Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: PCM 24/96 vs Flac 24/96 vs Wav16/44.1 vs Mp3 320kbps (Read 16474 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

PCM 24/96 vs Flac 24/96 vs Wav16/44.1 vs Mp3 320kbps

2 stunningly well recorded comparison files. What do you think of the ''Blueprint'' claim.


Quote
Free Tracks Format Comparison

Here is a zip file containing samples of 2 tracks in 4 different formats.

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.

PCM 24/96 vs Flac 24/96 vs Wav16/44.1 vs Mp3 320kbps

Reply #1 –
How does it come that on several places for this label mostly new members inform the world?
Is troll-adiposity coming from feederism?
With 24bit music you can listen to silence much louder!

PCM 24/96 vs Flac 24/96 vs Wav16/44.1 vs Mp3 320kbps

Reply #2 –
I do not think anything but a blind comparison counts. And during DBT you can switch between the two tested formats as many times as you need.

PCM 24/96 vs Flac 24/96 vs Wav16/44.1 vs Mp3 320kbps

Reply #3 –
Download here, need to create free user account though: http://www.soundliaison.com/all-our-produc...wav-flac-cd-mp3


I've heard similar claims, but they all fail to provide any evidence.

Knowing a song inside out allows me to fill in the gaps when listening to the song on a horrible system, or through a horrible format (low bitrate mp3), but I still hear the differences in sound quality.
"I hear it when I see it."

PCM 24/96 vs Flac 24/96 vs Wav16/44.1 vs Mp3 320kbps

Reply #4 –
"We used WAVELAB for the conversion" ... well, which version? Wavelab 5's sample rate converters don't look too good on http://src.infinitewave.ca/ and I wouldn't be surprised if the artifacts are sometimes audible. Wavelab 6 should be fine though.

PCM 24/96 vs Flac 24/96 vs Wav16/44.1 vs Mp3 320kbps

Reply #5 –
I wouldn't trust someone who includes both a FLAC and a WAV file to do the conversion correctly.  If you want to compare, grab the FLAC and convert it yourself using a known good resampler.

PCM 24/96 vs Flac 24/96 vs Wav16/44.1 vs Mp3 320kbps

Reply #6 –
"listen to the files in the order we give you! so you know deep down that it's gonna get better with each file. do you hear all the bettererness growing on you when you press next song?"

it's warning us of a brain trick and want us to solve it with "do you think this is better now that I told you it is?". funny.

this should be given as a psycho test to know how much one can get manipulated. and if it works well, then you go and sell a crap rug for 1500$ to the guy.

PCM 24/96 vs Flac 24/96 vs Wav16/44.1 vs Mp3 320kbps

Reply #7 –
Lots more potential listening-test material coming from Linn

PCM 24/96 vs Flac 24/96 vs Wav16/44.1 vs Mp3 320kbps

Reply #8 –
Quote from: bandpass on
Lots more potential listening-test material coming from Linn


Just another mailing list building scam.

We aren't that desperate for high sample rate files any more.

And at least some of us should be wise enough to know that it takes more than just a lot of samples to make a exceptionally diagnostic piece of music.

PCM 24/96 vs Flac 24/96 vs Wav16/44.1 vs Mp3 320kbps

Reply #9 –
Quote from: bandpass on
Lots more potential listening-test material coming from Linn
"The 24-bits of Christmas." Very cute.

Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Just another mailing list building scam.

We aren't that desperate for high sample rate files any more.
Bah Humbug!

Quote
And at least some of us should be wise enough to know that it takes more than just a lot of samples to make a exceptionally diagnostic piece of music.
To be fair, Linn didn't claim these were such.

Cheers,
David.

PCM 24/96 vs Flac 24/96 vs Wav16/44.1 vs Mp3 320kbps

Reply #10 –
Quote from: Wombat on
How does it come that on several places for this label mostly new members inform the world?
Obviously Spam, but rather strange spam that doesn't include the actual link.

PCM 24/96 vs Flac 24/96 vs Wav16/44.1 vs Mp3 320kbps

Reply #12 –
Quote from: 2Bdecided on
Quote from: bandpass on
Lots more potential listening-test material coming from Linn
"The 24-bits of Christmas." Very cute.

Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Just another mailing list building scam.

We aren't that desperate for high sample rate files any more.
Bah Humbug!

Quote
And at least some of us should be wise enough to know that it takes more than just a lot of samples to make a exceptionally diagnostic piece of music.
To be fair, Linn didn't claim these were such.



Never said they did, but this guy seems to be headed in that direction:

Quote from: bandpass on
Lots more potential listening-test material coming from Linn


Yep it has potential, but only because it exists.  But other than the seemingly settled issue of high sample rates, is it any better than any other random collection of tracks?  More specifically, there is probably some CD format material that is far more diagnostic for many audible problems.

A number of people who have done a lot of successful listening tests under their beltsw  including JJ have pointed out that a lot of highly diagnostic material sounds bad on its own merits as a recording.

PCM 24/96 vs Flac 24/96 vs Wav16/44.1 vs Mp3 320kbps

Reply #13 –
How can one debate whether this material is better than other material—it's not even up yet!

It's simply a flag to point out the availability of material that might prove useful for some sort of test (or, god forbid, that some might just enjoy listening to!).  Of course, if one wants to specifically perform a format comparison test, the provisos about not trusting the supplier's conversions etc. still apply.

PCM 24/96 vs Flac 24/96 vs Wav16/44.1 vs Mp3 320kbps

Reply #14 –
Quote from: 2Bdecided on
Quote from: Wombat on
How does it come that on several places for this label mostly new members inform the world?
Obviously Spam, but rather strange spam that doesn't include the actual link.

Tactics! If you have to google first you will remind the labels name better
Is troll-adiposity coming from feederism?
With 24bit music you can listen to silence much louder!

PCM 24/96 vs Flac 24/96 vs Wav16/44.1 vs Mp3 320kbps

Reply #15 –
Quote from: Wombat on
Quote from: 2Bdecided on
Quote from: Wombat on
How does it come that on several places for this label mostly new members inform the world?
Obviously Spam, but rather strange spam that doesn't include the actual link.

Tactics! If you have to google first you will remind the labels name better

I thought that was a possibility, but it failed on me. Until xnor posted the link I couldn't be bothered to figure out what to Google.

PCM 24/96 vs Flac 24/96 vs Wav16/44.1 vs Mp3 320kbps

Reply #16 –
Quote from: bandpass on
How can one debate whether this material is better than other material—it's not even up yet!


They do have a teaser track available.

PCM 24/96 vs Flac 24/96 vs Wav16/44.1 vs Mp3 320kbps

Reply #17 –
Quote from: julf on
Quote from: bandpass on
Lots more potential listening-test material coming from Linn


For more fun on that one, see the waffling that ensues when I ask a technical question about those recordings.

I replied there, but it awaits moderation. Check out the free downloads from 2L - I think you'll find the same strange hard LPF in the spectrum of some of the 96kHz downconversions.

Cheers,
David.

PCM 24/96 vs Flac 24/96 vs Wav16/44.1 vs Mp3 320kbps

Reply #18 –
Quote from: 2Bdecided on
I replied there, but it awaits moderation. Check out the free downloads from 2L - I think you'll find the same strange hard LPF in the spectrum of some of the 96kHz downconversions.


Hmm. Wonder if 2L uses the same software?

PCM 24/96 vs Flac 24/96 vs Wav16/44.1 vs Mp3 320kbps

Reply #19 –
I guess using sox default would look similar. Ringing up that high won't be a problem and DACs should have a softer own filter charachter so it doesn't matter. Remember Weiss cutted softer when converting from dsd and was bashed to kill the sound with taking away audio information by several audiophiles.
Is troll-adiposity coming from feederism?
With 24bit music you can listen to silence much louder!

PCM 24/96 vs Flac 24/96 vs Wav16/44.1 vs Mp3 320kbps

Reply #20 –
Quote from: julf on
They do have a teaser track available.

Is it possible to download it without registering?

Quote
Please either LOG IN if you are a returning customer or REGISTER if you are a new customer.

PCM 24/96 vs Flac 24/96 vs Wav16/44.1 vs Mp3 320kbps

Reply #21 –
Quote from: lvqcl on
Is it possible to download it without registering?


Don't think so - what was that saying again, "if you are not paying, you are the product".

PCM 24/96 vs Flac 24/96 vs Wav16/44.1 vs Mp3 320kbps

Reply #22 –
On the first day of Christmas Linn gave to me...

A 24-bit 48kHz "studio master" file.

I'm just waiting for someone to equate the "low" sample rate of that file with the sound quality. It's a pretty good, but "commercially" mastered live recording (to my ears; YMMV). I can't imagine audiophiles falling in love with it, but what do I know.

Cheers,
David.
 

PCM 24/96 vs Flac 24/96 vs Wav16/44.1 vs Mp3 320kbps

Reply #23 –
Quote from: 2Bdecided on
I can't imagine audiophiles falling in love with it, but what do I know.
They would if the numbers were higher.
It's only audiophile if it's inconvenient.