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

[PeterSt]

8 hours ago, esldude said:

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

 

On a 1K monitor.

[PeterSt]

23 hours ago, Ajax said:

This could be due to my poor hearing from rock concerts and blasting my ears with headphones or simply old age (now 63) or there is no perceivable difference.

 

I think neither. But you omit the system itself.

Anyone who can't discern a difference between Redbook and Hires, has something seriously flawing. And ears ? I can't imagine that. Really not.

 

Mind you please, I wasn't talking about Hires "obviously being better". Actually the contrary because of 99% being flawed in itself. I was only talking about perceiving a difference.

 

I have said it before but I will add it again: right from when I started to design D/A converters (all right, it started with one ) I had one prerequisite to myself only: The whole playback system had to perform electrically exactly the same for Redbook and whatever Hires.

Who executes it like this ? ... think about prior to any judging.

So let me try to tell you gently: you will be dealing with apples and oranges anyway, because of the difference in electrical behavior. And that alone makes a huge difference - believe it or not.

[Confused]

1 hour ago, Miska said:

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...

 

Yes, a good point.  However, let's say you have a set up where you typically upsample everything (including 16/44) to 24/192, would this eliminate the difference, either in part, or maybe 100%?

[PeterSt]

On 10/29/2019 at 4:02 AM, Ajax said:

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 ...

[PeterSt]

On 10/29/2019 at 4:02 AM, Ajax said:

Then I converted all of downconversions back to 96 kHz/24-bits so that all of them are precisely the same size. I have been very careful to ensure that they are the same volume.

 

I see it has just been noted ... but forget it. The processing will be totally obvious and the 100% reason that the "redbook" (upsampled) fails.

 

Please notice that the upsampling (that assumed as enhancer) must be done by DAC or my (or Miska's) software. So if I compare Hires to Redbook I compare Hires to my upsampling. And not to "no upsampling" let alone a random process out of my control (which at best is no-upsampling and which is no good by definition).

 

Sorry ...

 

PS:

"I compare Hires to my upsampling."

And that with a DAC which doesn't do a thing herself. This is all totally crucial ...

[Miska]

4 hours ago, Confused said:

Yes, a good point.  However, let's say you have a set up where you typically upsample everything (including 16/44) to 24/192, would this eliminate the difference, either in part, or maybe 100%?

 

There is still difference between upsampling filters. The one you use for upsampling, and the one used to convert files. Another factor is of course conversion algorithm used to convert the original to 44.1/16 first.

 

So what you hear in this case for "44.1/16" source, is not representative of what you would hear in the case of true 44.1/16 version of the same track.

 

You could also have some fun and do those same conversions with various different pieces of software and compare. Results are not the same.

 

I personally would prefer to buy the original recording format. That of course allows one to convert it to 44.1/16 for listening if wanted (I don't know why), but would also future proof the content and allow re-conversion with another algorithm at later time. Instead of being stuck one second generation version. This is also one reason Apple has been asking labels / music producers to deliver their content in 96/24 format for a veery long time, because they can then re-convert it as necessary if they decide to change the delivery format. If they want to switch to HiRes, they can pretty much just flip a switch.

 

 

[Ajax]

4 hours ago, PeterSt said:

 

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 ...

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

[Confused]

1 hour ago, Miska said:

 

There is still difference between upsampling filters. The one you use for upsampling, and the one used to convert files. Another factor is of course conversion algorithm used to convert the original to 44.1/16 first.

 

So what you hear in this case for "44.1/16" source, is not representative of what you would hear in the case of true 44.1/16 version of the same track.

 

You could also have some fun and do those same conversions with various different pieces of software and compare. Results are not the same.

 

I personally would prefer to buy the original recording format. That of course allows one to convert it to 44.1/16 for listening if wanted (I don't know why), but would also future proof the content and allow re-conversion with another algorithm at later time. Instead of being stuck one second generation version. This is also one reason Apple has been asking labels / music producers to deliver their content in 96/24 format for a veery long time, because they can then re-convert it as necessary if they decide to change the delivery format. If they want to switch to HiRes, they can pretty much just flip a switch.

 

 

So thinking about this, if we are told what filters are used to convert (upsample and down-sample) the files used for Mark Waldrep's "blind" comparison test, would it be possible to come up with an optimum filter(s) in HQPlayer to perform the comparison?  I am wondering if there is a possibility to have a setting in HQPlayer that would make this test as valid as possible?  Or maybe this is not possible?

[Jud]

50 minutes ago, Confused said:

So thinking about this, if we are told what filters are used to convert (upsample and down-sample) the files used for Mark Waldrep's "blind" comparison test, would it be possible to come up with an optimum filter(s) in HQPlayer to perform the comparison?  I am wondering if there is a possibility to have a setting in HQPlayer that would make this test as valid as possible?  Or maybe this is not possible?

 

There's almost no one listening to files that aren't upsampled by various potentially quite different filters in the DAC and/or external in software. And has the same ADC been used for all the test recordings? The notion of doing a valid comparison is therefore somewhat flawed. (By the way, were all the comparison recordings of equal loudness to each other to begin with? If not, was DSP used to equalize?)

 

The tremendous difficulty of determining whether resolution is the sole variable between two files should tell you how (un)important it is as a factor to consider in purchasing music.

 

Look to see which version has been made with care (for example, DR Database can help eliminate overly compressed recordings) if you possibly can.

[Miska]

1 hour ago, Confused said:

So thinking about this, if we are told what filters are used to convert (upsample and down-sample) the files used for Mark Waldrep's "blind" comparison test, would it be possible to come up with an optimum filter(s) in HQPlayer to perform the comparison?  I am wondering if there is a possibility to have a setting in HQPlayer that would make this test as valid as possible?  Or maybe this is not possible?

 

Since they are all back to same format and already upconverted, you can compare with the caveats I mentioned. You can use whatever HQPlayer settings you would normally use.

 

I just wonder why the 44.1k version is not left as 44.1k version, it would make the comparison more representative when listening is done with a system that would be anyway used for listening similar files.

 

[audiobomber]

1 hour ago, Miska said:

I just wonder why the 44.1k version is not left as 44.1k version, it would make the comparison more representative when listening is done with a system that would be anyway used for listening similar files.

 

Decreased potential for confirmation bias?

[audiobomber]

On 10/29/2019 at 12:14 PM, gmgraves said:

Now, as to whether or not these result in noticeable improvements in SQ, depends, as usual, on all the other parameters of the recoding procedure.

And the playback chain.

[Miska]

24 minutes ago, audiobomber said:

Decreased potential for confirmation bias?

 

Why would the file format make any difference to that? It takes about two seconds to check which file is which...

 

[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

[Ajax]

Hi Alex,

 

Apologies I just assumed it was you. Not sure why my name was on the quote regarding the files being uploaded? Not a big deal just weird.

[audiobomber]

2 hours ago, Miska said:

 

Why would the file format make any difference to that? It takes about two seconds to check which file is which...

 

I have a DAC that indicates sample frequency and bit depth, and another that shows sample frequency with coloured LED's. I would not deliberately check bit depth, because that would defeat the point of a blind test, but I could spoil the test inadvertently.

 

Also, I expect there are many audiophiles who don't have a spectral analysis program, and would not know how to even check for hi-rez content.

[audiobomber]

19 minutes ago, sandyk said:

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.

It was plainly obvious to me which file was which.

 

I am anxious to try Mark Waldrep's test, because I will receive a Benchmark DAC3 tomorrow. I will be able to tell whether his claim that filtering eliminates the need for hi-rez recordings.

[Miska]

1 minute ago, audiobomber said:

I have a DAC that indicates sample frequency and bit depth, and another that shows sample frequency with coloured LED's. I would not deliberately check bit depth, because that would defeat the point of a blind test, but I could spoil the test inadvertently.

 

Yeah, mine too. It says constantly "DSD256"...  Regardless of source content.

 

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.

 

[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.

[Miska]

7 minutes ago, audiobomber said:

I will be able to tell whether his claim that filtering eliminates the need for hi-rez recordings.

 

Ehm, what claim is that and where? What I've read this is purely yet another RedBook vs HiRes test. I've lost count how many there have been before.

 

[Ralf11]

5 minutes ago, Miska said:

 

Ehm, what claim is that and where? What I've read this is purely yet another RedBook vs HiRes test. I've lost count how many there have been before.

 

 

 the Reiss meta-analysis is the the paper to read

[Miska]

41 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

 the Reiss meta-analysis is the the paper to read

 

Ehh?

 

[Ralf11]

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

[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 . 

[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.