Ive tested it briefly using wv 4.60 which is same as 4.80. At -b3x4 , -b4x4 using default noise shaping and s1. Volume is higher than normal listening.
@ b3 (270k) - obvious hiss around note but not bad. Using S1 is worse than DNS shaping.
@ b4 (352k) - Much harder that I could not be bothered. I suspect maybe a tiny imperfection. Using S1 at this high bitrate didn't affect it and I had the impression it was even better, though I also didn't abx past 1/3
Version 4.80.0. without resampler (No noise shaping changes in this one).
foo_abx 2.0.2 report
foobar2000 v1.3.11
2016-08-29 03:05:29
File A: Test C.wav
SHA1: 52fa061570fd0b216e5c59a1351a734600c632ea
File B: Test C.wv
SHA1: 4fb50ea36006847a5daff42b50cfde94cd3ccd48
Output:
DS : Speakers (ASUS Xonar DG Audio Device)
Crossfading: NO
03:05:29 : Test started.
03:05:56 : 01/01
03:06:12 : 02/02
03:06:58 : 03/03
03:07:13 : 04/04
03:07:29 : 05/05
03:07:41 : 06/06
03:08:17 : 07/07
03:08:47 : 08/08
03:09:10 : 09/09
03:09:18 : 10/10
03:09:18 : Test finished.
----------
Total: 10/10
Probability that you were guessing: 0.1%
-- signature --
9cd71fcdac8c3290444d6b45be5a12b6e0124470
And with -s1:
foo_abx 2.0.2 report
foobar2000 v1.3.11
2016-08-29 03:25:43
File A: Test C.wav
SHA1: 52fa061570fd0b216e5c59a1351a734600c632ea
File B: Test C s1.wv
SHA1: 81069dd1098786e89e86568d76780efde96e269f
Output:
DS : Speakers (ASUS Xonar DG Audio Device)
Crossfading: NO
03:25:43 : Test started.
03:25:57 : 01/01
03:26:31 : 02/02
03:26:50 : 03/03
03:27:19 : 04/04
03:27:25 : 05/05
03:27:32 : 06/06
03:27:52 : 07/07
03:28:00 : 08/08
03:28:06 : 09/09
03:28:13 : 10/10
03:28:13 : Test finished.
----------
Total: 10/10
Probability that you were guessing: 0.1%
-- signature --
92718fec6d352fd0f0c327deb0c838d53bf277c9
I also had the impression that S1 is better, I failed my first attempt with my superluxes 681 Evo, when this happens I usually give it a last shot with a pair of 668B (I call those the treble blasters xd) and managed to pass the test.