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

[PeterSt]

8 hours ago, esldude said:

🍎 and oranges.  You can easily spot 4k vs 2k video blind 20 times out of 20.

 

On a 1K monitor.

[PeterSt]

23 hours ago, Ajax said:

This could be due to my poor hearing from rock concerts and blasting my ears with headphones or simply old age (now 63) or there is no perceivable difference.

 

I think neither. But you omit the system itself.

Anyone who can't discern a difference between Redbook and Hires, has something seriously flawing. And ears ? I can't imagine that. Really not.

 

Mind you please, I wasn't talking about Hires "obviously being better". Actually the contrary because of 99% being flawed in itself. I was only talking about perceiving a difference.

 

I have said it before but I will add it again: right from when I started to design D/A converters (all right, it started with one ) I had one prerequisite to myself only: The whole playback system had to perform electrically exactly the same for Redbook and whatever Hires.

Who executes it like this ? ... think about prior to any judging.

So let me try to tell you gently: you will be dealing with apples and oranges anyway, because of the difference in electrical behavior. And that alone makes a huge difference - believe it or not.

[PeterSt]

On 10/29/2019 at 4:02 AM, Ajax said:

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.

 

Ajax, would it be possible to hand ALL the original Hires to me by PM etc., so I can judge them for being genuine and / or not ruined ?

I ask, because the chance anno 2019 is still a virtual zero that they are OK. Your list comprises just of too much to be all OK.

Mind you, downconverts from multi channel are flawed by guarantee ... and you know your sources. So just saying ...

[PeterSt]

On 10/29/2019 at 4:02 AM, Ajax said:

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 see it has just been noted ... but forget it. The processing will be totally obvious and the 100% reason that the "redbook" (upsampled) fails.

 

Please notice that the upsampling (that assumed as enhancer) must be done by DAC or my (or Miska's) software. So if I compare Hires to Redbook I compare Hires to my upsampling. And not to "no upsampling" let alone a random process out of my control (which at best is no-upsampling and which is no good by definition).

 

Sorry ...

 

PS:

"I compare Hires to my upsampling."

And that with a DAC which doesn't do a thing herself. This is all totally crucial ...

[PeterSt]

On 10/30/2019 at 4:26 PM, Ajax said:

 

Not sure what is going on but that quote was from Alex (@Sandyk) not from me? 

 

Hi Ajax,

 

I checked, but I don't see anything odd ?

The quotes I made are from your texts.

Maybe I don't understand ...

[PeterSt]

On 11/13/2019 at 1:29 AM, gmgraves said:

What bothers me about MQA, is that while Tidal’s software tells you that you are playing an MQA title, what I don’t see any indication of what is the actual bit depth and sampling rate of the selection to which you are listening.

 

Then use software which does show it ?

 

[PeterSt]

On 11/13/2019 at 1:57 AM, Rt66indierock said:

Part of the beauty of MQA is amount of 16/44.1 files processed.

 

What do you mean by this ??

[PeterSt]

7 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

One has to use Tidal’s software to access Tidal files.

 

George, I don't understand. Why would that be ? Quite some people use Roon. Or Audirvana. Or mine. And more.

I know from Roon that it doesn't show all there is (it always upsamples as to current MQA standards) and about the others I don't know really. But mine (XXHighEnd) really shows all there is to it, which is to all the detail you seem to like to have.

 

Btw, MQA will never be 16 bits for the Tidal files - always 24 (which does not tell really about the useful bits which could be 17-16 only).

 

I think it is crucial that the native (projected) data of the album is shown, like I do it by this means :

 

  

 

 

What remains is the knowledge that this 192 is never for real in the file.

 

 

And that these exist just the same. These *are* MQA'ed but are still 44.1 (though 24 bits, most probably not containing more that 16 bits for real (volume) level data).

[PeterSt]

3 hours ago, Rt66indierock said:

A lot of the music I listen too never was anything but CD quality

 

If you count out the last (Boris Blank) example, than personally I never found that proven, and I look a lot at this fake stuff. For example: 95% of HD-Tracks Hires would be faked from Redbook (don't pin me down on the 95%) and 0% of the MQA is faked, as long as it is shown as 88.2 or more (but mind my 192 remark in my previous post, which most certainly is not true by any means).

 

Of course, with the example like The Beatles, there may not be more than 12 bits because of noise. But this is all so often the case. But I can try it:

 

OK, you got me. Must be taken from some multi channel (48KHz)  version.

This is Come Together on the Abbey Road one.

 

So now I found it proven. Haha. But it is the first. Also I took this one deliberately because it looked suspicious to me in the first place, when I found this yesterday. And it is not signed of by the artists (smart move 🤐).

Tracks from The White Album show the same. The both CD Sets are the only Beatles in MQA I could find.