is Hi-Res all that?


I am not one to post on message boards too much, but this seems like the appropriate crowd for the question. I will start with an apology if this is a tired or over-asked question. If it is I would ask that someone please supply the relevant links to previous posts - I searched and didn’t come up with anything specific.

I have reacquainted myself recently with my music collection (all digital - sorry) and I am an intent sort. I have taken the opportunity to listen to some of the newer Hi-Res recordings available via Qobuz, and compare them to my lossless rips of CDs. There are two recent examples where I have noticed that a CD quality recording is head and shoulders better than the Hi-Res version. All of this music sits on an Innuos Zen server passed through a Wyred 4 Sound DAC-2v2se. I will preemptively say that I am adjusting listening levels with a decibel meter, so I don’t think this is simply a listening volume/remastering level issue. All files are 44.1/16 FLAC-lossless accurate-ripped by me unless otherwise indicated.

First is Robert Cray on Strong Persuader. the CD version seems much more open and airy. I notice it mostly in the cymbals and snare, which on the purchased 96/24 version lack crispness and the snare drum sounds boxy and less natural. same thing at the edges of his voice.......just kind of dull. CD version noticeably better (not subtle).

The other glaring difference is more complicated. Van Morrisons Moondance. While I prefer the original mastering in some ways (less tambourine on Into the Mystic for example) the original CD version is a little muddy, and the downloaded remastered 96/24 version from Qobuz seems a bit clearer, but the remastered "Japanese" CD version is more open sounding than either. same textural differences as above but even more noticeable. Interesting that the dynamic range is least on this recording. One does have to adjust the volume down quite a bit for a fair comparison but the textural difference remains.

Being scientifically inclined, I can generate several hypotheses from these observations, including that it’s only about the mastering. Another is that my DAC does well with simpler material, and something in the conversion of Hi-Res to analog is tripping it up. I don’t think that this is true because I have plenty of other Hi-Res material that sounds wonderful.

Leaving me with what to do with these observations. Before anyone recommends that I switch to vinyl, I don’t have the time or energy to start that from scratch, and I have seen other posts complaining about variation in pressings and frankly that seems like the same rabbit hole just different medium. Another would be to look at different DACs that somehow might be more consistent in treatment of digital information - as long as everything doesn’t become consistently mediocre I would be open to that. The simplest, although least efficient answer seems to just listen to all digital options and then choose a version that one prefers.

I am no stranger to hard work so if this is a brute force issue I can do that, but my time is limited and would prefer it to be filled more with listening than auditioning. I fully understand that there is subjectivity here, and that my "favorite" might not be yours, but the differences that I am hearing (clarity and airiness for lack of a better descriptor) strike me as desirable to most in this hobby. Is there an online resource that tackles this variability that might help me to at least winnow the field?

thanks for reading.
chcook
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.
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.
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?
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!

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.