• Welcome to ASR. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

HiRes makes no sense?

Not to my knowledge, no. Higher res is appropriate for studio manipulation. But it will never go away as long as someone can make money on it.
That is correct. So the golden eared scientists who believe they hear a difference are really science deniers spreading misinformation just like those who believe exotic, expensive speaker cables create audio nirvana yet they get a pass here. I don't see any difference. The science of both seems well established and accepted from what i have learned here.
 
the golden eared scientists who believe they hear a difference
I'm not aware of them. But the industry has run numerous tests with professionals (and amateurs).
 
Using headphones, and once you figured out what artifacts to look for, most people can pass an ABX between HiRes vs CD quality. Including me. It's actually not that hard at all, assuming you use a track where artifacts exist between hires and CD quality.

LOL. OK.

But the argument is that CD rate inherently has 'artifacts' that allow the bestest listeners to hear a difference.

To them ,it's obvious!
 
I'm not aware of headphones that have the fantastic IMD spec that would be required to not completely overshadow any improvement. And then, human ears have very definite limits. But enjoy.
 
That is the very definition of cherry picking. If you keep on restarting the test every time you get one wrong, then eventually you get ten in succession right just by blind chance. That 0.05 p value says it will happen once in every 20 trials (roughly)
10 correct in a 10-trial test has a p=.001. Once in 1000 10-trial tests, by chance. That's how I understand it.

Row heds are # of trials per test, Column heads are # correct.

TRIALS012345678910
11.0000.500
21.0000.7500.250
31.0000.8750.5000.125
41.0000.9380.6880.3120.062
51.0000.9690.8120.5000.1880.031
61.0000.9840.8910.6560.3440.1090.016
71.0000.9920.9380.7730.5000.2270.0620.008
81.0000.9960.9650.8550.6370.3630.1450.0350.004
91.0000.9980.9800.9100.7460.5000.2540.0900.0200.002
101.0000.9990.9890.9450.8280.6230.3770.1720.0550.0110.001
 
I'm not aware of them. But the industry has run numerous tests with professionals (and amateurs).
That's good to know. Perhaps I am mistaken. Because it seems to me that if a member were to promote hi res as a superior sounding consumer playback format, in spite of the evidence, that wound be what is referred to here as "snake oil" because no scientific evidence supports the claim while substantial evidence refutes it.

The real golden ears are the ones who say i can't tell the difference because there is no auditable difference. I must have really golden ears because i cannot perceive a SQ improvement in hi res, between any quality cables, cable risers, power conditioners, etc. In fact I have never heard a SQ improvement with any of the products referred to here as snake oil. My "golden ears" validate your scientific findings so good work. And you know what, the Fosi Audio Box 5 recommended on testing sounds really good with my Shure v15 so good work with that recommendation as well.

I don't believe it is expectation bias either. I have been a Benchmark DAC1 and now DAC3 user for many years before coming to this site so it was nice to know that you validated my subjective findings of quality prior to purchase of that unit as well.

I am at a loss to explain why some people claim to hear a difference with these snake oil products when it is so obvious listening that there is no difference. I am sure a real social scientist could explain it with validated social science.

As a proud audiophile we audiophiles really need to stop being embarrassed to just say "I can't hear It" for fear that someone else may claim to have superior hearing. Its a very strange human response for an audiophile to be predisposed to want to hear a difference when other audiophiles don't as proof of superiority. Audiophiles are not all the same and a social scientist would recognize this easily.

I want to encourage the scientific community here to lighten up a little on stereotyping self proclaimed audiophiles as having a set belief system. It is not as true as the ASR community makes it out to be. In my opinion amongst self proclaimed audiophiles this is only true for about half the population. ASR has made very significant inroads into changing this. ASR is often quoted as an authoritarian source on many audiophile web sights. The number has really been growing over the years so you are making real inroads. You can be proud to be an audiophile again. It is not a bad word. It is a beautiful word that clearly expresses my love for the hobby. Take the label back. You can and should be an audiophile and a scientist at the same time. A proud audiophile.
 
I am sure a real social scientist could explain it with validated social science.
In many cases, the explanation is straightforward. If you can hear it, you are obviously a member of the Golden Ear club. If you can't hear it, well...
 
That is correct. So the golden eared scientists who believe they hear a difference are really science deniers spreading misinformation just like those who believe exotic, expensive speaker cables create audio nirvana yet they get a pass here. I don't see any difference. The science of both seems well established and accepted from what i have learned here.


Golden eared scientists who believe sounds like an oxymoron.
 
In many cases, the explanation is straightforward. If you can hear it, you are obviously a member of the Golden Ear club. If you can't hear it, well...
Ok but that's not very scientific. I believe that is is well established in the social sciences that people have an innate desire to feel superior. In the field of audio it is expressed by claiming to hear differences in SQ that others cannot or by purchasing equipment others cannot afford. In other fields it is expressed in other ways. In the physical sciences it may expressed by trying to demonstrate superior knowledge in a subject area under discussion. Cheers.
 
I thought that the relevant science says that a person can not distinguish between hi res and red book?
Pretty much.


I can't. Mastering quality massively overwhelms any difference between formats as best i can tell. Is that the science?
Yep.

So why are you scientists not concluding that your belief in perceived differences are the result of bias?
Not everyone who posts here is aware of or understands what science says. Of those that are - many have been convinced by their perceptive biases that they can hear things they cannot - so disbelieve what the science tells them. In short not everyone posting here is a scientist or engineer. Probably the vast majority are not.


Am i wrong?
No

Do carefully controlled studies demonstrate an auditable difference between the formats or not?
What @fpitas said.
 
10 correct in a 10-trial test has a p=.001. Once in 1000 10-trial tests, by chance. That's how I understand it.

Row heds are # of trials per test, Column heads are # correct.

TRIALS012345678910
11.0000.500
21.0000.7500.250
31.0000.8750.5000.125
41.0000.9380.6880.3120.062
51.0000.9690.8120.5000.1880.031
61.0000.9840.8910.6560.3440.1090.016
71.0000.9920.9380.7730.5000.2270.0620.008
81.0000.9960.9650.8550.6370.3630.1450.0350.004
91.0000.9980.9800.9100.7460.5000.2540.0900.0200.002
101.0000.9990.9890.9450.8280.6230.3770.1720.0550.0110.001

Correct - but p-0.05 is often stated as an acceptable threshold to be fairly convincing. About 8 out of 10 in a 10 trial test.

But that will happen by blind chance - on average every twenty such tests.
 
LOL. OK.

But the argument is that CD rate inherently has 'artifacts' that allow the bestest listeners to hear a difference.

To them ,it's obvious!
I have no idea what your point is nor what you are implying.

Perhaps I should clarify what I was saying: some tracks are easier than others to identify if it is hi res or CD quality.
 
Speak with Amir, he can. And many others also can.
Did you read how he achieved that? It was necessary for him to turn up the volume excessively in the silence between tracks to raise the -96dB noise floor of CD to something which was audible. Had he left the volume that high when the music started playing he'd probably have put his ear drums at risk.

So - no - not even Amir can do that in real world listening - unless he has described some other method of detecting it he has achieved without playing with the noise floor.

As for "many others" Documented repeatable controlled level matched blind ABx tests from identical masters are needed before I'll take any such claims at face value.

While you look for somethign along those lines (I've not found any) have a read of:

 
Last edited:
Did you read how he achieved that? It was necessary for him to turn up the volume excessively in the silence between tracks to raise the -96dB noise floor of CD to something which was audible. Had he left the volume that high when the music started playing he'd probably have put his ear drums at risk.

So - no - not even Amir can do that in real world listening - unless he has described some other method of detecting it he has achieved without playing with the noise floor.

As for "many others" Documented repeatable controlled level matched blind ABx tests from identical masters are needed before I'll take any such claims at face value.

While you look for somethign along those lines (I've not found any) have a read of:

Where did I say anyone can tell the difference in a practical listening session?

The question is can one differentiate 16bit vs. 24 bit? Yes or no?

The answer is Yes.
 
Where did I say anyone can tell the difference in a practical listening session?

The question is can one differentiate 16bit vs. 24 bit? Yes or no?

The answer is Yes.
So in non-practical sessions it might have some truth to it....maybe....
 
Mostly agreed - above 48 kHz you're measuring the system, not the music. Format purity matters less than the master; good 44.1 beats bad hi-res every time.
 
So in non-practical sessions it might have some truth to it....maybe....
It's not maybe, it's an absolute yes.

But on the other hand, if someone gave me a track from MP3 to 24/192 with no reference and not AB, there is no way in hell or heaven would I be able to tell. But there are few technical people who knows what to look for and they can sweep the track second by second to find the right artifacts.

For all practical listening, it makes no difference whatsoever. However, I still take 24 bit. Why? Why not?
 
It's not maybe, it's an absolute yes.

But on the other hand, if someone gave me a track from MP3 to 24/192 with no reference and not AB, there is no way in hell or heaven would I be able to tell. But there are few technical people who knows what to look for and they can sweep the track second by second to find the right artifacts.

For all practical listening, it makes no difference whatsoever. However, I still take 24 bit. Why? Why not?
Your previous statement implied more IMHO. It's mostly a maybe for most practical purposes, tho, yes? Measurements are one thing, but....and less and less reasons these days not to get a good file as memory/playback options are pretty good these days. I'm more a practical listener, tho.
 
Your previous statement implied more IMHO. It's mostly a maybe for most practical purposes, tho, yes? Measurements are one thing, but....and less and less reasons these days not to get a good file as memory/playback options are pretty good these days. I'm more a practical listener, tho.
A very old video of Amir describing this very topic. Long, but worth watching.

 
Back
Top Bottom