.
DOWNLOAD
.
Fantastic! You are amazing.
I'm very impressed with how you responded,
in some cases with great competence and professionalism.
Your collaboration is being very good. Thanks.
.
Fantastic! You are amazing.
I'm very impressed with how you responded,
in some cases with great competence and professionalism.
Continue. I'll wait for more opinions until the end of the day.
.
55 comments:
3
1<2<3=4
I prefer 2 or 3 (3 is louder)
(Tested with Stax Omega electriostatic headphones, Stax valve hybrid headphone amp, Rega DAC)
I prefer the No. 2 or No. 3 (I think they are equal, only varies the sound volume)
1
Esme:
I liked the detail in reference to the brand of headphones :))
Hehehehe! :) This will be fun :) Get ready for surprises! :))
Do not be swayed by the answers already given :) Listen carefully and decide for yourselves :)
2 :)
Nº2, with headphones Sennheiser HD 565 Ovation :)
I don't know how good I am at these tests. 1 & 4 have the same perspective, with 4 being louder. 2&3 have the same perspective (shifted to the right) with 3 being louder. When I try to adjust for volume, I think 1 and 4 seem more natural. - Greg
All are 16-bit stereo tracks.
1 and 2 sound the same.
3 and 4 sound the same.
3&4 are louder than 1&2.
If you adjust the volume, they all sound the same.
Every HiFi salesman knows that increasing playback volume (within limits) subjectively improves sound quality.
1 and 2 are different... Should give attention to other details beyond the volume is higher or lower...
I prefer #2, seems to me that the stereo separation is clean with counterpoint lines principally articulated in Right channel, the left hand crisply in Left channel, but just enough crosstalk to provide a sense of spatiality. There is some "ringing" artifact at around 1:20 in all of the samples, but most pronounced in #3 & 4 perhaps because of the overall higher volume. #1 sounds abit "anemic," although I almost chose it as it is also the most uncolored and natural sounding...can't wait to hear what the results are.
I do hope you post koroliov's WTC Book II with similar settings to Book I to maintain consistency of sound.
Most importantly, thank you for a fantastic and always interesting blog!
Musique.
1 and 2 sounded very close, but i think there was greater separation on 2. I preferred 1, because it was more homogenized. 3 was louder. It reminded me more of 2 than 1. 4 I think I liked the best.
Listening to the 4 tracks on my laptop through Grado SR125 headphones I could only hear the difference in volume between the first two tracks and the last two. Switching to AKG K701 headphones through a modified Musical Fidelity X-Cans V3 headphone amp and a Naim DAC I could hear differences between all the tracks. Choosing a favourite is a bit tricky. I preferred 1 & 4: The sound of the piano on 4 seemed fuller and richer, but perhaps a bit fuzzy. Track 1 was clearer, with the sounds of the hammers striking the strings better defined, but the tone was thinner than 4. These differences are not dramatic and I could probably live with any one of the four. I'm curious as to what makes the difference as all four have the same DR value (dynamic range) and, accounting for the differences in level, the spectra are identical.
1
Hi-Lo: 3-2-4-1
Sennheiser RS130-8 (+ very old ears!)
2>1>3>4
La pista que mejor se escucha con mis Sennheiser HDR 130 es la múmero 3.
Un cordial saludo
hello
with Cool Edit : all numeric data are the same 1=2=3=4
2 seems to be the finest one
3 and 4 sounds just deeper and fuller than 1 and 2 which seems to me quite flat sounding. My best choice is 3 anyway.
I prefer 3 & 4
i think number 3
It's a pity, got no headphones at the moment. With stereo loudspeakers (Nubert), I prefer No. 3.
Wunderful idea, Fly!
Thank you,
Andy.
Andy:
This test came after your question about "Special Edition / Stereo calibrated". It's a shame you don't have the headphones. Your response would be more accurate. Your choice is curious :)))
No. 1 is the best, no. 4 is the worst.
1>2>3>4
Fly:
Yes, I understand - and you are right, I'm aware that I would need headphones. Anyway, I will keep the files, may be there will be a chance to listen with headphones (actually, I should buy a pair...). This moment I'm listening to Koroliov's "French Suites" - heavenly!
Thanks once again,
Andy.
P.S. Another great russian pianist: Grigory Sokolov (heard him 2 weeks ago at the Berlin Philharmonics), possibly the greatest among todays pianists...
Hi, this is great
1: piano more to the left side, soft sound
2: bass more right side reverb panning to left side, soft sound
3: little noises from left (mp3 artefacts?), bass more on right side, louder than 1.+2.
4: noises not so loud, more compact sound
louder than 1.+2.
2 and 4 are my favorites
greetz from bohuslav
I'm impressed with some of your analyzes. Competence :) Continue. I'll wait for more opinions until the end of the day. Your collaboration is being very good. Thanks.
El número 3). Saludos.
El número 3.
Aprovecho la ocasión para agradecerte toda la belleza que compartes con nosotros. Espero que puedas seguir haciéndolo todavía por mucho tiempo. Gracias.
Lluís
I'm going with no.3.
Using Sony Studio Monitor headphones:
Nos 1 & 2 sound dramatically different from 3 & 4. My guess is that 3 & 4 were re-equalized with heavier mid-range emphasis. I can usually get this effect with any recording by using "Loudness" eq settings. Though initially more impressive, they lead to listener fatigue in short order.
Order of preference:
No. 2. It has a nice sense of "air" around it and the channels sound well-balanced to me.
No. 1 isn't bad, but I prefer the balance in 2.
No. 3 has the middle-heavy equalization but I find the soundstage coherent though slightly "middle channel" weighted.
No. 4 is the worst- slightly tubby equalization and too much left channel emphasis.
Your "taste test" was a brilliant idea!
Fantastic! You are amazing. I'm very impressed with how you responded, in some cases with great competence and professionalism.
2>3>1>4
Hola Fly,
mis impresiones son:
Sampler 1. Game bajo, mucho aire.
Sampler 2. + game; más presencia y el piano se carga a la derecha, y se aprecia mayor reverberancia de la sala.
Sampler 3. game alto, frecuencia alta,mayor presencia frontal, menor respuesta de frecuencia baja, menos dinámico.
Sampler 4. game mediano.
Me quedo con el 4 - 2 -;
2=1>3>4
Gostei dos 1 e do 2,pois ha pouco chiado,o som do 3 e do 4 é melhor mas tem chiados.
Iká, a minha preferencia é 2-3-4-1
abraços. obrigado
Ok
Fired up my ELS 63 No headphone here
No 1 and No 2 are the same file
No 3 and No 4 are the same file
The only difference between the 4 files are gain, so all 4 files are the same.
All files are the the same source, but more important... none are lossless my ears tell me.
Regards
oxbowox
Hummm...(?!?) All the same? It's better to use headphones :)
Psst! They are WAV files (16-Bit Stereo 44,100Hz)... Not bad :)There are much worse ...
@oxbowox: Interesting that you felt none were lossless. I didn't check before, but I checked the files with Audiochecker and got the following results:
AUDIOCHECKER v2.0 beta (build 457) - by Dester - opdester@freemail.hu
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-=== DO NOT EDIT THIS FILE! ===-
Path: ...\TEST
1 -=- 1.wav -=- CDDA (100%)
2 -=- 2.wav -=- CDDA (85%)
3 -=- 3.wav -=- CDDA (62%)
4 -=- 4.wav -=- CDDA (100%)
Summary 86.75% CDDA
219706836
Audiochecker is sometimes tripped up by solo piano recordings, usually claiming the source lossy when it is actually lossless.
Hi Fly
Credit to you. I run a second test and make focus on dynamics instead of high pitch. So if this is 16bit I*m on my knees!!!
oxbowox
I prefer track 1 the best.
And after reading all the comments, I went back and listened to all the tracks again, and still I would choose track 1.
No.1 is the natural beautiful sound
I could be wrong :) and I don't think I have that golden ears. I just love music. But I will try...
I prefer no 1
Here's what I found: with order of preference (1>4>2>3)
1- has better texture and layering than 2. Lots of room to ply with the volume because of softer sound.
4- to my ears is similar to no 1 with shifted up amplitude. Since it is louder, it gives a little room for volume play in my amp. And sometimes (maybe the effect of volume pot no linearity or my amp linearity) it sounds mor congested than no 1.
2- smoother/rounder at the expense of less texture and layering
3- to my ears is similar to no 2 with shifted up amplitude. So the effect of making it louder is even highlight the problem in no 2
The weakness softer sounding track (like 1) is that sometimes the noise floor of my amp becoming more obvious because I have to cranck up the volume. But I choose this noise rather than the other weakness. If I have better amp with lower noise floor, then it should not be problematic anymore.
Note: I test Dynamic Range on all track, they seem consistently give me DR11. Which mean track 3 and 4 are shifted up (about 6dB; not linearly gain amplified) digitally OR track 1 and 2 are shifted down.
Note2: I load the tracks to Audacity. Despite the amplitudes difference 1,2 to 3,4, visually they look very similar.
Note3: I use 3 kinds of equipment to test. No 1 is obvious with any of my equipment. But the other tracks lack-ness seems only shown up with better equipment.
a. Lenovo T500 notebook -> cheap creative headset directly
b. Lenovo T500 notebook -> Tiny Tube DAC (modified with cap removal and OPA2209 buffer before the TPA6120A opamp power chip) -> Grado HF2
c. Lenovo T500 notebook -> PCM2706 USB to SPDI/F converter -> Monica II (TDA1545A NOS DAC without active gain stage, just Blackgate coupling cap) -> DIY Tripath TK2050 -> Hifiman/HeadDirect HE5LE
Note4: Could you please share this beautiful music as well... :)
@oxbowox: the files cannot be the same... Even without listening, bit compared 1 & 2 are different, the same with 3 & 4. I use bit compare on Foobar; which is smart enough to find that the same song uncompressed (in WAV) and losslessly compressed (in FLAC) would give the same exact audio bits.
2-4-1-3
IMHO, with ears that are often pleased by Giulini :p
Best regards :D
I undoubtly prefer the file n. 3. Compliments for your exciting
blog! Mario from Italy
I do not feel the differences over the level.
But for me it's hi quality also the 128 kb/s mp3.
My choice (from best to worse)
2 - 1 - 4 - 3
Thanks for the whole blog.
My headphones are the humble Sony one, don't exactly know the type, alas. But prefer the 3. Because it is sounded as if I stand near the piano. More nuance. If i crank up the volume for number 1 and 2, there will be hissing noise in the background. So I don't like that. The number 4 has problem of being too robust. The glitch on 1:04 when he goes up in scale is a bit too pronounced. The number 2 is more enhanced than 1. There is a "buzz" by the deep bass boom on 00:52 on file 2 but not so much on the 1. But i agree that it is a bit anemic. Prefer the 2 better than the 1. Overall, 3 is my preference
Hearing with Beyer Dynamics Headphones my preferences are:
1 is best, then 4 - 2- 3 .
Thank you for this interesting test and, of course, for all your offers.
So, best 1 and 4 louder - then 2 and last 3.
1 is best with loudspeaker (Chario bass reflex and Primaluna 2 amp) and 4 is best with headphones. Excuse but this is my simple (and ignorant) opinion. Not tested, not analyzed. Only simple ear. Interesting job. Ale55
Post a Comment