und weiterMark Waldrep hat geschrieben:The HD-Audio Challenge II has garnered around 200 submissions. Participants downloaded the 20 tracks in both hi-res (96/24) and CD Spec at 44.1/16 bits. These were native, non-compressed, non-mastered audiophile quality recordings from my AIX Records catalog. Preliminary results seem to confirm my suspicions that no one can successfully identify the hi-res audio version over the CD version in their own systems at home. In fact, a large percentage of the respondents said they couldn’t detect any differences between the two. I’m going to continue the survey for a few more months. An online magazine has agreed to promote it…I wrote an article for AudiophileReview.com that should show up soon. My hope is to get a younger demographic to participate. The average age of those that have submitted results so far is around 50 (my readership).
To request access to the files, visit: at http://www.realhd-audio.com/?p=6197
Anyone or company that claims that distributing music in resolutions higher than CD is pushing a narrative for marketing and profit reasons NOT for higher fidelity.
My experience at NARAS, CEA/CTA, and the DEG is that increasing sales for hardware and software sellers is the prime directive. And now the myths are being pushed via HD Audio streaming. AMAZON Music HD has redefined CD spec as high-definition!
The is little chance that honesty will prevail IMHO.
Mark Waldrep, Ph.D.
Da kann also gern jeder für sich testen, inwieweit er HighRes hört oder nichtBob Katz hat geschrieben:Come on, guys.... We've been down this road in this reflector several times. You may recall at least one of the tests I worked on with some of you many years ago. I've subsequently performed differently-designed tests designed to try to settle the issue of "bandwidth", and each time the listening tests lead to the same conclusions:
Thus I am 99.9999999% convinced that the sonic differences between sample rates are not due to the bandwidth, but rather to the performance of the converters themselves. Unfortunately, the bandwidth mafia at HD Tracks keeps maintaining the illusion that what we can see has anything to do with what we can hear. And I hope that JJ does not make his application because it will continue to mislead the public.
In Bob Stuart's paper, which is open access so you do not have to be an AES member to download this:
J. R. Stuart and P. G. Craven, “The Gentle Art of Dithering” J. Audio Eng. Soc., vol. 67, no. 5, pp. 278–299, (2019 May.). DOI: https://doi.org/10.17743/jaes.2019.0011
he points out on page 290 the number of decimators and upsampling filters that occur in typical chip-based converters. And that these stages are not dithered. And that there are fewer of these stages when the converters are used at a higher sample rate. Smoking gun....
In a conversation I had with him at the New York AES last year, I told him that I discovered that audio sounds superior in many current converters if you upsample it and reproduce it at the higher rate. I also told him of my experiments showing that if you start with, for example, a 96 kHz recording, downsample it to 44.1 k and then reupsample it to 96k, that it sounds identical to the original, but the 44.1 k intermediate stage sounds worse, smaller and less resolved. In my book, I point out: How can a second generation in a chain sound worse than the third generation?
Bob Stuart's explanation for this phenomenon is the design of the converters themselves.
Thus my conclusion that the DACs perform better at the higher sample rate. Stuart explained that when the converters work at a higher sample rate, the audio goes through fewer stages of either decimation or upsampling, and that these stages are typically not dithered. The fewer of these stages, the better the audio sounds. So, folks, it's not the bandwidth that makes the higher sample rates sound better, it's the internal design of the converters themselves.
Note that in one or more of his MQA papers Stuart describes the processes' restoration of high frequency information "just in case" but acknowledges that it may not be necessary. Like chicken soup, keeping the extra high frequency information couldn't hurt (except for wasting storage space and processing time). But I am resentful that many of my great-sounding masters that I have worked so carefully to make them sound better, including upsampling before processing --- have to be downsampled in order to be released on HD tracks because of the high res mafia.