320 kbps MP3 vs. normal audio CD listening Sound quality - Page 25

Absolutely not. Why don't you just do what mikeaj said?

The hdtracks format is 44.1/24. It could be a downmix of the 5.1 dvd-audio, an lp rip or some other master................ ..... .....

Quote:

Originally Posted by nick_charles 

Why in the name of reason are you arguing with this wassock - he steadfastly refuses to do any kind of DBT and will go on doing so forever

Well said!

Quote:

Originally Posted by xnor 

Absolutely not. Why don't you just do what mikeaj said?

 

The hdtracks format is 44.1/24. It could be a downmix of the 5.1 dvd-audio, an lp rip or some other master................ ..... .....

Actually, it is not. The format is actually 24/48k, if you had read the links. And it clearly is not a LP rip. But that's kinda of funny to suggest anyway. But alas, none of you have heard it or care to, unles of course I downsample it with Foobar ABX. (you all do realize there is no true 24/16 ABX test in Foobar right?).

Quote:

Originally Posted by nick_charles 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why in the name of reason are you arguing with this wassock - he steadfastly refuses to do any kind of DBT and will go on doing so forever

Sure Nick. With Foobar right? Lol..(PS you cannot ABX 24 bit with 16 bit in Foobar, have any other suggestions?)

Quote:

Originally Posted by xnor 

Absolutely not. Why don't you just do what mikeaj said?

 

The hdtracks format is 44.1/24. It could be a downmix of the 5.1 dvd-audio, an lp rip or some other master................ ..... .....

So you suggest that this recording would be identical in 16/44.1? If that's the case, why wouldn't it be released in the far more commerically viable 16 bit format?

Yeah this is just gonna keep going in circles...

Quote:

Originally Posted by jvandyk 

So you suggest that this recording would be identical in 16/44.1? If that's the case, why wouldn't it be released in the far more commerically viable 16 bit format?

Because they can charge more for a supposedly higher-grade file?

Quote:

Originally Posted by chewy4 

Yeah this is just gonna keep going in circles...

Hey Chewy,

It sounds good if you like The Nightfly. I recommend it. Was my only point to begin with until abhoms predictably began. I do think there's some head scratching going on with Foobar ABX around these parts. Especially when it is impossible to do in Foobar (compare 24 bit blind with 16 bit in WASAPI mode).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Achmedisdead 

Because they can charge more for a supposedly higher-grade file?

Oh really? So selling only to the audiphile community results in larger units sales than 256k or even 16 bit ALAC (now available on HD Tracks).

Of course, the truth is that the 24 bit recording was indeed upsampled from 16 bit....and blows away the 16 bit CD. Must get back to the truth....remastered or not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot 

I think this has progressed beyond electronics to a biological problem.

Any possible way you can create a single post without the abhoms? Nah. But you know what they same about name callers in a debate....

PS- I have asked once again about the flawed ABX test in Foobar (impossible to blind test 24 bit vs 16 bit). The predicted crickets have returned.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jvandyk 

Oh really? So selling only to the audiphile community results in larger units sales than 256k or even 16 bit ALAC (now available on HD Tracks).

 

Of course, the truth is that the 24 bit recording was indeed upsampled from 16 bit....and blows away the 16 bit CD. Must get back to the truth....remastered or not.

When the regular music sales market is completely and totally saturated, hell yeah it does.

If you wanna ABX the two then just convert the file to 16 bit and then back to 24 bit. Then you've got two files you can ABX, one is a 24 bit without the 24 bit data, the other is the 24 bit with that extra data.

There are a variety of other ways to do an ABX or other blind test, anyway.

e.g. to compare file1 with file2, randomly create a bunch of copies of both (e.g. 10 copies of file1 and 10 copies of file2), label them a / b / c / d / e etc.  Keep a log of which letter is a copy of which file, but set it up such that you don't know which is which.  You could do this with a simple script or maybe just have somebody else rename files for you and keep the list without letting you know.  Then listen to a and compare it to file1 and file2, guess which one it is.  Do the same for b, then c, etc.  Don't even need to use the dreaded foobar...

As for confirming masters, I'm not sure what kind of detective work, looking up sources of releases -> guesswork is superior to actually looking at the files in an audio editor, seriously.