[jegnyc]

I don't think Steve Hoffman uses multiple masters for hybrids.  Here's one post I recalled where he says that with respect to "Willy and the Poorboys."  That's not to say he doesn't believe there's a difference (as the post makes clear).
 
http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/cd-vs-sacd-stereo-i-cant-hear-a-difference.72953/page-2#post-1598531

 

[RockStar2005]

  Difference of sound quality for different resolutions is not so simple matter as looks.

Resolution can't provide quality as itself.

It can provide quality in complex with audio processing and hardware during playback.

As example, pro-audio DAC at 44 kHz may sound better 192 kHz non-pro one.

Into these DACs may be different digital processing and analog filters.

Several last years CD sounds very good, comparing earlier issues, as me seems.

I think, hi-res music production workflow is a reason this phenomenon.

 
Oh I know. Believe ME Yuri, I am NOT one to believe that having a higher resolution means a recording will sound better than another one with lower res. I used to, but based on discussions I've had with people and also my own experiences with ABX testing, I came to the conclusion LONG AGO that the resolution matters very little. As long as you stay ABOVE mp3-level, if the same master is being utilized, then I don't believe human ears can hear a difference. Of course now you have people saying "Oh the 'timing" of the sound hitting your ears on higher resolution recordings is better than lower res", and blah blah blah. I'm sorry man, I just don't buy it. Even others I've talked to on here say they can't notice a difference either, and when you do, it's b/c a DIFFERENT MASTER was used between the two. I even use dBpoweramp to downsample all my Hi-Res so it doesn't take up MASSIVE amounts of space for no good reason. I've tried many times to tell a difference, but I simply can't, and I believe I have very good hearing too, and have gotten better at knowing what to listen for in music than I was even 2 years ago when I got into this whole Hi-Fi world. lol
 
I buy a ton of Hi-Res music, and have since about 2 years ago. It always sounds better to me than the mp3s and even CDs I own, but I know that's simply because a better and more cared for master was used in making them. 

 

[RockStar2005]

  I don't think Steve Hoffman uses multiple masters for hybrids.  Here's one post I recalled where he says that with respect to "Willy and the Poorboys."  That's not to say he doesn't believe there's a difference (as the post makes clear).
 
http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/cd-vs-sacd-stereo-i-cant-hear-a-difference.72953/page-2#post-1598531

 

!! lol
 
See I read what he said about the difference, and I feel like that's more likely just "bias" since he has better equipment than we probably all do. Do you guys agree with that part or no? I'd like to hear your opinions too. 
 
I'd like to also see him post the results of an ABX test on that Willy album using both versions, but on different songs. Then I'd be much more open to believing it. lol 

 

[RockStar2005]

Audio Fidelity just responded.............we have OFFICIAL confirmation now! 

 lol
 
And I just RE pre-ordered the Evil Empire Hybrid SACD! lol
 
 

Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!

Marshall Blonstein <mb@audiofidelity.net>	12:07 PM (1 minute ago) ​	​	​
to me

 
The red book and SACD layer both come from the original master.

Marshall Blonstein - President
Audio Fidelity-Morada Music
79 E. Daily Dr. #507
Camarillo, CA  93010
Phone:  (805) 445-6464
Fax:      (805) 445-6455
mb@audiofidelity.net
www.audiofidelity.net


 

 

[jegnyc]

I own Steve's "Willy and the Poorboys."  Just tried the test for the first time in a long while.  It's actually easier for me now with my current setup.  I'm using a Squeezebox Touch that lets me switch back and forth quickly between Hi-Rez and Redbook.  However, as the Squeezebox doesn't do DSD, I have converted all my SACDs to 88.2/24 PCM.^*  I played the two tracks through my Teac UD-501 and listened through AKG 701s, adjusting the headphone out for the difference in volume.** I could hear a distinct difference, not only in the snare, but in the decay of the guitars.  Decay is one of the aspects of instrument color that I generally focus on when trying to distinguish good hi-rez.  My theory (based solely on listening and intuition) is that hi-rez does a better job maintaining the natural harmonics of various instruments.
 
^* After archiving copies of the DSD versions.
 
**  The SACD spec calls for recordings to have a 6dB lower volume peak - I think that's the correct term - than CDs.  An SACD player will provide a compensating boost; the Squeezebox does not, so I need to make the adjustment elsewhere.

 

[Music Alchemist]

  I own Steve's "Willy and the Poorboys."  Just tried the test for the first time in a long while.  It's actually easier for me now with my current setup.  I'm using a Squeezebox Touch that lets me switch back and forth quickly between Hi-Rez and Redbook.  However, as the Squeezebox doesn't do DSD, I have converted all my SACDs to 88.2/24 PCM.^*  I played the two tracks through my Teac UD-501 and listened through AKG 701s, adjusting the headphone out for the difference in volume.** I could hear a distinct difference, not only in the snare, but in the decay of the guitars.  Decay is one of the aspects of instrument color that I generally focus on when trying to distinguish good hi-rez.  My theory (based solely on listening and intuition) is that hi-rez does a better job maintaining the natural harmonics of various instruments.
 
^* After archiving copies of the DSD versions.
 
**  The SACD spec calls for recordings to have a 6dB lower volume peak - I think that's the correct term - than CDs.  An SACD player will provide a compensating boost; the Squeezebox does not, so I need to make the adjustment elsewhere.

 
I recommend using dBpoweramp to convert between resolutions yourself before comparing. This is a must because otherwise you may just be comparing two different masters. And relying on other programs to convert on the fly may create more variables.

 

[jegnyc]

I don't convert on the fly.  I used JRiver to convert and save all of my SACD rips.  (That's why I need to keep a set of DSD files as archives.)  By the way, I assume the conversion results in a slight deterioration in sound quality, but the hi-rez still sounds better to me than redbook.
 
I'm not sure what you mean by different masters.  Steve specifically stated that he used the same master for the SACD and Redbook layers of "Willie and the Poorboys.". 

 

[Music Alchemist]

  I don't convert on the fly.  I used JRiver to convert and save all of my SACD rips.  (That's why I need to keep a set of DSD files as archives.)  By the way, I assume the conversion results in a slight deterioration in sound quality, but the hi-rez still sounds better to me than redbook.
 
I'm not sure what you mean by different masters.  Steve specifically stated that he used the same master for the SACD and Redbook layers of "Willie and the Poorboys.". 

 
Sorry, I misinterpreted what you said about Squeezebox. But just to verify, you converted the 24/88 files to 16/44 (both lossless files) yourself and then compared those, right? (As opposed to comparing the SACD rip to a normal CD rip.)

 

[jegnyc]

No - I rip the hybrid twice: the redbook layer and the SACD layer (using a PS3).  I then convert the DSD files to 88/24.  Certainly if the two layers did not derive from the same master, that could account for the difference I am hearing - in fact I believe mastering differences often have a greater effect on sound quality than resolution.
 
In this case however, Steve Hoffman stated, "I used the same mastering via split feed for both layers."

 

[RockStar2005]

  I own Steve's "Willy and the Poorboys."  Just tried the test for the first time in a long while.  It's actually easier for me now with my current setup.  I'm using a Squeezebox Touch that lets me switch back and forth quickly between Hi-Rez and Redbook.  However, as the Squeezebox doesn't do DSD, I have converted all my SACDs to 88.2/24 PCM.^*  I played the two tracks through my Teac UD-501 and listened through AKG 701s, adjusting the headphone out for the difference in volume.** I could hear a distinct difference, not only in the snare, but in the decay of the guitars.  Decay is one of the aspects of instrument color that I generally focus on when trying to distinguish good hi-rez.  My theory (based solely on listening and intuition) is that hi-rez does a better job maintaining the natural harmonics of various instruments.
 
^* After archiving copies of the DSD versions.
 
**  The SACD spec calls for recordings to have a 6dB lower volume peak - I think that's the correct term - than CDs.  An SACD player will provide a compensating boost; the Squeezebox does not, so I need to make the adjustment elsewhere.

 
jeg, 
 
I'd appreciate it if you did an ABX test on yourself and then posted the results here, but using 2 versions of a different track. I need to know that you have no clue which track version/resolution is being played before I can believe it. The minimum score is 90%, meaning you must choose the right one 90% of the time for it to be statistically significant. 

 

[Music Alchemist]

  No - I rip the hybrid twice: the redbook layer and the SACD layer (using a PS3).  I then convert the DSD files to 88/24.  Certainly if the two layers did not derive from the same master, that could account for the difference I am hearing - in fact I believe mastering differences often have a greater effect on sound quality than resolution.
 
In this case however, Steve Hoffman stated, "I used the same mastering via split feed for both layers."

 
Okay, if it's not too much trouble, please use dBpoweramp to convert the 24/88 files to 16/44, then compare.
 
You have to isolate the variables without making assumptions. The reason why this is important is because there are variables outside of your control. For example, I downloaded an album an artist gave away for free in various resolutions. When I compared the two downloads, there were obvious differences, but when I converted the files myself, those differences disappeared. In that particular case, I suspect it was due to an inferior conversion on the artist's part instead of a different master.
 

  jeg, 
 
I'd appreciate it if you did an ABX test on yourself and then posted the results here, but using 2 versions of a different track. I need to know that you have no clue which track version/resolution is being played before I can believe it. The minimum score is 90%, meaning you must choose the right one 90% of the time for it to be statistically significant. 

 
It's not 90%; it's a 95% confidence level, which is different than a set percentage.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ABX_test#Confidence

 

[RockStar2005]

   
Okay, if it's not too much trouble, please use dBpoweramp to convert the 24/88 files to 16/44, then compare. You have to isolate the variables without making assumptions.
 
 
It's not 90%; it's a 95% confidence level, which is different than a set percentage.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ABX_test#Confidence

 
I agree. 16/44.1 makes things more equal I believe. 
 
Ok whatever. lol You don't have to link everything. Just say it and if I ask for proof then you can give me a link. And I know the difference b/t the two, but nobody's gonna do a confidence level on here. I def won't. Just give me a percentage. You said 15 out of 20 once right? That's 75%. So jeg, get 75% right in an ABX test, and post the results here, and I'll maybe agree more. But it must be a different track. lol

 

[Music Alchemist]

  I agree. 16/44.1 makes things more equal I believe. 
 
Ok whatever. lol You don't have to link everything. Just say it and if I ask for proof then you can give me a link. And I know the difference b/t the two, but nobody's gonna do a confidence level on here. I def won't. Just give me a percentage. You said 15 out of 20 once right? That's 75%. So jeg, get 75% right in an ABX test, and post the results here, and I'll maybe agree more. But it must be a different track. lol

 
Again, no, it is not a set percentage. The percentage depends on how many trials are done. If you look at that link, it's 9/10 if there are 10 trials, and 15/20 if there are 20 trials. I share links to show you explanations for why things are so that you may avoid making erroneous assumptions. For example, you said you know the difference between the two, then insisted upon a set percentage anyway, indicating that you in fact did not know the difference.

 

[jegnyc]

I am not going to try to jury-rig some kind of ABX tesing.  I can hear a difference.  I can hear it comparing the two layers, and I can hear it when when I conver from 88/24 to 44/16.  In the end the only way to determine if you hear a difference is to listen for yourself.  

 

[Music Alchemist]

  I am not going to try to jury-rig some kind of ABX tesing.  I can hear a difference.  I can hear it comparing the two layers, and I can hear it when when I conver from 88/24 to 44/16.  In the end the only way to determine if you hear a difference is to listen for yourself.  

 
So you converted the files just now or was this referring to past tests you did?
 
For the record, it's very easy to do an ABX test (click here), but you are under no obligation to do so. It's just that the only way to objectively determine whether someone can hear a genuine difference (perceiving one and talking about it doesn't count in objective terms) is via that method.