Hi-Res - Does it matter? Blind Test by Mark Waldrep

[Rexp]

2 hours ago, sandyk said:

Yet more flogging of a dead horse by those who wish to take away the pleasure that others get from 24/192 recordings from Barry Diament, and the recent DSD releases from Cookie Marenco and others .

It's bad enough having crappy MQA dumped on us  without concerted efforts to try and dumb down what we already have available from HD Tracks etc. by way of biased Uni results.

 If those with above average gear, and not having closed minds on this subject wish for more immediate results, then try these examples provided by FrederickV several months back, despite FrederickV insisting that most participants previously failed the test , I had NO problem originally deciding which file was which, and which is the original high res version, and posted the differences that I heard at the time.

Even a few minutes ago when I checked to see if they are still available, I had no problems readily hearing the differences within several seconds.. 

 I feel sorry for those who are unable to appreciate recent genuine high resolution material, and I am 80 years old with industrial type  hearing damage. 

However, I use Class A , NOT Class D amplification. .

 

Do not cheat by looking at the files first !!!

http://klinktbeter.be/hushhush/x.wav

http://klinktbeter.be/hushhush/y.wav

Y sounds good, x sounds distorted. Do you agree? 

[Rexp]

5 hours ago, esldude said:

@sandyk What dither and software was used to resample those files you posted?

Why, is there a problem? 

[Rexp]

1 hour ago, esldude said:

Yes, X and Y.  I was working with some other files yesterday that were A and B.  Y or the second one is the better sounding to me. As for dither fixing something or not well yeah, no dither can cause distortion.  Of course I don't know what was done to @FredericV files so maybe he can say. 

Could you not judge by measuring both? 

[Rexp]

2 hours ago, gmgraves said:

I’m sure there are. The music world has been recording at 24/96 or higher for close to two decades now. 

I think this is the problem, alot of redbook stuff is poorly downconverted from 24/96 masters. 

[Rexp]

5 hours ago, lucretius said:

 

I don't think that's the case. I've heard a lot of bad or mediocre 24/96 files. I'm willing to bet that a bad redbook file is spawned from a bad 24/96 master.

And I'm willing to bet you are wrong haha

[Rexp]

3 hours ago, esldude said:

You greatly over estimate the influence of poor downsampling.

And you think RTR and CD sound the same, nuff said

[Rexp]

1 hour ago, robocop said:

I've only felt new recordings in 24bit and beyond really show the improvement over 16/44. I have a large number of so called remastered 24 bit and these really are a mixed bag some better and some not.

 

Giles Martin's Abbey road is a marked improvement over the vinyl, cd and remastered CD. This alone means its well worthwhile pushing for 24 bit recordings.

 

I do notice more and more new recordings are now being done at least with 24/48 if not 96. Having participated in Mark's last blind test where it was obvious many could not tell the difference between music files.  This is doomed to be repeated and is only happening within a small community of HiFi followers.

 

Even if 16/44 was realised to its full potential for all the right reasons 24 is a worthwhile quest and improvement in my view. 

 

Robert

Did you compare the 24/96 Abbey road to the exact same recording downconverted to 16/44?

[Rexp]

1 hour ago, robocop said:

 

Hi I did not compare to same recording downconverted to 16/44. I compared to remastered 2009 CD 16/44.

 

Generally I don't compare to downconverted anything, can't see the point.

 

I know this recording particularly well it was the first vinyl album I bought when it was first released 1969. Crazy that I have now bought 5 versions of this pressing including blueray 24/96. I didn't need to directly compare it to the old CD's I could tell immediately it was better. 

 

Same went for Led Zeppelin remaster releases 2014 by Jimmy Page. The 24/96 versions were the best I've ever heard and I owned the lot from vinyl, cassette and CD(plus remasters).

 

I would go as far to say these later versions easily bettered my best vinyl setup using my computer audio playback system hearing more detail and music, obviously on the original recording but masked by humans and technology!!!!

Sure, just wondered given our topic. Where did you download it and the Ledzep from, I may give a try. Thanks! 

[Rexp]

20 minutes ago, TJtennispro said:

Why are you trolling the thread. Be the bigger person and scroll and roll. 

Is that you Ralf11?

Please let me know so I can add this name to my ignore list. 

[Rexp]

46 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

No. Be an adult, take personal responsibility, and stop blaming your behavior on others. 

How ironic, I guess Alex upset your fragile ego at some point. 

[Rexp]

5 minutes ago, sandyk said:

It would be more helpful to the present situation if  Rexp , Kumakuma and Ralf11 deleted their replies.

No need, i cant see any of Ralfs posts and the dog is cute. 

[Rexp]

8 hours ago, Archimago said:

🙂

 

Looks like you've been to a few too many audiophile shows Chris...

 

As per other aspects of human cognition and perception, once we start looking at the extremes, deviating from the "neurotypical", we are bound to find a few cases here and there of remarkable abilities.

 

I suspect most of us would not necessarily desire to have such abilities if there is a price to pay like being able to enjoy the music and experience how it was meant to be heard! YMMV.

It's a bit like wine, if you enjoy plonk, good for you, its much cheaper than a good Bordeaux, but please know you are not a connoisseur and are missing out big time and you're not qualified to advise others. 

[Rexp]

43 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

Or as I would say if you can’t tell me why  the former lead singer of the band Tool and Highway 47 are important in the wine world you are Just a wine snob. And unqualified.

A connoisseur is an expert in matters of taste, and a wine snob presumably buys wine on the basis of the label or cost, not sure your point? 

[Rexp]

1 hour ago, marce said:

I concur, I have different grain sizes, for a salt and pepper steak or chicken I use large grains and larger lumps of pepper, you get a stronger hit of each as you encounter a piece, whereas finely ground pepper and salt gives you an overall salty/peppery taste. Depends on the dish and the taste experience you want.

A good example of expectation bias, was people being given cheese and onion in a salt and vinegar packet, they all got the flavour wrong!

So you're an expert in the taste of salt? I mean in comparison to the average Joe who could care less? 

[Rexp]

On 10/29/2019 at 11:02 AM, Ajax said:

Hi Everyone,

Following is an invitation to participate in a study being performed by Mark Waldrep to determine whether or not we can actually hear differences between various formats? I know this is an old and tired argument but one in my opinion that really needs to be put to bed and I encourage you to participate. Too may of us are being ripped off by manufactures' marketing hype, and too many potential audiophiles are staying away because we have overcomplicated things by looking for solutions to problems that simply don't exist. It takes courage to participate in these types of tests because you may have to face your biases and long held beliefs. 

Prior to reading the study please read the introduction to my previous thread on this subject "Some Commonsense" and in particular to John Siau of Benchmark Media's thoughts - it's all about the maths.

 

 

The HD-Audio Challenge II
Dr. AIX

I spent the weekend gearing up for the second round of the HD-Audio challenge. Some of you may remember the first iteration of this study (click here). The music industry seems intent on continuing to push their claims that "hi-res audio" is a tremendous advance in the evolution of music reproduction. After being involved with real high-resolution audio for almost 20 years, I'm not so sure it matters. I'd love to demonstrate that hi-res music and hi-res audio are delivering a "better" experience, but the studies I've read have left me unconvinced.

I believe that I can contribute to the debate by offering up a catalog of real high-resolution tracks in a variety of formats. You — my readers and fellow audiophiles — can download the tracks and play them to your heart's content. I only ask that you not analyze them to determine which is which. What's the point of cheating?

I've selected 20 tracks from a variety of genres and took into consideration suggestions from many of you. I've included solos, small and large ensembles, acoustic and electric, and vocal vs. instrumental http://www.realhd-audio.com/?p=6197.The tracks that will be available are listed below:

The HD-Audio Challenge II - Track List

These are full length tracks not merely samples.

I spent all weekend converting the tracks using Sonic Studio's professional software tool PROCESS to do the conversions. I took the native 96 kHz/24-bit PCM masters and downconverted them to 96 kHz/16-bit, 44.1 kHz/24-bits, and 44.1 kHz/16-bits (CD "Redbook" spec). I will also create constant bitrate MP3 versions at 320 and 256 kbps for those interested in compressed formats. Then I converted all of downconversions back to 96 kHz/24-bits so that all of them are precisely the same size. I have been very careful to ensure that they are the same volume.

I have uploaded all of the files to a folder in my premium Dropbox account and will "Share" the contents with those interested in participating in the study. The files are randomly named and should provide a rich opportunity for those willing to download them and do some serious listening. The goal is to discover if bona fide high-resolution audio recordings can be distinguished from lower resolution formats.

A Preview

I will be doing a thorough analysis of each file and providing the spectra and dynamic analysis to participants. I've already done that for a test file by The Latin Jazz Trio. Here's the spectra of all of the formats:

The Spectra of "Memories of Rio" in all six formats

Sign Up

The more audio enthusiasts that participate in this study, the more raw data I'll have and the more valid the results will be. I'm prepared to be criticized for the casual nature of this experiment. Some will insist that using my own catalog is too limiting, others will insist that it be done in a state-of-the-art studio, or with mega buck equipment. I don't believe that any of those things matter. We all have different rooms, systems of differing values, and varying abilities to listen...exactly the diversity that is required to establish whether the marketing claims made by the industry are true.

If you want to sign up, you'll have to visit the post on my site and use the form at the bottom of the page by clicking here.

This should be fun. I'll leave the files up for a couple of months. I have to report back to my university sometime in early 2020, so you'll have lots of time. Thanks!

 

Ok just got the files, listened in the car on my way to work. First files are BMS A v BMS B (assume BMS is the Bright Morning Star track). There is big difference! Anyone else tried? 

[Rexp]

1 hour ago, Confused said:

I signed up, but have not received the files.  Is it just me? 😕

Maybe you'll get them in a day or two, if not send Mark an email. Look forward to your impessions. 

[Rexp]

On 11/12/2019 at 10:53 PM, audiobomber said:

I signed up twice, via two different pages, almost two weeks ago. No files so far. I'll try once more. 

Any luck? 

[Rexp]

7 hours ago, Le Concombre Masqué said:

I'm a bit surprised to see that thread going on. 

 

There's strictly no reason why the same filter (in HQP in my case), or DAC, functions equally well @ 44 96 or 192. So any test is flawed to start with. Only thing that matters is how a 24/96 as delivered to the artist (per today recommendations) sounds compared to the 16/44 offer on each and everyone's system. 

You lost me there, do 24/96 files sound the same as their 16/44 version to you, depending what filter you use in HQP? 

[Rexp]

43 minutes ago, Teresa said:

 

Hi-Res does matter to me as for whatever reason I enjoy music more in DSD and Hi-Res PCM over standard resolution (16/44.1).

 

Also I think Mark Waldrep is very brave in offering this test since his business (AIX records) sells only 24/96 DVD-Audios and 24/96 Blu-Rays.

Or very canny.. 

[Rexp]

This is not about A being preferable to B. One file is listenable, the other isn't. Anyone else listened? 

[Rexp]

15 hours ago, Confused said:

Yes, a bit of a delay getting the files downloaded due to Mark's Dropbox issues, but I made a start on the listening comparisons this weekend.  I note that Mark has asked that participants do not publicly share information on the files.  I take this to mean analysis graphs or the results of an individual's listening experience etc.  In other words the kind of stuff that could potentially trigger expectation bias in some listeners and skew the results.

 

So yes, I have started listening, but that's enough said for now.😐

Yeah the results wont be out for a couple of months so we can only speak in general terms. To me there is a clear difference between tracks, would be great if one the members with a scope could identify it through analysis. I read somewhere that Group Delay is the thing to measure @pkane2001 might know? 

[Rexp]

On 11/4/2019 at 7:42 PM, audiobomber said:

This is the message I sent to Alex before I knew which file was which:

I found Y had more relaxed and natural sounding highs with more depth/ambience. If that wasn't the true hi-rez file, I will be shocked and dismayed.

Now you've listened to the Mark Waldrep files, what's your general opinion? 

[Rexp]

10 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

Speak for yourself !

 It all depends on the quality of the original mastering.

 I suspect that Mark may be more interested in drawing attention to what he has available in this area, and hoping to win a few converts AND customers !!!    $$$  . 

In this case the 24/96 sound better than the upsampled 16/44 but the quality of the recordings isn't good enough for me to buy them. 

[Rexp]

I would say hi-res is indeed a waste of time, what do we think of this, recorded in 1979?   https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1YpJOYP8Lx4Wk9QZm9NdUF6dzQ/view?usp=drivesdk

[Rexp]

In this case I preferred the hi-res but it doesn't mean hi-res is better, degradation is caused by poor downsampling IMO.