl is a beautiful example of how good a recording and mastering (of any format) can be, and something that I have listened to since its release in 1970, although very distinguishable between the various digital resolutions, it was very different sounding and fell far short of what a $1.00 bargain bin vinyl would have portrayed IMHO. The voice was small and disembodied, the guitar was lacking the reverb of sting and wholeness of the wood body tone and scale, and the ambient detail that sets the soundstage ques was a fraction of the original recording. My take on all that is that without the familiarity to this last tune, I would, like with the rest of the tracks, not have any point of reference to what it "could", or maybe "should" sound like and have a very difficult time with it all. All I know is the examples of this track sounded nothing like, but a pale comparison to the original, and the original sounded more like him live. What might this suggest? And how can we sort it out? For me, the demo created no answers, but a greater interest in what is going on, and a greater appreciation for how difficult the evaluation process could be.
Happy (SMAC demo) Listening!
jmathers
Super Member
I won't ever be able to convince you that good digital can sound like vinyl but....
This track was downloaded from HDTracks in 24/192 format. It cost me $3 (I could have had three more copies of the vinyl!) I then converted this to a 24/96 file and a 16/44 CD quality file with dBPoweramp. Then I converted the CD quality file to mp3 with Audacity's LAME encoder to both 128Kbps and 320Kbps files. So all the files were from the exact same source - that $3 HDTracks 24/192 file.
The whole digital thing is as complex as anything in the vinyl world. Some factors that I did not ask Dave about but that would make a big difference in the demo include:
1. Is the computer optimized for audio? What driver are you using? Have you turned off running processes that would interfere with the audio, like network connections, unnecessary start up apps, etc.? MACs have their own set of issues. And Vista is supposed to be worse than WinXP when it comes to audio - we were listening on a Vista laptop.
2. What is the source of the file? Is it a true 24/192 sample or has it be upsampled from a lower res format? This can get tricky - HDTracks has been caught upsampling material and claiming it is "true" 24/96 material.
3. How have you converted the file to lesser formats? Or are you comparing a CD version with a downloaded higher res version? If so, it could be a completely different mastering.
4 What player are you using to play the file? Does it playback audio in a bit perfect format? Have you selected the correct streaming format to get info to the DAC?
And that's all before you consider the DAC itself and the USB or SPDIF cables and the system itself. As you know, those factors can make a massive difference in one's ability to distinguish between something like vinyl pressings. Same with digital.
So there's a whole host of things that keep getting in our way when we try to analyze digital music formats. Although, one could argue, it's probably just as complicated as spinning a slab of vinyl.
Jeff
jmathers
Super Member
Actually ALL ABX audio demos will lead to the same result - listeners will be unable to distinguish reliably any difference whatsoever. So there will be agreement on the results but maybe some cognitive disagreement in the minds of the participants.
I like SCIENCE just not pseudoscience.
Jeff
WntrMute2
Super Member
And just as I'm trying to simplify my life...You guys are ruining me.
WntrMute2
Super Member
Just 16? Humpphh, now I'm insulted.
jmathers
Super Member
And I thought of a fifth point that such a demo would be affected by.....
5. How is it conducted? How much time is given to each cut before switching? Does the demo master give any hints to what to listen for in each track? Or ask particular questions after it is over? Can we go back and re-listen?
I think Dave did a great job presenting the tracks. However, what's the harm in making a suggestion on what to listen to in the track? It's NOT a test of your listening ability (I guess it could be but why?). I think it would be nice to say something like "Pay particular attention to the sound of the high-hat in this track" or note the growl of the guitar sound in this track.
I remember being at Audio Dimensions one time and Harry saying "Listen to this" and he played a track I had never heard before. "OK," I thought when it ended, "that sounded good." Then Harry said, "Now, I'll play it again and listen to the kick drum." That suggestion led me to focus on one aspect of an unfamiliar recording and hear what he was talking about - it sounded like the kick drum was right in the room. On the first listen, I didn't really notice how "real" that drum was as I tried to digest all the other strange-to-me aspects of the song.
Jeff
5. How is it conducted? How much time is given to each cut before switching? Does the demo master give any hints to what to listen for in each track? Or ask particular questions after it is over? Can we go back and re-listen?
I think Dave did a great job presenting the tracks. However, what's the harm in making a suggestion on what to listen to in the track? It's NOT a test of your listening ability (I guess it could be but why?). I think it would be nice to say something like "Pay particular attention to the sound of the high-hat in this track" or note the growl of the guitar sound in this track.
I remember being at Audio Dimensions one time and Harry saying "Listen to this" and he played a track I had never heard before. "OK," I thought when it ended, "that sounded good." Then Harry said, "Now, I'll play it again and listen to the kick drum." That suggestion led me to focus on one aspect of an unfamiliar recording and hear what he was talking about - it sounded like the kick drum was right in the room. On the first listen, I didn't really notice how "real" that drum was as I tried to digest all the other strange-to-me aspects of the song.
Jeff
jmathers
Super Member
VinylRob
Vinylphile
><((((º>`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·...¸><((((º>`·.¸¸.·´¯ `· .¸.·´¯`·...¸><((((º>
My intent was not to make it sound like I was waging a battle with the whole vinyl vs. digital thing, because I was not, and I realize that that was not the point of this demo. I also need to state for clarity that in no way did Don's kit sound anything like the description I made of that Cat Stevens cut in our listening for listening sake sessions with analogue material, beyond the demo.
I would agree Jeff, and thanks for a deeper explanation of the providence of those recordings and just some of the many consideration that need to be taken into account when handling a digital format and navigating this complicated path. I think others will find this info valuable as well for placing what they heard in the session in context. That said, It appears obvious that either digital or analogue done right (if we can even decide what right might be) is a very involved task and needs some more focused attention and research.
Just a thought, we may not have any idea where the digital database sourced their transfer from, or how they presumably negotiated the A/D transfer from the original analogue recording. As may vinylphiles know, all to clearly, from one pressing to another, there can be a world of difference.
Thanks to all who were involved in the demo, as I quite frankly, would not have had any idea where to get in and get started.
Happy Listening!
My intent was not to make it sound like I was waging a battle with the whole vinyl vs. digital thing, because I was not, and I realize that that was not the point of this demo. I also need to state for clarity that in no way did Don's kit sound anything like the description I made of that Cat Stevens cut in our listening for listening sake sessions with analogue material, beyond the demo.
I would agree Jeff, and thanks for a deeper explanation of the providence of those recordings and just some of the many consideration that need to be taken into account when handling a digital format and navigating this complicated path. I think others will find this info valuable as well for placing what they heard in the session in context. That said, It appears obvious that either digital or analogue done right (if we can even decide what right might be) is a very involved task and needs some more focused attention and research.
Just a thought, we may not have any idea where the digital database sourced their transfer from, or how they presumably negotiated the A/D transfer from the original analogue recording. As may vinylphiles know, all to clearly, from one pressing to another, there can be a world of difference.
Thanks to all who were involved in the demo, as I quite frankly, would not have had any idea where to get in and get started.
Happy Listening!
Last edited:
WntrMute2
Super Member
I think the stimulation of a discussion is possibly the most valuable thing to come out of the demo and whatever is planned for future meets). This is where ideas and opinions are formed, later to be explored more fully. The thing I was fascinated by was the total lack of agreement among the listeners as to what was "best" but the almost unanimous agreement that there were differences. Once again furthering the concept that things may sound different but individuals may like one form or version over another. My wife and I were drinking tequila "neat"; she likes the rested stuff, while I prefer the harsher blanco. Next month or two I'd like to present the room measurement data I've been collecting. Would that be of interest do you guys think?
VinylRob
Vinylphile
><((((º>`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·...¸><((((º>`·.¸¸.·´¯ `· .¸.·´¯`·...¸><((((º>
I would have to agree again, my friend, that the idea of "guided" or suggestive, focused listening is a whole nother valuable listening session path we could choose to take.
Something you said, in Don's kitchen rings true, I think, that is, if in the demos we just had, if one was listening to the bass line intensity or the cymbal transparency, or something individual like that, from track to track and making their judgement call based on that, one could probably be left confused and with inconclusive results. Had one listened to the gestalt of the soundstage, the different samples were much easier to discern and differentiate, or something on that order... Correct me if I don't have your point distilled. We all have ears and have used them for our life times, and even in an environment were this is not dealt with as a competition, we all think we know how to listen. But I don't feel it would hurt, in a non challenging way, to direct the listener from time to time, to some aspect that they may not have been focusing on. I do this all day long in the industrial design world with engineers, financial guys, and stylists. We all tent to focus on different things... and it sometimes doesn't serve us to be caught in a usual paradigm. Of course, with our free thinking SMAC folks, such elementary things are probably never an issue...
Happy Listening!
I would have to agree again, my friend, that the idea of "guided" or suggestive, focused listening is a whole nother valuable listening session path we could choose to take.
Something you said, in Don's kitchen rings true, I think, that is, if in the demos we just had, if one was listening to the bass line intensity or the cymbal transparency, or something individual like that, from track to track and making their judgement call based on that, one could probably be left confused and with inconclusive results. Had one listened to the gestalt of the soundstage, the different samples were much easier to discern and differentiate, or something on that order... Correct me if I don't have your point distilled. We all have ears and have used them for our life times, and even in an environment were this is not dealt with as a competition, we all think we know how to listen. But I don't feel it would hurt, in a non challenging way, to direct the listener from time to time, to some aspect that they may not have been focusing on. I do this all day long in the industrial design world with engineers, financial guys, and stylists. We all tent to focus on different things... and it sometimes doesn't serve us to be caught in a usual paradigm. Of course, with our free thinking SMAC folks, such elementary things are probably never an issue...
Happy Listening!
VinylRob
Vinylphile
><((((º>`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·...¸><((((º>`·.¸¸.·´¯ `· .¸.·´¯`·...¸><((((º>
You know Dave, I include myself in our fair club and all that I said. Alas, I was one of the listeners focusing on cymbals and bass lines, duh! Thinking I could easily pic the fly poop out of the pepper, "listening to sounds" and completely forgot about listen to the "music". Geez, for me, those demos were a confusing listen...
That's why, when the Cat Stevens tune came on, I thanked the audiophile gods for leading me out of the (digital) darkness... up until that moment (of audio memory and familiarity and listening to music), I had been confused and incorrect with such regularity during the demo, I was ready to go straight home and throw out my kit out on the front lawn and join a bowling league!!!
Proving the point that Jeff made so simply.
Happy Listening!
You know Dave, I include myself in our fair club and all that I said. Alas, I was one of the listeners focusing on cymbals and bass lines, duh! Thinking I could easily pic the fly poop out of the pepper, "listening to sounds" and completely forgot about listen to the "music". Geez, for me, those demos were a confusing listen...
That's why, when the Cat Stevens tune came on, I thanked the audiophile gods for leading me out of the (digital) darkness... up until that moment (of audio memory and familiarity and listening to music), I had been confused and incorrect with such regularity during the demo, I was ready to go straight home and throw out my kit out on the front lawn and join a bowling league!!!
Proving the point that Jeff made so simply.
Happy Listening!
