Based on sonics... which do you prefer ?

Based on sonics which do you prefer.

  • Ruby

    Votes: 14 42.4%

  • Opal

    Votes: 19 57.6%
  • Total voters
    33
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
Jump to Latest
#282
I agree. MP3 and the other lossy codecs are based on this research on masking, and tested on real panels of listeners. If you don't believe it, you can experience it for yourself by ABX testing various bit rates of MP3 against the original lossless material.

"After testing, it was concluded that expert listeners could not distinguish between coded and original audio clips even with a six to one compression ratio"- which is about 256k bit rate- can you beat that?
MP3: Psychoacoustic Model
 
#283
Yes, I also agree, but it depends a bit. Hearing abilities are not same with everyone and quality of hardware used is important as well. Plus, experience with ABX testing. Depends what is a target - consumer electronics or highest fidelity in sound reproduction.

I would really appreciate more listening impressions on
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/everything-else/246165-based-sonics-do-you-prefer-27.html#post3712412

Files are of very high quality (objective quality), very good recording, very good interpretation. There is a small difference in the files and only one of them is correct. Based on listening, which one? Subjective preference to degraded file is incorrect, but possible.
 
#290
heb1001 said:
If I have liked the wrong one, will the subjective preference police come to get me?
Click to expand...

Thank you for your vote. Of course not, a vote for a degraded file is a kind of information and good feedback as well.

I think it may reveal something about hardware used, if the file with less information sounds more pleasant than the original file with more information.

I assume that through transparent hardware the vote would come for the non-degraded file, but it is just my opinion and I may be wrong.
 
#294
PMA said:
The reason why ruby and opal sounded different is very simple. The ruby file has constant and very high level of tape hiss (even plenty of low frequency hiss!) and is horribly distorted. Both hiss and distortion affect perception of mids and highs. Last, but not least, all cassette records have decay of REAL high frequency content. That means sound components, not hiss. You can see it well in my spectra from CD and cassette. The cassette (Clapton) that has much less energy above 10kHz sounds smoothed and muffled.
Click to expand...

PMA said:
Clapton on cassette and CD, time domain (frequency domain comparison on previous page).

cassette:

1) constant hiss and noise
2) high frequency signal roll-off
3) higher distortion
4) lower dynamic range (not valid in case of loudness war new age CD files and re-masters)
Click to expand...

PMA said:
Yes it has, but I am afraid it is the hiss (dither), HF roll-off and dynamic intentionally reduced (due to cassette noise issues) what we may like on these vintage sound recordings. We lived with them and grown up with them. I admit it may sound pleasant. Sterility of the CD records may be just a result of technical limitations of the mike - speaker chain, that is masked with tape irregularities and limitations. Higher resolution is not necessarily always pleasing.
Click to expand...

The most interesting achievement to me, from these tests, is the fact, that the file that has more sound fidelity, is closer to the captured sound and is less degraded is not necessarily the one that is generally preferred. Votes for cassette or for the intentionally degraded rip confirm my opinion. I am still not sure if it reflects certain flaws in a playback chain or simply some preferences are just such.

My second achievement is that one cannot argue with subjective impressions. So, the Jekyll and Hyde in me is moving to 'objectivists'.
 
Last edited:
#295
PMA said:
The most interesting achievement to me, from these tests, is the fact, that the file that has more sound fidelity, is closer to the captured sound and is less degraded is not necessarily the one that is generally preferred. Votes for cassette or for the intentionally degraded rip confirm my opinion. I am still not sure if it reflects certain flaws in a playback chain or simply some preferences are just such...
Click to expand...
There's no particular reason why the more accurate sound should be preferred. If there were, then people would dislike the sound of electric guitars, which clearly isn't so. Noise, distortion and other artifacts can effectively form part of the music.
 
#300
PMA said:
Thank you for your vote. Of course not, a vote for a degraded file is a kind of information and good feedback as well.

I think it may reveal something about hardware used, if the file with less information sounds more pleasant than the original file with more information.

I assume that through transparent hardware the vote would come for the non-degraded file, but it is just my opinion and I may be wrong.
Click to expand...
Pavel, I'm sorry I won't be able to work on your other stuff till later next week.

I've found it really important to pay close attention to any preferences my true golden pinnae find in DBLT. Here is one important example.

Greenfield & Hawkesford asked as to beta test their Speaker EQ. Efficient Filter Design for Loudspeaker Equalization

Their EQ corrected the amplitude response using a Minimum Phase IIR and did Excess Phase Correction separately using a long FIR. The Excess Phase correction could be switched out.

To our surprise, we found a small but reliable preference for the Excess Phase NOT corrected. 😱 My true golden pinnae found it difficult to describe the difference except for a sense of unease.

It turned out that the Excess Phase FIR wasn't properly dithered while the Minimum Phase IIR was self dithering. ie my true golden pinnae could reliably detect improper dither even on modern 'pop'.

They published this in On the Dither Performance of High-Order Digital Equalization for Loudspeaker Systems and I was quite miffed that they didn't mentioned us though we drew their attention to the effect in the first place. 😡

They also published results of further listening tests done at Celestion but these were deeply flawed. I later become good friends with those who took part in the Celestion tests. One of them, Graham 'Big Ears' Banks, is one of the 3 best ears I have ever tested.
__________________

BUT to do useful stuff like this, its important that you FIRST establish your listeners are true golden pinnae and I don't think we have quite done this yet 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom