high resolution listening test

[Arnold Krueger]

This is a high resolution listening test.

Simply play the file and count the number of times you hear: "This is a High Resolution Listening test".

Please report the number.

No mysteries, no double blind, no guessing. Takes about a minute.

Only two simple requests:

(1) Set your volume as you are accustomed to listen, and

(2) Don't touch the volume control while you play the file.

The more times you hear the phrase the higher resolution and better ears it takes to pull that off.

The 24/96 FLAC file is too large (44 MB) for posting on this forum, but you can download it here:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/audiophilesonabudget/766603106863124/

 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

This is a high resolution listening test.

Simply play the file and count the number of times you hear: "This is a High Resolution Listening test".

Please report the number.

No mysteries, no double blind, no guessing. Takes about a minute.

Only two simple requests:

(1) Set your volume as you are accustomed to listen, and

(2) Don't touch the volume control while you play the file.

The more times you hear the phrase the higher resolution and better ears it takes to pull that off.

The 24/96 FLAC file is too large (44 MB) for posting on this forum, but you can download it here:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/audiophilesonabudget/766603106863124/

Sorry, I do not do Facebook, and I have no interest in ever doing so.

But, frankly, this is a mystery requiring much further explanation before one wastes one's time.

Starting question, what is it testing for: ultrasonic reproduction, bit depth, both, neither?

Next, why would a spoken phrase be audible, then inaudible in lowrez, RBCDrez, hirez, etc. unless that payload message is manipulated in frequency, not just sampling rate? Clearly we can hear the same music now at many different sampling rates. It does not change in fundamental pitch, volume, etc., merely at best in apparent "resolution" and detail. So, how can audibility of the spoken phrase disappear at higher/lower sampling rates? That would appear to be an attempt to confirm that we do not hear ultrasonics, which we already knew, and that we can hear them is not a rational claim put forth by serious advocates of hirez.

I suspect an agenda-driven parlor trick, whose objective and methodology I need to understand before playing along. Why should I trust you? From your forum, there are millions of reasons not to. Not interested, thank you.

 

[amirm]

I am on facebook and still don't see anything to download or related to this topic. Looks like you have to join a group to see the discussion.

 

[restorer-john]

I've long considered that anything you download to listen to, or playback on your equipment, should be treated with extreme suspicion, especially something purporting to be a 'test'.

A 'high resolution' (>44.1) test could easily disguise a payload of out-of-band, inaudible high level signals, which when played back at a high level could instantly destroy expensive tweeters. Imagine audiophiles winding up the volume to hear low level signals while a 25KHz 0dbFs sine takes out their tweeters... A sort of 'HiFi bomb' if you will.

At a bare minimum, put any high res file you buy/download or receive, on an free FFT (audacity's spectrum for example).

 

[Blumlein 88]

Facebook is a no go for me too. Never been on it. Don't intend to be.

 

[Wombat]

Ditto.

 

[restorer-john]

Facebook is a no go for me too. Never been on it. Don't intend to be.

Exactly the same here.

 

[NorthSky]

Twitter is much better, more open crowd, less hiding, less hypocrisy.
Is this on topic?
It sure is: https://www.facebook.com/groups/audiophilesonabudget/766603106863124/

 

[Deleted member 65]

If you agree to download all your data since birth will be extracted into the Big Data database, Resistance is futile, you will be assimilated ...

 

[Arnold Krueger]

Sorry, I do not do Facebook, and I have no interest in ever doing so.

But, frankly, this is a mystery requiring much further explanation before one wastes one's time.

Starting question, what is it testing for: ultrasonic reproduction, bit depth, both, neither?

Next, why would a spoken phrase be audible, then inaudible in lowrez, RBCDrez, hirez, etc. unless that payload message is manipulated in frequency, not just sampling rate? Clearly we can hear the same music now at many different sampling rates. It does not change in fundamental pitch, volume, etc., merely at best in apparent "resolution" and detail. So, how can audibility of the spoken phrase disappear at higher/lower sampling rates? That would appear to be an attempt to confirm that we do not hear ultrasonics, which we already knew, and that we can hear them is not a rational claim put forth by serious advocates of hirez.

I suspect an agenda-driven parlor trick, whose objective and methodology I need to understand before playing along. Why should I trust you? From your forum, there are millions of reasons not to. Not interested, thank you.

This is interesting. Obviously, the test was highly successful in its native environment being the FaceBook "Audiophiles On A Budget" group. I then repeated the process on another audio group with reasonable success. Over here, it is getting stonewalled. I can handle that. This is a gift. Nobody here thinks it is a gift. Well, overcoming resistance is an art. How about this link? Should be public enough.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/n50g7b6hs14x8dj/high resolution listening test audacity HD.flac?dl=0

The test is largely based on what I said: Dynamic Range, or if you will "Bit Depth".

The file is a 24/96 file, through and through. It was prepared by upsampling a MP4 file from the recording environment, but if you understand the experiment that is irrelevant. The original short audio selection was normalized to FS -1 dB which makes it unlikely to create artifacts.

The audio sample has relatively high Crest Factor (about 18 dB), similar to classical music or live music in general, but it is unprocessed spoken word for maximum intelligibility. The original selection was duplicated so that there are now 14 copies of it, separated by total digital black silence. The first two copies received no additional processing. Each of the following 12 was attenuated by increasing amounts in steps of 10 dB. The last segment is attenuated by 120 dB. The fact that the audio was only attenuated and otherwise unmolested was double checked and the file was put out for the audition.

I beleive the fact that part of this file was attenuated by >90 dB explains why parts of it might be inaudible in certain workaday listening environments.

 

[Arnold Krueger]

I've long considered that anything you download to listen to, or playback on your equipment, should be treated with extreme suspicion, especially something purporting to be a 'test'.

A 'high resolution' (>44.1) test could easily disguise a payload of out-of-band, inaudible high level signals, which when played back at a high level could instantly destroy expensive tweeters. Imagine audiophiles winding up the volume to hear low level signals while a 25KHz 0dbFs sine takes out their tweeters... A sort of 'HiFi bomb' if you will.

At a bare minimum, put any high res file you buy/download or receive, on an free FFT (audacity's spectrum for example).

Seems like merely reasonable caution.

I've uploaded something at least as damaging many times - its called a CCIR IM test and it is highly diagnostic. I've also included appropriate cautions for the downloader, but the file and the cautions could be separated.

Being 19 and 20 KHz mixed 1:1 at FS or thereabouts, The CCIR IM test (which dates back to the 60s) is fully in-band by most criteria. That does not keep it from being inaudible or hard to hear for many or most. It will do as good of a job on speaker drivers as anything, aside from the effects of voice coil inductance.

People have criticzed me for FFTing downloaded files when the FFT analysis was insufficiently complementary.

Also, there have been private conferences about how to disguise HD files that are merely upsampled MP3 files and the like so that they pass FFT inspection.

Just a friendly heads up.

We didn't figure out how to disguise something that was physically damaging, but potentially ego-damaging is something else!

 

[NorthSky]

Mr. Krueger, it is nice to see you on this lovely spring day.
Your philosophy is sound. ...Sound as in solid.

 

[dc655321]

@Arnold Krueger - 8 iterations.

Do I get a cookie?

 

[Arnold Krueger]

@Arnold Krueger - 8 iterations.

Do I get a cookie?

With all the expressed concern with downloaded files, I would think that providing a browser cookie would not looked upon very favorably.

 

[amirm]

I took it while TV was on in our living room using my laptop and I got to 8 or 9 I think. I am bad at counting.

When I get a chance I try to use an external DAC and quieter setting and see what I get.

 

[dc655321]

I would think that providing a browser cookie would not looked upon very favorably

Super-lame web humor. Cool.

The more times you hear the phrase the higher resolution and better ears it takes to pull that off.

Isn't this more of a "put-a-number-to-your-normal-listening-level" exercise?

 

[amirm]

Arny, have you tried the same thing with tones? I have and while my memory is hazy, I thought I heard -90 dB there.

The power in your clip is more concentrated in lower frequencies where we are less sensitive than mid-frequencies.

So I would say your computation of bit depth is not broadly applicable to other spectrums.

 

[Blumlein 88]

I don't think you were being stone walled. We just aren't on Facebook and aren't about to sign up for this.

Using a volume setting for music I was listening to last night I heard 8. If I bumped it up 6 db (which I might do listening mid-afternoon with higher ambient noise levels) I just barely, barely sort of heard a 9th iteration.

I posted a variation on this a year and a half ago where I added noise to music to see at what level people no longer heard noise. I also had noise only tracks. I seem to recall noise only was heard about 10 db lower than noise mixed with music for most people.

Here is the thread:
https://audiosciencereview.com/foru...hat-level-is-noise-heard-in-your-system.1013/

PS-Those files aren't posted for download currently. Sorry. I'm not even sure I still have them.

 

[amirm]

The more times you hear the phrase the higher resolution and better ears it takes to pull that off.

Only with respect to the spectrum of this clip as I mentioned. To wit, we can make a 10 Hz clip that no one can hear and declare our hearing resolution as zero.

Our best dynamic range occurs at mid-frequencies. Outside of that our "resolution" drops of course.

Unfortunately since PCM format is "rectangular" in response, we wind up needing the same bit depth at every frequency even though we don't need it everywhere (lossy compression takes advantage of this to reduce bit depth.

 

[danadam]

(maybe I posted this here already) In a similar vein: