testikoff Posted May 12, 2015 Share Posted May 12, 2015 Yes it would be nice with a better track, however it's not that easy to find tracks with powerful ultrasonics above 25khz. If there is another test the 2 of the files will be the original and 2 will be down-sampled. Check the following sites for some phenomenal free LPCM samples in true Hi-Rez: Sound Liaison 2L Soundkeeper Recordings Link to comment
adolf512 Posted May 12, 2015 Author Share Posted May 12, 2015 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
testikoff Posted May 12, 2015 Share Posted May 12, 2015 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
Paul R Posted May 12, 2015 Share Posted May 12, 2015 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
adolf512 Posted May 12, 2015 Author Share Posted May 12, 2015 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
Paul R Posted May 12, 2015 Share Posted May 12, 2015 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
audiventory Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 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 & WindowsOffline conversion save energy and nature Link to comment
Tony Lauck Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 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
adolf512 Posted May 13, 2015 Author Share Posted May 13, 2015 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
audiventory Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 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 & WindowsOffline conversion save energy and nature Link to comment
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now