Rabbit
Administrator
Posts: 7,087
|
Post by Rabbit on Feb 15, 2014 12:50:58 GMT
Try it ..... splashurl.com/pz4dmn3After that, if you can't, stop wasting your money!!!! If you can't get too far, maybe you can come up with the reasons why and still insist that you can hear the differences? Tyll even found 320 difficult to differentiate from better quality. But then again, maybe he can't hear properly? Quite interesting actually.
|
|
gommer
quite active
Posts: 140
|
Post by gommer on Feb 16, 2014 10:51:02 GMT
Hi Ian,
Is this for real, or more as a joke? Just asking with sincere interest. Fact is, I'm not claiming to be golden eared, but i passed basic level without hesitating and that was on a Logitech USB dongle (the kind you get with the headsets).
As for MP3, IMO it's not a black or white thing. My phone is filled with 320kbps MP3's and most of the music on it sounds just fine for casual listening. But there are some albums that seem to trigger the MP3 nasties big time. With those tracks, the artifacts are blatantly obvious.
Cheers, Marc
|
|
Rabbit
Administrator
Posts: 7,087
|
Post by Rabbit on Feb 16, 2014 11:32:57 GMT
I guess their point is that the differences described can be a bit exaggerated? I respect Golden Ears a great deal and I really like their work with testing headphone FR and then the app for Ipods that counteracts the nasties they've seen. Headphones (at least to me) mostly get improved.
You would think that people on hi fi forums should be able to pass the tests if they are writing about gear. I think it gets harder once you get to silver level. I think Tyll had problems getting to silver. He claims to have been tired, but then again, do we really listen to music so closely that it matters when we're tired?
I use a lot of WAV and MP3 and I have no real concern about any of them. Sure, downloaded mp3 doesn't sound great but not to the extent that it 'offends' my ears as some hi fi people claim. That to me is is a kind of snobbishness and is something I really don't like about hi fi people actually. (The statements I have read where people say it is 'offensive' or 'I couldn't possibly listen on those headphones'.
To me, those people aren't in the real world. Music is available to me in different qualities from masters down to downloaded mp3. Even to the extent of controlling the amount of compression that I want. (Dynamic range)I don't turn my nose up at CD's since they aren't masters .... so where does the quality thing stop?
They are just mediums that are useful for different putposes. MP3 is useful for low memory devices away from home.(we all know that) But, what do those people who can't 'abide' the dreadful sound of mp3 do then? Have no music I guess.
I don't believe in the term 'golden eared'. That to me is daft. It's just knowing what to listen out for and then once you identify it, you'll hear it. I guess that is what GE is trying to do. Point out to people what to listen for exactly, when testing something and how well it works.
Frans pointed something out to me big time a while ago. I loved the sound of the Bravo amps. Frans pointed out a little test for crosstalk which I did and the problem was highlighted in glorious technicolour. Once you 'learn' how it sounds, you're another step forward towards 'Golden Ears'!!
Normal listening really, is just relaxing and listening to music. Not analysing though and I think sometimes, we can all get a bit carried away by minutia.
|
|
solderdude
Administrator
measureutternutter
Posts: 4,881
|
Post by solderdude on Feb 16, 2014 13:57:33 GMT
The test is not from GE but from Philips. It is called 'golden ears' though, and sort-of like this test: harmanhowtolisten.blogspot.co.nzIt teaches you to listen out for certain artefacts in (digital) music, it is not a real test in that sense. I don't envy those that report to hear things that I can't. It makes my listening experience soooo much easier/better/enjoyable not having to worry about a crooked bit, used chip or materials, file types or the way it is stored/transferred. reading CA thread on this test is also a lot of fun.
|
|
Rabbit
Administrator
Posts: 7,087
|
Post by Rabbit on Feb 16, 2014 14:07:06 GMT
The test is not from GE but from Philips. I don't envy those that report to hear things that I can't. It makes my listening experience soooo much easier/better/enjoyable not having to worry about a crooked bit, used chip or materials, file types or the way it is stored/transferred. reading CA thread on this test is also a lot of fun. Whoops, sorry. I thought it was Golden Ears!! It's a bit of fun I guess. It sure helps the listening if you aren't worried about how many bits etc are going on. It's like looking at a painting and worrying about the quality of the paint. Or perhaps even watching it dry!!
|
|
Dave
very active
Posts: 480
|
Post by Dave on Feb 16, 2014 16:35:35 GMT
Here I am putting myself up for target practice again but I believe I can hear a difference - I am not saying the difference is one of 'night and day', in fact I'm at a loss to describe exactly what the improvement is that I believe I hear. I do have cloth ears, with hearing loss at both ends of the spectrum but more so at the top end, and my kit is mid-fi at best but .... My speakers are Mission 774s which are bi-wired and the wiring is not really special. In addition to this I have also got a pair of decent ebay ex-China super-tweeters wired up - the cross-overs are again decent and provided by a friend on AoS who put them together for me having exact details of what they were intended for. With my ear close up to the super-tweeters I cannot detect any output but I prefer the overall sound with them in place than without them. And whilst I am making a target of myself I would also add that I have a library of HiRes FLAC tracks (anything over 16/44.1) and I prefer listening to those rather than the Red Book rips, even when I have both tracks in different formats. Now I am not saying that I can pick out the HiRes tracks in a blind test, the difference is too subtle for that and I could not describe the difference if you twisted my arm, I just get a feeling that the music is more enjoyable. So, self delusion or is something I cannot consciously hear doing something between my ears?
|
|
Rabbit
Administrator
Posts: 7,087
|
Post by Rabbit on Feb 16, 2014 16:53:43 GMT
Can you get to silver Dave?
|
|
Dave
very active
Posts: 480
|
Post by Dave on Feb 16, 2014 18:03:29 GMT
Can you get to silver Dave? Not given it a try Ian but I will shortly. Not a good time ATM (headache etc., still get 'em but I think they are on their way out - I'd hate to think that 4 months of 'cold turkey' have been for nothing but they can still certainly make their presence felt ). Do I listen through cans and/or does it matter which PC I DL the program on? Cheers, Dave.
|
|
Rabbit
Administrator
Posts: 7,087
|
Post by Rabbit on Feb 16, 2014 18:33:09 GMT
I don't suppose it would matter that much Dave.
Sorry to hear that. If you have the k550 back, try it. It's surprisingly revealing!!
|
|
Dave
very active
Posts: 480
|
Post by Dave on Feb 16, 2014 21:43:38 GMT
Just tried the test on basic level through speakers and didn't get very far, sad to say. Some aspects were very easy for me, (first test), like bass/brightness difference levels, but others I found to be very difficult, like the dB level at around the 6dB point. I have to accept that I do have cloth ears, and not very good ones at that , and maybe I am deluded in my HiRes perceptions, so I'm going to take up knitting and forget about hi-fi or even mid-fi. Good news is that it will create a lot of space in our listening area and where I store my CDs and LPs - make the boss lady happy at least . Dave.
|
|
Rabbit
Administrator
Posts: 7,087
|
Post by Rabbit on Feb 16, 2014 22:15:31 GMT
Thanks Dave. I know that you're honest and that's my point about these people that go on and on about resolution and ...... Hi Rez!!!!
Do they 'really' hear what they claim or is it because they know what they are listening to which shapes their opinion? That was my point at the start.
You are doing well if you get to 'silver' and still being honest.
That's why I don't like hi fi snobs. My feeling is that they hear much less than they think. (Me included) knowing what to listen for is an advantage but it doesn't mean you have 'Golden Ears'. You've just learned the skill of identifying anomalies. That's all.
This kind of thing brings out the more objective feelings in me since I am becoming more and more convinced that we are so easily fooled; even by ourselves!
I guess once you're honest with yourself, you're on the road to better listening rather than what you 'think' is better listening. It's a kind of reality check, which is exactly what I found too. You're not alone Dave.
|
|
|
Post by clausdk on Feb 17, 2014 0:32:03 GMT
I don´t care if there is a difference I got 72 GB of space, I just use FLAC.. No need to have 10.000 MP3s on my player..
Why use compressed files at all ?? memory has gotten so cheap it is a thing of the past..
No matter if I can or can´t hear a difference why start up with taking away ½ the information, I am very sure it will not get better..
|
|
Rabbit
Administrator
Posts: 7,087
|
Post by Rabbit on Feb 17, 2014 5:43:22 GMT
That's right Claus. Memory is cheap so it's no longer an issue. Only if you're using a 16 gb Ipod as so many do. The Nanos are very popular,
What I'm really talking about are those who claim to be 'unable' to bear the sound of say, mp3 because it's so awful. Perhaps they hear less than they think?
What do you use portable now? I have a few Classics with 160 each on them.
|
|
solderdude
Administrator
measureutternutter
Posts: 4,881
|
Post by solderdude on Feb 17, 2014 8:27:45 GMT
There is another 'hidden' aspect here. Lets assume we use a hires recording 24/192 and transcode that to 44/16. Of course the transcoded version differs but the DR and overall FR / SQ in the audible range remain, above the audible FR range and below the audible part (< -90dB) things differ though. When we use 'high-end' NOS DACs for instance (those without a real reconstruction filter) or DAC's with selectable filters and set them to 'slow' a totally different situation exists. The 44 type (doesn't matter if it is 24/44 or 16/44) will have a roll-off starting at 10kHz where 20kHz is -3dB (or even more !) while on the 192 file there is no roll-off. Most 'older' people do not hear past 16kHz but 16kHz is already down 2dB at those frequencies on 44. YES that is very audible EVEN in a blind test when switched directly (have tried). In this case (which isn't that hypothetical because a lot of hifibuffs swear by NOS or 'gentle' filtering there is a clear difference in these files even when tested blind. The 192 will sound more detailed/airy and the 44 will sound more 'solid'. It is very easy to blame the format/sample rate in this case but in reality it is the DAC that is causing this. When a DAC is used that is 'flat' to 20kHz on 44 I am willing to bet there will be no statistical relevant differences found when tested blind. Also one has to realise (same as with BRA) that even though the same 'recording' is used for re-issues on higher bitrates the mastering and the bag of tricks that is used to 'enhance' the sound for these remasters is what generally makes the difference. Simply check out the DR website to see how the remasters are 'tweaked'. Consider the fact that listening to the same recording that has been run through audio compressors and other 'enhancements' may sound better to most. For this reason if you REALLY want to explore the differences between formats sample rates: A: use proper 24/192 files ( not those that are simply 44/16 copies on higher sample rates) and convert these to another sample-rate/bit depth so you have effectively use the same 'master'. Use a PROPER format converter to convert from the 24/192 file, there are quite audible differences between the various different algorithms/transcoders out there. B: Use a DAC that has a flat FR in the audible range (so no 'high-end' DAC's with soft digital filters or NOS types) C: Test blind (no DBT or such needed) just ask someone else to randomly start any of the 2 files (at your command) and go for statistical relevance (so at least 10 times). It is important the tester and the one that operates the equipment keep notes independently and it is not possible to see or guess (facial expressions) what is playing. I hope to ever meet someone that can pull this neat trick off (and repeat the test in front of me) Of course... if you have enough free space on your DAP and feel better when you know the songs on there are lossless there is no point in using MP3. For people like me, who don't really care, about the last (possibly audible) difference I don't care. The reason I don't care is because I did the test described above and drew my own conclusions even when comparing 24/192 to 320CBR MP3 encoded in HQ mode. Of course there will be people that have FAR better hearing abilities than me.
|
|
Rabbit
Administrator
Posts: 7,087
|
Post by Rabbit on Feb 17, 2014 9:36:49 GMT
The mp3 thing will probably roll on and on Frans and imo is a leftover from the early days of mp3.
I've never forgotten the look on a dealer's face when I went in and asked for one of these new MP3 players when they started to appear as low memory storage devices for music. Of course, then it was imperative to store everything at a very low bitrate and so 120 became the equivalent of 'quality' on mp3 format. Many even using quite a bit less; especially for speech.
So that reputation kind of stuck and is still there to this day even with 320.
The reason I brought it up was that I was comparing rips/wavs/cd's of the same stuff made from the same master plus a high res version (which was also from the same master) I have to say that it was difficult to say the least.
In fact, I started to use headphones that I really wouldn't use to listen to music ordinarily in order to try and hear artifacts or whatever. I sat with the blistering treble of the V6 to try and hear 'warbling' or any other artifact, but it was really quite hard. Of course this really needs to be done by someone with no agenda or ego to squash.
It is almost a taboo subject in that if you can't really detect those differences then you can't be an audiophile etc. The fact is that I found it extremely difficult to differentiate in a real (private) test where I had no one to please or anyone waiting to take the mick!! (ie - no pressure)
Then that Philips site where there are tests pointing out certain things which focus your listening on certain aspects of the sound and even then, it's difficult to get to 'silver' level.
So how much do we really hear in reality? My guess is quite a bit less than we let on. I also think perhaps some people hear things on mp3 and call it 'compression' when in fact it actually isn't at all.
In any case, whether we like it not, my guess is the future won't really be massive files other than for hobbyists unless the big dap players really fall in price massively. What amazes me is how many kids I see going around with Dre copies on their heads. They're perfectly happy with the sound and when I've had a listen, they are truly awful. Exactly like the copy that I bought is. Awful. These 'kids' are older 18-21 year olds and not exactly ignorant in music either. However they can quite easily accept these headphones.
They rarely buy CD's as well. Some don't have a CD player and listen to CD's if they get one on a computer or DVD player.
Whether we like it or not, the way that people listen to music is drastically changing and we are the ones that get behind really. I also wonder whether we have a tendency to get carried away with these comparisons where in fact, what we are describing is minutia.
I also feel now, that I am more of a muso than a hi fi-oh..........
It doesn't really bother me that much what the music is on in all honesty, unless it is bog standard nasty, which mp3 really isn't as a portable format. I'd say better than cassette tape in many ways which is laughable when you look at the cost and lengths that people went to get the most from those nasty little tapes that got tangled in the mechanism and hissed like a snake or had a dreadful noise reducing (and sound) dolby system to really mess it up; especially if the heads weren't aligned properly or clean!!!
In fact, when cassettes came out, I stuck with a Sony reel to reel moving at fast speed. I preferred its mechanical noises to the sound of cassette tapes and I used no dolby whatsoever. I did put it into a cupboard though and drilled a hole for the leads and then filled them in so that no mechancal noise travelled though to the room. (or very little)
I never really understood how the hi fi guys seemed to accept the sound of a cassette tape!! (and yet, many can't 'stomach' mp3) Perhaps it's the magic word ...... analogue?
|
|