I much prefer going through my Concert Fidelity CF-080 for two reasons:
1) it sounds better, with more heft/weight/solidity...obviously this is IMHO.
2) I need a remote volume control. It is the bane of computer audio. When all we had was one disc or album to listen to at a time, it was set and forget, but with the ability to browse around one's entire library the volume control is used constantly. My Hugo is umbilical'd to my 2 channel setup in the front of my room, 10-12 feet away.
If 0db is 4.75V then 2V is -7.5db, or Indigo. I play it safe and drop to blue then back up to the beginning of indigo (-9), as each color spans a few db.
A huge shout out to Mark Waldrep for graciously giving me access to his 24-bit 'stash' - demos and binaural recordings he made to demonstrate the differences between different formats. I'm particularly interested in BD Audio as an alternative to the SACD/DSD approach and the difference between the Redbook and BD versions is considerably more pronounced than I've experienced with my SACD copy of DSOTM and its Redbook equivalent. I'm also thrilled that the samples aren't exclusively classical but the selections that he's put together all stand out as engaging in their own right - nothing worse than feeling like your part of a lab experiment when all you want to do is enjoy a few tracks, hi-res or no.
I have other 24/96 and 24/192 demo tracks I've downloaded from 2L etc, but they just dont grab me the way the instruments (particularly acoustic guitar) does on several of Mark's tracks - its clear that a lot of work went into this compilation. No small irony that I only became aware of Mark's efforts after sitting through a couple of Monty Montgomery's treatises on why 24-bit audio 'makes no sense within the parameters of human hearing' - I dont doubt Monty's engineering credentials, but I suspect that a couple of hours in Waldrep's studio may well convert him to the notion that there is something real beyond the readings on his vintage scopes
If you've never heard a binaural recording, I strongly recommend you drop Mark an email - dont be deterred by the fact that his focus seems to be on multi-channel systems : this isn't a guy selling HT receivers out of the trunk of his car. Definitely the highlight of my week and arguably the highlight of the last month musically.
Erm, the audible differences between those formats would be highly likely due to mastering differences than the resolution itself.
http://www.innerfidelity.com/content/its-masters-damit
From this post:
http://www.head-fi.org/t/629454/pono-neil-youngs-portable-hi-res-music-player/1035#post_10742691
I'd say that's some pretty concrete evidence from the Audio Engineering Society.
http://www.head-fi.org/t/727908/is-a-lossy-lossy-conversion-process-really-that-degrading-in-terms-of-sound-quality-abx-test#post_10736704
I'd say that high-resolution audio is pretty hard to distinguish even from high-quality MP3s.
Okay, if the masters are different, that's a different story. I thought lots of CDs are derived from the studio master, though. Plenty of albums only have one (digital) master, for example.
Here you go, anyone can do this test (6 MB file). Just download and install Foobar2000 (Free!), download and install the ABX component (Free!), start the ABX test and be sure to check the ReplayGain option (I already scanned the two files for the ReplayGain values), do the ABX test while hiding your results and do at least 10 trials (Free!). One file is derived from the legitimate HD studio master, the other is from an error-free lossless CD rip. Can you hear a difference between the two masters?
Well if you still aren't too sure about it, and you really want to confirm you ears, here are the original files I used from an older post (different album, 6 MB file).
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/2816447/seal.zip
Again, one is derived from the legitimate HD studio master (24/88.2), the other is from an accurate CD rip. SoX was used again to downsample the HD master to CD-quality.
On the topic of the Hugo, I tried my own tests to hear differences between HD masters and downsampled Red Book versions (from the same HD master) and failed all of them.
http://www.head-fi.org/t/586040/official-asian-anime-manga-and-music-lounge/126060#post_10826079
Looks like the HD drums hypothesis didn't work out so well. I tried about a dozen or so ABX tests today with the HE-560, K 701, and STAX with the Hugo, Geek Out, and Objective combo. Failed all of them, but I technically passed one if I hadn't done a few more trials. 24/96 downsampled to 24/44.1 didn't confirm anything regarding the ABX results either, so 44.1 kHz sample rates are probably fine for the limit of human hearing for music even if the recording has legitimate ultrasonic frequencies. I tried all conceivable audiophool things too like run on battery power, turn WiFi off, and junk like that.
I have to agree that so called hi-res 24/96 or 24/192 don't sound very much different from 16/44.1 or even 320kbps mp3s. I downloaded several 24/196 and 24/96 albums (Nirvana- Nevermind, Pearl Jam- Ten Redux, Phil Collins - But Seriously, Daft Punk - Random Access Memories and Soundgarden - Superunknownfrom) from HD Tracks and don't really find the sound quality to be astounding so to speak. They just sound a tad cleaner and louder maybe.
I have to agree that so called hi-res 24/96 or 24/192 don't sound very much different from 16/44.1 or even 320kbps mp3s. I downloaded several 24/196 and 24/96 albums (Nirvana- Nevermind, Pearl Jam- Ten Redux, Phil Collins - But Seriously, Daft Punk - Random Access Memories and Soundgarden - Superunknownfrom) from HD Tracks and don't really find the sound quality to be astounding so to speak. They just sound a tad cleaner and louder maybe.
hmm.. Superunknown is one of my favourite album which I loved in 320kbps until I got my hands 24/192. I found the mp3 sounds very thin in comparison. Turning it up loud, the mp3 will hurt my ears while the HD version, I really enjoy the music.
Right now, I don't listen to 320kbps at all or avoid 16/44. I use LCD-3f with my Hugo and poor quality files tends to give harsh upper, dried mids and blurry lows from SD/HD of the same recording album. Of course when I go to the gym with my Sennheiser 215 and iPod, the 320kbps will get through the workout just fine.
hmm.. Superunknown is one of my favourite album which I loved in 320kbps until I got my hands 24/192. I found the mp3 sounds very thin in comparison. Turning it up loud, the mp3 will hurt my ears while the HD version, I really enjoy the music.
Right now, I don't listen to 320kbps at all or avoid 16/44. I use LCD-3f with my Hugo and poor quality files tends to give harsh upper, dried mids and blurry lows from SD/HD of the same recording album. Of course when I go to the gym with my Sennheiser 215 and iPod, the 320kbps will get through the workout just fine.
Perhaps my ears are too used to lower quality files and have not really had the chance to listen to true lossless. I was using the HE-500 out of a Mjolnir paired with the Uberfrost. Source if Mac Air with Mytech Hiface 2 USB/SPDIF converter routing music through a QED digital coaxial cable into the Uberfrost. I shall have a more critical listening tonight to see if it sounds as enjoyable. Of course if compared to 192kbps, then it is obvious but against CD quality, i find it difficult to notice a substantial improvement. Perhaps the Uberfrost is not up to the task?
Am hoping my incoming Hugo will bring it up to a whole new level
Perhaps my ears are too used to lower quality files and have not really had the chance to listen to true lossless. I was using the HE-500 out of a Mjolnir paired with the Uberfrost. Source if Mac Air with Mytech Hiface 2 USB/SPDIF converter routing music through a QED digital coaxial cable into the Uberfrost. I shall have a more critical listening tonight to see if it sounds as enjoyable. Of course if compared to 192kbps, then it is obvious but against CD quality, i find it difficult to notice a substantial improvement. Perhaps the Uberfrost is not up to the task?
Am hoping my incoming Hugo will bring it up to a whole new level
To be able to get the benefit from hi-res audio you need to have a good and reviling system to play it on. A hi-res album will not magical change a poor sounded reed book to sound good, but can make an album that sound good in reed book sound even better, if the master record is hi-res to begin with. If not -no!
What you will benefit from “real” hi-res is a more refined overall sound, a bit less harsh treble (smoother) a bit more celerity in bass, deeper soundstage, blacker background etc. The change are not night and day it’s more subtle. If you already have the album in reed book it is only meaningful to complement with a hi-res one if: 1 you like the music, 2 the master is recorded hi-res, 3 the album SQ is good, 4 your have a good and reviling system.
I have to agree that so called hi-res 24/96 or 24/192 don't sound very much different from 16/44.1 or even 320kbps mp3s. I downloaded several 24/196 and 24/96 albums (Nirvana- Nevermind, Pearl Jam- Ten Redux, Phil Collins - But Seriously, Daft Punk - Random Access Memories and Soundgarden - Superunknownfrom) from HD Tracks and don't really find the sound quality to be astounding so to speak. They just sound a tad cleaner and louder maybe.
I'd go further and say that my SACD of Floyd's DSOTM from my BDP-105D doesnt sound markedly different from my 256K AAC download of the same album or the CD rip I've had for eons - small details like the clocks are better, but overall it's not mind-blowing even with the Hugo in place of the Oppo's SABRE DACs. I made the comment earlier in this thread that I felt my 24/96 download of Dream Theater's latest from HDTracks does sound better than their older material - definitely clearer - and Skylab replied that it's largely down to the fact that 24/96 is going to be quieter than most Redbook. The big problem with a lot of the material being marketed as 'hi-res' is that it's upsampled from the CD master - I dont believe that to be the case with either the Dream Theater download or Waldrep's samples, but if his claim that DSD64 has no more fidelity than 24/96 I know which format I'll be ticking at the checkout. The difference in file sizes is stark and none of my music appears on any of the DSD catalogs I've seen anyway.
Ultimately, I need to get off my butt and put the above to the test with the F2K ABX Comparator, but that's a chore for another day. We all got into this insane hobby to enjoy music, and that's exactly what I'm doing right now - happy trails.
To be able to get the benefit from hi-res audio you need to have a good and reviling system to play it on. A hi-res album will not magical change a poor sounded reed book to sound good, but can make an album that sound good in reed book sound even better, if the master record is hi-res to begin with. If not -no!
What you will benefit from “real” hi-res is a more refined overall sound, a bit less harsh treble (smoother) a bit more celerity in bass, deeper soundstage, blacker background etc. The change are not night and day it’s more subtle. If you already have the album in reed book it is only meaningful to complement with a hi-res one if: 1 you like the music, 2 the master is recorded hi-res, 3 the album SQ is good, 4 your have a good and reviling system.
You are missing the point somehow. As all the research done by qualified Professionals point to the fact that people cannot not hear the difference between 16bit and 24 bit audio in a blind A/B listening test. I think is kind of wishful thinking. You want it to sound better - so it does for you.
However what the research also revealed is that it really matters how well the music has been mastered regardless of the resolution. ...
You are missing the point somehow. As all the research done by qualified Professionals point to the fact that people cannot not hear the difference between 16bit and 24 bit audio in a blind A/B listening test. I think is kind of wishful thinking. You want it to sound better - so it does for you.
However what the research also revealed is that it really matters how well the music has been mastered regardless of the resolution. ...
Hahaha why should I want hi-res to sound better than reed book?
FYI If we strictly look at the midrange of a good recorded/pressed vinyl they actually have more information than a reed book. No I’m not pulling your leg. If you compeer all frequency together (bass, mid, treble) reed book has more info thought.
I do believe it's in the mastering. If it's mastered at higher resolution then logically it will sound better. Of course up sampling from CD and calling it high res is really quite misleading. AM listening to my Soundgarden hi-res download now played through Audirvana +. Sounds good but not mindblowingly great. After awhile the mind gets used to it and it then sounds normal. Perhaps I should move to DSD then DXD next
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
