Do people believe Hi Res is better than standard cd?

I have a few SACDs, and I can play them on my Oppo DV980H, age 10 or so, €190, which has direct native DSD output on HDMI. Since I now have a big Panasonic TV with HDMI input, I can replay my SACDs on the TV and hear the true HD sound without PCM conversion, on the TV speakers. I also have 24/96 and 24/192 DVD-As of an Alan Parsons Project album and the first three Donald Fagen's own productions. I am therefore in the ideal conditions to evaluate HD audio.

I will run a few tests and give you a final response. Just be patient.

M.

Adam has concisely re-established the starting point - Rubbish-In ⇒ Rubbish-Out

"you" might have a more "enjoyable" listening experience even if you are using a Rubbish-in/Rubbish-out recording-medium/retrieval-system, especially if you have a mediocre replay system that somehow can't cope with the revalation of harmonic detail in a hi-res source.

If you are using a single source (eg CD) to make copies, then comparing the original and the various copies, you need to take into account the possibility of airbourne-accoustic feedback in the various  pieces of equipment used. Decades ago, I found home-made tape and cassette copies of LPs often sounded better than the LP. I put it down to accoustic feedback. The recording were made with the LP source "Muted", but clearly the LP source couldn't be muted when listening to the LPs ! The LP source was suffering far worse feedback than the tape or cassette.

  in the early 80s i attended a phillips   demo of the new  format cd, it sound different but to me and most off the listeners  flawed  . decades on  it still has problems. now its high rez that's generate the same feeling   , some 96k files sound great to me others no different.  for the vast majority the red book cd is ok. ripped or other wise

What about the idea that there could be further SQ improvement  from the good old cd by just increasing the reading hits frequency...like the chord blu mk2 is advocating.   Has anyone listened to it? Any idea?

Are you referring to the amount of times the laser pickup scans the CD pits? If so I really doubt this process itself is adding anything unless the disc is matginally damaged. One of the clever aspects of the Red Book CD standard is the definition of the inbuilt redundancy and validation  on the disc format such that many data read errors can be recovered and the data read validated. If data can’t be recovered or is invalidly read then a very tiny silence is inserted on many transports or worse a tiny static tick will/may be heard.... so yes, if you read multiple times you are reducing the likelihood of an unrecoverable error.. with a resultant static tick or minuscule pause being heard .. so in that sense your improving the reproduced sound quality where occasional points of failure might occur on a CD... but is that what you mean?

Hi, This is what I understand it does. It upsamples the cd’s 44,1 kHz frequency by a factor of 16 times, up to a 705 kHz frequency before feeding this signal to the dac...

Ok, that sounds like something entirely separate and not really related to CD at all... basically that sounds like a choice of whose oversampler to use... the transport post processor, or the DAC/DSP. Unless the latter was a poor implementation I would usually opt for the DAC / DSP as the best place to oversample.

I do not know as I have not yet listened to it, however I like the idea not to have to buy hi-rez files because this would make it unnecessary...If you google there are fairly positive reviews, but one needs to listen by himself for sure.

A little off topic, but i just received Morrissey - Low In High School Eu cd. It's totally unlistenable with 500 system. Even at 8 'o clock

there is so much loudness that i was tempeted t throw it away. And when he' ll get rid of that band/producer, it will be a great relief

Regards

Roberto

I see not many trust my Panasonic TV's capacity to reproduce HiRes properly.... Too bad. It's a 50"! 

Have a Happy New Year you all,

your (joking) fellow member

M.

(And take things lightly – or, better, take light things only).

Agree with Max’ point that hires files don’t make up for a deficient playback rig. Those of us with a 555 shouldn’t worry they are missing out on much!

EJS posted:

Agree with Max’ point that hires files don’t make up for a deficient playback rig. Those of us with a 555 shouldn’t worry they are missing out on much!

Really? How is that?

badlands posted:

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 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

Hi Badlands

In no way was my request intended as criticism.  I was genuinely interested in your blind trial.

The posts here which I find most interesting and helpful are those where someone has had a very positive experience and shares it with other forum members.  For example HH's enthusiastic early posts on his 272/250 system led me to an audition and eventual purchase of my present similar setup.  Hence most of my post was about my own experiences with HD and streaming which I thought (perhaps wrongly) others might find useful/interesting.

The posts I find least useful are those which make absolute statements that this or that box/system/format is superior to some other one, with no qualification or even an implied IMHO.  An example is your "... right now the CD format is superior sounding" which brooks no debate or divergence of opinion.  A couple of months ago I spent over two hours comparing two systems sitting on a sofa with another listener.  We were experiencing the same setup, room and music (mine) but in the end I preferred one system and my fellow listener the other.  To me that shows we are in area where personal taste is critical, which is why I am suspicious of absolute statements such as the above.  This thread has 'belief' in the title and I respect your belief that the CD format is superior.  All I would ask is that you respect my 'belief' that this is not so.

Roger

Darke Bear posted:

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

 

...

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

I think this may go to the heart of the matter.  I have also found HD downloads smoother, at least in general.  However, this takes me closer to my live (mostly classical) concert-going experience and enhances rather than reduces musical connection and insight.  I suspect recording technique, listening room, level of equipment etc.  all have a part to play in this, but ultimately simple personal preference must be a big part of the divergence of views on this topic.

Roger

Peakman posted:

I have also found HD downloads smoother, at least in general.  However, this takes me closer to my live (mostly classical) concert-going experience and enhances rather than reduces musical connection and insight.  I suspect recording technique, listening room, level of equipment etc.  all have a part to play in this, but ultimately simple personal preference must be a big part of the divergence of views on this topic.

That is my own experience—rather more cogently expressed that in my own post earlier in this thread. To each his own...

Stephen

Definitely hear a large difference for me!

Adam Zielinski posted:

EJS posted:

Agree with Max’ point that hires files don’t make up for a deficient playback rig. Those of us with a 555 shouldn’t worry they are missing out on much!

Really? How is that?

No need to call me out, I referred to Naim’s 555 in a symbolic sense, representing a quality CD player. I’m finding that a good CD deck closes the gap with hires files, to the point where I’m usually happy with CD. As said above, hires can sound better, but not always. 

'Technically correct' and 'musically enjoyable' are very different kettles of fish.

Vinyl anyone? Difficult to know where to start with how technologically compromised that replay format is, but I know of no digital source at whatever mega-oodles of resolution which conveys more organic musical pleasure for me.

Many will disagree, and that's fine. It reinforces the fact that as illogical humanoids, we individually know what we like (in your wardrobe).

John.

Absolutely. Without a doubt, the rawness is gone and the gentle fades and ambience are second to none. Example? Bob Dylans ‘Oh Mercy’ life or Best of Dire Straits. Well recorded 16/44.1 and 24/96. Then Porcupine Tree and Steven Wilson. 

I wish all Music was 24/96 minimum.

in fact I don’t know why forum members with top systems don’t share this view!!

Interestingly HiFi-Choice (I think or one of the similar 'mags') has a section where it analyses 'hi-def' recordings. Many of them have no extra information in the frequency ranges outside standard definition. I suspect that these are simply 're-coded' from standard CDs rather than remastered from original tapes. I've also observed that vinyl recordings score much higher than digital equivalents (standard or hi-def) reflecting either reviewer bias or that an analogue waveform will always outgun a digitally sampled 'proxy'. 

whsturm posted:

Interestingly HiFi-Choice (I think or one of the similar 'mags') has a section where it analyses 'hi-def' recordings. Many of them have no extra information in the frequency ranges outside standard definition. I suspect that these are simply 're-coded' from standard CDs rather than remastered from original tapes. I've also observed that vinyl recordings score much higher than digital equivalents (standard or hi-def) reflecting either reviewer bias or that an analogue waveform will always outgun a digitally sampled 'proxy'. 

This is all well and good but one needs to be guarded... what frequencies are you looking for.... remember our hearing is more attuned to timing rather  than frequencies - and using current sampling technology we need to sample at a higher rate to capture the timing differences rather than rely on it to preserve frequencies we can't hear with increasing drop off as we get older. Loads on this on the AES library. I think the layman gets hung up on Nyquist sample theory simply applying to the Fourier series which after all is  for periodic sound decomposition  - not the real world of complex sound patterns  starting and stopping with respect to each other - which is how we naturally hear and allows our brains to decode sound.

S

Just think one thing,  wy Linn stop production of CDP  long time ago ?

Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

whsturm posted:

Interestingly HiFi-Choice (I think or one of the similar 'mags') has a section where it analyses 'hi-def' recordings. Many of them have no extra information in the frequency ranges outside standard definition. I suspect that these are simply 're-coded' from standard CDs rather than remastered from original tapes. I've also observed that vinyl recordings score much higher than digital equivalents (standard or hi-def) reflecting either reviewer bias or that an analogue waveform will always outgun a digitally sampled 'proxy'. 

This is all well and good but one needs to be guarded... what frequencies are you looking for.... remember our hearing is more attuned to timing rather  than frequencies - and using current sampling technology we need to sample at a higher rate to capture the timing differences rather than rely on it to preserve frequencies we can't hear with increasing drop off as we get older. Loads on this on the AES library. I think the layman gets hung up on Nyquist sample theory simply applying to the Fourier series which after all is  for periodic sound decomposition  - not the real world of complex sound patterns  starting and stopping with respect to each other - which is how we naturally hear and allows our brains to decode sound.

S

Very interesting. Given that our hearing is presumably 'digital' (i.e. electrical pulses sent to the brain via the ear drum), what is the natural limit of that digitisation? In other words, I assume that there is a natural limit at which the eardrum can respond to external stimuli, convert that to electrical pulses and have the brain respond. And how close is current 'high def' digitisation (frequencies and sampling) to that natural limit? At some point there can be no advantage to increasing bit rates etc. as we won't be physically able to detect a difference with our limited ear drums...

Perhaps no one was buying the Linn CDPs?

whsturm posted:

Very interesting. Given that our hearing is presumably 'digital' (i.e. electrical pulses sent to the brain via the ear drum), what is the natural limit of that digitisation? In other words, I assume that there is a natural limit at which the eardrum can respond to external stimuli, convert that to electrical pulses and have the brain respond. And how close is current 'high def' digitisation (frequencies and sampling) to that natural limit? At some point there can be no advantage to increasing bit rates etc. as we won't be physically able to detect a difference with our limited ear drums...

Without looking it up - I cant remember for sure but something like a few uS comes to mind. To your point on how close is high def to our natural hearing - well the conventional engineering wisdom - more than a country mile - again there was a fascinating paper on this that I quoted a few months back on the reasons why. Essentially the author was arguing true hires audio is indistinguishable  from real life - and our current high resolution audio is a long way from this..