I haven't had any of the 25yr stuff, but I found 12yr Glenmorangie tasted, well, too much like Scotch. I prefer Glenfiddich. There was a long thread on whisky preferences on the PE forum.
(Would you believe that my spell checker knows how to spell Genfiddich?)
Bob
(Would you believe that my spell checker knows how to spell Genfiddich?)
Bob
My take of lossless formats:
1. Anyone who thinks that they can tell the difference between 16/44 and anything higher is kidding himself. Period.
2. A lot (as in unknown quantity) of hidef is recoded 16/44, particularly 24/88. 24/88 is supposed to be down transformed from 24/176, but that is not always the case. I have a number of 24/96 downloads from HDTracks that are identical to 16/44 when a spectrum analysis is run.
3. Unless you are trained to hear the difference, you will not be able to tell the difference between 320MP3 and 16/44.
4. Even my old ears can hear the difference between 256MP3 and 16/44, but I have to be paying close attention. It is not obvious. For me, 256MP3 is fine for normal listening, and if you don't tell a guest that you have snuck a 256MP3 inot the mix, he will miss i 9 time out of 10.
5. I will continue to download/rip to 16/44 flac unless ony higher is available.
Bob
1. Anyone who thinks that they can tell the difference between 16/44 and anything higher is kidding himself. Period.
2. A lot (as in unknown quantity) of hidef is recoded 16/44, particularly 24/88. 24/88 is supposed to be down transformed from 24/176, but that is not always the case. I have a number of 24/96 downloads from HDTracks that are identical to 16/44 when a spectrum analysis is run.
3. Unless you are trained to hear the difference, you will not be able to tell the difference between 320MP3 and 16/44.
4. Even my old ears can hear the difference between 256MP3 and 16/44, but I have to be paying close attention. It is not obvious. For me, 256MP3 is fine for normal listening, and if you don't tell a guest that you have snuck a 256MP3 inot the mix, he will miss i 9 time out of 10.
5. I will continue to download/rip to 16/44 flac unless ony higher is available.
Bob
Bob,
I agree for the most part.
Just for reference, Vorbis quality 7 encoding results in an average bitrate of around 210-230kbps, which easily equals (many say surpasses) MP3 @320. But Vorbis is not focused on bitrate. The approach and methods are considerably different than MP3, and the results are truly impressive. The same/similar has been said about AAC and Musepack, although I have no real need to try them.
Regarding point 5: I will too, and that will be my main storage/archiving format. However, my playback system (netbook) is becoming space-limited (160GB drive). I could upgrade the drive or use an external 2TB drive, but my experience with Vorbis has me thinking that 160GB is more than enough on my playback system. More importantly, I will be making an organized effort to replace all of the sub-standard (typical standard) MP3s I have. As I do this, I will be using the Dynamic Range Database to identify the best-mastered versions of albums before making any purchases.
I agree for the most part.
Just for reference, Vorbis quality 7 encoding results in an average bitrate of around 210-230kbps, which easily equals (many say surpasses) MP3 @320. But Vorbis is not focused on bitrate. The approach and methods are considerably different than MP3, and the results are truly impressive. The same/similar has been said about AAC and Musepack, although I have no real need to try them.
Regarding point 5: I will too, and that will be my main storage/archiving format. However, my playback system (netbook) is becoming space-limited (160GB drive). I could upgrade the drive or use an external 2TB drive, but my experience with Vorbis has me thinking that 160GB is more than enough on my playback system. More importantly, I will be making an organized effort to replace all of the sub-standard (typical standard) MP3s I have. As I do this, I will be using the Dynamic Range Database to identify the best-mastered versions of albums before making any purchases.
Last edited:
While I don't argue about small to neglible differences between 16/44 and 24/96, HDTracks is a bad example. Many of their "hi-res" tracks have been proven to be upsampled 16/44 originals rather than 24/96 originals.
As always, the quality and original format of the master make the most difference between formats, but are still dwarfed by the speaker and the room.
As always, the quality and original format of the master make the most difference between formats, but are still dwarfed by the speaker and the room.
Can't agree there Bob. That's absolute nonsense from my experience.
My brother was demonstrating to me his computer front end. We were doing a general comparo of digital at the time. His computer, via USB, into a HiFace USB thingymabob, into my DAC and sys. One comparison was a 44.1 and I think it was a 96 Hz version (might have been higher), of same Michael Jackson track. Might have been Billy Jean. I forget the exact details. What I do remember was: we played the higher res straight after the lower res...
The difference was as apparent as the beaulocks on a tall dog. Took 5 seconds to hear it.
Most obvious was the much better pitch definition, and harmonic resolution of the bassline/riff of the higher res file. A significant improvement in that particular comparison/circumstance.
Surely you have your right to your opinion, TiMBoZ, however since you did not participate in a double-blind ABX test under controlled conditions, odds are extremely high that you are in fact fooling yourself.
What Bob said is not nonsense. It is based on fact.
In the study cited by Mr. Mongomery, over 550 people participated and not a single one of them could tell the difference between 16/44 and 24/192. The success rates were under 50%, which is the same or worse than the success rate of guessing or flipping a coin. The people were male, female, young, old, but many had been trained musicians, audiophiles, audio engineers, students of many of these arts and sciences.
None of them could hear the difference. In fact, it is not surprising since audiologists almost unanimously agree that someone who could tell the difference would have extraordinary hearing, that of which we have not discovered in the over 100 years the practice of audiology.
Now, I am not calling you a liar. I believe that you believe you can hear the difference (I was convinced of the same myself for quite some time!). The reason you believe that can be accounted for in many ways, but the least likely reason is that you actually heard a difference that is in any way attributable to the formats. Perhaps you heard a difference because the "same track" was in fact two different masterings of the same track, in two different formats. You attributed the better sound quality to the higher-res format rather than to the better master of the track. This is common, and is the reason why many believe SACD to be superior. What studies have found, however, is that if you convert the SACD version to CD (16/44), it is indistinguishable from the original. Lots of factors could be involved; was either track compressed (MP3, AAC, etc.)? Did you know which track was which? What was the source of each track? The list goes on and on... Either there was no difference and you are fooling yourself, or there was a difference but it is not attributable to the sample-rate or bit-depth.
I recommend you read the cited article from beginning to end and then question yourself honestly. I suspect you may have a change of heart/mind.
If not, then more power to you. Please participate in the next study and prove science wrong.
What Bob said is not nonsense. It is based on fact.
In the study cited by Mr. Mongomery, over 550 people participated and not a single one of them could tell the difference between 16/44 and 24/192. The success rates were under 50%, which is the same or worse than the success rate of guessing or flipping a coin. The people were male, female, young, old, but many had been trained musicians, audiophiles, audio engineers, students of many of these arts and sciences.
None of them could hear the difference. In fact, it is not surprising since audiologists almost unanimously agree that someone who could tell the difference would have extraordinary hearing, that of which we have not discovered in the over 100 years the practice of audiology.
Now, I am not calling you a liar. I believe that you believe you can hear the difference (I was convinced of the same myself for quite some time!). The reason you believe that can be accounted for in many ways, but the least likely reason is that you actually heard a difference that is in any way attributable to the formats. Perhaps you heard a difference because the "same track" was in fact two different masterings of the same track, in two different formats. You attributed the better sound quality to the higher-res format rather than to the better master of the track. This is common, and is the reason why many believe SACD to be superior. What studies have found, however, is that if you convert the SACD version to CD (16/44), it is indistinguishable from the original. Lots of factors could be involved; was either track compressed (MP3, AAC, etc.)? Did you know which track was which? What was the source of each track? The list goes on and on... Either there was no difference and you are fooling yourself, or there was a difference but it is not attributable to the sample-rate or bit-depth.
I recommend you read the cited article from beginning to end and then question yourself honestly. I suspect you may have a change of heart/mind.
If not, then more power to you. Please participate in the next study and prove science wrong.
Last edited:
Brief Hi-jack, digital sample rate etc.
If this was the case, what is the usefulness of Bob's 'definitive' statement?
If the study is correct, at what bit rate/sample rate, does bit rate/sample rate become inaudible, irrelevant to sound quality? We can down sample to what rate before he hear a difference?
I'm not concerned/interested in the study, what's that worth?
I've compared the same musical production on 44.1 CD vs same on vinyl, same system, same tracks, one straight after the other. There is a difference. Vinyl less dynamic etc. etc. But vinyl has more space around the instruments, better imaging, less digital 'fatigue' factor, less work for the brain etc. etc.
Why is this? the mastering? geez
Going from lower res to the higher res, the higher res sounds 'subjectively' closer to vinyl. Clear as a bell to me. That's all I can say.
We could debate the technicalities of whether it was sample-rate or bit-depth or whether it was due to mastering techniques of the tracks. Agree to disagree. I have no agenda either way.
But for the record: my interpretation of Bob's comment, implication of a fact (did I misunderstand something?) is contrary with my personal experience 🙂
If this was the case, what is the usefulness of Bob's 'definitive' statement?
If the study is correct, at what bit rate/sample rate, does bit rate/sample rate become inaudible, irrelevant to sound quality? We can down sample to what rate before he hear a difference?
I'm not concerned/interested in the study, what's that worth?
I've compared the same musical production on 44.1 CD vs same on vinyl, same system, same tracks, one straight after the other. There is a difference. Vinyl less dynamic etc. etc. But vinyl has more space around the instruments, better imaging, less digital 'fatigue' factor, less work for the brain etc. etc.
Why is this? the mastering? geez
Going from lower res to the higher res, the higher res sounds 'subjectively' closer to vinyl. Clear as a bell to me. That's all I can say.
We could debate the technicalities of whether it was sample-rate or bit-depth or whether it was due to mastering techniques of the tracks. Agree to disagree. I have no agenda either way.
But for the record: my interpretation of Bob's comment, implication of a fact (did I misunderstand something?) is contrary with my personal experience 🙂
Then the last sentence of my post applies. I encouarge you to participate in a similar study. You owe it to the audio community to put your exraordinary hearing to use. You are one in a billion.
Am I really? Or have I just successfully debated my case?
If the study is correct, at what bit rate/sample rate, does bit rate/sample rate become inaudible, irrelevant to sound quality? We can down sample to what rate before he hear a difference?
Likewise.
For the same reason why there are 36 megapixel cameras; because vendors of snake oil can sell that **** like hotcakes! End of.
I built a 192khz DAC recently because I had been duped. Now I have seen just how silly the whole thing is. Difficult to admit? No way. Logic has a funny way of humbling me.
Again, I wholeheartedly suggest reading the article.
I built a 192khz DAC recently because I had been duped. Now I have seen just how silly the whole thing is. Difficult to admit? No way. Logic has a funny way of humbling me.
Again, I wholeheartedly suggest reading the article.
44.1 vs 96Khz listening impressions
Yesterday was a holiday is aussie. So I had the opportunity to revisit the 44.1 vs 96Khz on my brother's full on valve rig/room (at family BBQ/B'day-bration)
So for the nay-sayers or the curious my listening impressions...the difference is not night and day. But there is a 'general' difference.
Everything is relative - if you want to gather a basic impression - take an MP3, then compare that to a 44.1. The 44.1 vs 96Kkz experience is basically the same as this, except the difference is less, not nearly as obvious.
At 96Khz the soundstage is more spacious (especially in depth, front to back) and sound is smoother/less grainy - most apparent in the high trebles: you might say less 'pixely'
44.1 sounds 'relatively' more 2 dimensional, kind of compressed/flatter - sitting more in the plane between the speakers. Sound seems to 'cling' to the speakers.
So superficially in 2 words: 96Khz more spacious, smoother
> 96 Khz - I would speculate/suggest: provided the source tracks support/facilitate it (these are in a very high resolution). As the resolution increases >96Khz you're probably not going to measure/hear any obvious or superficial differences. Improvements will be much more broad and ethereal, subjective. As such, will require listening over a longer period of time to appreciate/identify - an increased sense of realism, a deeper appreciation of the music on an emotional level - Due to an increase in the music 'at -40db down' factor - Less about the ears and more about the 'musical' brain. Very subjective territory.
But consider that people make hi-res conversions of their vinyl. Why would they do this?
I guess also; you kinda need a system and ROOM capable of replay to a very high degree of transparency and sensitivity, for any differences to be worthwhile.
My 20¢ worth.
Yesterday was a holiday is aussie. So I had the opportunity to revisit the 44.1 vs 96Khz on my brother's full on valve rig/room (at family BBQ/B'day-bration)
So for the nay-sayers or the curious my listening impressions...the difference is not night and day. But there is a 'general' difference.
Everything is relative - if you want to gather a basic impression - take an MP3, then compare that to a 44.1. The 44.1 vs 96Kkz experience is basically the same as this, except the difference is less, not nearly as obvious.
At 96Khz the soundstage is more spacious (especially in depth, front to back) and sound is smoother/less grainy - most apparent in the high trebles: you might say less 'pixely'
44.1 sounds 'relatively' more 2 dimensional, kind of compressed/flatter - sitting more in the plane between the speakers. Sound seems to 'cling' to the speakers.
So superficially in 2 words: 96Khz more spacious, smoother
> 96 Khz - I would speculate/suggest: provided the source tracks support/facilitate it (these are in a very high resolution). As the resolution increases >96Khz you're probably not going to measure/hear any obvious or superficial differences. Improvements will be much more broad and ethereal, subjective. As such, will require listening over a longer period of time to appreciate/identify - an increased sense of realism, a deeper appreciation of the music on an emotional level - Due to an increase in the music 'at -40db down' factor - Less about the ears and more about the 'musical' brain. Very subjective territory.
But consider that people make hi-res conversions of their vinyl. Why would they do this?
I guess also; you kinda need a system and ROOM capable of replay to a very high degree of transparency and sensitivity, for any differences to be worthwhile.
My 20¢ worth.
Would you bet something precious to you that you could tell the difference in a blind test, and that you weren't prey to any 'expectation bias'?
Depends on your definition of precious: not body parts or friends/family ha ha. but Yes, given that I was able: to flick between/hear each sample repeatedly (although I didn't do this yesterday) and also listen at leisure, on this particular system/room. I would say amps, listening position and room are critical. Amps/room need to be very 'spatially' transparent/sensitive/revealing. Probably, but not necessarily valve.
The only way that you can honestly do this kind of a test is to find a 24/96 recording that can be verified 24/96, then downsample this recording to 16/44 and mp3/320 and whatever else. The switching has to be at least blind, i.e. the listener is not the switcher and the switcher has to have a random schedule to follow. That means that the switcher will announce a switch, but no make the switch. In other words, the listener cannot know it the next sample is actually different or the same as the last sample.
The basic problem with comparing 24/96 releases with a companion 16/44 or MP3 release is that the masters are usually different. The MP3 is mastered for ear buds/cars and the 24/96 is mastered for real audio equipment. The MP3 will be compressed, the 24/96 will not. Apples/oranges.
All of this has be said before. Apparently noone is listening. I remain convinced that no one can tell the difference between 16/44 and 24/96 versions of the same master in a blind test. Now, perhaps your test really was blind. If so, please tell us your methodology.
Bob
The basic problem with comparing 24/96 releases with a companion 16/44 or MP3 release is that the masters are usually different. The MP3 is mastered for ear buds/cars and the 24/96 is mastered for real audio equipment. The MP3 will be compressed, the 24/96 will not. Apples/oranges.
All of this has be said before. Apparently noone is listening. I remain convinced that no one can tell the difference between 16/44 and 24/96 versions of the same master in a blind test. Now, perhaps your test really was blind. If so, please tell us your methodology.
Bob
The reason we can't tell the difference when 320 mp3 is used is that it was designed based on human hearing limits and psychoacoustics to be indistinguishable. I think the quality of the dac and the initial analog line driver are also critical for hearing the difference. I can't tell the difference between CD and 320 kbit mp3 except for fact that CD player has a better dac than PC or ipod.
No blindfold Bob. There wasn't an agenda to 'discover anything'. It just kind of occurred, with casual listening. Most of tracks were 44.1 a couple were 96Khz.
I appreciate that production mastering can make THE difference etc.etc. a lot of variables are in play.
Now whether the mastering is better or the higher resolution, whatever? I don't care. Between my brother and I, we've experimented enough to be satisfied - we/I aren't imagining a consistent improvement.
I'm a big of a high-end/snake oil sceptic as the next bloke. But as I've learned/experienced more, I'm not so quick to be dismissive of stuff I don't understand or until I've actually tried it for myself. For example: an aspect of what I've learned is that valve gear (not that I'm on any particular team) is a very different beast to S.S. There is much more scope for complex, very sensitive system interactions, usually at the expense of something else. Anyways..
My collection is entirely 44.1. I have no reason to be 'pro' hi-res. Just my experience supports there is a difference. Accept it, or not accept - I don't claim to own the rule book - I'm just stating my case for the record.
I/we could take the debate over to computer audiophile and see how the discussion fares. But for myself I don't feel the need - I'm satisfied or I'm fooling myself.
Let the reader decide.
I appreciate that production mastering can make THE difference etc.etc. a lot of variables are in play.
Now whether the mastering is better or the higher resolution, whatever? I don't care. Between my brother and I, we've experimented enough to be satisfied - we/I aren't imagining a consistent improvement.
I'm a big of a high-end/snake oil sceptic as the next bloke. But as I've learned/experienced more, I'm not so quick to be dismissive of stuff I don't understand or until I've actually tried it for myself. For example: an aspect of what I've learned is that valve gear (not that I'm on any particular team) is a very different beast to S.S. There is much more scope for complex, very sensitive system interactions, usually at the expense of something else. Anyways..
My collection is entirely 44.1. I have no reason to be 'pro' hi-res. Just my experience supports there is a difference. Accept it, or not accept - I don't claim to own the rule book - I'm just stating my case for the record.
I/we could take the debate over to computer audiophile and see how the discussion fares. But for myself I don't feel the need - I'm satisfied or I'm fooling myself.
Let the reader decide.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.