Jump to content
IGNORED

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


Ajax

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, Teresa said:

 

 

I guess that makes me a fool. @GUTB says I'm not an audiophile so maybe he is right?

 

I don't read academic reports in any field, especially audio. Boring in the extreme IMHO. I even quit subscribing to Stereophile magazine because I find equipment reports extremely boring and Stereophile has too few music reviews and most are not from the audiophile and the small boutique music companies I prefer. And they almost never review SACDs even though over 10,000 SACDs have been released. Even at less than $1 per issue I found Stereophile a bad deal for me.

 

Oh, also I abhor doing any comparison between music formats, it ruins pleasurable music listening for me for many days. I don't mind reading other people's comparisons though.

 

Even though I'm now able to enjoy CDs and 16/44.1 lossless music files, the music in my collection I enjoy the most are from SACDs and DSD downloads. As long as my audio system keeps working I listen 100% of the time for pleasure. I dread the day when something breaks down that is too expensive to repair and I have to once again listen analytically. I prefer just listening to music for pleasure and if that means I'm a fool I'm OK with that.

 

The Reiss article I mentioned is not an equipment report - it analyzes different listening sessions to determine if people could hear a difference between hiRes and Redbook.  Sandman seems not to understand that

Link to comment
5 hours ago, Jud said:

Note that John says nothing about hi res making it easier to do better filtering on both the ADC and DAC ends, while he also says (with no math support, as there cannot be) the filtering in his DACs obviates this advantage.

This is of course, in my estimation, probably the only way (especially on remastered analog or 16/44.1 original material) that Hi-Res might be considered an advantage. But having said that, I don’t think it’s more than a secondary or perhaps a tertiary advantage.

George

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

This is of course, in my estimation, probably the only way (especially on remastered analog or 16/44.1 original material) that Hi-Res might be considered an advantage. But having said that, I don’t think it’s more than a secondary or perhaps a tertiary advantage.

 

I don't disagree, though *if* the Reiss meta-analysis is correct and training allows people to distinguish more easily, part of our feeling that this is a minor difference may be due to not knowing what to listen for.

 

But look at DR Database and notice the 24/96 Blu-ray of the 50th Anniversary Edition of Abbey Road is a little more dynamic than the CD. I think something like that is likely to be more important.

One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Link to comment
4 hours ago, gmgraves said:

1: An increased high frequency limit

Analog tape has little on it above 15 KHz. This is because the machines are not maintained beyond that frequency. The lack of calibration test-tapes coupled with difficulties in interpreting results at that frequency and higher, and the problem of self-erasure of high frequencies, make it impossible for analog magnetic tape to have any usable response above 20KHz (and response TO 20 KHz is rare), even at 15 ips!

Hi-Res “increased high-frequency limit” is of no use here.

 George

 Even many cassette decks had a frequency response to 30kHz including the Nakamichi decks that a friend and  I had back then.

You did however need to use high quality tape such as the TDK MA - Type IV Metal Cassette .

 Yes, I confirmed this by measurements at the time.

 

Regards

Alex

 

How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020

Link to comment
9 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 George

 Even many cassette decks had a frequency response to 30kHz including the Nakamichi decks that a friend and I I had back then.

You did however need to use high quality tape such as the TDK MA - Type IV Metal Cassette .

 Yes, I confirmed this by measurements at the time.

 

Regards

Alex


I tried the listening tests with the X & Y files and while I think I hear a difference between them it isn’t as obvious for me as it apparently is for you. Can you give me any tips on what to listen for?

Link to comment
38 minutes ago, daverich4 said:


I tried the listening tests with the X & Y files and while I think I hear a difference between them it isn’t as obvious for me as it apparently is for you. Can you give me any tips on what to listen for?

 See if you can hear any obvious distortion right from the very start.  A good quality high resolution file will usually have greater separation ("air")  between elements, and in this case the lack of processing artifacts due to the conversion to 16/44.1 and then putting it back inside a high resolution container again should also cause the original to sound a little softer and cleaner sounding  in comparison.

 That was the first thing that I thought noticed with these 2 files, and concentrated on this area initially to confirm what I had noticed.

 Perhaps FrederickV's PC or Laptop was a little noisy electrically too, as the differences should not have been this obvious ?

 Dennis has also remarked that Dither should have been used with the file converted to 16/44.1 , although I don't believe that it would have helped much in this case.

 Nevertheless, I have heard some examples in 16/44.1 that sound very much like high resolution material.

 A recent corrected example from  John Dyson of " Peggy Lee -Fever",  because of it's age, would not have been made in high res format, yet it sounds bloody fantastic without any hint of noise or distortion, even when you turn the volume right up !

It has an absolute purity about the sound . However, it was from a very good Master tape before anything else was mixed in.

 

 You also need to use gear with a very good Signal to Noise ratio to get the best from high resolution material.

 

How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020

Link to comment
5 hours ago, Jud said:

 

I don't disagree, though *if* the Reiss meta-analysis is correct and training allows people to distinguish more easily, part of our feeling that this is a minor difference may be due to not knowing what to listen for.

 

But look at DR Database and notice the 24/96 Blu-ray of the 50th Anniversary Edition of Abbey Road is a little more dynamic than the CD. I think something like that is likely to be more important.

But that could just be the difference in remastering. I’ve never heard any of the Beatles digital remasters (never cared for the group), so, I’m just speculating, and you could, of course, be right.

George

Link to comment
3 hours ago, sandyk said:

 George

 Even many cassette decks had a frequency response to 30kHz including the Nakamichi decks that a friend and  I had back then.

You did however need to use high quality tape such as the TDK MA - Type IV Metal Cassette .

 Yes, I confirmed this by measurements at the time.

 

Regards

Alex

Sorry, Alex, but what I said was that professional analog tape recorders weren’t “maintained” beyond 15 KHz because it couldn’t be done. I have had and used Ampex ATR-102s, Revox high speed B-77s, and Otari MX-5050s. All of them fell-off like a rock above 15 KHz! If they did have any response above 20 KHZ, it was so far down compared to their output level at 15KHz, and at such a low record level, as to be useless.

Not that I don’t believe you, but even using Dolby HX pro to manage self-erasure, I do not see how a cassette deck, creeping along at 1.5 ips, can have any response above 10-12 KHz even at a record level of -20 dB, and not much above 7 KHz at -10B

(which is 0 Vu on a cassette). Even if it did, I don’t see how you could measure something so low in level as the 30 KHz response of a cassette deck! The Nakamichi was a three-headed deck (I owned a 1000), and at the 1.5 ips linear tape speed and the narrowness of the tracks, you can’t even set or maintain azimuth alignment between the record and playback head above 7.5 KHz because, again, there aren’t/weren’t any test tapes that went higher than that. And believe me, even at 7.5 KHz, azimuth adjustment on a cassette deck was 100 times more difficult than on a professional 1/4 inch pro reel-to-reel deck!

George

Link to comment
35 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

Sorry, Alex, but what I said was that professional analog tape recorders weren’t “maintained” beyond 15 KHz because it couldn’t be done. I have had and used Ampex ATR-102s, Revox high speed B-77s, and Otari MX-5050s. All of them fell-off like a rock above 15 KHz! If they did have any response above 20 KHZ, it was so far down compared to their output level at 15KHz, and at such a low record level, as to be useless.

Not that I don’t believe you, but even using Dolby HX pro to manage self-erasure, I do not see how a cassette deck, creeping along at 1.5 ips, can have any response above 10-12 KHz even at a record level of -20 dB, and not much above 7 KHz at -10B

(which is 0 Vu on a cassette). Even if it did, I don’t see how you could measure something so low in level as the 30 KHz response of a cassette deck! The Nakamichi was a three-headed deck (I owned a 1000), and at the 1.5 ips linear tape speed and the narrowness of the tracks, you can’t even set or maintain azimuth alignment between the record and playback head above 7.5 KHz because, again, there aren’t/weren’t any test tapes that went higher than that. And believe me, even at 7.5 KHz, azimuth adjustment on a cassette deck was 100 times more difficult than on a professional 1/4 inch pro reel-to-reel deck!

 George

 There are numerous albums available from HDTracks etc.that have obvious HF info well above 22kHz, not just noise.

 In my case I used a 1MHZ Function Generator which I still have, as well as a 200MHZ Frequency counter, and I agree that it was fiddly though.  We also further extended the frequency response by adding a few additional bypass capacitors due to the long PSU tracks, and wire links.

 Regards

Alex

 

How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020

Link to comment
56 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

creeping along at 1.5 ips

 

My recollection is that Dire Straits' early recordings used tape running much faster (15 ips?), and if it was used by them or whoever produced them, I assume it was used by others. I have no idea what this does for response or maintainability thereof, though.

One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Link to comment
24 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying it is, independent of resolution. And I'd think the extra dynamics (or lack of compression if you want to look at it that way) would be more important than whatever difference might be due solely to resolution. 

 

Agreed. The quality of the original recording is virtually always more important than the format, be it hi res or otherwise.

"Relax, it's only hi-fi. There's never been a hi-fi emergency." - Roy Hall

"Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted." - William Bruce Cameron

 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Jud said:

 

My recollection is that Dire Straits' early recordings used tape running much faster (15 ips?), and if it was used by them or whoever produced them, I assume it was used by others. I have no idea what this does for response or maintainability thereof, though.

 Click on the image for a larger image.

Dire Straits-Telegraph Road.jpg

 

How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020

Link to comment
16 hours ago, sandyk said:

 See if you can hear any obvious distortion right from the very start.  A good quality high resolution file will usually have greater separation ("air")  between elements, and in this case the lack of processing artifacts due to the conversion to 16/44.1 and then putting it back inside a high resolution container again should also cause the original to sound a little softer and cleaner sounding  in comparison.

 That was the first thing that I thought noticed with these 2 files, and concentrated on this area initially to confirm what I had noticed.

 Perhaps FrederickV's PC or Laptop was a little noisy electrically too, as the differences should not have been this obvious ?

 Dennis has also remarked that Dither should have been used with the file converted to 16/44.1 , although I don't believe that it would have helped much in this case.

 Nevertheless, I have heard some examples in 16/44.1 that sound very much like high resolution material.

 A recent corrected example from  John Dyson of " Peggy Lee -Fever",  because of it's age, would not have been made in high res format, yet it sounds bloody fantastic without any hint of noise or distortion, even when you turn the volume right up !

It has an absolute purity about the sound . However, it was from a very good Master tape before anything else was mixed in.

 

 You also need to use gear with a very good Signal to Noise ratio to get the best from high resolution material.

 

I tried again but I just don't hear any obvious differences, just maybes. Both my Stereo and Headphone rigs should be capable of resolving whatever differences there are so this time around I tried it with headphones. If I absolutely had to pick one I think it would be Y but that is only if I heard them back to back. If there was any time delay between listening I'm not sure I could tell them apart. Thanks for your help though, it was worth a try.

Link to comment
On 10/31/2019 at 1:45 AM, kumakuma said:

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


Tidal and the x and y files on my own server are served via HTTP.

HTTP guarantees bitperfect transmission. If you hear a difference from 2 files which both have the same cryptographic hash, you either are very good at breaking crypto (which I doubt) or you have a different issue.

Off course x and y are different files, but if you download x twice and hear a difference between both copies, then something is obviously broken

Designer of the 432 EVO music server and Linux specialist

Discoverer of the independent open source sox based mqa playback method with optional one cycle postringing.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, FredericV said:


Tidal and the x and y files on my own server are served via HTTP.

HTTP guarantees bitperfect transmission. If you hear a difference from 2 files which both have the same cryptographic hash, you either are very good at breaking crypto (which I doubt) or you have a different issue.

Off course x and y are different files, but if you download x twice and hear a difference between both copies, then something is obviously broken

So did you do the down sampling or download each sample rate from tidal? Or more generally how were each of these created.

And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Link to comment

One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, Jud said:

There you go! 30 ips for your Dire Straits master. I figured that’s what it had to be. While innovative record company owner/engineer Emory Cook did build several machines running at 60 ips(!), a 3200 ft, 10.5 inch reel of tape running at that speed would last about 15 minutes, IIRC. Since tape in those days was made of acetate film, it was extremely brittle. At 60 ips, a break would have been truly spectacular, and possibly dangerous to anyone in the same room with the machine!

George

Link to comment

I've seen discussion by recording people that 15 ips was preferred because it has that good tape sound.  30 ips was considered too clean sounding by such people.  There was a brief period in the late 80's when 30 ips was something of a fad to get something cleaner as music was going onto CD, but digital processing was rather slow for studio use in those days.  

 

Here is a good article on tape. 

http://www.endino.com/graphs/index.html

 

Fellow measures various common pro tape machines at 15 ips and 30 ips.  Low end response bumps were problems. 

And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Link to comment
5 hours ago, FredericV said:


Off course x and y are different files, but if you download x twice and hear a difference between both copies, then something is obviously broken

NOBODY has said anything about downloading X twice and hearing a difference between both copies . Several prominent members have also questioned your methodology ,even Dennis on this occasion who was also readily able to hear the differences.

Quote

If you hear a difference from 2 files which both have the same cryptographic hash, you either are very good at breaking crypto (which I doubt) or you have a different issue.
 

If you are talking about the checksums being identical, then that is outdated  dogma and easily proved to be incorrect, just like Martin Colloms verified by way of 6 separate DBT sessions with my supplied .wav files from Dire Straits-Love Over Gold several years ago and published the results.

This applies to both A and V files ,which I am able to generate readily from the same source file, yet can both SOUND and LOOK a little different, especially when using high resolution monitors with in the recent case as one member did, side by side on his 4K monitor.

 

How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Jud said:

 Hi Jud

 I have the original Vertigo 800 088-2 version made in Hanover W.Germany by Polygram and it sounds way better than any remaster that I have heard. It was manufactured in 1982.

 

Regards

Alex

 

How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020

Link to comment
18 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 I have the original Vertigo 800 088-2 version made in Hanover W.Germany by Polygram and it sounds way better than any remaster that I have heard. It was manufactured in 1982.

 

Not surprising. Many new pressings are just created blindly from RedBook masters. While the old ones were mastered specifically for vinyl...

 

Signalyst - Developer of HQPlayer

Pulse & Fidelity - Software Defined Amplifiers

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...