2015 AXPONA Coverage

[BoredSysAdmin]

Can you guess the speaker?
View attachment 15758 View attachment 15760

Looks to me like PMC

 

[shadyJ]

Lol, seriously though, I did overhear a lady say they looked like trashcans!

 

[gene]

MP3 vs CD vs 24 bit High Resolution Audio Demo Results



At AXPONA 2015 Legacy Audio provided an excellent opportunity for audiophiles to carefully compare several common playback resolution levels on a high quality system. The session was without agenda and provided a reality check for listeners. Music was provided by Sonos Luminus imported into JRiver and handled in PCM format for continuous playback. Did the participants hear a difference between MP3 and high resolution audio? Can you hear a difference?

Read the Demo Results Report

 

[Motrek]

Of course people are going to say good things about the higher bitrate files. It's like asking people what they think of more expensive wine. Nobody is going to want to look stupid by saying they can't tell a difference.

 

[shadyJ]

Agreed, the only way that test can be properly done is when the participants don't know what is playing. If you want it super properly done, not even the tester should know what is playing. I was in that room during one of those demos, I didn't stick around because the results would have very limited value. I like Bill, but he isn't really challenging anyone's preconceived notions in a test like that.

Last year at AXPONA there was a room for a power cable manufacturer (Shunyata I think?) who were doing the same kind of test. They were switching from a stock power cable to their magic power cable for the same recording, and acted as though the difference were night and day. I didn't hear anything different, but some of the audience there agreed that the sound was dramatically improved.

Audiophiles have some of the most active imaginations on Earth!

 

[jinjuku]

A few things right off the bat that are going to be red flagged by some people:

1. If we even consider that 24/96 was the minima hi-res format the Focus speakers don't meet the Nyquist knee of 48Khz

2. Was the testing done in a blind or sighted manner?

I don't doubt that setup sounded superb and would have loved to hear it.

 

[Chu Gai]

MP3 vs CD vs 24 bit High Resolution Audio Demo Results



At AXPONA 2015 Legacy Audio provided an excellent opportunity for audiophiles to carefully compare several common playback resolution levels on a high quality system. The session was without agenda and provided a reality check for listeners. Music was provided by Sonos Luminus imported into JRiver and handled in PCM format for continuous playback. Did the participants hear a difference between MP3 and high resolution audio? Can you hear a difference?

Read the Demo Results Report

What does three different selections mean?

 

[highfigh]

A few things right off the bat that are going to be red flagged by some people:

1. If we even consider that 24/96 was the minima hi-res format the Focus speakers don't meet the Nyquist knee of 48Khz

2. Was the testing done in a blind or sighted manner?

I don't doubt that setup sounded superb and would have loved to hear it.

Why is the Nyquist knee important for the speakers? It has to do with the sampling of whatever signal comes in, which may not exhibit frequencies that extend to the sampling rate, anyway. It's the same as using 44.1/48KHz for a 12KHz signal, right?

 

[jinjuku]

Why is the Nyquist knee important for the speakers? It has to do with the sampling of whatever signal comes in, which may not exhibit frequencies that extend to the sampling rate, anyway. It's the same as using 44.1/48KHz for a 12KHz signal, right?

May or may not has nothing to do with this. If your system can not produce the 48Khz data that is available in a 24/96 file (and all of it's harmonics) then what is the use?

Because a speaker that cuts off at 30Hz can only realistically represent up to 60Hz sampling rate. In the context of a XX/96 file it's not possible to represent the full 96Khz sampling rate. The knee in this instance is flattened.

I'm not the one making the argument either. Scott Wilkinson did a really well put together blind A/B file download. He goes to length as to why if anything in your chain is going to act as a frequency cut off filter (Amp, DAC, speakers) that can't hit 48Khz well then you might as well stick to 16/44.1 since that is the only thing your system can achieve resolution wise.

 

[highfigh]

May or may not has nothing to do with this. If your system can not produce the 48Khz data that is available in a 24/96 file (and all of it's harmonics) then what is the use?

Because a speaker that cuts off at 30Hz can only realistically represent up to 60Hz sampling rate. In the context of a XX/96 file it's not possible to represent the full 96Khz sampling rate. The knee in this instance is flattened.

I'm not the one making the argument either. Scott Wilkinson did a really well put together blind A/B file download. He goes to length as to why if anything in your chain is going to act as a frequency cut off filter (Amp, DAC, speakers) that can't hit 48Khz well then you might as well stick to 16/44.1 since that is the only thing your system can achieve resolution wise.

The original rationale for over-sampling was to avoid the "brick wall" filters and the phase shift/harshness they brought. I have to assume all of the CD/DVD players that can work with 96K, etc were made to either show that the manufacturers were aware of the opinions and were responding to the market or because it matters. I'd like for someone to test some original CD players against new ones that are considered to be among the better units and determine what matters.

Why do it? Because over-sampling provides a more accurate representation of the original.

I have never heard anyone talk about speakers not being able to benefit from oversampling. 96KHz has nothing to do with the program material, it's the sampling rate. The storage medium doesn't need to store or play 48KHz, the 2x highest frequency is used as the theoretical limit.

How would you compare the difference between audio recorded using a high sampling rate and analog? Theoretically, analog is similar to sampling at an infinite rate, so any digital format would have to be considered inferior, right?

 

[Motrek]

The original rationale for over-sampling was to avoid the "brick wall" filters and the phase shift/harshness they brought. I have to assume all of the CD/DVD players that can work with 96K, etc were made to either show that the manufacturers were aware of the opinions and were responding to the market or because it matters. I'd like for someone to test some original CD players against new ones that are considered to be among the better units and determine what matters.

Why do it? Because over-sampling provides a more accurate representation of the original.

I have never heard anyone talk about speakers not being able to benefit from oversampling. 96KHz has nothing to do with the program material, it's the sampling rate. The storage medium doesn't need to store or play 48KHz, the 2x highest frequency is used as the theoretical limit.

How would you compare the difference between audio recorded using a high sampling rate and analog? Theoretically, analog is similar to sampling at an infinite rate, so any digital format would have to be considered inferior, right?

http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue14/digital.htm

Certainly adding more bits and hertz increases signal accuracy but to what end? Is there any scientific evidence that anybody can hear better than 16 bit/44kHz?

As for analog vs. digital, it depends on how much detail the analog medium is able to resolve.

For example, analog film photographs can't have an infinite amount of detail due to film grain. That is, there is some number of megapixels that gives you more detail than a film photograph.

Similarly, there must be some number of bits and kHz that gives you more accurate detail than the physical media of records or tapes. I tried to find this number a while ago and it seems nobody has really researched it, unfortunately. It should be fairly easy to figure out with some basic equipment though (which I don't have).

 

[jinjuku]

The original rationale for over-sampling was to avoid the "brick wall" filters and the phase shift/harshness they brought. I have to assume all of the CD/DVD players that can work with 96K, etc were made to either show that the manufacturers were aware of the opinions and were responding to the market or because it matters. I'd like for someone to test some original CD players against new ones that are considered to be among the better units and determine what matters.

Why do it? Because over-sampling provides a more accurate representation of the original.

I have never heard anyone talk about speakers not being able to benefit from oversampling. 96KHz has nothing to do with the program material, it's the sampling rate. The storage medium doesn't need to store or play 48KHz, the 2x highest frequency is used as the theoretical limit.

How would you compare the difference between audio recorded using a high sampling rate and analog? Theoretically, analog is similar to sampling at an infinite rate, so any digital format would have to be considered inferior, right?

I'm speaking to how the music is mastered. Not how the hardware may be re/over sampling.

 

[Skylinestar]

Not intended as a blind test

This is the biggest test failure.

 

[gene]

This is the biggest test failure.

Why can't people just appreciate the demo and not have to over analyze? We don't know whether or not the participants knew what they were listening to at the time. Perhaps they just called it Demo A vs B vs C and then told them at the end.

Blind tests are NOT without their own flaws and biases so let's not pretend that ALL blind tests are better than sighted tests. I've participated and hosted both and found them to be fun, enlightening, and a lot of work.

 

[gene]

New Emotiva DACs and Class D Amplifiers Preview



Emotiva was at the 2015 AXPONA show displaying their latest audio products. There was a small table with both the Big Ego and Little Ego DACs on display attached to laptops and headphones. Class D amplifiers powered by a completely new ICE module that is said to deliver full rated power into 4 ohm loads are on the roadmap to replace UPA series amplifier.

Read about the New Emotiva DACs and Class D Amplifiers

 

[jinjuku]

Emotiva has really been on a good roll as of late and hoping this is the new paradigm for them as far as discrete source and dac's are concerned.

Also answers my unasked question of when they were going to roll out some Class D lovin'

 

[slipperybidness]

Why can't people just appreciate the demo and not have to over analyze?

LOL!

Good luck with that!

 

[slipperybidness]

Emotiva has really been on a good roll as of late and hoping this is the new paradigm for them as far as discrete source and dac's are concerned.

Also answers my unasked question of when they were going to roll out some Class D lovin'

I dunno that I would say they are on a roll yet. But, they are certainly starting to set themselves up for a new wave of nice products and seem to be pointed in the right direction.

I would like to see some new Emo passive (HT) speakers. Maybe even using the AMT from the pro line. And, why did they kill the sub line?

And, whatever happened to the tube amps that they promised? I know the partnership with Bob was short-lived, but did Emo gain anything at all from that?

 

[utopianemo]

I have been hoping, hoping, hoping that Emotiva would delve into the class D arena. I am almost sure that my next amp or AVR will be class D because of its positive attributes(light, cool, efficient i.e. less taxing on the electrical bill). I love Emotiva but I had ruled them out because they didn't have class D standalone amp offerings. Now there's hope. If you are listening out there, Emotiva, please consider making a 5 or 7-channel class D amp. I WILL BUY IT.

 

[wiyosaya]

Personally, I would have preferred that the audition of different bit depth and rate audio was a blind test. People are known to be easily swayed in cases like this, and honestly, I do not trust their judgement. While I would expect 192/24 to sound better, I would not appreciate hearing the bit rate of any file beforehand as I would like to "discover" the best format myself. As I see it, this is about human nature. Tell anyone ahead of time that one item is better than another or give them a clue about it that it should be better and it will be. There is documented scientific research regarding this phenomenon though a reference escapes me at the moment.