Ed Selley
Hi-Fi Editor
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2003
- Messages
- 12,046
- Reaction score
- 5,498
- Points
- 3,077
- Age
- 43
I agree 100% for me 48khz/16bit is just perfect for download as not so keen on files being 44.1khz, but i am sure i could tell the difference." ...the extra information – if handled and decoded correctly – can be used to create a signal that we perceive to be more natural and less processed."
The thing is, I have never seen results of an ABX test where people can say this is true. I have done lots of testing on myself, and others, and have never been able to get a positive result. MP3 to CD/FLAC yes, but going above 44.1KHz has never been detectable.
"On a more basic level, the effort of creating these files means that more effort goes into their mastering which in turn generally improves performance too."
But this is definitely true. I do have a few HD audio albums, and whilst playing them back at their full rate or downsampling to redbook specs results in the same output from the speakers or headphones, comparing them to their CD counterparts is frequently revealing.
And most times it's down to one simple factor. They have more dynamic range and are mastered for people who want to properly listen to the music, as opposed to having it simply as background. So often they are better, but it's a shame if buying the CD, or streaming, we are treated to inferior versions, and forced to spend more for the clean version when the CD master could be exported from the high res file with a couple of clicks.
... All I did was switch the CD to the Blu-ray Audio mastered copy and they couldn't believe there ears. To say the sound was improved was an understatement as the words "night and day". ...
" ...the extra information – if handled and decoded correctly – can be used to create a signal that we perceive to be more natural and less processed."
The thing is, I have never seen results of an ABX test where people can say this is true. I have done lots of testing on myself, and others, and have never been able to get a positive result. MP3 to CD/FLAC yes, but going above 44.1KHz has never been detectable.
"On a more basic level, the effort of creating these files means that more effort goes into their mastering which in turn generally improves performance too."
But this is definitely true. I do have a few HD audio albums, and whilst playing them back at their full rate or downsampling to redbook specs results in the same output from the speakers or headphones, comparing them to their CD counterparts is frequently revealing.
And most times it's down to one simple factor. They have more dynamic range and are mastered for people who want to properly listen to the music, as opposed to having it simply as background. So often they are better, but it's a shame if buying the CD, or streaming, we are treated to inferior versions, and forced to spend more for the clean version when the CD master could be exported from the high res file with a couple of clicks.
I thought this was going to lead to a stop compressing the whatsname out of the bloomin' music movement. Sadly the reverse seems to be true, so great artists that I'd love to listen to, even at CD quality, prove quite fatiguing."On a more basic level, the effort of creating these files means that more effort goes into their mastering which in turn generally improves performance too."
But this is definitely true. I do have a few HD audio albums, and whilst playing them back at their full rate or downsampling to redbook specs results in the same output from the speakers or headphones, comparing them to their CD counterparts is frequently revealing.
And most times it's down to one simple factor. They have more dynamic range and are mastered for people who want to properly listen to the music, as opposed to having it simply as background. So often they are better, but it's a shame if buying the CD, or streaming, we are treated to inferior versions, and forced to spend more for the clean version when the CD master could be exported from the high res file with a couple of clicks.
This is exactly what I'm talking about!I listen to CDs for the vast majority of my digital diet and it's a real shame that good albums can be virtually destroyed by an almost non existent dynamic range.
The real test would have been to rip the Blu-ray Audio disc, then compare the raw file with the same one downsampled to 44.1/16, playing them both back through a high end DAC
Got it. Thought it sounded a bit oddNot the analogy I was trying to make Shane
What I was suggesting was comparing the hi-res file, with a down sampled version of itself, to see if you could perceive a difference. And resampling really doesn't require complicated software at all.
From all the testing I have done (and this was frequently done with Fleetwood Mac - Rumours) I would repeatedly get the same outcome (ABX testing myself, and friends and family).
Conclusion. The master of the high-res version of Rumours was superior to the CD (that I have). 192/24 is not perceivably different to 44.1/16.
- The high-res file sounded better than the CD
- The high-res resampled (to 44.1/16) file sounded better than the CD
- No one could tell the difference between the high-res file and the resampled hi-res file
Got it. Thought it sounded a bit odd
I guess music is so selective and suggestive that there is no real test that can be carried out.
We are only meant to be able to hear what we can hear, yet the emotional side of what we hear as yet cannot be quantified and no hearing test will ever be able to calculate that one.
Each and everyone of us is so different, yet we are so similar too.