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

[sandyk]

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

[sandyk]

Hi Ajax

 I wish we weren't so far apart these days, as I am now up in the Lower Hunter area not that far from Audiophile Neuroscience.

 I wouldn't mind betting that I could easily convert you. The problem with most gear is that the typical Xtal Oscillators used in most gear just aren't low enough noise and as high a stability as needed for best reproduction of 24/192 material.

 I use a .1PPM 24.576 MHZ TCXO in my highly modified X-DAC V3 for the P.C and the improvement over a typical 50PPM type was quite obvious.

 Barry D. also obtained worthwhile improvements with his Metric Halo ULN8 used for recording after he upgraded it's clocking earlier this year.

 Have you tried listening to any  of Barry' recent 24/192 recordings such as Kay Sa  ?

Unfortunately, his Comparison page doesn't do the provided samples justice. I have also heard all of Barry's other 5 high res recordings after he changed to a different S/W for conversion from the original .aiff to .wav, and sent them to me to compare with the original .wav files. These things do matter too.

 

Regards

Alex

[sandyk]

3 minutes ago, Rexp said:

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

 I will reply via PM so as not to prejudice results

[sandyk]

Dennis

 It will be an exercise in futility with those most interested in participating ,  people like yourself trying to reinforce their own views that High Res is Snake Oil. Ajax has already made it  perfectly clear what he thinks of high res, both in his initial post and the thread he linked to which he started.

 

Quote

This following article reinforces my own personal experience being that I cannot "hear" the difference between CD (redbook 16/44.1) and high res (24/96 and 192) when played back through my Benchmark Media DAC 1 HDR or Devialet 200 systems. 

It's just more flogging of a dead horse as far as I am concerned .

 High Res LPCM and DSD are here to stay, whether people like yourself like it or not.

Quote

 Even worse your response is to offer your own files for people to listen to. 

 

They aren't my files, they were posted in this forum by FrederickV who virtually dragged me into listening to them, even though I said I wasn't interested. They are a good example of 16/44.1 vs. 24/96 , and there is nothing stopping others from first trying these before registering at a different web site.

Alex

 

 P.S.

 I may be wrong, but it also gives the impression of a little promotion for his own recordings, drawing people's attention to them, which certainly wouldn't hurt his company's bottom line.

[sandyk]

1 hour ago, Ajax said:

Finally, I spent good deal of time corresponding with Barry Diament, when he was a regular contributor here. A terrific fellow and a thorough gentleman and obviously a very capable and experienced mastering engineer. Barry encouraged me to download his files in 16/44.1, 24/96 & 24/ 192. He was adamant that there were vast difference between each format. I spent a whole day listening but couldn't hear a difference between any of them

 Hi Ajax

 Barry is a good online friend of mine, and I was involved with Barry in the selection of the best sounding S/W out of 4 different versions for the conversion from the original .aiff files to .wav for his new Kay Sa album. We both agreed on  the selected version with Barry saying it seemed to get more out of the way IIRC.

 Unfortunately, to my ears at least, Barry's comparison page that is hosted doesn't do justice to the 24/192 versions.

 If you would like me to UL a snippet from Kay Sa please let me know. You can then compare it against the 16/44.1 version on the comparison pages.

 Kind Regards

Alex

[sandyk]

1 hour ago, marce said:

It is trolling behaviour and one of the main reasons I can't be bothered to post here anymore...

 That's good news.

 Ever considered the possibility that your "Science" is flawed or incomplete ?

Unlike you,  I am able to demonstrate most of the things that I report, and they have now been verified by quite a few members , as well as the others I have previously mentioned.

The fact remains that both high res LPCM and DSD , unlike hopefully MQA, are here  to stay and there is nothing that these tests will ever do to change that. All they are likely to do is increase sales of some the albums from which the test material is sourced for Mark Waldrep .

 

 Just because you are unable to explain why high res can sound better than 16/44.1 does not mean it doesn't isn't .

 There are a large number of members of this forum that are able to appreciate the differences even if you are unable to do so.

[sandyk]

1 minute ago, botrytis said:

You see, you have already biased your listening form the outset.

 

I already know the differences that I am able to hear between the various formats, and whether the recordings come from Barry Diament, Cookie Marenco or Mark Waldrep doesn't matter as long as they are well recorded. 

 I f you wish to participate in a pile of tests that ultimately prove or change nothing, by all means do so.

[sandyk]

2 hours ago, esldude said:

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

 Dennis

 You would need to ask FrederickV that. All I know about them is that he took an original high res file, converted it to 16/44.1 then put it back as high res again. This file is then compared with the original version.

 I didn't realise at the time that I wasn't listening to a simple 16/44.1 version vs. the original high res version

I responded originally in this thread because Ajax made it clear right from the start that he doesn't believe high res has any advantage over 16/44.1 then linked to a previous thread he started on the same subject to prove his point.

If he had simply posted the information and the links to the study without his own comments I wouldn't have had so many problems with his thread.

 

Alex

[sandyk]

18 minutes ago, Ajax said:

Hi Alex,

 

I've got a deal for you - I'll listen to Barry's Kay Sa if you agree to join Mark's Study and publish your results after he publishes his.

 

Deal?

Ajax

 I have no interest in joining in such a time consuming exercise which won't change a damn thing either way.

Those who enjoy listening to 24/192 and DSD will continue to enjoy them irrespective of the results of this flawed study, where all different kinds of systems are used, with no controls in place. Some may even judge the formats using Laptops, and not a system which is capable of showing the advantages of high res over RBCD. Many will also listen via speakers with a frequency response that starts to roll off quickly just before 20kHz, so what is the point of trying to evaluate material with genuine musical content to well past 50kHz which many recent albums have ?

  In my case I use headphones that have an extended frequency response .

If you aren't interested in at least having a listen to a high quality snippet from Barry's new album, then that's your loss , not mine.

Regards

Alex

 

[sandyk]

21 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Given you suffer from major hearing loss, by your own admission, why use products or listen to music with extended frequencies? Is it all about filtering?

 

Chris

I may no longer be able to hear very high frequencies, but I am able to notice the difference with their absence for whatever reason .

 Yes, the relaxed filtering of high res material is undoubtedly part of the reason, but then  I shouldn't be able to notice anything in that area either according to current theory.

 In the case of these files that FrederickV posted in A.S. originally, and directly challenged me, I hear a lot of distortion in the converted version right from the start ,as well as it sounding a little softer with the genuine high res version , perhaps due to the lack of these distortion products.

 It also sounds more musical and involving to me

If my hearing abilities are as bad as you keep insisting, why would both John Dyson and Barry Diament take any notice of what I report back to them ?

 I am still currently assisting John with  his Dolby A correction project, and you may have noticed that John has defended my hearing capabilities on a couple of occasions in your forum recently.

 

Alex

 

[sandyk]

5 minutes ago, Ajax said:

For me personally CD quality just makes more sense as most of the music I listen to is either from the 70's and early 80's that was recorded to tape, or more recently music that has been heavily compressed. Both I believe are easily accommodated by CD's resolution.

 

 In many cases, material that was recorded to tape and promoted later as High Resolution should not have been.

 The main advantage with many of those appears to be the ability to use the more relaxed filtering  possible with 24/96 and 24/192.

 My old Musical Fidelity X-DAC V3 for example, upsamples everything to 24/192

[sandyk]

2 hours ago, Ajax said:

In a world where we all need to reduce our foot print shouldn't we strive for smaller data files not larger? For better or worst 16/44.1 was chosen as the benchmark by Sony & Phillips, accordingly the majority of music is in that format, should we not therefore focus our attention on better mastering of that format instead of allowing the marketing men to promote even greater and greater sample rates, whether PCM or DSD. 

 

 

 Why not also get rid of 4K Video , despite it's clear advantages over 1920 x 1080 for many people ?

 

[sandyk]

5 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

4k vs. 8k video is a better comparison - like oranges and tangerines

Where have you seen 8K video ?

 I have a downloaded sample of it, but nothing to view it on at it's native resolution .

 I would be most surprised if you have either.

[sandyk]

6 hours ago, Ajax said:

Ajax

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 ...

 

Hi Peter,

 

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

 

i.e Alex uploaded files to his Dropbox

Hi  Ajax

 That part about me uploading the X and Y versions to my Dropbox is totally incorrect.

 They are the original file links posted in this forum by FrederickV.

I was surprised to see that they still worked .

As Peter said, the processing will be totally obvious, at least with a good system, with in the case of FrederickV' s sample resulting in a marked increase in distortion right from the start.

 

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

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

Regards

Alex

[sandyk]

1 minute ago, Miska said:

The results would be more representative of reality if 44.1k would stay 44.1k, without excuses. If you don't want to see the display, you can put couple of PostIt notes on it.

 

Indeed.

For a fair and unbiased test of the different formats, that's the way it should be .

In my case, both of my DACs only indicate signal lock, and whether Coax or Toslink selected.

[sandyk]

23 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

eh what?  do you need a cite or disagree or??

 

if the former, then you can find my posts giving the info on here using a search, and then explain it to Sandman

 

Most Audiophiles don't give a damn about Academic reports like this .They listen to music for enjoyment.

Yes, I did find it and have a quick look at it.

 Try using your OWN ears and report what YOU hear for a change, instead of quoting or linking to boring Academic reports and textbooks . 

[sandyk]

7 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

Your outrage is ironic considering that the Academic Report in question supports your opinion.

 

 

 

There is no substitute for actual listening. You should try it for a change and report your results in the forum.

Did you even bother to check out FrederickV's  X and Y files  when they were originally posted ?

[sandyk]

10 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

I listened to both files but I am at a loss on how to factor out the deterioration that occurred when they were transmitted over the Internet.

 It's exactly the same factor that caused the deterioration of the 16/44.1 version that people like yourself refuse to accept.

 I gather from this that you were not able to hear the obvious distortion right from the start of the converted version.

[sandyk]

Quote

This would indicate there are identifiers of "hi-res sound" that people can be trained to recognize.

 

Hi Jud  

Did you need any training to recognise the improvement when listening to DSD for example ?

 IIRC, your speakers also have adequate bandwidth to do justice to most high res recordings.

 

Kind Regards

Alex

[sandyk]

17 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

For example, they may have been stored on different servers, one with clean power and the other with dirty power.

 

Now you are grabbing at straws because we both know that you don't believe that this could possibly make any difference.

 So what differences (if any) did you honestly  hear between FrederickV's  X and Y files ?

 He has already stated that most participants actually preferred the 16/44.1 version after conversion to the high res format again.

 

 I have nothing further to say to you on this subject that hasn't already been said to YOU on  numerous occasions already.

[sandyk]

4 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

Of course I don't believe any of the Internet Transmission Deterioration nonsense.

 

I also don't believe what you believe I believe when it comes to high resolution files.

 

 

So what differences (if any) did you honestly  hear between FrederickV's  X and Y files , and if so, which version did you prefer?

[sandyk]

11 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

 

I'll let you know.

 

 Let the forum know, not me. This suggests that you didn't listen to them originally as you said, or you would have had some opinion.

 You now already know from others posts including the Spectrum Analysis that I posted which file was which anyway, just like Dennis does..

[sandyk]

15 minutes ago, esldude said:

Gives me a business idea.  Audiophile VPN.  We host verified digital files made with all clean linear power supplies and give you a VPN connection to your home with least degradation.  

 

Come on then Dennis., which of the X and Y files that FrederickV posted did YOU prefer and why ?

[sandyk]

9 minutes ago, esldude said:

Before any analysis listening only I thought B was the better file. I suspect however after some analysis that A may have been resampled without dither.

 The files are X and Y , not A and B. Are you sure that you listened to the correct files ?.

 No amount of Dither would have fixed FrederickV's  16.44.1 version. The distortion is way too obvious.

[sandyk]

4 minutes ago, audiobomber said:

No coincidence. He is the chief designer and says Benchmark does 16/44 right, some others do not.

 

Almost all companies make unverifiable claims about their superiority over the products of competitors