Do people believe Hi Res is better than standard cd?

Yes, having compared

24/192
to the same file reduced to
24/48
16/48
16/44.1
All were kept as WAVE files.

I couldn't distinguish the last two, but the others decreased in quality in line with the amount of data

I've done a couple of serious tests using what I know to be the same master, the 24 bit version has clearly beaten the 16 bit. Variation between 24 bit and sample rates is less clear.

Not necessarily... 44.1/16/2 is a fantastic format resolution and has the potential for great performance. Higher res formats should and arguably can sound better, but can also bring with them the issue of ultrasonic noise which produces processing noise and resultant intermodulation. I don’t tend to bother with higher definition now especially if pop, rock and electronics , as I have discovered with certain DACs 44.1/16/2 sounds phenomenal. On some classic recordings where the master is at 96 or 192 it can sound very good, but it can be a lottery... for the reasons I mention above. 

I've run a number of tests;   first comparing a CD rip to the same album in 24bit,  it was a bit 'too conclusive' & I suspected they might be from different masters.  So I then copied a well known (favourite)  track from a 24/192 album & compiled an album with the same track repeating through 24/192, 24/96, 24/48 & 16/44.1,  first sequence was WAV,  repeated in FLAC with the default '5' compression & finally MP3.

The biggest change is between 16 & 24 bit depth,  the higher sampling rates with 24 bit are less obvious especially between 96 & 192.   So much so I now don't pay extra if there is a 96 & 192 choice.       That said nothing much wrong with 16/44 with a good recording.

And yes WAV sounds better than FLAC.     I've done similar with DSD comparing to a DSD track copied & converted to WAV 24/96,  it interesting but I suspect the DSD/PCM conversion process has some inaccuracies.     

This was done with NDX/TXPS fed by Synology NAS over ethernet & LAN switch.     Format conversions were with dBpoweramp. 

Interesting the way the question was posed - "do people believe" .

Coincidentally I bought my first hi-res album last night - Sgt Pepper 24/96. I'll compare it to the Tidal version when I have given it a few listens. My expectation bias is that I won't be able to hear the difference or at least pick which is hi-res in a statistically significant way.

I may eat my words but it does seem that some people are able to hear or notice things that others can't - I'm usually in the others category.

.sjb

I ask because I am sceptical and have no real evidence, my best sounding  digital albums are nearly all standard cd's

This is exactly my position. I wanted to have better music from so-called Hi-Def formats - and believe me I'd spend the money to have it if I hear it done, as I want the best musical experience I can afford. So why have I not done it?

I found that although there were some sonic aspects that were presented in a nicer way on some 24bit high sample-rate formats it was not musically better than the exact same performance when first mastered onto the CD format - in fact far worse; I did all my tests using NDS with two 555PS through my Active system - all files in WAV format.

The HiRes versions were smoother and more mellow but lacked spirit, insight and a musical connection with me. I tried to puzzle through what was happening on the many tracks I tried the different CD format and Hi-res version with similar but different results. This was an 'Emperor's New Clothes' situation; in fact there are many, too many of these in other realms I've also found - but for another conversation. What they all share in common was a consensus view that something is a the case and the when the facts are experienced the exact opposite is found to be true.

Now I have a background in Physics and Communication Electronics, in fact I remember clearly the part of my course when we looked at audio-coding when CD was just being launched - we had the 'Perfect Sound Forever' slogan which did not measure up to what we heard at first - again another story, but eventually things improved once the mastering and replay chain were implemented better.

I know hi-def standards should be better, I know how they work, I developed one for Video coding and spent many years in the bowels of it all and know enough - but I also know what I hear and will not and cannot hoodwink myself that something is better when it is in fact rather poor.

My view is it is a multi-fold problem of Mastering and trying to 'improve' recordings that in fact make them worse, poorer mixing desks with far higher background noise and worse analogue electronics and poor digital processing technique - a standard aimed at which is 'on the move portable mid-fi/lo-fi' target customers... it all conspires to mean you may not actually get a better musical experience with a modern remaster or Hi-Def version.

I think there is good Hi-Def music about, because there must be and it should be really good, but I just have not experienced it myself yet. This is obviously a personal disappointment on several levels, but it is my experience to date too. Also, from all the things I did learn way back from the theory as a youth the CD format, if implemented properly, is very good to the extent that it may not be poor enough to really be shown-up by higher sample bit-depth formats as much as people seem to expect. These latter formats allow things to be done better but also introduce a few of their own problems, which should finally be much better once engineered well. But I think the problem is presently upstream of the final formatting in the Mastering equipment and care.

DB.

My experience, exclusively from listening to classical, is that there is potential in hires to be both good, and bad, compared to redbook. If the stars align, hires playback trumps the old CD. If not, hires emphasizes stuff not meant to be emphasized - think tape edits, noise reduction artefacts on live recordings, artificial bloom, loudness, etc. It’s quite frustrating, although I find that hires recordings meant for hires playback (so, issued purely as download, or sacd for example) are often a safe bet. Remasters of old recordings usually seem to benefit more from the love and care that goes into modern remasterings, than the sample rate or word length of the final files.

I buy most music as download these days, in dual format - a bit of a waste of money as I usually just burn a CD. When I fancy doing so, I can and do listen to hires as well. And if there is a physical SACD, I tend to go with those as they give me both options on the same disc. 

Cheers

EJ

Warning: this is not a science based post. It is based purely on what unqualified ears hear. It is also limited to classical music.

Revelling in my Nova for the past quarter and listening to a mixture of ripped CDs, CD quality downloads and high resolution downloads I have come to the following, very personal, conclusions.

Some high resolution classical albums (96, 192) sound magnificent and very much better (I might say, "clearer" and with a wider dynamic range) than comparable CD versions. I do suspect, however, that much is down to the original recording technique. I think are some companies which, more often than not, seem to get that right. (In my view, Channel Classics is one.) Notwithstanding some wonderful high resolution discoveries, I have also been stunned by the extraordinary impact of some more recent CD quality downloads (a notable example being the Pappano Verdi Requiem, which is breathtaking—sonically, as well as in terms of performance).

When my Nova arrived I vowed not to bother with "mere" CD quality downloads any more. I have long since accepted that was a foolish decision. The performance and recording quality are of course equally critical factors when considering classical music and, taking that into account, there are clearly CD quality downloads that can stand up to the best of high resolution downloads.

I suspect this somewhat muddled response may indicate that, for classical music lovers at least, it's never a simple question of "high resolution or CD quality". High resolution availability has merely complicated making the choice of the performance to download...but I don't really mind that.

Stephen

Sloop John B posted:

Coincidentally I bought my first hi-res album last night - Sgt Pepper 24/96. I'll compare it to the Tidal version when I have given it a few listens. My expectation bias is that I won't be able to hear the difference or at least pick which is hi-res in a statistically significant way.

Hi SJB,  maybe you let us/me know what you hear ..............  but are you comparing apples with apples (pun intended)    The 24/96 Sgt Pepper '50th anniversary' version is an all new remix,  what are Tidal playing ? is it the 2017 release or one of the previous original remaster releases.   The difference between the 2017 24/96 & the Apple Music 2009 16/44 reissue is quite obvious, & I'm not talking sound quality.

In practice it's extraordinarily difficult to find a so-called “High Definition” source that's taken from the very same mastered recording as a 16/44 CD. Too often, as Mike's posted, you're comparing apples to pears. Having identified the recordings I have that genuinely can be directly compared then, yes, HD is clearer and detailed, which can in itself be a double-edged sword.

Is HD more pleasureable to listen to? Not necessarily, and my best digital recordings (with one exception) are from CD rips (don't play CDs no more...). But then I've not got access to them in HD, so who knows? Personally I'm not bothered.

NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Here's an explanation. And also after comparing the two in blind testing.

Mike-B posted:

Sloop John B posted:

Coincidentally I bought my first hi-res album last night - Sgt Pepper 24/96. I'll compare it to the Tidal version when I have given it a few listens. My expectation bias is that I won't be able to hear the difference or at least pick which is hi-res in a statistically significant way.

Hi SJB,  maybe you let us/me know what you hear ..............  but are you comparing apples with apples (pun intended)    The 24/96 Sgt Pepper '50th anniversary' version is an all new remix,  what are Tidal playing ? is it the 2017 release or one of the previous original remaster releases.   The difference between the 2017 24/96 & the Apple Music 2009 16/44 reissue is quite obvious, & I'm not talking sound quality.

Yes it is apples and apples - Tidal has the remixed version, which I have listened to - a little bit of the curate’s egg, as they say. 

.sjb

HD is more expensive, so it's better ! no ? 

No

How about diffrent japanese cd formats? 

Emre posted:

How about different Japanese cd formats? 

Some of their mastered CDs are better and some worse, so you can't take a general position.

Personally for music I really value I seek-out different early versions and generally find one that is better mastered that I like. Sometimes it is a first release and sometimes the next one and very rarely a later early remaster and almost never a late remaster.

The problem is that musical 'taste' among those that are in control of producing and issuing remasters gradually has changed towards more and more tweaks to the original release to try to justify why they are remastering - and beyond a certain point that all falls flat and you get a horrible mess. I find the earlier releases tend to have best representation of dynamic range and best phase response due to a good frequency response - then someone decides later to reduce the low-bass, make it brighter, compress it a bit, then a bit more... it is not a good direction.
Hi-Fi means High-Fidelity and it is nice to occasional encounter this being applied in the Mastering or Remastering process - to add as little from the Engineer as possible to allow the Musical art to be faithfully captured for replay.

But most CDs released before year 2000 remain largely untainted from most of these 'improvements' and in fact can be rather excellent.

Obviously I like music up to the present, but some has been made hard work to enjoy, especially with too much compression and electronic processing over and into the vocalists squashing the life out of it in many cases.

The odd thing in this discussion about Hi-Def is that now it is possible for us to have it, the music industry has fallen into such a low place that there are few good Albums that make it through. And Albums are increasingly no-more - just random tunes and a reduction in the expression of the Art. Apart from areas where more care is taken, like Classical and Jazz releases, which don't do as much for me as I'd like, the other genres are a poor fare right now. But there is an excellent back-catalog of excellently recorded stuff I've not exhausted, so it is enough.

DB.

Emre posted:

How about diffrent japanese cd formats? 

For what it's worth, I find the Japanese SHM CD remasters of the Led Zeppelin catalogue to be the best sounding, and that includes the more recent Jimmy Page remasters.

I can hear the difference with some recordings. To be honest, if it is not at a loud volume 320k MP3 is fine, however, when the volume is cranked up i can hear the difference, especially with 96Khz recordings. The 48Khz recordings have little difference, I have no 88Khz to try, nor will my UQ1 decode 192Khz. I have a 96khz/24bit copy of Penguin cafe's latest album, and compared it to a CD copy i ripped, the sound seems to come to life and become more 3d at the higher resolution. You need to try a blind listening test to see. If CD's are better, than why did Linn stop making them nearly 10 years ago?

badlands posted:

NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Here's an explanation. And also after comparing the two in blind testing.

YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  But tell us more about the blind testing: what discs, what conditions, how was the blinding done?

To be fair, I have not directly compared individual HD downloads with CD equivalents.  However, a few days ago I downloaded the latest L'Arpeggiata offering ("Handel goes Wild") in 24/96.  I have every other Arpeggiata CD and they are all well recorded, but the Handel 'disc' is the one who's sound I prefer the most.  There is occasionally a slight 'edge' in the CDs which gives them a sense of excitement that can be fun but to my ears is not what I hear in concert.   This is much less evident in the HR download.  Indeed, at first listen this can perhaps seem a tad subdued by comparison, but eventually one (or at least me) realises it is simply more realistic, more live-sounding if you like.  The feeling and spirit of the musicians communicates and gives pleasure to a greater degree (albeit a small extra degree) than the CD rips.  Another recent HR download of Christmas choral music by the Helsinki Chamber Choir again gives that uncanny sense of realism (and I hear a lot of choral music live) which, takes me into the church more effectively than any of the many, many other choral recordings I own.  Of course, many other factors are in play and so conclusions can only be tentative, but I now opt for paying a couple of extra pounds for the HR version of recent recordings.

Where I have made direct comparisons is between spinning discs and rips of the same CD and there my preference is universally for the rip even when fed this is played in itunes and fed optically from a mac mini into and nDAC (my old system).  Perhaps if I could afford a statement level setup my preferences would change.  Perhaps it is the type of music I listen to.  Perhaps (and most probably) I have cloth ears.  But for me streaming especially of some Hi Res music is my most preferred way of listening.  Possibly, just possibly, I may not be alone.

Roger

Red book suggests that higher res than CD quality can’t sound better. Ignoring that, my answer to the question is not necessarily, and differences, positive or negative, may often be due to different mastering.

Peakman posted:

badlands posted:

NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Here's an explanation. And also after comparing the two in blind testing.

 

YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  But tell us more about the blind testing: what discs, what conditions, how was the blinding done?

To be fair, I have not directly compared individual HD downloads with CD equivalents.  However, a few days ago I downloaded the latest L'Arpeggiata offering ("Handel goes Wild") in 24/96.  I have every other Arpeggiata CD and they are all well recorded, but the Handel 'disc' is the one who's sound I prefer the most.  There is occasionally a slight 'edge' in the CDs which gives them a sense of excitement that can be fun but to my ears is not what I hear in concert.   This is much less evident in the HR download.  Indeed, at first listen this can perhaps seem a tad subdued by comparison, but eventually one (or at least me) realises it is simply more realistic, more live-sounding if you like.  The feeling and spirit of the musicians communicates and gives pleasure to a greater degree (albeit a small extra degree) than the CD rips.  Another recent HR download of Christmas choral music by the Helsinki Chamber Choir again gives that uncanny sense of realism (and I hear a lot of choral music live) which, takes me into the church more effectively than any of the many, many other choral recordings I own.  Of course, many other factors are in play and so conclusions can only be tentative, but I now opt for paying a couple of extra pounds for the HR version of recent recordings.

Where I have made direct comparisons is between spinning discs and rips of the same CD and there my preference is universally for the rip even when fed this is played in itunes and fed optically from a mac mini into and nDAC (my old system).  Perhaps if I could afford a statement level setup my preferences would change.  Perhaps it is the type of music I listen to.  Perhaps (and most probably) I have cloth ears.  But for me streaming especially of some Hi Res music is my most preferred way of listening.  Possibly, just possibly, I may not be alone.

Roger

To be honest, it's just too involved to put in writing, and I just don't feel like being criticized by the naysayers, but the conclusion was pretty unanimous, even with participants that wanted the streaming format to sound superior. The fact is no matter what I write people are going to believe what they want to believe. Here's something else that might explain what the test revealed, that for right now the CD format is superior sounding.

Moderated Post:  Badlands,. please don't post unauthorised commercial links in the Hifi corner. Quote or paraphrase, if you need to. Thanks

I don't stream and use a CD5X exclusively for my digital replay. I've had the opportunity to hear hi-res streaming via far better (dedicated) Naim systems than mine in homes of forum friends and came away with the same opinion that DB stated below:

Darke Bear posted:

The HiRes versions were smoother and more mellow but lacked spirit, insight and a musical connection with me.

Beyond that, the hi-res streaming sounded more artificially "homogenated" - an emphasis on silkiness and a consistent SQ versus the grit, energy, and variations captured in the original recording. People often say "source first" and "you can't put lipstick on a pig", yet I think at times this might be exactly what hi-res streaming attempts to do to music originally recorded and formatted for redbook CD. I find nothing lacking in a well-recorded and well-mastered redbook CD played directly.

Many early CDs (late 1980s) play far better than their modern, remastered counterparts from circa 2000 and beyond on my CD5X, often due to the greater dynamic range and superior mastering of the formers. OTOH, if you are a listener acclimated to modern music's compression and squeezed dynamic range then the hi-res stuff might sound superior. Just a matter of what you value.

With apologies for diverging from the OP's original question, all-analog vinyl replay, for all it's inherent shortcomings, still provides the "truest" and most immediate SQ to my ears. Furthermore, buying an original CD at a relative pittance and ripping it to dedicated DAC replay seems (on the whole) a better VFM approach than paying for far costlier direct downloads of hi-res stuff. Again, my experience is limited to the streaming results I've heard on other's systems versus my own room and expectations.

Wow... a lot of folklore in the respones...

I recntly spoke to my sound enginer who handles mixing of our album and he put it very simply to my simple mind:

“Always record in the highest sampling rate and highest bit rate possible. Also use processsing and mixing equipment capable of handling wide frequency range - preferably from 5 Hz to 200k Hz’.

The better the input quality, the easier it is for mixing and mastering to capture the niuances, harmonics of the original performance.

He also said another thing: “I can sclupt, I can shape the sound but it it’s not there in the first place I cannot re-create it’
He was specificially referring to the rich harmonic content of say cymbals, guitars and vocals lost in the recording process, when lower sampling rates were being used.

I leave you to draw your own conclusions from the above.

Adam

Innocent Bystander posted:

Red book suggests that higher res than CD quality can’t sound better..

Where in the red book standard does it say anything about that? For the most part the red book standard is about the physical encoding and structure format of an audio CD... 

Adam Zielinski posted:

Wow... a lot of folklore in the respones...

I recntly spoke to my sound enginer who handles mixing of our album and he put it very simply to my simple mind:

“Always record in the highest sampling rate and highest bit rate possible. Also use processsing and mixing equipment capable of handling wide frequency range - preferably from 5 Hz to 200k Hz’.

The better the input quality, the easier it is for mixing and mastering to capture the niuances, harmonics of the original performance.

He also said another thing: “I can sclupt, I can shape the sound but it it’s not there in the first place I cannot re-create it’
He was specificially referring to the rich harmonic content of say cymbals, guitars and vocals lost in the recording process, when lower sampling rates were being used.

I leave you to draw your own conclusions from the above.

Adam

You are right at recording and mixing time, but once a master is produced for distribution it becomes a different set of variables, and also doesn’t address the side effects of playing hires files on some/many (?)  consumer/Hi-Fi gear... the renown Mr Watts and I had a little chuckle over this at a recent event.