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

[Jud]

38 minutes ago, Miska said:

 

Ehh?

 

 

http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=18296

[sandyk]

7 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

Your outrage is ironic considering that the Academic Report in question supports your opinion.

 

 

 

There is no substitute for actual listening. You should try it for a change and report your results in the forum.

Did you even bother to check out FrederickV's  X and Y files  when they were originally posted ?

[Miska]

2 minutes ago, Jud said:

http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=18296

 

I'm still missing the context how that is related to Mark claiming something about filtering? Apart from pondering about rate conversions and filtering inherent to those processes (not explicitly mentioned).

 

I cannot see anything like that here: http://www.realhd-audio.com/?p=6197

 

[kumakuma]

5 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

There is no substitute for actual listening. You should try it for a change and report your results in the forum.

Did you even bother to check out FrederickV's  X and Y files  when they were originally posted ?

 

I listened to both files but I am at a loss on how to factor out the deterioration that occurred when they were transmitted over the Internet.

[Jud]

I don't think any testing we (or Mark Waldrep) would do would amount to the total of the meta-analysis:

 

"Eighteen published experiments for which sufficient data could be obtained were included, providing a meta-analysis that combined over 400 participants in more than 12,500 trials."

[bobbmd]

@autobomber: how conceited can one get(you deserve BrItex) I for one have a DAC that tells me by the color(or colours) of it's

'FLY' the bit depth(do you mean rate?) and frequency and I know what the colors(oh excuse me colours) actually mean /another DAC shows me white blue and green LEDs and I know WHAT they mean I also have 2 services that tell me rate /frequency of what is being streamed and what is being delivered by the DAC and even how the signal is broken down and I have an AUDIO MIDI that (sometimes) does the same

It's not rocket science and au contraire- most of US in this AUGUST body know how to check for HiRes 'content' if we care to and The Blind Test by Mr Waldrep is simply that--- IMHO it's all subjective if it sounds good/better one way or  another it's HiRes--- let him do/offer his test don't belittle him or us JUST ENJOY THE MUSIC because "those who who do not remember the past are condemned to relive it" ie mp3 cassettes 8 track am radio mono and even scratchy vinyl despite it's 'warmth'( i think santayana said that quote)

[sandyk]

10 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

I listened to both files but I am at a loss on how to factor out the deterioration that occurred when they were transmitted over the Internet.

 It's exactly the same factor that caused the deterioration of the 16/44.1 version that people like yourself refuse to accept.

 I gather from this that you were not able to hear the obvious distortion right from the start of the converted version.

[Jud]

The interesting thing to me about the statement @kumakuma quoted from the meta-analysis is the remark about training. This would indicate there are identifiers of "hi-res sound" that people can be trained to recognize.

 

However, I haven't read through the meta-analysis, much less the subsidiary experiments involving training.

[kumakuma]

5 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 It's exactly the same factor that caused the deterioration of the 16/44.1 version that people like yourself refuse to accept.

 I gather from this that you were not able to hear the obvious distortion right from the start of the converted version.

 

How do you know that both files were affected in the same way?

 

For example, they may have been stored on different servers, one with clean power and the other with dirty power.

[sandyk]

Quote

This would indicate there are identifiers of "hi-res sound" that people can be trained to recognize.

 

Hi Jud  

Did you need any training to recognise the improvement when listening to DSD for example ?

 IIRC, your speakers also have adequate bandwidth to do justice to most high res recordings.

 

Kind Regards

Alex

[sandyk]

17 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

For example, they may have been stored on different servers, one with clean power and the other with dirty power.

 

Now you are grabbing at straws because we both know that you don't believe that this could possibly make any difference.

 So what differences (if any) did you honestly  hear between FrederickV's  X and Y files ?

 He has already stated that most participants actually preferred the 16/44.1 version after conversion to the high res format again.

 

 I have nothing further to say to you on this subject that hasn't already been said to YOU on  numerous occasions already.

[kumakuma]

5 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

Now you are grabbing at straws because we both know that you don't believe that this could possibly make any difference.

 So what differences (if any) did you honestly  hear between FrederickV's  X and Y files ?

 He has already stated that most participants actually preferred the 16/44.1 version after conversion to the high res format again.

 

 I have nothing further to say to you on this subject that hasn't already been said to YOU on  numerous occasions already.

 

Of course I don't believe any of the Internet Transmission Deterioration nonsense.

 

I also don't believe what you believe I believe when it comes to high resolution files.

 

 

[sandyk]

4 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

Of course I don't believe any of the Internet Transmission Deterioration nonsense.

 

I also don't believe what you believe I believe when it comes to high resolution files.

 

 

So what differences (if any) did you honestly  hear between FrederickV's  X and Y files , and if so, which version did you prefer?

[esldude]

31 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

How do you know that both files were affected in the same way?

 

For example, they may have been stored on different servers, one with clean power and the other with dirty power.

Gives me a business idea.  Audiophile VPN.  We host verified digital files made with all clean linear power supplies and give you a VPN connection to your home with least degradation.  

[kumakuma]

 

7 minutes ago, sandyk said:

So what differences (if any) did you honestly  hear between FrederickV's  X and Y files , and if so, which version did you prefer?

 

I'll let you know.

[sandyk]

11 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

 

I'll let you know.

 

 Let the forum know, not me. This suggests that you didn't listen to them originally as you said, or you would have had some opinion.

 You now already know from others posts including the Spectrum Analysis that I posted which file was which anyway, just like Dennis does..

[sandyk]

15 minutes ago, esldude said:

Gives me a business idea.  Audiophile VPN.  We host verified digital files made with all clean linear power supplies and give you a VPN connection to your home with least degradation.  

 

Come on then Dennis., which of the X and Y files that FrederickV posted did YOU prefer and why ?

[kumakuma]

9 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

 Let the forum know, not me. This suggests that you didn't listen to them originally as you said, or you would have had some opinion.

 You now already know from others posts including the Spectrum Analysis that I posted which file was which anyway, just like Dennis does..

 

I didn't really look at that post so I don't know which is which.

[esldude]

24 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

Come on then Dennis., which of the X and Y files that FrederickV posted did YOU prefer and why ?

Before any analysis listening only I thought B was the better file. I suspect however after some analysis that A may have been resampled without dither.

[audiobomber]

3 hours 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.

 

Sorry, I can't find the reference. I read it in the HD Audio site somewhere. Paraphrasing, John Siau stated  there's no need for high res if 16/44.1 is done right (as in the Benchmark DAC3)

[sandyk]

9 minutes ago, esldude said:

Before any analysis listening only I thought B was the better file. I suspect however after some analysis that A may have been resampled without dither.

 The files are X and Y , not A and B. Are you sure that you listened to the correct files ?.

 No amount of Dither would have fixed FrederickV's  16.44.1 version. The distortion is way too obvious.

[gmgraves]

6 hours ago, audiobomber said:

And the playback chain.

Well, of course. But, that is largely irrelevant. A recording either sounds good or bad regardless of the playback system. Bad recordings sound worse the better the system (Frank’s opinion to the contrary notwithstanding) and do not sound “better” on a mediocre system. They just sound wrong and unsatisfying. As they say, a chain is only as strong as its weakest link and that is never more true than in this case. One cannot fix a broken link earlier in the chain with an extra strong one later in the chain. The damage has already been done.

[gmgraves]

13 minutes ago, audiobomber said:

Sorry, I can't find the reference. I read it in the HD Audio site somewhere. Paraphrasing, John Siau stated  there's no need for high res if 16/44.1 is done right (as in the Benchmark DAC3)

That certainly can be true. I’ve used this example before. I have a number of JVC XRCD remastering of older RCA Victor “Living Stereo” analog material from the 1950’s. I also have many of these same performances on RCA’s own SACD re-masterings. In each case when audiophile friends were asked “which version is the RedBook CD and which is the SACD”, they INVARIABLY got it it wrong. Every man-jack of them picked the JVC CD as the SACD, and the real SACD as the RedBook CD because the JVC sounds MUCH better than RCA’s SACD remastering of the same exact material! IOW, the careful process of remastering previously released analog material has much more to do with the overall SQ of the re-release than does using high-res formats that don’t really take advantage of any of the technological advances that hi-res can bring to the table!

[Jud]

1 hour ago, audiobomber said:

Sorry, I can't find the reference. I read it in the HD Audio site somewhere. Paraphrasing, John Siau stated  there's no need for high res if 16/44.1 is done right (as in the Benchmark DAC3)

 

Which, by sheer coincidence, is sold by the company he represents.

[audiobomber]

3 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

Which, by sheer coincidence, is sold by the company he represents.

No coincidence. He is the chief designer and says Benchmark does 16/44 right, some others do not.