2015 AXPONA Coverage

[hawkster]

Last summer an AVS forum member set up a test with three complete tracks, each in "high-rez (192)" and "CD (44.1)" quality. Participants were able to download the files and play them on their own equipment. No clue was given as to which file was high-rez, and which was CD; the poster even went to the trouble to make the file sizes identical. On my system I only identified one of the the high-rez tracks correctly. This led me to conclude there is no reason for me to be buying high-rez tracks for $25 when used CDs are available all over the interwebs for a buck. You may have a nicer system or better (younger) ears than me, but on my system, high-rez just ain't worth it. Unfortunately, the poster never revealed the full results of the experiment, he just let me know how I did.

Onkyo 5508
Adcom 5500
Adcom 5503
Klipsch Forte II
Oppo BD-103

 

[Motrek]

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.

Indeed, if it wasn't billed as a scientific, double-blind study, then there's no reason to be disappointed that it wasn't one.

No harm in demo'ing something you find interesting.

 

[Archimago]

Well, over the years, I ran 2 sets of Internet "blind" tests on this.

Back in Feb 2013, I did high-bitrate MP3 vs. FLAC - no significant preference among 151 respondents.

June 2014, comparison of 24/96 vs. straightforward dithered 16/96 - 140 respondents again no significant preference.

These comparisons are all done in the tester's homes using their own equipment, with the test "advertised" on audiophile websites over 2 months. Music files used were of good dynamic range and "true" 24-bit source (for the 16-bit vs. 24-bit test). Furthermore, I looked at age stratification and did not see evidence of ability to identify a difference.

Despite all the subjective claims, there really has not been good evidence than perhaps other than in a lab environment with specialized test tones, that in "real life", there is a significant difference between high-bitrate MP3 encoding and the same source 16/44 lossless. Nor is there evidence that 24-bit imparts any special quality over a reasonably dithered 16-bit version of the same thing.

(Tests and results on my blog: archimago.blogspot.ca)

 

[gene]

AIX Records, Revel Speakers, Benchmark Audio 5.1 High Resolution Demo

What do you get when you combine five Revel Salon2 speakers, audio equipment from Benchmark Audio and Oppo and music from AIX records? A state of the art multi-channel surround experience that will satisfy even the most critical audiophile. AIX Records put on quite the demo at AXPONA 2015 that even diehard two-channel audiophiles had to take pause for a listen. Check out what we thought about this demo experience.

Read the Demo Report

 

[SV SACD Audiophile]

Yes, there are differences. I have recorded low bit rate MP3s as well as high bit. I own CDs, HDCDs, BSCD2s, SACDs, and SHM-SACDs. The range of timbre and spatial properties change.