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

[daverich4]

9 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 George

 Even many cassette decks had a frequency response to 30kHz including the Nakamichi decks that a friend and I I had back then.

You did however need to use high quality tape such as the TDK MA - Type IV Metal Cassette .

 Yes, I confirmed this by measurements at the time.

 

Regards

Alex

I tried the listening tests with the X & Y files and while I think I hear a difference between them it isn’t as obvious for me as it apparently is for you. Can you give me any tips on what to listen for?

[daverich4]

16 hours ago, sandyk said:

 See if you can hear any obvious distortion right from the very start.  A good quality high resolution file will usually have greater separation ("air")  between elements, and in this case the lack of processing artifacts due to the conversion to 16/44.1 and then putting it back inside a high resolution container again should also cause the original to sound a little softer and cleaner sounding  in comparison.

 That was the first thing that I thought noticed with these 2 files, and concentrated on this area initially to confirm what I had noticed.

 Perhaps FrederickV's PC or Laptop was a little noisy electrically too, as the differences should not have been this obvious ?

 Dennis has also remarked that Dither should have been used with the file converted to 16/44.1 , although I don't believe that it would have helped much in this case.

 Nevertheless, I have heard some examples in 16/44.1 that sound very much like high resolution material.

 A recent corrected example from  John Dyson of " Peggy Lee -Fever",  because of it's age, would not have been made in high res format, yet it sounds bloody fantastic without any hint of noise or distortion, even when you turn the volume right up !

It has an absolute purity about the sound . However, it was from a very good Master tape before anything else was mixed in.

 

 You also need to use gear with a very good Signal to Noise ratio to get the best from high resolution material.

 

I tried again but I just don't hear any obvious differences, just maybes. Both my Stereo and Headphone rigs should be capable of resolving whatever differences there are so this time around I tried it with headphones. If I absolutely had to pick one I think it would be Y but that is only if I heard them back to back. If there was any time delay between listening I'm not sure I could tell them apart. Thanks for your help though, it was worth a try.

[daverich4]

23 hours ago, sandyk said:

 It's not my problem if people like yourself and several other participants in this thread are unable to hear what many others report, including the benefits of higher resolution audio formats such as 24/192 and DSD, due to not accepting what  many Audiophile members are telling you,

 

 

As I said in an earlier post, I THINK I slightly preferred Y but have no confidence that I could tell them apart if I didn't play them back to back. If I'm reading the statement of yours I quoted correctly, you seem to be saying that I should believe that higher resolution files sound better to me because many Audiophile members are telling me they do, even if I don't hear the improvement?

[daverich4]

18 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

It isn't OK, but I never saw any posts from them saying that. Nobody reported the posts. 

 

You're really giving Alex the short end of the stick here. The post you called him out on is pretty tame compared to the ones aimed at him including Ralf11 telling him to STFU. I think you might have deleted that one if I remember correctly but I've noticed that you delete posts of some members without comment but you seem to feel it necessary to call out Alex in public.

[daverich4]

8 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

where is the STFU post??

 

a quick search finds 3 pages (THREE) of STFUs - none by me directed at Sandman (and only one by me used at all)

 

maybe a PUoSU is more appropriate?

 

that's Put Up or Shut Up

 

and BTW, the Sandman is our most Enraged Member (EM), seemingly unable to discuss anything for long in a rational fashion, and even screaming at people who agree with him, on this very thread ----> you search term is Reiss

 

I think I reported it and that was one of the posts that Chris removed without comment.

[daverich4]

12 hours ago, Rt66indierock said:

Think more than half a million albums. 

It was 10,000 for your Vaporware thread. Why the different standards for the two formats?

[daverich4]

9 hours ago, gmgraves said:

One has to use Tidal’s software to access Tidal files. Also, if one uses an AudioQuest DragonFly, all it does is glow purple when it detects an MQA file. Still no indication of bit depth or sample rate.

That isn’t true, Roon in particular tells you what’s happening with Tidal MQA files. I don’t have an MQA capable DAC (nor will I) so I only get the first unfold. 
 

 

[daverich4]

1 hour ago, gmgraves said:

Thanks for the info, I didn’t know that. But it doesn’t really matter to me. Roon is eye-wateringly expensive (AFAIC) and I would never pay that much money for it. I also do not have an MQA capable DAC (except my DragonFly Cobalt - which is not connected to my main system) so I also only get the first unfold. 

Roon is $119 a year or half of what you’re paying for Tidal. And they just came out with V1.7 with a number of new features.