ralphpnj wrote: > In the world of high end audio the reality is quite a bit different from > what you state, i.e. it is much that some respected high end audio guru > (a very polite way to say windbag) claims to have heard a difference and > all the audiophiles open their wallets. For example the notorious > jitter, which can be easily measured but rarely heard in a properly > designed and built non-asynchronous USB signal, but one audiophile guru > claims to have heard jitter (a claim which the science of human hearing > capabilities clearly refutes) and every audiophile is off to buy an > asynchronous USB DAC. > > Now going back to one of my earlier posts on this thread - why are we > having this discussion about USB signal regeneration on this forum when > there are no Squeezebox devices with USB output? Oh wait because some > users have -*modified their SB Touches so that the USB input can be used > as an output for 24bit/192kHz. News flash: humans can't hear ANYTHING > above 20kHz, except of course for audiophile gurus.*- > > And finally, as has been pointed out in several recent threads on this > forum, many of us here are poor examples of audiophiles. But guess what > that's because we listen to our music using Squeezeboxes, devices that > have been damned with faint praise by the audiophile gurus. As far as I > can tell the only computer based audio system that has been anointed by > the audiophile gurus is a Mac Mini running Amorta(?) and connected via a > >$500 USB cable to an asynchronous USB DAC. And this system exists > because high end audio manufacturer after high end audio manufacturer > keeps on introducing music streamers and music servers that try to use > the completely worthless UpnP/DLNA clusterf*&k.
Well there are a number of reports of people differentiating high-res in Foobar ABX testing which you seem to ignore or are unaware of. This doesn't mean that they can hear > 20KHz which is just the usual unthinking objectivists over-simplified mantra. Here's an '_interesting_thread_' (https://www.gearslutz.com/board/electronic-music-instruments-electronic-music-production/850044-foobar-2000-abx-test-redbook-vs-192-24-a.html) on Gearslutz from 2013 showing positive Foobar ABX logs of a recording engineer repeatedly being able to differentiate redbook from 24/192 on different equipment & with different music. It's interesting because his description of how he did it & what he focused on & how difficult it was to maintain his focus shows how difficult ABX testing is for this sort of difference. If you read the thread you will see his comments but I extract the relevant ones here: > -"Keeping my attention focused for a proper aural listening posture is > brutal. It is VERY easy to drift into listening for frequency > domains--which is usually the most productive approach when recording > and mixing. Instead I try to focus on depth of the soundstage, the sound > picture I think I can hear. The more 3D it seems, the better. "- > -"Caveats--Program material is crucial. Anything that did not pass > through the air on the way to the recording material, like ITB synth > tracks, I'm completely unable to detect; only live acoustic sources give > me anything to work with. So for lots of published material, sample > rates really don't matter--and they surely don't matter to me for that > material. However, this result is also strong support for a claim that > I'm detecting a phenomenon of pure sample rate/word length difference, > and not just incidental coloration induced by processing. The latter > should be detectable on all program material with sufficient freq > content. - > -Also, these differences ARE small, and hard to detect. I did note that > I was able to speed up my decision process as time went on, but only > gradually. It's a difference that's analogous to the difference between > a picture just barely out of focus, and one that's sharp focused > throughout--a holistic impression. For casual purposes, a picture that > focused "enough" will do--in Marketing, that's 'satisficing'. But of > course I always want more."- > -I tried to listen for soundstage depth and accurate detail. It took a > lot of training repetitions, and remains a holistic impression, not any > single feature I can easily point to. It seems to me that the 192 files > have the aural analogue of better focus. To train, I would try to hear > *precisely* where in front of me particular sound features were located, > in two dimensions: left-to-right, and closer-to-further away--the foobar > tool would then allow me to match up which two were easier to precisely > locate. I know it muddies the waters, but I also had a very holistic > impression of sound (uhhhhhh) 'texture'??--in which the 192 file was > smoother/silkier/richer. The 192 is easier on the ears (just slightly) > over time; with good sound reproduction through quality headphones (DT > 770) through quality interface (RME Babyface) I can listen for quite a > while without ear fatigue, even on material that would normally be > considered pretty harsh (capsule's 'Starry Sky', for example), and which > *does* wear me out over time when heard via Redbook audio."- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ jkeny's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=35192 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=103684 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
