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

[fas42]

I thought it was Burroughs who created the really, really sharp machines ... 🙂.

[Richard Dale]

3 hours ago, fas42 said:

I thought it was Burroughs who created the really, really sharp machines ... 🙂.

Yes, I agree. The Burroughs B5500 from 1964 was one of the most innovative computer designs ever, an awesome achievement by Bob Barton and the development team. Stack based, Algol oriented instruction set, tagged memory addresses, virtual memory. Far ahead of its time with a design that makes modern micro processors look crappy.

[Allan F]

9 hours ago, Richard Dale said:

Yes, I agree. The Burroughs B5500 from 1964 was one of the most innovative computer designs ever, an awesome achievement by Bob Barton and the development team. Stack based, Algol oriented instruction set, tagged memory addresses, virtual memory. Far ahead of its time with a design that makes modern micro processors look crappy.

But the big industry news in 1964 was IBM's launch of System/360.

[Rt66indierock]

On 11/23/2019 at 9:37 PM, PeterSt said:

 

If you count out the last (Boris Blank) example, than personally I never found that proven, and I look a lot at this fake stuff. For example: 95% of HD-Tracks Hires would be faked from Redbook (don't pin me down on the 95%) and 0% of the MQA is faked, as long as it is shown as 88.2 or more (but mind my 192 remark in my previous post, which most certainly is not true by any means).

 

Of course, with the example like The Beatles, there may not be more than 12 bits because of noise. But this is all so often the case. But I can try it:

 

OK, you got me. Must be taken from some multi channel (48KHz)  version.

This is Come Together on the Abbey Road one.

 

So now I found it proven. Haha. But it is the first. Also I took this one deliberately because it looked suspicious to me in the first place, when I found this yesterday. And it is not signed of by the artists (smart move 🤐).

Tracks from The White Album show the same. The both CD Sets are the only Beatles in MQA I could find.

 

Sorry, I had a list of MQA tracks to review from the now gone Onkyo Music. Of the six at least two were 16/44.1 MQA according to them. And enough Universal stuff burned up in 2008 that there may not anything but 16/44.1 in many cases.

[Rexp]

On 11/4/2019 at 7:42 PM, audiobomber said:

This is the message I sent to Alex before I knew which file was which:

I found Y had more relaxed and natural sounding highs with more depth/ambience. If that wasn't the true hi-rez file, I will be shocked and dismayed.

Now you've listened to the Mark Waldrep files, what's your general opinion? 

[Rt66indierock]

People, I've had to change an article because of the responses here about computers.  

[audiobomber]

22 hours ago, Rexp said:

Now you've listened to the Mark Waldrep files, what's your general opinion? 

I listened to all the tunes and culled the music I never want to hear again. There are 10 songs remaining. In general I'm not having trouble finding the ones I prefer, which I assume are HD. There's a solo piano piece that's not as clear. I haven't done an in-depth listen yet or submitted my choices.

[Sloop John B]

I’m quite amazed that Mark has only received 122 submissions. 

 

Here is is a chance for us to contribute to the understanding of music reproduction and so few are bothered to take the test. 

 

It would appear reading between the lines that most of us cannot blindly tell a 24/96 track from a 16/44 one. This is not the result that an owner of a high res label would wish for so makes it all the more interesting. 

 

Mark particularly would like some under 40 ears to take the test. 

 

I would  urge as many here as possible to take the challenge and add to our knowledge of audio reproduction. 

 

Sign up here

 

.sjb

 

[esldude]

1 minute ago, Sloop John B said:

I’m quite amazed that Mark has only received 122 submissions. 

 

Here is is a chance for us to contribute to the understanding of music reproduction and so few are bothered to take the test. 

 

It would appear reading between the lines that most of us cannot blindly tell a 24/96 track from a 16/44 one. This is not the result that an owner of a high res label would wish for so makes it all the more interesting. 

 

Mark particularly would like some under 40 ears to take the test. 

 

I would  urge as many here as possible to take the challenge and add to our knowledge of audio reproduction. 

 

Sign up here

 

.sjb

 

Audiophiles don't like trusting just their ears.  Happens over and over and over again. 

 

Heck so poor is participation in these kinds of listening tests, I'm impressed he has 122 submissions. 

[Ralf11]

 

"None of them along the line know what any of it is worth”

[sandyk]

3 hours ago, esldude said:

Audiophiles don't like trusting just their ears.  Happens over and over and over again. 

 

Heck so poor is participation in these kinds of listening tests, I'm impressed he has 122 submissions

 Dennis

 Perhaps most Audiophiles don't feel the need  to participate in pointless Statistical exercises that have been done numerous times previously ? OTOH, if their listening abilities can be used in conjunction with qualified EEs and S/W people,resulting  in worthwhile improvements to the quality of older famous albums on CD for example, or the selection of better sounding S/W , then that is an entirely  different matter, as you should now be well aware. 😉

 

Regards

Alex

[sandyk]

3 hours ago, Sloop John B said:

It would appear reading between the lines that most of us cannot blindly tell a 24/96 track from a 16/44 one.

 

Speak for yourself !

 It all depends on the quality of the original mastering.

 I suspect that Mark may be more interested in drawing attention to what he has available in this area, and hoping to win a few converts AND customers !!!    $$$  . 

[Ralf11]

Wrong. 

 

It mostly depends on age & training, and is no sure thing then.

[Rexp]

10 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

Speak for yourself !

 It all depends on the quality of the original mastering.

 I suspect that Mark may be more interested in drawing attention to what he has available in this area, and hoping to win a few converts AND customers !!!    $$$  . 

In this case the 24/96 sound better than the upsampled 16/44 but the quality of the recordings isn't good enough for me to buy them. 

[semente]

7 hours ago, esldude said:

Audiophiles don't like trusting just their ears.  Happens over and over and over again. 

 

Heck so poor is participation in these kinds of listening tests, I'm impressed he has 122 submissions. 

 

I can't think of anything more tedious than comparing files of different resolution, except perhaps comparing the effects of cables...

 

I've done that once with PlayClassics' files, and that's it for me.

I doubt that any of these recordings is as good/fit-for-purpose anyway...

[Archimago]

16 hours ago, Sloop John B said:

I’m quite amazed that Mark has only received 122 submissions. 

 

Here is is a chance for us to contribute to the understanding of music reproduction and so few are bothered to take the test. 

 

It would appear reading between the lines that most of us cannot blindly tell a 24/96 track from a 16/44 one. This is not the result that an owner of a high res label would wish for so makes it all the more interesting. 

 

Mark particularly would like some under 40 ears to take the test. 

 

I would  urge as many here as possible to take the challenge and add to our knowledge of audio reproduction. 

 

Sign up here

 

.sjb

 

 

That's pretty common in my experience over the years with running these blind tests. Not unusual to get something like 1500 downloads of test material and receive 100 responses unfortunately... Which makes those who do respond just that much more precious.

 

Having said this... Please submit your blind test results on whether you can hear high harmonic distortion test recently started :-).

[Archimago]

13 hours ago, sandyk said:

 Dennis

 Perhaps most Audiophiles don't feel the need  to participate in pointless Statistical exercises that have been done numerous times previously ? OTOH, if their listening abilities can be used in conjunction with qualified EEs and S/W people,resulting  in worthwhile improvements to the quality of older famous albums on CD for example, or the selection of better sounding S/W , then that is an entirely  different matter, as you should now be well aware. 😉

 

Regards

Alex

 

I hope you're wrong @sandyk about what "most audiophiles" want to do. It might be wishful thinking, but I do hope most (especially those hanging around discussion forums) actually are genuinely interested in their listening abilities and gauging the truthfulness of claims out there telling us to spend money on things whether it be 24-bit music or hardware.

 

It's good to know one's own limitations and be aware of the norm among the community. These data points help us appreciate true value and what is "good enough".

[pkane2001]

11 minutes ago, Archimago said:

That's pretty common in my experience over the years with running these blind tests. Not unusual to get something like 1500 downloads of test material and receive 100 responses unfortunately... Which makes those who do respond just that much more precious.

 

I wonder how this degree of self-selection can skew the results? For example, someone who is sure they can hear the differences before the test, but fail to detect them after downloading, do they actually report what they find or do they sit on their results? 

 

17 minutes ago, Archimago said:

Having said this... Please submit your blind test results on whether you can hear high harmonic distortion test recently started :-).

 

Yes, please! Can't wait to see the results

[One and a half]

11 hours ago, semente said:

 

I can't think of anything more tedious than comparing files of different resolution, except perhaps comparing the effects of cables...

 

I've done that once with PlayClassics' files, and that's it for me.

I doubt that any of these recordings is as good/fit-for-purpose anyway...

Couldn’t agree more. If I listen to music and it sounds ‘off’ it’s 98% the recording, the other 2% is due to the neighbours’ grinder or leaf blower.

[Archimago]

2 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

 

I wonder how this degree of self-selection can skew the results? For example, someone who is sure they can hear the differences before the test, but fail to detect them after downloading, do they actually report what they find or do they sit on their results? 

 

 

Yes, please! Can't wait to see the results

 

Yeah, one of course has no power to control how these things work out... Regardless, one can never compel another to try something out and hopes that enough people will be curious and will engage especially in these "open" internet tests.

 

What I have found is that the folks who do engage in these blind tests tend to be more "serious" audiophiles. By their responses, I see that they understand the procedure and have enough skills to do what it takes to "run" the experiment (I try to keep things as simple as I can of course). Often folks will even send me their ABX session logs or write paragraphs about what they heard which is useful when I summarize the subjective opinions expressed. Based on the gear they used, one has a sense of the seriousness of the pursuit as well. To me this self-selection is actually a good thing! It means the target population is more likely to consist of more thoughtful, disciplined and audiophiles of higher intellect if I may be so bold to say...

 

Folks who know what they're doing, motivated enough, willing to take time to listen to potentially minute differences, and I believe at a certainly level also honest enough to be willing to put their opinion on the line even if results are submitted anonymously.

 

It also means that I don't have to wade through a bunch of submissions from guys walking around with Beats headphones if all I asked was a "Yes"/"No" poll :-). 

 

As I've said over the years, I am thankful that in this hobby one can still find a number of people willing to try. It does take a bit of courage and even humility to come into an exercise ready to be challenged. Not just in audiophilia, but I think in life these are important attributes of character.

[sandyk]

3 hours ago, Archimago said:

It's good to know one's own limitations and be aware of the norm among the community. These data points help us appreciate true value and what is "good enough".

 

 Since when has the norm among the community got to do with Audiophiles ? Why should Audiophiles accept what is "good enough" based on the data points of the masses, not all of whom will have equipment of the calibre needed to extract the best from our recordings ?

Good enough has got us low bit rate .aac encoded audio ,and MQA  for example .

 Note also the last paragraph of my reply, where Audiophiles and the technical people working together can achieve far more than any statistics can ever do. If you have been reading some of John Dyson's posts you would be aware that a small group of members (currently 10) from both sides are already doing this via Group PMs , and achieving some truly spectacular results with quite a few older recordings, which also shows  that we don't need new formats like the flawed MQA to achieve the highest possible quality from the CD medium. 

 

P.S. 

 We also appear to be rewriting some of the text book limitations of hearing, where we are now frequently noticing differences of the order of 0.4dB (or lower) !!!

[Ralf11]

yes, we should all eschew statistics -- also, physics, chemistry and virology

[Confused]

4 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

 

I wonder how this degree of self-selection can skew the results? For example, someone who is sure they can hear the differences before the test, but fail to detect them after downloading, do they actually report what they find or do they sit on their results? 

 

 

Yes, please! Can't wait to see the results

I’ll be honest here, I did the test, and I am not that confident that I have done that well.  Nevertheless, I submitted my results.  Why not?  
 

Also, irrespective of how well I have done or what the overall results may show, I have learnt something.  In my system, with my ears, I now have a very good idea of how big a difference hi res makes to me.  This is useful, and could be of benefit to anyone, far beyond what could be gained by reading the opinion of others and endless point scoring debate on line.

 

For anyone reading this that is remotely interested, I would recommend that you try the test.  It’s a shame that more have not in my view, but I am glad I made the effort.

[sandyk]

22 minutes ago, Confused said:

Also, irrespective of how well I have done or what the overall results may show, I have learnt something.  In my system, with my ears, I now have a very good idea of how big a difference hi res makes to me.  This is useful, and could be of benefit to anyone, far beyond what could be gained by reading the opinion of others and endless point scoring debate on line.

 

You are assuming that the test files provided by one source fully illustrate the full  capabilities of high res. You already had the ability to do this with files from the Format Comparison pages from SoundKeeper Recordings and other sources.

 You may also be able to do similar with music from Blue Coast who specialise in DSD recordings ?

 Are there any examples of high quality DSD recordings which many members prefer these days, with a comparison of the same material down sampled to RBCD 16/44.1 ?

 If not, this comparison is flawed due to it's exclusion.

[Confused]

2 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

You are assuming that the test files provided by one source fully illustrate the full  capabilities of high res. You already had the ability to do this with files from the Format Comparison pages from SoundKeeper Recordings and other sources.

 You may also be able to do similar with music from Blue Coast who specialise in DSD recordings ?

 Are there any examples of high quality DSD recordings which many members prefer these days, with a comparison of the same material down sampled to RBCD 16/44.1 ?

 If not, this comparison is flawed due to it's exclusion.

Yes, point taken, and thanks for the suggestions, I shall give some of this a try when I have some free time.  That said, I think Mark’s blind test is legitimate for giving a good idea of a red book versus hi res comparison, and who knows, maybe my results will be better that I expect.  I’m always happy to try other things though.

 

I will certainly try the SoundKeeper format comparisons, but I need to keep in mind relevance to my own requirements.  As an example, there is plenty of music I like and would listen to available as 24 bit, but almost nothing that I would actually want to listen to is available on DSD, this probably gives me a different perspective.