[71 dB]

Time to go back to listening to Hi-Res music. Cheers

Do you find ALL of your music in hi-res? I struggle to find my favourite music even on CD! I suppose only a minuscule fraction of the music I like is available in hi-res. What is the point of listening to music you don't care about, hi-res or not? Anyway, the limitations of CD have NEVER been an obstacle for my enjoyment of music. For me the obstacles are:

(1) I don't like the music (badly composed etc.)
(2) Badly recorded
(3) Badly produced
(4) Badly mixed
(5) Badly mastered

These have nothing to do with hi-res. I don't need hi-res. I just want to find my favourite music on CD. That is often a struggle by itself! So much music I like is so badly if at all released on CD! For example try to find F. R. David's album "Reflections" on CD at a price that doesn't bankrupt you! Why do I listen to CDs in 2024? Because that's who I am! I am 53 years old. CD is my format. I have been collecting them since 1990 when I bought my first CD player. I want my music on CD, but often I am forced to rely on other formats such as vinyl or streaming. Hi-res doesn't solve any of my problems.

 

[sander99]

why they consider I am a pain in their backside? Why I could cause pain to them. Is there any weakness in the backside already? Is it possible that I just triggered their weakness and it causes them to feel pain? What's their actual weakness they don't want to face? (Sorry, it is off topic again)

I stopped reading posts after this. (Not specifically because of this, but because I am tired of it all). You are not a pain because of some weakness on ASR or here, but because you ignore many things and just repeat the same falsehoods.

For starters: You pick a (simulation of) a broken DAC that creates stair cases and keep saying that it is a properly functioning DAC. Stop that nonsense!

Second:
"Hi-Res" is not audibly better than 44.1.
Flat earthers say "look, the earth is flat, I can clearly see it".
Some audiophools say "listen, Hi-Res sounds better, I hear it".
Why do you keep ignoring this question:

Of course it is an argument for our discussion because the reason why "Hi-Res" is useless for consumers is because nobody can hear the difference. Many, many people think they can hear the difference, but in a proper test they can not.
So, did you do a proper test or...

What do you not understand? That 44.1/16 is audibly transparent?

Maybe you thought you heard a difference with "high-res"? Maybe you did a uncontrolled, sighted or not properly level matched listening comparison?
Or maybe you inadvertently compared two different masters (or otherwise differently processed versions) of the same music?
Or maybe you compared using playback equipment that produces audible intermodulation distortion due to ultrasonic content in the "high-res" version (making "high-res" objectively worse but audibly different)?

(Or maybe you compared using a NOS DAC that messes up the 44.1/16 version more than it messes up the "high res" version?)

Oh, I forgot: Or maybe you compared using inappropiate gain staging in some way or another?

 

[71 dB]

Theoretically the "best" digital PCM audio format is ∞ Hz / ∞ bit. That is the best, believe me. Obviously we can never have that, because even one second of music at such resolution means infinite amount of data. We have to be content with finite sampling rates and finite bit depth, but how much is enough? How much resolution makes sense? For some reason a lot of educated people with knowledge and understanding believe 44.1 kHz / 16 bit is enough in consumer audio. People making this claim say any imperfections of 44.1 kHz / 16 bit are insignificant, because audible transparency has been achieved already. It doesn't matter if 44.1 kHz / 16 bit doesn't reconstruct the signal "perfectly" if I can't hear the imperfections. Of course we can try to make those imperfections smaller by increasing bitrate, but what's the point? If CD audio was only 22.05 kHz / 16 bit or 44.1 kHz / 8 bit, I would advocate for a better audio format, because those are NOT audibly transparent! Upgrading those to 44.1 kHz / 16 bit would make a lot of sense. We just never needed to do such upgrade, because CD started at transparency (well, the early digital technology may have been sub-transparent, but it matured into audible transparency).

 

[sunjam]

Have you proven in robust testing that you can reliably differentiate between CD and Hi Res ?

Answer A = yes I have so I am looking into the science behind it.

Answer B = no, I hear it in normal sighted listening and I consider that adequate evidence for my purposes.

Answer C = I am looking into the science behind it and I would like to do more experiments out of it but I don't have the required equipments.

As you can see in my comments here, I have to use someone's data to support my view. For example, you saw the ones I used like the one below:

To be honest, I used more than 3 hours (or even more) to fully understand (I think) what's in that article, How to pick the best filter setting for your DAC – Addicted To Audio., as what he showed me was ground breaking.

My critical thinking kicked in and I tried to find out more about up-sampling, over-sampling, etc...

=================

Experience with ASR:

Although I've been listening to music since cassette / LP time, my offical audio science journey just started a month or two ago (because of that article). I was just listening to CD mainly before that.

Then I found HQPlayer, when I heard upsampled music... WOW... I found out that I miss a lot of things during the last decade as I was mainly using CD (well... I do have a few SACD but they are just so so.)

Given the reputation of ASR, and the experience I have with my purchase of Fosi V3 amplifer (I bought it based on their recommendation), I thought I would be able to get more high-quality audio science related informtion from the people there.

My first post there is with a topic of "Is there any budget DAC for DSD1024" (they deleted it) as I was looking for a new DAC for DSD playback. What I got there is just groupthink standard reply like "Hi-Res is useless", "You cannot hear the difference", blah... blah....

The Monty's video:

Someone even sent me "the Monty's video". They said it shows the supporting facts that Hi-Res is useless with a lot of different real world experiements. One of the main point in that video is no stair step waveform output.

I think "hang-on", I just saw the article showing me the stair step ouput from a modern DAC, Topping E30. Something is wrong.....

It smells something that I am familiar with... pseudo science. Probably by now, you should know that I have Psychology background. One of the major thing I learned is to identify pseudo science claim. It is because there are many many pseudo science related experiments / claims in the area of Psychology.

Back to Hi-Res, I can hear the difference between Hi-Res and CD. That's why I want to know more about Hi Res. I don't think I need someone to tell me I should hear the difference or not. From their comments, it looks to me that they just want to brainwash me to believe that "you cannot hear it", "according to science, you cannot hear it"...

Research paper:

Many of them even claim they have research paper to show that there is no difference between CD and Hi-Res. Then I asked them to show me the paper. In the end, they can just show a paper from AES with a conclusion that "Now, it is very difficult to use negative results to prove the inaudibility of any given phenomenon or process. There is always the remote possibility that a different system or more finely attuned pair of ears would reveal a difference."

Do you think the conclusion of the paper is same as "It is proven that. there is no audible difference between CD and Hi-Res"?
i.e. Does the reseach paper prove that there is no audible difference between CD and Hi-Res? No, the research paper didn't say that. It is in the mind of the hardcore believer of "Hi Res is useless" only.

Bullying:

Then I found more supporting facts to support my view points and attempted to have an open and healthy discussion with them. What I got back was bullying from them.

With my background, I pointed out to them that they mis-use the term confirmation bias. Well... what I got back is even more bullying.

I am not sure if I am biased (biased to the "scientific facts"? ) but I do really see a lot of pseudo science claims there. That's why I created my blog to help people to debunk these claims because I was made silence there.

Promote critical thinking:

It looks to me that some of the hardcore believers of "Hi-Res is useless" is indeed believing the claim wholeheartedly. I would like to help to reignite their critical thinking. Meanwhile, I would like to help people from falling into the same pseudo science traps.

For me, it is a learning journey. I keep learning new things everyday since I started my blog as it helps me to keep thinking.

=================

I am not sure if I provided too detailed answer (probably I did) regarding your question.

If you find any of these is off topic, please just ignore it. Cheers.

 

[sunjam]

Have you proven in robust testing that you can reliably differentiate between CD and Hi Res ?

Answer A = yes I have so I am looking into the science behind it.

Answer B = no, I hear it in normal sighted listening and I consider that adequate evidence for my purposes.


You said the below on your blog, please elaborate with respect to your listening tests during which you really do hear the differences.

Please see my previous reply.

BTW, please don't try to promote my blog as someone else may consider it is as a clickbait. Hmm... I probably need to add non-profit disclaimer there just in case. <=== just added that.

 

[Ryokan]

Maybe from the start 44.1 kHz / 16 bit should've been classed as hi-res, then where can you go from there?: EHR - even higher res. That wouldn't have attracted nearly as much attention.

 

[sunjam]

Theoretically the "best" digital PCM audio format is ∞ Hz / ∞ bit. That is the best, believe me. Obviously we can never have that, because even one second of music at such resolution means infinite amount of data. We have to be content with finite sampling rates and finite bit depth, but how much is enough? How much resolution makes sense? For some reason a lot of educated people with knowledge and understanding believe 44.1 kHz / 16 bit is enough in consumer audio. People making this claim say any imperfections of 44.1 kHz / 16 bit are insignificant, because audible transparency has been achieved already. It doesn't matter if 44.1 kHz / 16 bit doesn't reconstruct the signal "perfectly" if I can't hear the imperfections. Of course we can try to make those imperfections smaller by increasing bitrate, but what's the point? If CD audio was only 22.05 kHz / 16 bit or 44.1 kHz / 8 bit, I would advocate for a better audio format, because those are NOT audibly transparent! Upgrading those to 44.1 kHz / 16 bit would make a lot of sense. We just never needed to do such upgrade, because CD started at transparency (well, the early digital technology may have been sub-transparent, but it matured into audible transparency).

For me, I am just looking for better as there is no perfect solution.

 

[Quazar]

If you can't lift 200kg, will you feel stronger if you can't lift 500kg?

 

[71 dB]

For me, I am just looking for better as there is no perfect solution.

I may have had similar attitude when I was young, but I am wiser now (I hope) and I have noticed being content is more important. I am happy to say CD is good enough to make me content. I don't need to look for anything better, thank God!

 

[sunjam]

Do you find ALL of your music in hi-res? I struggle to find my favourite music even on CD! I suppose only a minuscule fraction of the music I like is available in hi-res. What is the point of listening to music you don't care about, hi-res or not? Anyway, the limitations of CD have NEVER been an obstacle for my enjoyment of music. For me the obstacles are:

(1) I don't like the music (badly composed etc.)
(2) Badly recorded
(3) Badly produced
(4) Badly mixed
(5) Badly mastered

These have nothing to do with hi-res. I don't need hi-res. I just want to find my favourite music on CD. That is often a struggle by itself! So much music I like is so badly if at all released on CD! For example try to find F. R. David's album "Reflections" on CD at a price that doesn't bankrupt you! Why do I listen to CDs in 2024? Because that's who I am! I am 53 years old. CD is my format. I have been collecting them since 1990 when I bought my first CD player. I want my music on CD, but often I am forced to rely on other formats such as vinyl or streaming. Hi-res doesn't solve any of my problems.

With upsampling, I have all my favorite CDs "upgraded" to Hi-Res (either in DSD256 or 768k PCM).

I am still lookiing for a good DAC for DSD512 (or even DSD1024). I love DSD upsampling better than PCM in general.

If you didn't try (real-time) upsampling before, I highly recommend you to try and listen yourself to see if you can experience the difference. Cheers!

By the way, it could be free too.

(Note: all these are my personal experiences. I have no intention to argue between DSD vs PCM or the benefits of upsampling)

 

[sunjam]

If you can't lift 200kg, will you feel stronger if you can't lift 500kg?

A guy who can't lift 200kg looks down a guy who can't lift 500kg?

 

[71 dB]

With upsampling, I have all my favorite CDs "upgraded" to Hi-Res (either in DSD256 or 768k PCM).

Oh. Upsampling? Well, my CD-player can upsample to 192 kHz, so I guess I can listen to all my CDs in hi-res!

 

[Ryokan]

I may have had similar attitude when I was young, but I am wiser now (I hope) and I have noticed being content is more important. I am happy to say CD is good enough to make me content. I don't need to look for anything better, thank God!

And that's the sort of attitude that's causes world wide economic slow down. When you first bought an album on vinyl you must buy it again on cassette, then cd, and then hi-res. Wonder what format will be next?

 

[sunjam]

BTW, could you guys highlight me why the

Oh. Upsampling? Well, my CD-player can upsample to 192 kHz, so I guess I can listen to all my CDs in hi-res!

To some sense, yes. But people are using DSD1024 and 1536 kHz already.

DSD512 and 768k are easily available these days. You can get a DAC around $100 to support these format.

Again, CD is good enough for a lot of people. I've been using it for decades.

For the people who wants a bit better (in theory based on our discussion), Hi-Res may be a good option.

 

[gregorio]

Certainly! Let’s break down the concept of Sound Pressure Level (SPL) and calculate the value you’re interested in.

You’re joking, how ridiculous. I did not ask you to break down the concept of SPL, I just asked what 120dB below 90dBSPL was. And you present all those calculations and give me an answer in the wrong unit, the question was in dBSPL, not micro-pascals. And after all that, your answer is effectively WRONG, given the context:

So, your answer is 0.632455532 μPa which in dB SPL is -30dBSPL. All that break down of concept and calculation and you would have got the same answer by doing the obvious, simply 90 - 120. How absolutely typical, not only have you taken the most convoluted path possible but you’ve actually ended up with the wrong answer!! Given the obvious conditions, listening to a recording in typical breathable air, then no sound at all is roughly -23dBSPL. IE. Inside a hypothetically perfect anechoic chamber that allows absolutely no sound to enter and in which there is absolutely no sound being reproduced, the SPL would measure approximately -23dBSPL simply due to the sound created by the air molecules in the room colliding with each other (Brownian motion). If no sound being reproduced whatsoever is -23dBSPL then obviously -30dBSPL cannot exist, you cannot reproduce less sound than no sound.

Not real scientist (aka pseudo scientist) would take 0.632455532 μPa = 0 μPa and claim they are the same, or in their language "exactly the same"

Again, you’ve got that completely backwards, no real scientist would make a claim without knowing or at least finding out the conditions, only an ignorant person, an idiot or a“pseudo scientist” would! Using μPa, no reproduced sound at all (in air) would be roughly 1.4 μPa. So yes, absolutely 0.632455532 μPa = 0 μPa and indeed anything below roughly 1.4 μPa is “exactly the same” because lower than that does not exist!! This is only hypothetical though, in practice the quietest room ever built has a noise floor of -19.5dBSPL (roughly 2.1 μPa).

Question 1:
Do you agree that 0.632455532 μPa and 0 μPa are exactly the same?

In terms of sound reproduction then yes of course they’re exactly the same, because I’m not an “ignorant person, an idiot or a pseudo scientist”!

Based on your reply regarding "perfect", it seems that your defintion of "perfect" is not perfect (pun indeed).

It is perfect.

People would consider perfect is perfect. There is nothing known as "absolutely perfect" and "perfect but not absolutely".

Would people consider something that has imperfections which do not exist in the real world to be perfect? What about sane, rational, realistic people?

To my trained eyes, these "absolutely / not absolutely" are the "art of pseudo science".

You are contradicting yourself! You stated “I am not an audio science expert” and now you’re saying “to my trained eyes”. As the topic you’re arguing about is audio/sound science and you admit (and have clearly demonstrated!) you do not have expertise, then you do not have “trained eyes”.

It is just some food for thought for me (and anyone who are interested in critical thinking)

If you were “interested in critical thinking” then you would adhere to the definition of critical thinking that you YOURSELF posted, but you do not! So, the only question remaining is: Are you only lying to us or are you lying to yourself as well?

Most people who believe in "Hi-Res is useless" have a different definition of PERFECT. They have the concept of "absolutely perfect" and "perfect but not absolutely".

Oh... man... what I am talking about? Am I mentally blocked?

At last, two relevant questions! The answer to the first one is: Nonsense/BS/Pseudoscience. The answer to the second one appears to be: Oh dear god Yes! Although it seems more likely that you are not mentally blocked, you are just pretending to be, in order to troll and spread pseudoscience.

The point above your most relevant questions is interesting though. The first sentence is at least partially false because I don’t think anyone here believes “Hi-Res is useless”, only that it is useless as a consumer distribution format. However, those with some expertise in the subject can/do indeed have different definitions of perfect! In the real world, we are dealing with absolute minimum limits under given conditions, at and beyond which we can legitimately describe something as perfect. We have the limits of human hearing, we have the limits of sound itself (as discussed above), we have the limits of an analogue signal (defined at least by Thermal/Johnson Noise) and then we have the limits of digital audio, which is quite different because that is not the real world, it’s the conceptual world of numbers, hence why we need ADCs and DACs of course. Therefore, as each of these limits is different, the point at which “perfect” is reached is different (although obviously not to an “ignorant person, an idiot or a pseudo scientist”)!

Your apparent concept of “perfect” is utterly irrelevant nonsense! It can never exist in any of these audio/sound areas (and is therefore useless/meaningless), it would require an infinite sample rate and bit depth in the digital domain, breaking the laws of physics in both the analogue and acoustic sound domains and being some sort of extraterrestrial god (not subject to the laws of physics) as far as hearing is concerned!

How many of you truely understand what is confirmation bias? It is defined as below (source: wiki)

Why do you keep discrediting your own arguments? You quoted “critical thinking” from Wikipedia and then did NOT comply with the quoted conditions to achieve it. Now you quote Wikipedia again: “Confirmation bias is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms or supports one's prior beliefs or values.” - Which is exactly what you are doing, thereby discrediting your own arguments due to confirmation bias!

Yes, we already know you are demonstrating confirmation bias and a lack of critical thinking, so why do you need to explain that to us explicitly with citations, why are you arguing on that basis in science discussion forums and what response do you expect if you just keep repeating arguments based on those fallacies (confirmation bias and a lack of critical thinking)?

G