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

[sandyk]

3 minutes ago, STC said:

Thanks to DSP, I think the importance of mics may soon disappear. Not many could distinguish good and poor quality and I am totally useless at that. 
 

 

 

If it's in typical YouTube low bit rate .aac I wouldn't even bother trying.

[sandyk]

1 hour ago, STC said:

When it is in 24/192 or 24/96 also the same response. 

 

You have never offered files at that resolution, only on YouTube which would be lucky to have as high as 128kbps .aac .  Even 16/44.1 LPCM would be way more suitable, provided that they weren't captured from speakers. In this case, JRiver won't play the file with Audio anyway, as it is not in a typical AV format

[sandyk]

5 hours ago, gmgraves said:

Today, of course, there are cheap op amps that could do the job easily (Like the TI LME47910, for instance with it’s 2 nV/root-Hertz of self noise). But in the 1980s when I owned the B&O stereo mike, a transformer was de riguer.

 Hi George

 I presume that you meant the LME49710 ?

The HA (metal can) version is even better, and I use a couple of them in my DIY DAC

 

Kind Regards

Alex

[sandyk]

39 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

Yes, I did mean the LME49710. Typos happen. And I agree about the HA variant. It seems to be even quieter than the DIP version (!!??). I suspect that the metal moves heat away from the chip better than does the encapsulating plastic of the DIP.

 Hi George

 I have suggested the same previously. In fact, with the HA version it felt warm enough that I even fitted a push on heatsink to mine with the LME49720HA and decided to do the same here with the single version.

 Kind Regards

Alex

[sandyk]

3 hours ago, esldude said:

No the condenser will have the better transient response.  Ribbons while light have to move more.

 Given what I saw a little while ago with the typical response graphs for both types, they would be virtually damn near useless for high quality recording at anything higher than 16/44.1 , and even then with severe degradation due to lack of reasonable flatness over the whole range.

[sandyk]

11 minutes ago, esldude said:

So how can ribbons have better transient response if they are so truncated in frequency response?

 

OTOH, not all are. Like this Samar MF65 ribbon.

Dennis

 There are always exceptions to the rule .Do you know what the retail price is for this particular ribbon microphone ?

 

https://www.google.com.au/search?q=ribbon+microphone+frequency+response&sxsrf=ACYBGNQCFl9By6L54f1L9CYXUwV9xj2wBQ:1573631923127&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj-1qPe2-blAhVMOisKHbeGANMQ_AUIESgB&biw=1920&bih=893#spf=1573631980831

[sandyk]

9 minutes ago, Sonicularity said:

Apple's 256 kbps AAC is really good for the file size.  Generally speaking, there isn't a lot of music out there where anyone can consistently identify differences using their ears between that format and a lossless version at any bit rate.

 

 Many members will disagree with that assertion, undoubtedly including Miska too.

You must be very easily pleased !

[sandyk]

24 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

it’s because it has altered the frequency response by attenuating some portion of the pass band).

 

 OR, it is not adequately screened against RF/EMI , or is located alongside sources of RF/EMI instead of passing across them at 90 degrees.

[sandyk]

6 hours ago, gmgraves said:

I’m simply not convinced that’s a real concern. Maybe it is in some rare instances, but I have a 100 MHz ‘scope and I’ve looked at audio signals on hundreds of interconnects, ranging from the cheapest of throw-always to the most expensive of boutique cables. And I’ve never seen any RF interference, of any important amplitude, on any of them. Any extraneous signal that I’ve seen on any of them has been down in the microvolt range, and in some cases, the nanovolt range. On a cable ostensibly carrying an audio signal with a nominal amplitude of one to two volts, I simply do not see that signals that small could have any affect on the final sound of a component. And mind you, finding any extraneous signal at all is very rare in my experience.

Maybe it’s different in OZ, but I can’t for the life of me imagine why it would or should be.

 

George

Do you use any SMPS devices including Class D amplifiers ? Your situation in which you did these measurements will be quite different to many other situations, especially where the source of the signal comes from a P.C or Server, or there is a nearby high powered FM or TV transmitter, and I am far from being convinced that measurements by yourself or any other E.E's in this forum with ANY types of cables , especially USB cables have proved anything whatsoever.

 Far too many people, myself included, have reported hearing differences between different type of cables under non sighted conditions, with in my case as I have already told you several times, a difference between 2 specification meeting Coax SPDIF cables used with  my Musical Fidelity X-DAC V3 at my P.C.

 

Theory doesn't always quite meet real life situations as you yourself already know, from a test that I performed with you..

 

 Regards

Alex

[sandyk]

13 minutes ago, Speedskater said:

and that surprised you?

 

(at least for RCA unbalanced interconnects)

 Many will nevertheless insist that provided that the unbalanced interconnects use proper coaxial cable such as RG58 or RG59 that it should make no difference with Audio, at least with typical 1 or 2 metre length cables.

[sandyk]

12 minutes ago, Sonicularity said:

 

Technically, unbalanced is superior to balanced with shorter connections where noise is not audible.

 

 I also use unbalanced Coax right from the DAC , DC coupled through the Preamp to the 15W Class A Power Amplifier where it obtains it's  "Earth" reference from, as I also switch ONLY the 0 volts side of the selected preamp input through the Preamp as well.

[sandyk]

14 minutes ago, fas42 said:

A trivially easy setup for noise injection would be a collection of mobile phones - have them either all powered on, or all off, by a third party in another room. And they are brought into the listening room in a bundle, and left near a possibly critical area of the system, for each round.

 

 Even easier, wrap the interconnects around the power cable of a typical affordable (for most people) Class D Power amplifier.

[sandyk]

1 hour ago, gmgraves said:

I said that the noise was, in my experience, rare. I didn’t say that it was non existent.

And I‘d like to make a comment about Dolby A. I had two channels of Dolby A when I was using a pair of Otari MX5050s (half-track, 15ips) and doing analog recording. I’ve read where a lot of people have trouble getting Dolby A to “Track” perfectly. I always put calibration tones at the head and the tail of every reel, and I never had that problem. I also might add that I always meticulously aligned and set-up my tape decks before every recording session, and before actually making dubs of the tapes. 

Hi George

 It could be an interesting exercise, given that your tapes have calibration  tones, to see how much difference John's highly accurate S/W decoder could make to the sound of your recordings , assuming that they were recorded at 16/44.1

 

Kind Regards

Alex

[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 !!!    $$$  . 

[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) !!!

[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.

[sandyk]

11 minutes ago, Confused said:

That said, I think Mark’s blind test is legitimate for giving a good idea of a red book versus hi res comparison,

 

High Resolution LPCM does not stop at 24/96 as Mark Waldrep's LPCM recordings do.

Some like myself,find for example, that Barry Diament's recordings in 24/192, with genuine musical content to >55kHz (!)

sound a little better than the same in 24/96. There are also some recordings available as high as 384kHz.

I note also that Mark Waldrep is now recording in DSD as well.

[sandyk]

12 minutes ago, Archimago said:

0.4dB??? I typically make sure average amplitude differences are <0.1dB for blind tests between samples if I can. I have seen people show bias between tracks at 0.1dB difference.

Yes, we have heard differences that low too. This was just a very recent example for the latest decoding of Suzanne Vega- Solitude Standing.

 It's good to see you acknowledge these perceived low levels because several members sneer when you suggest this.

Quote

 When I can, I will contact these people and try to see what made them specially gifted to detect differences - more often than not, the ability is actually a curse (ie. they are able to hear the difference between MP3 and lossless because of previous hearing damage!).

As I mentioned previously, this does apply to me too, but I also hear differences between well recorded 24/96 and 24/192 where the original recording was 24/192.

[sandyk]

42 minutes ago, mansr said:

How do you know it's genuine when you can't hear it?

 It is easily verified in an Audio Editing program that it isn't noise.

In this case Barry Diament also uses microphones that are only 1dB down at 40kHz.

[sandyk]

15 minutes ago, esldude said:

I'm not speaking of you in particular here.  We have regular reports to pick on example of the obvious difference footers for your speaker cable make.  Apparently it engages the interest of some audiophiles who claim a significantly different sound.  Yet record both conditions and let people pick what is different and it becomes tedious.  That tells you something.

 

 That your USB recorder and microphones aren't good enough perhaps ?

 (No, I don't use footers for speaker cables)

[sandyk]

1 hour ago, marce said:

Why?

#555 by Archimago appears to give some of the answers, but raises more questions. Moreover, it is often possible to train others to hear the same differences.

Quote

…...Furthermore, I can look into the results and identify the "golden ears" subgroup. When I can, I will contact these people and try to see what made them specially gifted to detect differences - more often than not, the ability is actually a curse (ie. they are able to hear the difference between MP3 and lossless because of previous hearing damage!).

 

[sandyk]

9 hours ago, mansr said:

How do you know it's not distortion?

 

What is the frequency response of your speakers?

 

You should already be aware that I mainly use headphones with a quoted response to 40kHz as I have stated it already on several occasions. In addition my HA has a -3dB response at 1.5mHz

.Quite a few members, including Jud, IIRC, have speakers that go close to that as well.

 

 

[sandyk]

3 minutes ago, Archimago said:

 

@sandyk,

From your equipment list, I see you're using AudioTechnica ATH-W1000's right? I don't know about AT's specs and what they mean by 40kHz, but back in 2011, Tyll Hertsens measured some ATH-W1000x "Grandioso"s:

https://www.innerfidelity.com/images/AudioTechnicaATHW1000X.pdf

 

Frequency Response:

 

Looks like it must be at least -20dB by 30kHz.

 

%THD+N:

Nothing surprising there for headphone measurements and distortion amounts... 

 

I don't think it matter that your HA goes to 1.5MHz -3dB if these are your headphones (or any headphones!) :-).

 

They are currently ATH M70x . I will correct that

 We all appear to be missing the boat here. There has to be way more to it than simple frequency response, after all,I am almost 81, yet I am apparently still able to provide worthwhile input in John Dyson's research. I also have a 21mm benign Acoustic Neuroma pressing on my right ear canal, caused by >40 years with Telstra in Telephone Exchange maintenance..

[sandyk]

28 minutes ago, Archimago said:

 

Hope the acoustic neuroma is remaining stable over time, @sandyk……………………….

 

So too with these claims of hearing all kinds of things in audio... Should I assume that an 80 year old can perceive 20kHz (much less the idea that content to 40kHz makes a difference!) because that person said so when clearly such an ability is highly unlikely?

 

Extreme claims need evidence. This is partly also why I put out these blind tests. Those who believe they have excellent hearing acuity, please do the blind test like the current "high harmonic distortion" one. Honestly, @sandyk, if you take this test and submit your response in a way that I can identify your submission... And indeed you are able to identify the correct order of low --> high harmonic distortion samples at age 80 with an acoustic neuroma, I would certainly be impressed and will back you up on your hearing abilities!

 

 Yes, the Acoustic Neuroma has remained stable for quite a few years now.

 I have already stated that I have no interest in participating in more statistics gathering, preferring to work in an area that may benefit people, NOT confirm what is already pretty well known . Fairly recently I also participated in a challenge demanded of me by FrederickV, and had NO problems hearing and describing the differences between the original 24/96 and the downsampled version in a 24/96 container.

Nowhere do I claim to be able to directly hear these very high frequencies, ONLY them being there or NOT being there.  Neither do I feel the need for further confirmation of what I have previously reported. 

If you don't accept the results of 6 correctly performed sessions of DBTs, as well as the reports from Barry Diament and quite a few other members, then that's your problem, not mine. 

You will now also have seen that I have provided further examples of this including Videos.