Discussion:
Hi-Rez audio files? Anyone getting into those??
Add Reply
p***@mail.wou.edu
2020-12-18 02:24:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
I have started down the path of downloading Hi-Rez audio files. On the one hand, it seems like a way for companies to get me to buy old favorites once again in a supposedly new and better-sounding format. But some of them do indeed sound really good. But at a premium price - sometimes $20-35 for an album. (I have a SONY HAP-Z digital player.)
Are others getting sucked into the Hi-Rez realm? Any really good finds? Or underwhelming finds?
g***@comcast.net
2020-12-18 03:54:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
I have started down the path of downloading Hi-Rez audio files. On the one
hand, it seems like a way for companies to get me to buy old favorites once
again in a supposedly new and better-sounding format. But some of them do
indeed sound really good. But at a premium price - sometimes $20-35 for an
album. (I have a SONY HAP-Z digital player.)
Are others getting sucked into the Hi-Rez realm? Any really good finds? Or
underwhelming finds?
I was buying recordings from HDTracks for awhile, but stopped because I just
didn’t seem to hear enough of a difference to justify the price. Maybe it
was the recordings that I bought and I’m sure there are recordings that do
show vast improvement with a higher resolution. In addition, my audio system
at the time was ok, but it certainly wasn’t what one would call premium.
But now I stream most of the music I listen to through the Apple Music
service, which makes it even less likely that I am going to pay for downloads
when I have such a huge selection for a small monthly fee.
--
Paul Goodman
Alex Brown
2020-12-18 08:53:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by p***@mail.wou.edu
I have started down the path of downloading Hi-Rez audio files. On the one hand, it seems like a way for companies to get me to buy old favorites once again in a supposedly new and better-sounding format. But some of them do indeed sound really good. But at a premium price - sometimes $20-35 for an album. (I have a SONY HAP-Z digital player.)
Are others getting sucked into the Hi-Rez realm? Any really good finds? Or underwhelming finds?
Yeah - as I posted in another thread I stream high-resolution from
Qobuz. That's "all you can eat" for approx. the price of a single CD per
month.

It's subtle I think, and may just be down to generally better recording
equipment and techniques these days, but some hi-res recordings sound
fantastically present, free and open - particularly from newer labels
like Channel Classics and Alpha. BIS and Naxos also make some
amazing-sounding records. Segerstam conducting Sibelius's Pelleas and
Melisande with the Turku Philharmonic Orchestra, is great, for example.[1]

I'm rather less convinced by old recordings - some of this can, for
sure, benefit from genuine remastering, but just resampling the material
at a higher resolution is probably more a marketing ploy than an audio
advance.

Before Qobuz, I occasionally treated myself to a high-res download from
Presto or eClassical (or wherever had what I wanted cheapest). With the
effective demise of SACD, hi-res files are where it's at for high-end
stereo sound - though the basics of a good acoustic for the recording
and good engineering are still by far the most important factors,
"hi-res" cam be a nice cherry on top.


[1]
https://www.qobuz.com/gb-en/album/sibelius-pelleas-and-melisande-suite-turku-philharmonic-orchestra-leif-segerstam/0747313330171
--
- Alex Brown
mswd...@gmail.com
2020-12-18 22:40:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alex Brown
It's subtle I think, and may just be down to generally better recording
equipment and techniques these days, but some hi-res recordings sound
fantastically present, free and open - particularly from newer labels
like Channel Classics and Alpha. BIS and Naxos also make some
amazing-sounding records. Segerstam conducting Sibelius's Pelleas and
Melisande with the Turku Philharmonic Orchestra, is great, for example.[1]
You are free to believe what you want, but this entire line of thought glosses over the basic question here of whether the audio quality which you ascribe to high-res formats is present in lower-bit-rate files. Such a comparison has nothing to do with current recording equipment and techniques, if the master is the same. Take one of your high-res files and convert it to 16-bit 44.1 khz. Can you hear a difference between those two files? That's all that matters here.
Andrew Clarke
2020-12-19 02:47:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Alex Brown
It's subtle I think, and may just be down to generally better recording
equipment and techniques these days, but some hi-res recordings sound
fantastically present, free and open - particularly from newer labels
like Channel Classics and Alpha. BIS and Naxos also make some
amazing-sounding records. Segerstam conducting Sibelius's Pelleas and
Melisande with the Turku Philharmonic Orchestra, is great, for example.[1]
You are free to believe what you want, but this entire line of thought glosses over the basic question here of whether the audio quality which you ascribe to high-res formats is present in lower-bit-rate files. Such a comparison has nothing to do with current recording equipment and techniques, if the master is the same. Take one of your high-res files and convert it to 16-bit 44.1 khz. Can you hear a difference between those two files? That's all that matters here.
It would be a good deal simpler to buy three downloads of the same recording, assuming they come from the same master: hi-res FLAC, red book FLAC, and MP3 / 360 kbps. Then get somebody else to play them in random order on your home audio set-up while you listen to them. Now see if you can consistently spot which is which. It appears that the vast majority of people just cannot tell.

I suspect that the whole issue segues into the various audiophile questions about interconnects, speaker cables, turntables, etc. You can watch a whole lot of audiophiles on YouTube. Many of them live in Southern California, or, if they don't, would have no difficulty passing the medical to get in. You have been warned.

Andrew Clarke
Canberra
raymond....@gmail.com
2020-12-19 04:33:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Alex Brown
It's subtle I think, and may just be down to generally better recording
equipment and techniques these days, but some hi-res recordings sound
fantastically present, free and open - particularly from newer labels
like Channel Classics and Alpha. BIS and Naxos also make some
amazing-sounding records. Segerstam conducting Sibelius's Pelleas and
Melisande with the Turku Philharmonic Orchestra, is great, for example.[1]
You are free to believe what you want, but this entire line of thought glosses over the basic question here of whether the audio quality which you ascribe to high-res formats is present in lower-bit-rate files. Such a comparison has nothing to do with current recording equipment and techniques, if the master is the same. Take one of your high-res files and convert it to 16-bit 44.1 khz. Can you hear a difference between those two files? That's all that matters here.
It would be a good deal simpler to buy three downloads of the same recording, assuming they come from the same master: hi-res FLAC, red book FLAC, and MP3 / 360 kbps. Then get somebody else to play them in random order on your home audio set-up while you listen to them. Now see if you can consistently spot which is which. It appears that the vast majority of people just cannot tell.
I suspect that the whole issue segues into the various audiophile questions about interconnects, speaker cables, turntables, etc. You can watch a whole lot of audiophiles on YouTube. Many of them live in Southern California, or, if they don't, would have no difficulty passing the medical to get in. You have been warned.
Andrew Clarke
Canberra
I suspect, without any doubt, that "knowing" their gear is the highest Fi, is the very 'raison d'etre' for hi-fi enthusiasts buying supremely expensive gear. Added of course to their ability to con their wives into some sort of acceptance that this gear is essential for the very existence of life, on top of their ability to afford it. If they own pooches, then they might or might not be doing their best friends a favour.

The fall-off from 0dB commencing at about 1kHz increases in slope from the age of 30 accordingly for most people, and is a medical fact.

I'd accept that speaker quality is the most important component wise, and even here there is much subjectivity wrt preferences. Different masters, and different remasterings, are another matter however.

I don't get the Southern CA bit.

Ray Hall, Taree
Andrew Clarke
2020-12-19 10:00:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by ***@gmail.com
I don't get the Southern CA bit.
There are, I am told, some serious weirdos around the place.

It was an American writer and broadcaster - I forget who - who suggested that the authorities should build a very tall fence around the place. Checkpoints would be staffed by qualified psychiatrists whose job would be to stop sane people going in as well as crazy people getting out.

Andrew Clarke
Canberra
Bob Harper
2020-12-20 15:30:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Andrew Clarke
Post by ***@gmail.com
I don't get the Southern CA bit.
There are, I am told, some serious weirdos around the place.
It was an American writer and broadcaster - I forget who - who suggested that the authorities should build a very tall fence around the place. Checkpoints would be staffed by qualified psychiatrists whose job would be to stop sane people going in as well as crazy people getting out.
Andrew Clarke
Canberra
Except, Andrew, that the problem has metastasized, so that there are now
several areas on the West Coast alone that would need a fence and
psychiatrists for the purpose specified :).

Bob Harper
Andrew Clarke
2020-12-21 06:56:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bob Harper
Post by Andrew Clarke
It was an American writer and broadcaster - I forget who - who suggested that the authorities should build a very tall fence around the place. Checkpoints would be staffed by qualified psychiatrists whose job would be to stop sane people going in as well as crazy people getting out.
Andrew Clarke
Canberra
Except, Andrew, that the problem has metastasized, so that there are now
several areas on the West Coast alone that would need a fence and
psychiatrists for the purpose specified :).
Bob Harper
Cf the frequent West German comment post 1989 that the Berlin Wall should have been built twice as high.

Meanwhile Southern California has also been the butt of the joke about how God, having created the USA and finding bits and pieces of debris still lying around, tipped the nation over to one side so that all the superfluous matter ran down to the bottom left-hand corner.

Andrew Clarke
Canberra
Steven Bornfeld
2020-12-24 03:07:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Andrew Clarke
Post by Bob Harper
Post by Andrew Clarke
It was an American writer and broadcaster - I forget who - who suggested that the authorities should build a very tall fence around the place. Checkpoints would be staffed by qualified psychiatrists whose job would be to stop sane people going in as well as crazy people getting out.
Andrew Clarke
Canberra
Except, Andrew, that the problem has metastasized, so that there are now
several areas on the West Coast alone that would need a fence and
psychiatrists for the purpose specified :).
Bob Harper
Cf the frequent West German comment post 1989 that the Berlin Wall should have been built twice as high.
Meanwhile Southern California has also been the butt of the joke about how God, having created the USA and finding bits and pieces of debris still lying around, tipped the nation over to one side so that all the superfluous matter ran down to the bottom left-hand corner.
Andrew Clarke
Canberra
Geez, guys, get with the program. It's been FLORIDA for at least
several years. Do try to keep up!
Alex Brown
2020-12-19 08:24:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
If I could link up a PC with the Qobuz "App" to my main hi-fi, then it's
possible to switch quality mid-stream. So I'd just need somebody to do
that while I was blinded to it.

The 4 quality levels are:

320kbps "MP3"
CD quality
24-bit 96kHz
24-bit 192kHz
--
- Alex Brown
Andrew Clarke
2020-12-19 10:05:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alex Brown
If I could link up a PC with the Qobuz "App" to my main hi-fi, then it's
possible to switch quality mid-stream. So I'd just need somebody to do
that while I was blinded to it.
320kbps "MP3"
CD quality
24-bit 96kHz
24-bit 192kHz
Sadly, neither Ray nor I can perform that particular experiment, as Qobuz is not available in Australia.

Andrew Clarke
Canberra
George M.
2020-12-19 14:33:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alex Brown
If I could link up a PC with the Qobuz "App" to my main hi-fi, then it's
possible to switch quality mid-stream. So I'd just need somebody to do
that while I was blinded to it.
320kbps "MP3"
CD quality
24-bit 96kHz
24-bit 192kHz
--
- Alex Brown
Before even considering a CD quality versus HiRez, let's start at lossless CD quality versus 320kbps MP3 (or ogg -q 9 Spotify highest resolution).

I've done a similar test where I was downsampling from Hirez all the way to 320kbps MP3 and even lower and the conclusions were very interesting.

Few months ago I found a proper ABX test were everything is ready. It makes you repeatedly compare 320kbps MP3 to lossles Flac blindly.

http://abx.digitalfeed.net/

One can do that directly on the phone or computer and cabled headphones (bluetooth is always lossy) or stream to Chromecast and play thru proper audio system.

Its very revealing and objective.
Andrew Clarke
2020-12-21 07:00:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by George M.
Before even considering a CD quality versus HiRez, let's start at lossless CD quality versus 320kbps MP3 (or ogg -q 9 Spotify highest resolution).
I've done a similar test where I was downsampling from Hirez all the way to 320kbps MP3 and even lower and the conclusions were very interesting.
Few months ago I found a proper ABX test were everything is ready. It makes you repeatedly compare 320kbps MP3 to lossles Flac blindly.
http://abx.digitalfeed.net/
One can do that directly on the phone or computer and cabled headphones (bluetooth is always lossy) or stream to Chromecast and play thru proper audio system.
Its very revealing and objective.
Thanks for that, George. I am humbled, but not particularly surprised to learn that it would be pointless for me to buy hi-res recordings. Meanwhile, I'm perfectly happy with AAC.

Andrew Clarke
Canberra
Oscar
2020-12-21 07:35:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Qobuz is fantastic. The best. Big changes ahead for me with regards to hi-res streaming and downloads. Neil Young Archives is incredible, too, if one is keen on his music. But still love playing CDs and LPs and will continue to collect my favorites in physical medium.
Neil
2020-12-21 08:50:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Oscar
Qobuz is fantastic. The best. Big changes ahead for me with regards to hi-res streaming and downloads. Neil Young Archives is incredible, too, if one is keen on his music. But still love playing CDs and LPs and will continue to collect my favorites in physical medium.
Agreed! I've had a subscription for 5 (?) years or so and use it nearly every day.

I just wish Hyperion records could strike some kind of deal with streaming platforms. It's just a question of royalties and revenue. They have a great roster of artists who I suspect put a lot of pressure on Hyperion not to stream.
George M.
2020-12-21 14:13:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Andrew Clarke
Post by George M.
Before even considering a CD quality versus HiRez, let's start at lossless CD quality versus 320kbps MP3 (or ogg -q 9 Spotify highest resolution).
I've done a similar test where I was downsampling from Hirez all the way to 320kbps MP3 and even lower and the conclusions were very interesting.
Few months ago I found a proper ABX test were everything is ready. It makes you repeatedly compare 320kbps MP3 to lossles Flac blindly.
http://abx.digitalfeed.net/
One can do that directly on the phone or computer and cabled headphones (bluetooth is always lossy) or stream to Chromecast and play thru proper audio system.
Its very revealing and objective.
Thanks for that, George. I am humbled, but not particularly surprised to learn that it would be pointless for me to buy hi-res recordings. Meanwhile, I'm perfectly happy with AAC.
Andrew Clarke
Canberra
Same here, although I still continue to download and stream in lossless FLAC. Even if I can only get hi-rez, I immediately down sample to CD quality, there is no sense to waste space and bandwidth.

It is also interesting to note how record companies are charging extra for hi-rez versus CD quality and MP3. Given that they all start from hi-rez post the original recording and downsampling is a rather simple process, what is the reason for the higher price ? The bigger file the more costly ? Total nonsense.
Andrew Clarke
2020-12-22 11:11:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by George M.
Post by Andrew Clarke
Thanks for that, George. I am humbled, but not particularly surprised to learn that it would be pointless for me to buy hi-res recordings. Meanwhile, I'm perfectly happy with AAC.
Andrew Clarke
Canberra
Same here, although I still continue to download and stream in lossless FLAC. Even if I can only get hi-rez, I immediately down sample to CD quality, there is no sense to waste space and bandwidth.
It is also interesting to note how record companies are charging extra for hi-rez versus CD quality and MP3. Given that they all start from hi-rez post the original recording and downsampling is a rather simple process, what is the reason for the higher price ? The bigger file the more costly ? Total nonsense.
It's been suggested that people who install $500,000 worth of audio will always claim that their system really does outperform one that costs $50,000 because nobody is going to want to admit that they spent colossal sums on stuff that makes little or no difference to musical quality, as distinct from such intangibles as "space", "immediacy" etc..

The same criterion may apply to the cost and saleability of downloads.

By way of contrast, I learnt to appreciate music by listening to radiograms or monaural portable gramophones with the loudspeaker in the lid, or medium wave broadcasts on bakelite mantel radios, and so did millions of other people. Not that I'd want to go back to those days of course.

Andrew Clarke
liberating the music from the audiophile since 1969.
MELMOTH
2020-12-22 11:57:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Andrew Clarke
It's been suggested that people who install $500,000 worth of audio will
always claim that their system really does outperform one that costs $50,000
because nobody is going to want to admit that they spent colossal sums on
stuff that makes little or no difference to musical quality, as distinct from
such intangibles as "space", "immediacy" etc..
The higher the quality of the hifi installation, the poorer the
technical quality of the CDs...
Among the #50,000 CDs in my collection, no more than ten percent are
correct and more..
Andrew Clarke
2020-12-22 21:45:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by MELMOTH
The higher the quality of the hifi installation, the poorer the
technical quality of the CDs...
Among the #50,000 CDs in my collection, no more than ten percent are
correct and more..
My Christmas recommendation is that you sell your hifi and replace it with Sony. Spend all the money you make on wine and cocottes, and enjoy 100% of your CD collection.

Andrew Clarke
Canberra
Chris from Lafayette
2020-12-22 20:39:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Andrew Clarke
It's been suggested that people who install $500,000 worth of audio will always claim that their system really does outperform one that costs $50,000 because nobody is going to want to admit that they spent colossal sums on stuff that makes little or no difference to musical quality, as distinct from such intangibles as "space", "immediacy" etc..
The same criterion may apply to the cost and saleability of downloads.
By way of contrast, I learnt to appreciate music by listening to radiograms or monaural portable gramophones with the loudspeaker in the lid, or medium wave broadcasts on bakelite mantel radios, and so did millions of other people. Not that I'd want to go back to those days of course.
Andrew Clarke
liberating the music from the audiophile since 1969.
Lots of sour grapes in this thread!

If you don't think that "intangibles" such as space, immediacy, etc. aren't part of the musical experience and don't make a difference to musical quality, you're incredibly naive. BTW, where has "it" been suggested that people who install $500,000 worth of audio have spent "colossal sums" on "stuff that makes little or no difference to musical quality"? Inquiring minds want to know! (BTW, I've heard such systems and, indeed, they're not always to my taste - that doesn't mean however that trying to achieve the reproduction of musical subtleties is a pursuit worthy of derisive comments, especially since I doubt you have the means yourself actually to know.)
Andrew Clarke
2020-12-22 22:22:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chris from Lafayette
Lots of sour grapes in this thread!
If you don't think that "intangibles" such as space, immediacy, etc. aren't part of the musical experience and don't make a difference to musical quality, you're incredibly naive. BTW, where has "it" been suggested that people who install $500,000 worth of audio have spent "colossal sums" on "stuff that makes little or no difference to musical quality"? Inquiring minds want to know! (BTW, I've heard such systems and, indeed, they're not always to my taste - that doesn't mean however that trying to achieve the reproduction of musical subtleties is a pursuit worthy of derisive comments, especially since I doubt you have the means yourself actually to know.)
Well, Chris, I'd certainly feel a lot more comfortable living here

<https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/704-W-Cleveland-Cir-Lafayette-CO-80026/13263695_zpid/>

rather than here

<https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/1191-Camino-Vallecito-Lafayette-CA-94549/18467582_zpid/>

The comments about "colossal sums" are taken from reviews and blind tests of extremely expensive equipment of dubious value added. Yes, 'space' and 'immediacy' are significant, up to a point, but doesn't the law of diminishing returns apply?

I can say in all sincerity that I don't feel jealous of people who can afford to pay big money on hifi systems. Got no diamonds, got no yacht ...

Andrew Clarke
Canberra
Andrew Clarke
2020-12-23 03:25:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chris from Lafayette
Lots of sour grapes in this thread!
The home of a Lafayette audiophile after the bailiffs took his US$1,000,000 hifi away:

<https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/260-Randolph-Dr_Lafayette_LA_70501_M77930-38612>

Do we really need to pay AUD$539.00 for a power cord or AUD$3,000.00 for a power conditioner or even AUD$2,199 for a DAC?

<https://www.apollohifi.com.au/audio/power-conditioning.html>
<https://www.apollohifi.com.au/audio/digital-analogue-convertor.html>

Andrew Clarke
Canberra
George M.
2020-12-23 15:40:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Andrew Clarke
Post by Chris from Lafayette
Lots of sour grapes in this thread!
<https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/260-Randolph-Dr_Lafayette_LA_70501_M77930-38612>
Do we really need to pay AUD$539.00 for a power cord or AUD$3,000.00 for a power conditioner or even AUD$2,199 for a DAC?
<https://www.apollohifi.com.au/audio/power-conditioning.html>
<https://www.apollohifi.com.au/audio/digital-analogue-convertor.html>
Andrew Clarke
Canberra
No, we don't. Please have a look at the compilation of various ABX and Blind tests for all kinds of audio items including power cords and speaker wires.
Some of the conclusions are hilarrious, especially the ones from Down Under.

https://www.head-fi.org/threads/testing-audiophile-claims-and-myths-the-original-compilation.769887/

Its very clear that the biggest, if not only, sound improvement is achieved in the analog reproduction of the sound: speakers, headphones, record player set up if one is into LP's. The rest is just marketing.
Chris from Lafayette
2020-12-23 19:05:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by George M.
Please have a look at the compilation of various ABX and Blind tests for all kinds of audio items including power cords and speaker wires.
Some of the conclusions are hilarrious, especially the ones from Down Under.
https://www.head-fi.org/threads/testing-audiophile-claims-and-myths-the-original-compilation.769887/
Its very clear that the biggest, if not only, sound improvement is achieved in the analog reproduction of the sound: speakers, headphones, record player set up if one is into LP's. The rest is just marketing.
In general, I agree with your last paragraph, although I feel that you're too doctrinaire about it: yes, the biggest differences among audio components are in the transducer categories, such as speakers and headphones. (I ditched vinyl back in the mid-80's, so I don't care about that category.) However, one can't conclude by any means that these categories are the only ones where audible sound improvements can be achieved and discerned easily. And I would not agree that it's just marketing when it comes to non-transducer categories of equipment, although, yes, listener psychology (influenced by marketing and all kinds of other factors) is one of the least acknowledged factors in how people perceive sound quality.
Andrew Clarke
2020-12-24 07:54:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by George M.
No, we don't. Please have a look at the compilation of various ABX and Blind tests for all kinds of audio items including power cords and speaker wires.
Some of the conclusions are hilarrious, especially the ones from Down Under.
https://www.head-fi.org/threads/testing-audiophile-claims-and-myths-the-original-compilation.769887/
I'm afraid Down Under has changed, George. These days the bored listeners would not get up and down a few beers. They'd open a bottle of a little-known vintage of semillon sauvignon blanc and talk much the same sort of crap about what they were drinking as they would about what they were listening to ...

Andrew Clarke
Canberra
Chris from Lafayette
2020-12-23 18:48:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Andrew Clarke
Post by Chris from Lafayette
Lots of sour grapes in this thread!
<https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/260-Randolph-Dr_Lafayette_LA_70501_M77930-38612>
Do we really need to pay AUD$539.00 for a power cord or AUD$3,000.00 for a power conditioner or even AUD$2,199 for a DAC?
<https://www.apollohifi.com.au/audio/power-conditioning.html>
<https://www.apollohifi.com.au/audio/digital-analogue-convertor.html>
Andrew Clarke
Canberra
Ahem! Confining myself to the 94549 zip code, I'll withhold judgement on that sterling residence in Lafayette, LA which you linked to. As for the other stuff, I'm not into power cords myself, but, because I'm a big fan of MCh, I do have an exaSound e38 8-Ch DAC, which goes for a bit more than AUD$2,199. And yes, I do have a power conditioner. (For music playback, your electricity must be WORTHY - LOL!)

BTW, not all is roses and light in the 94549 zip code - you can hear the coyotes howling at night, and recently, they descended on one of the parking lots at one of our local food stores, where they bit a couple of people getting in and out of their cars!
Andrew Clarke
2020-12-24 02:59:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chris from Lafayette
Post by Andrew Clarke
Post by Chris from Lafayette
Lots of sour grapes in this thread!
<https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/260-Randolph-Dr_Lafayette_LA_70501_M77930-38612>
Do we really need to pay AUD$539.00 for a power cord or AUD$3,000.00 for a power conditioner or even AUD$2,199 for a DAC?
<https://www.apollohifi.com.au/audio/power-conditioning.html>
<https://www.apollohifi.com.au/audio/digital-analogue-convertor.html>
Andrew Clarke
Canberra
Ahem! Confining myself to the 94549 zip code, I'll withhold judgement on that sterling residence in Lafayette, LA which you linked to. As for the other stuff, I'm not into power cords myself, but, because I'm a big fan of MCh, I do have an exaSound e38 8-Ch DAC, which goes for a bit more than AUD$2,199. And yes, I do have a power conditioner. (For music playback, your electricity must be WORTHY - LOL!)
BTW, not all is roses and light in the 94549 zip code - you can hear the coyotes howling at night, and recently, they descended on one of the parking lots at one of our local food stores, where they bit a couple of people getting in and out of their cars!
Well you seem to be doing better than LaFayette, GA, where the only houses for sale are pre-foreclosure auctions. No coyotes in Gordon, ACT but we think we lost a cat to snakebite last year and we nearly burnt down in January.

There is, btw, a power conditioner at the Lafayette, LA house, located in the back yard: there's a photo at the link provided. You really do need one when the only power supply is Gran'paw pedalling away in the shed.

Best wishes and the compliments of the season to all in Lafayette and LaFayette, including the one in Indiana,

Andrew Clarke
Canberra
Chris from Lafayette
2020-12-23 18:32:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Andrew Clarke
Post by Chris from Lafayette
Lots of sour grapes in this thread!
If you don't think that "intangibles" such as space, immediacy, etc. aren't part of the musical experience and don't make a difference to musical quality, you're incredibly naive. BTW, where has "it" been suggested that people who install $500,000 worth of audio have spent "colossal sums" on "stuff that makes little or no difference to musical quality"? Inquiring minds want to know! (BTW, I've heard such systems and, indeed, they're not always to my taste - that doesn't mean however that trying to achieve the reproduction of musical subtleties is a pursuit worthy of derisive comments, especially since I doubt you have the means yourself actually to know.)
Well, Chris, I'd certainly feel a lot more comfortable living here
<https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/704-W-Cleveland-Cir-Lafayette-CO-80026/13263695_zpid/>
rather than here
<https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/1191-Camino-Vallecito-Lafayette-CA-94549/18467582_zpid/>
Touche, Andrew! I live in the 94549 zip code myself - but rest assured I live in the slum section of Lafayette, CA!
Post by Andrew Clarke
The comments about "colossal sums" are taken from reviews and blind tests of extremely expensive equipment of dubious value added. Yes, 'space' and 'immediacy' are significant, up to a point, but doesn't the law of diminishing returns apply?
Yes, I too am a believer in the law of diminishing returns - nevertheless, I'm not going to begrudge people their quest for ever higher resolution and closeness to all the subtleties of the musical performance.
Post by Andrew Clarke
I can say in all sincerity that I don't feel jealous of people who can afford to pay big money on hifi systems. Got no diamonds, got no yacht ...
I don't either - though I suppose some may feel that my Mark Levinson 534 amplifier is overkill. And indeed, I have a bit of buyer's remorse: the dam' thing is so heavy that I have to call my son to come over and help me if I want to move it anyplace!
Post by Andrew Clarke
Andrew Clarke
Canberra
Owen
2020-12-24 02:12:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Andrew Clarke
Post by Chris from Lafayette
Lots of sour grapes in this thread!
If you don't think that "intangibles" such as space, immediacy, etc. aren't part of the musical experience and don't make a difference to musical quality, you're incredibly naive. BTW, where has "it" been suggested that people who install $500,000 worth of audio have spent "colossal sums" on "stuff that makes little or no difference to musical quality"? Inquiring minds want to know! (BTW, I've heard such systems and, indeed, they're not always to my taste - that doesn't mean however that trying to achieve the reproduction of musical subtleties is a pursuit worthy of derisive comments, especially since I doubt you have the means yourself actually to know.)
Well, Chris, I'd certainly feel a lot more comfortable living here
<https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/704-W-Cleveland-Cir-Lafayette-CO-80026/13263695_zpid/>
rather than here
<https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/1191-Camino-Vallecito-Lafayette-CA-94549/18467582_zpid/>
The comments about "colossal sums" are taken from reviews and blind tests of extremely expensive equipment of dubious value added. Yes, 'space' and 'immediacy' are significant, up to a point, but doesn't the law of diminishing returns apply?
I can say in all sincerity that I don't feel jealous of people who can afford to pay big money on hifi systems. Got no diamonds, got no yacht ...
Speaking of home prices, my home town, Fall River, MA, went trending on
Twitter today because somebody posted this price comparison of a
similarly priced house in California:



https://twitter.com/hunterreis/status/1341119601434710016?s=20

-Owen
Frank Berger
2020-12-24 03:56:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wednesday, December 23, 2020 at 7:39:24 AM UTC+11,
Post by Chris from Lafayette
Lots of sour grapes in this thread!
If you don't think that "intangibles" such as space,
immediacy, etc. aren't part of the musical experience and
don't make a difference to musical quality, you're
incredibly naive. BTW, where has "it" been suggested that
people who install $500,000 worth of audio have spent
"colossal sums" on "stuff that makes little or no
difference to musical quality"? Inquiring minds want to
know! (BTW, I've heard such systems and, indeed, they're
not always to my taste - that doesn't mean however that
trying to achieve the reproduction of musical subtleties
is a pursuit worthy of derisive comments, especially
since I doubt you have the means yourself actually to know.)
Well, Chris, I'd certainly feel a lot more comfortable
living here
<https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/704-W-Cleveland-Cir-Lafayette-CO-80026/13263695_zpid/>
rather than here
<https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/1191-Camino-Vallecito-Lafayette-CA-94549/18467582_zpid/>
The comments about "colossal sums" are taken from reviews
and blind tests of extremely expensive equipment of
dubious value added. Yes, 'space' and 'immediacy' are
significant, up to a point, but doesn't the law of
diminishing returns apply?
I can say in all sincerity that I don't feel jealous of
people who can afford to pay big money on hifi systems.
Got no diamonds, got no yacht ...
Speaking of home prices, my home town, Fall River, MA,  went
trending on Twitter today because somebody posted this price
https://twitter.com/hunterreis/status/1341119601434710016?s=20
-Owen
Few things annoy me as much as this sort of thing. Like
everybody wants to judge the "rightness" of this home's
price vs that home's price. It is what it is. California
has certain amenities (which are obvious) that would cause
lots of people to want to live there. Suppose by magic,
that California house, and all California houses, fell to
the "right" level compared to the MA house (and other
non-California houses). The mass migration to California
that would occur is almost unimaginable. The price
differential is necessary to avoid the country tipping
California into the ocean from the weight of excess people.

Another thing that drives me batty is the surveys of the
best or worst places to live, retire or whatnot. Like the
people who live in one of the worst places, upon reading the
article, are going to slap themselves in the head and move
somewhere else.
Andrew Clarke
2020-12-24 05:22:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Andrew Clarke
Post by Chris from Lafayette
Lots of sour grapes in this thread!
If you don't think that "intangibles" such as space, immediacy, etc. aren't part of the musical experience and don't make a difference to musical quality, you're incredibly naive. BTW, where has "it" been suggested that people who install $500,000 worth of audio have spent "colossal sums" on "stuff that makes little or no difference to musical quality"? Inquiring minds want to know! (BTW, I've heard such systems and, indeed, they're not always to my taste - that doesn't mean however that trying to achieve the reproduction of musical subtleties is a pursuit worthy of derisive comments, especially since I doubt you have the means yourself actually to know.)
Well, Chris, I'd certainly feel a lot more comfortable living here
<https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/704-W-Cleveland-Cir-Lafayette-CO-80026/13263695_zpid/>
rather than here
<https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/1191-Camino-Vallecito-Lafayette-CA-94549/18467582_zpid/>
The comments about "colossal sums" are taken from reviews and blind tests of extremely expensive equipment of dubious value added. Yes, 'space' and 'immediacy' are significant, up to a point, but doesn't the law of diminishing returns apply?
I can say in all sincerity that I don't feel jealous of people who can afford to pay big money on hifi systems. Got no diamonds, got no yacht ...
Speaking of home prices, my home town, Fall River, MA, went trending on
Twitter today because somebody posted this price comparison of a
https://twitter.com/hunterreis/status/1341119601434710016?s=20
-Owen
Why would a house with 6 bedrooms need 7 bathrooms? Or are a couple of the bathrooms what in British and Australian English we used to call "toilets" = e.g. small room contailing a lavatory and maybe a washbasin?

Andrew Clarke
Canberra
Alan Dawes
2020-12-24 12:36:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Andrew Clarke
Why would a house with 6 bedrooms need 7 bathrooms? Or are a couple of
the bathrooms what in British and Australian English we used to call
"toilets" = e.g. small room contailing a lavatory and maybe a washbasin?
You don't want the servants using your bathroom :-)
That's only partly in jest - my mum was "in service" ie a servant from age
14 until she married. See:

http://www.alandawes.co.uk/Mum_in_service.pdf

Alan
--
***@argonet.co.uk
***@riscos.org
Using an ARMX6
Bob Harper
2020-12-27 17:29:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alan Dawes
Post by Andrew Clarke
Why would a house with 6 bedrooms need 7 bathrooms? Or are a couple of
the bathrooms what in British and Australian English we used to call
"toilets" = e.g. small room contailing a lavatory and maybe a washbasin?
You don't want the servants using your bathroom :-)
That's only partly in jest - my mum was "in service" ie a servant from age
http://www.alandawes.co.uk/Mum_in_service.pdf
Alan
Thanks, Alan. Fascinating--a whole different world.

Bob Harper
mswd...@gmail.com
2020-12-27 23:11:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Never mind high-res- can you consistently tell the difference between redbook uncompressed and two compressed formats?

https://www.npr.org/sections/therecord/2015/06/02/411473508/how-well-can-you-hear-audio-quality

I could hear differences between the first two tracks I compared, but couldn't tell which was more truthful/the least modified by compression. My picks were of the lowest-quality file. After that, I got the best track 3 out of the rest 4. But I can't say the difference between the files was one of quality, so much as sound. Looking forward to trying this using my better headphones.
mswd...@gmail.com
2020-12-28 15:32:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by ***@gmail.com
Never mind high-res- can you consistently tell the difference between redbook uncompressed and two compressed formats?
https://www.npr.org/sections/therecord/2015/06/02/411473508/how-well-can-you-hear-audio-quality
Even on my best headphones with EQ'd sound my results weren't much different from a random spray. I did get the uncompressed file for the single classical track, though.
Chris from Lafayette
2020-12-29 00:54:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by ***@gmail.com
Never mind high-res- can you consistently tell the difference between redbook uncompressed and two compressed formats?
https://www.npr.org/sections/therecord/2015/06/02/411473508/how-well-can-you-hear-audio-quality
Even on my best headphones with EQ'd sound my results weren't much different from a random spray. I did get the uncompressed file for the single classical track, though.
Actually, that's a pretty notorious test you're linking to: it's lacking in any detailed presentation of their methodology, and it's stacked in favor of wrong answers (i.e., since there are three selections, you have twice the chance of getting a wrong answer as getting a right one!). As for the selections themselves, five of the six (i.e., everything except the Perahia/Mozart recording) come from the pop world of highly processed (and likely compressed) "dweeb in the control room" control of the finished product - and NPR is going to base conclusions on those kinds of synthetic recordings? And even the Perahia recording is just plain old CD resolution, whereas, in 2015, when this article appeared, the studio masters were usually 24/96, or, at the very least, 24/48. Moreover, they don't say what the resolution of each file they started with was: IOW, they could have started with a lower rez recording and "upsampled" it to higher rez. In this case, would the "higher rez" recording sound different? Of course not! All that would happen in that case is that you'd be hearing a lower rez recording in a higher rez "container".

To have a valid test, you'd have to use actual undoctored, uncompressed, WELL RECORDED hi-rez recordings to start with - at the very least!

If I didn't know better, I'd almost say that NPR had a thumb on the scale in order to get the results they wanted with this "test" - you know, kind of like how they tip the scales with their news and political reporting to convey the messaging they want! ;-)
mswd...@gmail.com
2020-12-29 13:33:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chris from Lafayette
Actually, that's a pretty notorious test you're linking to: it's lacking in any detailed presentation of their methodology, and it's stacked in favor of wrong answers (i.e., since there are three selections, you have twice the chance of getting a wrong answer as getting a right one!).
There's some mind-rot happening if someone is complaining that a multiple-choice test has more wrong answers than right. Do you recall any where that wasn't the case?

However interesting your comments that follow, both of these offerings suggest to me that it is possible to lose oneself in the details and reach for a methodology that is baroque, unhelpful, and most importantly never anything more than imagined. This is a test that could be "improved" by anyone who objects to this particular methodology (i.e. without technical disclosure) with a minimum of effort. Or perhaps the test doesn't work right because my computer doesn't have a thousand-dollar power cable?
Chris from Lafayette
2020-12-30 19:15:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Chris from Lafayette
Actually, that's a pretty notorious test you're linking to: it's lacking in any detailed presentation of their methodology, and it's stacked in favor of wrong answers (i.e., since there are three selections, you have twice the chance of getting a wrong answer as getting a right one!).
There's some mind-rot happening if someone is complaining that a multiple-choice test has more wrong answers than right. Do you recall any where that wasn't the case?
Indeed there is some mind rot happening! If you're devising a test to determine whether people can determine whether they're listening to a higher-rez source, then why throw in the additional confusions of additional selections? You're fine with 3 selections per question? How about 5? Or 10?. . . or 25? No - if you're trying to determine whether someone can hear a difference between sources, then limit the choices to 2. As soon as you introduce 3, then you start thinking in terms of the differences not only between 1 and 2, but also between 1and 3, and 2 and 3. (And it of course gets worse with every additional choice per question.) And, yes, I've read of many tests which were set up as binary choices.
Post by ***@gmail.com
However interesting your comments that follow, both of these offerings suggest to me that it is possible to lose oneself in the details and reach for a methodology that is baroque, unhelpful, and most importantly never anything more than imagined. This is a test that could be "improved" by anyone who objects to this particular methodology (i.e. without technical disclosure) with a minimum of effort. Or perhaps the test doesn't work right because my computer doesn't have a thousand-dollar power cable?
Ha-ha! Ooh - I got your reference to the "thousand-dollar" power cable. Those audiophiles must be real "kooks", huh? Hey - all I want is a test whose results will have some validity - not that stupid NPR exercise.
mswd...@gmail.com
2020-12-30 20:18:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Chris from Lafayette
Actually, that's a pretty notorious test you're linking to: it's lacking in any detailed presentation of their methodology, and it's stacked in favor of wrong answers (i.e., since there are three selections, you have twice the chance of getting a wrong answer as getting a right one!).
There's some mind-rot happening if someone is complaining that a multiple-choice test has more wrong answers than right. Do you recall any where that wasn't the case?
Indeed there is some mind rot happening! If you're devising a test to determine whether people can determine whether they're listening to a higher-rez source, then why throw in the additional confusions of additional selections? You're fine with 3 selections per question? How about 5? Or 10?. . . or 25? No - if you're trying to determine whether someone can hear a difference between sources, then limit the choices to 2. As soon as you introduce 3, then you start thinking in terms of the differences not only between 1 and 2, but also between 1and 3, and 2 and 3. (And it of course gets worse with every additional choice per question.) And, yes, I've read of many tests which were set up as binary choices.
Three choices is reasonably useful as a test. Presuming you have time, there is nothing stopping you from taking an A-B-C choice and attacking it as (A-B)(A-C)(B-C). The cost in terms of test validity is none-it just takes more time. This kind of scenario actually gives the test-taker an advantage, because the individual can loop back and review answers that are logically in conflict. Applying that level of rigor to a test with more choices would become exponentially burdensome, obviously. The only relevant question is whether thee choices is inhibitive. It isn't. Sure, a two-choice test might also work. But in order to judge whether you can tell the difference between each file format (uncompressed, compressed with max quality, compressed with mid-quality) you'd need three different tests. This one makes all that available at once. You just don't know which test you are taking if you imagine it as an (A-B)(B-C)(A-C) series.
Ha-ha! Ooh - I got your reference to the "thousand-dollar" power cable. Those audiophiles must be real "kooks", huh? Hey - all I want is a test whose results will have some validity - not that stupid NPR exercise.
You can call the NPR page stupid, but you've the one who has failed to demonstrate any serious flaw with the test as offered. Suggesting that the thing doesn't even have "some validity" is really trying too hard. And it avoids the ugly question of "can you hear any difference or not"? If you can't, and doubt NPR's methodology for this, you could likely create your own test that could be carried out with a few friends if you were careful enough. What's stopping you?
Chris from Lafayette
2021-01-03 20:38:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by ***@gmail.com
Three choices is reasonably useful as a test. Presuming you have time, there is nothing stopping you from taking an A-B-C choice and attacking it as (A-B)(A-C)(B-C). The cost in terms of test validity is none-it just takes more time. This kind of scenario actually gives the test-taker an advantage, because the individual can loop back and review answers that are logically in conflict. Applying that level of rigor to a test with more choices would become exponentially burdensome, obviously. The only relevant question is whether thee choices is inhibitive. It isn't. Sure, a two-choice test might also work. But in order to judge whether you can tell the difference between each file format (uncompressed, compressed with max quality, compressed with mid-quality) you'd need three different tests. This one makes all that available at once. You just don't know which test you are taking if you imagine it as an (A-B)(B-C)(A-C) series.
Oh dear! We've got some smokescreen argumentation going on here. The only thing which is stopping me from taking that NPR test is the sheer uselessness of it! The thing's a mess!
Post by ***@gmail.com
You can call the NPR page stupid, but you've the one who has failed to demonstrate any serious flaw with the test as offered. Suggesting that the thing doesn't even have "some validity" is really trying too hard. And it avoids the ugly question of "can you hear any difference or not"? If you can't, and doubt NPR's methodology for this, you could likely create your own test that could be carried out with a few friends if you were careful enough. What's stopping you?
I guess you didn't read my previous posts very carefully. The most important flaw with this test is that NPR failed to lay out their methodology and state in detail what kind of files they were using and how they were derived - as well as using highly processed pop selections for which one doesn't even have a basis in reality for knowing what they should sound like.
mswd...@gmail.com
2021-01-04 18:34:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chris from Lafayette
Post by ***@gmail.com
Three choices is reasonably useful as a test. Presuming you have time, there is nothing stopping you from taking an A-B-C choice and attacking it as (A-B)(A-C)(B-C). The cost in terms of test validity is none-it just takes more time. This kind of scenario actually gives the test-taker an advantage, because the individual can loop back and review answers that are logically in conflict. Applying that level of rigor to a test with more choices would become exponentially burdensome, obviously. The only relevant question is whether thee choices is inhibitive. It isn't. Sure, a two-choice test might also work. But in order to judge whether you can tell the difference between each file format (uncompressed, compressed with max quality, compressed with mid-quality) you'd need three different tests. This one makes all that available at once. You just don't know which test you are taking if you imagine it as an (A-B)(B-C)(A-C) series.
Oh dear! We've got some smokescreen argumentation going on here. The only thing which is stopping me from taking that NPR test is the sheer uselessness of it! The thing's a mess!
Your criticisms at this point amount to name-calling. It's the kind of argument suited to those that agree with you because it offers nothing by way of convincing detail.
Post by Chris from Lafayette
Post by ***@gmail.com
You can call the NPR page stupid, but you've the one who has failed to demonstrate any serious flaw with the test as offered. Suggesting that the thing doesn't even have "some validity" is really trying too hard. And it avoids the ugly question of "can you hear any difference or not"? If you can't, and doubt NPR's methodology for this, you could likely create your own test that could be carried out with a few friends if you were careful enough. What's stopping you?
I guess you didn't read my previous posts very carefully. The most important flaw with this test is that NPR failed to lay out their methodology and state in detail what kind of files they were using and how they were derived - as well as using highly processed pop selections for which one doesn't even have a basis in reality for knowing what they should sound like.
For you it doesn't really matter that the test is invalid (although you clearly want the satisfaction of making others think that), because you don't have any interest in the question. If you did, you could just as well craft a better (by your standards) test and with the help of a friend, actually find out if you can hear the difference between different file formats. What is stopping you?
Chris from Lafayette
2021-01-04 21:40:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Chris from Lafayette
The only thing which is stopping me from taking that NPR test is the sheer uselessness of it! The thing's a mess!
Your criticisms at this point amount to name-calling. It's the kind of argument suited to those that agree with you because it offers nothing by way of convincing detail.
And I'm not impressed by your editorial comments. I've gone over the detail a couple of times now - in fact in the very same post. You aren't convinced - that's fine. But you've admitted that you're old and can't hear high frequencies. So I'll take your comments for what they're worth.
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Chris from Lafayette
The most important flaw with this test is that NPR failed to lay out their methodology and state in detail what kind of files they were using and how they were derived - as well as using highly processed pop selections for which one doesn't even have a basis in reality for knowing what they should sound like.
For you it doesn't really matter that the test is invalid (although you clearly want the satisfaction of making others think that), because you don't have any interest in the question. If you did, you could just as well craft a better (by your standards) test and with the help of a friend, actually find out if you can hear the difference between different file formats. What is stopping you?
Oh - so now you're a psychologist too and can determine what does and doesn't matter to me? OK, so let's have it your way: what if I did arrange with a friend to set up some kind of test like you propose. And suppose I reported back that I passed all the parts of the test with flying colors. Would you believe me? Frankly, if you did the same thing, I'd still be skeptical. It's a useless suggestion. And BTW, these types of "single-blind" tests are generally not considered useful in other fields of science either. And it's also generally VERY difficult to set up a double-blind test properly, where NO ONE (test subject or test deviser) knows which selection is being played, the playback levels are matched adequately (very hard!), the musical sources actually contain different levels of resolution (i.e., the nominally higher-rez files ARE actually higher-rez), etc. You can keep insisting on your test all you want, but it won't make the basic problems with it go away.
mswd...@gmail.com
2021-01-05 02:38:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chris from Lafayette
And I'm not impressed by your editorial comments. I've gone over the detail a couple of times now - in fact in the very same post. You aren't convinced - that's fine. But you've admitted that you're old and can't hear high frequencies. So I'll take your comments for what they're worth.
Convinced by what? You've offered a patchwork of comments that don't cohere into anything approaching a clear argument. My argument, which you have failed to answer at all, is that it may not be possible to perceive differences between file formats- High-res, lossless redbook, and MP3 that are derived from the same master. You've offered next to nothing- the claim that the NPR test is too flawed to be instructive, the idea that some people might be able to tell the difference, and so forth. You refused to consider the idea or test it. You hve a firm commitment to your religion that there aural differences between these formats, though you can't offer a description of what those might be. Your advocacy is utterly incoherent. You insisting that "I have my mind made up" also misses the point. You are the one with a firm set of beliefs, and you keep grasping at straws to back up the idea that somehow, more data = better sound.
Post by Chris from Lafayette
Oh - so now you're a psychologist too and can determine what does and doesn't matter to me?
The people you talk to have every reason to hope you'll to be clear about what matters to you. It is not presumptive at this point for me to expect anything else. Tell me I'm wrong, but don't play the fool and act like I don't have a good reason to think I know where you are coming from.
Post by Chris from Lafayette
OK, so let's have it your way: what if I did arrange with a friend to set up some kind of test like you propose. And suppose I reported back that I passed all the parts of the test with flying colors. Would you believe me? Frankly, if you did the same thing, I'd still be skeptical. It's a useless suggestion.
No, it's not useless. That's the part of your argument that I respect the least. Claiming over and over that there are reasons we can't possibly measure, that those who try to measure are wrong, and so nobody should try, least of all you. Oh, double-blind tests are just far too complicated, so I won't try. Any flaw negates all results, etc. etc. That is a religion, nothing more.
Post by Chris from Lafayette
And BTW, these types of "single-blind" tests are generally not considered useful in other fields of science either. And it's also generally VERY difficult to set up a double-blind test properly, where NO ONE (test subject or test deviser) knows which selection is being played, the playback levels are matched adequately (very hard!), the musical sources actually contain different levels of resolution (i.e., the nominally higher-rez files ARE actually higher-rez), etc. You can keep insisting on your test all you want, but it won't make the basic problems with it go away.
I don't get it- if measurable certainty is so impossibe to come by how can you possibly be so confident in your own belief that high-res is definitely better sounding? All you've got is "because that is what I hear." And that is a joke.
mswd...@gmail.com
2020-12-29 13:41:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chris from Lafayette
To have a valid test, you'd have to use actual undoctored, uncompressed, WELL RECORDED hi-rez recordings to start with - at the very least!
Both consumers and designers of compression algorithms have been doing precisely this for decades. It's not only valid to start with a CD-quality uncompressed file, but it's the point.
mswd...@gmail.com
2020-12-29 16:16:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chris from Lafayette
To have a valid test, you'd have to use actual undoctored, uncompressed, WELL RECORDED hi-rez recordings to start with - at the very least!
It occurs to me that this sentence is the tautology of the high-res religion. Everything else is unproven and too complicated to measure; the one essential thing is a high-res file.
Chris from Lafayette
2020-12-30 19:36:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Chris from Lafayette
To have a valid test, you'd have to use actual undoctored, uncompressed, WELL RECORDED hi-rez recordings to start with - at the very least!
Both consumers and designers of compression algorithms have been doing precisely this for decades.
So. . . just exactly what kind of compression are you in favor of? Frequency compression? Dynamic compression? File compression? You tell me. Every one of these types of compression (except for lossless file compression) takes us another step AWAY from the subtleties of the original musical performance. Are you happy with that? Do you hear all you need to hear with such compression?
Post by ***@gmail.com
It's not only valid to start with a CD-quality uncompressed file, but it's the point.
Yeah, it COULD be valid if the test were designed properly (which the NPR test was not), but it tells me something that you're content with maxing out at 40+-year-old resolution - which has been superseded for over 20 of those years (by higher-rez PCM and DSD), not least because the engineers in the studios can sense the superiority of these higher-rez formats, even if the unwashed masses can't.
mswd...@gmail.com
2020-12-30 20:39:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chris from Lafayette
So. . . just exactly what kind of compression are you in favor of? Frequency compression? Dynamic compression? File compression? You tell me. Every one of these types of compression (except for lossless file compression) takes us another step AWAY from the subtleties of the original musical performance. Are you happy with that? Do you hear all you need to hear with such compression?
You're asking me this as if my mind should be made up, but the only way you will really know is listening and testing. I am open to the possibility that technical differences are not within the realm of my perception.
I don't know why you've brought up frequency compression and dynamic compression. We're not discussing either at the moment, since MP3 file compression affects neither when you are starting wiht a Redbook-quality file to begin with. (I'm not calling frequency filtering "compression". That's a different matter.)
Post by Chris from Lafayette
Post by ***@gmail.com
It's not only valid to start with a CD-quality uncompressed file, but it's the point.
Yeah, it COULD be valid if the test were designed properly (which the NPR test was not), but it tells me something that you're content with maxing out at 40+-year-old resolution - which has been superseded for over 20 of those years (by higher-rez PCM and DSD), not least because the engineers in the studios can sense the superiority of these higher-rez formats, even if the unwashed masses can't.
You've got the religion: "new file formats are technically superior, so older files (and compressed files) must be audibly inferior." You've got nothing to back up your embrace of high-res- nothing except a firm belief that more bits, more data, is audibly relevant. You can't even show some modesty and offer out that that some of us may have ears of an age that would make the difference between new and older formats irrelevant. Try reaching for something real and credible instead of sloppily suggesting that anyone who doesn't buy into your concerns is one of the "unwashed masses". That's just sloppy, Chris. There is no doubt that formats with more data are better for producing and editing. The question is whether those technical advantages are audible in most playback situations. Do I know? No. I do know that I may have trouble distinguishing between CD-quality and MP3 files. It's a wise thing to consider when it comes to the question of where my money might be best spent.
Todd Michel McComb
2020-12-30 20:57:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Some anecdotes....

I think I mentioned I recently got some updated audio equipment.

Where I really see the practical increase in clarity is with new
recordings of new music. That's what drove me to find my old
equipment to be inadequate. Some of the new recordings are really
great technically. Some are not. (The median is certainly improved
though.)

But have I seen gains everywhere? No. E.g. one series I wanted
to hear better is the Xenakis orchestral set on Timpani. No
significant improvement. Perhaps a newly mastered release would
be improved. Perhaps it wouldn't.

And then I have a lot of noisy old recordings that are basically
just as well on mp3. In fact, I would say that matching the quality
of encoding & playback equipment to the quality of the recording
itself is probably more often suitable than simply going for the
best technical specs on old recordings. I've found myself thinking
that some old noisy recordings sounded better on tinny computer
speakers & generic DAC. (Whereas some other stuff I can find to
be very frustrating in such an environment.)
mswd...@gmail.com
2020-12-31 15:13:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
I was just comparing Ansermet's '59 pictures as saved on my system (320 MP3) from whatever CD I pulled it from (I have the big boxes and any number of other loose discs) against a more recent SACD release in the form of a FLAC file. Admittedly, this isn't an ideal hig-res source, and purists might even argue that SACD isn't high-res enough, or that the FLAC file lose all the high-res magic. Whatever- I can't argue effectively around these points. But in comparing the two files in Audition, there are a few interesting things.

1. The SACD has more high-frequency content. This is immediately clear, at least visually. But I can't hear above 9k, for the most part, so whatever is there doesn't reach my brain.
2. The waveform dynamics are roughly identical until the Great Gate of Kiev, and then the SACD engineers boost the volume considerably over the prior release.
3. Really, how different are the waveforms? Zooming in so we can see the data points, we see that the the waveforms are nearly identical, with the SACD ones occasionally having a slightly shaper edge than the compressed file.

Except for the last item, none of these attributes have anything to do with the higher-res formats. But the differences underscore my suggestion that whatever differences we hear in hig-res files may have more to do with mastering than the inherent nature of technical differences.
Oscar
2021-01-03 05:56:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Last summer I made my most significant hardware equipment investment since a car stereo installation in 2016: new in-ear monitors (IEM) by Empire Ears called the 'Odin'. M.S.R.P. US$3399, which is ridiculous (I got a 10 percent discount: white privilege—kidding!!), but I listen to music in my skull for at least one hour a day, sometimes a few, usually late at night, which is my preferred time for dedicated listening. Odin is a remarkable sound reproducer, especially in the sub-bass and treble. Astonishing with speed, clarity, and a less warm and more clinical sound signature. I love 'em. Granted, one must have the right digital audio player (DAP) _and_ optimal source material in order to retrieve greatest benefit, but 96kHz/24-bit files (at minimum!) paired to something like an Astell&Kern SR15 'Norma' (US$699) does the job well enough for now. I look forward to a DAP upgrade in 2021. Moreover, DSD native reproduction may be achieved via the latest Norma iteration, and it is stunning to behold in the Odins. Ergo, I'm pretty much sold on the hi-res revolution in this new decade that is upon us, which is surely to be the most disruptive in human history, or at least since the 1940s. I'll take some good music and killer earphones to make it a more enjoyable journey. P.S. There are a good many personal earphones and DAPs of eminent quality and affordability made by Chinese companies in China. Check 'em out. I choose to support freedom, democracy and the American way: Empire Ears based in Atlanta (and what you are paying a premium for is their proprietary technology and in-house R&D) and Astell&Kern based in Seoul, South Korea.
Chris from Lafayette
2021-01-03 21:25:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Chris from Lafayette
So. . . just exactly what kind of compression are you in favor of? Frequency compression? Dynamic compression? File compression? You tell me. Every one of these types of compression (except for lossless file compression) takes us another step AWAY from the subtleties of the original musical performance. Are you happy with that? Do you hear all you need to hear with such compression?
You're asking me this as if my mind should be made up, but the only way you will really know is listening and testing. I am open to the possibility that technical differences are not within the realm of my perception.
I don't know why you've brought up frequency compression and dynamic compression. We're not discussing either at the moment, since MP3 file compression affects neither when you are starting wiht a Redbook-quality file to begin with. (I'm not calling frequency filtering "compression". That's a different matter.)
Post by Chris from Lafayette
Post by ***@gmail.com
It's not only valid to start with a CD-quality uncompressed file, but it's the point.
I suggest to check out the article on mp3 on Wikipedia - especially the section under the heading, "Quality". Here's an excerpt: "Some audio is hard to compress because of its randomness and sharp attacks. When this type of audio is compressed, artifacts such as ringing or pre-echo are usually heard. A sample of applause or a triangle instrument with a relatively low bit rate provide good examples of compression artifacts. Most subjective testings of perceptual codecs TEND TO AVOID USING THESE TYPES OF SOUND MATERIALS [my caps]. . . "
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Chris from Lafayette
Yeah, it COULD be valid if the test were designed properly (which the NPR test was not), but it tells me something that you're content with maxing out at 40+-year-old resolution - which has been superseded for over 20 of those years (by higher-rez PCM and DSD), not least because the engineers in the studios can sense the superiority of these higher-rez formats, even if the unwashed masses can't.
You've got the religion: "new file formats are technically superior, so older files (and compressed files) must be audibly inferior." You've got nothing to back up your embrace of high-res- nothing except a firm belief that more bits, more data, is audibly relevant. You can't even show some modesty and offer out that that some of us may have ears of an age that would make the difference between new and older formats irrelevant. Try reaching for something real and credible instead of sloppily suggesting that anyone who doesn't buy into your concerns is one of the "unwashed masses". That's just sloppy, Chris. There is no doubt that formats with more data are better for producing and editing. The question is whether those technical advantages are audible in most playback situations. Do I know? No. I do know that I may have trouble distinguishing between CD-quality and MP3 files. It's a wise thing to consider when it comes to the question of where my money might be best spent.
The fact remains that those who work in the music studios for a living do not use even plain old CD quality files for new recordings these days - even if the release is destined for CD. "You can't even show some modesty and offer out that that some of us may have ears of an age that would make the difference between new and older formats irrelevant." I certainly didn't volunteer that sentiment, but I'm happy to acknowledge it! After all, it's the unwashed masses who can't hear the difference between an mp3 file and a CD-quality file. It's just the truth - nothing "sloppy" about it! ;-)

OK - Sorry for poking fun at your assertions, but, seriously, many listeners can be TRAINED to discern the difference between lossy, CD-quality, and hi-rez sound file formats. All you need is some spectrum analysis software (some of which you can download for free, such as "Spek"). You can then learn to CORRELATE what you hear with what the spectrum analysis software objectively shows is actually there in a given file. Believe me, it's surprising sometimes.
mswd...@gmail.com
2021-01-04 19:05:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chris from Lafayette
I suggest to check out the article on mp3 on Wikipedia - especially the section under the heading, "Quality". Here's an excerpt: "Some audio is hard to compress because of its randomness and sharp attacks. When this type of audio is compressed, artifacts such as ringing or pre-echo are usually heard. A sample of applause or a triangle instrument with a relatively low bit rate provide good examples of compression artifacts. Most subjective testings of perceptual codecs TEND TO AVOID USING THESE TYPES OF SOUND MATERIALS [my caps]. . . "
I've no idea what you think you are offering here. We aren't involved in a test of more than one compression codec here. This is about compression vs lossless and the question of whether the difference between them can be heard. I know you want to say that the only valid test is one that starts with a high-res master of some "clearly defined" quality, but it apears you can't put into words why that actually matters.

If the above appears to say anything, it suggests that a poorly-chosen track can produce more artifacts under various compression schemes than another. For the NPR test, that would be a good thing- it would make it far more easy to spot the compressed file, and make clear the superiority of lossless over compressed MP3. Isn't that your preferred result here?
Post by Chris from Lafayette
The fact remains that those who work in the music studios for a living do not use even plain old CD quality files for new recordings these days - even if the release is destined for CD. "You can't even show some modesty and offer out that that some of us may have ears of an age that would make the difference between new and older formats irrelevant." I certainly didn't volunteer that sentiment, but I'm happy to acknowledge it! After all, it's the unwashed masses who can't hear the difference between an mp3 file and a CD-quality file. It's just the truth - nothing "sloppy" about it! ;-)
There are good reasons to work with high-res wide-spectrum files when editing. That has no relevance here.
Post by Chris from Lafayette
OK - Sorry for poking fun at your assertions, but, seriously, many listeners can be TRAINED to discern the difference between lossy, CD-quality, and hi-rez sound file formats.
Dude, I don't care one way or another if you are "poking fun". I just want you to write something with probity instead of reaching for any old thing that you think supports your notion that high-res is better.
People can be trained? Possibly true- not what we are talking about here. The question is "can YOU really hear a difference?"
Post by Chris from Lafayette
All you need is some spectrum analysis software (some of which you can download for free, such as "Spek"). You can then learn to CORRELATE what you hear with what the spectrum analysis software objectively shows is actually there in a given file. Believe me, it's surprising sometimes.
Between Redbook and MP3 files derived from the same master, you're going to hear and see frequency differences- is that really what you are saying here?
Chris from Lafayette
2021-01-04 22:08:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Chris from Lafayette
I suggest to check out the article on mp3 on Wikipedia - especially the section under the heading, "Quality". Here's an excerpt: "Some audio is hard to compress because of its randomness and sharp attacks. When this type of audio is compressed, artifacts such as ringing or pre-echo are usually heard. A sample of applause or a triangle instrument with a relatively low bit rate provide good examples of compression artifacts. Most subjective testings of perceptual codecs TEND TO AVOID USING THESE TYPES OF SOUND MATERIALS [my caps]. . . "
I've no idea what you think you are offering here. We aren't involved in a test of more than one compression codec here. This is about compression vs lossless and the question of whether the difference between them can be heard. I know you want to say that the only valid test is one that starts with a high-res master of some "clearly defined" quality, but it apears you can't put into words why that actually matters.
This is getting hopeless, because we don't even seem to have a common vocabulary. So let's just go back to that little NPR test. Do you think it MIGHT make a slight difference in results that one file may have been compressed just slightly, while another file may have been compressed a great deal (again, talking lossy compression)? What kind of compression was NPR using anyway? (Hint: they don't say!) I mean, do you think that there's only one kind of compression? The reason we need clearly defined compression and file types (as well as clearly defined resolution for our higher-rez files) is that, theoretically, we're trying to find out if the differences in these compression levels and file types (some lossy, some lossless, some hi-rez) are audible. Right?
Post by ***@gmail.com
If the above appears to say anything, it suggests that a poorly-chosen track can produce more artifacts under various compression schemes than another. For the NPR test, that would be a good thing- it would make it far more easy to spot the compressed file, and make clear the superiority of lossless over compressed MP3. Isn't that your preferred result here?
I don't have a preferred result. I will say however that I'd consider the track to be poorly chosen if it didn't have enough information on it to reveal whether it was compressed or not (and once again I'm talking about lossy compression here).
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Chris from Lafayette
The fact remains that those who work in the music studios for a living do not use even plain old CD quality files for new recordings these days - even if the release is destined for CD. "You can't even show some modesty and offer out that that some of us may have ears of an age that would make the difference between new and older formats irrelevant." I certainly didn't volunteer that sentiment, but I'm happy to acknowledge it! After all, it's the unwashed masses who can't hear the difference between an mp3 file and a CD-quality file. It's just the truth - nothing "sloppy" about it! ;-)
There are good reasons to work with high-res wide-spectrum files when editing. That has no relevance here.
It has great relevance here if its audible!
Post by ***@gmail.com
People can be trained? Possibly true- not what we are talking about here. The question is "can YOU really hear a difference?"
Indeed - And if you can be trained, then eventually even YOU might be able to spot the difference! ;-)
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Chris from Lafayette
All you need is some spectrum analysis software (some of which you can download for free, such as "Spek"). You can then learn to CORRELATE what you hear with what the spectrum analysis software objectively shows is actually there in a given file. Believe me, it's surprising sometimes.
Between Redbook and MP3 files derived from the same master, you're going to hear and see frequency differences- is that really what you are saying here?
Indeed, you can use spectrum analysis software anyway you want to improve your perception. And, yes, you should see frequency and dynamic level differences between lossless and lossy files. (A picture is worth a thousand words!)
Frank Berger
2021-01-04 22:18:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chris from Lafayette
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Chris from Lafayette
I suggest to check out the article on mp3 on Wikipedia - especially the section under the heading, "Quality". Here's an excerpt: "Some audio is hard to compress because of its randomness and sharp attacks. When this type of audio is compressed, artifacts such as ringing or pre-echo are usually heard. A sample of applause or a triangle instrument with a relatively low bit rate provide good examples of compression artifacts. Most subjective testings of perceptual codecs TEND TO AVOID USING THESE TYPES OF SOUND MATERIALS [my caps]. . . "
I've no idea what you think you are offering here. We aren't involved in a test of more than one compression codec here. This is about compression vs lossless and the question of whether the difference between them can be heard. I know you want to say that the only valid test is one that starts with a high-res master of some "clearly defined" quality, but it apears you can't put into words why that actually matters.
This is getting hopeless, because we don't even seem to have a common vocabulary. So let's just go back to that little NPR test. Do you think it MIGHT make a slight difference in results that one file may have been compressed just slightly, while another file may have been compressed a great deal (again, talking lossy compression)? What kind of compression was NPR using anyway? (Hint: they don't say!) I mean, do you think that there's only one kind of compression? The reason we need clearly defined compression and file types (as well as clearly defined resolution for our higher-rez files) is that, theoretically, we're trying to find out if the differences in these compression levels and file types (some lossy, some lossless, some hi-rez) are audible. Right?
Post by ***@gmail.com
If the above appears to say anything, it suggests that a poorly-chosen track can produce more artifacts under various compression schemes than another. For the NPR test, that would be a good thing- it would make it far more easy to spot the compressed file, and make clear the superiority of lossless over compressed MP3. Isn't that your preferred result here?
I don't have a preferred result. I will say however that I'd consider the track to be poorly chosen if it didn't have enough information on it to reveal whether it was compressed or not (and once again I'm talking about lossy compression here).
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Chris from Lafayette
The fact remains that those who work in the music studios for a living do not use even plain old CD quality files for new recordings these days - even if the release is destined for CD. "You can't even show some modesty and offer out that that some of us may have ears of an age that would make the difference between new and older formats irrelevant." I certainly didn't volunteer that sentiment, but I'm happy to acknowledge it! After all, it's the unwashed masses who can't hear the difference between an mp3 file and a CD-quality file. It's just the truth - nothing "sloppy" about it! ;-)
There are good reasons to work with high-res wide-spectrum files when editing. That has no relevance here.
It has great relevance here if its audible!
Post by ***@gmail.com
People can be trained? Possibly true- not what we are talking about here. The question is "can YOU really hear a difference?"
Indeed - And if you can be trained, then eventually even YOU might be able to spot the difference! ;-)
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Chris from Lafayette
All you need is some spectrum analysis software (some of which you can download for free, such as "Spek"). You can then learn to CORRELATE what you hear with what the spectrum analysis software objectively shows is actually there in a given file. Believe me, it's surprising sometimes.
Between Redbook and MP3 files derived from the same master, you're going to hear and see frequency differences- is that really what you are saying here?
Indeed, you can use spectrum analysis software anyway you want to improve your perception. And, yes, you should see frequency and dynamic level differences between lossless and lossy files. (A picture is worth a thousand words!)
Wait. Are you saying that if I can't hear the difference
between two recordings that if I see a difference in a
spectral analysis that I will then hear a difference?
Chris from Lafayette
2021-01-05 20:16:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Frank Berger
Post by Chris from Lafayette
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Chris from Lafayette
I suggest to check out the article on mp3 on Wikipedia - especially the section under the heading, "Quality". Here's an excerpt: "Some audio is hard to compress because of its randomness and sharp attacks. When this type of audio is compressed, artifacts such as ringing or pre-echo are usually heard. A sample of applause or a triangle instrument with a relatively low bit rate provide good examples of compression artifacts. Most subjective testings of perceptual codecs TEND TO AVOID USING THESE TYPES OF SOUND MATERIALS [my caps]. . . "
I've no idea what you think you are offering here. We aren't involved in a test of more than one compression codec here. This is about compression vs lossless and the question of whether the difference between them can be heard. I know you want to say that the only valid test is one that starts with a high-res master of some "clearly defined" quality, but it apears you can't put into words why that actually matters.
This is getting hopeless, because we don't even seem to have a common vocabulary. So let's just go back to that little NPR test. Do you think it MIGHT make a slight difference in results that one file may have been compressed just slightly, while another file may have been compressed a great deal (again, talking lossy compression)? What kind of compression was NPR using anyway? (Hint: they don't say!) I mean, do you think that there's only one kind of compression? The reason we need clearly defined compression and file types (as well as clearly defined resolution for our higher-rez files) is that, theoretically, we're trying to find out if the differences in these compression levels and file types (some lossy, some lossless, some hi-rez) are audible. Right?
Post by ***@gmail.com
If the above appears to say anything, it suggests that a poorly-chosen track can produce more artifacts under various compression schemes than another. For the NPR test, that would be a good thing- it would make it far more easy to spot the compressed file, and make clear the superiority of lossless over compressed MP3. Isn't that your preferred result here?
I don't have a preferred result. I will say however that I'd consider the track to be poorly chosen if it didn't have enough information on it to reveal whether it was compressed or not (and once again I'm talking about lossy compression here).
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Chris from Lafayette
The fact remains that those who work in the music studios for a living do not use even plain old CD quality files for new recordings these days - even if the release is destined for CD. "You can't even show some modesty and offer out that that some of us may have ears of an age that would make the difference between new and older formats irrelevant." I certainly didn't volunteer that sentiment, but I'm happy to acknowledge it! After all, it's the unwashed masses who can't hear the difference between an mp3 file and a CD-quality file. It's just the truth - nothing "sloppy" about it! ;-)
There are good reasons to work with high-res wide-spectrum files when editing. That has no relevance here.
It has great relevance here if its audible!
Post by ***@gmail.com
People can be trained? Possibly true- not what we are talking about here. The question is "can YOU really hear a difference?"
Indeed - And if you can be trained, then eventually even YOU might be able to spot the difference! ;-)
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Chris from Lafayette
All you need is some spectrum analysis software (some of which you can download for free, such as "Spek"). You can then learn to CORRELATE what you hear with what the spectrum analysis software objectively shows is actually there in a given file. Believe me, it's surprising sometimes.
Between Redbook and MP3 files derived from the same master, you're going to hear and see frequency differences- is that really what you are saying here?
Indeed, you can use spectrum analysis software anyway you want to improve your perception. And, yes, you should see frequency and dynamic level differences between lossless and lossy files. (A picture is worth a thousand words!)
Wait. Are you saying that if I can't hear the difference
between two recordings that if I see a difference in a
spectral analysis that I will then hear a difference?
Not necessarily, but you COULD eventually train yourself to hear the difference if you use the spectral analysis software in the right way (i.e., in a way that works for you - you would have to figure it out). IOW, if you know through the visual analysis of the files that one is higher rez than the other, it COULD influence what you're listening for and how you hear it. Over time, this could result in an improved ability to discern higher rez files, even without the "visual aids" of the graphs from the spectral analysis software.
Frank Berger
2021-01-05 22:18:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chris from Lafayette
Post by Frank Berger
Post by Chris from Lafayette
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Chris from Lafayette
I suggest to check out the article on mp3 on Wikipedia - especially the section under the heading, "Quality". Here's an excerpt: "Some audio is hard to compress because of its randomness and sharp attacks. When this type of audio is compressed, artifacts such as ringing or pre-echo are usually heard. A sample of applause or a triangle instrument with a relatively low bit rate provide good examples of compression artifacts. Most subjective testings of perceptual codecs TEND TO AVOID USING THESE TYPES OF SOUND MATERIALS [my caps]. . . "
I've no idea what you think you are offering here. We aren't involved in a test of more than one compression codec here. This is about compression vs lossless and the question of whether the difference between them can be heard. I know you want to say that the only valid test is one that starts with a high-res master of some "clearly defined" quality, but it apears you can't put into words why that actually matters.
This is getting hopeless, because we don't even seem to have a common vocabulary. So let's just go back to that little NPR test. Do you think it MIGHT make a slight difference in results that one file may have been compressed just slightly, while another file may have been compressed a great deal (again, talking lossy compression)? What kind of compression was NPR using anyway? (Hint: they don't say!) I mean, do you think that there's only one kind of compression? The reason we need clearly defined compression and file types (as well as clearly defined resolution for our higher-rez files) is that, theoretically, we're trying to find out if the differences in these compression levels and file types (some lossy, some lossless, some hi-rez) are audible. Right?
Post by ***@gmail.com
If the above appears to say anything, it suggests that a poorly-chosen track can produce more artifacts under various compression schemes than another. For the NPR test, that would be a good thing- it would make it far more easy to spot the compressed file, and make clear the superiority of lossless over compressed MP3. Isn't that your preferred result here?
I don't have a preferred result. I will say however that I'd consider the track to be poorly chosen if it didn't have enough information on it to reveal whether it was compressed or not (and once again I'm talking about lossy compression here).
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Chris from Lafayette
The fact remains that those who work in the music studios for a living do not use even plain old CD quality files for new recordings these days - even if the release is destined for CD. "You can't even show some modesty and offer out that that some of us may have ears of an age that would make the difference between new and older formats irrelevant." I certainly didn't volunteer that sentiment, but I'm happy to acknowledge it! After all, it's the unwashed masses who can't hear the difference between an mp3 file and a CD-quality file. It's just the truth - nothing "sloppy" about it! ;-)
There are good reasons to work with high-res wide-spectrum files when editing. That has no relevance here.
It has great relevance here if its audible!
Post by ***@gmail.com
People can be trained? Possibly true- not what we are talking about here. The question is "can YOU really hear a difference?"
Indeed - And if you can be trained, then eventually even YOU might be able to spot the difference! ;-)
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Chris from Lafayette
All you need is some spectrum analysis software (some of which you can download for free, such as "Spek"). You can then learn to CORRELATE what you hear with what the spectrum analysis software objectively shows is actually there in a given file. Believe me, it's surprising sometimes.
Between Redbook and MP3 files derived from the same master, you're going to hear and see frequency differences- is that really what you are saying here?
Indeed, you can use spectrum analysis software anyway you want to improve your perception. And, yes, you should see frequency and dynamic level differences between lossless and lossy files. (A picture is worth a thousand words!)
Wait. Are you saying that if I can't hear the difference
between two recordings that if I see a difference in a
spectral analysis that I will then hear a difference?
Not necessarily, but you COULD eventually train yourself to hear the difference if you use the spectral analysis software in the right way (i.e., in a way that works for you - you would have to figure it out). IOW, if you know through the visual analysis of the files that one is higher rez than the other, it COULD influence what you're listening for and how you hear it. Over time, this could result in an improved ability to discern higher rez files, even without the "visual aids" of the graphs from the spectral analysis software.
Or I could be training myself to imagine a difference. Then
I would have to do some "blind" listening to tell which it
was. Maybe in my next life. To demonstrate that I am not
closed-minded to new appreciation, in my life I learned to
like classical music and green olives via intentional,
dedicated effort.
Chris from Lafayette
2021-01-06 00:06:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Or I could be training myself to imagine a difference. Then
I would have to do some "blind" listening to tell which it
was. Maybe in my next life. To demonstrate that I am not
closed-minded to new appreciation, in my life I learned to
like classical music and green olives via intentional,
dedicated effort.
Indeed - I'm not insisting on anything here. Psychology is a very under-appreciated factor in listener judgments about what they hear.
Frank Berger
2021-01-06 01:27:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chris from Lafayette
Or I could be training myself to imagine a difference. Then
I would have to do some "blind" listening to tell which it
was. Maybe in my next life. To demonstrate that I am not
closed-minded to new appreciation, in my life I learned to
like classical music and green olives via intentional,
dedicated effort.
Indeed - I'm not insisting on anything here. Psychology is a very under-appreciated factor in listener judgments about what they hear.
We should all just embrace our biases.
mswd...@gmail.com
2021-01-05 03:58:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chris from Lafayette
Post by ***@gmail.com
There are good reasons to work with high-res wide-spectrum files when editing. That has no relevance here.
It has great relevance here if its audible!
Are you laboring under the idea that pros edit high-res files because they sound better? No- they work with higher-resolution formats so they are more impervious to data degradation over multiple rounds of editing. That has no relevance here. None at all. We are talking about what can be heard.
Post by Chris from Lafayette
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Chris from Lafayette
All you need is some spectrum analysis software (some of which you can download for free, such as "Spek"). You can then learn to CORRELATE what you hear with what the spectrum analysis software objectively shows is actually there in a given file. Believe me, it's surprising sometimes.
Between Redbook and MP3 files derived from the same master, you're going to hear and see frequency differences- is that really what you are saying here?
Indeed, you can use spectrum analysis software anyway you want to improve your perception. And, yes, you should see frequency and dynamic level differences between lossless and lossy files. (A picture is worth a thousand words!)
Do what I just did. I opened a 96/32 high-res file, saved it to Redbook specs. Went back and saved it as a 320 AAC file. What did I see? Nothing- no differences in dynamics or frequency. Then I burrowed down to the bit level in all three tracks, with my cursor placed in the same spot on each. Cycled between them. What did I see? The same waveform line, just with more or less dots. And with the compressed file, there were slight, I mean very slight deviations. And when I listened, what did I hear? The same thing.

Now, are all files equal? No. The MP3 files I saved had everything above 15k removed, and even though I can't hear those tones, the MP3 files clearly had less of a treble edge than these other three files. To me the difference was clear. But between the AAC compressed file and the two other formats? Virtually no difference at all.

Do it yourself. Do you see anything that matters? You're going to pay a premium for high-res when CD-quality is basically the same waveform? If you can look at the very tiny differences there and say "this is why high-res is worth buying" all I can say is "bless you for stimulating the economy."
Chris from Lafayette
2021-01-05 20:53:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by ***@gmail.com
Are you laboring under the idea that pros edit high-res files because they sound better? No- they work with higher-resolution formats so they are more impervious to data degradation over multiple rounds of editing. That has no relevance here. None at all. We are talking about what can be heard.
That's just your assertion that the files don't sound better - but the proof of the pudding is that many more recordings these days are being RELEASED to the public in hi-rez options, AND they can be heard in higher rez (24/96, even 24/192) even on streaming services, such as Qobuz. If the engineers didn't think they sounded better, whey would they release the hi-rez incarnations? And, yes indeed, we ARE talking about what can be heard. Sure, at some point there may be a point of diminishing returns in the rush to ever higher resolution, and if you think that that point is CD resolution (16/44.1) that's fine. I must inform you though that major organizations, such as the Concertgebouw Orchestra, are releasing their recordings (via downloads) in resolutions as high as 24/352.8. I have some of these (the Jansons Mahler Seventh, the Gatti Rite of Spring, etc.), and the music sounds more tactile and fantastic than I ever could have imagined during the CD era. If hi-rez is nothing but a big hoax, why would the Concertgebouw Orchestra put their reputation on the line by offering their albums in this super hi-rez format?
Post by ***@gmail.com
Do what I just did. I opened a 96/32 high-res file, saved it to Redbook specs. Went back and saved it as a 320 AAC file. What did I see? Nothing- no differences in dynamics or frequency. Then I burrowed down to the bit level in all three tracks, with my cursor placed in the same spot on each. Cycled between them. What did I see? The same waveform line, just with more or less dots. And with the compressed file, there were slight, I mean very slight deviations. And when I listened, what did I hear? The same thing.
OK, first thing: where did you get this 96/32 file? What musical selection was it? What software were you using? Even you admit to seeing deviations with whatever software you were using. And, yes, you've already told us that you can't hear these differences. That's fine.
Post by ***@gmail.com
Now, are all files equal? No.
Thank you!
Post by ***@gmail.com
The MP3 files I saved had everything above 15k removed, and even though I can't hear those tones, the MP3 files clearly had less of a treble edge than these other three files. To me the difference was clear.
Aha! So you DO discern a difference? You said the mp3 files had less treble "edge" than the higher rez files - so do you actually prefer the mp3 files?
Post by ***@gmail.com
But between the AAC compressed file and the two other formats? Virtually no difference at all.
Well, I certainly can't argue that this might be true for you!
Post by ***@gmail.com
Do it yourself. Do you see anything that matters? You're going to pay a premium for high-res when CD-quality is basically the same waveform? If you can look at the very tiny differences there and say "this is why high-res is worth buying" all I can say is "bless you for stimulating the economy."
Do it yourself? Sure, I've done it plenty of times - do you recall that I was actually the one who suggested it? But you're placing the cart before the horse: I became aware of the superiority of the higher-rez formats BY LISTENING - years before I ever began to experiment with spectrum analysis software.
mswd...@gmail.com
2021-01-06 00:00:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chris from Lafayette
What software were you using? Even you admit to seeing deviations with whatever software you were using. And, yes, you've already told us that you can't hear these differences. That's fine.
Adobe Audition. I admit that there are measurable differences between any compressed file and lossless. I'm saying that in the test I propose here, there is no significant difference in frequency, dynamics or sound. The tiny variations between compressed and uncompressed is is so small as to be irrelevant.

Hey, if you've done all this before, and you are so fluent with these tools, let's swap files. Take 30 seconds of any high-res track you have at your disposal. Save it down to Redbook, save it to 320 AAC. Save it as anything else you want to. Send me the files. I'll send you the same. Then let's compare and see if there is a sonic difference between them. I'm fully prepared to deliver on this offer- are you?
mswd...@gmail.com
2021-01-06 00:08:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
I think the following should encourage some modesty where the high-res cult is concerned.

https://www.realhd-audio.com/?p=6267
Chris from Lafayette
2021-01-06 00:37:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by ***@gmail.com
I think the following should encourage some modesty where the high-res cult is concerned.
https://www.realhd-audio.com/?p=6267
I agree that hi-rez can indeed be cultish and immodest (the "golden ears" strutting around like peacocks!), and there are many aspects of it which are wince-inducing! (For instance, the whole vinyl worship thing seems completely silly to me.) But it's not ALWAYS a cult!

That's a good site you linked to, as Mark Waldrep has a pretty good head on his shoulders. (I've talked with him at a couple of audio shows and, in general, I respect his views.) Regarding his test (which is WAY better defined than that NPR test!), it's interesting to note that there WERE listeners who got 100% of the selections correct. It's probably too small a number of questions and total listeners to have any significance, but testing like Mark has set up is more the right direction.
mswd...@gmail.com
2021-01-06 01:58:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chris from Lafayette
That's a good site you linked to, as Mark Waldrep has a pretty good head on his shoulders. (I've talked with him at a couple of audio shows and, in general, I respect his views.) Regarding his test (which is WAY better defined than that NPR test!), it's interesting to note that there WERE listeners who got 100% of the selections correct.
Don't act like luck is out of the picture when you like the results the most. In a big enough sample of tests, some all-correct responders will simply have gotten lucky.
Chris from Lafayette
2021-01-06 00:20:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by ***@gmail.com
Adobe Audition. I admit that there are measurable differences between any compressed file and lossless. I'm saying that in the test I propose here, there is no significant difference in frequency, dynamics or sound. The tiny variations between compressed and uncompressed is is so small as to be irrelevant.
Hey, if you've done all this before, and you are so fluent with these tools, let's swap files. Take 30 seconds of any high-res track you have at your disposal. Save it down to Redbook, save it to 320 AAC. Save it as anything else you want to. Send me the files. I'll send you the same. Then let's compare and see if there is a sonic difference between them. I'm fully prepared to deliver on this offer- are you?
You have me at a disadvantage here - I am NOT familiar with Adobe Audition, although I guess you can get it by monthly subscription these days (?), rather than shelling out the big bucks for the full program. Let me look into it and see what I can do. In the meantime, we could do the following: I have two separate downloads from Chandos.net - both downloads are the same album (Rimsky-Korsakov Orchestral Music with Sinaisky and the BBC). One is at CD quality, the other is at 24/96 (both of them are 2Ch). If you'll send me an email, I'll reply with the files attached (probably just one track from each album if that's OK - we don't want to get into trouble for copying/exchanging copyrighted material). I assume you can see my email OK?
mswd...@gmail.com
2021-01-06 02:14:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chris from Lafayette
You have me at a disadvantage here - I am NOT familiar with Adobe Audition, although I guess you can get it by monthly subscription these days (?), rather than shelling out the big bucks for the full program. Let me look into it and see what I can do. In the meantime, we could do the following: I have two separate downloads from Chandos.net - both downloads are the same album (Rimsky-Korsakov Orchestral Music with Sinaisky and the BBC). One is at CD quality, the other is at 24/96 (both of them are 2Ch). If you'll send me an email, I'll reply with the files attached (probably just one track from each album if that's OK - we don't want to get into trouble for copying/exchanging copyrighted material). I assume you can see my email OK?
Google isn't cooperating with my attempt to see your email, but mine is pretty obvious here- you can email me at ***@gmail.com. I think file size may be an issue when emailing directly (especially if you can't pare the file down. So you may have to host it at something like Mediafire (which is free). I'll prepare a package and have a link ready when I get your message.

Chris, I know I've been a bit quick to judge your views, but I will say that you have a winning attitude about this and appreciate your continued enthusiasm. For myself, I will make sure to up my game and listen to all the tracks in question - even my own - using my best equipment. So the good news here is an increased probability that I will have to admit I was wrong about one thing or another. We shall see.

I should also add that my ears are 52 years old and measure much worse than that, something I attribute to my experience with chemotherapy. There is still room to determine that high-res is wasted on me while it might be useful to other younger listeners. But... when the waveforms are so similar, my starting assertion is that the sound alike, period.
Todd Michel McComb
2021-01-06 00:34:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chris from Lafayette
OK, first thing: where did you get this 96/32 file? What musical
selection was it? What software were you using?
And what audio equipment you are using... (question mark omitted).

What would actually be nice is if labels & institutions offering
higher resolution releases would allow us to audition & decide for
ourselves.

As it happens, just yesterday I purchased an album download where
I was presented with an array of choices (at different price points).
I ended up going for CD FLAC, after debating. If it was an album
I'd anticipated really thinking was great, or music I thought in
advance would require more resolution to hear.... But then, why
am I trying to decide these things without an audition? It seems
awkward.

In another corner of this "formats" experience, I'm also in an
ongoing process of re-ripping a bunch of material into FLAC, after
I'd done it into mp3 about 10 years ago. People told me, don't put
all that time into a lossy format, but I was only using it for
traveling, i.e. bad sound scenarios, and plus I had disk space
limitations. Now I'm using the laptop more often to feed sound
into the home stereo and/or having better connection options (although
certainly not everywhere) when elsewhere.

And hearing the mp3 artifacts is a real drag. "What's that clicking?"
asked two different people regarding an album with a bunch of string
glissandi, but that I could find only in mp3.... Well, it's what
mp3 encoding does to string glissandi. Etc.

But where I care more is on hazy albums where it's hard to pick out
everything happening....
Todd Michel McComb
2021-01-06 00:43:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Todd Michel McComb
But where I care more is on hazy albums where it's hard to pick out
everything happening....
And this notion kind of intertwines the question of whether higher
resolution actually sounds better: If you're listening to classical
orchestral music where the whole section is supposed to be playing
the same thing -- as opposed e.g. to contemporary orchestral music
where every musician has a different part -- does hearing their
discrepancies actually sound better, or is blurring (musically)
desirable?
Chris from Lafayette
2021-01-06 00:56:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Todd Michel McComb
Post by Todd Michel McComb
But where I care more is on hazy albums where it's hard to pick out
everything happening....
And this notion kind of intertwines the question of whether higher
resolution actually sounds better: If you're listening to classical
orchestral music where the whole section is supposed to be playing
the same thing -- as opposed e.g. to contemporary orchestral music
where every musician has a different part -- does hearing their
discrepancies actually sound better, or is blurring (musically)
desirable?
Well, even if a violin section is playing in unison, it's never quite perfect unison, since there are infinitesimal variations of pitch, vibrato, bowing, etc. Speaking for myself, yes, I want to hear these minute differences (within a violin section) on a recording to the same extent that I can hear them in a perfect seat in a live concert. I'm not asking for much! ;-)
Todd Michel McComb
2021-01-06 02:12:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chris from Lafayette
I want to hear these minute differences (within a violin section)
on a recording to the same extent that I can hear them in a perfect
seat in a live concert.
Why? How would you feel if they were part of the score?
mswd...@gmail.com
2021-01-06 02:00:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Todd Michel McComb
And this notion kind of intertwines the question of whether higher
resolution actually sounds better: If you're listening to classical
orchestral music where the whole section is supposed to be playing
the same thing -- as opposed e.g. to contemporary orchestral music
where every musician has a different part -- does hearing their
discrepancies actually sound better, or is blurring (musically)
desirable?
I don't buy the premise here that any file format we are likely to consider as reasonable sports "blurring" as a feature. If blurring is real, that's a mastering issue.
Chris from Lafayette
2021-01-06 00:48:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Todd Michel McComb
Post by Chris from Lafayette
OK, first thing: where did you get this 96/32 file? What musical
selection was it? What software were you using?
And what audio equipment you are using... (question mark omitted).
Indeed - if the equipment isn't capable of sufficient resolution, what's the point of a listening test?
Post by Todd Michel McComb
What would actually be nice is if labels & institutions offering
higher resolution releases would allow us to audition & decide for
ourselves.
As it happens, just yesterday I purchased an album download where
I was presented with an array of choices (at different price points).
I ended up going for CD FLAC, after debating. If it was an album
I'd anticipated really thinking was great, or music I thought in
advance would require more resolution to hear.... But then, why
am I trying to decide these things without an audition? It seems
awkward.
I hear you - that's the reason that streaming services with hi-rez capability (like Qobuz) are a godsend these days. Quite often, Qobuz will offer two instances of the same album, one at CD-rez and the other at higher-rez (24/96 or 24/192).
Post by Todd Michel McComb
In another corner of this "formats" experience, I'm also in an
ongoing process of re-ripping a bunch of material into FLAC, after
I'd done it into mp3 about 10 years ago. People told me, don't put
all that time into a lossy format, but I was only using it for
traveling, i.e. bad sound scenarios, and plus I had disk space
limitations. Now I'm using the laptop more often to feed sound
into the home stereo and/or having better connection options (although
certainly not everywhere) when elsewhere.
And hearing the mp3 artifacts is a real drag. "What's that clicking?"
asked two different people regarding an album with a bunch of string
glissandi, but that I could find only in mp3.... Well, it's what
mp3 encoding does to string glissandi. Etc.
Indeed - I couldn't agree more, although, as you say, not all kinds of music are going to show the deficiencies of mp3 to the same extent.
mswd...@gmail.com
2021-01-06 01:53:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Todd Michel McComb
And hearing the mp3 artifacts is a real drag. "What's that clicking?"
asked two different people regarding an album with a bunch of string
glissandi, but that I could find only in mp3.... Well, it's what
mp3 encoding does to string glissandi. Etc.
"Clicking" isn't a feature of sound MP3 encoding. Don't blame the format for data corruption. My music collection still includes thousands of MP3s and clicking is not a feature of them.
Todd Michel McComb
2021-01-06 02:03:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
"Clicking" isn't a feature of sound MP3 encoding. Don't blame the
format for data corruption.
It's straight off a label's official website. We're talking practical
reality right?
mswd...@gmail.com
2021-01-06 02:16:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by ***@gmail.com
"Clicking" isn't a feature of sound MP3 encoding. Don't blame the
format for data corruption.
It's straight off a label's official website. We're talking practical
reality right?
So they messed up! That's far more likely than assuming it is a feature of the file format. Or are you saying that you consistently hear clicking in all your MP3 files?
Todd Michel McComb
2021-01-06 02:26:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by ***@gmail.com
Or are you saying that you consistently hear clicking in all your
MP3 files?
The clicking is associated with particular sorts of string motion,
so no. These sorts of artifacts only get exposed in particular
situations. Besides strings, cymbals are another instrument sometimes
cited for its mp3 artifacts... used to be you could read these
things in discussions of the formats, maybe you still can....

Oscar
2020-12-29 04:27:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alan Dawes
You don't want the servants using your bathroom :-)
That's only partly in jest - my mum was "in service" ie a servant from age 14 until she married.
I read the whole article. Fascinating, Mr. Dawes. Cheers to yr mother, and Happy New Year.
Owen
2020-12-24 14:27:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Andrew Clarke
Speaking of home prices, my home town, Fall River, MA, went trending on
Twitter today because somebody posted this price comparison of a
https://twitter.com/hunterreis/status/1341119601434710016?s=20
-Owen
Why would a house with 6 bedrooms need 7 bathrooms? Or are a couple of the bathrooms what in British and Australian English we used to call "toilets" = e.g. small room contailing a lavatory and maybe a washbasin?
Why, one for each bedroom, and a lavish one for houseguests!

The house in question is easily the nicest house in Fall River (note:
hometown of the notorious Lizzie Borden of axe fame) in a nice quiet
area. For those interested, I would guess that one, or even two of the
bedrooms could be readily converted to CD storage space for even the
largest collection!

-Owen
Andrew Clarke
2020-12-25 02:55:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Owen
Post by Andrew Clarke
Speaking of home prices, my home town, Fall River, MA, went trending on
Twitter today because somebody posted this price comparison of a
https://twitter.com/hunterreis/status/1341119601434710016?s=20
-Owen
Why would a house with 6 bedrooms need 7 bathrooms? Or are a couple of the bathrooms what in British and Australian English we used to call "toilets" = e.g. small room contailing a lavatory and maybe a washbasin?
Why, one for each bedroom, and a lavish one for houseguests!
hometown of the notorious Lizzie Borden of axe fame) in a nice quiet
area. For those interested, I would guess that one, or even two of the
bedrooms could be readily converted to CD storage space for even the
largest collection!
-Owen
So Ms Borden caught her father using her very own personal bathroom?

"Jump like a fish, jump like a porpoise
All join hands and habeas corpus ... "

Andrew Clarke
Canberra
Owen
2020-12-26 03:39:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Andrew Clarke
Post by Owen
Post by Andrew Clarke
Speaking of home prices, my home town, Fall River, MA, went trending on
Twitter today because somebody posted this price comparison of a
https://twitter.com/hunterreis/status/1341119601434710016?s=20
-Owen
Why would a house with 6 bedrooms need 7 bathrooms? Or are a couple of the bathrooms what in British and Australian English we used to call "toilets" = e.g. small room contailing a lavatory and maybe a washbasin?
Why, one for each bedroom, and a lavish one for houseguests!
hometown of the notorious Lizzie Borden of axe fame) in a nice quiet
area. For those interested, I would guess that one, or even two of the
bedrooms could be readily converted to CD storage space for even the
largest collection!
-Owen
So Ms Borden caught her father using her very own personal bathroom?
I should like to point out that the late Ms. Borden was found not guilty
at her trial.

-Owen
Andrew Clarke
2020-12-26 06:59:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Owen
Post by Andrew Clarke
Post by Owen
Post by Andrew Clarke
Speaking of home prices, my home town, Fall River, MA, went trending on
Twitter today because somebody posted this price comparison of a
https://twitter.com/hunterreis/status/1341119601434710016?s=20
-Owen
Why would a house with 6 bedrooms need 7 bathrooms? Or are a couple of the bathrooms what in British and Australian English we used to call "toilets" = e.g. small room contailing a lavatory and maybe a washbasin?
Why, one for each bedroom, and a lavish one for houseguests!
hometown of the notorious Lizzie Borden of axe fame) in a nice quiet
area. For those interested, I would guess that one, or even two of the
bedrooms could be readily converted to CD storage space for even the
largest collection!
-Owen
So Ms Borden caught her father using her very own personal bathroom?
I should like to point out that the late Ms. Borden was found not guilty
at her trial.
That I didn't know, but as Wikipedia reports that her father was too mean to install interior plumbing, I imagine that a Massachusetts jury would have regarded the killings as a crime passionel?

Andrew Clarke
Canberra

"They really made her hustle
And when all was said and done
She'd removed her mother's bustle
When she wasn't wearing one."
Owen
2020-12-26 19:49:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Andrew Clarke
Post by Owen
Post by Andrew Clarke
Post by Owen
Post by Andrew Clarke
Speaking of home prices, my home town, Fall River, MA, went trending on
Twitter today because somebody posted this price comparison of a
https://twitter.com/hunterreis/status/1341119601434710016?s=20
-Owen
Why would a house with 6 bedrooms need 7 bathrooms? Or are a couple of the bathrooms what in British and Australian English we used to call "toilets" = e.g. small room contailing a lavatory and maybe a washbasin?
Why, one for each bedroom, and a lavish one for houseguests!
hometown of the notorious Lizzie Borden of axe fame) in a nice quiet
area. For those interested, I would guess that one, or even two of the
bedrooms could be readily converted to CD storage space for even the
largest collection!
-Owen
So Ms Borden caught her father using her very own personal bathroom?
I should like to point out that the late Ms. Borden was found not guilty
at her trial.
That I didn't know, but as Wikipedia reports that her father was too mean to install interior plumbing, I imagine that a Massachusetts jury would have regarded the killings as a crime passionel?
Andrew Clarke
Canberra
"They really made her hustle
And when all was said and done
She'd removed her mother's bustle
When she wasn't wearing one."
Old Andrew Borden was a tight-fisted Yankee, and Lizzie's story was
contradictory at times, but looks like the prosecution couldn't prove
their case: the jury only took an hour and a half before declaring her
not guilty.

-Owen
Andrew Clarke
2020-12-29 02:38:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Owen
Old Andrew Borden was a tight-fisted Yankee, and Lizzie's story was
contradictory at times, but looks like the prosecution couldn't prove
their case: the jury only took an hour and a half before declaring her
not guilty.
It appears that Lizzie's tight-fisted father was a secret audiophile and he had spent the money set aside for indoor plumbing on a Wilson MDCCCXCII sound system, plus a bit more on reblocking the house and reinforcing the ceiling. Steam powered, the Wilson featured a boiler manufactured from deoxydised brass fabricated at high altitude in the Bavarian mountains by a handful of craftsmen using carbon-free hammers. Water was bottled at the foot of an Arctic glacier. Specially recorded Studio Mistress wax cylinders used the product of pedigree bees from the Massif Central region of France and the stylus was made from from a rare species of teak found in certain heavily forested areas of Borneo. The 2500 lb brass horn, suspended from the roof, was produced by a family of percussion manufacturers in Constantinople.

After this very considerable outlay, Mr Borden could only afford one recording, viz. Mme Teresa Brewer's interpretation of "This Old House" accompanied by the Boston Ophicleide Quartette, later to be recorded by her grand daughter to international critical acclaim.

At Miss Borden's trial, the jury probably thought the neighbors did it.

Andrew Clarke
Canberra
Owen
2020-12-29 03:49:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Andrew Clarke
Post by Owen
Old Andrew Borden was a tight-fisted Yankee, and Lizzie's story was
contradictory at times, but looks like the prosecution couldn't prove
their case: the jury only took an hour and a half before declaring her
not guilty.
It appears that Lizzie's tight-fisted father was a secret audiophile and he had spent the money set aside for indoor plumbing on a Wilson MDCCCXCII sound system, plus a bit more on reblocking the house and reinforcing the ceiling. Steam powered, the Wilson featured a boiler manufactured from deoxydised brass fabricated at high altitude in the Bavarian mountains by a handful of craftsmen using carbon-free hammers. Water was bottled at the foot of an Arctic glacier. Specially recorded Studio Mistress wax cylinders used the product of pedigree bees from the Massif Central region of France and the stylus was made from from a rare species of teak found in certain heavily forested areas of Borneo. The 2500 lb brass horn, suspended from the roof, was produced by a family of percussion manufacturers in Constantinople.
After this very considerable outlay, Mr Borden could only afford one recording, viz. Mme Teresa Brewer's interpretation of "This Old House" accompanied by the Boston Ophicleide Quartette, later to be recorded by her grand daughter to international critical acclaim.
At Miss Borden's trial, the jury probably thought the neighbors did it.
Probably for the best then, that Andrew Borden never got to hear Teresa
Brewer's later hit: "Put another nickel in, in the Nickelodeon." Miser
that he was, it probably would have killed him.

-Owen
Andrew Clarke
2020-12-29 20:46:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Owen
Probably for the best then, that Andrew Borden never got to hear Teresa
Brewer's later hit: "Put another nickel in, in the Nickelodeon." Miser
that he was, it probably would have killed him.
When he got his hands on a dollar agin, he'd hold on to it 'til them eagles grinned? From another Elizabeth in his life. No ophicleides, but perhaps the most celebrated sousaphone part in the history of popular song.

Andrew Clarke
Canberra
Bob Harper
2020-12-27 17:19:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Andrew Clarke
Post by Chris from Lafayette
Lots of sour grapes in this thread!
If you don't think that "intangibles" such as space, immediacy, etc. aren't part of the musical experience and don't make a difference to musical quality, you're incredibly naive. BTW, where has "it" been suggested that people who install $500,000 worth of audio have spent "colossal sums" on "stuff that makes little or no difference to musical quality"? Inquiring minds want to know! (BTW, I've heard such systems and, indeed, they're not always to my taste - that doesn't mean however that trying to achieve the reproduction of musical subtleties is a pursuit worthy of derisive comments, especially since I doubt you have the means yourself actually to know.)
Well, Chris, I'd certainly feel a lot more comfortable living here
<https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/704-W-Cleveland-Cir-Lafayette-CO-80026/13263695_zpid/>
rather than here
<https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/1191-Camino-Vallecito-Lafayette-CA-94549/18467582_zpid/>
The comments about "colossal sums" are taken from reviews and blind tests of extremely expensive equipment of dubious value added. Yes, 'space' and 'immediacy' are significant, up to a point, but doesn't the law of diminishing returns apply?
I can say in all sincerity that I don't feel jealous of people who can afford to pay big money on hifi systems. Got no diamonds, got no yacht ...
Andrew Clarke
Canberra
While I do appreciate good, even great, sound, I can testify that some
of the most intensely pleasurable musical experiences I have ever had
happened while listening to a car radio.

Bob Harper
Reinhold Gliere
2020-12-23 20:23:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chris from Lafayette
Post by Andrew Clarke
It's been suggested that people who install $500,000 worth of audio will always claim that their system really does outperform one that costs $50,000 because nobody is going to want to admit that they spent colossal sums on stuff that makes little or no difference to musical quality, as distinct from such intangibles as "space", "immediacy" etc..
By way of contrast, I learnt to appreciate music by listening to radiograms or monaural portable gramophones with the loudspeaker in the lid, or medium wave broadcasts on bakelite mantel radios, and so did millions of other people. Not that I'd want to go back to those days of course.
Andrew Clarke
liberating the music from the audiophile since 1969.
Lots of sour grapes in this thread!
If you don't think that "intangibles" such as space, immediacy, etc. aren't part of the musical experience and don't make a difference to musical quality, you're incredibly naive. BTW, where has "it" been suggested that people who install $500,000 worth of audio have spent "colossal sums" on "stuff that makes little or no difference to musical quality"? Inquiring minds want to know! (BTW, I've heard such systems and, indeed, they're not always to my taste - that doesn't mean however that trying to achieve the reproduction of musical subtleties is a pursuit worthy of derisive comments, especially sinc> > The same criterion may apply to the cost and saleability of downloads.
e I doubt you have the means yourself actually to know.)

Did Joshua Bell benefit any from his $14 million violin over his $2 million instrument?
Chris from Lafayette
2020-12-23 22:04:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Reinhold Gliere
Did Joshua Bell benefit any from his $14 million violin over his $2 million instrument?
Dunno - you'd have to ask Josh.
MickeyBoy
2020-12-18 15:24:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
I have started down the path of downloading Hi-Rez audio files. On the one hand, it seems like a way for companies to get me to buy old favorites once again in a supposedly new and better-sounding format. But some of them do indeed sound really good. But at a premium price - sometimes $20-35 for an album. (I have a SONY HAP-Z digital player.)
Are others getting sucked into the Hi-Rez realm? Any really good finds? Or underwhelming finds?
There have been a few studies over the years showing that the benefits of high-res are few, if any. The most recent was by Prof Mark Waldrep, aka Dr AIX. I participated in his test, designed to show if there was any difference between Red Book and high-res samples of the same recording. His recordings are really very, very good. The test was methodologically sound. You can read about it here: https://www.realhd-audio.com/?p=6993 I was unable to distinguish between the two, & got more wrong than right. As did the vast majority of participants. I believe that while 24/96 is good for live recording and for archival purposes, most of us benefit more from the care and skill that make recordings good than the resolution of the final product. I also believe that multi-channel recordings are generally superior to stereo ones in the same way that high-res recordings are claimed to be superior to Red Book ones. FWIW, Presto Music's high-res FLACs are stereo only, while many available disks are SACD. SACD has the possibility of delivering an outstanding listening experience. As does Blu-Ray, even more so, as the visual aspect - per current research - trumps the auditory one. No technique is guaranteed to produce outstanding recordings, or anything else in the recording-playback chain. So I prefer SACD and Blu-Ray, but try to get a sense of the quality of the performance and the recording from reviews and comments from people like you.
mswd...@gmail.com
2020-12-18 22:36:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
I have started down the path of downloading Hi-Rez audio files. On the one hand, it seems like a way for companies to get me to buy old favorites once again in a supposedly new and better-sounding format. But some of them do indeed sound really good. But at a premium price - sometimes $20-35 for an album. (I have a SONY HAP-Z digital player.)
Are others getting sucked into the Hi-Rez realm? Any really good finds? Or underwhelming finds?
Some high-res files I've cracked open are simply different masterings. They sound different because they are different in ways that does not match prior releases. But those differences have nothing to do with the fact that the file is higher-res.

So let's get things straight- are you buying the mastering (yes, it could be better, and if there is no other less expensive alternative, why not?) or are you asserting an inherent value to higher-resolution files even vs. identical masters that have been released in CD-quality, whether on disc or as a download? I've seen no evidence that the data format difference produces a change in audio quality that can be recognized- by anyone.
Loading...