A high quality CD Player

[mattgbell]

One such case (not sure if real or just urban legend) was a dual input sequence (one, a video feed of a face focusing on the mouth; the other, an audio feed of what was - supposedly - being said). The sequence starts with audio feed - synchronised to the video feed - with the word "BUCK" repeated a few times while video feed shows the correct mouth movements for "BUCK". Then the sequence switched to a combination where the audio feed remained "BUCK" but the video feed changed to where mouth movements showed the word beginning with an "F". The listeners were all outraged when their brain interpreted the audio feed of "BUCK" as something a wee bit different...

It's almost as if the brain seeks confirmation from multiple sensory inputs and, when one of these inputs is blocked, the perception process gets knocked out of kilter.

This is the McGurk Effect. It relates to the way specific languages work (i.e. it applies to English and Swedish but not to the Chinese languages). It also has nothing to do with hi-fi.

Finally, there is a tendency when carrying out comparative listening tests to move away from the holistic overall appreciation of the music to a focussed evaluation of specific areas of reproduction (as opposed to the music).

Experimental evidence shows that tests that focus on very specific auditory effects are much more likely to be positive than more general ones. If you want to succeed in an ABX test of 16/44.1 vs say Ogg Vorbis 320kbps, you'll have a better chance of success if you focus on particular details.

 

[F1eng]

Not really. Some people I know can't even tell the difference between (very different) speakers in a blind test in a statistically significant manner. How can you conclude from that that the differences are too small to be of any consequence to anybody?

Well that is absolutely the point. If somebody can't tell the difference between two things blind it doesn't matter which they enjoy music on.
The cheaper or better looking or easiest to site would then be the best choice for them.

 

[Hipper]

Experimental evidence shows that tests that focus on very specific auditory effects are much more likely to be positive than more general ones. If you want to succeed in an ABX test of 16/44.1 vs say Ogg Vorbis 320kbps, you'll have a better chance of success if you focus on particular details.

That's what I tried to do when checking out anti vibration feet and platforms.

I, with some logic I thought, was listening for improved percussion on specific parts of tracks. Indeed I heard this sometimes but the improvements were small, hardly worth the money really, and after a while I got fed up. I therefore just relaxed and started listening to the music. It was louder then usual (I know exactly how loud I play each CD) and there were other odd things: piano and rhythm guitar for example were more prominent. Overall the music was more interesting and hence enjoyable.

It turned out that these were exactly the improvements that the manufacturers claimed and came under the heading of 'less smeared transients'. I knew what these were but never really knew what to listen for. Now I do! I kept the anti vibration products.

 

[davidsrsb]

For the experts, could you please explain what an external clock does better then the internal clock already in my boxes?

Nothing much unless your internal clock is very poor.
If you can hear the difference of 10ppm vs 50ppm frequency accuracy, you have a new career as a world champion piano tuner

 

[music fiend]

About external Master Clocks:

If you think they can't possibly improve Sound Quality, you should make a complaint with the ASA against Esoteric (who clearly state that their external Master Clocks improve SQ).

But good luck with that because you'll have a hard time trying to prove it. Simply because these external Master Clocks do improve Sound Quality.

If you don't believe this do yourselves a favour and go and listen... blind or with your eyes wide open.

 

[hammeredklavier]

Experimental evidence shows that tests that focus on very specific auditory effects are much more likely to be positive than more general ones. If you want to succeed in an ABX test of 16/44.1 vs say Ogg Vorbis 320kbps, you'll have a better chance of success if you focus on particular details.

And it helps if you know what types of artefact to listen out for too. Although I still wouldn't fancy my chances ABXing Ogg Vorbis at 320 kbps vs original. These modern lossy codecs are bloody amazing, last time I tried ABXing LAME MP3 at ~ 190kbs in VR mode I really struggled.

As for ABXing CD players or DACs of fairly recent vintage in a rigorous level matched unsighted test... hmmm. I have heard of very rare cases where someone has managed it but it's difficult bordering on impossible. Most pairs of sources will null down to at least -80 dB... if you reckon you can hear what's doing on at 80 dB below full scale in a real world music programme then, well, wow. But even if you can hear it the differences will be very small and of no actual musical significance.

 

[music fiend]

Well that is absolutely the point. If somebody can't tell the difference between two things blind it doesn't matter which they enjoy music on.
The cheaper or better looking or easiest to site would then be the best choice for them.

So you'd tell them to buy the speaker that they know isn't the one with the best SQ and that they can afford simply because they couldn't prove that in a statistically significant manner in a blind test...
How crazy is that?

 

[music fiend]

And it helps if you know what types of artefact to listen out for too. Although I still wouldn't fancy my chances ABXing Ogg Vorbis at 320 kbps vs original. These modern lossy codecs are bloody amazing, last time I tried ABXing LAME MP3 at ~ 190kbs in VR mode I really struggled.

As for ABXing CD players or DACs of fairly recent vintage in a rigorous level matched unsighted test... hmmm. I have heard of very rare cases where someone has managed it but it's difficult bordering on impossible. Most pairs of sources will null down to at least -80 dB... if you reckon you can hear what's doing on at 80 dB below full scale in a real world music programme then, well, wow. But even if you can hear it the differences will be very small and of no actual musical significance.

Well I did just that in a blind level matched test of an Audiolab 8200CD vs an Auralic Vega. Perhaps it helped that I knew the Audiolab very well because I owned one at the time.

PS I must say I don't know if the test was rigourous enough to satisfy the high standards of the usual objectivist sceptics

 

[hammeredklavier]

Well I did just that in a blind level matched test of an Audiolab 8200CD vs an Auralic Vega. Perhaps it helped that I knew the Audiolab very well because I owned one at the time.

PS I must say I don't know if the test was rigourous enough to satisfy the high standards of the usual objectivist sceptics

I have heard of cases where people have successfully ABXed DACs, but it's exceedingly rare. Normally they're indistinguishable, but I suppose you might find some weird sample that might cause one DAC to take umbrage, I don't know. I certainly wouldn't fancy my chances with any music I'm likely to want to listen to.

Modern DAC performance is amazing, even cheap ones. There was a test on Hydrogen Audio (or similar place) a few years ago where someone took a track and looped it 20 times through a DAC/ADC, using a cheapo consumer grade sound card, and it was bloody difficult/impossible to hear any difference even then.

 

[mattgbell]

And it helps if you know what types of artefact to listen out for too. Although I still wouldn't fancy my chances ABXing Ogg Vorbis at 320 kbps vs original. These modern lossy codecs are bloody amazing, last time I tried ABXing LAME MP3 at ~ 190kbs in VR mode I really struggled.

As for ABXing CD players or DACs of fairly recent vintage in a rigorous level matched unsighted test... hmmm. I have heard of very rare cases where someone has managed it but it's difficult bordering on impossible. Most pairs of sources will null down to at least -80 dB... if you reckon you can hear what's doing on at 80 dB below full scale in a real world music programme then, well, wow. But even if you can hear it the differences will be very small and of no actual musical significance.

I agree entirely.

 

[music fiend]

I have heard of cases where people have successfully ABXed DACs, but it's exceedingly rare. Normally they're indistinguishable, but I suppose you might find some weird sample that might cause one DAC to take umbrage, I don't know. I certainly wouldn't fancy my chances with any music I'm likely to want to listen to.

Modern DAC performance is amazing, even cheap ones. There was a test on Hydrogen Audio (or similar place) a few years ago where someone took a track and looped it 20 times through a DAC/ADC, using a cheapo consumer grade sound card, and it was bloody difficult/impossible to hear any difference even then.

No, no... I think the Audiolab 8200CD is great at its price level. But there are better DACs out there and the Vega is one of them.

About the DAC/ADC loop if you're referring to the one done by Ethan Winer that was a big joke... Most people could easily spot the differences in a blind test.

On a more general note IMO there are truly big big differences in terms of SQ between DACs. If these justify the sometimes big differences in prices or not... now that's a different matter.

 

[hammeredklavier]

No, no... I think the Audiolab 8200CD is great at its price level. But there are better DACs out there and the Vega is one of them.

About the DAC/ADC loop if you're referring to the one done by Ethan Winer that was a big joke... Most people could easily spot the differences in a blind test.

On a more general note IMO there are truly big big differences in terms of SQ between DACs. If these justify the sometimes big differences in prices or not... now that's a different matter.

I would hope you could after 20 times through a cheap sound card, but the difference between the original and the encoded/decoded file wasn't large. Not sure if it was Ethan Weiner, although it certainly sounds like something he'd do!

There won't be any very big differences between any two DACs these days, unless they're designed to alter the signal. The very lowliest DAC will have a frequency response flat to within half a decibel within the audible spectrum and THD of 0.1% at worst. You might find audible differences in some cases, but it won't be anything to write home about unless one of your DACs has got a major problem. Put it this way: if you hi-fi sounds rubbish, it won't be because of your CD player.

 

[music fiend]

I would hope you could after 20 times through a cheap sound card, but the difference between the original and the encoded/decoded file wasn't large. Not sure if it was Ethan Weiner, although it certainly sounds like something he'd do!

There won't be any very big differences between any two DACs these days, unless they're designed to alter the signal. The very lowliest DAC will have a frequency response flat to within half a decibel within the audible spectrum and THD of 0.1% at worst. You might find audible differences in some cases, but it won't be anything to write home about unless one of your DACs has got a major problem. Put it this way: if you hi-fi sounds rubbish, it won't be because of your CD player.

Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

I'm sure we listen to music in a very different way.

 

[mattgbell]

I'm sure we listen to music in a very different way.

What do you mean by this? Just curious ...

 

[hammeredklavier]

Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

I'm sure we listen to music in a very different way.

There's nothing to argue about really. You can do a null test (combine the outputs of your two DACs out of phase and see what's left) to determine how much difference there really is. I'm not saying there won't be any, but it'll be very very quiet.

 

[Whaleblue]

Modern DAC performance is amazing, even cheap ones. There was a test on Hydrogen Audio (or similar place) a few years ago where someone took a track and looped it 20 times through a DAC/ADC, using a cheapo consumer grade sound card, and it was bloody difficult/impossible to hear any difference even then.

Yup, it was posted here a year back.

I seem to remember there were 20 loop, 10 loop, and 5 loop examples (or similar).

I did it, and did manage to score well on the 20 and 10 versions. But it was bloody difficult, and required honing in on certain sounds (exactly what I can't remember, but a bell rings a bell) and replaying a few times to become sure. I can't remember whether I managed to do the fewer loop example with any great success.

I did post my results, so might see if I can search the thread out.

 

[music fiend]

What do you mean by this? Just curious ...

When I listen to recorded music what I value most is how effortless and articulate it sounds even with complex music. Take Mahler's 9th first movement crescendos... an entry level digital source typically makes music sound inarticulate and messy and some of the dynamic range seems to be lost, not to mention how much less detail you get.

 

[hammeredklavier]

Yup, it was posted here a year back.

I seem to remember there were 20 loop, 10 loop, and 5 loop examples (or similar).

I did it, and did manage to score well on the 20 and 10 versions. But it was bloody difficult, and required honing in on certain sounds (exactly what I can't remember, but a bell rings a bell) and replaying a few times to become sure. I can't remember whether I managed to do the fewer loop example with any great success.

I did post my results, so might see if I can search the thread out.

I suspect this kind of test has been done a few times. It's very interesting, see if you can dig out the links. I've got to go out in a min, but I'll have a look myself later.

As you say, even where there are audible differences they're very small and you've really got to home in on a 'killer sample', like ABXing lossy codecs. You can do it if you know what to listen for and you really sit down and squint, but it's hard.

 

[music fiend]

There's nothing to argue about really.

...

 

[hammeredklavier]

When I listen to recorded music what I value most is how effortless and articulate it sounds even with complex music. Take Mahler's 9th first movement crescendos... an entry level digital source typically makes music sound inarticulate and messy and some of the dynamic range seems to be lost, not to mention how much less detail you get.

Loss of fine detail is caused by distortion, and even a £10 eBay Special will have distortion so low that it's basically inaudible. Such differences as there may be between digital sources will exist at very low levels, at least -60 dB below full scale and usually considerably below even that.

As I say, you might find cases where there's an audible difference, but things like orchestral dynamics will be rendered identically. A null test would certainly prove it.