Jump to content
IGNORED

24/352.8 vs. 16/44.1 - an attempt at a comparison


Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, fas42 said:

I certainly have a preference, though, :).

 

What's your preference?

 

Mani.

Main: SOtM sMS-200 -> Okto dac8PRO -> 6x Neurochrome 286 mono amps -> Tune Audio Anima horns + 2x Rotel RB-1590 amps -> 4 subs

Home Office: SOtM sMS-200 -> MOTU UltraLite-mk5 -> 6x Neurochrome 286 mono amps -> Impulse H2 speakers

Vinyl: Technics SP10 / London (Decca) Reference -> Trafomatic Luna -> RME ADI-2 Pro

Link to comment
11 hours ago, sandyk said:

That's a pathetic excuse for not having gear (or hearing abilities ?) good enough to easily hear which file was the up-converted 16/44.1 version.

 

Alex, neither of the original files I used were 'up-converted'. One was the original 24/352.8 and the other a 16/44.1, derived by decimating ('down-converting') the original (done by 2L, not me).

 

One of the reasons I went for capturing at 16/44.1 was that it would be difficult distinguishing between the files by analysis alone... or so I thought.

 

11 hours ago, sandyk said:

You appear to come from the 16/44.1 camp that insists that high res is a waste of time as only younger dogs, bats etc. can hear the differences.

 

Both the captures I linked to were 16/44.1, so if they sound different, and they do (very subtly) to my ears, then this cannot be due to one having more HF info above 22.05kHz than the other. What it might be down to is the anti-imaging filter used when replaying the 16/44.1 file, as no anti-imaging filter was used in the case of the 24/352.8. (The anti-aliasing filter used by 2L during decimation may also be having an effect.)

 

Mani.

Main: SOtM sMS-200 -> Okto dac8PRO -> 6x Neurochrome 286 mono amps -> Tune Audio Anima horns + 2x Rotel RB-1590 amps -> 4 subs

Home Office: SOtM sMS-200 -> MOTU UltraLite-mk5 -> 6x Neurochrome 286 mono amps -> Impulse H2 speakers

Vinyl: Technics SP10 / London (Decca) Reference -> Trafomatic Luna -> RME ADI-2 Pro

Link to comment
2 hours ago, manisandher said:

 

Alex, neither of the original files I used were 'up-converted'. One was the original 24/352.8 and the other a 16/44.1, derived by decimating ('down-converting') the original (done by 2L, not me).

 

One of the reasons I went for capturing at 16/44.1 was that it would be difficult distinguishing between the files by analysis alone... or so I thought.

 

 

Both the captures I linked to were 16/44.1, so if they sound different, and they do (very subtly) to my ears, then this cannot be due to one having more HF info above 22.05kHz than the other. What it might be down to is the anti-imaging filter used when replaying the 16/44.1 file, as no anti-imaging filter was used in the case of the 24/352.8. (The anti-aliasing filter used by 2L during decimation may also be having an effect.)

 

Mani.

I know this is asking a lot Mani.  Could you repeat both captures at least once or twice?  Would be good to know how consistent the captures are.  And you could listen and see if the same capture twice or thrice all sound the same at least to each other.  And offering those re-captures for us to download too.  

And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Link to comment
14 hours ago, sandyk said:

 

high res is a waste of time as only younger dogs, bats etc. can hear the differences.

...

 

 

Just a note so we can keep the camps separate...

 

the above is one camp

 

another camp holds that HiRes is of marginal utility because the quality of the mastering is much more important

 

a 3rd camp holds that reproduction of ultrasonic freq.s is of little value as dogs, bats etc. can hear the differences BUT that HiRes - even on the same mastering - allows gentle "euphonic" filters and is thus of some interest

 

 

FWIW, I am likely to found around a fire at camp 3

Link to comment
17 hours ago, PeterSt said:

To prove this, Mani should (if he feels like it) try to take these two takes of exactly the same. It could happen that, now knowing this, he is able to make the "sensitivity" of the start of the recording such that there's hardly a time difference and that this will result in only a couple of difference like the two plots show, throughout, but I suppose that the difference in noise (which is random) at some degree of sensitivity (of recording start) will mangle with this.

 

Hey Peter, thanks for the suggestion. I'll take a look at how low I can take the auto-start sensitivity and then take a few dry runs.

 

Mani.

Main: SOtM sMS-200 -> Okto dac8PRO -> 6x Neurochrome 286 mono amps -> Tune Audio Anima horns + 2x Rotel RB-1590 amps -> 4 subs

Home Office: SOtM sMS-200 -> MOTU UltraLite-mk5 -> 6x Neurochrome 286 mono amps -> Impulse H2 speakers

Vinyl: Technics SP10 / London (Decca) Reference -> Trafomatic Luna -> RME ADI-2 Pro

Link to comment
1 hour ago, esldude said:

I know this is asking a lot Mani.  Could you repeat both captures at least once or twice?  Would be good to know how consistent the captures are.  And you could listen and see if the same capture twice or thrice all sound the same at least to each other.  And offering those re-captures for us to download too.  

 

Will do.

 

Mani.

Main: SOtM sMS-200 -> Okto dac8PRO -> 6x Neurochrome 286 mono amps -> Tune Audio Anima horns + 2x Rotel RB-1590 amps -> 4 subs

Home Office: SOtM sMS-200 -> MOTU UltraLite-mk5 -> 6x Neurochrome 286 mono amps -> Impulse H2 speakers

Vinyl: Technics SP10 / London (Decca) Reference -> Trafomatic Luna -> RME ADI-2 Pro

Link to comment
28 minutes ago, mansr said:

Hey goldenears, how does this one sound compared to the original DXD and 2L's down-conversion?

2l-092-1644.flac 3.44 MB · 1 download

 

'Platinum Ears' here 😀. Will take a listen tomorrow...

 

Mani.

Main: SOtM sMS-200 -> Okto dac8PRO -> 6x Neurochrome 286 mono amps -> Tune Audio Anima horns + 2x Rotel RB-1590 amps -> 4 subs

Home Office: SOtM sMS-200 -> MOTU UltraLite-mk5 -> 6x Neurochrome 286 mono amps -> Impulse H2 speakers

Vinyl: Technics SP10 / London (Decca) Reference -> Trafomatic Luna -> RME ADI-2 Pro

Link to comment
4 hours ago, daverich4 said:

 

In all the time I’ve been here Frank is the only one I have on my ignore list.

 

I have never felt the need to use the Ignore List although I have been sorely tempted a few times.

 

6 hours ago, manisandher said:

Both the captures I linked to were 16/44.1, so if they sound different, and they do (very subtly) to my ears, then this cannot be due to one having more HF info above 22.05kHz than the other.

Interesting, because they did sound more than a little different when I listened to them originally late at night.

However, this doesn't surprise me as even different S/W doing conversions to the same format can also sound a little different .

 

 

How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020

Link to comment
2 hours ago, mansr said:

Hey goldenears, how does this one sound compared to the original DXD and 2L's down-conversion?

2l-092-1644.flac 3.44 MB · 2 downloads

Message from Foobar 2000

Quote

Could not load info (Unsupported file format) from:
"K:\2L-139_01_stereo_01.flac.flac24"
 

 

 

How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020

Link to comment
9 minutes ago, mansr said:

So you have a broken file. What does that have to do with the one I posted?

 

Perhaps the naming of the file as shown has caused the problem ?

 I will try renaming it.

 

 O.K.  Getting rid of the ".flac24" in the name  worked.

 Do you have the link to the version you want this to be compared with ?

 

How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, sandyk said:

Perhaps the naming of the file as shown has caused the problem ?

 I will try renaming it.

 

 O.K.  Getting rid of the ".flac24" in the name  worked.

Still not clear why you're mentioning a 2L-139 track.

 

7 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 Do you have the link to the version you want this to be compared with ?

DXD original: http://lindberg.no/hires/test/2L-092/2L-092_stereo-DXD_01.flac

16/44.1 conversion: http://lindberg.no/hires/test/2L-092_01_44kHz_16b.flac

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

 

I tried that for a  while but realized I was missing out on a lot free crazy

 

 That's why you aren't on my Ignore List yet . :)

 

How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, mansr said:

Still not clear why you're mentioning a 2L-139 track.

 

 I was referring to your post 32, which perhaps you meant for Mani's consumption only ?

 

How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 I was referring to your post 32, which perhaps you meant for Mani's consumption only ?

That file is for anyone to play (with). Note that it is named 2l-092-1644.flac whereas the one you complained about was 2L-139_01_stereo_01.flac.flac24. Either you have a habit of randomly renaming downloads, or you got the files mixed up.

Link to comment
17 minutes ago, mansr said:

That file is for anyone to play (with). Note that it is named 2l-092-1644.flac whereas the one you complained about was 2L-139_01_stereo_01.flac.flac24. Either you have a habit of randomly renaming downloads, or you got the files mixed up.

That's BS.

Attached is still what showed even after I attempted to rename it. Even after the attempted renaming Foobar shows it as an unsupported file type.

P.S.

 Don't bother with it. It['s not worth all the stuffing around as Windows 10 may not like something about it.

 

1918816261_2Lflacfile.jpg.ab2b8c081fa314f5cf0a83ae0e47a0b7.jpg

 

How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020

Link to comment
12 minutes ago, sandyk said:

That's BS.

Attached is still what showed even after I attempted to rename it. Even after the attempted renaming Foobar shows it as an unsupported file type.

 

 

1918816261_2Lflacfile.jpg.ab2b8c081fa314f5cf0a83ae0e47a0b7.jpg

 

It looks like your computer did something to it because the file size has changed from 3.44  to 18.1 MB and there is now a "flac24" extension on the file that wasn't on the original.

 

FYI, here is the media info on the file that Mans provided:

 

General
Complete name                            : /Users/music/Downloads/_1402/2l-092-1644.flac
Format                                   : FLAC
Format/Info                              : Free Lossless Audio Codec
File size                                : 3.44 MiB
Duration                                 : 1mn 0s
Overall bit rate mode                    : Variable
Overall bit rate                         : 481 Kbps
Comment                                  : Processed by SoX
Audio
Format                                   : FLAC
Format/Info                              : Free Lossless Audio Codec
Duration                                 : 1mn 0s
Bit rate mode                            : Variable
Bit rate                                 : 481 Kbps
Channel(s)                               : 2 channels
Channel layout                           : L R
Sampling rate                            : 44.1 KHz
Bit depth                                : 16 bits
Compression mode                         : Lossless
Stream size                              : 3.44 MiB (100%)
Writing library                          : libFLAC 1.3.2 (UTC 2017-01-01)

 

Sometimes it's like someone took a knife, baby
Edgy and dull and cut a six inch valley
Through the middle of my skull

Link to comment

Tom

As I said, it's not worth stuffing around with. I never have such problems with any of the large numbers of .flac files that I download from elsewhere. With the other file I was able to successfully rename it, but not this one.

I also had to muck around renaming the other files from Mani.

 I also DL this one a 2nd time after deleting the previous one.

 

How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020

Link to comment
7 hours ago, manisandher said:

 

So what do these suggest Frank? That T004 is of higher resolution than T005? That T004 is more noisy than T005? Or perhaps that dithering is having an affect on the replay of the 16/44.1 file?

 

Mani.

 

That T004 is derived from the 24/352.8 original - I haven't seen that type of peculiar amplitude meandering from a standard, CD derived file. Note, DeltaWave is still in beta, and it could be reacting to some quality in the two files, one with respect to the other, and this is purely a spurious artifact of DW - it should be filtering out that very low frequency component. In the analysis of those files DW has thrown up a couple of puzzling graphs so far, which I believe are DW issues - but I didn't pursue them at the time. Which all adds up to saying that don't believe 100% in the DeltaWave results :) - but, the software is still doing an excellent job of pointing out that the files are very different, in key areas.

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...