Support NeoGAF

[pj]

I read a good article this morning on the pointlessness of "high res" audio, and decided to check some forums to see how people were reacting to it.

My first stop was audioasylum, which I gather is where the barely computer literate congregate to discuss the latest issue of Stereophile, leaning close to the monitor with their half glasses low on the nose, hunting and pecking for each letter and getting annoyed when they forget which button means "mail out my message". The reactions were fairly reasonable, with a couple exceptions:

Great article and a great read, thanks. But in the end almost all people prefer 24 bit music.

Either a master troll or the exact type of person that makes fans of high quality audio look like jagoffs.

This has little to do with listening to music and were derived playing sine waves.

Who listens to 50Hz to 20k sine waves? They annoy more than sounding loud.

This has little to do with looking at images. Who looks at patches of blue and green?

So while this guy is throwing out a lot of good theory, it appears, I think he, like lots of people who trust math more than their ears - might be missing something in their explanation.

I heard, math, lies on his, taxes and cheats - on his wife too.



Next I moved on to AVSForum, which is inhabited by generally more reasonable people with science and engineering backgrounds, where instead of finding a thread discussing this article, I found one discussing a different article in the audiophile magazine The Absolute Sound. I believe this article is part of the impetus for the article on the pointlessness of high res audio.

The basic gist of the article (not "available" online), part 3 of a series on computer audio, subtitled "Is FLAC a fraud?", was an analysis of FLAC creation, storage and reproduction that intends to end the debate once and for all; are lossless files lossless?

I couldn't bear to read the whole thing, but here are some choice excerpts/conclusions from the article:

- Upsampling 176/24 --> 176/32 sounds better! (not sure what 32-bit DAC
they're using)

- Odd upsampling from 44/16 & 176/24 --> 192/24 sounds better! (hmm,
maybe their DAC can't handle the family of 44kHz rates properly!)

- Huge variation in sound from playback software - Audition 3.0.7283.0
($200) scores a paltry 85 while iZotope RX Advanced ($1000) with fancy
192/32 upsampling leads to a subjective improvement to 145 - almost 2x
as good!

- If you're gonna downconvert from 176/24 --> 44/16 - you need iZotope
again cuz it scores 150, lowly Audition can't convert worth a darn
resulting in 85.

- CD Ripping software makes a difference! Nero scores 60 while
dbPowerAmp 140! Forget the fact they're bit-identical with EAC at 110!

- Ripping read SPEED matters! Again they're bit identical! 1x with JRMC
= 135, 16x = 115

- Burning software matters! JRMC CD-R scores 130 vs. Nero sucking it at
70!

- CD-R brands matter (don't know what transport they used) - Mitsui
MAM-A Gold 130, TDK Sivers 85.

- Burn speed matters - 4x JRMC scores 120, don't even think about
burning at 16x - 75! Incidentally, the original WAV file only scores
100 played back on PS Audio PWT-PWD.

Every single bullet point is amazingly stupid, but my god, they are judging the audio quality output of DIFFERENT RIPPING SPEEDS AND BLANK CD BRANDS. Also it is very odd that the more expensive something is, the better it sounds! Weird!

The results of this test were interesting
in that there was degradation in every case
when ripping CDs to FLAC. With the
best-performing program, JRMC, there
was a 25–30 point degradation between
the FLAC and WAV files ripped from the
CD or WAV file copied from the HRx
disc. These results confirm the reports
of others, but now we can quantify just
how large these losses actually are. For
example, the FLAC conversion from
the HRx WAV file using Media Monkey
sounded substantially worse than the best
WAV file ripped from the CD using dBPA!
Who would have guessed this outcome
prior to doing these comparisons?

...

Who would have guessed that the idiots who are wrong about everything, all of the time, would get it wrong again? *raises hand*

We first asked the
question whether the sonic degradation
associated with repeated FLAC-to-WAVto-
FLAC conversions were cumulative.
To this end we performed 5 or 10
consecutive FLAC-to-WAV conversions
using dBPA on each computer in System
1 and System 2, respectively. Given the
potential for controversy, depending on
our results, we repeated our listening
tests in three independent sessions with
3 listeners in each. We consistently found
that there was a cumulative stepwise
decrease in overall sound quality (audible
as a decrease in image height, stage depth,
clarity, and rhythm and pace). We also
found that the overall effect was larger
for files made on the computer of System
1 (32-bit Windows Vista, 4 gigs RAM,
2.66GHz CPU) compared to System 2’s
computer (64-bit Windows 7, 8 gigs RAM,
3.0GHz CPU). These results indicate that
there can be at least two sources whereby
FLAC conversion degrades sound quality.

You didn't think they would make a claim like that without PROVING it, did you? Even though repeated wav->flac->wav cycles produce BIT IDENTICAL files, these three gods of hearing were able to detect degradation in the sound.

Our final test in this series was to
determine whether any programs could
improve the sound of a FLAC file when
converted back to a WAV file. We employed
two matched sources: a 44/16 CD-to-
FLAC rip we made ourselves from the
manufacturer’s CD; and a 192/24 FLAC
file copied to HD from the manufacturer’s
DVD-ROM disc (Table 11).
Our results from this test were
disappointing and not expected. We
were hoping that the FLAC-to-WAV
conversion process would recover some
of the sound degradation we have
experienced with FLAC files. Only one
program, Foobar 2000, did not degrade
the sound and managed to recover
approximately 15 points (or half of the
loss) of the sound quality difference
between FLAC and WAV and then only
for the CD.

Now that we know FLACs, the audio equivalent of zipping a file, destroy the audio quality, how do we get it back? In what world does this make sense? If FLAC somehow managed to lose information, what, aside from actual magic, could bring it back?

Although JRMC reported
an accurate rip for all the speeds, and are bit-for-bit identical at
all read speeds, we are still able to detect sonic differences in the
resulting file. We know these results drive engineers crazy. We would
love it if someone could come up with a definitive explanation that
could provide input to software developers.

Astonishing. Hey nerds, why does one "1" sound different than another? Figure it out and get back to us, thanks. This discovery is going to shake the foundations of computer science. The simplest possible concept, 1/0, True/False, Existence/Non-existence, apparently AIN'T SO SIMPLE.

How do these shit brains function in the world? Are they so used to ignoring the cognitive dissonance required to be audiophiles that it doesn't even register as odd to say "Even though these things are EXACTLY THE SAME, they are different"? Fuck off

 

[olore]

 

[Stet]

Didn't read. Wasn't encoded in 320kbps.

 

[shuri]

Those kind of guys buy 20k cable sets that are handmade because they feel it makes the sound of their cds more 'chewy' or something.

PURE MADNESS

 

[Alucrid]

The only thing worse than audiophiles are people who bitch about audiophiles.

 

[out0v0rder]

Thread isn't warm enough. Too brittle and harsh. How could anybody stand this at all.

 

[faceless007]

Of course they can never detect a single difference they claim to in a double-blind test.

 

[RevDM]

I hate people who listen to music. My iPod has a huge library of static white noise.

 

[NoRéN]

Anyone who describes themselves as a ______phile is bad news.

 

[akira28]

The only thing worse than audiophiles are people who bitch about audiophiles.

yep.

 

[Ashhong]

Pretty much...

 

[Salmonax]

I can appreciate the desire to have high quality audio sources and components, etc. But there does seem to be a unique and fairly consistent kind of dementia with hardcore audiophiles.

 

[Mobius 1]

Didn't read. Wasn't encoded in 320kbps.

5/10. Definitely some noise in the lower spectrum of your joke.

 

[Archer]

Amateur audiophile here.

320kbps is more than satisfactory for me.

tl;dr

 

[Barrett2]

This thread sounds best with Beats By Dre.

 

[Dark Stalkers]

I'm Commander Shepard and this is the worst thread on NeoGAF.

 

[Quick]

 

[Snytbaggen]

Placebo is amazing. Although I suppose I'm a bit of an audiophile if that means "getting the best possible sound", but at one point it just becomes ridiculous. And although FLAC is pretty nice for archiving purposes (and LP-rips with insane bitrates for larger e-peens) you can't really hear much of a difference between a 320kbps MP3 and a flac file. Heck, even between 128kbps and 320kbps there isn't that much of a difference, at least with good compression.

 

[pj]

The only thing worse than audiophiles are people who bitch about audiophiles.

They are wasting their own money and desperately trying to convince others to do the same. I see it as a civic duty to point out the ridiculousness of their horse hockey. Especially when it comes from people who are either directly or indirectly selling the stuff.

I don't even really care about the millionaire who spends $20k on a power cable. He can waste his money however he wants. I am concerned about the middle class dude who thinks a $500 cable is a good investment, or a $4000 amplifier, or $500 mp3 player software. That's a lot of money for shit that makes almost to actually zero difference on audio quality.

 

[AlexSmash]

Hating those guys is as irrational as the stuff those guys "believe" in.


And if every recording and mastering studio wouldnt hear those "minor" differences between mp3/flac 128kbps/320kbps all our ears would be bleeding.

 

[joelseph]

OP is funny. Wants to bash audiophiles but appears to be one himself. Shit is confusing.

 

[Daft_Cat]

I like sound if the beat is true, and the composition clear.

 

[thomaser]

Well, it is very easy to hear differences if that's what you want to hear. You can't argue with subjectivity. But enough about that: HERE's audiophile stupidity at a whole nother level*. That site belongs to a company that sells rocks, bells, alarm clocks and phone calls that supposedly make your hi-fi system sound better by the power of quantum mechanics. And people actually, honestly BUY the things, for real, and then go to discussion boards and post about how the new rock/sticker/glass of water makes the sound stage so much wider.

*I'm an audiophile myself, but I restrict my stupidity to buying sacds instead of cds when I can choose - and I don't have an sacd-compatible player.

 

[Deleted member 1235]

I went to the trouble of putting rockbox on my ipod so I could play a flac. Then I found out that a flac is worthless on an ipod unless you buy an extra amp for your ipod and some real fucking fancy headphones.

Then my money ran out and now I have rockbox on my ipod and the interface sucks more than the standard apple one.



I'm still going to buy a 5.1 home cinema when I can afford it, because I like it when the ghost sounds like it's behind me in a scary movie. I think that will be as 'audiophile' as I get.

 

[la flama blanca]

I AM OUTRAGED

 

[Rentahamster]

OP has a point.

I like this forum post where a guy switches out monster cable for a coat hanger, and no one can tell the difference.

http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/15412-post28.html

 

[VGChampion]

As long as I don't hear that static noise I'm good. I'll probably take FLAC if it's available to purchase just because but usually I stick with the highest quality MP3.

A lot of the time I'm lazy and will just load up YouTube and listen to the song I want there over iTunes anyays.

 

[mescalineeyes]

Placebo is amazing.

Not even FLAC can save that band from sounding awful.

 

[pj]

OP is funny. Wants to bash audiophiles but appears to be one himself. Shit is confusing.

I have a nice stereo and have spotify set to "high quality streaming". That's about as far as my audiophilia goes. I also download FLAC rips of my favorite albums, but I generally can't tell the difference between them and good MP3s. Probably because they were ripped at too high of a speed.

 

[Korey]

I'm such a foodie

 

[Alucrid]

They are wasting their own money and desperately trying to convince others to do the same. I see it as a civic duty to point out the ridiculousness of their horse hockey. Especially when it comes from people who are either directly or indirectly selling the stuff.

I don't even really care about the millionaire who spends $20k on a power cable. He can waste his money however he wants. I am concerned about the middle class dude who thinks a $500 cable is a good investment, or a $4000 amplifier, or $500 mp3 player software. That's a lot of money for shit that makes almost to actually zero difference on audio quality.

A fool and his money are easily parted. If he wasn't spending it on audiophile equipment he'd surely be spending it somewhere else. You more than likely wpt convince him otherwise. At least this shot has resell value.

 

[sixteen-bit]

I'm struggling to care. I'm of the opinion they should do what makes them happy, as long as they aren't harming anyone.

 

[SUPREME1]

I came into this thread ready to join you in battle. I leave this thread you mortal enemy.

 

[Glass Rebel]

I have a nice stereo and have spotify set to "high quality streaming". That's about as far as my audiophilia goes. I also download FLAC rips of my favorite albums, but I generally can't tell the difference between them and good MP3s. Probably because they were ripped at too high of a speed.

Oh, you want to tell me more about this store that sells FLACs?

 

[Dreams-Visions]

Great read. However, I get the feeling some here didn't read it all because:

Finally, the good news

What actually works to improve the quality of the digital audio to which we're listening?

Better headphones

The easiest fix isn't digital. The most dramatic possible fidelty improvement comes from a good pair of headphones. Over-ear, in ear, open or closed, it doesn't much matter. They don't even need to be expensive, though expensive headphones can be worth the money.

Keep in mind that some headphones are expensive because they're well made, durable and sound great. Others are expensive because they're $20 headphones under a several hundred dollar layer of styling, brand name, and marketing. I won't make specfic recommendations here, but I will say you're not likely to find good headphones in a big box store, even if it specializes in electronics or music. As in all other aspects of consumer hi-fi, do your research (and caveat emptor).

Lossless formats

It's true enough that a properly encoded Ogg file (or MP3, or AAC file) will be indistinguishable from the original at a moderate bitrate.

But what of badly encoded files?

Twenty years ago, all mp3 encoders were really bad by today's standards. Plenty of these old, bad encoders are still in use, presumably because the licenses are cheaper and most people can't tell or don't care about the difference anyway. Why would any company spend money to fix what it's completely unaware is broken?

Moving to a newer format like Vorbis or AAC doesn't necessarily help. For example, many companies and individuals used (and still use) FFmpeg's very-low-quality built-in Vorbis encoder because it was the default in FFmpeg and they were unaware how bad it was. AAC has an even longer history of widely-deployed, low-quality encoders; all mainstream lossy formats do.

Lossless formats like FLAC avoid any possibility of damaging audio fidelity [18] with a poor quality lossy encoder, or even by a good lossy encoder used incorrectly.

A second reason to distribute lossless formats is to avoid generational loss. Each reencode or transcode loses more data; even if the first encoding is transparent, it's very possible the second will have audible artifacts. This matters to anyone who might want to remix or sample from downloads. It especially matters to us codec researchers; we need clean audio to work with.

Better masters

The BAS test I linked earlier mentions as an aside that the SACD version of a recording often does sound substantially better than the CD release. It's not because of increased sample rate or depth but because of the better mastering of the SACD. When bounced to a CD-R, the SACD version still sounds as good as the original SACD and much better than the CD release. Good production and mastering obviously contribute to the final quality of the music [19].

The recent coverage of 'Mastered for iTunes' and similar initiatives from other industry labels is somehwat encouraging. What remains to be seen is whether or not Apple and the others actually 'get it' or if this is merely a hook for selling consumers yet another, more expensive copy of music they already own.

is important to mention as well. audiophiles love good, quality headphones (not made by Bose and Monster), amplifiers, and well-mastered audio recordings. ALL of those things are vindicated by the article.

But yes, those who have obsessed over certain aspects of music recordings were wrong, and many of the testing methods employed to substantiate some of the arguments that have persisted have been fatally flawed. Still doesn't change the fact that better equipment + better mastered versions of songs + lossless/near-lossless fidelity = a superior listening experience. And "Mastered for iTunes" should be a great thing for people who love and enjoy music.

Oh, you want to tell me more about this store that sells FLACs?

iirc, there are a couple.

 

[scy]

I have a nice stereo and have spotify set to "high quality streaming". That's about as far as my audiophilia goes. I also download FLAC rips of my favorite albums, but I generally can't tell the difference between them and good MP3s.

Eh, a lot of audiophiles would say the same about high quality MP3s and FLACs, I'd imagine. Especially ones who've done blind tests.

Unless there's going to be some snake oil talk about headphones now.

 

[The Boat]

Extremes are always bad, whether you're too fanatic about your audio or refuse to accept that you don't know shit about it and there might be ways to better appreciate sound. This applies to lots of things of course.

 

[Flo_Evans]

Actual audiophiles dropping thousands on cables are pretty rare. I find the people that spend $200 on some beats headphones telling me how much better they are than my grados more annoying all things considered.

 

[Alucrid]

Oh, you want to tell me more about this store that sells FLACs?

Boomkat
bleep

 

[sankt-Antonio]

The only thing i need/wish for is reasonable mastering. I hope "Mastered for iTunes" is going to push that.

 

[Dreams-Visions]

Eh, a lot of audiophiles would say the same about high quality MP3s and FLACs, I'd imagine. Especially ones who've done blind tests.

Unless there's going to be some snake oil talk about headphones now.

chances are they didn't do the double-blind tests correctly anyway. The article in the OP talks about that at length. I'd summarize it, but I'm too lazy. I'll just say, decibel levels and confirmation bias matter...and if they tests aren't tuned with appropriate equipment to within .2db, the test if fucked to begin with.

 

[Neo C.]

To be fair, some gamers aren't much better. And because of diminishing returns, some screenshot comparisons are just stupid.

 

[SpacLock]

24bit, baby.

 

[dorkimoe]

The only thing worse than audiophiles are people who bitch about audiophiles.

spoken like a true audiophile

 

[fushi]

I read a good article this morning

Fantastic read, thanks for linking it.

Oh, you want to tell me more about this store that sells FLACs?

bandcamp...?

 

[CiSTM]

Music is serious business. Audiophiles are almost bad as people who can define if the artists has "heart" or "soul".

 

[btkadams]

Oh, you want to tell me more about this store that sells FLACs?

there are a bunch of them.. (some sell aiff/wav)

beatport and junodownload to name a couple. i also try to only buy lossless. i'll buy the cd if it's unavailable on a digital store in lossless. i have plenty of mp3s though ha.

 

[Veal]

Well, it is very easy to hear differences if that's what you want to hear. You can't argue with subjectivity. But enough about that: HERE's audiophile stupidity at a whole nother level*. That site belongs to a company that sells rocks, bells, alarm clocks and phone calls that supposedly make your hi-fi system sound better by the power of quantum mechanics. And people actually, honestly BUY the things, for real, and then go to discussion boards and post about how the new rock/sticker/glass of water makes the sound stage so much wider.

*I'm an audiophile myself, but I restrict my stupidity to buying sacds instead of cds when I can choose - and I don't have an sacd-compatible player.

Oh my...I don't want this to be true!
EDIT: After reading about the SUPER INTELLIGENT CHIP, it's pretty obvious this is for those older, gullible-but-insanely-rich-for-whatever-reason audiophiles out there. The language reminds me of those "Cure All" medicine salesmen. Plus all of the Looney Tunes references and copy-paste website design is a dead give away. Whoever buys anything from these guys absolutely deserves them.

 

[scy]

chances are they didn't do the double-blind tests correctly anyway. The article in the OP talks about that at length. I'd summarize it, but I'm too lazy. I'll just say, decibel levels and confirmation bias matter...and if they tests aren't tuned with appropriate equipment to within .2db, the test if fucked to begin with.

I've done my own testing out of curiosity and I didn't fare better than basically flipping a coin on calling things. I don't have massively expensive equipment but still, it wasn't night and day sort of things and, in the end, that's all I was really looking for.

And confirmation bias and other things are hilariously powerful in these kind of things. It's amazing to see how big of a difference they make. It's also kind of depressing :|

 

[pj]

is important to mention as well. audiophiles love good, quality headphones (not made by Bose and Monster), amplifiers, and well-mastered audio recordings. ALL of those things are vindicated by the article.

Of course, though I believe Monster has some very well regarded earphones. Also I don't recall the article saying anything about amplifiers. To me, they are a grey area where the benefit of spending more money hasn't ever really been sufficiently demonstrated. Until I see something compelling, I will continue to err on the side of not spending big bucks.

But yes, those who have obsessed over certain aspects of music recordings were wrong, and many of the testing methods employed to substantiate some of the arguments that have persisted have been fatally flawed. Still doesn't change the fact that better equipment + better mastered versions of songs + lossless/near-lossless fidelity = a superior listening experience. And "Mastered for iTunes" should be a great thing for people who love and enjoy music.

The problem is that as far as the audio press goes, it's almost impossible to find the line between reality and hype, since it is buried under so much flowery and almost always entirely positive language. The consumers are generally just as bad because they take their cues from the magazines.