Can we hear the difference?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the What HiFi community: the world's leading independent guide to buying and owning hi-fi and home entertainment products.

Oxfordian

Well-known member
Mar 20, 2021
266
199
570
Just to build on this excellent analogy… if you think of it as a video of an animal running…..then bitrate is the number of pixels, and sampling rate is the frames per second! A higher frame rate will capture motion more clearly. 🙂
I can understand the analogy with video but video isn’t claiming to be ‘lossless’, if a stream is lossless then it must have everything, if hi-res lossless is better then how is it better as everything is in lossless, if everything isn’t in lossless then it isn’t lossless.

Is something added to hi-res lossless to make it sound better?

Agghhh!!!
 

Tinman1952

Well-known member
May 19, 2021
549
278
770
I can understand the analogy with video but video isn’t claiming to be ‘lossless’, if a stream is lossless then it must have everything, if hi-res lossless is better then how is it better as everything is in lossless, if everything isn’t in lossless then it isn’t lossless.

Is something added to hi-res lossless to make it sound better?

Agghhh!!!
Don’t fret 🙂 I understand your confusion… lossless can be ANY bitrate/sample rate…it just means you are getting all the audio detail as recorded. It has not been compressed to a ‘lossy’ format as in mp3 or AAC.
Hi res lossless is just recorded at a higher bitrate/sample rate than standard CD quality 16/44.1 🙂
 
  • Like
Reactions: Oxfordian

Oxfordian

Well-known member
Mar 20, 2021
266
199
570
There are still companies that produce all analogue LPs, admittedly not many.
Thanks, so the £180 direct cut LP’s from the likes of Acoustic Sounds or MoFi would be examples of this?

I‘ve picked up some Blue Note recordings over the last few weeks and their quality is excellent, at least on my set-up it sounds excellent, whether these are pressings from analog masters I am unsure but I somehow doubt it, the albums haven’t been cheap to pick up but the quality is good which makes the experience more enjoyable.
 

Oxfordian

Well-known member
Mar 20, 2021
266
199
570
Don’t fret 🙂 I understand your confusion… lossless can be ANY bitrate/sample rate…it just means you are getting all the audio detail as recorded. It has not been compressed to a ‘lossy’ format as in mp3 or AAC.
Hi res lossless is just recorded at a higher bitrate/sample rate than standard CD quality 16/44.1 🙂
Okay get that, but if that is the case then just using Apple as an example, AAC is is recorded at the low end of bitrate/sample, lossless higher and hi-res higher still. So what were CD’s mastered from as they were (allegedly) able to show blemishes that were unheard on analog?

If there was a higher quality available why not use it for CD’s?
 
Thanks, so the £180 direct cut LP’s from the likes of Acoustic Sounds or MoFi would be examples of this?

I‘ve picked up some Blue Note recordings over the last few weeks and their quality is excellent, at least on my set-up it sounds excellent, whether these are pressings from analog masters I am unsure but I somehow doubt it, the albums haven’t been cheap to pick up but the quality is good which makes the experience more enjoyable.
BlueNote are one example, also in this category I would put Speakers Corner, Chasing the Dragon, and Analogue Production, and they don't cost anywhere near £180 :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Oxfordian

Tinman1952

Well-known member
May 19, 2021
549
278
770
Okay get that, but if that is the case then just using Apple as an example, AAC is is recorded at the low end of bitrate/sample, lossless higher and hi-res higher still. So what were CD’s mastered from as they were (allegedly) able to show blemishes that were unheard on analog?

If there was a higher quality available why not use it for CD’s?
Because back in the early 80s when Sony/Philips designed the standard for CDs 16 bit was ‘cutting edge’. I believe many DACs at that time could only manage 14 bits. The sampling rate was considered satisfactory as it allowed frequencies up to 22kHz. Things have moved on since then…
Interestingly the capacity of a CD was mandated by a Japanese executive to allow a running time sufficient for Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony on one disc!
 

Friesiansam

Well-known member
Feb 3, 2015
531
401
11,270
Anyway, if you like to experiment a little
Take a 24/88 or 96 recording
Inspect it with an excellent tool like Musicscope https://www.thewelltemperedcomputer.com/SW/AudioTools/Spectrum.htm
Make sure the hires recording indeed contains substantial life below -96 dBFS and above 22 kHz otherwise a comparison is sense less.
Downsample to Redbook
Do a unsighted test e.g. Foobar ABX comparator between the original and the Redbook version.

This will tell you if you are able to discriminate between the two.
I would suggest that if you need to do that, to try and find a difference when listening, maybe the difference is too small to worry about. I'm very happy with what my Pathos DAC/Headamp can do with 16 bit 44.1KHz.
 

Vincent Kars

Well-known member
Mar 6, 2021
104
91
170
I believe many DACs at that time could only manage 14 bits.
Correct.
There has been a substantial debate between Sony and Philips about the format.
Indeed, the 9th should fit in and they choose the version by Furtwängler, this one had the longest duration due to the slow tempi.
700 Mb was a incredible amount of data at that time but of course they had to compromise.
Philips thought 14 bit would be sufficient and probably 48 kHz the best rate as you don't have to brick-wall that hard.
In a very late stage, management of the both finished the argument: 16 / 44.1 kHz.
Philips had 14 bit DACs only as they where sure 14 was going to be it.
Using noise shaping they managed to squeeze a 96dB dynamic range out of this 14 bit chip....
 

Oxfordian

Well-known member
Mar 20, 2021
266
199
570
BlueNote are one example, also in this category I would put Speakers Corner, Chasing the Dragon, and Analogue Production, and they don't cost anywhere near £180 :)
Excellent tip thank you, I will point out that I haven’t paid £180 for any recording, I see them advertised and wonder if but then dismiss the notion as daft. But I have to say that Blue Note LP’s are pretty good.
 

Oxfordian

Well-known member
Mar 20, 2021
266
199
570
Because back in the early 80s when Sony/Philips designed the standard for CDs 16 bit was ‘cutting edge’. I believe many DACs at that time could only manage 14 bits. The sampling rate was considered satisfactory as it allowed frequencies up to 22kHz. Things have moved on since then…
Interestingly the capacity of a CD was mandated by a Japanese executive to allow a running time sufficient for Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony on one disc!
Brilliant, I am learning new stuff this is great thank you.
 

Oxfordian

Well-known member
Mar 20, 2021
266
199
570
I would suggest that if you need to do that, to try and find a difference when listening, maybe the difference is too small to worry about. I'm very happy with what my Pathos DAC/Headamp can do with 16 bit 44.1KHz.
I am more than happy with my iPad streaming to my System, no concerns at all.

The question is more about what is hi-res lossless, I’m just trying to get an understanding of what it is compared to lossless.
 

millennia_one

Well-known member
Sep 1, 2014
953
473
19,270
I’m not planning at spending any money to run hi-res lossless on my system, the lossless output from my iPad Pro to my Hegel amp is just fine, it gives me CD quality sound, so pretty damn good.

I suppose my question was semi rhetorical, were I to spend the £140 or so to get the hi-res lossless would I really be able to hear any difference, how much better can sound get above that of music streamed at CD quality?

Apple has dangled a carrot in promoting hi-res lossless, but it is not easy to get at the moment, lots of faffing about with cables, adapters, outboard DAC’s etc., so whilst we salivate at the thought of hearing hi-res lossless music out of our systems I just wonder whether is it going to be the enlightening experience for our ears that we believe that it will.
You are though, spending money, you just haven't turned the setting on, which we mentioned in another post. in some ways you're now wasting money by not having that setting on. Don't use it they will take it away. like digital downloads with LPs. There now going the way of the dodo.

As i said to get the full benefit out of it why not have it on whats the harm you're paying for it then you can sit back and see if you can hear yourself. No?. The Hegal will downsample the signal and give you the best it can deliver. Whether you hear the difference or not that's a debate as old as time. All i know is there isn't much in it but there is a little more life, the dynamics are a bit sharper and there's some extra texture and air that's about it. Could i reliable pick it out, no who could, heck i can't remember everything i did yesterday let alone 3-4mins of a track and every sound in it.

I think of it this way.

It's like looking for different animators in each scene of a cartoon when the characters are all supposed to look the same. Baloo for example there must of been 20 animators work on him alone. There are differences but they're hard to spot, for example, one animator isn't as good with eyes or hands the other really good with expressive movement. Tiny details but when playing to their strengths adds something to that scene that otherwise might have been missing by another animator. You can't quantify it or explain it but it there for all to see. Just little qualities that make it.

Enjoy it give it everything you can send it
 
  • Like
Reactions: Oxfordian

Oxfordian

Well-known member
Mar 20, 2021
266
199
570
You are though, spending money, you just haven't turned the setting on, which we mentioned in another post. in some ways you're now wasting money by not having that setting on. Don't use it they will take it away. like digital downloads with LPs. There now going the way of the dodo.

As i said to get the full benefit out of it why not have it on whats the harm you're paying for it then you can sit back and see if you can hear yourself. No?. The Hegal will downsample the signal and give you the best it can deliver. Whether you hear the difference or not that's a debate as old as time. All i know is there isn't much in it but there is a little more life, the dynamics are a bit sharper and there's some extra texture and air that's about it. Could i reliable pick it out, no who could, heck i can't remember everything i did yesterday let alone 3-4mins of a track and every sound in it.

I think of it this way.

It's like looking for different animators in each scene of a cartoon when the characters are all supposed to look the same. Baloo for example there must of been 20 animators work on him alone. There are differences but they're hard to spot, for example, one animator isn't as good with eyes or hands the other really good with expressive movement. Tiny details but when playing to their strengths adds something to that scene that otherwise might have been missing by another animator. You can't quantify it or explain it but it there for all to see. Just little qualities that make it.

Enjoy it give it everything you can send it
The setting is on but only for lossless, the hi-res version requires an outboard DAC to work as the Hegel only supports 24/96. I’ll happily turn the hi-res on and see what happens and if the Hegel runs above 48khz which it hasn’t so far.

As for paying, well at the moment I have 6 months of Apple Music free, once October arrives I have a decision to make on whether to pay for the service.

I’ll have a play with the hi-res setting and report back.
 

Oxfordian

Well-known member
Mar 20, 2021
266
199
570
You are though, spending money, you just haven't turned the setting on, which we mentioned in another post. in some ways you're now wasting money by not having that setting on. Don't use it they will take it away. like digital downloads with LPs. There now going the way of the dodo.

As i said to get the full benefit out of it why not have it on whats the harm you're paying for it then you can sit back and see if you can hear yourself. No?. The Hegal will downsample the signal and give you the best it can deliver. Whether you hear the difference or not that's a debate as old as time. All i know is there isn't much in it but there is a little more life, the dynamics are a bit sharper and there's some extra texture and air that's about it. Could i reliable pick it out, no who could, heck i can't remember everything i did yesterday let alone 3-4mins of a track and every sound in it.

I think of it this way.

It's like looking for different animators in each scene of a cartoon when the characters are all supposed to look the same. Baloo for example there must of been 20 animators work on him alone. There are differences but they're hard to spot, for example, one animator isn't as good with eyes or hands the other really good with expressive movement. Tiny details but when playing to their strengths adds something to that scene that otherwise might have been missing by another animator. You can't quantify it or explain it but it there for all to see. Just little qualities that make it.

Enjoy it give it everything you can send it
Hi-Res Lossless turned on in AM, get a warning message telling me that I need an outboard DAC to continue and an option to continue, which I have pressed.

Finding a Hi-Res track to test, Dire Straits - No, Eric Clapton - No, Nora Jones - No, all were just lossless tracks.

Gregory Porter - Yes - Take me to the Alley is Hi Res Lossless, press play.

Result - Hegel now displays 96Khz on its display, taping the hires lossless on the display on my iPad confirms that GP is being played at 24/96 hi-res lossless.

Does it sound any better, I have absolutely no idea, I've never heard this GP album before but it is rather good.

Thanks for the help, guess I got myself confused the first time, your perseverance is appreciated, cheers.

The question still remains though, if you are streaming Apple Music in hi-res lossless what are you getting that is not available in ordinary lossless.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tinman1952

Niallivm

Well-known member
Oct 28, 2019
131
61
670
Apple seem to be prioritising getting the catalogue all Lossless - a number of albums available as high res on Qobuz (eg Rolling Stones) still just lossless on Apple
 
Last edited:

millennia_one

Well-known member
Sep 1, 2014
953
473
19,270
Hi-Res Lossless turned on in AM, get a warning message telling me that I need an outboard DAC to continue and an option to continue, which I have pressed.

Finding a Hi-Res track to test, Dire Straits - No, Eric Clapton - No, Nora Jones - No, all were just lossless tracks.

Gregory Porter - Yes - Take me to the Alley is Hi Res Lossless, press play.

Result - Hegel now displays 96Khz on its display, taping the hires lossless on the display on my iPad confirms that GP is being played at 24/96 hi-res lossless.

Does it sound any better, I have absolutely no idea, I've never heard this GP album before but it is rather good.

Thanks for the help, guess I got myself confused the first time, your perseverance is appreciated, cheers.

The question still remains though, if you are streaming Apple Music in hi-res lossless what are you getting that is not available in ordinary lossless.
There are some track/albums at 192. A number of the foo fighter albums. But even tidal has a small hi res catalog.
What you’re getting? Well that’s hard to quantify and I don’t have the vocabulary to describe it’s. Just better to compare and see what you hear

I personally find Apple Music pretty high on sound quality front. Especially when you’re listening to the mastered for iTunes tracks which I think is more important then the resolution. It sounds better then tidal and qobuz and that’s through an iPhone 7.

like you I’m happy with it. I let it do it’s thing into my chord qutest and don’t pay much attention to the sample rate. As the chord up samples any how.
 

Oxfordian

Well-known member
Mar 20, 2021
266
199
570
There are some track/albums at 192. A number of the foo fighter albums. But even tidal has a small hi res catalog.
What you’re getting? Well that’s hard to quantify and I don’t have the vocabulary to describe it’s. Just better to compare and see what you hear

I personally find Apple Music pretty high on sound quality front. Especially when you’re listening to the mastered for iTunes tracks which I think is more important then the resolution. It sounds better then tidal and qobuz and that’s through an iPhone 7.

like you I’m happy with it. I let it do it’s thing into my chord qutest and don’t pay much attention to the sample rate. As the chord up samples any how.
I’m not going to rush out and buy more kit to add to what I have, certainly not for streaming.

I now have Lossless music courtesy of Apple, it goes above CD quality with selected tracks and either sounds just fine to me.
 

Vincent Kars

Well-known member
Mar 6, 2021
104
91
170
The question still remains though, if you are streaming Apple Music in hi-res lossless what are you getting that is not available in ordinary lossless.
The answer is simple, stop using this mantra 😊
My mantra.
There is what you call “ordinary lossless”.
This is what I call Redbook (indeed the Audio CD standard was published in a book with a red cover) or CD quality.
This is 2 channel PCM audio with a 16 bit word and a 44.1 kHz sample rate.
This covers a dynamic range of 16*6=96 dB and a frequency range of 44.1 / 2 = 22.05 kHz.

hi-res lossless
Bit confusing as Hires is always lossless (with MQA (Music Quality Annihilated) as a noteworthy exception) but please, please, please not another MQA discussion.

Let’s define Hires as PCM audio with 24 bits allowing for a (theoretical) dynamic range of 144 dB and a highest frequency of ½ Fs (the sample rate) and FS being 88 kHz or higher.

If we talk HiFi, this late 70‘s compromise (the audio CD) is a bit frugal.
A symphony orchestra can easily produce a SPL of 120 dB.
Motörhead can probably top this (or the Who, talking about my generation)
A cymbal can easily produces noise far in excess of 22 kHz.
So this format cannot contain “all” what is produced during a recording.
It is not HiFi 😊

If we look at DVD audio, it can easily contain stereo in e.g. 24 / 96 and this is probably the sweet spot.
A bit overkill, you will be hard pressed to find recordings with more than 20 bit musical information and likewise substantial information in the frequency domain up to 48 kHz.
Anyway, from a technical point of view it beats the CD, better overkill than underkill.

Than there is something like gear.
Modern 24 bit DACs can perfectly cope with Hires, frequency is not the problem, linearity over 20 bits idem.

Power amps is more a problem. A dynamic range of 100 is good.
Only the very quiet ones like Benchmark AHB (Zetec) or NAD (Hypex nCore) or Cambridge Evo (Eigentakt by Purify) have a clean 120 db range.
So you can make this tremendous dynamic range audible using one of these amps but you do have to play loud, FFF loud.
Your family and your neighbors will love to listen to the same high quality music as you do.

Our hearing is gapped as well, 20 kHz when young and lower when age related hearing loss sets in.
Likewise most of the time the tweeters are limited as well to something say 22/25 kHz
Makes you wonder what the case is for frequencies above the upper limit of our hearing.

There are some phenomenon like no brick walling, IMD, time resolution, etc. but not a very strong case.
Science has something better to do of course hence scientific evidence is spares.
The few scientific studies known to me in general show that trained listeners can discriminated between CD and Hires but often struggle.

My personal take
If I have to choose between a lossy and a lossless download, I go for lossless.
Just for future proofing (can convert to any other lossless format without loss) and peace of mind.
If I have to choose between 10,- for a Redbook download and 20,- for a 24/96 kHz, I go for Redbook as I simply don’t hear the difference (assuming the same master)
If a 176 or 192 comes my way, I always analyze the content using MusicScope as often there are all kind weird artifacts in the upper range. Most of the time I downsample to 88/96 to get rid of them.

The final answer to your mantra!
Hires is technically superior to CD
Your gear might be a limiting factor
Your hearing certainly is.
As most people listen with their eyes, the moment they see a hi-res recording (24 / 96 kHz on the display) they will “hear” the benefits because believing is hearing.
The moment they have to do so in a unsighted test, they fail to hear the differences.

Recording quality is far more important than the resolution.

A shitty recording will sound as a shitty recording even in glorious 32 bit / 358 kHz (bigger is better isn’t it) and those rare good recordings will sound gorgeous in Redbook.
Redbook is simply a pretty clever compromise and therefore hard to beat.

(y)
 

Oxfordian

Well-known member
Mar 20, 2021
266
199
570
The answer is simple, stop using this mantra 😊
My mantra.
There is what you call “ordinary lossless”.
This is what I call Redbook (indeed the Audio CD standard was published in a book with a red cover) or CD quality.
This is 2 channel PCM audio with a 16 bit word and a 44.1 kHz sample rate.
This covers a dynamic range of 16*6=96 dB and a frequency range of 44.1 / 2 = 22.05 kHz.



Bit confusing as Hires is always lossless (with MQA (Music Quality Annihilated) as a noteworthy exception) but please, please, please not another MQA discussion.

Let’s define Hires as PCM audio with 24 bits allowing for a (theoretical) dynamic range of 144 dB and a highest frequency of ½ Fs (the sample rate) and FS being 88 kHz or higher.

If we talk HiFi, this late 70‘s compromise (the audio CD) is a bit frugal.
A symphony orchestra can easily produce a SPL of 120 dB.
Motörhead can probably top this (or the Who, talking about my generation)
A cymbal can easily produces noise far in excess of 22 kHz.
So this format cannot contain “all” what is produced during a recording.
It is not HiFi 😊

If we look at DVD audio, it can easily contain stereo in e.g. 24 / 96 and this is probably the sweet spot.
A bit overkill, you will be hard pressed to find recordings with more than 20 bit musical information and likewise substantial information in the frequency domain up to 48 kHz.
Anyway, from a technical point of view it beats the CD, better overkill than underkill.

Than there is something like gear.
Modern 24 bit DACs can perfectly cope with Hires, frequency is not the problem, linearity over 20 bits idem.

Power amps is more a problem. A dynamic range of 100 is good.
Only the very quiet ones like Benchmark AHB (Zetec) or NAD (Hypex nCore) or Cambridge Evo (Eigentakt by Purify) have a clean 120 db range.
So you can make this tremendous dynamic range audible using one of these amps but you do have to play loud, FFF loud.
Your family and your neighbors will love to listen to the same high quality music as you do.

Our hearing is gapped as well, 20 kHz when young and lower when age related hearing loss sets in.
Likewise most of the time the tweeters are limited as well to something say 22/25 kHz
Makes you wonder what the case is for frequencies above the upper limit of our hearing.

There are some phenomenon like no brick walling, IMD, time resolution, etc. but not a very strong case.
Science has something better to do of course hence scientific evidence is spares.
The few scientific studies known to me in general show that trained listeners can discriminated between CD and Hires but often struggle.

My personal take
If I have to choose between a lossy and a lossless download, I go for lossless.
Just for future proofing (can convert to any other lossless format without loss) and peace of mind.
If I have to choose between 10,- for a Redbook download and 20,- for a 24/96 kHz, I go for Redbook as I simply don’t hear the difference (assuming the same master)
If a 176 or 192 comes my way, I always analyze the content using MusicScope as often there are all kind weird artifacts in the upper range. Most of the time I downsample to 88/96 to get rid of them.

The final answer to your mantra!
Hires is technically superior to CD
Your gear might be a limiting factor
Your hearing certainly is.
As most people listen with their eyes, the moment they see a hi-res recording (24 / 96 kHz on the display) they will “hear” the benefits because believing is hearing.
The moment they have to do so in a unsighted test, they fail to hear the differences.

Recording quality is far more important than the resolution.

A shitty recording will sound as a shitty recording even in glorious 32 bit / 358 kHz (bigger is better isn’t it) and those rare good recordings will sound gorgeous in Redbook.
Redbook is simply a pretty clever compromise and therefore hard to beat.

(y)
Wow, thank you for that explanation.

And, yes I agree garbage in can only equal garbage out, that will never change.
 

Tinman1952

Well-known member
May 19, 2021
549
278
770
The answer is simple, stop using this mantra 😊
My mantra.
There is what you call “ordinary lossless”.
This is what I call Redbook (indeed the Audio CD standard was published in a book with a red cover) or CD quality.
This is 2 channel PCM audio with a 16 bit word and a 44.1 kHz sample rate.
This covers a dynamic range of 16*6=96 dB and a frequency range of 44.1 / 2 = 22.05 kHz.



Bit confusing as Hires is always lossless (with MQA (Music Quality Annihilated) as a noteworthy exception) but please, please, please not another MQA discussion.

Let’s define Hires as PCM audio with 24 bits allowing for a (theoretical) dynamic range of 144 dB and a highest frequency of ½ Fs (the sample rate) and FS being 88 kHz or higher.

If we talk HiFi, this late 70‘s compromise (the audio CD) is a bit frugal.
A symphony orchestra can easily produce a SPL of 120 dB.
Motörhead can probably top this (or the Who, talking about my generation)
A cymbal can easily produces noise far in excess of 22 kHz.
So this format cannot contain “all” what is produced during a recording.
It is not HiFi 😊

If we look at DVD audio, it can easily contain stereo in e.g. 24 / 96 and this is probably the sweet spot.
A bit overkill, you will be hard pressed to find recordings with more than 20 bit musical information and likewise substantial information in the frequency domain up to 48 kHz.
Anyway, from a technical point of view it beats the CD, better overkill than underkill.

Than there is something like gear.
Modern 24 bit DACs can perfectly cope with Hires, frequency is not the problem, linearity over 20 bits idem.

Power amps is more a problem. A dynamic range of 100 is good.
Only the very quiet ones like Benchmark AHB (Zetec) or NAD (Hypex nCore) or Cambridge Evo (Eigentakt by Purify) have a clean 120 db range.
So you can make this tremendous dynamic range audible using one of these amps but you do have to play loud, FFF loud.
Your family and your neighbors will love to listen to the same high quality music as you do.

Our hearing is gapped as well, 20 kHz when young and lower when age related hearing loss sets in.
Likewise most of the time the tweeters are limited as well to something say 22/25 kHz
Makes you wonder what the case is for frequencies above the upper limit of our hearing.

There are some phenomenon like no brick walling, IMD, time resolution, etc. but not a very strong case.
Science has something better to do of course hence scientific evidence is spares.
The few scientific studies known to me in general show that trained listeners can discriminated between CD and Hires but often struggle.

My personal take
If I have to choose between a lossy and a lossless download, I go for lossless.
Just for future proofing (can convert to any other lossless format without loss) and peace of mind.
If I have to choose between 10,- for a Redbook download and 20,- for a 24/96 kHz, I go for Redbook as I simply don’t hear the difference (assuming the same master)
If a 176 or 192 comes my way, I always analyze the content using MusicScope as often there are all kind weird artifacts in the upper range. Most of the time I downsample to 88/96 to get rid of them.

The final answer to your mantra!
Hires is technically superior to CD
Your gear might be a limiting factor
Your hearing certainly is.
As most people listen with their eyes, the moment they see a hi-res recording (24 / 96 kHz on the display) they will “hear” the benefits because believing is hearing.
The moment they have to do so in a unsighted test, they fail to hear the differences.

Recording quality is far more important than the resolution.

A shitty recording will sound as a shitty recording even in glorious 32 bit / 358 kHz (bigger is better isn’t it) and those rare good recordings will sound gorgeous in Redbook.
Redbook is simply a pretty clever compromise and therefore hard to beat.

(y)
Decades of experience in one awesome post! Thanks for taking the time to do this Vincent. A very ‘well-tempered’ reply! 😉
 

Adam W.

Well-known member
Aug 19, 2020
87
50
120
I use my Cambridge CXN to stream CD and Hi-Res quality music from Qobuz.

I no longer worry about whether an album is Hi-Res or not because I don’t believe it makes all that much difference, if any.

One of the problems I have found when comparing a standard 16/44.1 track to it’s Hi-Res counterpart is that the Hi-Res version sometimes sounds noticeably different because it has either been remixed or altered in some way, or is more compressed (louder) than the original.

I genuinely believe that standard CD quality sound is excellent and still good enough. Well recorded, mixed and mastered music sounds great.

The content is the problem, not the format.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts