Now That Atmos Is Everywhere… Real vs. Phantom Center in a 5.1 Music-Focused Setup

[sfogg]

Archimago is a nice guy. Feel free to contact him directly via his webpage and clarify, instead of assuming.

I read his procedure, you made the assumption.

 

[Newman]

Actually, what is it now? Transparent? Not transparent?

Transparent for practical purposes. Not guaranteed transparent in every imaginable test. Like I already said.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority . Read it thoroughly, and be honest to yourself.

Already familiar, thanks. Not sure if you are. If you have a point, demonstrate it. You're the one who said that Archimago's article proved that high res audio is audibly distinctive from 16 bit audio. Being honest, I can't see where I made an argument from authority...

 

[Fidji]

Wow, 'proved', hey? Your biases are easily confirmed! And the way you frame it as "the difference was clearly audible", is highly misleading. What I think you meant to say, is "there appear to be a few outlier people who can tell them apart, but most of us cannot."


And also, we have to allow for the odd person with special hearing abilities. It's not impossible. Mutation is a thing, right? Right?? (Those who deny evolution are excused from answering! )

Basic logic - if there is one person able to distinguish A from B it means A from B can be distinguished. No bias here.
I can fully agree that, when YOUR hearing abilities are average or below average, it makes no sense for you to invest time and money into gear/music format beyond what you can utilize. Still no reason do be dismissive towards people, that are better in hearing than you, when they try to get maximum satisfaction suited to THEIR hearing abilities.

E.g. I was shopping for new projector recently, had native 4K projector before and was hell bent that nothing else will do. Had Epson pixel shifter for a weekend, and compared it to SIM2 and realized that I am fooling myself, and I could not really distinguish in terms of resolution [there were differences elsewhere, but not enough to pay 3x the price]. I am now not running around and explaining to everybody with native 4K projectors that they are idiots for buying 4K native, just because I can not distinguish it.

As most of the knowledge and abilities, there is way to train your hearing, of course with limitations and level of improvement will vary. I like this one https://beatoeartraining.com/#table-of-contents . Give it a try, you might find some hidden abilities, once you start to listen in structured way. Use good headphones.
No idea, whether you have any formal music education [theory] or if you ever played any instrument actively at least on hobby level, this also helps a lot, in most of the cases, and is never too late to start.

another good site for those, with curious minds - https://www.audiocheck.net/blindtests_index.php

Transparent for practical purposes. Not guaranteed transparent in every imaginable test. Like I already said.


Already familiar, thanks. Not sure if you are. If you have a point, demonstrate it. You're the one who said that Archimago's article proved that high res audio is audibly distinctive from 16 bit audio. Being honest, I can't see where I made an argument from authority...

Not what you said here, using argument from authority. “industry and academia”, You said TRANSPARENT and INAUDIBLE. You did not state TRANSPARENT FOR PRACTICAL PURPOSES.

The best way to keep one's hat on is to remember that lossy compression is effectively inaudible above a certain bitrate. Atmos audio at 768 kbps is considered transparent within the industry and academia.

I read his procedure, you made the assumption.

Again, instead of running in circle, reach to Archimago. Takes the same time as to post here.

 

[Newman]

See that word of mine, effectively?

 

[Newman]

E.g. I was shopping for new projector recently, had native 4K projector before and was hell bent that nothing else will do. Had Epson pixel shifter for a weekend, and compared it to SIM2 and realized that I am fooling myself, and I could not really distinguish in terms of resolution [there were differences elsewhere, but not enough to pay 3x the price]. I am now not running around and explaining to everybody with native 4K projectors that they are idiots for buying 4K native, just because I can not distinguish it.

...and neither am I.

 

[Fidji]

See that word of mine, effectively?

No disagreement here, above certain rate, for sure, not only effectively but probably absolutely. One could argue that as long as you do not have original ADM file, even TrueHD is not “100% lossless”.

I do not see any ambiguity or qualifiers in this statement. 768kbps = Transparent.
Of course I assume, as you were stating “academia” that you are easily able to point everybody to peer reviewed studies on this topic. Always happy to learn new stuff.
Please stay focused - peer reviewed studies. Nothing more and nothing less.

Atmos audio at 768 kbps is considered transparent within the industry and academia.

EDIT: if you are not able to find a study with academic qualities confirming 768kbps Atmos Music transparency vs lossless format, there is an easy and honorable way forward. Simple sentence: “I have pulled “academia” part of my statement out of my b*tt, without any substance or support.”

 

[Newman]

I just pulled it out of my 'memory butt'. Not sure where or when it got in there.

And, since the real issue to which I was responding is the complaints of using lossy codecs for Atmos streaming, perhaps those complainants can post some valid (academic or other) evidence of the audible problem. Then we are dealing with the initial claim, and its veracity.

As a footnote and baseline, modern codecs seem to have an audible quality loss once they get below 64 kbps per channel. An example. IMO if we can't tell that the quality is less, we shouldn't care that much about it.

cheers

 

[ace_xp2]

Basic logic - if there is one person able to distinguish A from B it means A from B can be distinguished. No bias here.

Then show that Fidji. Archimago states this about the test:

RESULTS: Internet Blind Test of 24-Bit vs. Dithered 16-Bit Part Deux - Daft Punk Edition

A blog for audiophiles about more objective topics. Measurements of audio gear. Reasonable, realistic, no snakeoil assessment of sound, and equipment.

archimago.blogspot.com

We already know that about 1/3 reported no audible preference above so it's no surprise that on a 0-10 scale where 0 is "no difference" and 10 is "obvious difference", it would be skewed towards 0

Yet your claim of this data is this:

In this AB testing, four people scored 10/10, so the difference was clearly audible.

Which in the statements Archimago has made and I've quoted, is clearly not the case. This was impressively easy to find. They did not score at all, they made statements about how how wide apart they thought the difference was. There was, again, no scoring of any kind, as Archimago himself again shows here:

Internet Blind Test: 24-Bit vs. Dithered 16-Bit Part Deux - Daft Punk Edition! And the honest desire to seek truth as audiophiles.

A blog for audiophiles about more objective topics. Measurements of audio gear. Reasonable, realistic, no snakeoil assessment of sound, and equipment.

archimago.blogspot.com

Not only will I ask which sample sounded "better" (knowing that one of the samples is the hi-res 24-bit source), it's also important to indicate "no difference" if that's what you perceived and have that perception counted.

I'll also ask how much difference you heard - so if you're very confident, rate this as 10/10 ("obvious audible difference"). Optionally, you can also tell me what seemed to have changed if a difference was audible - noise floor, bass quality/amount, soundstage change, perceived resolution, etc...

This is not an assessment, a score. It is instead a rating. You know, like the words he used say? No one scored a 10/10, they only said that was their confidence in the difference.

Furthermore you've mentioned that:

good guide for starting your journey in ABX testing and understanding what was going in that specific test. I trust you are now able to connect the dots properly, as I think you were missing this part of information.

Bolded mine, which is funny, as Archimago himself confirms that it is not an abx test here, third comment chain:

Internet Blind Test: 24-Bit vs. Dithered 16-Bit Part Deux - Daft Punk Edition! And the honest desire to seek truth as audiophiles.

A blog for audiophiles about more objective topics. Measurements of audio gear. Reasonable, realistic, no snakeoil assessment of sound, and equipment.

archimago.blogspot.com

Hi Milan,
As you can imagine, as a blind test distributed over the Internet, I would not be able to properly keep it blind unless the music were wrapped in some kind of player software; which would mean certain computer testing only, and we can't sent the audio to playback devices. If I gave a Sample C which is known to be 24-bits to compare, then some could even inadvertently notice that 2 files are of the exact same size, thereby there's your answer...

I think choosing which one "sounds better" is fine because much of the time these days we're just streaming whatever version is on the service or whatever version we bought as a hi-res download without assurance that a 16-bit CD version was derived from that exact mastering.

Which is his response to this query:

Ah yes, that's the problem. How you define 'better'
Some would say that it depends on your subjective view.
But some would say that better is the one which is closer to the truth - in this case to the original 24bit file
But how can you know what was original when you don't have a reference point.
as I said better can be tricky word.
ps. maybe next time we should be doing something like three files. File A - 16bits File B - 24bits (original) and File C - original 24bits file marked clearly. Then we can try which file from A/B is original one and if people can hear that.
Anyway as always thanks for the work you are doing.

He also provided the two files like this:

1. Download this file (there's a download icon top right of the page to grab the ZIP):

Daft Punk's Giorgio - 24-to-16-bits Dither Test.zip

Inside you will find 2 samples of "Giorgio by Moroder" from Random Access Memories (Sample A and B). It's a good track I think because of the diversity you'll find over the 2.5-minute segment I selected. There's the sound of the natural spoken voice, some subtle background audio (sort of like the incidental noises on Jazz At The Pawnshop), and in the latter half of the sample, you'll hear heavier beats with good bass.

I think the 2.5 minute sample should be enough to hear significant or even subtle differences. To keep download size small, I downsampled the original 24/88.2 official hi-res download to 24/44.1kHz using an excellent resampler. This was done before dithering the file to 16/44.1 to create the 16-bit sample. Regardless of whether you believe 88.2kHz sounds much different from 44.1kHz, any audible differences between the 2 samples would still be a result of the bit-depth reduction and dithering.

To maintain the blinded condition, both samples are presented as 24-bit FLAC (even though one of them contains 16-bit dithered content) to feed your DAC in case that's a source of sonic difference. As usual with my Internet Blind Tests, various "honesty control" mechanisms were implemented to reduce the chance of bias as much as I could without compromising the 24-bit quality compared to dithered 16-bit resolution. All details will be revealed after the data has been collected. It's a listening test so please try to refrain from running the samples thru analyzers and audio editors.

Which further proves that there was no abx going on, you could only use one if you felt like it. It furthermore confirms that you could run the files through anything you wanted, you were just pinky swearing that you didn't. This is the definition of trash data. May as well be an internet poll for all the utility those have...

Have any other useless data people can ascribe value to? Perhaps we can finally collect enough anecdotes to really get somewhere.

 

[Fidji]

Then show that Fidji. Archimago states this about the test:

Please ask Archimago directly, whether he has received any foobar ABX 10/10 results, This will hopefully end the circle of assumptions and interpretations.

 

[sfogg]

Again, instead of running in circle, reach to Archimago. Takes the same time as to post here.

There is literally no need. He explained his procedure quite clearly on his webpage. I took the time to read the procedure and to understand where his reported numbers came from.

I didn't make the assumption that 10/10 meant 10 trials out of 10 on an A/B/X test. There was no A/B/X test built into his procedure. All numbers were self reported on how 'confident' someone was to hearing a difference.

Nothing more.

One could also read his earlier version of this test where he actually asked if respondents used ABX testing software. About 20% in that case. There was no further analysis on the results of those A/B/X trials posted.

It is really simple, if someone is reporting 'preferences' on a 'test' they likely didn't go an A/B/X test. A/B/X isn't about preference. It is difference test. Can one hear a difference between A and B and reliably prove it by identifying X on multiple trials.

It literally doesn't matter which DUT is "preferred", that isn't the question being asked in A/B/X.

The question is simply, is there an audible difference such that the identify of X can be reliably identified.

 

[Andysu]

and yet, there are people, that have proven ability to discern 16 bit vs Hi-Res.

RESULTS: Internet Blind Test of 24-Bit vs. Dithered 16-Bit Part Deux - Daft Punk Edition

A blog for audiophiles about more objective topics. Measurements of audio gear. Reasonable, realistic, no snakeoil assessment of sound, and equipment.

archimago.blogspot.com

BTW, you need to do it with proper neutral headphones and it is just “look how I can juggle 3 balls, while standing on 1 foot” type of useless ability, no way to make money from it. 100% proper mastering trumps any resolution difference and here most of the best digital variants/masterings are 16bit CD mixes before Loudness War. Beats “Remastered HiRes” every time on SQ

And re DD+ vs TrueHD - here it gets even more contentious, but it needs to be said - you need to have a proper gear. Period. Luckily we have industry standard in form of CEDIA RP22 https://cedia.org/site/assets/files/6057/cedia-cta_rp22_v1_2_sept_2023.pdf#page89

You need to be on Performance Level 3 Minimum, ideally with as much as possible parameters making it to Level 4. With 5.1.2 in living room you do not need to even bother and you can enjoy thousands of songs available on Apple Music as you are more than good with DD+ and 768kbps. So yes, for most of the people it will be the same and for lot of the source material it will be irrelevant as it does not make use of full TrueHD bandwith.

With right setup and once you get to something like this in terms of source material - extensive use of objects, dense mix, lot of layers of sound, then the limits of lossy compressed DD+ are clearly audible, as it truncates objects. You can even observe difference on such crude metrics as Dynamic Range between DD+ and TrueHD version. 2 attached pictures are same track, one DD+ on Apple Music and the other one TrueHD from BR Audio.

I do not like subjective descriptors, but the term I would use as differentiator is “resolution” - ability to clearly pick up more instruments in parallel. It also usually results in more dynamic presentation, subjectively. And before somebody asks - yes I have tried blind testing. with 10/10 result.View attachment 476823View attachment 476824

i wouldn't guessed i was looking at " gravity " 2013 Dolby Atmos levels with billiard balls moving around and sussed out how it works
got use the full atmos trinnov outputs with that 7 seven screen channels wow

little button increase audio levels , i can see where some foley sounds in one of Lc Lsc when grabbing a bolt-screw and feel the oomph/bump/bass ( that is within the space suit with air pressure )

 

[Sal1950]

Transparent for practical purposes. Not guaranteed transparent in every imaginable test. Like I already said.

As streamers was asked for and got with CD (16/44 or better), I don't think the BluRay equivalent of Dolby TrueHD streamed data is too much to ask for.
Like the Redbook 16/44 originally decided on to be transparent, so was the TrueHD for BD. I'll make no claims for myself, I'm 75, but there are plenty who claim hearing the difference between BluRay and Steamed Atmos is fairly obvious, maybe BS ?

"My hearing is extremely superior to anything humans can imagine", and "My lineup is extremely beyond anything that people can even imagine", and "The differences are huge. It's like comparing a VW versus a Ferrari."

Hey, I think know that guy. Didn't he used to write for TAS, then went to Stereophile, and has now moved back to TAS ?

 

[RDoc]

<snip>
For me, lossy DD+ versus TrueHD isn’t even a close call — the difference is obvious, not subtle. It’s the same as comparing Netflix “4K” to a proper UHD/Kaleidescape: both might be labeled 4K, but it is different 4K.. That’s why, while I don’t see any reason to pay extra for hi-res stereo, it still makes perfect sense to pay a premium for lossless Atmos or multichannel audio. The jump in quality is real and easy to hear.
<snip

I've been unable to find any believable tests of this. Can you refer me to any ABX or other blinded tests that show this difference?

It's been shown repeatedly and conclusively that sighted tests are not valid.

 

[kyuu]

I've been unable to find any believable tests of this. Can you refer me to any ABX or other blinded tests that show this difference?

It's been shown repeatedly and conclusively that sighted tests are not valid.

I think in this case he is hearing something, but it has nothing to do with lossless vs lossy or bit rates. We are likely dealing with different masterings or some other difference in this soundtrack. I've definitely noticed that movies I have on Blu-ray often sound better than the same movie from a streaming service.

My assumption has generally been that some kind of compression is being applied, but I haven't seen any actual evidence.

 

[Chromatischism]

I think in this case he is hearing something, but it has nothing to do with lossless vs lossy or bit rates. We are likely dealing with different masterings or some other difference in this soundtrack. I've definitely noticed that movies I have on Blu-ray often sound better than the same movie from a streaming service.

My assumption has generally been that some kind of compression is being applied, but I haven't seen any actual evidence.

There was a discussion here a couple of years ago with a couple of guys from the industry. They described a "home" mix that they made that was distinct from the theatrical release. It would not surprise me if there were also a streaming mix that could potentially be different for each platform because they all have different requirements.

 

[sfogg]

I think in this case he is hearing something, but it has nothing to do with lossless vs lossy or bit rates. We are likely dealing with different masterings or some other difference in this soundtrack. I've definitely noticed that movies I have on Blu-ray often sound better than the same movie from a streaming service.

My assumption has generally been that some kind of compression is being applied, but I haven't seen any actual evidence.

Same thing was thought ages ago with the DD soundtrack on Laserdisc vs the same thing on DVD. The LD mixes seemed to have wider dynamics and just be more demanding overall.

 

[Sal1950]

I agree that lossy audio at 'sufficient' bitrates (ie the high range of normal: 320 kbps for stereo, 768 kbps for Atmos) is still not a guarantee that it would be completely indistinguishable from lossless in every way. But the way lossy artefacts manifest, if the bitrate is 'sufficient', is in the odd moment in a recording, not in the overall sound of the music itself. Yes, I am happy to say as a perfectionist, we don't want that 'odd moment'. But honestly, enjoying it less is unnecessary if the only perceivable differences are in the odd moment.

And, since the real issue to which I was responding is the complaints of using lossy codecs for Atmos streaming, perhaps those complainants can post some valid (academic or other) evidence of the audible problem.

But here we all agree that sighted bias is a very real thing, once you know, you know. No one is above the influence of the bias.
So having known degradation of the supplied source can absolutely make for a less enjoyable experience for the learned listener.

I've very surprised anyone here would support the use of lossy compression when its mainly unnecessary.
I oft remember folks debating the audibility of compression rates by 2ch streamers but no one saying "OH, but that's OK, just carry on".
We of the "audiophile cult" complained and complained till change was mostly effected 3-4 years ago.
Why wouldn't we do the same for multichannel?

 

[kyuu]

Why wouldn't we do the same for multichannel?

I can only speak for myself, but I would prefer some evidence that there's an audible difference between lossy and lossless before making demands that streaming services spend additional bandwidth (which is not an infinite resource).

 

[Sal1950]

I can only speak for myself, but I would prefer some evidence that there's an audible difference between lossy and lossless before making demands that streaming services spend additional bandwidth (which is not an infinite resource).

Why, did you do the same for 2ch or is it only that you have no interest in multich?

 

[Newman]

But here we all agree that sighted bias is a very real thing, once you know, you know. No one is above the influence of the bias.
So having known degradation of the supplied source can absolutely make for a less enjoyable experience for the learned listener.

True dat, and we each have do decide what unnecessary specs, above audible transparency, we as individuals are going to insist on or else we just can't be happy.

Some audiophiles still demand high-res audio specs, starting with 24/96 or even demanding 24/192 or better, 32/384++. They are learned enough to know that the higher spec is 'perfecter', but can't convince themselves that not every higher spec is audibly better.

I've very surprised anyone here would support the use of lossy compression when its mainly unnecessary.
I oft remember folks debating the audibility of compression rates by 2ch streamers but no one saying "OH, but that's OK, just carry on".
We of the "audiophile cult" complained and complained till change was mostly effected 3-4 years ago.
Why wouldn't we do the same for multichannel?

It probably will, Sal, it probably will. But it might not be the same price. And then the point of it comes into question, are you just lining the pockets of the middlemen for no perceptual reward?

We already have pricing tiers for streaming platforms. Base tier might be HD video with stereo or 5.1 audio, then pay 25% more for 4K video with lossy Atmos audio, and maybe next in line will be another 25% for 8K video with lossless Atmos audio.

I note that AC4 lossy codecs are now out, that halve the bitrate for the same quality. So, without changing to lossless or increasing their Atmos bitrate above 768 kbps, Apple could deliver audio quality comparable to 1500+ kbps AC3/DD+ audio. The 'odd moments' of perceptual differences would be very rare indeed.

cheers