Newbie Testing question

[Trebdp83]

Hi all,
Been lurking for years. I searched but could not find anything so maybe you can point me or provide insight. If I were to wish to do some critical listening (192 kpbs vs CD), I am wondering if I'd be better served by headphones or speakers? I know the room is less than perfect but really am wondering which is a better plan (or maybe neither will have the build quality to reveal anything?). My system is Yamaha RX-A4A, Goldenear Triton 3+, and grado SR-60. (Soon to get a Hypex amp from Buckey but not yet!). Also it'll be served by a Bluesound Nano sending ripped FLAC files and MP3's saved to an external disc.
Is this system up to resolving the music enough to discern? What to use? Speakers or headphones in general and in my case?
THANKS for any thoughts!

Not going to go into the hi-res vs CD quality argument as it is a waste of everybody’s time but I will ask about speaker connection, configuration and sound modes used.

The Triton Three+ have built in powered subwoofers. Are you running them as Large with only a connection to them using Front speaker terminals? Using a selected crossover and subwoofer pre out to Triton LFE line IN? Extra Bass in Yamaha ON or OFF?

How are the speakers placed in the room? Distance from back wall? Distance from each side wall? Distance from each other? Distance from main listening position? Pure Direct mode or Straight mode selected for music using speakers? Silent Cinema selected for headphones?

How will the Bluesound Nano be connected to the Yamaha? Analog or Digital connection? Have you setup the MusicCast app in a Smart device for your Yamaha RX-A4A after connecting the receiver to your network? Have you considered streaming directly to it from a network server rather than connecting an additional device such as the Nano to the Yamaha?

 

[mtrycrafts]

....., so bigger numbers get you nowhere.

....

I certainly like bigger numbers, and increasingly so in my bank accounts.

 

[jinjuku]

I like both speakers and H.P.'s If for critical evaluation I think it would be headphones as they have a lower distortion profile and no room interaction.

 

[m. zillch]

Some marketers such as 2L took down their Hi-res download test bench page, I believe, once they saw individuals like me exposing the public to how to easily use the files* to conduct valid, proper double blind, level matched, synchronized, statistically analyzed tests such as with the free Foobar component "ABX"

They took it down years ago but there are still snapshots on the wayback machine (internet archive) which seem to have at least some functionality, I think, where one can find cuts to download. Not sure if these work, but here. The pages look different, not sure why, but look for the play arrow at the bottom of each of these links:

CD 44.1/16-bit res

192kHz/24-bit res

The reason track 2L-053-04,
Joseph Haydn: String Quartet In D, Op. 76, No. 5 - Finale - Presto, Engegård Quartet,
is the most important cut in my mind is because it was also used in a dubious JAES paper by one of the Hi-Res promulgators. Could he locate any individual who could hear the distinction on his chosen cut? NO, not even one.* However he pushes that after testing dozens of people he added up all their scores and instead of 50% correct answers and 50% wrong (so no audible difference could be demonstrated) he found that their combined scores were 53% correct and 47% wrong. When dealing with this large a number of responses that does indeed technically meet traditional statistical significance. But think about it for a minute in terms of "meaningful significance" to an audiophile. . . .

Joe: "Wow, I just bought a new Hi-res player and test track. It's amazing!"
Friend: "Cool. So I guess you can hear the difference against CD quality. Right?"
Joe: "Um, me personally? No. About half the time I guess right and about half the time I get it wrong."
Friend: "Oh, well I guess you mean other people in your family can hear it. Right?"
Joe: "Well, no, not really."
Friend: "So how many people did you have to test to find a person who could hear it?"
Joe: "Um, I, um. . . I haven't actually found anyone who can hear it on their own."
Friend: "So why are you stating it is 'amazing' then?!"
Joe: "Because after testing 100 audiophiles I know, using $80,000 speakers, giving them 10 questions each and then combining all their responses together, they successfully got 530 answers correct and 470 wrong."

Yikes. That's a valid reason to buy something?! Not in my book!

*Can you see why for the JAES Hi-res author/promoter it would be in his and his company's best interest to not claim he found anyone? Because if he had then other scientists would want to contact that individual to do further testing and see if they could replicate the results. His solution?

No individual = no further scrutiny can occur. Case closed.

He also used other steps to ensure no further examinations could occur. He heavily stressed in the paper the fact that the gear he used to test the listeners had to be extremely good. [Technically, he never actually ran the tests also on lesser gear, as far as I can tell, so this was really just conjecture on his part.] The loudspeakers alone were $80,000, at least in their "special edition" version (if I recall correctly) and most other audio researchers don't have such speakers on hand. So any attempt to replicate his findings which failed to do so, using only say $70,000 speakers, he could easily dismiss with: "Well they used junky gear and I warned them not to!".

There were numerous other questionable things about the paper which I am omitting for brevity.

 

[PENG]

Hi all,
Been lurking for years. I searched but could not find anything so maybe you can point me or provide insight. If I were to wish to do some critical listening (192 kpbs vs CD), I am wondering if I'd be better served by headphones or speakers? I know the room is less than perfect but really am wondering which is a better plan (or maybe neither will have the build quality to reveal anything?). My system is Yamaha RX-A4A, Goldenear Triton 3+, and grado SR-60. (Soon to get a Hypex amp from Buckey but not yet!). Also it'll be served by a Bluesound Nano sending ripped FLAC files and MP3's saved to an external disc.
Is this system up to resolving the music enough to discern? What to use? Speakers or headphones in general and in my case?
THANKS for any thoughts!

The RX-A4A, based on its predecessors use of a decent opa buffer for the headphone output, I would say your best bet would be to use a high quality headphone. Otherwise, the amp section of those lower mid range AVRs probably would be your bottleneck.

 

[PENG]

Thanks guys, seems like my gear may not be the issue. I was under the semi-educated assumption that humans can't tell CD from Hi Res and may not be able to tell 320 from CD... but I was assuming 192 vs CD would be discernable.

That is mostly correct though.

I can tell 128 from CD as I did test that a few years ago. Really I was just wondering if folks are getting better results with headphones vs speakers when doing such things.

Unless you did it blind, you really couldn't be sure if you in fact can tell the difference between those two, assuming they are made from the same master. Keep in mind, sighted listening comparison test results are very unreliable even if 100% level matched.

My headphones would also use my AVR, so not much would change there.... and yes, my Yamaha has "Pure direct" where it bypasses the DSP and "some" circuitry is "suspended".
I feel like my (Retail) $3k speakers would outperform my $75 Grados, but in listening the headphones are decent and it surprised me a little.

High quality headphones would be the better of the two, with speakers, there would be more variables, such as head/ear positions may not be maintained exactly the same, ambient noise, etc. The RX-A4A may or may not be a good match for the Triton 3 plus, depending on other factors.

 

[PENG]

You've got me confused. "Is this system up to resolving the music enough to discern? What to use? Speakers or headphones in general and in my case? THANKS for any thoughts! " was posted by @JSF737, not by me.

"Now that you have clarified the premise is "subjective"",..." ? A premise is a statement taken as being true from which other ideas can be inferred. I don't understand. My methodology was subjective. Is that what you meant?

In my first post I stated, "As a "test" for my own personal edification, I believe this approach was sound (pun intended...I taught 6th grade)."
The word "test" was in quotes, an indication that I am well aware that my methodology was not statistically nor scientifically valid and would yield no real world benefits.
"...for my own personal edification..." was my way of acknowledging that my methodology would only reveal subjective results.
"I believe this approach was sound (pun intended...I taught 6th grade)." was an attempt to entertain and keep the mood light. Obviously a miscalculation.



I understand. I assumed @JSF737 would want to directly compare one file format to another.

Sorry I got two posts mixed up. I deleted it but didn’t realize you had already read it.

 

[mtrycrafts]

...

There were numerous other questionable things about the paper which I am omitting for brevity.

Brevity? Here at AH?
I will be bored to death waiting for the rest.

 

[m. zillch]

Brevity? Here at AH?
I will be bored to death waiting for the rest.

There are long threads on his JAES papers at hydrogenaud.io (example) and the AVSforum I participated in. Here's one of my 2018 posts on several of his smoke and mirrors tactics at AVS.

P.S. And I just tacked on more to the end of "C." there, in brackets:

"C. I also learned that the release of this paper was timed just months before the release of MQA, which it indirectly supports, probably since AES has a strict policy that papers must not be promotional propaganda for products or services so he released this under the guise of "Here's an impartial examination of typical CD player filters" first, conveniently before the world [and AES editors] knew of the release of MQA. [A compression scheme for Hi-res files potentially making them compact enough to stream over limited bandwidth connections. To justify its very existence though one has to push the notion that either CD quality (or the "typical" filters it uses) supposedly "compromise" music so hi-res is necessary, you see. But Hi-res files are very large and not friendly to streaming. His "solution"? Hi-res music using his company's licen$ed technology called MQA!] "

 

[highfigh]

No. I am saying the existence of ultrasonic content (which since mortal humans can't hear it it is unclear if this is really "music" content which arrived from a microphone or simply "recording system noise") proves that just like AIX records, this company, 2L, does indeed really provide music files that were recorded with a bandwidth that exceeds the traditional 22.05kHz top permissible frequency of 44.1kHz, aka "SD" (standard definition/CD resolution) technology. (Usually due to filters that value is more like 20kHz actually, not 22.5kHz)

You see, some record companies have been accused of "cheating" their customers by simply taking SD files and upsampling them in software. The giveaway they have done this is that they contain nothing above the 20kHz hard limit (well, technically 22.05kHz). My image shows they are not one of the companies that cheats by simply using SD music as their original source.

Analog recorders can't handle such high frequencies and digital don't because of the filters that are intended to prevent aliasing and since the Nyquist Theorem is used, 20K is about as high as we're likely to get unless someone convinces the world to abandon the existing system. The 'brick wall' filters in the original CD players were blamed for the harsh sound of some recordings, but it would seem that the recording equipment and techniques took care of that fairly quickly. IIRC, Kyocera was the first brand to use higher rates in their players and those became available during the first year of the Sony CDP-101's availbility. IM distortion was higher with the lower sampling rate.

I have heard all kinds of reasons that frequencies above 20KHz are needed for analog recording on the recording- it adds 'air' or 'atmosphere' but testing that with analog filters isn't easy because of the effects of the filters on the SQ.

 

[m. zillch]

. . . digital don't because of the filters that are intended to prevent aliasing and since the Nyquist Theorem is used, 20K is about as high as we're likely to get

If your sampling rate is only 44.1kHz, yes, but they use a more advanced system capable of much higher frequencies. Here for example is a snapshot of the target song and for brief moments (this one is around 49 seconds in) there's definitely "content" well above 22.05kHz, albeit at a very quiet level and inaudible for several reasons:

[My previous image of the song in post 13 showing some ultrasonic content which remains when the SD file is subtracted from the 192kHz/24-bit file was using a different analyzer, set for a different range, and showed the song in full not just a short momentary peak like this one above is depicting.]

 

[highfigh]

If your sampling rate is only 44.1kHz, yes, but they use a more advanced system capable of much higher frequencies. Here for example is a snapshot of the target song and for brief moments there's definitely "content" well above 22.05kHz, albeit at a very quiet level:
View attachment 76519
[My previous image of the song in post 13 showing some ultrasonic content which remains when the SD file is subtracted from the 192kHz/24-bit file was using a different analyzer, set for a different range, and showed the song in full not just a short momentary peak like this one above is depicting.]

Content at -84dB doesn't really count since the aliasing/IM will be at an even lower level, so it will be masked by the content where humans are much more sensitive.

Which piece is this? I found several on YouTube and I would like to listen to it. I guess I can listen to all of them.

 

[JFS737]

My take....don't waste your time. MP3 perhaps you'll hear a difference with vs a cd it was derived from and helps if you know what tells to listen for. As was said, provenance is important so to make sure you're comparing the same mix/mastering with the only difference being sample/bit rate (or compression codec) as well as level matching/blind. Curious, why is this important to you? I prefer speakers in any case, don't like wearing headphones unless I have to.

Hello lovin' , It's somewhat interesting to me because 1. If I can't tell then it's not very important to require HD or higher formats (I put about 800 CD's ripped onto my phone and it takes up a lot of space....even at 320 so I'm just seeing how low I can go). and... 2. I wish to know if my equipment is capable of discerning the difference as I have read only "high end" systems can resolve music enough to matter at CD or higher levels...

Thanks for chiming in.

 

[JFS737]

The RX-A4A, based on its predecessors use of a decent opa buffer for the headphone output, I would say your best bet would be to use a high quality headphone. Otherwise, the amp section of those lower mid range AVRs probably would be your bottleneck.

Thanks PENG, good info.

 

[PENG]

Thanks PENG, good info.

You are welcome, look forward to hearing back from you, and if you are more specific questions, just ask.

 

[m. zillch]

Which piece is this? I found several on YouTube . . .

I discuss how to access it in greater detail in post 24. Specifically:
Go to the internet archive image at the word I hyperlinked as "snapshot". This, I believe:

2L High Resolution Music .:. free TEST BENCH

We invite you to join us in this evaluation of future consumer delivery formats. Download high resolution audio files from Norwegian 2L in stereo 96kHz, 192kHz, DXD, DSD and 5.1 surround. MQA and FLAC are lossless encodings derived directly from our original production masters. Enjoy the music!

web.archive.org

Next, locate the Haydn piece called "2L-053_04_stereo-192kHz-24b"
"Joseph Haydn: String Quartet In D, Op. 76, No. 5 - Finale - Presto Engegård Quartet"

On my PC using Firefox as my browser I hover my mouse's arrow over its link, the selection denoted by, I guess, the file's approx. size, "142MB", and right click it. Then "Save Link As . . . "

This will then allow one to download and save that file on their system, in true 192/24 hi-res form, for further analysis.

To the best of knowledge all music on Youtube is of course incapable of faithfully carrying Hi-res content without altering it, at least currently.

P.S. This particular piece is probably not an ideal one specifically for searching for ultrasonics since the musical instruments it happens to use are not known for providing much material in that frequency range. As I mentioned I focus on this track for other reasons [namely, it was used in at least one dubious study].

 

[lovinthehd]

Hello lovin' , It's somewhat interesting to me because 1. If I can't tell then it's not very important to require HD or higher formats (I put about 800 CD's ripped onto my phone and it takes up a lot of space....even at 320 so I'm just seeing how low I can go). and... 2. I wish to know if my equipment is capable of discerning the difference as I have read only "high end" systems can resolve music enough to matter at CD or higher levels...

Thanks for chiming in.

Yep, I don't see the particular value in beyond CD myself. I usually use a FLAC of my cd rips, but for my van's old head unit I use mp3 and find 320kpbs is just fine, even when I mix those files with flac rips on occasion....same for streaming, a good 320 stream works fine. The word resolve isn't a very good one. Some speakers/headphones may be better than others, but you seem to have decent gear now....the term high end often means more about how much it costs or possibly how well made it is, but often the overall value is limited.