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

[botrytis]

4 hours ago, sandyk said:

 

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.

 

 

YOU THINK YOU DO that is the issue. As I said, you have already made up your mind. May as well move along. We know what you think.

[Ralf11]

2 hours ago, kumakuma said:

@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.

 

Yes, please delete all the crap from Sandy and let's try to get @marce to stay here.

[esldude]

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

[The Computer Audiophile]

ATTENTION: People reporting posts and threaten to leave because of @sandyk, please use the ignore user feature. This way you never have to read his crazy posts and outrage again. 

 

[beerandmusic]

 

I would not believe any results, either pro or con, if one is better or not.  I just started a thread saying how my turntable all of a sudden feels really good (different).  Not going to say it's better or not, just a good different. 

 

There are just too many variables that different listeners will have, mainly dealing with "their setup"  Those listening to DSD 256 with a high end DSD compatible DAC will obviously have a different experience than someone playing the same DSD file through a cheap pcm only dac with software settings that convert it down, as just ONE of many possibilities...not to mention some people clearly have more sensitive hearing than others, and some people know certain parts of certain songs that are trained to listen to certain passages etc....

 

I would think that there should be a measurable way with an expensive DSD microphone or with how to measure sensitivity etc...if there is not any way to measure any differences, then i would find it difficult to believe that to the very vast majority people could hear differences.

 

my opinion, until someone can convince me otherwise, will remain that speakers and amp make up 95% of the quality of a sound system and who cares about the other 5%.   you can play a low res 192 mp3 on a nice amp and speakers and it will sound 10 times better than a dsd file on a lesser system. 

 

Buy the best speakers and amp within your budget that "YOU LIKE", and learn to enjoy what you have....life is too short.

[Ajax]

8 hours ago, sandyk said:

 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

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?

[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

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

17 minutes ago, sandyk said:

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

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?

[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

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, sandyk said:

 

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 . 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

 

I only know what you tell us about your hearing. 
 

 

[Jud]

I prefer to take the approach of the folks who have posted in this thread who have the most experience with recordings, Miska and John Dyson. *All else being equal* (not so simple to assure in practice), I'd go for the higher resolution recording just because it allows a bit more room to perform ADC and DSP operations correctly a little more easily. That said, I've heard Redbook recordings that are wonderful, many better than higher resolution remasters (specific albums by The Clash, Nirvana, Tom Petty to name a few).

 

Another kicker is that I really don't think A/B sequential listening comparisons are very effective, for reasons I've stated several times in various threads and won't repeat here. Paul Kane's Delta Wave tool can be very helpful in allowing simultaneous comparisons of two recordings, one mixed down to the left channel, the other to the right, but here that would involve conversion between resolutions, pretty well nullifying the object of the comparison we're supposed to be doing.

 

So though the topic is obviously an intriguing one, @Ajax, my strong guess is the sequential comparison method and perhaps characteristics of the way the files were recorded (see for example Miska's comments) will result in no reliable ability to tell differences.

 

It may in fact be true that we can't hear differences, or it may not, but until there are tests available that I feel have a good chance of being probative, I'm going to go with the approach I mentioned at the beginning of this comment.

[Ajax]

Hi 

49 minutes ago, Jud said:

I prefer to take the approach of the folks who have posted in this thread who have the most experience with recordings, Miska and John Dyson. *All else being equal* (not so simple to assure in practice), I'd go for the higher resolution recording just because it allows a bit more room to perform ADC and DSP operations correctly a little more easily. That said, I've heard Redbook recordings that are wonderful, many better than higher resolution remasters (specific albums by The Clash, Nirvana, Tom Petty to name a few).

 

Hi Jud,

 

Nice to hear from you. I hope you are enjoying your new home. My own renovations will be complete next month and my life should get back to normal. Tom Hank's "The Money Pit" has taken on a whole new meaning 

 

With regard to Hi Res I have a similar approach to yours, I've simply selected different experts being Mark Waldrep and John Siau. I'm not anti Hi Res as suggested by Alex, I'm simply sceptical, especially when it is open to manipulation by the likes of MQA. Mark has spent most of his career promoting the benefits of Hi Res but is now expressing some doubt of it's actual benefits. Hence the study and my promotion of it.

 

in terms of experts Barry Diament has always maintained that 90% of the quality of the sound/music is determined before it leaves the microphones. He has selected 24/192 as his preferred format and believes that there is no need to go higher, whereas Mark Waldrep believes 24/96 to be sufficient, but is now second guessing that. John Siau believes 16/44.1 is sufficient assuming the DAC is property designed... it's just maths.

 

George provided sound reasons (as have you) in his earlier comment why Hi Res is beneficial, however, can't they be overcome by well implemented noise shaping & dithering at the mastering end, and up sampling at the Software/ DAC end?

 

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 recorded to tape, or more recently music that has been heavily compressed. Both I believe are easily accommodated by CD's resolution.

 

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. 

 

 

 

[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

[John Dyson]

49 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

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

 

Even though Alex and I don't always agree -- we have a mutual respect.  Alex has been VERY helpful in detecting audio problems that I haven't initially been able to hear right away.  There is always a learning process WRT hearing, Alex is very perceptive given the hearing problems that he has to deal with.

 

Here is an anecdote that I do believe that Alex knows about: I have had severe hearing problems & fever in the last week or so (one reason for being away from the group), and I found that with my hearing impairments I could detect certain kinds of signal problems MORE DISTINCTLY.  Of course, with too many hearing problems, then  it is difficult to hear anything that makes sense.

 

When chatting with Alex, I had mentioned that *with my borked up hearing* I could hear distortion products more distinctly when compraring  DolbyA HW vs DHNRDS DA results. That is, some of the distortion on the DolbyA HW was MORE apparent given my frequency response impairments.   The better ability to distinguish certain problems probably happened because of emphasis of a certain frequency range, but the effect was still amazing to me.

 

Some of these vehement arguments seem mostly related to a bunch of missing context in the discussions, and a need for more conditional assertions.   I am HORRID at writing 'english language code' :-), because I get all fumbled up while trying to apply conditions to my statements.

 

Maybe greater care should be exercised when making potentially controversial assertions -- maybe the context should sometimes be more completely specifiedl.   I know (by watching this group and private discussions) that most people in these forums are pretty darned rational and seem to be nice people.

 

Some of us don't set statements/assertions up as clearly as we should.  Maybe it is beneficial to have poor language skills, because sometimes fewer people can make any sense out of what I try to write :-).  When fewer people can easily read what I write, then maybe my mistakes will create fewer aggressive responses? :-).

 

John

 

[John Dyson]

1 minute ago, sandyk said:

 

 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

You hit the nail on the head on several Hi Res purchases -- for some recordings, the big difference between a high res copy and normal is that there is the additional noise/distortion products in the above audio range that one can listen to? :-).

This is one case where Alex and I had a disagreement, until we realized that we were talking about two different kinds of material -- the material that is of high enough quality that there just might be some kind of improvement in high res form, and then the nonsense pop music material that I have purchased -- mostly has digital control signals and NR splats to add to the normal res recordings.  On at least some of the pop material, the additional 'signal' is just more garbage that needs filtering.

 

Hi Res doesn't really guarantee any kind of higher quality at all.  For the consumer, the higher sample rate just means that some filtering should probably be done before sending the signal further down the chain.

 

John

 

[Rexp]

5 hours ago, esldude said:

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

Why, is there a problem? 

[Ralf11]

he may have bit infection

[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 ?

 

[esldude]

50 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

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

 

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

[Ralf11]

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

[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.

[Confused]

5 hours ago, esldude said:

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

Blind?

[marce]

8 hours ago, sandyk said:

 

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

 

That's just adding to the circle of confusion...

[Miska]

One thing good to note about these type of comparisons is that listening to the file that has been converted to 44.1/16 and then back to 96/24 in software is not the same as sending the 44.1/16 data to the DAC...