[sander99]

I found a way to use foobar to down convert from 24/96 to 16/44.1 now playing samples now.

Don't forget to up convert the 16/44.1 to 24/96 again and to normalise to the exact same volume, like bigshot wrote:

You take your favorite HD audio track, convert it to 16/44.1, then back up to HD again. Now you have two files- one is HD and the other is 16/44.1 bumped up to HD. Normalize the two tracks to the exact same volume level. Run the two tracks through Foobar to do a blind comparison and let us know how you do.

@ALRAINBOW: Do you understand why?

 

[bigshot]

It's important that you do this step by step. If you let a mistake slip in, it can invalidate your test. It would also help if you wrote in complete sentences so we don't have to puzzle out what you are trying to say.

If you don't know how to prepare your test files, I'm sure someone will volunteer to give you an A and B file to use.

 

[ALRAINBOW]

Thanks I think I got this nailed eating now then I’ll play. I can say I like j river better in interface
But why would I up convert a lower resolution file ? It has Jess info so how can it be correct.
I assumed a hi Res file as one sample and use this file to down sample n compare. ? Yes it no ? I do get shy if your train of thought is to prove no change as you guys say it will be. This seems true by method used. But my pint is use Hd file sample A
Down sample it as fine B

 

[bigshot]

I have no idea what you are talking about. Is there a language problem here or are you just posting too fast?

 

[sander99]

But why would I up convert a lower resolution file ? It has Jess info so how can it be correct.

If you directly compare the 96/24 file with the 44.1/16 file there is a possibility that something in your system handles the files differently and that could cause you to hear a difference.
In other words: if you hear a difference this way then it is not certain that it is because there is less info in the 44.1/16 file.

So what should you compare with eachother:
1. The original "real" 96/24 file
2. The "fake" 96/24 file that you create from the original 96/24 by first down converting to 44.1/16 and then up converting again to 96/24.

File 2 would indeed have less info. Only the info that was left in the 44.1/16.

 

[Daiyama]

Ok, scientifically this is the correct procedure.
(Is normalisation always necessary and if so how do I do that?)

But from a practical view, if the 24/96 file sounds better than the 16/44.1, I do not need to care to much why this is the case (because of the digital format or different handling of the file by my DAC), right?

And if I hear a difference (better?) at 24/96 and both formats are sonically equal, it would make sense to up convert all my 16/44.1 files to 24/96 to take advantage of the different (better?) handling of these files, right?

 

[old tech]

Ok, scientifically this is the correct procedure.
(Is normalisation always necessary and if so how do I do that?)

But from a practical view, if the 24/96 file sounds better than the 16/44.1, I do not need to care to much why this is the case (because of the digital format or different handling of the file by my DAC), right?

And if I hear a difference (better?) at 24/96 and both formats are sonically equal, it would make sense to up convert all my 16/44.1 files to 24/96 to take advantage of the different (better?) handling of these files, right?

If you hear the difference in a controlled test, then I suppose why not. It might be easier upsampling your 16/44 files rather than working out why your DAC does not handle 16/44 properly.

However, if the difference is due to expectation biases, ie you haven't gone to the trouble to test that that there is a real difference with a controlled test, then that is not a good way to go about it because it is better to address your biases through controlled testing (so your brain resets) as it can lead to greater enjoyment of music that is more enduring.

 

[Daiyama]

Yes, you are absolutely right. At the moment I think I hear a very very subtle difference when I compare 16/44.1 to 24/96 openly (mostly in the high end) using my set-up. So I have to confirm this by doing it blind, which is a bit more of a hassle, but I will definitely do that.

 

[ALRAINBOW]

Yes, you are absolutely right. At the moment I think I hear a very very subtle difference when I compare 16/44.1 to 24/96 openly (mostly in the high end) using my set-up. So I have to confirm this by doing it blind, which is a bit more of a hassle, but I will definitely do that.

Thanks for your honesty some files are more obvious and some no change is heard by me. keep in mind the files origin here many HD tracks as an example are indeed. Not true hi def files.
This can be confirmed with analyzing software.
One such album I love the sound of is Doug mc cleod it’s a hd download sourced from red book but has been modded
Below is the album

 

[ALRAINBOW]

This album sounds great but is a fake lol. I’ll do as asked. For the poster who does hear change possible it’s in the high freq but I feel it’s a lower noise floor allowing more details. I’ll be doing a share file post soon to share some files I know show this.
there are free downloads from Kent moon
Audio Phil’s Jazz prolog all sourced from high def but lower resolutions are also available there too. . Again it’s there. Also the file type as well. Aiff or wav or wav 64 all have more decay details where flac is smoother.

my more complete list of audio stuff is
Infinty irs speakers all updated
Mark Levinson no 33 amps
Mark Levinson no 26 preamp
Mark Levinson no 25 phono preamp
Turn tables
Thorens td 124 -125 both sme 3009 arms
New sota nova all options with eminent technologies et 2 arm
Server is a custom 3 pc setup made by me
Dacs one SS dac and two LAMPI dacs.

 

[bigshot]

I see red flags. When people talk about opening up files to analyze the wave form, I don’t trust them to conduct their own listening test. I’m bowing out here.

 

[old tech]

Thanks for your honesty some files are more obvious and some no change is heard by me. keep in mind the files origin here many HD tracks as an example are indeed. Not true hi def files.
This can be confirmed with analyzing software.

The only true hi res recordings would only be a couple decades old, either DSD or 24 bit recordings. Remasters or copies of analog material is not hi res and can never be high res. It is the same argument as upsampling 16/44 to 24/96 and calling it high res however rather than software, you'd need to look at what was the format of the original recording and the processes used up to making the final product.

 

[bigshot]

If the way he tells a true HD file is by analyzing the wave form, then he is admitting that he can't hear a difference.
If he can't tell that analogue masters don't contain anything beyond 16/44.1, he is admitting it again.
He says that CD quality sound can be modded to sound as good as 24/96... yet another admission.

I think he has no interest in knowing the truth of the matter. He is just here for idle chatter like the others of his ilk. He'll putter around in circles and make Gregorio repeat himself until he gets frustrated again. I don't feel inclined to waste energy helping people like that. I'd rather help people who care about sound quality and want to understand how to achieve it.

 

[castleofargh]

If the way he tells a true HD file is by analyzing the wave form, then he is admitting that he can't hear a difference.
If he can't tell that analogue masters don't contain anything beyond 16/44.1, he is admitting it again.
He says that CD quality sound can be modded to sound as good as 24/96... yet another admission.

I think he has no interest in knowing the truth of the matter. He is just here for idle chatter like the others of his ilk. He'll putter around in circles and make Gregorio repeat himself until he gets frustrated again. I don't feel inclined to waste energy helping people like that. I'd rather help people who care about sound quality and want to understand how to achieve it.

On the other hand it would be meaningless to convert something that's not hires and then abx it. I don't see the harm in being cautious about the file used for a test. Sure it does suggest that the hires sound improvement might not be as obvious to him as he claimed(something we all knew already). And of course if he wants to fake his test, he can. There is nothing we can do about that. But if we already decided to distrust anything he will say or do, then we're the ones wasting his time by asking him to run a blind test.
To me anybody who is willing to bother with a blind test, deserves some extra respect. It's already a big step for an audiophile to pull his fingers out of his own butt and spend time preparing files, app, and then running a few trials. Most will never get that far.

 

[ILikeMusic]

To me anybody who is willing to bother with a blind test, deserves some extra respect. It's already a big step for an audiophile to pull his fingers out of his own butt and spend time preparing files, app, and then running a few trials. Most will never get that far.

In most of these 'Hi-res' disputes I haven't gotten that far because I don't need to. If all available science and theory demonstrates that it's virtually impossible for a human being to detect a difference then... I'm a human being, so not much point in testing.