[DistortingJack]

I think it's crammed with sonic subtleties, you see, in a very non-subtle way...

I could almost touch that synth and feel the warped texture; all the vocal delays and strange harmonies; the very, very unusual laptop noises throughout the song ; the very expensive sound of the vocal microphone, almost but not quite buried underneath the noise; the weight and fleshiness of the kick...
The lo-fi quality of the recording is 100% intentional, I can assure you, and very superficial. Underneath lurk the sonic obsessions of a perfectionist. You would have to know more of their output to tell, though. The music and the recording process are one and the same here. You either like it or not, like you either like Schoenberg or not.

[Puts on Shostakovich's 13th quartet and relaxes to the glacial, evil squeaks. Loving it.

]

 

[JaZZ]

I was never talking of the musical quality.
.

 

[Young Spade]

If I'm using my setup of 4G Nano LoD iBasso T4 PFE112s, I can hear the difference. If I'm just using the Nano and my UE Super.fi 5s, then no.

 

[Bullseye]

BUMP

Interested in seeing more answers here

 

[Ham Sandwich]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Young Spade /img/forum/go_quote.gif If I'm using my setup of 4G Nano LoD iBasso T4 PFE112s, I can hear the difference. If I'm just using the Nano and my UE Super.fi 5s, then no.

You're trying a 24/96 listening test on an iPod?
An iPod cannot play anything other than 44.1 kHz. I don't even think it can do 24 bit even at 44.1 kHz.

iTunes has to be doing sample rate conversion when you sync the 24/96 file. What you are comparing is Apple's choice of sample rate conversion to the most excellent sample rate conversion that DistortingJack used.

What we can conclude is that Apple's SRC is audibly different from DistortingJack's SRC. What we cannot conclude is that you can hear any difference between 24/96 and DistortingJack's downsampled 16/44.1 file.

 

[DistortingJack]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ham Sandwich /img/forum/go_quote.gif You're trying a 24/96 listening test on an iPod?

You've got a point. It would be great if people that answered "yes" would explain how they did the test and what actually sounded different to them (soundstage, detail, high frequency content, etc).
I do wonder how he managed to put the files on a nano though, my iPhone just says it can't sync them...

Oh yes, the mighty olblueyez had to vote "yes".

 

[krmathis]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ham Sandwich /img/forum/go_quote.gif You're trying a 24/96 listening test on an iPod? An iPod cannot play anything other than 44.1 kHz. I don't even think it can do 24 bit even at 44.1 kHz.

Partially correct!
You're correct that the iPod don't support 24-bit/96hHz audio, but it does support both 24-bit and higher than 44.1kHz. 24-bit/48kHz to be exact..

 

[Ham Sandwich]

Quote:

Originally Posted by krmathis /img/forum/go_quote.gif Partially correct! You're correct that the iPod don't support 24-bit/96hHz audio, but it does support both 24-bit and higher than 44.1kHz. 24-bit/48kHz to be exact..

A partial correction to the correction. Those responsible for the correction have been corrected.

Apples iPod spec sheets are not clear on the matter.

I just tried a variety of 16 bit, 24 bit, 44.1 kHz, and 48 kHz WAV files on my iPod (80GB Classic).

16/44.1 played
16/48 played
24/44.1 didn't play (iPod skipped over the file)
24/48 didn't play (iPod skipped over the file)

It won't play 24 bit WAV files. I also tried one 24 bit AIFF file with the same result. It is possible it might play 24 bit audio as part of a video file or as an AAC audio file. I'm not going to bother testing that.

 

[krmathis]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ham Sandwich /img/forum/go_quote.gif A partial correction to the correction. Those responsible for the correction have been corrected.

Not so fast!

Cause the following file play just perfectly on my 1G iPod nano.

So either its codec/format dependent, player dependent (different iPod model), or some other reason. But 24-Bit/48kHz Apple Lossless play just fine here...

 

[Ham Sandwich]

Quote:

Originally Posted by krmathis /img/forum/go_quote.gif Not so fast! Cause the following file play just perfectly on my 1G iPod nano.

You're right. I just tried 24/44.1 and 24/48 ALAC files and it did work. Strange that 24 bit WAV and AIFF didn't.

I use J. River Media Center to sync my iPod. That could be a factor.

Back to our regularly scheduled listening test thread.

 

[DistortingJack]

Why would you use an iPod at all for this test anyway? The iPod D/A converter is pleasant sounding, but "smeary" and lacks the detail needed to make a decent comparison. Most importantly, no iPod has ever supported a 96k sample rate so I don't see why we should even bring it up here.
Young Spade was obviously talking out of his arse, but I'd like to hear what fatcat, olblueyez and keesue have to say about the issue. It seems that the subject is obviously still controversial and relevant to the head-fi community, and I think the same test with more types of music is a good next step (anyone with great 96k classical and jazz recordings that they'd like to send for ruthless decimation? I have some hybrid SACDs but I can't retrieve the audio stream on my mac). I think the most important thing is to have files like these up there so that people can make their own minds up.
Again, everyone that voted yes, please explain your choice! It can only help the community.

 

[Ham Sandwich]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DistortingJack /img/forum/go_quote.gif (anyone with great 96k classical and jazz recordings that they'd like to send for ruthless decimation? I have some hybrid SACDs but I can't retrieve the audio stream on my mac)

There are some free 96k and 192k samples of jazz music at Design w Sound - Free Hi-Res Samples. Registration is needed to get the download, just email address and a username is needed. I downloaded the samples a few days ago. Haven't given them a critical listen or comparison yet.

The download is two tracks each in 16/44, 24/96 and 24/192.

 

[gregorio]

Quote:

Originally Posted by krmathis /img/forum/go_quote.gif Not so fast! Cause the following file play just perfectly on my 1G iPod nano. So either its codec/format dependent, player dependent (different iPod model), or some other reason. But 24-Bit/48kHz Apple Lossless play just fine here...

Something a little strange is going on here as the bit rate for 24/48 is 2250kbps, whereas your screenshot says the bit rate is 1741kbps?

G

 

[deaconblues]

I think the reduction in bitrate is because of the Apple Lossless compression.

 

[DistortingJack]

The Linkin Park file is fine. Apple Lossless is usually about 70 to 80% of the original file, unless it's classical music, where it's usually about 50 or 60%. I love it because it's objective proof that classical music is less harmonically complex than popular music, mainly because of the lack of percussive instruments and transients, and the overall lack of high-frequency content stemming from recording at a distance. This has nothing to do with the actual piece, since classical music has arguably the most complex works of art in history.
Still, to get this thread back on topic, I will be downloading those jazz recordings and posting them here as well. I will take off the 44.1, 16 bit file as well, leaving the upsampled version only, to prevent confusion.

Edit: I downloaded the files. They are absolutely lovely, but either the mixing engineer or the mastering one filtered the whole thing at around 22k anyway! Why the hell would you actually post 192k files of music that doesn't contain anything above 22k?

If you don't believe me, take a look at the thumbnail, there's nothing there. Nada. Empty space. Residual noise. Hard drive waste.
Ham Sandwich, thanks for trying though, it's impossible to tell until you see it on a spectrogram.

Some more files?

.