Does HiRez really sound better?

Hi In shore,

Thanks for clarifying. I think I understand your comment/frustration better now.

It seems you are, like myself, already convinced that HiRez offers the best sonic performance of currently available music sources. You're just looking for more information and discussion about good HiRez files, their sonic qualities and where they're available. And, when you are able to find threads containing this info, the threads tend to peter out.

If my understanding is correct, I would have to agree with you but still think you may be seeking info on the wrong site. I love Audiogon but would say, in general, forum topics are more concerned with equipment than music.

I would suggest visiting Mark Waldrep's site at AIX Records. He teaches about audio and audio recording as a professor at a California college but puts out a daily newsletter on audio subjects on his AIX site, mainly HiRez related. He's a big proponent of HiRez file suppliers needing to list the 'Provenance' of the downloads they sell. By 'Provenance', he is basically referring to the download's history; was it re-recorded from an analog LP or CD master? (which he argues is not HiRez since it will not sound better than the original master since it is just a standard resolution recording re-recorded on to a HiRez 'bucket') or was it recorded live digitally using HiRez recording equipment? (which he does on his AIX files and argues are HiRez and sound significantly better than those remixed from analog masters).

His arguments make a lot of sense to me and, as a result, I've only been buying downloads that are listed as being recorded directly to digital with good results thus far. I have not purchased any AIX downloads yet but I have bought a few from a European site called Sound Liaison www.soundliaison.com/. I bought and downloaded 2 24bit/96khz FLAC files of Jennifer Gomes songs recorded live in a studio direct to digital and both are excellent.

I consider myself just at the beginning of my computer audio journey, having all the required software and equipment well integrated into my system. While I have my entire CD collection now stored on my NAS, I currently have a limited number ofHiRez music files. I may be at a similar stage as you since I'm now less concerned with setup and now more concerned with finding good HiRez music files to download. However, getting back to this thread's topic, I have absolutely no doubt that HiRez 24/96 FLAC files sound better than my ripped CDs; more detailed, better dynamics and more of a sense of being in the same venue as the musicians.

I hope this helped you,
Tim

Hi Tim , I did understand the op question , I read through the Goldman link
then added my own observation ,over the years from about 2010 I have
read every single thread regarding the quality of HIRez down loads ,....,
which are your favorite , which are the best sonically so on and so forth ,
none of these threads have any longevity to them at all ,....Does HIRez
really sound better, consumers sure aren't talking about it ,

In shore,

While I don't disagree with your comment, I would add that switching to a computer based digital source in one's system is not a simple thing and requires some commitment. The first need is to educate yourself on how it all works and the components needed. Then you need to research these components to determine the right ones for you that are within your budget. Significant decisions also need to be made along the way, such as hardwired or wireless and exactly what hi-rez format to utilize (24/96khz, 24/192khz,DSD, etc.)

My point is that all the above takes time and some may need assistance from other members who have more knowledge. Many thread followers may not have completed their switch to digital files and are seeking help by posting on the wrong threads.

Just as you, interested in actual information about HiRes files themselves, posted on this thread which is concerned with whether HiRez really sounds better. I think you may be on the wrong thread.

Thanks,
Tim

Does hirez really sound better,........?
I noticed over the years any thread started with List the best sounding
HiRes music and virtually every thread on this topic stalls , there is more
chat about componets and wire then accual information of the HiRes file
itself.
Potential profit and mark ups are large with no physical product to produce
,package and distribute,.. this business concept of HiRez downloads looks
great on paper however accual consumer feed back over the past few
years has been underwhelming.

Zd542,

The 'Loudness Wars' on CDs has seriously reduced dynamics and micro-dynamics which are potentially much better on CDs as opposed to cassettes. Additionally, CDs benefit from zero wow & Flutter and a much lower noise floor.

The areas I notice the most obvious improvements with hi-rez files as compared to CDs are: dynamics, micro-dynamics, an even lower noise floor and a very high detail level. With your previous comments on the importance of most of these qualities in your music listening, I would think hi-rez music files are likely a very good choice for you.

Tim

I have some (compressed) CDs that are at least 3 times louder than the average (uncompressed) CD. Example: Radiohead Amnesiac. That's not "slightly louder." Hel-loo!

"2. the psycho-acoustic phenomenon that causes us to perceive slightly louder playback as being "better".
Swampwalker (System | Threads | Answers | This Thread)"

Once you figure out what's going on, it doesn't work anymore.

It's not a cost savings, electroslacker. There are 2 things driving it:
1. the perception that with much listening being done in high noise environments, resulting in quieter portions of the recording being lost in the (ambient) noise floor.
2. the psycho-acoustic phenomenon that causes us to perceive slightly louder playback as being "better".

What is the motivation to compress? I don't see any cost savings for the vendor.

I bought a "value pack" of some Byrd's CDs, which was wretched, and wondered why the sound quality was "cheapened."

I didn't say ALL CDs are compressed. But the trend is not your friend. And at least for me dynamics is VERY important. If it ain't got that swing it don't mean a thing. Music when you cut away all the jibber jabber is all about dynamics and microdynamics. Everything else is secondary.

Geoffkait, Dynamic range is only one factor in sound quality and not all cds are overly dynamically compressed, nor will all cds be overly compressed in the future.

If you listen to grammy type pop music, compression is a problem. However, there are many cds released in more adult oriented genres that are not overly dynamically compressed. I'm surprised you didn't know that. So the problem of dynamic compression is not an issue on many cds and SACDs.

Meanwhile, new cd players are improving many different factors in sound quality rapidly, and we are moving from the era of cd on to hi rez digital, which holds the promise of even greater improvements in sound quality. Not all hi rez files or hi rez players will sound better, many will though.

Rbbert, I agree about wow and flutter. Misaligned tape heads (most weren't adjustable) and particles shedding from the tape gumming up the tape path also contributed to poor sound quality for cassettes.

What a pretty thought, that we will see significant improvements in CD and hi Rez for years to come. It appears to me that in fact the quality of CDs has steadily gone down the tubes ever since they started compressing the music for some hare brained reason. As a matter if fact generally speaking the dynamic range of new and remastered CDs has in some cases gone from a value of 15 to a value of 8 or 9 according to the Official Dynamic Range Data Base.

For those listeners sensitive to pitch accuracy and consistency, the wow and flutter and overall speed variability of even the best cassettes is easily audible and very annoying. IMHO there is no way a violin or piano can sound truly natural on cassette, even if the comparison is only to RB CD.

Z Man, not only that but for CDs that were remastered from the original master analog tapes, I kinda doubt digitizing he thing will result in higher resolution than what you started out with -- the original master tape. Duh!

:-)

"04-02-15: Geoffkait
Actually, as I understand it cassette tape has higher resolution than Redbook CD. That would probably help explain my preference, but also the sheer musicality, you know, things like sweetness, warmth and air."

There's really no reason why you can't be right on that. I think many people forget that resolution isn't fixed with analogue formats, like they are with digital. You buy a better cassette player and you can increase the resolution without changing the format. Digital products don't work like that.

Geoffkait, That's interesting because even back in the 70s cassette was known as a lofi medium, only 8 tracks were considered worse. You had to use dolby processing to decrease tape hiss, which also removed a lot of the high frequencies, or one could listen with the tape hiss on self recorded cassettes. Prerecorded cassettes definitely were not considered audiophile grade recordings.

I think some people just like a higher noise floor on their recordings, and I have no problem with that at all.

To answer the original question, Hi rez can sound better than cd but does not always. I think we will see significant improvements in both cd and hi rez sound for years to come.

"04-01-15: Escritorjuan
Quote: "I paid to have an honor student to write my papers, just like the rest of you."

I never paid anyone to write my papers in college.

And, as far as the differences, I've noticed some between DSD and CD.
Escritorjuan (Reviews | Threads | Answers | This Thread)"

Read the post again and try to put the quote you reference in context to what I was talking about.

Actually, as I understand it cassette tape has higher resolution than Redbook CD. That would probably help explain my preference, but also the sheer musicality, you know, things like sweetness, warmth and air.

not sure if this was mentioned above, but a stanford professor named berger did an 8-year study in which he found that his incoming students overwhelmingly preferred mp3 to cd and other much higher rez sources, ostensibly because the metallic "sizzle" of digitized music was pleasing to young ears. he also said that many people prefer vinyl to cd find the needle noise to create warmth and comfort. all of which points out that more resolution doesn't mean better, at least in the sense of more "musical." persoanlly, i've had the same experience as geoffkait--i've often found a casette version to be more engaging than a cd or flac version of the same tunes.

Quote: "I paid to have an honor student to write my papers, just like the rest of you."

I never paid anyone to write my papers in college.

And, as far as the differences, I've noticed some between DSD and CD.

Woops, I'm following a few threads and incorrectly listed the subject of this thread as 'Is CD quality attainable via computer audio?'.

My mistake, I should have stated this thread's subject as:

'Does HiRez really sound better?'

Sorry,

Tim, here's an example. There are many examples of what I'm referring to. Take the RCA Living Stereo CD of Heifetz playing the Brahms and Tchaicovsky violin concertos. Listen to the Brahms piece enough to get an idea what the sound is like. Then listen to the cassette version of the same Brahms violin concerto, same recording, same piece. What you should notice is that the cassette version is much sweeter and much more musical in terms of believing it's a real violin. On CD the sound is very synthetic, washed out, bland, boring. On cassette you can't help thinking this guy is freaking great. Which of course he Heifetz was. Just not on CD. I was listening to the cassette of Heifetz on a bog standard SONY Sports cassette player.

Geoffkait:

"Cassettes to my ear have more resolution than CDs. Notes are more rounded, the harmonics are richer, there is more air and you can hear all the squeaks and whirring noises of instruments like violins that are missing in action on CDs. Tape is a natural medium. It breathes."

Have you ever compared the same album, or at least the same tracks, side by side on CD and cassette on a good system? If you have and the result is the same, I would suggest it has more to do with the quality of the original recording and the master used rather than the medium. Technically, CDs are a superior medium to cassettes across the board; better signal/noise ratio, better frequency response and a larger dynamic range. Cassettes also have audible issues that CDs do not, such as wow & flutter, stretched tape and bleed through.

Tape is not a natural medium; the tape itself is a synthetic material with the only natural component being metal particles that are placed onto it as part of a man-made chemical process. Of course, magnetic tape is inert and never been observed 'breathing'; but I'm going to assume you meant that as some sort of analogy that I don't quite understand.

" Ironically, perhaps, tape frequently sounds like it has more dynamic range than CDs. Yes, I realize that theoretically CD should deliver many orders of magnitude greater dynamic range than tape, especially the humble cassette, but I'm not hearing it. And the dynamics of tape sound more natural and unrestrained. Of course there are exceptions but I'm speaking generally. In addition, from what I hear comparing digital to tape, tape is much sweeter and has more, uh, resolution."

You're correct, tape has a much lower dynamic range capacity than CDs. My first thought after reading your post above was that your perception may be the reality and the cause may be a result of the 'loudness wars'. If you google 'loudness wars' you'll find plenty of discussions on this so I won't go into too much detail. Basically, there are pressures on mixing engineers to have their CDs mixed so they play at a generally loud level, which results in a drastic reduction in the dynamic range. When I initially played my first hi-rez download (Jennifer Gomes' "A 1,000 Shades of Blue" which was recorded direct to digital at 24 bit/96khz in front of a live audience with minimal mixing utilized), the most obvious improvement over my CDs, besides the absolutely dead quiet background that the music emerges from and the resultant ultra high detail level, was the increased dynamics; for the first time, I could clearly hear tonal and volume changes on any particular instrument I chose to concentrate on.

So, my opinion(theory?) is that the loudness wars has so compromised the CD mixing process that an individual, you, has actually perceived the dynamic range of cassette tapes to be greater than CDs. Personally, I stopped using a cassette tape deck in my system a long time ago, when CDs first began to be offered for home use and soon after began replacing cassette players in cars with CD players. Your post is the 1st time I've discovered an impression that cassette tapes outperform CDs in the areas of dynamic range and resolution.

I have no reason to doubt your honest assessment and view it as an indictment of the extent to which the loudness wars have corrupted the CD mixing process and compromised a format with such high potential.

However, I think we're straying off the original thread starter's question about whether CD quality is attainable via a computer audio system. I believe your observation is worthy of its own thread but think it's proper form to try to avoid hijacking a thread by straying to related topics.

I hope you agree,
Tim

First off I'm not advocating one medium over the other. I record strictly in the digital domain at 96/24 or 48/24, which I modestly say with good results. However, if I could, I would love a top of the line Dolby SR multitrack system. It is high Rez and does many, many things well. It has a dynamic range of 95 dbs and is tomb quiet

I think 99.99 percent would not be able to tell whether they were listening to this or the best that digital has to offer and in some cases folks may prefer it over pure digital.

If 20,000 is the number then for the average consumer high rez is dead in the water and will remain a cottage industry.

Ironically, perhaps, tape frequently sounds like it has more dynamic range than CDs. Yes, I realize that theoretically CD should deliver many orders of magnitude greater dynamic range than tape, especially the humble cassette, but I'm not hearing it. And the dynamics of tape sound more natural and unrestrained. Of course there are exceptions but I'm speaking generally. In addition, from what I hear comparing digital to tape, tape is much sweeter and has more, uh, resolution.

Raymonda - R-R can indeed be very good, but ultimately lacks the dynamic range possible with digital. There is also the artifacts caused by the Dolby noise reduction, which are audible. These filters are anything but perfect.

Direct to disk is also compelling. The problem is that so many recording studios are using sub-standard DSP codes for mixing. This software makes all the difference.

The best recordings I have heard to date were recorded on analog tape, mixed in an analog console and then A/D to hi-res digital. These came from Bluecoastrecords.com. They do a minimum amount of EQ because they tune the room acoustically. Also very little or no compression. This is a model for good recordings.

Steve N.
Empirical Audio

Chrs - based on my experience about $20K is the starting point for a lifelike system resolving enough to tell the difference. Receivers are not in the system. A few integrated amps will work. Bass will not be as tight or loud as in more expensive systems. Treble will not be as extended or clear either.

Steve N.
Empirical Audio

To summarise, here's the question.
In descending order of resolution, please list the following recording techniques :-

1. Reel-to-reel analog master tape
2. PCM at hi-res, either DXD or DSD
3. Direct to disc(vinyl)

The thing is no-one knows the definitive answer. So, this debate can rage on till the cows come home. Homo sapiens are good at this sort of thing.
J. :)

Cassettes to my ear have more resolution than CDs. Notes are more rounded, the harmonics are richer, there is more air and you can hear all the squeaks and whirring noises of instruments like violins that are missing in action on CDs. Tape is a natural medium. It breathes.

Zd542,

You stated:

" don't know if you'll agree with me on any of this, but maybe just this 1 thing. It would be nice if the industry would get together and set some standards as to what it considered standard, high and low resolutions."

Yes, I agree this would be a very good step in clarifying the current somewhat chaotic situation. I also think a standardized description of provenance would be useful.

Raymonds:

"You really need to listen to well recorded analog to appreciate what that medium can do."

My friend's older brother had an Akai r to r in the 1970's. I remember listening to some Marshall Tucker Band songs on it. I don't recall if it was a prerecorded tape or if he recorded it himself from an album, but I do remember it sounded very good.. Truth be told, however, that was 40 years ago and I was 18. His brother might have also shared some of his marijuana with us. I might have attributed the extra fine music to being stoned for the first time. I just know it sounded especially good and I was especially hungry after.

I would love to hear some present day music on a more modern r to r in a more sober state.

Do they still make r to r machines for home use?

If they do, I would think no companies still provide prerecorded r to r tapes, right?

Or are owners expected to record their own from LPs, CDs and other sources?

Or are you, as a recording engineer, referring to a master tape on a professional r to r?

The Dude always tries to keep an open mind, looking for good technology and music and, no matter what, The Dude always, I mean always....... keeps abiding. ....If, you know what I mean.

Later,
Tim

As a recording engineer I would strongly disagree that r to r tape is less resolving than hi rez digital. They both, when done right, can sound fantastic and in many cases r to r can sound even better.

Did you know that Walter Becker ' s Circus Money was recorded on r to r using dolby sr noise deduction. Yes it is a bit overly compressed but as for pop it wipes the floor of most all pop recorded today....hi rez digital or not.

You really need to listen to well recorded analog to appreciate what that medium can do.

Also, what about direct to disk? If that ain't hi rez....well......

"The only limiting factor with digital audio resolution occurs if an analog multi-track reel-to-reel tape recording is used as the master, rather than recording the performance directly to digital via PCM. This distinction, between transferred from an analog master and recorded direct to digital, is at the center of the provenance issue."

That's not necessarily true. You're assuming that the digital recorder is of a higher resolution than the analog recorder. While its possible that may be the case, it could just as easily not be.

"I wonder if anyone has recorded direct to digital via 16 bit/44.1khz PCM for a cd, bypassing the analog master tape? If so, I would think this has the potential to sound very good, too."

I'm sure its been done by someone, but in most cases, music is recorded in a higher resolution digital format, and then downsampled to CD quality.

I don't know if you'll agree with me on any of this, but maybe just this 1 thing. It would be nice if the industry would get together and set some standards as to what it considered standard, high and low resolutions.

Zd542,

You stated:

"No. I said resolution. With digital, you can label something 16/44 or 24/96 or whatever. You can't do that with analog. And even if you could, it would probably be too impractical to use in the real world. Analog resolution varies with equipment choice."

I definitely agree that vinyl analog resolution varies with equipment choices; I've even read a comment from another vinyl enthusiast who claimed his very expensive vinyl setup possessed infinite resolution. I think that's a bit optimistic, given the very real limits of the technology. The only limiting factor with digital audio resolution occurs if an analog multi-track reel-to-reel tape recording is used as the master, rather than recording the performance directly to digital via PCM. This distinction, between transferred from an analog master and recorded direct to digital, is at the center of the provenance issue.

This is related to your other question:

"Maybe you could explain this because I'm not sure how you are coming up with it? When you say that they take standard resolution recordings and transfer them to high rez formats, what are we the resolutions in question? I'm not sure that I know what standard resolution is, in the context of your comment."

'Standard resolution' to me is any format that had a multi-track analog tape as its source; this would include most cds and LPs. I would also classify any hi-rez files, if they were transferred from an analog tape master, as 'standard resolution'.

I wonder if anyone has recorded direct to digital via 16 bit/44.1khz PCM for a cd, bypassing the analog master tape? If so, I would think this has the potential to sound very good, too.

Chrshanl37,

Thank you for posting that John Darko article, it was very interesting and relevant to this thread. I hadn't read it until now and can't disagree with his summarizing paragraph at the end:

"Whilst the hi-res file retailers(hopefully) resolve the issue of quality control and provenance reporting, let's stop foisting talk of twenty-four-blah-one-ninety-bleurgh onto Joe Public and his mates because, as we've recently seen with all the Pono bashing emanating from the mainstream press (with its implicit non-audiophile perspective), it will do more harm than good."

I see this as one of the challenges of wide spread acceptance of high rez although as john darko states is an extreme example this does further illustrate nobles point.

http://www.digitalaudioreview.net/2015/02/disrespecting-artistry-becks-morning-phase-as-a-hi-res-download/

"Are you saying that common audio measurements (such as frequency response, signal to noise ratios, dynamic range, etc.) mysteriously cannot be measured for vinyl but can be exactly measured on digital formats? This would be very troubling but convenient for anyone wishing to avoid objectively comparing the two formats. Fortunately,however, your statement is not factual."

No. I said resolution. With digital, you can label something 16/44 or 24/96 or whatever. You can't do that with analog. And even if you could, it would probably be too impractical to use in the real world. Analog resolution varies with equipment choice.

"The reason I referred to this article was to demonstrate the reporter's total lack of understanding of the importance of a recording's provenance. No, I don't think he was qualified to conduct such a test, precisely because he didn't realize he was asking his subjects to choose which recording sounded best when both recordings were identical. Because of this, the results of his test are meaningless."

If that's what you meant, then I obviously misread your comments and take back what I said.

"My main point is that the major labels are using standard resolution older masters of their recordings, transferring them into hi-res formats, increasing the prices and marketing these as hi-res without disclosing the provenance of these recordings. Doing this adds no improvements in sound quality but may garner large revenues from uninformed consumers. I'd prefer these potential buyers to be well informed. I'm fairly sure the major labels would prefer otherwise."

Maybe you could explain this because I'm not sure how you are coming up with it? When you say that they take standard resolution recordings and transfer them to high rez formats, what are we the resolutions in question? I'm not sure that I know what standard resolution is, in the context of your comment.

"02-11-15: B_limo
ouch, my head hurts.

I really cant tell much difference with hi rez files. I suppose it is system and recording dependant. Another thing to take into account is if the slight difference is worth the pita of finding all your favorite music in hi rez"

Its really no different than any other element in the chain that you would try to evaluate. When you go out and listen to something like a new CD player or TT, there's usually some planning involved. We make sure the dealer has everything set up properly, we bring music that we are familiar with, do some prior research, etc... People seem to avoid doing that type of stuff with high rez digital formats. I remember when SACD came out. Everyone went out and bought a cheap Sony player and a few SACD's to test it with (myself included). How well did it compare to my Wadia 861? Not very well. The Wadia was better in practically every way. Given my experience in audio, it didn't take me long to figure out that it was silly for me to expect good results the way I went about trying SACD. Unfortunately, not everyone made the connection. Most just walked away with the opinion that its not something they want to get involved with. I don't blame them. It was a smart choice for them not to buy anything if they didn't hear a difference.

The only thing that I think may save High rez audio, are downloads. I doubt very much that the industry will ever sell any type of new format on something like a disc that you buy in a store. Too much damage has already been done. With downloads, high rez music can be made available with little, to no, outlay of money from the record companies. They can offer the downloads and if people buy them, its found money. The cost is so low, there really is no downside.

Here is an article from AudioXpress.com

http://audioxpress.com/article/The-High-Resolution-Audibility-Test.html

Talks about why A-B test may not be the best test.

Even though live music recorded directly to a hi rez format sounds better, the fun still lies in getting the most out of the redbook standard. There's a lot more potential there than many have ever heard, because you have to spend some money on the player to get there, and then you have to have the right power supply, the right power cords, the right isolation, on and on--then, the music will finally emerge with enough resolution to satisfy anyone. But, because of the cost to get there, the allure of hooking up a computer/dac without moving parts is tempting, but very distracting from the real fun of focusing on the little things that really bring out what was hidden in the 16/44 format. What, you're going to park your turntables and CD players for a computer? I have that in my lap right now. The music is coming from somewhere else.

All things being equal (ie provenance being the mastertape), I'll take a well engineered hirez over a well engineered redbook recording. That being said, it all gets back to the recording and reproduction chain. Of course, things being unequal or with a 16/44.1 source, redbook can equal or even beat hirez.
Disclaimer ---have not heard products like PS Audio Directstream DAC which converts everything to dsd so don't know if or how that would change my opinion.

Just me in the context of my rig.

Zd542,

I generally have an attitude of 'listen to whatever format that brings you the most enjoyment when listening to your music' and have no interest in discouraging anyone from doing this. However, I find it curious that you would object to vinyl being accurately described as not hi-resolution.

You stated in your last post: "that there is no reliable way to measure the resolution of an analog source and equate it to any to a similar resolution in digital."

Are you saying that common audio measurements (such as frequency response, signal to noise ratios, dynamic range, etc.) mysteriously cannot be measured for vinyl but can be exactly measured on digital formats? This would be very troubling but convenient for anyone wishing to avoid objectively comparing the two formats. Fortunately,however, your statement is not factual.

You may be correct in stating my previous post lacked objective facts. So, here are some facts comparing various performance measurements between vinyl and 24 bit/96khz digital formats that are audible and directly affect audio quality:



Dynamic Range Vinyl 55-70db Digital 110-120db

Signal/Noise Ratio Vinyl 70db Digital 144db

Frequency Response Vinyl 20-20k hz +/-3db Digital 20-20k hz +/-.5db

You may like the warmer sound of vinyl or the rituals involved with playing vinyl but insisting it is a hi-res format defies the facts and is, ultimately, not relevant to your enjoyment of it.

Also, you stated: "A recent NY Times article? Do you really think they're qualified to conduct such a test? You can do whatever you want, but if I was trying to make your point, I would be embarrassed to reference a source like that. And then expect someone to take me seriously"

The reason I referred to this article was to demonstrate the reporter's total lack of understanding of the importance of a recording's provenance. No, I don't think he was qualified to conduct such a test, precisely because he didn't realize he was asking his subjects to choose which recording sounded best when both recordings were identical. Because of this, the results of his test are meaningless.

My main point is that the major labels are using standard resolution older masters of their recordings, transferring them into hi-res formats, increasing the prices and marketing these as hi-res without disclosing the provenance of these recordings. Doing this adds no improvements in sound quality but may garner large revenues from uninformed consumers. I'd prefer these potential buyers to be well informed. I'm fairly sure the major labels would prefer otherwise.

Nonoise,

completely agree with your comment that good recordings make for good playback.

Tim

Noble100 - thanks for the music suggestion; I'm going to dl it tomorrow!

ouch, my head hurts.

I really cant tell much difference with hi rez files. I suppose it is system and recording dependant. Another thing to take into account is if the slight difference is worth the pita of finding all your favorite music in hi rez

Steve you are absolutely right which brings up another question...how much money does one need to spend to actually hear a difference that is convincing? This is not like DVD vs vhs. You can stand and look at two TV's each running different formats and immediately see a dramatic improvement. Then again when DVD came out many held on the their beloved vcr's.

If my choice is a bad recording in HiRez or great recording in lower rez I'll take lower rez.
It's not just a matter of resolution but of the entire chain while many only argue about the resolution of the final link.

If I had the option to purchase excellently recorded HiRez music that would be great but how many of these are actually available? How many will be available in the future? Are there enough people who care about this to make it economically feasible? There seems to one small faction who cares about HiRez while the overwhelming majority either don't care or are satisfied with the status quo or even less.

In reading the responses to this topic, I feel we need to remember that the concept of a "white paper" has changed substantially with the decline of peer-reviewed industry publications. Once upon a time, they were written to support a conclusion regarding technical or scientific phenomena and subjected to rigorous cross-checking before publication. That model died a long time ago, even in medicine.

White papers are no longer subjected to any meaningful peer review, with the most glaring recent example being the now-debunked paper regarding vaccinations linked to autism. It is my sad professional duty to read countless white papers regarding process control instrumentation for their potential effect on the marketing of my company's products. If abstracted, every single one of them could be condensed to: "XYZ enhancement to our technology is documented to produce a beneficial result in process application at ABC company. Buy our product to achieve the same result in your company."

While I find it interesting that Goldmund produced a paper that would seem to limit their potential market expansion, hype being what it is, I still think that the paper highlights an interesting observation: Blind testing produced equivocal results. I did not back-check the studies used to support that conclusion, and am still not sufficiently motivated to do so. Audio is a hobby for me, and it is enough that I have learned what I like to hear and have found a personally satisfactory method to enhance that enjoyment over time. Specifications, white papers and the like are all essentially white noise (no pun intended). The essence is in perception.

When all is said and done, human ears remain analog transducers. They take a physical waveform (sound) and convert it into an electrical signal (nerve impulses) that the brain then decodes. The result of that process is either pleasant, unpleasant or somewhere in-between. In my case, my brain decodes some high resolution digital files as "sounding better" and others as "no noticeable difference." None of those decodings match what my brain interprets as "natural" when I reflect on the concerts I've attended. That is why I'm still married to vinyl as my reference source.

Everyone is different in how they interpret this process. We can all agree on this and that the recording process itself has marked effect no matter what technology is used as the playback source. Bad recordings are bad recordings. Good ones are good ones. We all recognize great music regardless of recording quality. Does the reproduction technology make a significant difference? That is where personal interpretation comes in. That is why we have lo fi, mid fi and hi fi gear and all of the manufacturers and hucksters that go along with it.

For me, it's all about having fun and happy listening!

"02-11-15: Audioengr
Chrsh - Most consumers don't spend enough money on their equipment to hear the difference. They spend more on their cell-phones. They all claim that they have tin-ears too...

Steve N.
Empirical Audio"

I think the industry itself is to blame for that. Look at the difference in other segments of digital entertainment. Everyone seems to understand why you would buy a dvd over a vhs and a blu ray over a dvd, or a Playstation 3 to replace a 2. Same thing with computers, bigger processors, better graphics, and even cell phones and tablets. When CD was the standard, the industry chose to push MP-3's over something like SACD. It's the only segment that sold features and convenience over the actual quality of the product. And now the price is being paid for it. No one even buys iPods any more because they can just put the music on their cell phone. I know several people that buy CD's new, rip them to MP-3's and then throw the CD in the trash. The whole situation is a textbook example as to why you never devalue your own brands or products. So, as much as I would like high rez audio to succeed, I see no reason at all why the average consumer would stop downloading all their music for free.

Very interesting discussion. A few comments on other's posts.
"the critical importance... on the 'provenance' of a recording in determining the ultimate playback fidelity of a hi-resolution recording."
True; of course that applies to any recording.

"If the same multi-track reel-to-reel master tape recording/mix of a performance is used as a source for a redbook cd as well as a PCM 24 bit/96 or 192khz hi-resolution recording then, theoretically, there should be no difference..."
The basic point that the source dictates the end result is indisputable, but I would suggest that in a good system, some people will hear a difference which if nothing else, is related to the way that the ADC and DAC conversions are implemented.
"With regards to vinyl and reel to reel analog tapes, you can't put a level of resolution on them in any meaningful way, like you may be able to do with digital. Why? Because analog resolution will vary depending on the equipment used in the recording and the playback process. Not only that, there is no reliable way to measure the resolution of an analog source and equate it to any to a similar resolution in digital."
I'd take that a little further; the term resolution a complete non-sequitur with respect to digital recordings. It's sort of talking about a high current amps in terms of wattage. I think that the discussion in terms of what posters on this board are concerned about, is how does the subjective SQ of a hi-rez digital recording (or playback medium) compare to a high quality analog recording/payback medium. In the case of what the consumer can actually purchase and listen to, it's the transfer or playback medium (vinyl, disk or download) that actually matters AT THE MOMENT. With respect to future playback media that may eventually be available, the resolution of the recording technology seems to be more important.

ZD- I agree with what I perceive to be the overall bent of your comments, but criticism of quoting the NYT article is misplaced, IMO. If hi rez transfers and playback media is to become widespread, then people who get their news from NYT (or FOX!!!) will have to be convinced that it's not nonsense. Maybe that just means better marketing (or you could call it technology forcing); like pushing 4K video displays when there is essentially zero 4K media to be displayed on them.

OTOH, for hi-rez master recordings to become widespread, I think "all" it takes is for the incremental cost to be small and for artists and recording engineers to insist on it.

As to the OP, my answer so far is a resounding "sometimes". I've only heard a few and my digital playback is limited to 24/96, but based on that I'd say it most definitely can be better. But as the guy for AIX pointed out, if the original master recording is lousy or low rez, the hi-rez transfer will be, too. You can't add resolution that is not there.

If you're going from analog to digital, then theoretically, higher (deeper??) bit depth and higher sampling rate gets you a closer approximation of the original wave form (which let's not forget, is ultimately, an analog representation of the original performance). Rant over.

Sgunther,
I don't have a vinyl rig (but wish I could afford a nice one):-). I don't stream either as I'm stuck in the CD/SACD camp but as my system matured I could hear a difference with very well recorded CDs and SACDs leading me to believe that it's mostly in the realm of the recording where the magic lies.

All the best,
Nonoise

Nonoise,
You have a pretty nice vinyl rig how do CD, Hirez, PCM and DSD compare to it?