MQA vs HiRez: an apples-to-apples comparison - FINAL

[manisandher]

35 minutes ago, manisandher said:

 

 

 

Interestingly, between 16-21 kHz, Sample A has more energy than Sample B. At 21 kHz, the difference is ~4dB. This may account for some of the comments, such as:

 

On 10/27/2018 at 5:04 AM, PeterSt said:

A.

Sounds much clearer which is readily noticeable on the guitar. Lively.

There's more vibrato in the bass (cello ?) audible.

 

Mani.

[manisandher]

9 hours ago, Miska said:

To me it sounds strange if original format sounds worse than the down-conversion...

 

I wasn't implying that in all the comparisons I've made, redbook is better than the equivalent hires. In most cases I find it much of a muchness.

 

The only cases where the originals obviously sound better than the redbooks to me are some of the 2L DXDs. I suspect you share the same experience.

 

Mani.

[manisandher]

8 hours ago, austinpop said:

Certainly, there are many cases where there is no discernible improvement with hi-res over CD.

 

Rajiv, this is really my point.

 

8 hours ago, austinpop said:

I've been comparing, and I can provide you with the 16/44.1 and 24/96 versions of a couple of tracks where to my ears the hi-res is clearly better. If you want to give it a listen, I'd love to have you do so.

 

Definitely interested. If you could PM with a link, that'd be great.

 

8 hours ago, austinpop said:

I'm happy to expose them here too, but you'd know the sample rates. I can hear the cries of "expectation bias" already.

 

I know expectation bias is real, but I reckon it's massively over-rated in some situations. There have been many occasions where I've wanted something to sound great, but it just doesn't, so I don't use it. All my hyper-expensive cables (bought when I was younger and more care- and child-free) sit in boxes in my cellar. My gorgeous-looking SET amps sit boxed up in my cellar. I sold my Pacific Microsonics Model Two because it didn't sound as good as my current DAC, costing a fraction of its price. Etc., etc.

 

Look forward to taking a listen to the tracks you mentioned.

 

Mani.

[manisandher]

29 minutes ago, austinpop said:

PM sent.

 

Thanks Rajiv. Will share my thoughts here in a short while.

 

Mani.

[manisandher]

19 hours ago, austinpop said:

I've been comparing, and I can provide you with the 16/44.1 and 24/96 versions of a couple of tracks where to my ears the hi-res is clearly better.

 

Well, that was interesting! I listened to the 24/96 and 16/44.1 formats of the two tracks you sent me a few times. My general impressions are the same for both tracks.

 

24/96

Easy on the ear. Smooth. Rounded. Brown/grey. Homogeneous. A bit boring to listen to.

 

16/44.1

Vibrant. Colour. More bite. Too 'etched' - like an artificial sheen/halo around instruments. More interesting to listen to, but fatiguing in the long run.

 

Which would I go for? Ideally, I'd like a mix of both - 16/44.1's vibrancy/life and 24/96's smoothness. But to my ears, neither was obviously superior/inferior to the other.

 

Incidentally, I took an FFT of both the formats of one of the tracks. I converted the 16/44.1 to 24/96 in order to compare with the hires:

 

 

The redbook has what looks to be the remnants of noise-shaping within the audio band - that hump between 13.5-22.05 Khz is not signal. The hires has something seriously weird going on between 30-48 kHz. If that's what the hires offers for the extra cost, I'd rather not have it.

 

Mani.

[manisandher]

5 hours ago, audiobomber said:

But isn't it wrong to mix 24/96 and 16/44? It should be 24/88 and 16/44, to avoid algorithm interpolation.

 

Just to be clear, I didn't choose these tracks - @austinpop suggested that I take a listen to them, which I did.

 

The original 'apples-to-apples' thread used a 24/88.2 hires and a 24/44.1 MQA decoded to 24/88.2 (I'll add the 16/44.1 when I can get around to it):

 

For me, it's still one of the most insightful comparisons.

 

Mani.

[manisandher]

4 minutes ago, clipper said:

Maybe it's your DAC.

 

There is no 'higher end' DAC than the Phasure NOS1... IMHO of course ?.

 

Mani.

[manisandher]

20 minutes ago, austinpop said:

We hear what we hear!

 

100%.

 

Mani.

[manisandher]

38 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

We hear what we think we hear!

 

Not a long time ago in a thread not far, far away....

 

I thought I could hear a difference between a file being played back in 2 different bit-identical ways.

I thought I could demonstrate that I was hearing what I was hearing.

I scored 9/10 in a blind ABX.

 

Mani.

[manisandher]

20 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

were the software and its setting the same??

 

The 2 outputs from the software were captured digitally and proven to be bit-identical.

 

Mani.

[manisandher]

9 hours ago, manisandher said:

The 2 outputs from the software were captured digitally and proven to be bit-identical.

 

8 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

after reading the thread properly, that may not have been adequate... 

 

7 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

a well-written Methods section is a sine qua non of all technical writing

 

No-one was doing scientific research.

• I was certain I could hear differences between bit-identical playback.
• So confident was I that this was the case, I invited a well-respected CAer up to demonstrate this to him, with a view to posting the results up, whichever way they went, for all to see. (Does anyone think I would have done this if I couldn't hear what I was hearing?)
• We captured the input to the DAC digitally in real time during the ABX - there were 30 captures from the 10 ABXs.
• All 30 captures were compared and shown to be bit-identical.
• And yet I identified X correctly 9/10 times (1% probability by guessing alone).

I know of no other test conducted as rigourously as this, in situ in a domestic setting.

 

"Whether or not a thing is measurable is not something to be decided a priori by thought alone, but something that can be decided only by experiment."

 

Mani.

[manisandher]

41 minutes ago, audiobomber said:

... I found the music deeply boring.

 

10 minutes ago, randyhat said:

Exactly.  Good music, no matter how well recorded will always sound better than well recorded boring music.

 

FWIW, I like the music in all 3 'apples-to-apples' threads ?.

 

Mani.

[manisandher]

5 minutes ago, austinpop said:

Hmm, I have to analyze my recent tendency to talk in yoda-like sentences.

 

"My recent tendency to talk in Yoda-like sentences to analyze I have." Surely?

 

Mani.