[upstateguy]

"PonoMusic, which claims to have the “largest high-resolution music catalog” but in reality offers 99.9% standard-resolution ripped CDs," says Mark Waldrep of HD Audio.
 
He feels that only material recorded at 24/96 should be considered HiRez and that upconverting music that was sourced from standard resolution, 44.1 kHz digital masters is a sham.
 
He offers sample HiRez files he has recorded in his studio as proof that material recorded at 24/96 can sound better than CDs.
 
I just signed up to get them so I can listen for myself. Here--->  http://www.realhd-audio.com/?page_id=60
 

The High Res Mafia     http://www.realhd-audio.com/?p=5489

The High-Res Mafia: Part II     http://www.realhd-audio.com/?p=5499

The High-Res Mafia: Part III     http://www.realhd-audio.com/?p=5503

YouTube interview:     https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VzX_MBoz5wc

 

[watchnerd]

 
He feels that only material recorded at 24/96 should be considered HiRez and that upconverting music that was sourced from standard resolution, 44.1 kHz digital masters is a sham.
 

 
I agree with this statement.
 
But agreeing with that statement doesn't require me to be able to hear the difference between 16/44 and 24/96.
 
Also, he has something to sell, so he's not exactly neutral which makes me immediately suspicious of his test motives.
 
If you want to test upsampling/downsampling, just do the test yourself by using SoX to doing the following:
 
1. Get a high resolution track of 24/96/192 or 24/88/176
 
2. First, drop the sample rate by down converting to the correct integer multiple, such as 24/48 or 24/44.  Keep that set as a sample.
 
3. Make another set of samples to reduce the bit-rate. Don't forget to use dithering.  You'll end up with 16/48 (or you can convert this sample rate to 16/44, too) and 16/44.  Keep that as another sample.
 
4. Set your playback software to tell your DAC to auto-adjust on playback
 
Now you're good to go using whatever randomization / blind mechanism you like.

 

[Guidostrunk]

I'm curious at to why they would want you to bother a friend with the "contact us" email requirement upon sign up. Doesn't really make any sense, since I'm the one signing up. I'm not one to give other peoples, information out. Seems kind of silly, and ridiculous. So no go for me.

"PonoMusic, which claims to have the “largest high-resolution music catalog” but in reality offers 99.9% standard-resolution ripped CDs," says Mark Waldrep of HD Audio.

He feels that only material recorded at 24/96 should be considered HiRez and that upconverting music that was sourced from standard resolution, 44.1 kHz digital masters is a sham.

He offers sample HiRez files he has recorded in his studio as proof that material recorded at 24/96 can sound better than CDs.

I just signed up to get them so I can listen for myself. Here--->  http://www.realhd-audio.com/?page_id=60

[COLOR=000000]The High Res Mafia [/COLOR]    http://www.realhd-audio.com/?p=5489

[COLOR=000000]The High-Res Mafia: Part II[/COLOR]    http://www.realhd-audio.com/?p=5499http://www.realhd-audio.com/?p=5499

[COLOR=000000]The High-Res Mafia: Part III [/COLOR]    http://www.realhd-audio.com/?p=5503

YouTube interview:     https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VzX_MBoz5wc

 

[castleofargh]

 
it's very underrated to say that I don't see eye to eye with Cookie on many subjects. but IMO she(and some of the panel) checked all the right boxes in that video. I'm not pro high res, but if we are to pretend it makes a difference, it should at least be actual highres.
also brings up some points like: what if some sample used in the mix isn't highres but the rest is? is it still highres? it clearly gets metaphysical very quick, but it's good to think about it and have actual pros in favor of high res talk about the possible limitations we may find.

 

[upstateguy]

 

 
He feels that only material recorded at 24/96 should be considered HiRez and that upconverting music that was sourced from standard resolution, 44.1 kHz digital masters is a sham.
 

 
I agree with this statement.
 
But agreeing with that statement doesn't require me to be able to hear the difference between 16/44 and 24/96.
 
Also, he has something to sell, so he's not exactly neutral which makes me immediately suspicious of his test motives.
 
If you want to test upsampling/downsampling, just do the test yourself by using SoX to doing the following:
 
1. Get a high resolution track of 24/96/192 or 24/88/176
 
2. First, drop the sample rate by down converting to the correct integer multiple, such as 24/48 or 24/44.  Keep that set as a sample.
 
3. Make another set of samples to reduce the bit-rate. Don't forget to use dithering.  You'll end up with 16/48 (or you can convert this sample rate to 16/44, too) and 16/44.  Keep that as another sample.
 
4. Set your playback software to tell your DAC to auto-adjust on playback
 
Now you're good to go using whatever randomization / blind mechanism you like.

 
 
I'm down loading the tracks now....
 
Of course he has something to sell, but he is offering free examples of his music to us for evaluation. 
 
I guess his hope is that we will like what we're  hearing and  join in his attempt to regulate HiRez music to only music that has been recorded in 24/96 or greater,  not upconverted from 16/44.1 or recycled old analog tapes.
 
He claims that his hirez recordings in 24/96 sounds different enough from the CD upconverted material Pono is selling for example, for us to be able to appreciate the quality of his music from the samples.
 
I have nothing to loose, so I'm downloading the samples to see if they actually "sound better", what ever that might mean, than the stuff I have in my music collection.
 
Maybe this is something everyone in SS should do.  It would give us a chance to evaluate and comment  on the same thing.
 
I think you have a really good system of analysis there. 
 
I don't know if I can do it as easily as you describe it, so I'll give it a try,  but I look forward to seeing and discussing your results.
 

 

[upstateguy]

 
 
it's very underrated to say that I don't see eye to eye with Cookie on many subjects. but IMO she(and some of the panel) checked all the right boxes in that video. I'm not pro high res, but if we are to pretend it makes a difference, it should at least be actual highres.
also brings up some points like: what if some sample used in the mix isn't highres but the rest is? is it still highres? it clearly gets metaphysical very quick, but it's good to think about it and have actual pros in favor of high res talk about the possible limitations we may find.

 
Hi C of A
 
Will you give this a try too?  I'd like to hear your impressions. 
 
I'm curious what you think about his claim that his music "sounds better" than the stuff you already have?
 
It will be very interesting and relate to a lot of the things we are arguing about in some of the other threads, because we're starting from the position that it's not going to sound any better or different than a well mastered 16/44.1 CD.

 

[upstateguy]

I'm curious at to why they would want you to bother a friend with the "contact us" email requirement upon sign up. Doesn't really make any sense, since I'm the one signing up. I'm not one to give other peoples, information out. Seems kind of silly, and ridiculous. So no go for me.

 why not just make up an e-mail address or write in yours twice.  No reason not to get the free downloads.
 
I think he's just trying to get exposure for his music by giving out free samples.  I could be wrong but I don't see anything wrong with the sound science forum checking out his claim.
 
Most of the time all we do is argue among ourselves. 
 
Now sound science has a chance to evaluate the submitted proof of a claim we really don't believe.

 

[RRod]

   why not just make up an e-mail address or write in yours twice.  No reason not to get the free downloads.
 
I think he's just trying to get exposure for his music by giving out free samples.  I could be wrong but I don't see anything wrong with the sound science forum checking out his claim.
 
Most of the time all we do is argue among ourselves. 
 
Now sound science has a chance to evaluate the submitted proof of a claim we really don't believe.

 
I signed up. We should all make up addresses @redbook.org. Will come back with listening comparisons.

 

[Guidostrunk]

Great idea. I'll do that. Cheers

 why not just make up an e-mail address or write in yours twice.  No reason not to get the free downloads.

I think he's just trying to get exposure for his music by giving out free samples.  I could be wrong but I don't see anything wrong with the sound science forum checking out his claim.

Most of the time all we do is argue among ourselves. 

Now sound science has a chance to evaluate the submitted proof of a claim we really don't believe.

 

[watchnerd]

   
 
I'm down loading the tracks now....
 
Of course he has something to sell, but he is offering free examples of his music to us for evaluation. 
 
I guess his hope is that we will like what we're  hearing and  join in his attempt to regulate HiRez music to only music that has been recorded in 24/96 or greater,  not upconverted from 16/44.1 or recycled old analog tapes.
 
He claims that his hirez recordings in 24/96 sounds different enough from the CD upconverted material Pono is selling for example, for us to be able to appreciate the quality of his music from the samples.
 
I have nothing to loose, so I'm downloading the samples to see if they actually "sound better", what ever that might mean, than the stuff I have in my music collection.
 
Maybe this is something everyone in SS should do.  It would give us a chance to evaluate and comment  on the same thing.
 
I think you have a really good system of analysis there. 
 
I don't know if I can do it as easily as you describe it, so I'll give it a try,  but I look forward to seeing and discussing your results.
 

 
I record stuff live at 24/96 on a weekly basis, and then master it it into different formats (high res, Redbook, MP3), so I don't actually need to take his test.  I'm familiar with the results.
 
Short answer:
 
24bit vs 16bit makes a huge difference in post-production mastering because of bit loss during editing.  Even the most common editing will turn a 16bit file into a 14bit file.  Or worse if there is a lot of manipulation.  This raises the noise floor.  You can see this on a spectrograph.
 
However, that's not true if it's a straight ADC of an old analog master tape with no editing. In other words, if I don't make any edits but just digitize an analog master tape, then 16bit vs 24bit is transparent.

 

[RRod]

  24bit vs 16bit makes a huge difference in post-production mastering because of bit loss during editing.  Even the most common editing will turn a 16bit file into a 14bit file.  Or worse if there is a lot of manipulation.  This raises the noise floor.  You can see this on a spectrograph.

 
I must say, though, that it's quite an odd-bird track for me that I can successfully ABX at 14bit versus 16bit. Would you say you *hear* a huge difference, however bad the spectra look?

 

[watchnerd]

   
I must say, though, that it's quite an odd-bird track for me that I can successfully ABX at 14bit versus 16bit. Would you say you *hear* a huge difference, however bad the spectra look?

 
14 bit vs 16 bit?  No, I can't.  
 
But that was a minimalist scenario.  Someone who is doing a lot of manipulation, or just doing a poor job of dithering (of 16 bits), can drop it down to 12 bit or even 10 bits, and that I usually can differentiate if it's an acoustic recording.  It's harder with other genres due to masking.
 
The point being:
 
24 bits gives a lot of overhead so that even engineers / producers who go "full retard" still have 8 bits to throw away before dropping to Redbook levels.
 
So, yes, for recording and production, 24 bit is superior to 16 bit.  Nobody really debates this anymore.
 
But playback is a completely different animal.

 

[RRod]

   
14 bit vs 16 bit?  No, I can't.  
 
But that was a minimalist scenario.  Someone who is doing a lot of manipulation, or just doing a poor job of dithering (of 16 bits), can drop it down to 12 bit or even 10 bits, and that I usually can differentiate if it's an acoustic recording.  It's harder with other genres due to masking.
 
The point being:
 
24 bits gives a lot of overhead so that even engineers / producers who go "full retard" still have 8 bits to throw away before dropping to Redbook levels.
 
So, yes, for recording and production, 24 bit is superior to 16 bit.  Nobody really debates this anymore.
 
But playback is a completely different animal.

 
You answered the question I should have asked, which was how many effective bits do you find you can lose due to processing. I have quite a few CDs from the earliest days that sound fantastic, and learning about this stuff has made me appreciate them even more. Makes it all the more sad that even this age of more bits that we've shifted toward the loudness war nonsense.

 

[watchnerd]

   
You answered the question I should have asked, which was how many effective bits do you find you can lose due to processing. I have quite a few CDs from the earliest days that sound fantastic, and learning about this stuff has made me appreciate them even more. Makes it all the more sad that even this age of more bits that we've shifted toward the loudness war nonsense.

 
Losing 4 bits to editing is pretty easy to do.  And, in the case of highly produced studio albums, pretty much unavoidable once you get done combining a bunch of tracks and leveling them.  
 
AAD CDs should be full 16 bits because all the mastering was done in analog so there shouldn't be any bit loss.

 

[upstateguy]

 

   
 
I'm down loading the tracks now....
 
Of course he has something to sell, but he is offering free examples of his music to us for evaluation. 
 
I guess his hope is that we will like what we're  hearing and  join in his attempt to regulate HiRez music to only music that has been recorded in 24/96 or greater,  not upconverted from 16/44.1 or recycled old analog tapes.
 
He claims that his hirez recordings in 24/96 sounds different enough from the CD up-converted material Po no is selling for example, for us to be able to appreciate the quality of his music from the samples.
 
I have nothing to loose, so I'm downloading the samples to see if they actually "sound better", what ever that might mean, than the stuff I have in my music collection.
 
Maybe this is something everyone in SS should do.  It would give us a chance to evaluate and comment  on the same thing.
 
I think you have a really good system of analysis there. 
 
I don't know if I can do it as easily as you describe it, so I'll give it a try,  but I look forward to seeing and discussing your results.
 

 
I record stuff live at 24/96 on a weekly basis, and then master it it into different formats (high res, Red book, MP3), so I don't actually need to take his test.  I'm familiar with the results.
 
Short answer:
 
24bit vs 16bit makes a huge difference in post-production mastering because of bit loss during editing.  Even the most common editing will turn a 16bit file into a 14bit file.  Or worse if there is a lot of manipulation.  This raises the noise floor.  You can see this on a spectrograph.
 
However, that's not true if it's a straight ADC of an old analog master tape with no editing. In other words, if I don't make any edits but just digitize an analog master tape, then 16bit vs 24bit is transparent.

 
If you're saying that an up-converted file, 16/44 to 24/96 will sound exactly the same as the 16/44 file, that's the heart of the controversy. 
 
The fellow offering the HiRez samples wants the term HiRez to only apply to files recorded and released in 24/96 or higher and not to include up-converted 16 bit files.  But that's his deal not mine.
 
In your opinion, since you do this on a weekly basis, will one of your finished HiRez 24/96 masters sound exactly the same as your finished Red Book master?
 
How do they look on a spectrograph?  Do they null each other out?