djh1697
Well-known member
Apples HiRes is not that high resolution, 24bit 48Khnz, I'd convert that signal to DSD and enjoy it at DSD256 on my March DAC, based on the original Khandas toneboard 1
-
When should you upgrade your hi-fi? How to control ‘upgradeitis’
Niallivm
Well-known member
idc
Well-known member
Same here, but I would be happy with anything that is Spotify "very high" quality or above. (Equivalent to approximately 320kbit/s)
Hence, I am happy with Spotify "very high" quality.
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.
Exactly.
manicm
Well-known member
This depends. And it could be many are actually not qualified to do hires testing. I’m not being facetious, but offering viewpoints I’ve encountered, be they right or wrong but seem somewhat valid to me.
First let’s get to AB /ABX testing. A supposed neuroscientist student/graduate who reviews audio equipment on YouTube made a very good point that many may be invalidating their tests almost by default. The example he gives is with speaker testing. Some speakers like different positioning - and when you’re testing at a dealers at home are you taking this extra step? To my mind it’s actually very difficult- at a dealer at least.
Second, Hans Beekhuizen, an increasingly well known audio enthusiast, proposes that hires content and source playback equipment is only the start, in addition:
1. Speakers need to be rated at above 30/40khz.
2. Amplifiers need to be rated at above 30/40khz.
The above figures (I could not recall exactly but thereabouts) were actually specified by a HiRes forum group over a decade ago.
Hans, in one of his videos, actually called out Sony and others who stick the HiRes sticker on some of their mini systems and similar because their amplification simply don’t meet the specs.
And come to think of it, there are actually relatively fewer amps rated to go above 30/40 kHz.
First let’s get to AB /ABX testing. A supposed neuroscientist student/graduate who reviews audio equipment on YouTube made a very good point that many may be invalidating their tests almost by default. The example he gives is with speaker testing. Some speakers like different positioning - and when you’re testing at a dealers at home are you taking this extra step? To my mind it’s actually very difficult- at a dealer at least.
Second, Hans Beekhuizen, an increasingly well known audio enthusiast, proposes that hires content and source playback equipment is only the start, in addition:
1. Speakers need to be rated at above 30/40khz.
2. Amplifiers need to be rated at above 30/40khz.
The above figures (I could not recall exactly but thereabouts) were actually specified by a HiRes forum group over a decade ago.
Hans, in one of his videos, actually called out Sony and others who stick the HiRes sticker on some of their mini systems and similar because their amplification simply don’t meet the specs.
And come to think of it, there are actually relatively fewer amps rated to go above 30/40 kHz.
RobGardner
Well-known member
It’s all driven by marketing, how can the record companies make more money out of their back catalogue. Simply by selling a “new improved” version of the same thing. Some of the time the improvements can be clearly heard. Often not. Think of your original vinyl recordings made before the oil crisis of the 70’s, then the dreadful light weight vinyl recordings available until cd, then the remastered versions of your Cd, then the box sets. Now heavy weight vinyl again. It’s now the same with the increasing sample rates.
Along the way some recordings are improved, Many are not.
Yes, a higher sample rate can and should offer the optimal blend of quality and portability, but I am often disappointed by the fact that this is not realised,
I recently bought a 4K disc of Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon in a box set with a Blu-ray Disc. The Bluray copy was much the better of the two transfers. In fact the 4K version was unwatchable as it was so full of mosquitos.
In summary,, don’t assume that a higher sample rate is a guarantee of a better listening experience. It should be, but it’s not always the case.
Along the way some recordings are improved, Many are not.
Yes, a higher sample rate can and should offer the optimal blend of quality and portability, but I am often disappointed by the fact that this is not realised,
I recently bought a 4K disc of Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon in a box set with a Blu-ray Disc. The Bluray copy was much the better of the two transfers. In fact the 4K version was unwatchable as it was so full of mosquitos.
In summary,, don’t assume that a higher sample rate is a guarantee of a better listening experience. It should be, but it’s not always the case.
lex365
Well-known member
I was blown away by my Dave Brubeck "Time Out" high res album. Sounds completely different to my CD rip. However I later found out this has nothing to do with the resolution. It's a completely different master.
It's almost always the mastering of the album that makes the difference. I am 38 years old, have no problems with my hearing or my eyesight, and I can tell ZERO difference between a FLAC rip and a 320kb MP3 rip from the same source file on either my home audio set up or my £1000 in ear monitors. So yes you have guessed it. I can tell ZERO difference between a FLAC rip and a high res file, providing its from the same master.
My hearing caps out around 16-16.5khz. A 320kb MP3 covers it, but I use FLAC to make sure. High res for the vast majority of people is literally a complete waste of time.
It's almost always the mastering of the album that makes the difference. I am 38 years old, have no problems with my hearing or my eyesight, and I can tell ZERO difference between a FLAC rip and a 320kb MP3 rip from the same source file on either my home audio set up or my £1000 in ear monitors. So yes you have guessed it. I can tell ZERO difference between a FLAC rip and a high res file, providing its from the same master.
My hearing caps out around 16-16.5khz. A 320kb MP3 covers it, but I use FLAC to make sure. High res for the vast majority of people is literally a complete waste of time.
Gray
Well-known member
There really needs to be a FAQ section on the forum - with selected posts (such as the above) used as answers.
JoeSoap
Well-known member
Mildly off topic, but Ry Cooder's Bop till you Drop album of 1979 was the very first album recorded and mastered entirely in the digital domain. I bought it when first released on vinyl (analogue, obviously! ) and used my at the time Linn, Grace, Supex turntable to listen. We thought it was terrific since early CDs and CD players generally were awful in comparison.
On the other hand, Seasick Steve's latest album called Blues in Mono, is recorded on a single 1940's era mono microphone, direct to analogue tape. The vinyl pressing masters are cut directly from the analogue tape. I went to see Seasick Steve a couple of nights ago and he said how it was recorded entirely without a computer within several miles of the recording. And yes, it's recorded in mono.
On the other hand, Seasick Steve's latest album called Blues in Mono, is recorded on a single 1940's era mono microphone, direct to analogue tape. The vinyl pressing masters are cut directly from the analogue tape. I went to see Seasick Steve a couple of nights ago and he said how it was recorded entirely without a computer within several miles of the recording. And yes, it's recorded in mono.
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
-
Something is not right and I’m hoping a forum member will help me
- Started by Fuel4life1234
- Replies: 7
-
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram