CD audio (44.1/16) Club

[Sal1950]

I'm 72 and I can't hear shit. LOL

 

[pablolie]

56 and I can hear 13 kHz.

How did you establish that? A lot of that has to do with environment. High frequency tones are perceived rather ethereally even by those with bat ears. Do never expect to hear them unless your environment is super quiet and controlled.

 

[Sal1950]

Try this with a good set of headphones, preferably sealed back type.

One moment, please...

 

[SuicideSquid]

And from the linked Madronna
Digital article:
“Lost in that is one tester who managed to get 8 out of 10 right meaning there was 94.5% probability that he was identifying the proper source and not guessing. This is so close to 95% threshold that it should have been noted as significant and countering the larger conclusion but was not. Two other testers managed 7 out of 10 correct selections. These were all dismissed as exceptions and the total number of trials/listeners incorrectly relied upon.”

I don’t have the energy to engage all the points made, but this one seems especially unpersuasive. Guessing can and will beat the average. A couple lucky gamblers merely confirms that house wins. That’s why all tested listeners count. We’ve heard the argument before that special, trained golden ears can do it, but how many times? Repeatability is essential.

With very much respect to Amir here, and I think the other issues he raised about this study are valid, he's making a common error here. There were 554 listening tests performed, or about 55 people doing 10 a/b/x tests each. It would actually be statistically unlikely in that group that no one would score 8/10 merely by chance - in other words, if there's a 5% chance of a person scoring 8/10 by luck, and you run a test 50 times, the likelihood that one of those tests is 8/10 by mere chance is well above 90%.

 

[jsrtheta]

Now there's a good buddy considering the value of todays squashed hockey pucks
I did the same when I moved from Chicago to FL, only I called a couple buyers and gave them my lists.
The batch went to the highest bidder.

My buddy lives in Maywood, which you should appreciate.

He also did some early sessions with Smashing Pumpkins. (He was recording.)

 

[LeftCoastTim]

Not only is CD resolution enough for you, MP3 and other decent lossy compression is enough for you.

What does this mean?

As I said in a post 5 months ago, I can abx lame -v0 for certain samples. I understand the limits of my hearing.

 

[Sal1950]

My buddy lives in Maywood, which you should appreciate.

I stayed in Maywood with a friend for a short time in the very early 70s.
It was during that time that we believe John Prine was our mailman.

 

[Talisman]

I'm in my 40s, and I got curious how my hearing was these days. I can't hear the mosquito tone anymore (17+kHz), and I can't hear below -70db, according to https://www.audiocheck.net. I can hear a 14khz tone, but not pass the 14kHz low-pass filter test.

So, CD resolution is definitely good enough for me.

Comment below if you would like to join my little club.

Cheers,

Same site, same tests, same age, the mosquito tone seemed like I couldn't hear it, but when it was played in modulation I could hear it, the 16,000 I hear for sure, but in the blind masking test I managed to pass up to 15,000.

I have never been able to distinguish the 16-44 format from the higher resolution ones. I'll tell you more. I can't tell the 320 mp3 format from the cd format. For me a good 16/44 recording is all the quality I need
(but if someone has better ears and finds benefit from High res audio, so be it)

 

[Multicore]

How did you establish that? A lot of that has to do with environment. High frequency tones are perceived rather ethereally even by those with bat ears. Do never expect to hear them unless your environment is super quiet and controlled.

I set up a sine tone generator in Reaper and adjusted the volume knob on the MOTU M4 from 0 to half way using my desktop Genelec 1029A.

I can go with the word ethereal to describe the perception of 13 kHz. I could not hear a 13.5 k tone.

This morning the forced air heating is on and there's more traffic on the street and I can't hear 13 k but I can hear 12.5 k.

The dominant interfering noise in this test is tinnitus.

With higher frequencies such as 16 k I sometimes have a curious effect that I cannot hear it but it modifies my perception of the tinnitus. It's a small effect but it's there and then 15 minutes later I can't notice it. I could notice it again this morning. I don't know what;s going on there but it's not like hearing the tones.

 

[SuicideSquid]

What does this mean?

As I said in a post 5 months ago, I can abx lame -v0 for certain samples. I understand the limits of my hearing.

That's surprising, as the primary way that lossy audio compression cuts down on space is by removing content above about 13kHz - there are other artifacts introduced by lossy compression as well, especially at lower bitrates, but the most obvious way to identify an MP3 vs. a WAV is lack of any content in the 13-20kHz range. I assumed if you're struggling to hear above 14kHz you'd struggle to hear the difference.

 

[Joe Smith]

Oddly, on that website posted earlier, I could hear the mosquito tones but in normal testing, I top out at about 12.5, 13kHz tops...weird...

 

[Hugo9000]

Mid-50s here, and I can hear quite well up to 16 kHz, then my hearing drops off a cliff. I've used Earful software by @pkane to test my hearing since he released it, and I'm fortunate that my hearing has remained stable in that time. I have always used double hearing protection around machinery (plugs and over-ear). My hearing is for music first and foremost, so I avoid ugly and loud and non-musical sounds whenever possible haha!

Link to pkane's thread on ASR:

Beta Test: Earful -- a hearing test App

Based on the discussion and a poll earlier, I'm starting a new thread to beta-test Earful. An app designed to measure the lower threshold of audibility for a range of frequencies. https://distortaudio.org/earful.html The app is free to use. Some instructions on how to use it are at the above...

www.audiosciencereview.com

Link to the software on his site:

Earful - Audiophile Hearing Test App | Distort documentation

Earful v1.0 is the initial beta release of this software. Use at your own risk!

distortaudio.org

I love Compact Discs, and have a large collection that I listen to daily.

 

[Mnyb]

r8brain is free, perfect, and built into most modern DAWs so errors from sample rate conversion are not really something you need to be worried about.

I used that in the past ( and SoX ) to make my own downsampling of so called hirez audio for testing, simple A B as blind as could do it .

Then i could no hear no difference what so ever and i picked new audiophile content actually recorded in hirez.

You can not assume the CD layer and hirez layer on DVDA or SACD actually are the same , nor can you do that with downloads vs your old CD .
So one basic controll is to get a real hirez recording and dowsample the stuff yourself and then test .

There are a plethora of different masters of some material for various reasons , and yes i think i have some hirez that are better than the CD but ofcourse then its because i prefer the mastering of that version . And ofcourse ive had LP's of some stuff sounding better than any new version of any kind ?

imo i rather have the good version on mp3 than a new badly made master on 24/192 . Formats are not really that important , the recording itself is and they are rarely limited by any modern delivery format.

 

[SuicideSquid]

I used that in the past ( and SoX ) to make my own downsampling of so called hirez audio for testing, simple A B as blind as could do it .

Then i could no hear no difference what so ever and i picked new audiophile content actually recorded in hirez.

You can not assume the CD layer and hirez layer on DVDA or SACD actually are the same , nor can you do that with downloads vs your old CD .
So one basic controll is to get a real hirez recording and dowsample the stuff yourself and then test .

There are a plethora of different masters of some material for various reasons , and yes i think i have some hirez that are better than the CD but ofcourse then its because i prefer the mastering of that version . And ofcourse ive had LP's of some stuff sounding better than any new version of any kind ?

imo i rather have the good version on mp3 than a new badly made master on 24/192 . Formats are not really that important , the recording itself is and they are rarely limited by any modern delivery format.

100% agree, the quality of the original recording and the mastering job typically make far more of a difference than the format, once you've cleared a certain base threshold (8track tapes are never going to sound good).

 

[Sal1950]

You can not assume the CD layer and hirez layer on DVDA or SACD actually are the same , nor can you do that with downloads vs your old CD .
So one basic controll is to get a real hirez recording and dowsample the stuff yourself and then test .

100% agree, the quality of the original recording and the mastering job typically make far more of a difference than the format, once you've cleared a certain base threshold

For sure. I don't trust any of the labels to be 100% honest in their statements of what's contained in release X.
If they want to bolster the image of one format or another, I wouldn't put it past them to juice the master of the desired format.
Witness the MoFi scandal letting customers believe there were no digital steps in their vinyl masters.
Or going back a bit, the fudged AudioQuest HDMI cable video.
Some snake-oil is very visible, some is hiding between the lines.

 

[pablolie]

I set up a sine tone generator in Reaper and adjusted the volume knob on the MOTU M4 from 0 to half way using my desktop Genelec 1029A.

I can go with the word ethereal to describe the perception of 13 kHz. I could not hear a 13.5 k tone.

This morning the forced air heating is on and there's more traffic on the street and I can't hear 13 k but I can hear 12.5 k.

The dominant interfering noise in this test is tinnitus.

With higher frequencies such as 16 k I sometimes have a curious effect that I cannot hear it but it modifies my perception of the tinnitus. It's a small effect but it's there and then 15 minutes later I can't notice it. I could notice it again this morning. I don't know what;s going on there but it's not like hearing the tones.

Thanks for the answer. I think being very aware of our own hearing's capabilities and mechanisms is one of those "taboo" things we talk about waaay too little in our hobby. Reviewers never publish a doctor note. Not that doctors establish hearing range...

I can just talk for myself. I have taken care of my hearing my entire life, more or less by accident. I have very sensitive ears inasmuch as it easily hurts and gives me a headache pretty quickly. I have also always ridden motorcycles and always wear earplugs while doing so. I also must wear earplugs to sleep, becaue a mouse farting behind a wall will wake me up. But noise sensitivity doesn't mean having golden ears for audio, I just think that's the way my brain processes noise in general.

Another thing - it's worth allowing a doc to check your ear channel at least yearly... and clean it if they are good at it. The stuff that at times comes out of there (and probably distorts our hearing some) is pretty amazing.

I do believe our hearing gets fatigued throughout the day and needs to recover overnight and -I think- heal. I am often amazed in the early morning when I hit "play" on the exact same music I was playing last night, and the volume perception overwhelms me, like "whoa, was I really listening to this as loud last night?". Shows to me some rest in silence is beneficial to our hearing.

I also believe hearing -like many parts of our body- can heal some if u let it just rest and protect it from the everyday stress you may just regard as "normal".

 

[pablolie]

That's surprising, as the primary way that lossy audio compression cuts down on space is by removing content above about 13kHz - there are other artifacts introduced by lossy compression as well, especially at lower bitrates, but the most obvious way to identify an MP3 vs. a WAV is lack of any content in the 13-20kHz range. I assumed if you're struggling to hear above 14kHz you'd struggle to hear the difference.

MP3 works not by reducing dynamic range or frequency response, but by discarding data that's less likely to be heard.

< caps from the internet quote.

If one wants to hear the difference between a -let's say- a 256k MP3 and FLAC, do *not* expect to identify it by expecting to not hear the higher frequency ranges. You'll fail. If anything, the MP3 will harshen them some and make them thinner-sounding. Which is why often people think the MP3 sounds actually "better", since the detail has been flattened with the psychoacoustic model used in MP3. *Not* by reducing the frequency range.

 

[Multicore]

Thanks for the answer. I think being very aware of our own hearing's capabilities and mechanisms is one of those "taboo" things we talk about waaay too little in our hobby. Reviewers never publish a doctor note. Not that doctors establish hearing range...

I can just talk for myself. I have taken care of my hearing my entire life, more or less by accident. I have very sensitive ears inasmuch as it easily hurts and gives me a headache pretty quickly. I have also always ridden motorcycles and always wear earplugs while doing so. I also must wear earplugs to sleep, becaue a mouse farting behind a wall will wake me up. But noise sensitivity doesn't mean having golden ears for audio, I just think that's the way my brain processes noise in general.

That sure seems like the exact opposite of how I have lived my life. Ah well.

Another thing - it's worth allowing a doc to check your ear channel at least yearly... and clean it if they are good at it. The stuff that at times comes out of there (and probably distorts our hearing some) is pretty amazing.

My doc looks in my ears once a year and doesn't comment. I know how bad it looks in there but I think he doesn't want to deal with it.

I do believe our hearing gets fatigued throughout the day and needs to recover overnight and -I think- heal. I am often amazed in the early morning when I hit "play" on the exact same music I was playing last night, and the volume perception overwhelms me, like "whoa, was I really listening to this as loud last night?". Shows to me some rest in silence is beneficial to our hearing.

I also believe hearing -like many parts of our body- can heal some if u let it just rest and protect it from the everyday stress you may just regard as "normal".

Yes, of course. Hearing is like all our physical capacities, it needs rest. My thinking needs rest after heavy use. So do my legs. And my aesthetic sensibilities. And my concentration. And I have best control over my guitar at certain times of day and when not drunk.

 

[Sal1950]

That sure seems like the exact opposite of how I have lived my life. Ah well.

Same here. I feel very lucky to have as half decent of hearing as I do after all the abuse.
Between my service as an infantry soldier in Viet Nam, to my love of very loud music
back in the day of my mis-spent youth, it's a wonder I can hear at all.
I had a scare back around 1985 when at the rifle range a friend let off a round with his
huge magnum hunting rifle before I had put my plugs in. Everything I heard in my left
ear buzzed and crackled for about 3 months but thankfully finally cleared up.
Since then, when I got to the range, I don't get out of the car without first putting my plugs in
and then put on muff's over the top as I approach the actual firing line. I also wear plugs at
all concerts now, I hate the way they distort the performers sound, but I'd rather keep what little hearing I
have for as long as possible.
Youngsters out there, heed our warnings, protect your ears, once they're shot, they're shot.

 

[symphara]

16k yes, 17k no