[vincik]

I want to try, if i can hear difference between cd quality flac and hi-rez flac. Could you help me please to find some tracks? It has to be same version of song. Same format, same dynamics, same mastering.

 

[adisib]

For an example, you can go to:
http://www.2l.no/
On the dropdown on the top right, go to "Test Bench HD Audio Files"
 
There will be free downloads for 196k sampling rate and 96k sampling rate with 24 bit that you can compare if you wish. If you want to compare with CD quality, you can use a quality resampler to convert it to 44.1k 16bit.
 
As long as you use a very good resampler, and play each bit perfectly, you will hear absolutely no difference. A higher sampling rate simply allows the playback of frequencies far beyond what humans can hear. A higher bit depth wont have an audible difference either (see http://www.head-fi.org/t/415361/24bit-vs-16bit-the-myth-exploded/1830).

 

[francopro]

  I want to try, if i can hear difference between cd quality flac and hi-rez flac. Could you help me please to find some tracks? It has to be same version of song. Same format, same dynamics, same mastering

You will hear the difference if you can compare mp3 with flac , as far as i know 16/44 flac vs 24/96 flac is very tricky , you'll need the right equipment to really hear the difference

 

[Music Alchemist]

  I want to try, if i can hear difference between cd quality flac and hi-rez flac. Could you help me please to find some tracks? It has to be same version of song. Same format, same dynamics, same mastering.

 
Here's a sneaky gimmick that some online retailers use: they use a different master than the CD version, then release it in formats "higher than CD quality" - but the reason they sound different is due to the different master, which they don't usually tell you about.
 
...Then again, you did specify about the mastering, so you must have already known. (How did I not see that?)
 
As a rule of thumb, whenever you acquire a high-resolution audio download, you can use dBpoweramp to convert it to any file format and sample size/rate you need. That assures you are listening to the same version of the song; whereas if you downloaded, say, a 24-bit / 96 kHz and 16-bit / 44.1 kHz version separately, there is a chance that it could be a different master, faulty conversion, etc.

 

[calaf]

  I want to try, if i can hear difference between cd quality flac and hi-rez flac. Could you help me please to find some tracks? It has to be same version of song. Same format, same dynamics, same mastering.

forget flac and hi-rez flac: when I did the Philips Golden Ear test I found out that I absolutely can not tell the difference between 160Kb/s mp3 and the uncompressed original, and that it took my best equipment and concentration to reliably distinguish 128Kb/s from the original. I was depressed for a while, then rejoiced at the thought that I can safely give DSD DACs, HDTracks, and the like a pass, and save a boatload of money

 

[Music Alchemist]

  forget flac and hi-rez flac: when I did the Philips Golden Ear test I found out that I absolutely can not tell the difference between 160Kb/s mp3 and the uncompressed original, and that it took my best equipment and concentration to reliably distinguish 128Kb/s from the original. I was depressed for a while, then rejoiced at the thought that I can safely give DSD DACs, HDTracks, and the like a pass, and save a boatload of money

 
My own tests have varied wildly from that.
 
I used some of the highest quality lossy formats (such as 320 kbps MP3 and Q127 QuickTime tVBR AAC) and listened to lossless and lossy encodings of dozens of albums across many genres.
 
On about 25% of the music I tested, I did not notice any differences at all.
 
However, on the remaining 75% or so, the differences were either small, but significant enough to notice...or painfully obvious.
 
In the more extreme instances, audible distortion manifested itself in the form of bloated bass, sibilant treble, diminished dynamics, and all the other usual stuff most people would only notice in poorly encoded MP3s.
 
For most listeners, lossy is fine; I make it a point to listen in CD quality unless that isn't available.

 

[calaf]

   
My own tests have varied wildly from that.
 
I used some of the highest quality lossy formats (such as 320 kbps MP3 and Q127 QuickTime tVBR AAC) and listened to lossless and lossy encodings of dozens of albums across many genres.
 
On about 25% of the music I tested, I did not notice any differences at all.
 
However, on the remaining 75% or so, the differences were either small, but significant enough to notice...or painfully obvious.
 

the funny thing with the Golden Ears test is that during the training stage (when you know what you are listening to) I could clearly hear, say, the grainy treble of the 160Kbs MP3 (not to mention the 128 Kbs). The problem arose when the real test started and I was asked to tell which was which.
 

For most listeners, lossy is fine; I make it a point to listen in CD quality unless that isn't available.

same here: in spite of the Golden Ear test, 99.9% of the music I own is CD quality (or vinyl...). The test convinced me that high-rez, bitrates and all that jazz are not that important, though.

 

[Destroysall]

  I want to try, if i can hear difference between cd quality flac and hi-rez flac. Could you help me please to find some tracks? It has to be same version of song. Same format, same dynamics, same mastering.

The only way I feel you can do this is by using the demos provided by HDTracks.

 

[Music Alchemist]

  The only way I feel you can do this is by using the demos provided by HDTracks.

 
To anyone who isn't aware, HDtracks uses different masters for many of the albums they sell.
 
All that needs to be done to prepare a semi-proper listening test is to acquire a native 24-bit file and convert it to 16-bit.
 
@vincik For reference, here is a good article containing many links to free high-res music downloads.

 

[Destroysall]

   
To anyone who isn't aware, HDtracks uses different masters for many of the albums they sell.

True, but it is sometime known that a lot of 24-bit masters are different when compared to their 16-bit masters. However this is not always the case.

 

[Brooko]

   
My own tests have varied wildly from that.
 
I used some of the highest quality lossy formats (such as 320 kbps MP3 and Q127 QuickTime tVBR AAC) and listened to lossless and lossy encodings of dozens of albums across many genres.
 
On about 25% of the music I tested, I did not notice any differences at all.
 
However, on the remaining 75% or so, the differences were either small, but significant enough to notice...or painfully obvious.
 
In the more extreme instances, audible distortion manifested itself in the form of bloated bass, sibilant treble, diminished dynamics, and all the other usual stuff most people would only notice in poorly encoded MP3s.
 
For most listeners, lossy is fine; I make it a point to listen in CD quality unless that isn't available.

 
Curious - how did you set-up your comparisons?  I'm guessing you used same masters and then re-encoded?  What software did you use to compare.  Was it properly volume matched?  How?  Was it blind?
 
The reason I ask is that when most people actually perform the tests properly  (volume matched blind abx with at least 15 iterations per track), even with TOTL gear (we had one guy who is very good with ABX - far better ears than mine- completely fail on aac256 when using a Stax SR007 system), aac256 when encoded properly is completely transparent, and 320kbps MP3 will generally be transparent apart from a very limited number of "killer" tracks which can defeat the encoder.
 
There is a lot of info on hydrogen-audio's website, and I can give you some info on setting up a pretty good test if you're interested in redoing your comparisons.

 

[Music Alchemist]

  Curious - how did you set-up your comparisons?  I'm guessing you used same masters and then re-encoded?  What software did you use to compare.  Was it properly volume matched?  How?  Was it blind?
 
The reason I ask is that when most people actually perform the tests properly  (volume matched blind abx with at least 15 iterations per track), even with TOTL gear (we had one guy who is very good with ABX - far better ears than mine- completely fail on aac256 when using a Stax SR007 system), aac256 when encoded properly is completely transparent, and 320kbps MP3 will generally be transparent apart from a very limited number of "killer" tracks which can defeat the encoder.
 
There is a lot of info on hydrogen-audio's website, and I can give you some info on setting up a pretty good test if you're interested in redoing your comparisons.

 
I will confess that it was merely a casual test; nothing serious or documented, despite how extensive it was.
 
They were CD rips, converted with dBpoweramp, listened to on an iPod Classic. I did not notice any change in volume when switching between tracks of the same song.
 
(I do not yet have a respectable desktop setup, so when I listen on a computer, everything sounds fairly bad.)
 
I saw and enjoyed your thread about lossy tests in the past. Perhaps some day I will conduct a "proper" one.
 
Oh, and...from the Terms Of Service:
 

If what you want to post includes words/phrases like "placebo," "expectation bias," "ABX," "blind testing," etc., please post it in the Sound Science forum.

Discussion of blind testing is only allowed in the Sound Science forum.

 

 

[Brooko]

Didn't violate the TOS - was simply asking how you did the test  

 
The fact that you couldn't volume match, or run several iterations (so it wasn't a fluke), and that it wasn't done blind is telling - and explains the differences (at least to me anyway):

 However, on the remaining 75% or so, the differences were either small, but significant enough to notice...or painfully obvious

 
If you ever get the chance to do it properly, let me know as I'd be really interested to hear how you end up.  Genuine request - not trying to be a PITA 

 

[Music Alchemist]

  Didn't violate the TOS - was simply asking how you did the test  

 
The fact that you couldn't volume match, or run several iterations (so it wasn't a fluke), and that it wasn't done blind is telling - and explains the differences (at least to me anyway):
 
If you ever get the chance to do it properly, let me know as I'd be really interested to hear how you end up.  Genuine request - not trying to be a PITA 

 
It's cool. I was just being silly, because you mentioned blind testing - horror of horrors!
 
How do you volume match on an iPod? And if they are at the same volume level, and there are no noticeable differences in volume, what's the point?
 
I did run several iterations. I A/B switched many times for each song I perceived a difference (whether real or imagined) on.
 
I did compare blind, but only some of the time. This test was done for my own purposes, after all.

 

[Brooko]

Even when encoding, although you are using the same source file, the encoder itself will often have the transcoded file at a slightly different volume level to the original.  And as you're aware, even 0.5 dB difference is enough to tell two files apart if your hearing is reasonably acute.  So that's issue number one.  The second issue is using the iPod to A/B - it doesn't have the software to do it.  The easiest way is as per my guide - Foobar 2000 + abx comparator + built in volume matching + 15 iterations of each track tested.  It really is an eye opener.
 
For anyone wanting to know more  - I know you've seen the guide MA - link is here : http://www.head-fi.org/t/655879/setting-up-an-abx-test-simple-guide-to-ripping-tagging-transcoding
 
One of these days you'll get the chance to try it.  I can promise you that if you've set everything up correctly, it will change your mind about what is really audible