can we get a hint of what to listen for and I can test using ABX if I can hear the things that you talk about?

I believe you and the results. It wasn't that hard a test, unlike 320 vs. Flac...

The more you listen to it, the more your senses will dull and desensitize. Then, it's time for a break. I was relying on my first instincts before that stage set in. There's probably more going on that I didn't notice. I didn't bother to assess it past the first half.

A sounded cleaner, more refined w/ clearer more precise dynamics, imaging, micro dynamics, air, and natural timbre.  B sounded rougher/grainier around the edges and more smeared, almost like a MP3.  Cymbals on the percussion set sounded harsh and mechanical, instruments were softer and less natural sounding feeling more claustrophobic w/ less air to breathe.  This hurt pankton found in the trailing decays and settling of notes where A was superior.


Only listened to them twice because running those two 30 sec clips back to back induces fatigue extremely quick.  If I were to design a A/B or DBT, those truncated 30 sec snippets would be the quickest way to induce a 50/50 split over extended listening. I had to take a 2-3 minute break just between those two listens as the first set started to boggle my head and ears after it recycled on repeat before I had time to think about it.


B is more fucked up than A, you can tell me otherwise but I won't believe you based on what I heard and tell you to verify your labeling methodology because it would be wrong.


Edit - Although A is better, it's not even as good as my hi-rez rip of Nighfly so your version is either a worse master or has been processed, or perhaps even a higher rez mp3 than B even.

The version is based on the Japanese SACD released 2011. Maybe it's the remastering or the downmixing that makes it sound worse to you.