High def/Low def

[magiccarpetride]

Hmm, doesn't sound right to me ... I'm fairly sure my system is quite revealing, I have and listen to music up to 24/192 at 9000 odd Kbps ... I don't find the scratchy sound comes into play until I listen to music ripped from CDs in formats below 320kbps- sometimes at 320, but often that is fine, not quite a dynamic maybe... But not scratchy really! ... Flac from cd is fine ... In fact in some cases I have CDs that you would think were "high def" ... Have you ripped the CDs correctly? Flac files of CDs will only sound scratchy if the cd sounded scratchy!
You need a reference for perspective I think... Cd is perfectly capable of sounding fantastic, not scratchy at all, high Rez is usually better sounding... But that's because it has been recorded and produced with greater attention to detail due to it's target audience probably buying it for it's high rez nature.
Buy something like Nitin Sawney "broken skin" ... If that sounds scratchy then i would say the fault is in your system/method of ripping
A lot of CDs that sound scratchy sound that way because of poor attention to detail in their creation, not because of fault in the format it's self...

I may have overdramatized my report by using the epithet 'scratchy'. No, my CD rips don't sound scratchy at all. They sound magnificent! It is only after I've been listening to the high definition FLACs for a while, and my ears get accustomed to that kind of a sound, that going back to the CD rips sound notably different.

Let me put it this way: high definition (24/96) FLACs sound soft; low definition FLACs/WAVs/AIFFs (16/44.1) sound hard. That's as qualitative a definition as I can give you.

I did some experimenting last night, switching back and forth, and quite frankly, even though the differences are extremely palpable, at this point I'm not exactly sure which format do I like better. I love the softness and the extra sweetness and the denseness of the sound those high def FLACs offer, but I also like the hardness and the muscle and the grunt that the CDs offer.

It's one of those things where it boils down to personal preferences and the mood swings. For example, Billy Cobham's "Spectrum" (a DVD-Audio rip in 24/96) contains such a sweet, soft overall sound, that it's right down infatuating (if I could, I would bathe in it all day long). It's simply irresistible.

However, when I switch back to the remastered "Spectrum" red book format, I immediately notice the much needed extra ooomph! that Billy is famous for on his drum kit. That ooomph! is somehow not present in the high def format, and I admit that I miss it sorely on the high def side. Go figure...

[magiccarpetride]

If your CDs sound harsh and grainy then there is something wrong with your replay chain. Are you actually playing the CDs or a rip thereof?

At their best, CDs can sound spectacularly good. SACDs and DVD-As sound even better and are up there with LP for natural presentation and micro-detail. Remember that CD was a 1984 digital format - limited, but the best that technology could economically decode at that time.

I agree with you that many of the CDs I've heard on my system sound spectacularly good. It is just that high definition format sounds every bit as good as a CD, but with the added touch that it brings extra denseness and silkiness and softness and warmth that CDs simply don't have.

The only downside to the high def format is that it tends to lack a bit of hardness and muscle in the presentation of music. That is, to my ears at least.

[magiccarpetride]

Hi Alex.

This doesn’t sound right to me either.
I think one really needs to compare the same track/album ripped/downloaded with the same app to the same format at differing resolutions.
To my ears a well re-mastered 16/44.1 is not far short of a standard 24/88.
The extra bit depth does make an audible difference but it’s not a night and day difference.
Given most recording studios now use 24/88 as standard it shouldn’t be too hard to set up a valid comparison.
Possibly a controversial view but I don’t care much for AIFF, preferring WAV or Flac.
I understand people have had some excellent results ripping audio from DVD. It’s not something I’ve tried myself.

Hi John,

I wasn't talking about scientifically controlled comparison experiment. My thoughts are more revolving around general impressions. Even when comparing two different tracks from different authors etc., if one track is in red book CD format and the other is in the high def format, the overall sound of each track carries certain unmistakeable qualities by which it is easy to say which is which.

Overall, most of the high def tracks I've heard so far sound much warmer, softer, denser, more well rounded than the red book CD tracks. On the downside, the high def tracks appear to carry less guts, less muscle and less ooomph!

Right now, I'm not sure which of the two I'd prefer. I am secretly hoping that I'll go with the regular red book CD format, because that's the only available format for most of the music I love. It would be tragic if I were to side with the high def format, and than miss out on all the fantastic music that is only available on CDs.

[magiccarpetride]

My money is on the special mood. What was the retry without the special mood like? Is it repeatable?

Yes, it is repeatable. However, what's not repeatable is my preferences. I must admit that, much as I like the high def format, from what I've heard so far, I am sorely missing the sheer muscle that well crafted CD tracks seem to bring to the table (er, to my ears). I feel funny for saying this, but high def format sounds to me a bit less 'daring' than the CD format (high def oozes with good manners, while CDs now sound a bit reckless to me). Doesn't make any sense, I know, but being a blue collar audio enthusiast myself, I like when music sounds edgy and even slightly distorted. Reckless abandon is what I'm going for, I guess. When the sound gets too polished, too polite, it tends to get a bit boring and less engaging.

[Reid Malenfant]

Overall, most of the high def tracks I've heard so far sound much warmer, softer, denser, more well rounded than the red book CD tracks. On the downside, the high def tracks appear to carry less guts, less muscle and less ooomph!.

Very odd indeed, they should sound virtually the same but with improved detail & an extended treble that lacks any harshness.

I guess you'd say they have more "air" (help i can't breathe ), the bass should be just as powerful, i'd expect the mid & treble to be more detailed but with a cleaner sound (but only slightly as we are talking minute details that our ears aren't that good at picking up)...

[MartinT]

It is just that high definition format sounds every bit as good as a CD, but with the added touch that it brings extra denseness and silkiness and softness and warmth that CDs simply don't have.

The only downside to the high def format is that it tends to lack a bit of hardness and muscle in the presentation of music. That is, to my ears at least.

Interesting. I find that a good SACD or, especially, DVD-A, sounds more visceral and energetic than CD.

[gramofone]

I concur with the thread originator.

However (I have not read every post on this thread, so excuse me if the point has been made before), there are other variables involved when comparing Red Book vs. Hi-Res recordings.

The sometimes huge differences cannot be attributed merely to differences in sampling rate or bit depth. Red Book CD recordings have suffered immeasurably from the digital vandalism that is 'dynamic compression' (see Wiki Loudness Wars). This is particularly prevalent with popular music, but occurs generally.

Audiophile Hi-Res recordings are generally recorded on better equipment, and specifically without digital tampering to make the average level of the recording as loud as possible.

The combination of greater bit depth, faster sampling rates, better recording and less or no digital 'mastering', in combination can result in a listening experience that is completely liquid, amazing dynamics and scale in fact, shockingly real ... something you would never say about a CD recording.

Hi-Res rules!

[The Vinyl Adventure]

My experience of high def is basically very easy to quantify ...
Where a well produced cd sounds good, the same album sounds fractionally more dynamic, with a lower noise flaw, a touch more detail, or at least the details seem more separate from the rest of the detail - sound are easier to pin point shall we say, and the overall presentation as a greater feeling of ease and naturalness. That's about it ... There in my experience is no change to how warm music sounds ... But I guess we have very different systems!
It is odd that you are experiencing such differences... Have you got the squeezebox set up right?it sound as though something is effecting the way it is playing music

[The Vinyl Adventure]

Actually, maybe try comapring fleetwood mac rumours hires with cd ... My thoughts above are based on that comparison ... That might rule out anything else being at play...

[Ali Tait]

I find the most noticeable difference is in the depth of the sound stage-in the well recorded examples at least.