[COOKIESnPIE]

Post deleted by user.
 
 

 

[ab initio]

For the ABX, are you supposed to refer to the "known" A and B tracks while comparing it with X? Or are you only allowed to listen to A and B before X is given to you in order to prevent direct comparisons? When I did my testing, I often listened to short passages of the X file, then immediately played the same segment of the A file to compare. I then played the B file, and listened to find out which was closer.


Is that a form of "cheating," or are you supposed to do that? I'm saying this since I got some interesting results using these files and this ABX comparator - with the testing method I just used, I get 100% accuracy with the 320k and the 24/96 files (I'll try the 16/44 later). However, using its "shootout" mode, which randomizes the files and asks you which one sounds better, I only get around 50% accuracy.

Listen in any way you like.

Cheers

 

[COOKIESnPIE]

Post deleted by user.
 
 

 

[castleofargh]

 

Listen in any way you like.

Cheers

 
Well well well. My "technique" proved absolutely useless when pitting the 24/96 and 16/44 files together on the comparator, and I couldn't find any suble differences. Maybe it's just my crappy equipment (I'm using onboard Realtek ALC892, O2 amp, and Sennheiser HD428s), but at least I know (for now) that 24/96 tracks aren't for me

.

most of us here(in sound science) have come to the same conclusion but it is certainly great to be able to experiment ourselves and make our mind from what we actually hear.

 

[cdvsmp3]

   
Well well well. My "technique" proved absolutely useless when pitting the 24/96 and 16/44 files together on the comparator, and I couldn't find any suble differences. Maybe it's just my crappy equipment (I'm using onboard Realtek ALC892, O2 amp, and Sennheiser HD428s), but at least I know (for now) that 24/96 tracks aren't for me

.

You don't have to blame you equipment or your ears. Take a look at the results of my null test in "Why I think HD audio is irrelevant".
A quite different thing is detecting differences between lossless and lossy formats. I have a blind test that compares CD to AAC 256, in case you want to test your Sennheiser and your hearing.

 

[elmoe]

   
Well well well. My "technique" proved absolutely useless when pitting the 24/96 and 16/44 files together on the comparator, and I couldn't find any suble differences. Maybe it's just my crappy equipment (I'm using onboard Realtek ALC892, O2 amp, and Sennheiser HD428s), but at least I know (for now) that 24/96 tracks aren't for me

.

 
Don't worry, I had the same results using my Benchmark DAC1.

 

[Thad-E-Ginathom]

   
Well well well. My "technique" proved absolutely useless when pitting the 24/96 and 16/44 files together on the comparator, and I couldn't find any suble differences. Maybe it's just my crappy equipment ... ... ...

 
Ah, the unanswerable reply of the chronic audiophile: your system is not resolving enough!
 
It's convenient for them, meaning that they don't have to think about it any more, or face any further threat to their preconceptions --- or their egos!
 
I'm not saying that there is no reason to spend vast amounts of money on hifi (I would if I could!) but I do think that these people have completely forgotten just how good even "entry-level" (based on price) hifi has been for the past three or four decades. Even more true in the world of headphones.
 
If this is not so, then 24/96/etc is dead in the water, because if it can only be appreciated with multi-hundred-thousand-dollar systems that makes for a pretty small market.

 

[SilverEars]

   
Ah, the unanswerable reply of the chronic audiophile: your system is not resolving enough!
 
It's convenient for them, meaning that they don't have to think about it any more, or face any further threat to their preconceptions --- or their egos!
 
I'm not saying that there is no reason to spend vast amounts of money on hifi (I would if I could!) but I do think that these people have completely forgotten just how good even "entry-level" (based on price) hifi has been for the past three or four decades. Even more true in the world of headphones.
 
If this is not so, then 24/96/etc is dead in the water, because if it can only be appreciated with multi-hundred-thousand-dollar systems that makes for a pretty small market.

Dis.  I screw cannot stand those that buy gear with a high price tag so that they can hear the money, and just inflate it for the poor folks.  I can understand if the gear seems to be reasonably well designed and the price is warranted, but those that look at the price tag as a set point of predicted SQ is ruining it for the rest of us.  Also those that do not start low-fi and move up, those that start from the top has no measure of anything.  I hate the state it's in now.  AK240 with $2.5k price tag?  Unbelieveable.  I could understand customs prices as BA at low volumes are priced high, and labor, and hearing aids are expensive to make, and they are based off of how hearing aids were customized by hand.
 
Also, I like some honesty.  Because you read some real hypes around here, and you know it's because of how much it cost, not wholey on the performance.  It's just sad.  I like it if there were no appreciation threads, but just threads with people bashing on the gear if there are flaw in it, not just praising it and people ganging up on those that say somthing negative.  There is something very wrong about this.

 

[christian u]

If I can get a ''one to one copy of the studio master'' a studio master file, that is exactly the same as the end result that the musicians and the technicians arrived at, for more or less the same
 price as the CD or an itunes download, that is what I would buy.
It is like owning an original painting, not a reproduction.

 

[Thad-E-Ginathom]

  Dis.  I screw cannot stand those that buy gear with a high price tag so that they can hear the money, and just inflate it for the poor folks.  I can understand if the gear seems to be reasonably well designed and the price is warranted, but those that look at the price tag as a set point of predicted SQ is ruining it for the rest of us.  Also those that do not start low-fi and move up, those that start from the top has no measure of anything.  I hate the state it's in now.  AK240 with $2.5k price tag?  Unbelieveable.  I could understand customs prices as BA at low volumes are priced high, and labor, and hearing aids are expensive to make, and they are based off of how hearing aids were customized by hand.
 
Also, I like some honesty.  Because you read some real hypes around here, and you know it's because of how much it cost, not wholey on the performance.  It's just sad.  I like it if there were no appreciation threads, but just threads with people bashing on the gear if there are flaw in it, not just praising it and people ganging up on those that say somthing negative.  There is something very wrong about this.

 
Pride of ownership comes in many forms. It's horribly easier to be affected by price, and easier still to be affected by some of the trimmings, like the case carved from solid titanium kind of stuff. If I don't admit to having my own weaknesses here, then you might catch me with my tongue hanging out  in another thread!
 
There are also those who, whilst spending a lot of money, buy intelligently, and buy something for the long term. But where's the intelligence in dashing after one number because it is bigger than another, and not even trying to understand why it isn't. In fact, resisting to the utmost any such understanding. 
 
I can remember saving up to buy a minidisk portable. Wow, what amazing quality compared to cassette, and what amazing recordings too! Then, later, I was proud of my half-brick Cowon A2 (which I still use for travel) but slightly embarrassed to admit what I paid for it. So far as the portable stuff is concerned, AK prices don't even come on my visible spectrum of reality.
 

  If I can get a ''one to one copy of the studio master'' a studio master file, that is exactly the same as the end result that the musicians and the technicians arrived at, for more or less the same
 price as the CD or an itunes download, that is what I would buy.
It is like owning an original painting, not a reproduction.

 
Unlike painting, music is a fleeting experience of the moment. If you want the original, you have to be in the studio or the concert hall at the time --- and it is completely impossible to take it home with you. You only get to keep the effect.
 
"Studio master" seems to have become just another marketing term. I always wonder what people actually think they would be getting. Separate tracks, with no mixing, EQ, etc? The stereo mix before it goes to the mastering engineer? I think that a lot of people mean music without the excess compression, which is fair enough.

 

[christian u]

   
Pride of ownership comes in many forms. It's horribly easier to be affected by price, and easier still to be affected by some of the trimmings, like the case carved from solid titanium kind of stuff. If I don't admit to having my own weaknesses here, then you might catch me with my tongue hanging out  in another thread!
 
There are also those who, whilst spending a lot of money, buy intelligently, and buy something for the long term. But where's the intelligence in dashing after one number because it is bigger than another, and not even trying to understand why it isn't. In fact, resisting to the utmost any such understanding. 
 
I can remember saving up to buy a minidisk portable. Wow, what amazing quality compared to cassette, and what amazing recordings too! Then, later, I was proud of my half-brick Cowon A2 (which I still use for travel) but slightly embarrassed to admit what I paid for it. So far as the portable stuff is concerned, AK prices don't even come on my visible spectrum of reality.
 
 
Unlike painting, music is a fleeting experience of the moment. If you want the original, you have to be in the studio or the concert hall at the time --- and it is completely impossible to take it home with you. You only get to keep the effect.
 
"Studio master" seems to have become just another marketing term. I always wonder what people actually think they would be getting. Separate tracks, with no mixing, EQ, etc? The stereo mix before it goes to the mastering engineer? I think that a lot of people mean music without the excess compression, which is fair enough.

 A recording is a piece of art in itself. It would have made no sense being present in the studio when they recorded Sgt. Pepper. And the role of good engineers like Jan Erik Kongshau or Frans de Rond should not be underestimated.
To me a studio Master is the final product made in the studio, but with no down or up-sampling.
Quote:Sound Liaison

 This recording is made for and with lovers of high-end audio recordings.
This is a TRUE Studio Master file. It's a one to one copy of the master file (88.2kHz/24bit). 
No conversion of any kind has taken place.
What you are getting is what we, the technicians and the musicians,has created in close collaboration.You are in other words hearing exactly what we are hearing here in the studio.

 

[COOKIESnPIE]

Post deleted by user.
 
 

 

[Thad-E-Ginathom]

  Quote:
... ... ...  
The studio master is a perfect reproduction, but not an original. I personally feel that something comparable to an original painting, and something that would actually retain value would be the original master tapes (if the system they use is analog), but I'm not sure if they even sell those.

I suspect that some of those might make us actually appreciate the mixing engineers' skills!

 

[christian u]

  I suspect that some of those might make us actually appreciate the mixing engineers' skills!

But in modern recording technology, a digital one to one copy of the master file is pretty close

 

[RMSKFX]

What you perceive is reality........at least for you