Hi-res, studio master quality, SACD, DSD....the emperors new clothes?

[ff1d1l]

....or a huge stride forward in audio reproduction?

I've just started dabbling in large files with ever more preposterous conjunctions of numbers, burning them to DVD and playing on a DVD/Universal disc player. It also plays SACD's.

I'm coming to the conclusion that these are a bit like Blu-ray and DVD comparisons. You can get astonishingly well mastered DVD's and disappointing blu-rays. And occasionally even the reverse is met...

I'd be interested in the experience, views and possible tweaky tips of other OAS members! And members geared towards computer audio, might the experience be different if not playing from a disc player, as I am?

[Welder]

I can’t and nor can anyone I know reliably differentiate between 24/96 and 24/192
I can’t and nor can anyone I know reliably differentiate between 24/96 and 16/44.1
I can’t and nor can anyone I know reliably differentiate between CBR320 and 16/44.1
(Two of my friends did have better than chance results depending on the compressor used. Both are recording engineers.)

My niece (18 year old musician) and one of my friends (recording engineer) did do better than chance differentiating between CBR320 and 24/192 :scratch:
.
The Master recording was made in my friends’ studio and processed through a Metric Halo ULN8.

I can’t hear much beyond 15kHz!:doh:

I still prefer to listen to 16/44.1 and above. I may not be able to pick higher sample rates and word lengths in ABX tests but for whatever reason I enjoy listening to these more than I do to CBR320 and below. Make of this what you will. :)

There are now a decent range of tools to test what you can and can’t hear under various conditions.

http://www.foobar2000.org/components/view/foo_abx
http://sound.westhost.com/abx-tester.htm
http://phintsan.kapsi.fi/abx.html
http://www.libinst.com/Audio%20DiffMaker.htm
http://audio.rightmark.org/index_new.shtml

My personal strategy is too try to investigate original recording wherever possible and listen to those.
I have a large collection of MFSL and DCC recordings now, the majority of which are to my ears more enjoyable to listen to and in general of a high standard.
I’m also rather fond of the repertoire re-masters; Witness by Spooky Tooth for example.
Possibly the easiest method to find recordings that haven’t been mastered to shite is this

http://www.dr.loudness-war.info/

Most of the entries are dated and enough information is given on the individual album pages to work out which issue is likely to have been messed around with least.

I have a few High Res downloads from various sites, some good, some terrible at various resolutions.

I have eventually concluded that bit depth and sample rate don’t make a good recording; what does make a major difference is the engineer that does it. ;)

[Firebottle]

....what does make a major difference is the engineer that does it. ;)

+1

[mr sneff]

I can’t hear much beyond 15kHz!:doh:



I'm sure I'm the same, plus I suffer from tinnitus.

I recently downloaded a free hi-res recording and a 'normal res' (ie CD quality) recording of the same piece and I can't say I heard a difference. That may be down to my equipment or my ears.

One thing is certain with hi-res recordings it's another opportunity for record companies to once again sell us the same recordings that we've possibly already bought on LP, CD and remastered CD.

[synsei]

I'm sure I'm the same, plus I suffer from tinnitus.

I recently downloaded a free hi-res recording and a 'normal res' (ie CD quality) recording of the same piece and I can't say I heard a difference. That may be down to my equipment or my ears.

One thing is certain with hi-res recordings it's another opportunity for record companies to once again sell us the same recordings that we've possibly already bought on LP, CD and remastered CD.

Gotta keep those fires burning... :eyebrows:

[Mus]

I can’t hear much beyond 15kHz!:doh:

There's not much music up there anyway, so you're not missing much.

Regards,

Mus

[Audioman]

If the recording was low-fi or simply a low res digital recording in the first place no means of upsampling and calling it HD is going to improve it. Hi-res digital should benefit the transfer of a good analogue recording. Difference compared to CD should be night and day in that case. If you have it on LP you probably have it as hi-res as you need.

[ff1d1l]

That's very interesting...I hadn't tried comparisons - difficult because sometimes even if you've got the same piece of music in both formats, its odds on that one will have been messed with, er, remastered. But doing it with a self generated and encoded recording as Mr Welder has, seems very fair, and using young or acute ears to assess results seems optimum.

Re having the vinyl = hi res....at the risk of being controversial, some vinyl is more equal than others, all has been mastered in a way favorable to the cutting lathe prior to cutting, and I don't have to get up in the middle of Hi Res files and remove a ball of fluff from the stylus and maybe clear adhering debris too, before playing the remainder of the side. Particularly with classical I find I'm willing to put up with a small amount of extra convenience, lowered noise floor and absence of cereal noise over the ritual of cuing up a 12" slab...

Don't get me wrong, I play lots of vinyl and hold the sound in unique esteem. Just as my systems resolving power gets better I find I have more respect for digital - and as my turntable (pretty good and recently tweaked to what is now a really excellent standard) improves it seems to take on the better characteristics, the aspects I like of digital...I'm listening to and enjoying both about equally at the moment.

I know some upsampling of 16/44 files takes place by the unscrupulous. But give access to a good mastertape and a conscientious and identical transfer to 16/44 and say, 24/192 is there going to be an audible difference? And if not, why not? Waveform reconstruction is accurate enough in 16/44? Our ears aren't good enough? Our equipment isn't good enough?

Just to put the cat among the pigeons, I'd say that there might be a small advantage, to my ears and in my system, to be heard with SACD. Some SACD's, anyway.

[Alan Sircom]

I can’t and nor can anyone I know reliably differentiate between 24/96 and 24/192
I can’t and nor can anyone I know reliably differentiate between 24/96 and 16/44.1
I can’t and nor can anyone I know reliably differentiate between CBR320 and 16/44.1
(Two of my friends did have better than chance results depending on the compressor used. Both are recording engineers.)

My niece (18 year old musician) and one of my friends (recording engineer) did do better than chance differentiating between CBR320 and 24/192 :scratch:
.
The Master recording was made in my friends’ studio and processed through a Metric Halo ULN8.

I can’t hear much beyond 15kHz!:doh:

I still prefer to listen to 16/44.1 and above. I may not be able to pick higher sample rates and word lengths in ABX tests but for whatever reason I enjoy listening to these more than I do to CBR320 and below. Make of this what you will. :)

There are now a decent range of tools to test what you can and can’t hear under various conditions.

http://www.foobar2000.org/components/view/foo_abx
http://sound.westhost.com/abx-tester.htm
http://phintsan.kapsi.fi/abx.html
http://www.libinst.com/Audio%20DiffMaker.htm
http://audio.rightmark.org/index_new.shtml

My personal strategy is too try to investigate original recording wherever possible and listen to those.
I have a large collection of MFSL and DCC recordings now, the majority of which are to my ears more enjoyable to listen to and in general of a high standard.
I’m also rather fond of the repertoire re-masters; Witness by Spooky Tooth for example.
Possibly the easiest method to find recordings that haven’t been mastered to shite is this

http://www.dr.loudness-war.info/

Most of the entries are dated and enough information is given on the individual album pages to work out which issue is likely to have been messed around with least.

I have a few High Res downloads from various sites, some good, some terrible at various resolutions.

I have eventually concluded that bit depth and sample rate don’t make a good recording; what does make a major difference is the engineer that does it. ;)

I have a pragmatic take on the whole hi-res thing. Generally, if you spend a premium amount of money on a hi-res file, you should get something that has been mastered with the audio enthusiast in mind. Disregarding the whole question of whether you can actually hear the difference between high-rate lossy data reduced files, lossless 16/44, uncompressed 16/44, 24/192 or DSD, the chances are if you buy a high-resolution file of a piece of music, you may get a better sounding file than the knocked out for almost nothing part of a six pack of CDs for £10 drive-by mastering set. And you'll very likely get a better sounding file than the 'remastered' hot cut performed to the demands of the record label to get the maximum number of buyers.

If nothing else, there's enlightened self-interest going on at the mastering stage - "these audiophile guys spend good money on music. That means I am more likely to get paid. If I do a good job, they'll invite me back, and I'll make more money." Result - everyone wins. We get better sounding files, the music business does what it likes to do best - make money, and we don't have to have our music defined by the demands of a hyperactive 12 year old with the attention span of a meth-addicted goldfish. OK, we get stiffed by paying ££s for music you can get for basically free on Spotify, but if that's the price we have to pay for quality, so be it. People used to have to save up to buy their next Decca recording in the 1950s and 1960s, but they were handed the best performance and production possible at the time. Why can't we do the same again?

The problem is no-one's being selective about this, or rather if they are, they risk being accused of being a 'hater' by the hi-res community and their argument defused and dismantled by those who would do best by it. There are good hi-res recordings and bad ones. There are some that are merely up-sampled 16/44 (which may nonetheless sound good), and these do nothing apart from undermine any legitimacy hi-res might have. However, if you make this public, the audiophile community reacts by shunning the whistle-blower and accusing them of being a fifth columnist.

Hi-res is establishing itself as the premium/audiophile format for the download age. If we as audiophiles dismiss it completely because the numbers don't relate to what we can or can't here in terms of high-frequencies, we stand to lose good quality recordings in the process. It's impossible to term this 'high quality' because it will be cheapened and used everywhere, just like 'high-fidelity' got used in the 1960s to advertise refrigerators and lipsticks.

[Welder]

I have a pragmatic take on the whole hi-res thing. Generally, if you spend a premium amount of money on a hi-res file, you should get something that has been mastered with the audio enthusiast in mind. Disregarding the whole question of whether you can actually hear the difference between high-rate lossy data reduced files, lossless 16/44, uncompressed 16/44, 24/192 or DSD, the chances are if you buy a high-resolution file of a piece of music, you may get a better sounding file than the knocked out for almost nothing part of a six pack of CDs for £10 drive-by mastering set. And you'll very likely get a better sounding file than the 'remastered' hot cut performed to the demands of the record label to get the maximum number of buyers.

If nothing else, there's enlightened self-interest going on at the mastering stage - "these audiophile guys spend good money on music. That means I am more likely to get paid. If I do a good job, they'll invite me back, and I'll make more money." Result - everyone wins. We get better sounding files, the music business does what it likes to do best - make money, and we don't have to have our music defined by the demands of a hyperactive 12 year old with the attention span of a meth-addicted goldfish. OK, we get stiffed by paying ££s for music you can get for basically free on Spotify, but if that's the price we have to pay for quality, so be it. People used to have to save up to buy their next Decca recording in the 1950s and 1960s, but they were handed the best performance and production possible at the time. Why can't we do the same again?

The problem is no-one's being selective about this, or rather if they are, they risk being accused of being a 'hater' by the hi-res community and their argument defused and dismantled by those who would do best by it. There are good hi-res recordings and bad ones. There are some that are merely up-sampled 16/44 (which may nonetheless sound good), and these do nothing apart from undermine any legitimacy hi-res might have. However, if you make this public, the audiophile community reacts by shunning the whistle-blower and accusing them of being a fifth columnist.

Hi-res is establishing itself as the premium/audiophile format for the download age. If we as audiophiles dismiss it completely because the numbers don't relate to what we can or can't here in terms of high-frequencies, we stand to lose good quality recordings in the process. It's impossible to term this 'high quality' because it will be cheapened and used everywhere, just like 'high-fidelity' got used in the 1960s to advertise refrigerators and lipsticks.


Yes, I would agree.

Most of the 24/96 “audiophile” downloads I have, have, as you point out, received more attentive mastering. It would be interesting to know which are in fact, up-sampled redbook; and which are from an analogue or, at least a 24/96 master in the case of all digital.

What puts a wry smile on my face is despite the ABXing and knowing full well I’ve failed miserably to pick one from another, I have still bought “audiophile” higher sampling rate and bit depth downloads.
I suppose anything that encourages a better standard of recording must be a good thing. :)

I can’t help thinking that wouldn’t it have been nice if they could had higher standards to start with. If the market demands more highly compressed sound then it doesn’t take a moment with today’s mixers to achieve this. I’m not even sure the market cares much what it gets.

I can’t help wishing there was a little less hostility towards ABXing audio related stuff in general. I don’t in principle object to paying a premium for my music or my kit if I am indeed getting what I paid for and if more audiophiles made proper comparisons (imo) then we may just get sold less rubbish. :scratch:

[Rothchild]

It's simple enough to test ('mechanically') if your files / sources have been up-sampled from Redbook at least.

Rip disk at native resolution / take file, drop it in to a VST compatible audio host

Download this: http://www.voxengo.com/product/span/

Run Span in your VST host and set it to 96kHz mode, then play the file back through it. If there's no content above (and a sharp cut-off at) ~20kHz odds on it's up-sampled from 44.1.

I would really be interested to know how many 'so called' hi-rez files actually are, I certainly think that 'remastered for hi-rez' is likely to be an exception rather than a norm.

[Alan Sircom]

It's simple enough to test ('mechanically') if your files / sources have been up-sampled from Redbook at least.

Rip disk at native resolution / take file, drop it in to a VST compatible audio host

Download this: http://www.voxengo.com/product/span/

Run Span in your VST host and set it to 96kHz mode, then play the file back through it. If there's no content above (and a sharp cut-off at) ~20kHz odds on it's up-sampled from 44.1.

I would really be interested to know how many 'so called' hi-rez files actually are, I certainly think that 'remastered for hi-rez' is likely to be an exception rather than a norm.

The difficulty there is you have to buy the track in hi-res to see if it's legitimately high-resolution.

We don't get a free ride here - traditionally, music reviews (in both hi-fi and music titles) are the worst paid part of the magazine. Generally, the time taken in due diligence to listen to the recording a couple of times, do some background research, write the review and source the rights-free cover art/additional photographs etc, all works out slightly lower than minimum wage. So, it has traditionally been a sop to the music reviewer that they receive free promo copies of the music.

That doesn't happen too often with hi-res. With a few notable exceptions, we don't get promo copies, freebies or voucher copies of hi-res files. I can't find a reviewer who will review hi-res, because they usually get paid less for the review in total than they have to spend on buying the full-fat hi-res file. In addition, if they do review hi-res and are too frequently critical of upsamples being passed off as hi-res, the febrile supporters of hi-res (who have taken to calling CD 'compressed audio' now) walk away from the magazine in droves because it isn't 'hi-res friendly'.

[Clive197]

I think we are all getting a little bogged down with Hi-res.

Some years ago I bought a JVC XRCD, that sounded so much better than the standard cd. It is not a SACD, DVD-A or a BluRay but IMO sounds better than any Hi-res. disc that I have heard so far (I own over 50 so called Hi-res. discs). It has just been manufactured to a very high standard and sounds awesome. The title.... Tina Turner.....Private Dancer.

Clive

[Richard Kimber]

I only buy hi-res files where the original sample rate is quoted, and where it is quoted as 88200 or more (of course they may be lying, but one has to take some risks in life).

I don't see the point of 24 bit 44100.

As far as people who say they can't hear any differences at all are concerned, I wonder what kind of music they are listening to. I doubt that pop music, or solo instrumental music, would benefit much from hi-res recording, while complex orchestral music might well do.

- Richard.

[Alan Sircom]

I only buy hi-res files where the original sample rate is quoted, and where it is quoted as 88200 or more (of course they may be lying, but one has to take some risks in life).

I don't see the point of 24 bit 44100.

As far as people who say they can't hear any differences at all are concerned, I wonder what kind of music they are listening to. I doubt that pop music, or solo instrumental music, would benefit much from hi-res recording, while complex orchestral music might well do.

- Richard.

I agree, especially with the last part. One of the great dissatisfactions many of us in audio face at this time is how sidelined 'classical' music has become. When we used to run a chill out room in the Manchester show, if we needed a time out, we'd put on a piece of orchestral music and the room would clear in seconds. We started with some fairly dense orchestral pieces, on the grounds that not many people will be interested in listening to Shostakovich or Bartok on a wet Saturday afternoon, but quickly realised we could empty a room just as quickly playing Beethoven's 'Appassionata'. Or anything that wasn't jazz, blues or rock.

This wasn't unique to Manchester, and isn't even unique to the UK. It's worth remembering the original testing for what would become MP3 was run with a very narrow musical repertoire - none of which was remotely orchestral.

My difficulty here though is once again a pragmatic one - the current plethora of outstanding classical box sets on CD means you can get 50 or 60 generally excellent and often historically important recordings for the price of three outstanding ones.

[NRG]

I strongly disagree, a few of us went to MR C's place (Coherent Systems) last year and one of the revelations was his 16/44.1 remastering of a number of track like Stevie Wonder's 'Superstition'. We could compare before and after (on CD) and the differences where huge, proving its all in the mastering. Don't pigeon hole Rock or Pop music as being 'inferior' in some way to classical or acoustic Jazz (as an example) when it come to the importance of good mastering. IMHO Hi-Res and DSD especially are really marketing exercises in selling you the same material over and over again. ;)

[Macca]

and the differences where huge, proving its all in the mastering. Don't pigeon hole Rock or Pop music as being 'inferior' in some way to classical or acoustic Jazz (as an example) when it come to the importance of good mastering. IMHO Hi-Res and DSD especially are really marketing exercises in selling you the same material over and over again. ;)

I agree. I bought I hybrid SACD of Beggars Banquet (quite by accident) which sounded tremendous on the CD layer, bought a few more so I have a number of Stones albums on both original CD release and SACD hybrid - they went to an awful lot of trouble with the re-mastering for SACD and it shows when comparing the two. The whole hi-res thing is a red herring, and the situation is further confused by the fact that a lot of red book re-masters are worse than the originals as they have more compression. In addition, a good digital recording, properly mastered, is clearly superior to a good analogue recording properly mastered, doesn't matter what type of music it is. If Miles Davis et al could go back to the studio and re-record Kind Of Blue digitally it would massacre the original - I suspect.

[Alan Sircom]

I strongly disagree, a few of us went to MR C's place (Coherent Systems) last year and one of the revelations was his 16/44.1 remastering of a number of track like Stevie Wonder's 'Superstition'. We could compare before and after (on CD) and the differences where huge, proving its all in the mastering. Don't pigeon hole Rock or Pop music as being 'inferior' in some way to classical or acoustic Jazz (as an example) when it come to the importance of good mastering. IMHO Hi-Res and DSD especially are really marketing exercises in selling you the same material over and over again. ;)

I'm not claiming rock or pop 'inferior' at all, but the wholesale sidelining of classical music is a source of great upset, hi-res or not. It's not just an audio thing, though. Our education system is gently throttling music teaching provision in the young. In all its guises.

[Macca]

I'm not claiming rock or pop 'inferior' at all, but the wholesale sidelining of classical music is a source of great upset, hi-res or not. It's not just an audio thing, though. Our education system is gently throttling music teaching provision in the young. In all its guises.

I don't know. I was exposed to a lot of classical music at school ('73 to '85) but I hardly own any classical and what I do have I never play. if the I=pod generation can't even sit down and listen to a 40 minute rock album in its entirety they are never going to listen to a whole symphony. Culture changes, that's just the way it is.

[Welder]

As far as people who say they can't hear any differences at all are concerned, I wonder what kind of music they are listening to. I doubt that pop music, or solo instrumental music, would benefit much from hi-res recording, while complex orchestral music might well do.

- Richard.

How does that work then? :scratch:

The bit depth either is, or isn’t, 16 or 24 etc, and similar applies to the sample rate. The type of music, or it’s complexity, doesn’t as far as I can see have anything at all to do with whether or not you can pick redbook from “Hi Res”.

By this kind of logic classical would fare worse coz those bits and samples have more instruments to cover…….:eyebrows::doh:

[Rothchild]

How does that work then? :scratch:

The bit depth either is, or isn’t, 16 or 24 etc, and similar applies to the sample rate. The type of music, or it’s complexity, doesn’t as far as I can see have anything at all to do with whether or not you can pick redbook from “Hi Res”.

By this kind of logic classical would fare worse coz those bits and samples have more instruments to cover…….:eyebrows::doh:

Bit depth relates to dynamic range (the difference between the loudest and quietest sounds) as such, given the prevalance of dynamic range compression, pop and rock tends to have less volume range than classical, so a higher bit depth recording may yield some benefits for classical over rock and pop.

That said, according to this: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/audio/digit.html the dynamic range of an orchestra is about 60dB (about what vinyl yields), 16bit gives a theoretical range of 96dB (so even on a bad day if it were 80dB it should be possible to track an orchestra without clipping).

The sample rate dictates the highest frequency that can be captured by a digital system (highest reproducible frequency is half the sample rate, see Nyquist). 44.1kHz was determined because the nominal maximum of human hearing is 20kHz.

Higher sample rates allow a higher frequency reproduction (the value of which is a can of worms that this thread doesn't really need) but one (I believe) real benefit of a higher sampling rate is that the filter that needs to be applied to the audio being feed to the A/D can be less 'steep' than those used at lower sample rates (a 96kHz sample rate will not likely contain much past 30kHz rather than go up to 48kHz and roll off sharply, a 44.1kHz sampled source will roll off quickly at 20kHz, hence the experiment I suggested).

Having filters with 'slower' cut-offs is preferable as they are less likely to exhibit unwanted behaviors such as ringing and phase shifting/smearing. I'm not able to comment on whether or not pop or classical has more going on in the 'bat frequency' ranges but they might both benefit from the less aggressive filter of a high sample rate converter.

I would be interested to hear from anyone who has access to 'hi rez' sources who would be willing to do my experiment and report back on the amount of content above 20kHz in them (and potentially the dynamic range) to see how much they make use of the extra bandwidth available (I tend to concur with other here that the more significant differences are likely to be in the (re)mastering than the format per-se).

[Welder]

I am familiar with Nyquist’s and Shannon’s sampling theory.
I was, hopefully with a bit of humour, trying to point out that the idea that classical, or jazz, is more suitable for higher resolution formats is frankly bollocks.

I’m pleased that at least you agree that it’s the mastering that counts. ;)
Thanks for making the effort to explain though. :)

[Rothchild]

Yeah, although I quoted you it was more a general answer to the thread.

[Richard Kimber]

How does that work then? :scratch:

The bit depth either is, or isn’t, 16 or 24 etc, and similar applies to the sample rate. The type of music, or it’s complexity, doesn’t as far as I can see have anything at all to do with whether or not you can pick redbook from “Hi Res”.

By this kind of logic classical would fare worse coz those bits and samples have more instruments to cover…….:eyebrows::doh:

I'm baffled by this last bit.

Let's say you attend a performance at which a number of different recordings are made at increasing sample rates:
1 sample per 10 secs
1 sample ps
10 samples ps
100 samples ps
1000 samples ps
10000 samples ps
... etc

when you listen to these afterwards would you, as the sample rate increases, expect that the recording would be a better and better representation of the music you had heard? I would. At some point two consecutive sample rates would be such that one would be unable to tell any difference. This point will differ beween individuals and with the reproduction kit, but I think it would also vary with different instruments and with their numbers, and with the subtlety and detail in the music.

While I agree with Alan Sircom's point, I was making a slightly different point. I referred to "pop music, or solo instrumental music" and was thinking of the kind of pop where there is little or no subtlety of sound, just four or five kids (or indeed ageing popstars :eek: ) bashing the hell out of their instruments. I'm not saying that there isn't other, more subtle, pop music. Also I was referring to small group and solo instrumental music, that might be pop, classical, or any other genre, as a polar case. In these cases I think the point at which no difference is heard between consecutive samples is likely to be lower than for what I would describe as 'more complex' music, like large choral and orchestral pieces.

One other point - about the Red Book. It was conceived in a period before science knew better, and is based on the assumption that humans cannot detect frequencies over 20k. More recent research has cast doubt on this, though the mechanism involved is not yet understood. There's an article in the Journal of Neurophysiology http://jn.physiology.org/content/83/6/3548.long.

- Richard.

[mr sneff]

One other point - about the Red Book. It was conceived in a period before science knew better, and is based on the assumption that humans cannot detect frequencies over 20k. More recent research has cast doubt on this, though the mechanism involved is not yet understood. There's an article in the Journal of Neurophysiology http://jn.physiology.org/content/83/6/3548.long.

- Richard.

It's true, my wife, when younger, could hear or sense dog whistles!

[magiccarpetride]

....or a huge stride forward in audio reproduction?

I've just started dabbling in large files with ever more preposterous conjunctions of numbers, burning them to DVD and playing on a DVD/Universal disc player. It also plays SACD's.

I'm coming to the conclusion that these are a bit like Blu-ray and DVD comparisons. You can get astonishingly well mastered DVD's and disappointing blu-rays. And occasionally even the reverse is met...

I'd be interested in the experience, views and possible tweaky tips of other OAS members! And members geared towards computer audio, might the experience be different if not playing from a disc player, as I am?

Most hi res files I have sound superior to their red book counterparts. I'm comparing both formats by streaming them from the computer.

A startling case in point is Gilberto/Getz classic with Jobim (you know, the one that opens with "Girl from Ipanema"): sounds terrible in red book format, sounds divine in 24/96 format.

Now, are these differences down to mastering? Could be, who knows?

I am personally sceptical about ABX testing of these formats. The reason being is that I have demonstrably been fooled during blind ABX testing where I would attribute differences to the same track/same format being played a few times in a row. And if I can imagine the differences between identical formats, all bets are off, no?

[Rothchild]

I have demonstrably been fooled during blind ABX testing where I would attribute differences to the same track/same format being played a few times in a row. And if I can imagine the differences between identical formats, all bets are off, no?

Not sure if I've understood you the right way? This is the whole point of ABX testing: to determine if difference is percieved or actual. You've not been 'fooled' you've had something more valuable proven to you, take the lesson and save some money!

What you need to take (IMO) from this experience is the realisation that some of the biggest sound differences are coming from us not the source (be that media or transducers) hence (I believe) what Pinky's on about with his 'power of mind' stuff.

[magiccarpetride]

Not sure if I've understood you the right way? This is the whole point of ABX testing: to determine if difference is percieved or actual. You've not been 'fooled' you've had something more valuable proven to you, take the lesson and save some money!

How do I save some money? My point is that ABX testing is flawed. If it weren't flawed, I would never be in the position to claim that two playbacks are coming from different sources even though they are actually identical. But because I cannot reliably detect that, the entire setup is running the fool's errand. And that fool's errand cannot prove anything.

[Rothchild]

So because a test which is designed to remove human falibility from the equation has demonstrated that you are human (ie falible) your conclusion is that the test is flawed (with the implication being that you should not be falible to hearing differences where there are none)?

If all things are demonstrably the same and yet one perceives a difference then it stands to reason that the difference is 'in' us, no?

I should confess a slightly rookie error here in that I've also been reading the current 'burn in' thread and got the two a little conflated, sorry! This thread is better off being about hi-rez digital imo so I'll try and take the perception philosophy stuff elsewhere.

[Yomanze]

Most hi res files I have sound superior to their red book counterparts. I'm comparing both formats by streaming them from the computer.

A startling case in point is Gilberto/Getz classic with Jobim (you know, the one that opens with "Girl from Ipanema"): sounds terrible in red book format, sounds divine in 24/96 format.

Now, are these differences down to mastering? Could be, who knows?

Definitely down to mastering if one is "terrible" and one is "divine". :)

So what though? If studios are 'making' high res files sound better by mastering them better, then it's a win for us music listeners. :)

[peelaaa]

Some of the worst sounding cd's I have were the 80's ones in DDD, best ones were AAD. Now I would put that down to early digital recordings using early digital equipment. 24 bit recordings 'should' have more information on them if they were recorded using full 24 bit equipment, it is the way digital works, more digits equals more information.

If for example you recorded a violin using same microphone and the only difference was it was recorded onto a 16 bit and a 24 bit recorder, then the 24 bit would have more information on it.

[Yomanze]

Yes, but you would only benefit from that "more information" if you were listening above 100db, in which case the extra dynamic range of 24bit would be of benefit. Reality is that'll cause permanent hearing damage and we'll be struggling to hear any differences. Remember that the only thing a higher bit depth gives is more dynamic range, which is why it is used in studios to allow more "chopping and changing" without clipping.

[peelaaa]

I wasn't referring to the dynamic range although that does add to the overall listening experience, I was referring to how much more information is contained within 24 bit that is sampled at a higher frequency than regular 16 bit. 24 bit has more samples per second so in theory should sound more like the original signal emitted from the instrument. ie. the sine wave should be smoother, having better resolution

[Rothchild]

Samples per second is the sample rate (which for a redbook cd is 44.kHz). 24bit sampling at 44.1kHz doesn't contain more samples, it contains the same number but they are 'bigger' (24bit 'words' as opposed to 16).

As Neil points out this converts in to a greater capacity for dynamic range, but the frequency content would remain the same. You can only raise the 'amount' of information captured by raising the sample rate (the maximum frequency recordable is half the sample rate). This could be done at both 16 or 24 bit.

Sine waves recorded at either 16 or 24 bit depths will be reconstructed just as smoothly (as long as they are within the sample rate in use and not clipping the converters (too loud)) The notion of 'steps' between bits is a misnomer. If you don't believe me check out Monty from Xiph running the proof here: https://www.xiph.org/video/vid2.shtml

[peelaaa]

In commercial terms 16 bit will always be at the redbook standard so 24 bit is here to stay no matter what the detractors say. I for one are all for the 'upgrade' to a higher resolution with a dynamic range to match. It doesn't make sense harking back to the old 16 bit system, even though my cd player gets some playback still

[SLS]

I have a Linn streamer and so I might be more tempted than most to splash £18 for a Linn HD download.
If there is a difference to CD quality, I am hard pressed to hear it. If there is a difference, my system is more than capable. I no longer consider the HD option.
I use an Ava Media Zara Premium and it has done a great job on my CD collection.
I tend to agree that it is more to do with the quality of the CD engineering.
I buy mostly vinyl, and hold my breath whether, on removing the disc, a CD copy or a nasty mp3 download code will fall out. Seems to be about 50:50.

I did buy from Linn an LP by Emily Barker, £22, but they give you a code to download both the original and an acoustic version of the album. Great album and got tickets to see her in February.

Linn said the exorbitant price of £22 for 38 minutes in vinyl was due to the cost of the Pallas pressing. Just got the Dire Straits box set, also Pallas, 8 LPs for £75.

So Linn continue to charge heavily and seem to have increased their CD quality download prices.

[Stratmangler]

Linn said the exorbitant price of £22 for 38 minutes in vinyl was due to the cost of the Pallas pressing. Just got the Dire Straits box set, also Pallas, 8 LPs for £75.

So Linn continue to charge heavily and seem to have increased their CD quality download prices.

Are the Straits LPs pressed by Pallas?
The reissues cost was £25 - £30 an album, depending on where you bought them from.

[Audioman]

I have a Linn streamer and so I might be more tempted than most to splash £18 for a Linn HD download.
If there is a difference to CD quality, I am hard pressed to hear it. If there is a difference, my system is more than capable. I no longer consider the HD option.
I use an Ava Media Zara Premium and it has done a great job on my CD collection.
I tend to agree that it is more to do with the quality of the CD engineering.
I buy mostly vinyl, and hold my breath whether, on removing the disc, a CD copy or a nasty mp3 download code will fall out. Seems to be about 50:50.

I did buy from Linn an LP by Emily Barker, £22, but they give you a code to download both the original and an acoustic version of the album. Great album and got tickets to see her in February.

Linn said the exorbitant price of £22 for 38 minutes in vinyl was due to the cost of the Pallas pressing. Just got the Dire Straits box set, also Pallas, 8 LPs for £75.

So Linn continue to charge heavily and seem to have increased their CD quality download prices.

With respect £22 for a Pallas pressed vinyl is not exorbitant. Cheaper than Pure Pleasure and Speakers Corner titles from the same plant. The Dire Straits is good value (at Amazon prices) but Universal are pressing a lot of these boxes and have blocked pressing capacity at both Pallas and GZ (pressings available sourced from both plants apparently). It's almost like the old days. BTW the first four albums are from the same metalwork as the individual Warner reissues (2009).

[SLS]

I take the point and thanks for the further information - it did seem a lot of money at the time. When you put it on and listen to the digital acoustic version it becomes a non-issue.

[SLS]

Apparently so - that's why I bought them, even though I have some clean original copies.

[daytona600]

Are the Straits LPs pressed by Pallas?
The reissues cost was £25 - £30 an album, depending on where you bought them from.

Bit Steep 25quid for 5 albums well over a 100 quid , I supply them for £ 19 & was selling the box set for 55 quid on pre-order

http://snvinyl.co.uk/epages/eshop943300.sf/en_GB/?ObjectPath=/Shops/eshop943300/Products/47772&ViewAction=ViewProduct

Pallas germany are one of the best in the business sell them every day , speakers corner/pure pleasure etc & there prices are very competitive compared to optimal/gz just over a quid each for resonable volume
rough price guide on pressing below

http://www.pallasusa.com/pricing.html