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

[kumakuma]

@sandyk

 

I understand that you have strong opinions in this area but I don't understand why you felt the need to shit all over this thread.

 

@Ajax

 

I suggest that you ask Chris for moderation rights and delete the off topic posts.

[kumakuma]

6 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

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 from boring Academic reports and textbooks . 

 

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

 

Quote

Results showed a small but statistically significant ability of test subjects to discriminate high resolution content, and this effect increased dramatically when test subjects received extensive training.

 

[kumakuma]

5 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

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 ?

 

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.

[kumakuma]

5 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 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.

 

How do you know that both files were affected in the same way?

 

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

[kumakuma]

5 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

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.

 

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.

 

 

[kumakuma]

 

7 minutes ago, sandyk said:

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

 

I'll let you know.

[kumakuma]

9 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

 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..

 

I didn't really look at that post so I don't know which is which.

[kumakuma]

8 minutes ago, FredericV said:

Tidal and the x and y files on my own server are served via HTTP.

HTTP guarantees bitperfect transmission. If you hear a difference from 2 files which both have the same cryptographic hash, you either are very good at breaking crypto (which I doubt) or you have a different issue.

Off course x and y are different files, but if you download x twice and hear a difference between both copies, then something is obviously broken

 

This is a discussion that you should have with @sandyk, not me.

[kumakuma]

7 minutes ago, esldude said:

Which is actually illuminating in regards to this methodology of yours where you send out files, count as positives those that agree with you and dismiss those that don't.  

 

This is only one of the issues with his "methodology".

[kumakuma]

26 minutes ago, fas42 said:

I did listening tests 30 years ago, which ably demonstrated that 16 bits is way good enough - if 24 bits sounds better, then it's because the particular playback chain has been 'tuned' to work better with that format - and no other reason.

 

How were you able to test 24-bit PCM files 30 years ago?

[kumakuma]

1 hour 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, when you treat all solutions to the various problems such as IsoRegens , improved USB cables, markedly lower noise PSUs  etc. as Snake Oil .

This is evident with the recent nasty attacks on Uptone and John Swenson by one member of this small vocal group of Anti Audiophiles.

I note also that Kumakuma doesn't appear to have enough confidence in his own  listening abilities to even  report what differences (if any) he heard between the X and Y files, despite saying previously that he had listened to them, and that he would post his impressions.

 

 

Nice deflection but this has nothing at all to do with what we are talking about (the issues with your test methodology).

[kumakuma]

10 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

This was purely assessing the 16 bit format ... listen to the same, classical, piece, reduced digitally by 20dB in volume in stages - effectively using less bits at each point - what's lost? Even when only 6 bits are active, in the encoding of the music, the sense of the piece is fully there - with a significant level of digital 'noise' in the quiet bits. Which could only be heard with the gain set to maximum, and my ears pressed hard against the speaker driver.

 

This told me that the format had no problem 'capturing' everything that mattered.

 

In other words, you've done none of the testing discussed in this thread.

[kumakuma]

Powering up his rig:

 

 

[kumakuma]

4 minutes ago, Rexp said:

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

 

[kumakuma]

52 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

Go back a little over 15 years ago for SACD. If you think DSD took off please explain it looks like a dead format to me. When I wrote MQA is Vaporware many in the DSD world asked if I felt DSD was vaporware? I told them the only thing preventing from being vaporware is that it is in DAC chips but chip manufactures never could give a good reason why they included DSD.

 

SACD is dying as a delivery format for DSD just as CDs are dying as a delivery format for PCM. Doesn't mean that DSD is dead though.

[kumakuma]

3 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

The number of DSD titles is not an indication of a healthy format.

 

What is?

[kumakuma]

Just now, Rt66indierock said:

Think more than half a million albums. 

 

Seems like a pretty arbitrary number. How did you come up with it?

[kumakuma]

32 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

10% of available tracks on Spotify.

 

My definition of a "live" format is a little different:

 

"Is there still music being released in this format that I want to buy?"

 

The answer, for me at least, is "yes".