Jump to content
IGNORED

Blindtest between sample rates


which of the files is sounded worst  

9 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

Check the following sites for some phenomenal free LPCM samples in true Hi-Rez:

 

Sound Liaison

2L

Soundkeeper Recordings

I have found one track that might be suitable(sr003-02-24192) maybe (sr005-01-24192) also, the following sample rates will be chosen then:

-192KS/s

-96KS/s

-64KS/s

-54KS/s

-44.1KS/s

I do not think it is necessary to have a duplicate of the 192KS/s version since it is very unlikely it will be any audible difference between it and the 96KS/s version.

Link to comment
I have found one track that might be suitable(sr003-02-24192) maybe (sr005-01-24192) also, the following sample rates will be chosen then:

-192KS/s

-96KS/s

-64KS/s

-54KS/s

-44.1KS/s

I do not think it is necessary to have a duplicate of the 192KS/s version since it is very unlikely it will be any audible difference between it and the 96KS/s version.

You may wanna ask Barry Diament's permission to do that (he is a member here, IIRC)...

Link to comment
I have found one track that might be suitable(sr003-02-24192) maybe (sr005-01-24192) also, the following sample rates will be chosen then:

-192KS/s

-96KS/s

-64KS/s

-54KS/s

-44.1KS/s

I do not think it is necessary to have a duplicate of the 192KS/s version since it is very unlikely it will be any audible difference between it and the 96KS/s version.

 

 

I am not sure Barry would agree with you, but I expect he will speak for himself. For me, I can distinctly hear the difference between 96 and 192 on Barry's samples. But even the RedBook is very very well done recording art. ;)

 

-Paul

Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never dealt with a cat DAC.

Robert A. Heinlein

Link to comment
I am not sure Barry would agree with you, but I expect he will speak for himself. For me, I can distinctly hear the difference between 96 and 192 on Barry's samples.

Ok i will duplicate the 192KS/s version then, i will post the next blind test next week and before that you can always suggest (almost) any song (i am a what.cd member).

 

I am thinking of doing it as a competition where the users first should identify the 44.1 version, than 54, 64 and finally the 96KS/s version(you have a 1 in 120 chance if you just guess).

Link to comment
Ok i will duplicate the 192KS/s version then, i will post the next blind test next week and before that you can always suggest (almost) any song (i am a what.cd member).

 

I am thinking of doing it as a competition where the users first should identify the 44.1 version, than 54, 64 and finally the 96KS/s version(you have a 1 in 120 chance if you just guess).

 

Are you sure about those chances? It is definitely order dependent. If you happen to listen to the high res first (or you own the high res version) then you are much more likely to "hear" stuff in the Redbook version than otherwise. That's before you even take into account he system and DAC!

 

This is fun, but there are a LOT of variables to be considered. :)

Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never dealt with a cat DAC.

Robert A. Heinlein

Link to comment
Are you sure about those chances? It is definitely order dependent. If you happen to listen to the high res first (or you own the high res version) then you are much more likely to "hear" stuff in the Redbook version than otherwise. That's before you even take into account he system and DAC!

 

This is fun, but there are a LOT of variables to be considered. :)

 

Hi Paul,

 

"a LOT" is key word.

In my opinion from technical point of view impossibly compare different resolutions due different way of signal from file to amplifier.

 

Example:

1. For 192 -> 44 kHz

source -> resampling in 192/44 kHz mode -> player in bit perfect mode -> DAC in 44 kHz mode -> amplifier

 

2. For 192 -> 96 kHz

source -> resampling in 192/96 kHz mode -> player in bit perfect mode -> DAC in 96 kHz mode -> amplifier

 

Bold text show different links of the compared systems. It's even maximally simplified model.

 

What we compare here:

1. modes of resampler?

2. different modes of dac?

3. resolution as itself?

 

 

We can consider only comparing of certain systems in certain modes.

 

Best regards,

Yuri

AuI ConverteR 48x44 - HD audio converter/optimizer for DAC of high resolution files

ISO, DSF, DFF (1-bit/D64/128/256/512/1024), wav, flac, aiff, alac,  safe CD ripper to PCM/DSF,

Seamless Album Conversion, AIFF, WAV, FLAC, DSF metadata editor, Mac & Windows
Offline conversion save energy and nature

Link to comment
Hi Paul,

 

"a LOT" is key word.

In my opinion from technical point of view impossibly compare different resolutions due different way of signal from file to amplifier.

 

Example:

1. For 192 -> 44 kHz

source -> resampling in 192/44 kHz mode -> player in bit perfect mode -> DAC in 44 kHz mode -> amplifier

 

2. For 192 -> 96 kHz

source -> resampling in 192/96 kHz mode -> player in bit perfect mode -> DAC in 96 kHz mode -> amplifier

 

Bold text show different links of the compared systems. It's even maximally simplified model.

 

What we compare here:

1. modes of resampler?

2. different modes of dac?

3. resolution as itself?

 

 

We can consider only comparing of certain systems in certain modes.

 

Best regards,

Yuri

 

Strictly speaking, you are correct. it is impossible to isolate the differences in formats from the mechanisms that record and playback the formats. (This also applies to comparisons across different media types, not just different digital formats.)

 

An experimenter can gain more control over the experiment by always running the DAC in the same format. Thus one might compare 192/24 > DAC in 192/24 vs. 192/24 > [resamping 192/24 to 44/16] > 44/16 > [resampling 44/16 to 192/24] > 192/24 > DAC in 192/24. This is common practice. The experimenter can also examine individual samples of the comparison files or otherwise vet that the conversions he made are suitable.

 

I think it best to conduct these experiments with state of the art format conversion software, such as that provided by iZotope. This gives the experimenter the opportunity to try many different filter combinations and dither algorithms and learn, first hand, how these affect the sound quality.

 

It can be argued that the extra resampling degrades the sound quality and thus unfairly penalizes the low sample rate format. There are many ways to bias these tests in favor of one conclusion or another, so one must trust that the experimenter is competent, careful and honest, which is to say he is acting as a scientist searching for the truth and not as a salesman.

Link to comment

I think it best to conduct these experiments with state of the art format conversion software, such as that provided by iZotope. This gives the experimenter the opportunity to try many different filter combinations and dither algorithms and learn, first hand, how these affect the sound quality.

 

It can be argued that the extra resampling degrades the sound quality and thus unfairly penalizes the low sample rate format. There are many ways to bias these tests in favor of one conclusion or another, so one must trust that the experimenter is competent, careful and honest, which is to say he is acting as a scientist searching for the truth and not as a salesman.

Of course i always resample back. I use linux most of the time and audacity is obviously very good at resampling. However you might be interested in trying filters with slower roll-off or less pre-ringing(not sure if it really matters that much at higher sampling rates).

 

Dithering settings hardly matters when the tracks is 24 bits. Btw: i have already prepared the tracks for the next test.

Link to comment
Strictly speaking, you are correct. it is impossible to isolate the differences in formats from the mechanisms that record and playback the formats. (This also applies to comparisons across different media types, not just different digital formats.)

 

An experimenter can gain more control over the experiment by always running the DAC in the same format. Thus one might compare 192/24 > DAC in 192/24 vs. 192/24 > [resamping 192/24 to 44/16] > 44/16 > [resampling 44/16 to 192/24] > 192/24 > DAC in 192/24. This is common practice. The experimenter can also examine individual samples of the comparison files or otherwise vet that the conversions he made are suitable.

 

I think it best to conduct these experiments with state of the art format conversion software, such as that provided by iZotope. This gives the experimenter the opportunity to try many different filter combinations and dither algorithms and learn, first hand, how these affect the sound quality.

 

It can be argued that the extra resampling degrades the sound quality and thus unfairly penalizes the low sample rate format. There are many ways to bias these tests in favor of one conclusion or another, so one must trust that the experimenter is competent, careful and honest, which is to say he is acting as a scientist searching for the truth and not as a salesman.

 

Sometime used method of normalization of source values to single value, as you said.

 

But it must considered when learned results of experiment as its restriction.

 

Here again we check resampling method, not format.

 

Of course resampling is not worst part of audio way :)

 

Here need remember initial purpose of creating high sample rate standards - simpler analog filters in combination with digital filter in DAC.

 

Reason of improving sound here. And again imrove or degrade - depend on certain realization.

 

Pro sound interface at 44 kHz can sound better then the consumer device at 192 kHz for bit perfect playback.

AuI ConverteR 48x44 - HD audio converter/optimizer for DAC of high resolution files

ISO, DSF, DFF (1-bit/D64/128/256/512/1024), wav, flac, aiff, alac,  safe CD ripper to PCM/DSF,

Seamless Album Conversion, AIFF, WAV, FLAC, DSF metadata editor, Mac & Windows
Offline conversion save energy and nature

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...