is Hi-Res all that?
All.thanks for your responses.As i worried, these differences are not obvious from the packaging or the marketed resolution, but only there for those obsessed enough to listen and discriminate. Ditto there doesn't appear to be any easily navigable venue to help eliminate some of the chaff. I appreciate the links provided and indeed there is some insight to be found on Hoffman's website. On that site there of course is debate amongst listeners (which i fully expect given our individual preferences) but at least one might narrow down what the favorite 2 or 3 recordings might be, assuming of course that someone took the time to start a thread about a particular recording. Leaves me to wonder if maybe Roon or one of the disc information sites like Discogs etc might be interested in adding ratings as a feature for individual recordings (or pressings if that is your jam). Unlikely to come from Tidal or Qobuz given the conflict of interest. hard part would be acquiring reviews from individuals....once acquired though might be a great resource. Anyway enjoy your holidays and happy listening. |
I suspect the OP has encountered different remasterings for High Rez vs CD issues and a few of the High Rez masterings were not up to snuff. I listen primarily to Classical and my suspicion is that pop music is more susceptible to this, because recordings tend to be assembled of musicians not playing all together in one space. |
For what it‘s worth I find comparisons wrought with vagaries: Playing CDs is dependent on the CD-player or the quality of the ripping as well as the cables (both signal and power). Likewise Streaming starts with the quality of the internet supplied as well as interference in-house. Cabling on ethernet or optical, galvanic isolation as well as transmission method (wired or wifi) all matter greatly. Finally there is the connection to and quality of the DAC. Nowadays it seems to be mainly USB with concomitant hard-to predict outcomes and lastly the quality of the clocking in the DAC is a major factor as well. In my experience a well thought out streaming set up tends to beat CD player or ripping. As to high res: it‘s not enough of a step forward to overcome the benefit of having the vast back catalogue go through a proper 16/44.1 setup |
@chcook: Thanks, interesting and thorough test! While I'm not disputing what you heard (I myself have had similar experiences: try Pink Floyd Pulse, for example), OTOH, I have found that apples to apples, higher rez is better, BUT conditions apply: * Good Mastering: a well-mastererd CD beats a mediocre 96/24 transfer any time of the day. Try a Japanese CD remaster and the sound is phenomenal! * enhance USB file transfer: SQ improves dramatically using a reclocker between the USB out and the DAC input. I experimented with a friend, digitalising Floyd's DSOTM into 16/44.1, & 24/96 & 192, using a S Yorke TT. 24/192 was noticeably better than the redbook version and empirically better than the 24/96, the differences easily evident in the hi frequencies (more detail & less harsh, tizzy sound). The FR was also measurably better in the HF in 24/192. |
I’m not sure the issue really is resolution. I think it is more about mastering and how that applies/applied to the medium the music was released on. Modern streamed music (even hi-res) really isn’t intended IMO for very serious listening. It is intended for jamming down the road with your Beats on, or Apple EarPods or other such device. Getting into other digital media, that to a degree, is a different discussion. I think the best bet is to find the “version” that is preferred. Hi-res or not. Stating music sounds “better” simply because it is Hi-Res is just a fallacy. It CAN sound better, but it may not. I like streaming music, it is easy. But the analog game is where music really shines IMO. By far I prefer my analog stuff over streaming any day. |
I will continue to disagree about the better the system, the better "poor" recordings sound. The goal of a reproduction system is to reproduce accurately what was on the original recording. The better the system is at reproducing the recording accurately, the better each and every recording should sound (including "poor" ones). Why have the goal of reproducing something inaccurately? If a "poor" recording is reproduced accurately, nothing will have been added nor detracted from the recording. One can then make a judgement that it is a "poor" recording, however whether one enjoys it or not is purely subjective. It is the same with a "good" or "well done" recording. Actually I'm one of the few who would argue that most of Fleetwood Mac and Dire Straits' catalog falls into the "mediocre" category of recording - not "well done" or "good", but also not entirely "poor" (though I absolutely detest the tone of the bass guitar on most of Rumors). I happen to enjoy most of the music, but the recordings are typically so bland and uninventive I usually want to explore other things. So much of audio is subjective, but then again there are objective qualities to things. For example, there are no original 24-bit digital recordings for early Fleetwood Mac or Dire Straits. Any "hi-res" files are thus copies of an original, resolution-limited capture. We can at least all agree on that! |
you have a point about a lot of great sounding recordings have no merit musically. we’ll have to disagree concerning the better the system the better poor recordings sound. totally disagree. a high resolution system in no way enhances bad recordings. it can’t by definition. garbage in garbage out. i doubt many on this site build their systems to enhance poor recordings as goal one. btw most members here would think that i have a pretty good system. it should be given that i’ve been at this for over 50 years. in all those years i never figured out why so many artists and producers torched their customers. it’s a fair question. if dire straits and fleetwood mac can get it right why can’t many others ? Why should there be “low fi” recordings in the first place? |
it’s about the music but the music is much more enjoyable when well recorded. i’m sorry that it irritates me to hear ‘great music’ that’s poorly recorded. no excuse for it.There's plenty of good music with "lo-fi" production. If your HiFi doesn't bring you closer to this type of music, it's probably not very good. I've found that the better the system, the better it will reproduce "poor" recordings (including things from very early on which used archaic technology by today's standards). Further, if your HiFi isn't good enough to make "poor" recordings sound enjoyable, it won't ever allow you to discover the nuances between different masters/versions of the same recording to determine which one you prefer. I also prefer what some would term a "well recorded" album, but there is plenty of trash music that "sounds" technically correct. A lot of audiophiles like that crap. |
my experience is that virtually everything that i have as a cd is superior(for me) to anything that I listen to on qobuz whether hi rez or not. i like and use qobuz but i find it quite soft in the high frequency dept where i’m quite sensitive. since i’m posting, i want to say that i have,as everyone does, cd’s that i believe cannot be surpassed whether LP or not. a truly good recording is hard to find. I personally don’t want to listen to a recording that represents the artistic expression of the producer/artist etc if the sound quality is poor. there is no excuse for this other than tin ears. digital would not be dissed if more recordings sounded like harmonia mundi’s do. fwiw |
A great resource to help you answer your question is Mark Waldrep's blog: https://www.realhd-audio.com/ While Mark is a source of controversy for some in the industry, he is overall not at all wrong in what he discusses. I don't fully agree with him regarding higher performance cables, however he is astute in that he does observe that there are many cable manufacturers which are simply making ludicrous claims. In a nutshell, what it comes down to is the provenance of the file - what this means is that the closer one is to the "actual" original master copy of the recording (whether on tape, direct-to-disc, or digital), the truer the sound will be to the original recording. The album you mention was recorded in 1986; I'm guessing here without doing much research but it was likely an analog tape recording, or an early digital recording. As there was no 24-bit/96kHz digital process for recording audio at the time, any 24-bit file of this recording would be either A) converted from analog from the original master or an auxiliary copy (which could be several generations/copies removed from the original), B) up-sampled from the original bit depth (14 or 16-bit) to 24-bit, and thus re-sampled at a different clock frequency at 96kHz. A) is not a bad option assuming the master tape or the immediate copy (secondary/backup master) was the source of the 24/96kHz file. However, the A/D conversion process can be performed by a myriad of different products all with widely varying performances so there is that factor to consider. If the tape used during the A/D conversion was a few copies removed from the original, you can immediately see the potential for loss of information with successive generations of tape. Seeing as this release has something like 30 different vinyl version alone, it would indicate that each pressing studio had either a copy of the tape or a master record. Since there were so many different types of standards for cutting lathes at pressing plants at the time, who knows what happened there. B) looks like a worse option to me because I don't believe there were many DAWs in 1986 with a 48kHz sample rate; it's certainly possible but I'd need to do some digging to confirm that, as it's my understanding that 48kHz sampling came to the fore in TV and cinema recording before it made it's way to music. At any rate, my guess is that the files Qobuz are using are sourced from a master which varies to the one your CD contains, and that's why you are hearing differences. Of course all of this becomes more complicated when you get into things like re-mastering and subsequent releases of the same title (many, many remasters sound a LOT worse than the original, but then again there are others which do). High-res audio is a marketing term and while I know and have experienced how much better a 24/192 captured digital file can sound, ultimately the source file is limited by the resolution of the equipment at the time and there is no possible way to improve upon it. You can make things sound "different" or "better" using re-mastering techniques, but that's only in the hands of a competent and judicious sound engineer. Think about a movie originally captured on film and released on Blu-ray. Can the Blu-ray ever improve on the original film quality in it's pristine state? I don't think so. However, enhancements can be made to make the viewing experience more subjectively "cleaner" or "better" by using digital processes to reduce film grain, artifacts, and noise for example. Someone who is good at this will do a great job and likely deliver a better looking movie for most consumers - and it's certainly more convenient. But people who don't care, or aren't particularly adept at their craft, might royally screw some stuff up in the process and you end up with a funky looking cartoonish mess. It's very similar in the audio world when it comes to this topic. |
The best sounding version of a particular album is a common topic on the Steve Hoffman Music Forums - Music Corner: (1) Steve Hoffman Music Forums It can take a lot of searching and reading to find what you want, but that's where sound quality is most often discussed. |
For me, the techniques employed by the producer, recording engineer and mastering engineer are far more important than the storage format used for delivering the product to the consumer. Like any other product, audio recordings are subject to the trendy fads and fashions of the moment. Witness the "loudness wars" that started some years back and are still with us to some degree today. Instead of making use of the 90+ dB dynamic range of the CD, the loudness wars had the music industry in a contest to see how much constant volume could be crammed into the top dB or two of a recording. Years ago, using Adobe Audition to transfer my LP collection to digital format, I used to see quite a bit of variance in peak levels -- one could actually see a repetitive drum strike have a slightly different volume top peak with each beat. Nowadays on many CDs, one often sees the same type of drum strikes with an incredible uniformity in the peaks. Human drummers haven't changed, but you can bet your bottom dollar that the recording process used compression and peak limiting to ensure that uniformity. That said, there are some excellent recordings out these days -- some on CD, some in high-rez. And, there are some very poor recordings along with a pile of mediocre ones. I think when high-rez was a rarity, it often served as a motivation for recording professionals to put forward their best effort. With the format being more common these days, but still a trendy feature to offer listeners, in and of itself, it is no longer an indicator of exceptional recordings. Everyone is back to doing what they've always done which is following fads and fashions. |
