24/192 Music Downloads ...and why they make no sense

[SeeDee12]

This is a humorous thread - 23 pages and no real answer. So perhaps the water you drink from the tap is as good as bottled water, but then, just perhaps, it is just the quality of the water.

Sorry for being arrogant, but always look at the source. If you truly hear no difference then you are not drinking from a Fire Hydrant, and your conclusions will always be limited.

[simoncn]

(2012-04-05 05:56)linnrd Wrote:  

(2012-04-04 21:41)fbee Wrote:  That is what I´m wondering too....
I would like to run a comparison with one of my 24/192 files and convert it to 24/96, 24/48 and 16/44.
Which program does this well?

Weiss Saracon is the gold standard (or one of them), if I am not mistaken.

I checked the price of this. At over £600, I'll have to pass.

Unless there's some free (or very cheap) software to do high-quality downsampling, I'll need to do the double-blind test using pre-recorded material at different resolutions.

[DaveWr]

Sox is supposed to be good and free, but it requires significant experience/knowledge to set up the correct parameters.

Probably easier to buy several versions of a Linn recording.

[Music Lover]

(2012-04-05 09:04)SeeDee12 Wrote:  This is a humorous thread - 23 pages and no real answer.

I have in numerous threads described my findings, as well as what friends of mine found.
All tests using Tune Dem as evaluation method, both open and blind testing.

As many other already said, be careful as plenty of hi-res recordings are poor. (remastered = destroyed, or in the worst case originates from a 16/44.1 recordings)
But well recorded hi-res is great.

Some consider the difference between 24/96 and 16/44.1 being in the same ballpark as between KDS and ADS.
I don't.
I rather own a KDS and well recorded 16/44.1 tracks.
But well recorded 24/96 on KDS is better...

[SaltyDog]

100% agreement with Music Lover. (Is that better than a +1?)

[linnrd]

(2012-04-05 09:04)SeeDee12 Wrote:  This is a humorous thread - 23 pages and no real answer. So perhaps the water you drink from the tap is as good as bottled water, but then, just perhaps, it is just the quality of the water.

Sadly, if one lives in Brampton or Calgary, it is. The interesting thing is that tap water actually is subject to rather rigorous testing in most regions in Canada, whereas bottled water is not regulated to be required to have undergone the same, which resulted in it not being tested for bromate. Sigh... If only I didn't have ethics, I could be a millionaire.

[linnrd]

(2012-04-05 16:10)simoncn Wrote:  I checked the price of this. At over £600, I'll have to pass.

Unless there's some free (or very cheap) software to do high-quality downsampling, I'll need to do the double-blind test using pre-recorded material at different resolutions.

(2012-04-05 16:57)DaveWr Wrote:  Sox is supposed to be good and free, but it requires significant experience/knowledge to set up the correct parameters.

Probably easier to buy several versions of a Linn recording.

Rather than buy different version and spend cash, it is better to down-convert the one. Check Audiogate by Korg (it's free and excellent), or we could wait and see if Murray has some suggestions. I am not sure how dBpoweramp handles things, but knowing spoon's products, I would expect it to be pretty darned good. One suggestion is that you down-convert to a factor of the original i.e. 192->96->48 and 176.4->88.2->44.1 since there will less likely be an error due to non-integer ops. If I am wrong on the past point, I hope someone pipes in to correct me.

[stunta]

(2012-04-05 09:04)SeeDee12 Wrote:  This is a humorous thread - 23 pages and no real answer. So perhaps the water you drink from the tap is as good as bottled water, but then, just perhaps, it is just the quality of the water.

Sorry for being arrogant, but always look at the source. If you truly hear no difference then you are not drinking from a Fire Hydrant, and your conclusions will always be limited.

there are multiple answers actually. One can believe which ever answer is suitable I wish we could all agree that the answer is indeed 42.

Agree with you on the whole fire hydrant analogy.

[VicJayL]

(2012-04-05 17:11)Music Lover Wrote:  

(2012-04-05 09:04)SeeDee12 Wrote:  This is a humorous thread - 23 pages and no real answer.

I have in numerous threads described my findings, as well as what friends of mine found.
All tests using Tune Dem as evaluation method, both open and blind testing.

...

Only proper double-blind testing can eliminate unconscious factors influencing the result. It's not "If it sounds better it is better". It's "If it sounds better when you have no idea which one you are listening to, it is better".

Only a result like: Listened to 15 random tracks of either resolution and was correct 12 - 15 times" is convincing. No one has posted a result like that.

I have posted a result: Listened to 15 random tracks of both resolutions and was correct for 7 times".

That's a result. I plan others because I was in shock at the result.

Again - why no double-blind test results posted here? I think the reason is becoming blindingly (and disturbingly) obvious!

Vic.

[mcgillroy]

yeah vic - totally with you on this. people spend tons of time and energy writing forums posts and coming up with theories why more data equals more fidelity, why blind testing is crap and why the discussion is pointless anyway.

all while the simplest, easiest and probably quickest thing to do would just to sit down and have a fun little test. really would love to read about the experiences people make doing this.

if somebody comes up with good numbers so be it, great even! I admit I can't tell the difference between a decently encoded mp3 (!) and a wav file, but hey I am only on an old 5103/lk280/kaber combo...

so please ds-gentleman, start your engines, the race is on