• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

AIX Records High Rez Test Results

Sal1950

Grand Contributor
The Chicago Crusher
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 1, 2016
Messages
14,073
Likes
16,609
Location
Central Fl
Mark Waldrep Published the results of his high rez listening test today.
Limited numbers but interesting none the less, specially considering the source.
http://www.realhd-audio.com/?p=6267
 

Blumlein 88

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 23, 2016
Messages
20,524
Likes
37,057
Considering his close association as an advocate of real hirez, and how much it defines his public image in his chosen profession, to admit he couldn't hear the difference is an act of honesty, good character and required some courage. He is to be commended for that;
 

restorer-john

Grand Contributor
Joined
Mar 1, 2018
Messages
12,586
Likes
38,284
Location
Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia
I predict the latest fad will be 'Down-Rezzing'. It's where you take anything above 16/44.1 and SRC it back, then burn it to a CDR (Red Book) and play it 'old-skool' on an 80s CD player.

Goes without saying, myriad veils will be lifted.
 
OP
Sal1950

Sal1950

Grand Contributor
The Chicago Crusher
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 1, 2016
Messages
14,073
Likes
16,609
Location
Central Fl
Considering his close association as an advocate of real hirez, and how much it defines his public image in his chosen profession, to admit he couldn't hear the difference is an act of honesty, good character and required some courage. He is to be commended for that;
I think he's keeping a gray area open for original digital recordings (like his) done at high data rates and then released at better than redbook. He always maintained that was the only way hiz rez recordings had audible value, but that there was no value in anything above 24/96. A position that got him in trouble and thrown off the CES for apposing putting the Hi Rez logo on anything released in a better then redbook speed. As it stands now they put that shit on anything, the definition allows for stamping it on a Edison acoustic recording if it come out in 24/88.
 

Blumlein 88

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 23, 2016
Messages
20,524
Likes
37,057
I predict the latest fad will be 'Down-Rezzing'. It's where you take anything above 16/44.1 and SRC it back, then burn it to a CDR (Red Book) and play it 'old-skool' on an 80s CD player.

Goes without saying, myriad veils will be lifted.

Yeah we need to go so old school it never even really was. We need pure analog reconstruction filters. None of this new fangled fidelity destroying digital filtering. Pure NOS DACS feeding pure analog filters. We'll start the fad with active op-amp based filter chains. Eventually some Japanese mystic will have to use only passive filters of hand made spiritual capacitors and hand wound coils. Something that takes 9 months for a 'master' to build, and sells for many thousands. Maybe we can encapsulate the filters in glass envelopes that are then put to a vacuum so we'll have NOS DACs, feeding hand made passive analog filters residing in vacuum tubes. Man I can hardly stand it just thinking about how wonderful that would be in my imagination.

Even further, old early research for many years listed human hearing response as 50-15,000 hz. The upper number is because the cilia in the ear which respond to sound actually only has these hairs cells for response to 15,000 hz. The response beyond that is more like spectral leakage on the high side which is why hearing thresholds above 15 khz go up so steeply. Those deeply attuned master souls would see we are overstressing hearing with gear that responds beyond 15 khz. That means we would have nearly a 1/2 octave for a transition band at 44.1 khz rates which helps with passive filtering.
 
Last edited:

restorer-john

Grand Contributor
Joined
Mar 1, 2018
Messages
12,586
Likes
38,284
Location
Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia
Maybe we can encapsulate the filters in glass envelopes that are then put to a vacuum so we'll have NOS DACs, feeding hand made passive analog filters residing in vacuum tubes.

I reckon there's a product in that. Needs to be lit from underneath with LEDs like McIntosh lights up their tubes (green).

So awesome I think I'm going to pass out.
 

watchnerd

Grand Contributor
Joined
Dec 8, 2016
Messages
12,449
Likes
10,409
Location
Seattle Area, USA
I predict the latest fad will be 'Down-Rezzing'. It's where you take anything above 16/44.1 and SRC it back, then burn it to a CDR (Red Book) and play it 'old-skool' on an 80s CD player.

Goes without saying, myriad veils will be lifted.

No playback should be on cassette.

Or reel to reel if you're well heeled.
 

andreasmaaan

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 19, 2018
Messages
6,652
Likes
9,399
Mark Waldrep Published the results of his high rez listening test today.
Limited numbers but interesting none the less, specially considering the source.
http://www.realhd-audio.com/?p=6267

Am I missing something? I can't find the results in that post. But he is saying that some (but not many) people were able to discriminate between the two, right?
 

Veri

Master Contributor
Joined
Feb 6, 2018
Messages
9,596
Likes
12,036
Mark Waldrep said:
A large number responded by saying they simply couldn’t tell them apart. I fall into the latter category.

A minority thinks they can tell them apart, the majority admits that they simply could not. It's cool of him to admit to be in the latter category.
 

cjfrbw

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2018
Messages
410
Likes
472
I figured that I was going to have to turn my audiophile credentials in when I started truly enjoying listening sessions with 128kbs, 256kbs and 300-400kbs FLAC, much less digital vs. analog. I don't know when the 'crossover' occurred and digital got better, but I would hazard in the last eight years or so. Before then, I listened almost exclusively to LP.

I used to think my audiophile credentials were in jeopardy, too, when I preferred Redbook playback to SACD. I got in some flame throwing arguments with young turks on Audio Asylum about that one. I didn't throw the flames, they did, particularly one young Asian chick from Australia who was a weird know-it-all.

I found SACD annoying, after the first blush of analog-like presentations.

I subsequently heard of others who also were annoyed, possible because of the carrier, and the analog-like stuff was mostly from noise shaping algorithms chosen to sound that way, but irritating to some listeners. I also found out about the bit rate falling off above 8 Khz on SACD. The high upper midrange to highs were'nt actually bit-better than Redbook. Ultra high frequencies were there, but at very low bit rate, even though Redbook would usually sharply filter at 20 khz.

I also wondered about 45 rpm vinyls. I have many 45's, several 'audiophile', and I found them to be sharper and less smooth sounding than 33 rpm albeit perhaps a bit more detailed. Of course, the vinyl mavens rave about their 45 re-issues like they are nectar of the gods. I thought, that if I listened to 45's, I would have to re-equalize my system.

I don't really 'care' that much any more, because the goal is to enjoy the system, and enjoyable it is whatever I put into it.

Maybe being able to enjoy 256kbs stuff is a blessing because that seems to be a prevailing medium, rather than a curse to my audio ego.

I wonder how many audiophiles would even admit they could listen to such dreck without polluting the purity of their audio souls.

I have been interested in getting a few more philes over here to listen to see if they agree, or if my hearing is just shot.
 
Last edited:

Frank Dernie

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 24, 2016
Messages
6,445
Likes
15,781
Location
Oxfordshire
I predict the latest fad will be 'Down-Rezzing'. It's where you take anything above 16/44.1 and SRC it back, then burn it to a CDR (Red Book) and play it 'old-skool' on an 80s CD player.

Goes without saying, myriad veils will be lifted.
I'm already doing that, though veils are not lifted :)
Also my CD players are of varying ages, not all 80s.
I have really just given up on streaming and the way I have chosen to listen to the high(er) res files I own is to do exactly what you write.
 

Frank Dernie

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 24, 2016
Messages
6,445
Likes
15,781
Location
Oxfordshire
I figured that I was going to have to turn my audiophile credentials in when I started truly enjoying listening sessions with 128kbs, 256kbs and 300-400kbs FLAC, much less digital vs. analog. I don't know when the 'crossover' occurred and digital got better, but I would hazard in the last eight years or so. Before then, I listened almost exclusively to LP.

I used to think my audiophile credentials were in jeopardy, too, when I preferred Redbook playback to SACD. I got in some flame throwing arguments with young turks on Audio Asylum about that one. I didn't throw the flames, they did, particularly one young Asian chick from Australia who was a weird know-it-all.

I found SACD annoying, after the first blush of analog-like presentations.

I subsequently heard of others who also were annoyed, possible because of the carrier, and the analog-like stuff was mostly from noise shaping algorithms chosen to sound that way, but irritating to some listeneres.

I also wondered about 45 rpm vinyls. I have many 45's, several 'audiophile', and I found them to be sharper and less smooth sounding than 33 rpm albeit perhaps a bit more detailed. Of course, the vinyl mavens rave about their 45 re-issues like they are nectar of the gods. I thought, that if I listened to 45's, I would have to re-equalize my system.

I don't really 'care' that much any more, because the goal is to enjoy the system, and enjoyable it is whatever I put into it.

Maybe being able to enjoy 256kbs stuff is a blessing because that seems to be a prevailing medium, rather than a curse to my audio ego.

I wonder how many audiophiles would even admit they could listen to such dreck without polluting the purity of their audio souls.

I have been interested in getting a few more philes over here to listen to see if they agree, or if my hearing is just shot.
Some of my best sounding CDs are early ones, probably because they predate dynamic compression.
I think the one thing which makes, to an extent, a mockery of the whole idea of hifi is the fact that the difference in quality of recordings is often w-a-y bigger than differences between bits of hifi electronics and listening to fabulous music sometimes means accepting modest sound quality simply because of the available recording.
 
OP
Sal1950

Sal1950

Grand Contributor
The Chicago Crusher
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 1, 2016
Messages
14,073
Likes
16,609
Location
Central Fl
Some of my best sounding CDs are early ones, probably because they predate dynamic compression.
I think the one thing which makes, to an extent, a mockery of the whole idea of hifi is the fact that the difference in quality of recordings is often w-a-y bigger than differences between bits of hifi electronics and listening to fabulous music sometimes means accepting modest sound quality simply because of the available recording.
There was a time in my early life as a audiophile I became quite disenchanted. It seemed that the better my system got, the worse many of my favorite recordings sounded. The highs were tizzy, cymbals sounded like air hose blasts, voices sibilant and spitty, you know the sound. I later came to understand that was just the way it was going to be, those recordings were the roadblock and no amount of money would change it, a sad truth. It tamed my insatiable upgrading and spending since quality recordings sounded incredible, but so little of what I listen to are of audiophile quality in the first place. I guess that's how I got to a place where "good enough really was good enough".
Now the only time I spend money is on the HT side of my system, a place where tech really is improving and changing, Where additional moneys spend actually give return. IE the improved surround codecs, atmos, dts-hd-x and the various upmixers..
 

cjfrbw

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2018
Messages
410
Likes
472
Yamaha and some other HT receivers have low bit rate Enhancement on-off buttons . The Yamaha Enhancer is pretty effective on a lot of material. The pre-pro I currently have has lots of processing power.

The enhancers are proprietary, but from listening I speculate that there is some dynamic range expansion in the midrange, low frequency and lower midrange frequency curve boost, and some kind of dynamic high frequency add-back.

It works very well for 128kbs and above, although I do not prefer using it on standard Redbook or higher resolutions. It also seems to work well for home theater soundtracks that come through cable and Netflix.
 

Soniclife

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Apr 13, 2017
Messages
4,500
Likes
5,417
Location
UK
I later came to understand that was just the way it was going to be, those recordings were the roadblock and no amount of money would change it, a sad truth.
I wish I had no idea what you were talking about, but it's all too real in me.
For a very long time I regretted upgrading from my very first separates system of a Rega 3, Denon PMA 250 mk2 and a pair of JPW P1 speakers, took me years to work out the mixed results from upgrades that followed we sometimes just telling the truth about some records.
 

maverickronin

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jul 19, 2018
Messages
2,527
Likes
3,308
Location
Midwest, USA
There was a time in my early life as a audiophile I became quite disenchanted. It seemed that the better my system got, the worse many of my favorite recordings sounded. The highs were tizzy, cymbals sounded like air hose blasts, voices sibilant and spitty, you know the sound. I later came to understand that was just the way it was going to be, those recordings were the roadblock and no amount of money would change it, a sad truth.

People say this kind of thing a lot, but I've never heard it that way. IME good recodings and mixes tend to sound good on almost anything while it takes excellent gear to make sense of poor or overly compressed mixes.
 

svart-hvitt

Major Contributor
Joined
Aug 31, 2017
Messages
2,375
Likes
1,253
People say this kind of thing a lot, but I've never heard it that way. IME good recodings and mixes tend to sound good on almost anything while it takes excellent gear to make sense of poor or overly compressed mixes.

How are you to detect a poor record when mastering, if records always sound good on speakers?

If neutrality is achieved, shouldn’t bad records sound bad, and good records sound good?
 

andreasmaaan

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 19, 2018
Messages
6,652
Likes
9,399
IME there can be a difference between a system that merely allows you to notice the problems in a recording, and a system that allows those problems to sap the joy and life out of the recording. Often that difference seems to lie in the room and speaker placement IMO.
 
Top Bottom