Hi-res Wav vs Hi-res flac vs Cd Wav vs Mp3 free comparison files download.

24bit

Well-Known Member
Jun 14, 2013
172
30
333
Hi-res Wav vs Hi-res flac vs Cd Wav vs Mp3 free comparison files download.
Link: http://www.soundliaison.com/

:confused:
Free Tracks Format Comparison

Here is a zip file containing samples of 2 tracks in 4 different formats.
Link; http://www.soundliaison.com/

A: 96/24 WAV
B: 96/24 FLAC
C: 16/44 WAV (CD)
D: 320kbps MP3

All the different formats have the same source file 96/24 WAV (Studio Master).

We used WAVELAB for the conversion.

When you compare the files start with the lowest resolution: D (MP3 320 kbps) and move on up through example C and B ending with A.

Be careful: If you start with A, and move down through B and C ending with D, your mind will remember the ''Blueprint'' of the higher resolution file, making it difficult to hear the difference even when finally listening to the MP3 file. Don't be frustrated if you can't hear a difference at first. Hearing is as individual as taste but hearing is also something which can be acquired, like the taste of good wine.

1. BATIK - The Defeat

A: 96/24 WAV
B: 96/24 FLAC
C: 16/44 WAV (CD)
D: 320kbps MP3

2. Carmen Gomes Inc - A Thousand Shades of Blue

A: 96/24 WAV
B: 96/24 FLAC
C: 16/44 WAV (CD)
D: 320kbps MP3
CompareFormats300Shadowv2.jpg FREESAMPLES-200shadowv5.jpg
 
Last edited:

24bit

Well-Known Member
Jun 14, 2013
172
30
333
audiophile review on hi-res

My position is simple, as I stated in my title, 192/24 files sound better than lower resolution files. How do I know? Simple, I've done tests for the last three years. And I will continue to do tests...

My tests are straightforward. I record live symphony orchestra concerts using a DSD recorder and then using the AudioGate software program I make copies files at 192/24, 96/24, and 44.1/16. After making the transfers I listen to the different versions. The results have been consistent over several years of listening - the 192 File sounds the closest to the DSD file and is the highest fidelity of all the transfers. And how does this added fidelity manifest itself? The 192 files have the best dimensionality and the most easy-to-discipher spatial information of any PCM file. When compared to the 44.1 file the 192 file has a much better rendition of three-dimensional space - Clarinets and Oboes are no longer in each other's laps as on the 44.1 file, but instead are sitting next to each other.

Over the years I've played my recordings for many manufacturers and audiophiles. So far, none have found the 44.1 files to be superior.

Of course all my findings have been based on listening, not theories, but I'm Ok with that.

Now, whether a particular 192/24 commercial recording will always sound better than it's 96/24 or 44.1/16 file of the same performance, is an entirely different question. The results are far more a function of mastering decisions than the inate properties of the different recording rates.

So, if you believe that 44.1 files can and will sound better than higher resolution files, make some recordings at different bit rates and then compare the results. If you do find a set of files where the 44.1 version is best, send me a your files...I'll be eager to listen...

Steven Stone, Audiophile review. http://audiophilereview.com/audiophile-music/yes-19224-files-do-sound-better.html
 

Phelonious Ponk

New Member
Jun 30, 2010
8,677
23
0
The extreme subtlety of the differences between these formats, and the utter illegitimacy of this "test" is acknowledged when the author states that if you listen to the files in the wrong order it will change the results. This methodology would get you a solid F in any science class. The instructions are leading to the result. Knowing which file is which will compltely bugger the outcome. Consciously working your way up from "worst" to "best" is almost guaranteed to get the result as described. What is the point?

Tim
 

mep

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
9,481
17
0
Yeah, but some people claim all digital sounds the same so they probably can't tell the difference between A and D which would help skew the results and cause people to settle for 320kbps because it's just as good as A.
 

Phelonious Ponk

New Member
Jun 30, 2010
8,677
23
0
Yeah, but some people claim all digital sounds the same so they probably can't tell the difference between A and D which would help skew the results and cause people to settle for 320kbps because it's just as good as A.

That is correct. That's why you not only shouldn't know which file is which, you really shouldn't even know what you're listening for, only that you're trying to tell if X is A or B. Telling listeners what they're listening for, which one is which, and even which order to listen to them in...you may as well say, "now and when you listen to this 96/24 file you'll hear greater depth of sound stage and more micro dynamics, plus an enhanced level of musicality. Here that? Right there? Of course you do. You're deaf and stupid if you don't."

P
 

microstrip

VIP/Donor
May 30, 2010
20,806
4,698
2,790
Portugal
(...) You're deaf and stupid if you don't."

A small music store selling high-rez music recorded with great care and love http://www.soundliaison.com/about-us posts links to a few files to allow users to listen for themselves for different formats, with a careless comment about the precedence effect. They just repeat what many pros and experts openly tell us about formats, surely because their experience also confirms it.

It is enough to trigger furious "solid F" comments and we are already in "deaf and stupid". Why all this anger?
 

rbbert

Well-Known Member
Dec 12, 2010
3,820
239
1,000
Reno, NV
And with comments about science class from someone who doesn't even understand scientific method?
 

Phelonious Ponk

New Member
Jun 30, 2010
8,677
23
0
A small music store selling high-rez music recorded with great care and love http://www.soundliaison.com/about-us posts links to a few files to allow users to listen for themselves for different formats, with a careless comment about the precedence effect. They just repeat what many pros and experts openly tell us about formats, surely because their experience also confirms it.

It is enough to trigger furious "solid F" comments and we are already in "deaf and stupid". Why all this anger?

I'm not angry. And I'm not so sure I didn't give too much, That comparison would be lucky to get better than a zero. I'm just telling you what leading the participants to that degree amounts to. And I didn't expect you to get it. Here, let me make it shiny for you:

you may as well say, "now and when you listen to this 96/24 file you'll hear greater depth of sound stage and more micro dynamics, plus an enhanced level of musicality. Here that? Right there? Of course you do. You're brilliant and artistic if you do!"

Better?

Rbert -- tell me how the Free Tracks Format Comparison above adheres to the scientific method. I'm here to learn.

Tim
 

elcorso

VIP/Donor
Nov 19, 2013
87
0
238
Rainforest
Steven Stone 's article is very old, about 2 years . That's light years as it has evolved recordings and digital reproduction, both ADC and DAC. Yet he defends the high resolution.

For me, compare MP3 with high resolution is like comparing analogue tapes with LP. Yet LPs is far, far away from MP3.

The good news is that a recording in MP3 played on a good new DAC sounds better than an old one (even almost listenable).

And yes, the iTunes store does heaps more business selling MP3, than Sound Liaison with high resolution. But iTunes is not exactly audiophile , but they have pretty good quality in similar formats to Redbook . And it seems that they will start selling high resolution, but do not know if the news are true. HDTracks in US and QOBUZ in France are getting bigger and stronger each day, and sells in the format of your choice.

"The proof of the pudding is in the taste". If someone unable to distinguish high-resolution from MP3 is sure the problem is on the gear they are using. I would not mention hearing capabilities because it can be offensive to someone.

Roch
 

24bit

Well-Known Member
Jun 14, 2013
172
30
333
A small music store selling high-rez music recorded with great care and love http://www.soundliaison.com/about-us posts links to a few files to allow users to listen for themselves for different formats, with a careless comment about the precedence effect. They just repeat what many pros and experts openly tell us about formats, surely because their experience also confirms it.

It is enough to trigger furious "solid F" comments and we are already in "deaf and stupid". Why all this anger?

well said.
Is hearing also a skill ? If so, which of these scientific tests has been performed by ''skilled'' listeners?
 

24bit

Well-Known Member
Jun 14, 2013
172
30
333
Steven Stone 's article is very old, about 2 years . That's light years as it has evolved recordings and digital reproduction, both ADC and DAC. Yet he defends the high resolution.

For me, compare MP3 with high resolution is like comparing analogue tapes with LP. Yet LPs is far, far away from MP3.

The good news is that a recording in MP3 played on a good new DAC sounds better than an old one (even almost listenable).

And yes, the iTunes store does heaps more business selling MP3, than Sound Liaison with high resolution. But iTunes is not exactly audiophile , but they have pretty good quality in similar formats to Redbook . And it seems that they will start selling high resolution, but do not know if the news are true. HDTracks in US and QOBUZ in France are getting bigger and stronger each day, and sells in the format of your choice.

"The proof of the pudding is in the taste". If someone unable to distinguish high-resolution from MP3 is sure the problem is on the gear they are using. I would not mention hearing capabilities because it can be offensive to someone.

Roch

Well said.
But the original master is also very important.
Listen how good this youtube video sounds compared to other you tube video's.
When the source is good even youtube sounds reasonable.
 

elcorso

VIP/Donor
Nov 19, 2013
87
0
238
Rainforest
Well said.
But the original master is also very important.
Listen how good this youtube video sounds compared to other you tube video's.
When the source is good even youtube sounds reasonable.

Completely agree!...

As we say in Spanish "No se puede hacer chocalate sin cacao..." ("You can not make chocolate without cocoa...")

Just to mention Meridian Audio's Bob Stuart at the digital audio beginnings he said Redbook format was enough, then, recently, he said you need a 24/96 recording source at least in order to make a decent CD.

I love Carmen Gomes, doesn't matter the resolution!...

Roch
 

24bit

Well-Known Member
Jun 14, 2013
172
30
333
Old but interesting article

Is this article still valid, or has time caught up with it?

On the PCM front, it would appear that 24/96
is going to be enough for most people, if it’s
done right. If it’s done even more right, the
audiophiles among us may prefer 192kHz
sampling, although it does rather have the
feeling of ‘too much of a good thing’ with
problems in the bass end that remind one
a little of 30ips analog.
The debate between PCM and DSD is not
going to be resolved by technical superiority.
It will hinge on marketing expertise, available
titles, available machines and their features —
stereo versus multichannel, stuff like that.
Very likely the DSD process and its distribution
medium, Super-Audio CD, will find favor
among classical recordists and those
employing simple digital signal paths, where
it may offer levels of quality superior even to
24/192 PCM. But, for the time being, the
most effective way of processing such signals
may be to use high-quality analog equipment
— a specific design goal behind at least one
new analog console.
Complete article;

http://www.ambisonic.net/pdf/hiresaudio.pdf
 

FrantzM

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
6,455
29
405
well said.
Is hearing also a skill ? If so, which of these scientific tests has been performed by ''skilled'' listeners?

Just saying ... When it comes to skilled listeners we, audiophiles, however much we think of our hearing fare very poorly. I could dug some references to this humbling conclusion but not much time to search maybe Amirm could help me there... feeling lazy :) . This was mentioned in this very WBF. You could you too search for it.

I for one would say there is a definitive difference between mp3 and CD or above. I would say that most people have to learn how to listen to the differences. I would repeat they are not as obvious and self-evident as many would think. Once you learn however they come to be perceived. This could be quite an experience to realize that a well-mastered (emphasis, please, on "well") of an unknown piece on mp3 at 320kb/s will fool many audiophiles.
 

24bit

Well-Known Member
Jun 14, 2013
172
30
333
mp3 examples

But hearing the difference or not... at least the whole audiophile thing has pawned the way for a number of excellent small audiophile labels; Linn, 2L, Reference Recordings, Blue Coast, Sound Liaison...the list goes on, producing quality recordings that sounds great in whatever format one chose to listen.
You tube is mp3, right? This sounds pretty good already, and I am also the proud owner of of a one to one copy of the studio master, (15€).
 

audioguy

WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
2,794
73
1,635
Near Atlanta, GA but not too near!
I found an interesting thread on AVS on High Resolution Audio.

What I found most interesting and something that backs up my own experience was a quote from Bob Ludwig.

I spoke with Bob after his presentation and asked him if there is anything beyond CD specs to capture from old analog tapes. "Yes," he said, "depending on how the tape was stored, how the heads were aligned, and the mixing console. There can definitely be frequencies beyond 20 kHz, but probably not dynamic range beyond 90 dB." However, he acknowledged that most of the difference between a CD and a high-res version of the same content is in the remastering, not in content beyond CD specs. He also pointed out that CDs can sound very good, especially if the original recordings are higher resolution and downconverted to 16/44.1 at the end.

I would be interested in Bruce's take on this article.
 

APP

Well-Known Member
Oct 1, 2014
455
108
273
24bit to 16 bit

But hearing the difference or not... at least the whole audiophile thing has pawned the way for a number of excellent small audiophile labels; Linn, 2L, Reference Recordings, Blue Coast, Sound Liaison...the list goes on, producing quality recordings that sounds great in whatever format one chose to listen.
You tube is mp3, right? This sounds pretty good already, and I am also the proud owner of of a one to one copy of the studio master, (15€).

I found an interesting thread on AVS on High Resolution Audio.

What I found most interesting and something that backs up my own experience was a quote from Bob Ludwig.
I spoke with Bob after his presentation and asked him if there is anything beyond CD specs to capture from old analog tapes. "Yes," he said, "depending on how the tape was stored, how the heads were aligned, and the mixing console. There can definitely be frequencies beyond 20 kHz, but probably not dynamic range beyond 90 dB." However, he acknowledged that most of the difference between a CD and a high-res version of the same content is in the remastering, not in content beyond CD specs. He also pointed out that CDs can sound very good, especially if the original recordings are higher resolution and downconverted to 16/44.1 at the end.


I would be interested in Bruce's take on this article.
That is exactly why those recordings sound so good high resolution at the source.
 

APP

Well-Known Member
Oct 1, 2014
455
108
273
Just saying ... When it comes to skilled listeners we, audiophiles, however much we think of our hearing fare very poorly. I could dug some references to this humbling conclusion but not much time to search maybe Amirm could help me there... feeling lazy :) . This was mentioned in this very WBF. You could you too search for it.

I for one would say there is a definitive difference between mp3 and CD or above. I would say that most people have to learn how to listen to the differences. I would repeat they are not as obvious and self-evident as many would think. Once you learn however they come to be perceived. This could be quite an experience to realize that a well-mastered (emphasis, please, on "well") of an unknown piece on mp3 at 320kb/s will fool many audiophiles.

Also true.
 

APP

Well-Known Member
Oct 1, 2014
455
108
273
Quote Originally Posted by microstrip View Post
A small music store selling high-rez music recorded with great care and love http://www.soundliaison.com/about-us posts links to a few files to allow users to listen for themselves for different formats, with a careless comment about the precedence effect. They just repeat what many pros and experts openly tell us about formats, surely because their experience also confirms it.

It is enough to trigger furious "solid F" comments and we are already in "deaf and stupid". Why all this anger?
I'm not angry. And I'm not so sure I didn't give too much, That comparison would be lucky to get better than a zero. I'm just telling you what leading the participants to that degree amounts to. And I didn't expect you to get it. Here, let me make it shiny for you:

you may as well say, "now and when you listen to this 96/24 file you'll hear greater depth of sound stage and more micro dynamics, plus an enhanced level of musicality. Here that? Right there? Of course you do. You're brilliant and artistic if you do!"

Better?

Rbert -- tell me how the Free Tracks Format Comparison above adheres to the scientific method. I'm here to learn.

Tim

But you can easily take the ''Free Tracks Format Comparison'' and make your own scientific test. The Sound Liaison recordings are some of the best sounding on the market.
 

About us

  • What’s Best Forum is THE forum for high end audio, product reviews, advice and sharing experiences on the best of everything else. This is THE place where audiophiles and audio companies discuss vintage, contemporary and new audio products, music servers, music streamers, computer audio, digital-to-analog converters, turntables, phono stages, cartridges, reel-to-reel tape machines, speakers, headphones and tube and solid-state amplification. Founded in 2010 What’s Best Forum invites intelligent and courteous people of all interests and backgrounds to describe and discuss the best of everything. From beginners to life-long hobbyists to industry professionals, we enjoy learning about new things and meeting new people, and participating in spirited debates.

Quick Navigation

User Menu

Steve Williams
Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator
Ron Resnick
Site Co-Owner | Administrator
Julian (The Fixer)
Website Build | Marketing Managersing