Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by w1nt3rmu4e 2724 days ago
Personally I have zero problems A/B-ing DSD, PCM and lossy formats on my reference system (headphones). I also know (award winning) people in the audio industry who can walk into a listening room and tell you where the dominate resonances are or tell you if a reconstruction filter is linear or minimum phase.

The idea you can take a group of non-professionals and run tests with no requirements on equipment quality and then draw conclusions about what any human can hear is absurd.

Those tests (Hydrogenaudio was one of the main proponents back when lossy codecs were more important) are a decent way to tell if something is audible for the average listener with average equipment. It cracks me up when people start telling me what I can or cannot hear based on those tests without knowing anything about me or what kind of equipment I own. This happened just the other day on an audio forum.

Another dimension to this is that DAC quality has been increasing steadily while the prices of high fidelity DACs have been dropping. The DAC chips on the market today are really the best ever made (ESS and AKM notably). More people than ever have access to (near-)reference quality DACs. When lossy compression tests were popular few people had access to reference quality DACs. I remember people talking about using their computer sound cards as sources for those tests.

I think a lot of people react negatively to this topic because it's considered elitist (expensive toys). The good news is just about anyone can afford a near-reference quality, inexpensive headphone setup these days. You have to do your homework and read reviews but they definitely exist. I recently picked up a DAP and IEMs for ~$300 total (for running) and it's 90% of the quality of my reference rig. I listen to it instead of my reference rig sometimes. It's that good, despite the price.

(Even on that, I can easily ABX FLAC and 192kps AAC, which has been universally declared "transparent" more than once.)

If you think your smartphone's audio jack sounds good, you really need to listen to a device with a proper amount of output power (you need more than you think for headphones) and a high resolution DAC. You need both to be good, though they can be part of the same device. When you have them, music really becomes holographic and, for lack of a better word, alive.

4 comments

>It cracks me up when people start telling me what I can or cannot hear based on those tests without knowing anything about me or what kind of equipment I own. This happened just the other day on an audio forum.

Just disprove them with data! Until then, casually mentioning "award-winning" acquaintances and telling people they need "proper" gear reads a bit condescending and probably turns some people defensive.

I generally don't name drop and I never tell people to get better gear. The burden of proof is not on me. I simply do not give a shit what they believe.

I only take issue with people telling me what I do or do not experience -- because of the absurdity of that. The fact that this is about audio is coincidental.

If they tell you this in a personal dialogue, than I concur, it's silly and probably pointless. However, in a public online discussion they are probably just trying to mark for others some information which they see as false as something to disregard. And if they're reasonable, they will add some statistical data to prove their point.
The impact of audio hardware quality specifically on the noticeability/ABXability of compression artifacts is greatly exagerated. Going above mid-range speaker setups I have not found them to be more revealing in this specific regard. And of course, as you mentioned, even inexpensive but decent headphones beat very expensive speaker setups for critical listening.

I completely missed the Hydrogenaudio multiformat test in 2014. I wonder how much things progressed since when I participated in the early tests in 2006.

If anyone is looking for a low cost, open source, high quality Headphone amp + DAC combo which rivals gear costing 16 times as much, take a look at NwAvGuys stuff.

Headphone amp: http://nwavguy.blogspot.com/2011/08/o2-details.html#resource...

DAC: http://nwavguy.blogspot.com/2012/04/odac-released.html

> I recently picked up a DAP and IEMs for ~$300 total (for running) and it's 90% of the quality of my reference rig.

Which ones did you choose?

I've got a lot of different gear, but the stuff in question was the HiBy R3, which has a new ESS DAC/AMP combo (an SoC which eliminates a lot of variability in quality due to implementation problems) and a very healthy 200mW/16R (or somewhere around there) output power in balanced mode. Small, the software is great by DAP standards and it's inexpensive.

The IEMs I struggle to recommend: Fiio FH1, which is a dynamic driver / BA 'hybrid'. They are enjoyable to listen to but definitely not reference -- bass heavy. They're leagues beyond a typical earbud, however, and for $75 it's hard to complain.

I mainly don't recommend them because they're the first IEMs I've tried anywhere near that price range, apart from freebies included with smartphones, etc. They might be easily bettered by something else in the same price range, especially since there's a lot of competition there now.