Jump to content
Ajax

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

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Hi Alex,

 

Didn't take long - I wish it was that easy to catch something fishing.

 

FWIW I do enjoy your contributions - takes two to tango!

 

All the best,

 

Ajax


LOUNGE: Mac Mini - Audirvana - Devialet 200 - ATOHM GT1 Speakers

OFFICE : Mac Mini - Audirvana - Benchmark DAC1HDR - ADAM A7 Active Monitors

TRAVEL : MacBook Air - Dragonfly V1.2 DAC - Sennheiser HD 650

BEACH : iPhone 6 - HRT iStreamer DAC - Akimate Micro + powered speakers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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:D. 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


How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

 

PROFILE UPDATED 18-06-2019

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe the results will be inconclusive even allowing a sufficient no. of participants taking part.  I can only see that every participant is using different gear and the only constant factor is not there to test the variables unless we believe that different gear should sound the same.


MetalNuts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. .:D

 

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? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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


How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

 

PROFILE UPDATED 18-06-2019

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.


How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

 

PROFILE UPDATED 18-06-2019

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am proud to admit I don't hear a difference in Hi Rez. I also admit I hear difference in them in my system when I run hundreds of DSPs and for that reason alone I use 24/96 and if possible I want 192 sampling for more accuracy in the processing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Ajax said:

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:

Memories-of-Rio-Spectra-ALL.jpg The Spectra of "Memories of Rio" in all six formats

 

One of the spectrum plots where there is clearly something wrong. Spectrum goes straight to the Nyquist of 96k sample rate. I guess yet another ADC that has got digital decimation filters wrong.

 

Have to download and see how many of these contain some actual content in the higher frequencies.

 

 

P.S. Never mind, doesn't seem to be actually available for download.

 


Signalyst - Developer of HQPlayer

Pulse & Fidelity - Software Defined Amplifiers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This test should include AAC at 256 kbps as well. And having two different MP3 resolutions isn't very useful. 

 

Also, the fact that the 256 kbps MP3 has higher frequencies than the Redbook is a bit odd. Something wrong with the measurements? 


I write about Macs, iTunes, music, and more at Kirkville.

Author of Take Control of iTunes 12

Co-host of The Next Track podcast.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, kirkmc said:

Also, the fact that the 256 kbps MP3 has higher frequencies than the Redbook is a bit odd. Something wrong with the measurements? 

 

I think it is 48 kHz sample rate MP3.

 

Rest of course depends on the particular MP3 encoder. Not all the encoders sound or work the same.

 

5 minutes ago, kirkmc said:

This test should include AAC at 256 kbps as well.

 

Yes, that is interesting too. To me personally, AAC sounds better than MP3, and I think I know the technical reason for that too. Of course in that case too, a bit depending on the particular encoder implementation.

 


Signalyst - Developer of HQPlayer

Pulse & Fidelity - Software Defined Amplifiers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it's 48 kHz - which would make sense - then why is the 320 kbps file not also 48 kHz? And, as you say, there can be a big difference between the results of MP3 encoders. 

 

Yes, AAC generally does sound better than MP3, and because of that I think it would make sense to include it, even at 256 kbps.


I write about Macs, iTunes, music, and more at Kirkville.

Author of Take Control of iTunes 12

Co-host of The Next Track podcast.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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


How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

 

PROFILE UPDATED 18-06-2019

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.


How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

 

PROFILE UPDATED 18-06-2019

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Ajax nice article it's my feeling for a while to me everything sounds pristine 16/44 and up to 24/192

BUT BTW that site you referred to says its NOT A SECURE SITE would be wary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...