Jump to content
IGNORED

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


Ajax

Recommended Posts

Quote

Did you compare the 24/96 Abbey road to the exact same recording downconverted to 16/44? Rexp

 

Hi I did not compare to same recording downconverted to 16/44. I compared to remastered 2009 CD 16/44.

 

Generally I don't compare to downconverted anything, can't see the point.

 

I know this recording particularly well it was the first vinyl album I bought when it was first released 1969. Crazy that I have now bought 5 versions of this pressing including blueray 24/96. I didn't need to directly compare it to the old CD's I could tell immediately it was better. 

 

Same went for Led Zeppelin remaster releases 2014 by Jimmy Page. The 24/96 versions were the best I've ever heard and I owned the lot from vinyl, cassette and CD(plus remasters).

 

I would go as far to say these later versions easily bettered my best vinyl setup using my computer audio playback system hearing more detail and music, obviously on the original recording but masked by humans and technology!!!!

Link to comment
3 hours ago, gmgraves said:

I don’t think the choice of DAC will make 24-bit sound better than Redbook through the same DAC and audio circuitry unless the 24-bit recording in question, actually sounds better than the Redbook recording to which it is being compared. I think your logic is faulty here.

 

Hi-Res, and CD are different beasts... the input format is altered, which is changing the nature of what the circuitry sees, has to process. In digital audio that's all that's needed to alter the subjective sound - even on very low end chips, mounted on a PC motherboard, this can make an easily audible difference. Taking a low grade pop track, and upsampling it to hi-res formats, changed the tone of the treble content dramatically, in an experiment I did some years ago. The music content was always identical, but the playback chain was able to produce a less distorted version, with hi-res input.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, robocop said:

 

Hi I did not compare to same recording downconverted to 16/44. I compared to remastered 2009 CD 16/44.

 

Generally I don't compare to downconverted anything, can't see the point.

 

I know this recording particularly well it was the first vinyl album I bought when it was first released 1969. Crazy that I have now bought 5 versions of this pressing including blueray 24/96. I didn't need to directly compare it to the old CD's I could tell immediately it was better. 

 

Same went for Led Zeppelin remaster releases 2014 by Jimmy Page. The 24/96 versions were the best I've ever heard and I owned the lot from vinyl, cassette and CD(plus remasters).

 

I would go as far to say these later versions easily bettered my best vinyl setup using my computer audio playback system hearing more detail and music, obviously on the original recording but masked by humans and technology!!!!

Sure, just wondered given our topic. Where did you download it and the Ledzep from, I may give a try. Thanks! 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

Hi-Res, and CD are different beasts... the input format is altered, which is changing the nature of what the circuitry sees, has to process. In digital audio that's all that's needed to alter the subjective sound - even on very low end chips, mounted on a PC motherboard, this can make an easily audible difference. Taking a low grade pop track, and upsampling it to hi-res formats, changed the tone of the treble content dramatically, in an experiment I did some years ago. The music content was always identical, but the playback chain was able to produce a less distorted version, with hi-res input.

And unless you had both Redbook and Hi-res of the same material, how could you tell to what to attribute the differences you hear through a DAC? I, on the other hand have DSD masters and the pro software to output the DSD as both 24/96 and Redbook CD format. I can compare both to the master DSD file. I know what the differences are, and through my Yiggy and the Chord HUGO and the Chord Quetest as well as the AudioQuest Cobalt. I can tell you that unless either the Redbook copy or the 24/96 copy of a master sounds significantly better than the other, the individual DACs can’t audibly differentiate between them anymore than I can differentiate between the two copies (Redbook and 24/96) from the DSD master. IOW, a DAC will not optimize a system for Hi-Res. It simply does not work that way in my experience!

George

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

And unless you had both Redbook and Hi-res of the same material, how could you tell to what to attribute the differences you hear through a DAC? I, on the other hand have DSD masters and the pro software to output the DSD as both 24/96 and Redbook CD format. I can compare both to the master DSD file. I know what the differences are, and through my Yiggy and the Chord HUGO and the Chord Quetest as well as the AudioQuest Cobalt. I can tell you that unless either the Redbook copy or the 24/96 copy of a master sounds significantly better than the other, the individual DACs can’t audibly differentiate between them anymore than I can differentiate between the two copies (Redbook and 24/96) from the DSD master. IOW, a DAC will not optimize a system for Hi-Res. It simply does not work that way in my experience!

 

By upsampling CD material to Hi-Res - or going the other way ... that's what I mentioned doing in my previous post, 🙂. Same audio content, different format - I did round trips of conversion to make sure the software did the job well enough so that the nulls lay well below CD resolution - nothing was added, or taken away, that could be audible.

Link to comment
12 hours ago, sandyk said:

 It's not my problem if people like yourself and several other participants in this thread are unable to hear what many others report, including the benefits of higher resolution audio formats such as 24/192 and DSD, due to not accepting what  many Audiophile members are telling you, when you treat all solutions to the various problems such as IsoRegens , improved USB cables, markedly lower noise PSUs  etc. as Snake Oil .

This is evident with the recent nasty attacks on Uptone and John Swenson by one member of this small vocal group of Anti Audiophiles.

I note also that Kumakuma doesn't appear to have enough confidence in his own  listening abilities to even  report what differences (if any) he heard between the X and Y files, despite saying previously that he had listened to them, and that he would post his impressions.

 

Got around to comparing your x and y files in some software.  Blue is x and white is y.  A more than 10 db difference in much of the upper octave.  I wonder if on the louder more transient portions this is why it sounds different.  It does go down with lesser differences into the top 2 khz I can hear.  So often audible differences turn out to be FR variation.  Sample rate likely has nothing to do with sound differences in these two files. 

 

image.thumb.png.7a00aaa84aa3ea1778d4eae97aa4e9be.png

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
15 minutes ago, esldude said:

Got around to comparing your x and y files in some software.  Blue is x and white is y.  A more than 10 db difference in much of the upper octave.  I wonder if on the louder more transient portions this is why it sounds different.  It does go down with lesser differences into the top 2 khz I can hear.  So often audible differences turn out to be FR variation.  

 

image.thumb.png.7a00aaa84aa3ea1778d4eae97aa4e9be.png

Dennis

 This would appear to be similar to what people may expect from the comparisons discussed in the title of the thread. .

 A couple of other prominent members have also expressed misgivings in this thread about the implementation of the comparisons..

 In this case, as you are aware, these files were direct from the links provided by FrederickV

 

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
11 hours ago, Miska said:

 

Too bad none of those play DSD natively...

 

That’s largely irrelevant. I often capture in DSD with either my Korg MR-1or my M2000s. Both of those will natively play DSD as well as LPCM, but my point is that when either Redbook or 24/96 conversions are made from these DSD master files, the type of DAC used to play them back does not make the Hi-Res copy sound better while making the Redbook copy sound worse. IOW, the DAC does not optimize a system to favor Hi-Res over standard resolution digital as Fas42 suggests.

George

Link to comment
12 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

By upsampling CD material to Hi-Res - or going the other way ... that's what I mentioned doing in my previous post, 🙂. Same audio content, different format - I did round trips of conversion to make sure the software did the job well enough so that the nulls lay well below CD resolution - nothing was added, or taken away, that could be audible.

That still doesn’t show that the choice of a DAC will “optimize” one’s system for Hi-Res over standard a resolution digital. If one finds that Hi-Res sounds better than standard res, it’s simply because the Hi-Res recording is better, not because some DAC is optimized to make Hi-Res sound better.

George

Link to comment
23 hours ago, sandyk said:

 It's not my problem if people like yourself and several other participants in this thread are unable to hear what many others report, including the benefits of higher resolution audio formats such as 24/192 and DSD, due to not accepting what  many Audiophile members are telling you,

 

 

As I said in an earlier post, I THINK I slightly preferred Y but have no confidence that I could tell them apart if I didn't play them back to back. If I'm reading the statement of yours I quoted correctly, you seem to be saying that I should believe that higher resolution files sound better to me because many Audiophile members are telling me they do, even if I don't hear the improvement?

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

where is the STFU post??

Daverich4 is correct.

It wouldn't be the first time I have been told to do this by you. 

Most likely it was in one of your self Moderated threads, and was removed by you, like many of my posts are even when they are completely on topic and non confrontational if they don't support your intended conclusions.

 

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
8 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

where is the STFU post??

 

a quick search finds 3 pages (THREE) of STFUs - none by me directed at Sandman (and only one by me used at all)

 

maybe a PUoSU is more appropriate?

 

that's Put Up or Shut Up

 

and BTW, the Sandman is our most Enraged Member (EM), seemingly unable to discuss anything for long in a rational fashion, and even screaming at people who agree with him, on this very thread ----> you search term is Reiss

 

I think I reported it and that was one of the posts that Chris removed without comment.

Link to comment

 

1 hour ago, gmgraves said:

That still doesn’t show that the choice of a DAC will “optimize” one’s system for Hi-Res over standard a resolution digital. If one finds that Hi-Res sounds better than standard res, it’s simply because the Hi-Res recording is better, not because some DAC is optimized to make Hi-Res sound better.

 

It appears you're still not following, George - I take a 'low res' recording, say CD or MP3. and upsample to some Hi-Res format - not one iota, one shred of extra, meaningful information has been added to the track - yet, it sounds better than the original file I started with ... I have organised the audio data so that it's now in a form which better suits the playback chain - the DAC area is the key link where this change in audible behaviour is occurring.

 

So, if I'm into Hi-Res I will carefully pick a playback chain which makes the most of this format; if I have a huge collection of CDs, I will acquire a CD player which has had all the effort put into optimising the electronics in it for recovering 16 bit sound - I pick the right 'vehicle' for making the journey, 🙂.

Link to comment
13 minutes ago, fas42 said:

I take a 'low res' recording, say CD or MP3. and upsample to some Hi-Res format - not one iota, one shred of extra, meaningful information has been added to the track - yet, it sounds better than the original file I started with …

 Frank

 This is even more obvious when very low bit rate .aac encoding as used by YouTube and elsewhere is converted to LPCM. 

I have previously posted examples of this.

 The interesting thing though, is that if you convert low bit rate .aac to a much higher bit rate .aac it doesn't improve it much, if at all.

 

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

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...