Can you tell the difference between 96/24 and 44/16 and mp3?

[Del monaco]

As long as it doesn’t sound compressed I’m not bothered what bit rate it is. Sometimes I do feel I can hear a difference but not enough to merit chasing the higher bit rates.I think the original production is more important really.

 

[darrenyeats]

When newer recordings are available in high res, usually it's same final mix, but without the down-sampling to 16/44. Since these days I can play high res natively even on my phone, it seems the down-sampling is an unneeded extra step. One could argue keeping it doesn't hurt, but then it just isn't needed and so my instinct is not to have it.

Older recordings are a bit different, often the overall best digital version will be a CD release for bigger reasons than sampling rate or bit depth. Research needed.

Most of my music is still 16/44 and I'm relaxed about that. I think I prefer a minimum-phase style (post-ringing) filter.

 

[blueninjasix]

Good Afternoon All,

I see an EM popped up in my Inbox this morning from Mark Weldrup. Although not directly aimed at myself, as one of the apparently 350 people who have tried his challenge I still await my specific result, but I see his is stating that there was, on average, only a 40% success rate in determining which track was which.

It is disappointing that so few people bothered even attempting the challenge in the first place but the results are hardly a resounding endorsement for so called Hi-Res audio.

Regards

Richard

I only scored 35% but I did inadvertently not make a choice on one of the tracks. You can ask Mark for your personal score. I got 7 correct, 1 no choice and 12 incorrect. I found it extremely difficult to make any decisions - they all sounded very similar. In my defence, I did not enjoy most of the selected music. I find it much easier to identify my own music which has been upsampled in Hqplayer compared to non- upsampled.

 

[Octavian]

Professionals in the US think 44/16 can be bettered especially for complex acoustic music. Worth a read.

https://www.grammy.com/sites/com/files/recommendations_for_hires_music_production_09_28_18.pdf

Quite a few unsubstantiated claims there.

 

[sq225917]

It is rather in their interest to make those claims. I note theres no inclusion of any blind testing to show 24/94 being preferred to cd rate.

48khz/24bit is more than enough headroom to let the sampling maths and filter coefficients sort themselves out.

 

[Richard Lines]

I only scored 35% but I did inadvertently not make a choice on one of the tracks. You can ask Mark for your personal score. I got 7 correct, 1 no choice and 12 incorrect. I found it extremely difficult to make any decisions - they all sounded very similar. In my defence, I did not enjoy most of the selected music. I find it much easier to identify my own music which has been upsampled in Hqplayer compared to non- upsampled.

I asked after I completed and didn't get a response, maybe I should try again.

Regards

Richard

 

[davidsrsb]

...Older recordings are a bit different, often the overall best digital version will be a CD release for bigger reasons than sampling rate or bit depth. Research needed....

Worse, they were often made at 48ksps in the 80s thanks to the use of DAT.
Then factor in some poor quality sample rate conversion to 44.1ksps, using broken software.(SOX was notable for being unusual in getting it right for a long time)

 

[jamington2004]

No

 

[chartz]

I can hear huge differences especially on classical with a lot of perspective - big orchestras in big venues.
On mp3 there is little stage depth. Every time.
And everything stays between the speakers.
That organ seems to be on the same plane as the violins at left and the double basses at right.

On processed pop music everything sounds the same, mp3, CD, 24/96.

 

[1964meb]

yes, easily - it's really clear on my hifi .. well some of it is !

 

[Cereal Killer]

Depends on the mastering, but if all done well, yes differences are clear to identify