Subjective tests that proves audiophiles can hear differences?

[hal55]

Please believe me, i am NOT trying to start a war of words here. I belong to a couple of audio Facebook pages and the threads below keep coming up.
1. No one can hear a difference between cables, those that claim they can are idiots.o
2. Anyone that thinks higher bitrate lossy and lossless sound different is an idiot.
I'm firmly in the camp that you can, often subtle, but nevertheless easily enough discernable. Of the blind studies that have been done though it's actually really difficult to find evidence that backs this up. Sure, many studies have been online and questionable, which only makes it harder to prove that audiophiles can hear the subtle differences we claim to.
I'm just asking, are there legitimate studies that pretty much prove, one way or another, this issue?
I'll just say again, I'm not wanting to start a boots and all war over this, I just want to know if there is empiracle evidence one way or the other.

[struth]

personally i dont give a damn if folk think they do then fine. billions believe in God, but there is no proof of that either

[nonuffin]

personally i dont give a damn if folk think they do then fine. billions believe in God, but there is no proof of that either

Post of the century Grant

[Firebottle]

The only evidence you need is your ears.
The scale of any observable differences will be dependent on the supporting kit, but I for one have heard a big improvement with a better I/C.

[Pepperamip]

I don't think you need to be an audiophile to place a piece of bell wire between your amp and speakers and come to the conclusion that it's had a detrimental impact on the sound your system subsequently produces.

Surely anything that carries a signal bwtween two components must effect the sound in some way or another as to how much I think you should leave to your own ears and preferences.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

[Marco]

Every human being, consciously or subconsciously, is controlled, to some degree, by their (deep-rooted) prejudices, which skew their views and opinions on all manner of subjects, including those on audio, meaning that the conclusions they've reached on any given subject may not necessarily be accurate - and that FACT applies equally to those who 'worship at the altar' of measurements, or ears!

That's why both subjectivists and objectivists possess the propensity to be fooled, and discussions such as this will go nowhere other than circular.

Marco.

[Sherwood]

Disbelief in the higher SQ of HD audio is not the same as disbelief in a God. There is no scientific method for proving the existence or otherwise of a God, though many on both sides of the argument take (often violent exception) to the other party's position on the matter.

In contrast, there are very simple and robust scientific methods for determining whether individuals can detect "differences" in different bit rate recordings and for ranking their preferences regarding these files.

The issue is not whether the HD files are "better" but whether the "differences" can be consistently identified and whether the subjective ratings by the subject are consistent. It does not matter at all whether there is any way of objectively measuring these differences or of rating recording SQ objectively. The only important thing is that the listener can demonstrate consistency in controlled trials.

My view that higher bit rate and broader frequency spectrum recordings can offer a more natural representation of audio reality is of course purely subjective. However, it is not for others to argue that my perception is wrong. Equally, if others cannot hear any differences between HD and Red Book format CDs then I have to accept their subjective assessments**.

Of course, not all HD files are great recordings or genuinely HD for that matter and the debate has undoubtedly been confused by cynical marketing and commercial pressures.

Geoff

** and resist the temptation to tell them to get their ears syringed!!!!

[Light Dependant Resistor]

If you escape the boundaries set by Nyquist /Shannon sampling theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquis...mpling_theorem
that determines we cannot perceive anything above 20khz , then Yes audiophiles or anyone interested in music with normal hearing,
should be able to perceive differences. A view of this video by David Blackmer asks and queries perceptual perfection
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j71NrNMx2rU

Also this article http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazin...yond_20khz.htm

Now the reality is few pieces of equipment are capable of bandwidth beyond 20khz. Marco just a few days ago
reminding us of the Pioneer Legato Link system that not only improved vibration from CD;'s but also enabled circuitry
seemingly escaping the aforementioned sampling theorem.

A good moving coil cartridge has frequency to 30khz , Harmon Kardon had amplifiers in the 1970's capable to
about 70khz, https://www.hifiengine.com/manual_li...ation-12.shtml

The other requirement is time and how it is modulated away from ideal. A classic example is a amplifier circuit
having a long series arrangement of transistors, where what arrives reasonably pristine at the input is no longer represented
by the same timing when it gets to the output. Both AC and DC circuitry has to be considered with regard to time... but who
does it ? very few manufacturers are even thinking about this ( I am )

So escape the boundaries set by some manufacturers of equipment qualifying we can only perceive to 20khz and look at schematics
of equipment to see if any effort is being made to improve time, and the differences we hear as audiophiles will become far more apparent.

[andyrlb]

personally i dont give a damn if folk think they do then fine. billions believe in God, but there is no proof of that either

Yep


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Macca]

Please believe me, i am NOT trying to start a war of words here. I belong to a couple of audio Facebook pages and the threads below keep coming up.
1. No one can hear a difference between cables, those that claim they can are idiots.o
2. Anyone that thinks higher bitrate lossy and lossless sound different is an idiot.
I'm firmly in the camp that you can, often subtle, but nevertheless easily enough discernable. Of the blind studies that have been done though it's actually really difficult to find evidence that backs this up. Sure, many studies have been online and questionable, which only makes it harder to prove that audiophiles can hear the subtle differences we claim to.
I'm just asking, are there legitimate studies that pretty much prove, one way or another, this issue?
I'll just say again, I'm not wanting to start a boots and all war over this, I just want to know if there is empiracle evidence one way or the other.

Speaker cable and interconnects - yes. If there is a difference (and a lot of the time there isn't) some people can discern it in controlled tests. For example James Randi withdrew his million pound prize when he was told that some interconnects and speaker cables do affect the sound enough that experienced listeners would be able to consistently pick out the differences and win the challenge.

However you may think the differences are huge and unsubtle between two sets of cables or interconnects when you know which is in use. Try it when you don't know which cable is in use (blind listening) and the differences become far more subtle and harder to spot. Psychology is a funny thing.

Lossy vs lossless - again some people can depending on the programme used. Easier with simpler recordings


Lossless vs hi rez - no-one can distinguish in controlled tests using music. However if using sounds (not music) with very high frequencies at high levels present they can. With a recording of keys jangling for e.g some can but only because they have trained themselves to pick out artefacts in the high rez version by listening to it many times. Note they using artefacts to pick out the hi-rez version, not the sound itself.

People do claim that there are quite obvious differences between lossless and hi-resolution when listening causally (i.e not in a controlled situation). This is because the Hi-rez file they are using is a different mastering and so does sound different regardless. If you down sample the hi-rez file to 16/44.1 (so the mastering is the same and all that has changed is the sampling frequency and the bit rate) then no-one is able to distinguish a difference.

AFAIAA that is the current state of play as far as the research goes.