AVS Forum

AVS Forum (http://www.avsforum.com/forum/)
-   2 Channel Audio (http://www.avsforum.com/forum/173-2-channel-audio/)
-   -   Hi-Res 24/94 vs Flac vs CD vs Mp3 free files download comparison (http://www.avsforum.com/forum/173-2-channel-audio/1529201-hi-res-24-94-vs-flac-vs-cd-vs-mp3-free-files-download-comparison.html)

Suite 04-27-2014 04:23 AM

This is interesting:



http://www.soundliaison.com/all-our-products/179-formats-to-compare-wav-flac-cd-mp3
Quote:
Free Tracks Format Comparison

Here is a zip file containing samples of 2 tracks in 4 different formats.

Link: http://www.soundliaison.com/all-our-products/179-formats-to-compare-wav-flac-cd-mp3

A: 96/24 WAV
B: 96/24 FLAC
C: 16/44 WAV (CD)
D: 320kbps MP3

All the different formats have the same source file 96/24 WAV (Studio Master).

We used WAVELAB for the conversion.

When you compare the files start with the lowest resolution: D (MP3 320 kbps) and move on up through example C and B ending with A.

Be careful: If you start with A, and move down through B and C ending with D, your mind will remember the ''Blueprint'' of the higher resolution file, making it difficult to hear the difference even when finally listening to the MP3 file. Don't be frustrated if you can't hear a difference at first. Hearing is as individual as taste but hearing is also something which can be acquired, like the taste of good wine.

1. BATIK - The Defeat

A: 96/24 WAV
B: 96/24 FLAC
C: 16/44 WAV (CD)
D: 320kbps MP3

2. Carmen Gomes Inc - A Thousand Shades of Blue

A: 96/24 WAV
B: 96/24 FLAC
C: 16/44 WAV (CD)
D: 320kbps MP3

koturban 04-27-2014 08:18 AM

It would be interesting if track selection is blind and random.

Suite 04-27-2014 09:43 AM

Put the tracks in a playlist and press random play.

But what about what they say about the mind making a ''Blueprint'':?

Quote:
When you compare the files start with the lowest resolution: D (MP3 320 kbps) and move on up through example C and B ending with A.

Be careful: If you start with A, and move down through B and C ending with D, your mind will remember the ''Blueprint'' of the higher resolution file, making it difficult to hear the difference even when finally listening to the MP3 file. Don't be frustrated if you can't hear a difference at first. Hearing is as individual as taste but hearing is also something which can be acquired, like the taste of good wine.

koturban 04-27-2014 10:54 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suite View Post

Put the tracks in a playlist and press random play.

But what about what they say about the mind making a ''Blueprint'':?

FLAC isn't higher resolution. It's a lossless codec. It decodes a bit for bit perfect copy of the pre-coded stream. And there has been no study that indicates the human ear can discern resolution above 16/44.

I can "blueprint" someone by showing them two bottles of malbec but giving them two glasses from one bottle and asking which one they like better.

rntlee 04-27-2014 01:12 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by koturban View Post

...And there has been no study that indicates the human ear can discern resolution above 16/44.

Well, I know I cant differentiate above a 192k mp3 but, playing the devil's advocate here, to say there are no studies that demonstrate an audible difference above 16/44 isn't actually true....there was this one:
http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=15398

Suite 04-27-2014 01:52 PM

Quote:
Sixteen expert listeners were asked to compare 3 versions (44.1kHz, 88.2kHz and the 88.2kHz version down-sampled to 44.1kHz) of 5 musical excerpts in a blind ABX task. Overall, participants were able to discriminate between files recorded at 88.2kHz and their 44.1kHz down-sampled version. Furthermore, for the orchestral excerpt, they were able to discriminate between files recorded at 88.2kHz and files recorded at 44.1kHz.
Quote:
Well, I know I cant differentiate above a 192k mp3 but, playing the devil's advocate here, to say there are no studies that demonstrate an audible difference above 16/44 isn't actually true....there was this one:
http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=15398
thanks for posting.

arnyk 04-28-2014 04:18 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by koturban View Post

It would be interesting if track selection is blind and random.

That's easy enough to arrange with the Foobar2000 ABX plug in - a freebie.

arnyk 04-28-2014 04:21 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suite View Post

Quote:
Sixteen expert listeners were asked to compare 3 versions (44.1kHz, 88.2kHz and the 88.2kHz version down-sampled to 44.1kHz) of 5 musical excerpts in a blind ABX task. Overall, participants were able to discriminate between files recorded at 88.2kHz and their 44.1kHz down-sampled version. Furthermore, for the orchestral excerpt, they were able to discriminate between files recorded at 88.2kHz and files recorded at 44.1kHz.
Quote:
Well, I know I cant differentiate above a 192k mp3 but, playing the devil's advocate here, to say there are no studies that demonstrate an audible difference above 16/44 isn't actually true....there was this one:
http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=15398
thanks for posting.

http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=15398

A convention paper, not peer reviewed. My sources suggest that due to controversy and critical points related to procedures, that might never happen.

The rules for AES convention papers is that anything with a halfways reasonable abstract is accepted for presentation. The presentations can be very casual. The really good ones often end up in the JAES.

rntlee 04-28-2014 09:41 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=15398

A convention paper, not peer reviewed. My sources suggest that due to controversy and critical points related to procedures, that might never happen.

The rules for AES convention papers is that anything with a halfways reasonable abstract is accepted for presentation. The presentations can be very casual. The really good ones often end up in the JAES.

That's unfortunate, though I did read the discussion about the paper in the Hydrogenaudio forums. I think that this paper was an offshoot of this previous presentation by the authors:
http://www.music.mcgill.ca/~hockman/documents/Pras_presentation2009.pdf

arnyk 04-28-2014 11:05 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by rntlee View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=15398

A convention paper, not peer reviewed. My sources suggest that due to controversy and critical points related to procedures, that might never happen.

The rules for AES convention papers is that anything with a halfways reasonable abstract is accepted for presentation. The presentations can be very casual. The really good ones often end up in the JAES.

That's unfortunate, though I did read the discussion about the paper in the Hydrogenaudio forums. I think that this paper was an offshoot of this previous presentation by the authors:
http://www.music.mcgill.ca/~hockman/documents/Pras_presentation2009.pdf

We talk about such things from time to time at HA, no confirmation implied. Trust me, discussion of a topic at HA can go either way.

wgscott 04-28-2014 12:24 PM

What are the objections?

If there are obvious flaws in the experiment, or it cannot be replicated by others using the same procedure, then that is obviously deeply problematic.

If however the primary objection is to the unexpected result, and other points are simply raised in support of the objection, then I worry.

I try to teach my graduate students that in formulating a testable hypothesis, they must be able to state, very clearly and explicitly, and a priori, under what conditions they would be willing to accept that their hypothesis is wrong.

My brief experience at HA made me realize that often isn't a consideration, even though it ought to be.

arnyk 04-28-2014 04:54 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by wgscott View Post

What are the objections?

I don't recall.
Quote:
If there are obvious flaws in the experiment, or it cannot be replicated by others using the same procedure, then that is obviously deeply problematic.

If however the primary objection is to the unexpected result, and other points are simply raised in support of the objection, then I worry.

The problem was not the result, but the method.
Quote:

I try to teach my graduate students that in formulating a testable hypothesis, they must be able to state, very clearly and explicitly, and a priori, under what conditions they would be willing to accept that their hypothesis is wrong.

My brief experience at HA made me realize that often isn't a consideration, even though it ought to be.

HA is a mixed bag. Many of the regulars are pretty hip to rigorous procedures and testable hypothesis. After all, there is TOS 8...

Jinjuku 04-29-2014 06:38 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suite View Post

Put the tracks in a playlist and press random play.

But what about what they say about the mind making a ''Blueprint'':?

When I read that pre-conditioning note I thought the same thing.

Ben Caldas 05-02-2014 04:43 AM

If you were to take 5 pieces of blue paper, each paper being a little bit darker blue than the other, and put the papers next to each other with the lightest on the left and the darkest on the right, you will  clearly see the difference in shade gradually getting  more blue.

If we now pick up the pieces, label them 1-5 on the back, shuffle them and lay one of them down on the table, it will be very difficult to tell which

 one is there, 1,2,3,4, or 5.

Isn't that the same when comparing these btw. excellent sounding downloads?


arnyk 05-02-2014 04:46 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jinjuku View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suite View Post

Put the tracks in a playlist and press random play.

But what about what they say about the mind making a ''Blueprint'':?

When I read that pre-conditioning note I thought the same thing.

Given how easy the Foobar2000 ABX Comparator is to set up and use, why should people waste time with poor approximations? Go big or don't go!

Jinjuku 05-02-2014 06:26 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben Caldas View Post

If you were to take 5 pieces of blue paper, each paper being a little bit darker blue than the other, and put the papers next to each other with the lightest on the left and the darkest on the right, you will  clearly see the difference in shade gradually getting  more blue.
If we now pick up the pieces, label them 1-5 on the back, shuffle them and lay one of them down on the table, it will be very difficult to tell which
 one is there, 1,2,3,4, or 5.
Isn't that the same when comparing these btw. excellent sounding downloads?

We aren't talking about shades of blue. We are talking about a persons ability to discern. In your scenario it's the the blue that is closest to what the definition of 'BLUE' is.

In this case we know from the master recording that the closest definition to the master recording is going to be 24/96. FLAC and WAV are meaningless since the file will be reconstructed to it's full checksum by the CODED. CODEC's for audio are very mature and aren't going to color the sound.

Suite 05-09-2014 12:18 PM

Welcome Ben.
I think Ben has a point, if you consider the ''Blueprint" that the Sound Liaison guy is talking about.smile.gif
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jinjuku View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben Caldas View Post

If you were to take 5 pieces of blue paper, each paper being a little bit darker blue than the other, and put the papers next to each other with the lightest on the left and the darkest on the right, you will  clearly see the difference in shade gradually getting  more blue.
If we now pick up the pieces, label them 1-5 on the back, shuffle them and lay one of them down on the table, it will be very difficult to tell which
 one is there, 1,2,3,4, or 5.
Isn't that the same when comparing these btw. excellent sounding downloads?

We aren't talking about shades of blue. We are talking about a persons ability to discern. In your scenario it's the the blue that is closest to what the definition of 'BLUE' is.

In this case we know from the master recording that the closest definition to the master recording is going to be 24/96. FLAC and WAV are meaningless since the file will be reconstructed to it's full checksum by the CODED. CODEC's for audio are very mature and aren't going to color the sound.

Jinjuku 05-09-2014 12:29 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suite View Post

Welcome Ben.
I think Ben has a point, if you consider the ''Blueprint" that the Sound Liaison guy is talking about.smile.gif

I did consider the Blueprint that Sound Liaison was speaking about. I don't buy it.

kiwi2 05-09-2014 12:48 PM

Maybe it is related to 'auditory closure'..??

"Auditory closure/auditory figure ground: The ability to utilize external and internal redundancy to fill in missing portions in speech or auditorily presented information. This may include hearing speech or other sounds in background noise, understanding dialects or people who do not speak clearly"

http://keyhearing.com/Central_Auditory_Processing_Disorder.aspx

www.csun.edu/~vcoao0el/de361/de361s103_folder/closure.html

Suite 05-16-2014 07:12 AM

Very interesting, that does speak for the ''blueprint'' theory or.....?

Suite 05-20-2014 01:06 PM

Quote:
My position is simple, as I stated in my title, 192/24 files sound better than lower resolution files. How do I know? Simple, I've done tests for the last three years. And I will continue to do tests...

My tests are straightforward. I record live symphony orchestra concerts using a DSD recorder and then using the AudioGate software program I make copies files at 192/24, 96/24, and 44.1/16. After making the transfers I listen to the different versions. The results have been consistent over several years of listening - the 192 File sounds the closest to the DSD file and is the highest fidelity of all the transfers. And how does this added fidelity manifest itself? The 192 files have the best dimensionality and the most easy-to-discipher spatial information of any PCM file. When compared to the 44.1 file the 192 file has a much better rendition of three-dimensional space - Clarinets and Oboes are no longer in each other's laps as on the 44.1 file, but instead are sitting next to each other.

Over the years I've played my recordings for many manufacturers and audiophiles. So far, none have found the 44.1 files to be superior.

Of course all my findings have been based on listening, not theories, but I'm Ok with that.

Now, whether a particular 192/24 commercial recording will always sound better than it's 96/24 or 44.1/16 file of the same performance, is an entirely different question. The results are far more a function of mastering decisions than the inate properties of the different recording rates.

So, if you believe that 44.1 files can and will sound better than higher resolution files, make some recordings at different bit rates and then compare the results. If you do find a set of files where the 44.1 version is best, send me a your files...I'll be eager to listen...

Steven Stone, Audiophile review. http://audiophilereview.com/audiophile-music/yes-19224-files-do-sound-better.html

ed1em2 05-21-2014 02:06 AM

That's interesting but as long as this guy compares a file with another  certain file ,I mean he knows exactly what he's listening to.

But how about a simple blind test? With al the files ramdomly playing....


FMW 05-22-2014 06:38 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by ed1em2 View Post

That's interesting but as long as this guy compares a file with another  certain file ,I mean he knows exactly what he's listening to.
But how about a simple blind test? With al the files ramdomly playing....

Yes, expectation bias will cause the hi res file to sound better. The tests have to be blind to be meaningful. It isn't a matter of better or worse. It is a matter of audible difference. There is always an audible difference, real or imaginary, with a sighted comparison.

RayDunzl 05-22-2014 04:29 PM

Ok, did anyone play these files yet?

hogger129 05-24-2014 06:11 AM

I feel that 16-bit, 48khz is the perfect digital delivery format for music. Even my needledrops sound awesome at 16-bit, 48khz, and all of my digital audio players play 16/48 natively.

I'm surprised that quad mixes and surround mixes have never been sold on places like iTunes. AC3 has been around for a LONG time and AAC also supports surround sound.

oztech 05-24-2014 07:57 AM

I am all for better audio formats but until the root of the problem ( mastering ) is fixed there probably will not be night and day differences.

RayDunzl 05-25-2014 07:49 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by oztech View Post

I am all for better audio formats but until the root of the problem ( mastering ) is fixed there probably will not be night and day differences.

GIGO applies here, I wouldn't really put all the blame on the guy at the end of the process.

oztech 05-25-2014 08:30 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by RayDunzl View Post

GIGO applies here, I wouldn't really put all the blame on the guy at the end of the process.

Take a CD/SACD/DVD-A and the Vinyl of the same album and chances are they were mastered differently sometimes for the better sometimes not so much and the mastering involves dynamic compression and corrective equalization and to much of both is noticeable if not irritating so yes mastering makes or breaks an album for at least those of us wanting better sound.

Suite 05-26-2014 10:36 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by RayDunzl View Post

Ok, did anyone play these files yet?

hogger129 05-28-2014 04:17 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suite View Post


I have downloaded and played a 24-bit download from HDTracks. I didn't think it sounded any better than the CD.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:54 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.