Hi-Res Music Challenge Again: Doing It Right!

[HunTer]

I think this could it be very interesting. What do you think?

Hi-Res Music Challenge Again: Doing It Right:
secure.campaigner.com/csb/Public/show/566i-11m9tb--kkc9f-o8xjtn0

[mgbpuff]

A rehash of arguments made repeatedly. Hi res music is only discernable as an improvement given the correct combination of good reproduction equipment, good listening environment, and good hearing. Grandma playing it on her Crosley in her knitting room is not scientific.

[dsonyay]

I did my own experiment with a high res music file (.wav).. i ripped it into mp3 formats ranging from variable bit rate down to 64kb. It's very easy to hear a difference from 128kb down. Well, even 256kb sounded different but overall it was pretty good. Above 256 I honestly couldn't tell the difference. This was on my own equipment of course and ears over 50 yrs old.

PBS has a pretty good interactive online test.. it's a multiple choice test.. there's a few different songs..

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

How good are your ears?

[HunTer]

Apr 27, 2019 7:39:40 GMT -5 mgbpuff said:

A rehash of arguments made repeatedly. Hi res music is only discernable as an improvement given the correct combination of good reproduction equipment, good listening environment, and good hearing. Grandma playing it on her Crosley in her knitting room is not scientific.

Agree

Statement of Purpose and Description of the Proposed Project

a. Goals of the project – The goal of the proposed research project is to test whether music consumers can reliably identify a Hi-Res Music selection versus a downconverted of the same file at CD or standard resolution using real high-resolution sources, rigorous testing methodologies, and statistical analysis. This issue is a major point of contention among audio consumers and despite previous studies remains unsettled.

Since Edison’s invention of audio recording in the late 19th century, it has generally been assumed that recording fidelity has steadily increased. Music consumers have been offered and purchased music on a wide variety of physical formats including crude, low fidelity cylinders, monophonic lacquer 78 rpm discs, stereo vinyl 33 1/3 rpm LPs, analog tapes, 8-track cartridges, compact cassettes, compact discs (CDs), and recently pure audio Blu-ray discs. The arrival of digital audio file formats ushered in the era of CDs, music “ripping”, and MP3 playback. Recently, Digital Music Retailers (DMR) like iTunes and Amazon Music that provided file downloads have given market share to music streaming services including Spotify, Apple Music, and Tidal.

One of the latest initiatives being promoted by NARAS (The Recording Academy®), the CTA (Consumer Technology Association), the DEG (Digital Entertainment Group), major consumer electronics companies, and the major music labels is called Hi-Res Audio/Music or High-Resolution Audio/Music. This new digital format is the latest new format to promise additional fidelity for consumers. But does it? Does merely doubling or quadrupling the sample rate of a digital sound file and adding 8-bits to each sample deliver perceptible improvements in fidelity?

[/font][/quote][/font][/font]

[HunTer]

Apr 27, 2019 7:51:16 GMT -5 dsonyay said:

I did my own experiment with a high res music file (.wav).. i ripped it into mp3 formats ranging from variable bit rate down to 64kb. It's very easy to hear a difference from 128kb down. Well, even 256kb sounded different but overall it was pretty good. Above 256 I honestly couldn't tell the difference. This was on my own equipment of course and ears over 50 yrs old.

PBS has a pretty good interactive online test.. it's a multiple choice test.. there's a few different songs..

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

How good are your ears?

Hi, dsonyay

Like you, I did that same experiment some years ago, on a PC using WMP. At the time, I could detect differences down 128kb but no always above that. However, the equipment and headphones used were no good enough.

Almost a month ago I also found that same NPR site with that test. I scored one correct uncompressed wav, and only two tracks 320kb. It was not easy so I think it was just a guess

I am 64 years old. According some hearing online test, my left ear is ok for my age, and the right is 70 years old.

[Jean Genie]

Apr 27, 2019 7:51:16 GMT -5 dsonyay said:

I did my own experiment with a high res music file (.wav).. i ripped it into mp3 formats ranging from variable bit rate down to 64kb. It's very easy to hear a difference from 128kb down. Well, even 256kb sounded different but overall it was pretty good. Above 256 I honestly couldn't tell the difference. This was on my own equipment of course and ears over 50 yrs old.

PBS has a pretty good interactive online test.. it's a multiple choice test.. there's a few different songs..

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

How good are your ears?

I took that NPR test, using cans, and was 4 for 6 with the two wrong being 320kb.  @ 67 years old, I know I can't hear jack squat over 14khz (I took that test too), but before I do any chest thumping I've gotta admit, I had a very hard time discerning the difference among ALL the test files, leading me to doubt the value of hi-rez files TO ME. 
YMMV