[Krutsch]

  I've got a Logitech Harmony remote that automatically sets everything with one button on my iPhone. I hate unnecessary complication.

I have a Harmony remote for the surround system, as well. It has one touch commands like: Watch TV, Watch Apple TV, Listen to Music, Watch DVD (everything is a DVD to them, Blu or otherwise).
 
And, yet, they still complain that it's too complicated, because there are a lot of boxes and I have additional soft-key commands to do things like change the room correction settings, et al. I keep telling them to ignore the extra stuff, but it's too much. So, I go downstairs and turn it on for them: I hold the remote, press one key, wait, and then hand them the remote - seriously.

 

[bigshot]

Time to buy them a boom box!

 

[Krutsch]

  Time to buy them a boom box!

Ha ha... that's basically what the Sonos is.

 

[Greenears]

Well this is what success looks like.
 
oo_abx 1.3.4 report
foobar2000 v1.3.6
2015/01/08 20:04:52
File A: C:\Users\Public\Music\HDtracks\Various Artists HDtracks Sampler\HDtracks 2014 Sampler\test192.flac
File B: C:\Users\Public\Music\HDtracks\Various Artists HDtracks Sampler\HDtracks 2014 Sampler\test192_1644.flac
20:04:52 : Test started.
20:06:37 : 01/01  50.0%
20:06:46 : 02/02  25.0%
20:06:57 : 03/03  12.5%
20:07:05 : 04/04  6.3%
20:07:12 : 05/05  3.1%
20:07:19 : 06/06  1.6%
20:07:26 : 07/07  0.8%
20:08:42 : 08/08  0.4%
20:08:54 : 09/09  0.2%
20:09:44 : 10/10  0.1%
20:09:49 : Test finished.
 ---------- 
Total: 10/10 (0.1%)
 
Before you get excited ... what I did just for grins was to change my Sox incantation to include a "rate 44100".  Up until today I was not changing sample rates, just chopping bits from 24 to 16.  So this is an ABX of 192/24 vs 44/16.  However .... turns out that in the original download from Linn there is a high pitched whine or whistle that was present equally in the 192/24 and 192/16.  But it went away in the 44.1 downsample.  Actually the downsample sounds better.  The lack of whine was obvious to me and I could get A or B within seconds.
 
So this is not a valid test, but at least it proves I'm not asleep at the switch.  I redid vivaldi this way and got nothing (9/20).  I also did some regular un-resampled tests.  I downloaded some Ayre 24 bit needle drops of 3 vinyl tracks, chopped them to 16 and also got nothing (on the CSN track).  Does that prove 16 is enough to encode vinyl?  I also found a 1984 paper where BAS did a 16 bit codec loop test on vinyl and blind ABXd it and seem to show 16 can encode vinyl inaudibly.
 
So where does that leave me? I guess still on the fence.  The problem with ABX is that negatives don't prove there isn't a positive out there, only the more you do the confidence interval improves until there is low likelihood there is a positive out there.  But I still have the record of a few good runs ... so I don't know.

 

[castleofargh]

I am the dither ghost and I come to haunt you!!!

 

[bigshot]

I don't want high pitched whistles or whines in my music

 

[stv014]

  Before you get excited ... what I did just for grins was to change my Sox incantation to include a "rate 44100".  Up until today I was not changing sample rates, just chopping bits from 24 to 16.  So this is an ABX of 192/24 vs 44/16.  However .... turns out that in the original download from Linn there is a high pitched whine or whistle that was present equally in the 192/24 and 192/16.  But it went away in the 44.1 downsample.  Actually the downsample sounds better.  The lack of whine was obvious to me and I could get A or B within seconds.

 
It sounds like there is some kind of ultrasonic interference in your 192 kHz sample, and due to playback issues, audible aliasing and/or IMD products appear in the audio band. One possible explanation is that the OS or audio driver resamples the 192 kHz input with a low quality converter.

 

[Greenears]

   
It sounds like there is some kind of ultrasonic interference in your 192 kHz sample, and due to playback issues, audible aliasing and/or IMD products appear in the audio band. One possible explanation is that the OS or audio driver resamples the 192 kHz input with a low quality converter.

There is clearly some anomaly on that one track that exposes a bug somewhere in the end-to-end chain, that is sample rate dependent.  It's not related to the music content, it is there from start to finish even during quiet pauses.  So it is not aliasing or IMD of the music content - it may be bleeding in from a higher frequency but it sounds bug-like to me not any kind of regular distortion.  The other possibility is that it is actually an ultrasonic artifact from the recording process that is actually caught in the 192/24 file, and when I downsample it the FIR filter for the downsample knocks it out.  If by IMD you mean that, that it is an ultrasonic town that is somehow mixing in and causing a product in the audible range then that is possible.  I consider that a minor bug though - the whole output process should be immune up to 192/2 kHz and chop that off in the output LPF.
 
But anyway, it only happened on one of my now 30 or so "hires" tracks and a short sample at that, and it's not anything to get me bent out of shape.   It's relatively subtle, only because I listened to that track a lot before could I pick it up.

 

[RRod]

  There is clearly some anomaly on that one track that exposes a bug somewhere in the end-to-end chain, that is sample rate dependent.  It's not related to the music content, it is there from start to finish even during quiet pauses.  So it is not aliasing or IMD of the music content - it may be bleeding in from a higher frequency but it sounds bug-like to me not any kind of regular distortion.  The other possibility is that it is actually an artifact from the recording process that is actually caught in the 192/24 file, and when I downsample it the FIR filter for the downsample knocks it out.  If by IMD you mean that, that it is an ultrasonic town that is somehow mixing in and causing a product in the audible range then that is possible.  I consider that a minor bug though - the whole output process should be immune up to 192/2 kHz and chop that off in the output LPF.
 
But anyway, it only happened on one of my now 30 or so "hires" tracks and a short sample at that, and it's not anything to get me bent out of shape.   It's relatively subtle, only because I listened to that track a lot before could I pick it up.

 
If the filtering for 44.1 really got the sound out, then it's a tone above 20kHz, so either you have astoundingly good hearing or it's equipment related like IMD. What does the spectrogram look like?

 

[castleofargh]

 

   
It sounds like there is some kind of ultrasonic interference in your 192 kHz sample, and due to playback issues, audible aliasing and/or IMD products appear in the audio band. One possible explanation is that the OS or audio driver resamples the 192 kHz input with a low quality converter.

There is clearly some anomaly on that one track that exposes a bug somewhere in the end-to-end chain, that is sample rate dependent.  It's not related to the music content, it is there from start to finish even during quiet pauses.  So it is not aliasing or IMD of the music content - it may be bleeding in from a higher frequency but it sounds bug-like to me not any kind of regular distortion.  The other possibility is that it is actually an ultrasonic artifact from the recording process that is actually caught in the 192/24 file, and when I downsample it the FIR filter for the downsample knocks it out.  If by IMD you mean that, that it is an ultrasonic town that is somehow mixing in and causing a product in the audible range then that is possible.  I consider that a minor bug though - the whole output process should be immune up to 192/2 kHz and chop that off in the output LPF.
 
But anyway, it only happened on one of my now 30 or so "hires" tracks and a short sample at that, and it's not anything to get me bent out of shape.   It's relatively subtle, only because I listened to that track a lot before could I pick it up.

could simply be that the other high res files you have don't possess much energy in ultrasounds. maybe have a look at that one song in audacity or other software?
there was some keychain samples from arny krueger that seemed to help some people notice some "problems" like that.

 

[Greenears]

 
I only suggested Mahler because there might be a passage that ranges from very loud to very quiet; but as you mention above, you might try a violin/piano duo piece. HDTracks has a large selection of Pentatone classics for purchase.
 
Speaking personally, I have spent the last couple of days re-sampling my high-res collection down to 48/16 or 44.1/16, using iZotope, so I can play my complete library on my Sonos boxes. What a headache... I'm sorry I ever ripped that first DVD Audio disc, which is what started me on the path for high-res.

 
OK, so I trolled around the HDtracks store a bit looking for Pentatone.  I also ran into a Deutsche Grammophon remaster of Von Karajan's classic 1963 recording of the 9 Beethoven symphonies now available in 24 bit.
 
I have to say the experience left me wanting.  There is scant (read zero) information or liner notes on how and when these were mastered and recorded.  I went onto Pentatone and DG sites for more information, and came away with less. In addition some of the pricing is eye opening.  Particularly galling was one release was only available as a DSD.iso due to "recording quality".  Some others were not available for download at all with the legend "download not available due to the recording quality".  What nonsense is that?  And then charging more for DSD than PCM 192/24 and calling it "Studio Master" quality?  I don't mind if they charge a few extra $ for 24 bit or DSD but this implication that DSD is better than PCM192 is stretching things to say the least.
 
If they want to say "not available for download due to contract issues" I have no problem with that - that is how the business works we know that.  But to claim that the disc is different quality than the download when it's exactly the same bits is shall we say a tad disingenuous. 
 
As for DG/HVK 9 symphonies, that was even stranger.  HDtracks is offering 24 bit FLAC for $40, but DG site doesn't reference them only itunes for download which of course is not going to be in 24 bit.  The other option is BluRay.  Why woudn't DG reference HDtracks if it is an authorized true 24 bit download?  Again when I can buy a used box set of the umpteenth remastered CDs probably for $5, give me something that informs me what has been done in 2014 - if anything.
 
Sigh. I'm done with the Iliad, moving onto the Odyssey. 
 

his file type is not available for download due to the recording quality, this file type is not available for download due to the recording quality​

 

[Stillhart]

  I am not being sarcastic, I am really running the tests. I've posted a number of ABX logs above, and always respond to any requests for a repost.
 
I've learned I'm a rare animal on these forums that I came into this without a firmly set opinion.  I learned this the hard way when any results I got leaning towards hearing a difference one crowd told me the test was flawed.  The moment my results leaned towards no difference, another crowd told me my tests were flawed, try different tracks etc etc.
 
>It looks like he's sampled more than enough to prove that there's no difference. 
 
Well, herein lies the 64 bit question. I would summarize my results so far (you can scroll up to see all the logs) as getting tantalizingly close to detecting a difference on a couple of tracks, but also unquestionably completely guessing on many other tracks.  The results are just right on the fence, not weak enough for me to dismiss but not the 1% on a large sample run that I'd like to see to prove the difference.  Adding fuel to the fire are a couple other posts I found that suggested a stronger difference (with valid methodology) but I've not been able to reproduce their setup for various reasons.  I would really like to see 9/10 or 17-18/20 to feel there is a clear difference.
 
Another note, despite being repeatedly suggested on this thread, is that NO I am not cranking the volume and listening for noise.  I am listening at low to moderate volume and I've NEVER heard audible noise on any tracks 24 bit or 16 bit.  Where I've had limited success it's been on some type of qualitative timbre in the sound of an instrument.  
 
A further wrinkle in this twisting journey is that recently I've started to look into the effects of Dynamic Rang Compression (DRC) on quantization noise.  But I've not been able to find definitive technical papers on that. Papers on QN yes, DRC yes, but not the combination thereof.  I've tried to think it through myself, but I'm unsure whether DRC will magnify QN on the soft passages, or will actually mask QN because it is a much bigger source of nonlinear distortion.  So I'm left uncertain whether to go for tracks that have high or low DR, or have been put through strong DRC or none.
 
The quest continues.... 

 
I'm sorry but "tantalizingly close to detecting a difference" is another way of saying "detected no difference whatsoever".  You've found no difference ever.  You say that you have no firmly set opinion but it looks like you're doing everything you can to find a difference even though your empirical testing backs up the scientific theory.
 
I have no opinion on this either other than reading and understanding the science.  Your testing seems to back up the science.  I appreciate that you're being super thorough.  I truly think you're doing a fantastic job of proving that there's no difference.  Which is why I don't understand why you seem so dead set on finding something that science agrees isn't there.  I feel like you're doing this Steven Colbert "mock conservatives by pretending to be one" kind of thing.

 

[bigshot]

Eventually random chance will come up with all sixes and you can yell Yatzhi! and claim victory.

 

[castleofargh]

  I'm sorry but "tantalizingly close to detecting a difference" is another way of saying "detected no difference whatsoever".  You've found no difference ever.  You say that you have no firmly set opinion but it looks like you're doing everything you can to find a difference even though your empirical testing backs up the scientific theory.
 
I have no opinion on this either other than reading and understanding the science.  Your testing seems to back up the science.  I appreciate that you're being super thorough.  I truly think you're doing a fantastic job of proving that there's no difference.  Which is why I don't understand why you seem so dead set on finding something that science agrees isn't there.  I feel like you're doing this Steven Colbert "mock conservatives by pretending to be one" kind of thing.

R.I.Port

50% of my news source is gone, if they ever stop the daily show how will I learn about what's outside my window without being bored to death?

 

[Krutsch]

   
OK, so I trolled around the HDtracks store a bit looking for Pentatone.  I also ran into a Deutsche Grammophon remaster of Von Karajan's classic 1963 recording of the 9 Beethoven symphonies now available in 24 bit.
 
I have to say the experience left me wanting.  There is scant (read zero) information or liner notes on how and when these were mastered and recorded.  I went onto Pentatone and DG sites for more information, and came away with less. In addition some of the pricing is eye opening.  Particularly galling was one release was only available as a DSD.iso due to "recording quality".  Some others were not available for download at all with the legend "download not available due to the recording quality".  What nonsense is that?  And then charging more for DSD than PCM 192/24 and calling it "Studio Master" quality?  I don't mind if they charge a few extra $ for 24 bit or DSD but this implication that DSD is better than PCM192 is stretching things to say the least.
 
If they want to say "not available for download due to contract issues" I have no problem with that - that is how the business works we know that.  But to claim that the disc is different quality than the download when it's exactly the same bits is shall we say a tad disingenuous. 
 
As for DG/HVK 9 symphonies, that was even stranger.  HDtracks is offering 24 bit FLAC for $40, but DG site doesn't reference them only itunes for download which of course is not going to be in 24 bit.  The other option is BluRay.  Why woudn't DG reference HDtracks if it is an authorized true 24 bit download?  Again when I can buy a used box set of the umpteenth remastered CDs probably for $5, give me something that informs me what has been done in 2014 - if anything.
 
Sigh. I'm done with the Iliad, moving onto the Odyssey. 
 

his file type is not available for download due to the recording quality, this file type is not available for download due to the recording quality​

Sorry you had a bad search experience. I have the Karajan Beethoven cycle on SACD; one of my favorites. I also have a number of recordings from Pentatone featuring Julia Fischer and Martin Helmchen, as well as her more recent Sarasate recording with Milana Chernyavska (Decca?). I have some of these on optical plastic, but the Sarasate I downloaded from HDTracks. I've seen most/all of the above that I have on disc also available for download at HDTracks.
 
So, all of this was just a suggestion, but on to the Odyssey you shall go.
 
I realize this is the sound science thread; but, at some point, you should consider just sitting back and enjoying the music.