24 bit Hi-Res Music - convince me!

The Antonio&Sabina Meet Me In London and the Eagles One of these Nights / Hotel CalifOrnia 192/24s are good.

When I listen to High Res v original CD I never feel it is chalk and cheese, but the good high res versions have a 'richer', fuller sound to my ears.

But I have been disappointed with some high res versions I've bought

Anyway, i have a Superuniti. I'm sure through a multi box system the differences may be a little more pronounced.

Good luck Slopp John!

+1  wot ChrisH sez comparing Hi-Res to CD:

Agree it’s not chalk & cheese,  but they do have better detail, body & as ChrisH sez richer fuller sound. 

I get the impression its more to do with bit depth (16 vs 24) that makes a bigger difference than does 96khz vs 192khz.  Also genuine remastered [remixing] will always be different anyhow,  but it does make hi-res worth the investment. Some are just hi-density digital files taken off the original masters & while better than CD, they are not always so different

Others are just reformatted,  & not much more than a scam,  the recording industry needs to get a grip of this. I would hope the recording industry takes this on board & lays down new recording masters to maximize the hi-res buying sector – we are not all MP3 plebeians!

Eagles "Hotel California" – (24/192) listen to the kick drum come in on at the start of the title track

Peter Gabriel “So” – (24/48)  now this remixed remaster is chalk & cheese

Norah Jones "Come Away With Me" – (24/192) feel the emotion with the inflections in the voice that do not come out so well on CD.

Eleanor McEvoy  "If You Leave"  - (24/96)  much more detail & definition than CD   

In summary & feel hi-res is the way forward,  but pricing for sure needs looking at,  the same recording with 24/96 version a lot cheaper than 24/192 is taking liberties.

But don’t dismiss 16/44 “CD quality”,  well recorded CD's when ripped with AccurateRip or BitPerfect are as musically rewarding as some hi-res.  

Chris,  if you're getting Peter Gabriel “So”,  be sure you get it from B&W as they with Peter did the remastering.  There are others around the www & some have added tracks,  but I'm sure just how they relate to the B&W/PG work.    

I agree that some hi res is not as good as lower res material.  

An example from my experience is comparing Clapton's I shot the sheriff from a 256kb iTunes download to Marley's studio master.  The iTunes download is much more musical. Yes, different artists. Different mix. However,  the low res win me vote in this case.

Another  example for me is the hi res download from from HDTracks vs Cd Michael Jackson's Thriller.  CD wins.

These example say something about the mastering rather than the resolution of the file.

In the end, we need to make our mind up on a track by track or album by album basis.

So, for me, trying before buying, I,e, sites that provide a means giving a reasonable length preview of a track is good.  

Jude

One album I have never "got" is the Beach boys - pet sounds. 

And now I know why…

part of the attraction of this album is obviously the production values and the early 1990s version I have on CD really doesn't impress and never has. 

Well I got my hands on the  24/192 version and whether it's the fact it is high resolution or the fact of the provenance of its mastering it is a complete revelation. There is a clarity to the instrumentation and a depth to the bass that it's hard to believe someone could have been paid for mastering the early CD. This is what can me this hobby so infuriating but at times one makes delightful rediscoveries like this one. 

Considering my moniker on the forum it's only right that this should take its place among the albums I admire!

SJB

Muddy Waters - Folk Singer

This is perhaps the best sounding recording I have. It so happens that my copy is hi-res from HD Tracks, but it may be a stellar recording in any format. To be honest, plain old CD is plenty good enough when mastered properly.

You should hear Folk Singer on Analogue Productions 45rpm vinyl. That's real hi-res for you. a lovely album. No wonder it"s used a lot in HiFi show demo's.

one that really stood out for me The Carpenters singles 69 -91.  I've owned the CD for many years.  bought he HD verison from HDtracks. Track 20 Close to ME the CD rip sounded just like I remember always hearing it.   The HD version was a world apart.  Deep, rich, bass notes, definition and detail that was completely missing from the Rip I had done.

The Rolling Stones HD downloads were also very good (hot rocks compared to my CD copy)  but something like the Doors box set,  I didn't feel the downloads were a huge leap from the latest CD issues that I also owned.  Its certainly nor clear cut.

Like a rolling stone, from Highway 61. It's almost like being 12 again, when the world was new!

Based on your opinions I will buy Eagles, Carpenters and Deep Purple.

The Antonio&Sabina Meet Me In London, Marvin Gaye's 'Get it On' and Norah Jones "Come Away With Me", I also find them good. The latter also I have on Vynil, different, I enjoy both, but I can not say which one is better.

I agree Doors are not very different than CD's, also have Neil Diamond which I find very compressed, almost like mp3.

Erich, I don't know which Neil Diamond album you have, but I find 'Hot August Night'  (44.1/24) a significant improvement over the CD.

David, the same album. I can´t compare with CD, I don't have it. I have a vinyl since I was a teenager and its not a fare comparison.  The vinyl isn't precisly in the best conditions, and has a lot of noise because of the damage, but the good tracks sound much better than the HDTracks version. 

I went to the dynamic range data base and they say that the 1972 version (which I think is the vinyl) as a dr of 13, min 11 max 16, against the hdtracks 8, 6, 16 respectively. So, some tracks are very good and some really bad (from the dr point of view). Vinyl dr is much more similar among the tracks and in a higher level.

I know dr is not everything, but it seems is a good indicator of the compression of the music.

I downloaded yesterday Led Zep (I II III), The Carpenters (Singles 69-81), The Beach Boys (Pet Sounds) and Deep Purple (Made in Jpn). Listened Carpenters and Beach Boys, both very good.

Regards.

Erich

I have both of those Erich, and they are very good. I suggest you try some Fleetwood Mac.

David, unfortunately I can't download fleetwood mac due to region restrictions, at least from HDTs. I would try another sites.

Regards.

Erich

check these.

I think the ''one to one'' copies of the studio master sounds incredible but I know for a fact that how and what people can hear,is very different from person to person.

Here they have the same file in different formats, for easy comparison.

( www.soundliaison.com ) 

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.

Just explored this. Yeah, OK the MP3 is noticeably worse than the others (but still pretty good). Anything beyond CD quality is definitely into the area of rapidly diminishing returns (to my ears on my system).

In the absence of CD, MP3 can be completely enjoyable.

I think the original CD [Red Book] standard was judged to be fine enough for classical music productions for 99 per cent of people. 

It was the practical limit at the time in the early 1980s, but it is still valid today, and far better than LP ever could be, though live  radio can have the victory on live relays even now, even on AAC at 330.

As for Hi-res [as in greater bit depth and faster frequency of sampling], I simply cannot see the point unless significant recordings start to emerge. 

If this occurs, then I'll try it with an open mind.

But until then I am happy ...

ATB from George

Although a relative newbie to digital music I am inclined to agree. The few hi-res music files I have are good but I have some 16 bit music ripped from CD that are nearly or as good. The difference is sometimes not as great as you think it should be. I will explore a bit more with some hi-res from Qobuz.

I think it is fair to say that underlying production values and mastering are far more imprtant than the resolution and format of the final files (once a minimum resolution is achieved/exceeded).

Agreed.

winky...

you are completely correct, the same source first philosophy applies To the actual recording itself..

example...

annual cd's or the Grammy nominations come out every year.

and comparing these versions to even the version on the original cd from the artist can be very different... I have found the Grammy versions/submissions noticeably improved from the previously recorded versions...

I have to believe since both are cd quality that the differences lie in the recording methods and techniques employed...

if there is possibly another reason... Please let me know.

You can check these ones too, same label but different files.