Review Digital Vs Digital

[Symples]

Lately I have been purchasing digital hi-res files of some old albums.

I had read a few views that hi-res files were a waste of time. Could this be true? It got me thinking about the differences between a standard CD that has been ripped to flac and a hi-res digital rip.

It just so happens that I had bought an album from Qobuz in hi-res. They also allowed me to download in various qualities.

So...

I downloaded Street Life by the Crusaders in CD, 24bit 96KHz and 24bit 192KHz.

For the geeks
[Geek mode on...]
Digital files located on my laptop.
LG Gram 1790p with 12th gen I7 CPU.
Connect via USB to my Yamaha CD S2100 CD player's USB input via an Amazon Basic 5m USB A to B cable.
Yamaha/Steinberg ASIO USB driver
[Geek mode off...]

For everyone else. I
Yamaha CD s2100 --> Onkyo TX RZ800 --> Tannoy Revolution XT8F floorstandaers
Chord C-Line interconnects between the CD player and amp.
QED and some non brand 79 strand cable between the amp and speakers.

First test was the CD 16bit 44.1KHz flac file
Next up I jumped straight to the 192KHz flac file

The CD file sounded great. I donot have the words to fully describe the sound. Let's just say that I am happy with my system. It had warmth and weight (no it wasn't heavy)

OK on to the 192KHz flac file. It sounded just as good. Not better. In fact I could not tell the difference between the files.
Backwards and forward and no dicernable differences heard.

So are we being conned with hi-res (and the extra expense) files?
Are my poor 61 year old ears not up to it?
IS ny system not up to the task of revealing the subtle differences?

It does make me wonder
I purposely didn't include the MP3 file as I can clearly hear the difference in an A-B comparison.


So... am I missing something?
Do I stick with CD quality flac files?

 

[Basso]

I am no expert in this area but if you are not hearing any difference then stick with the less expensive option. What your ears are hearing is all that matters.

 

[Gray]

So... am I missing something?
Do I stick with CD quality flac files?

No and yes.
There isn't a person (at least on this forum) that doesn't view recording quality as being more important than playback resolution.

Good choice of track 👍
(I think my vinyl version is over 11 minutes long).

 

[Symples]

Good choice of track 👍
(I think my vinyl version is over 11 minutes long).

I purchased the vinyl around the same time as the digital.... just to compare.
Digital more convenient but nothing beats the theatre of playing vinyl.

 

[WayneKerr]

As above, never heard any difference myself either, the recording is far more important. Personally I think it's all a ruse to get us to spend our cash multiple times on the same music... complete waste of time and money.

 

[aversaurus]

I believe cd,s sound better than anything I've streamed.

 

[Gray]

A lot (maybe all) of what many of us listen to is via original analogue tape, so noise and dynamic range performance will necessarily be limited to that tape - no matter what it's subsequently transferred to.

I've got a 24/48kHz download of a live recording.
It was almost certainly recorded direct to digital - no tape involved.
I reckon that's a major factor in making it sound so good.
Even then, the 16/44.1 CD probably sounds comparable to the hi-res version (not that I've compared).

 

[Friesiansam]

Lately I have been purchasing digital hi-res files of some old albums.

I had read a few views that hi-res files were a waste of time. Could this be true? It got me thinking about the differences between a standard CD that has been ripped to flac and a hi-res digital rip.

It just so happens that I had bought an album from Qobuz in hi-res. They also allowed me to download in various qualities.

So...

I downloaded Street Life by the Crusaders in CD, 24bit 96KHz and 24bit 192KHz.

For the geeks
[Geek mode on...]
Digital files located on my laptop.
LG Gram 1790p with 12th gen I7 CPU.
Connect via USB to my Yamaha CD S2100 CD player's USB input via an Amazon Basic 5m USB A to B cable.
Yamaha/Steinberg ASIO USB driver
[Geek mode off...]

For everyone else. I
Yamaha CD s2100 --> Onkyo TX RZ800 --> Tannoy Revolution XT8F floorstandaers
Chord C-Line interconnects between the CD player and amp.
QED and some non brand 79 strand cable between the amp and speakers.

First test was the CD 16bit 44.1KHz flac file
Next up I jumped straight to the 192KHz flac file

The CD file sounded great. I donot have the words to fully describe the sound. Let's just say that I am happy with my system. It had warmth and weight (no it wasn't heavy)

OK on to the 192KHz flac file. It sounded just as good. Not better. In fact I could not tell the difference between the files.
Backwards and forward and no dicernable differences heard.

So are we being conned with hi-res (and the extra expense) files?
Are my poor 61 year old ears not up to it?
IS ny system not up to the task of revealing the subtle differences?

It does make me wonder
I purposely didn't include the MP3 file as I can clearly hear the difference in an A-B comparison.


So... am I missing something?
Do I stick with CD quality flac files?

I play music from my PC, using Foobar2000 and the Pathos recommended ASIO drivers, a better than basic but not expensive USB cable, feeding my Pathos DAC/headphone amp. Using this setup, I can hear detail in CD quality files, I have never heard before but, I'm damned if I can hear any benefit when going to high res files.

 

[manicm]

All of the replies here were rubbish, sorry to point this out. No-one here asked, and the OP did not state WHAT PLAYBACK SOFTWARE WERE YOU USING TO PLAY THE FILES.

AND DID YOU CHECK THE SETTINGS?

MOST OF THE STANDARD PC PLAYBACK SOFTWARE WILL DOWNSAMPLE HIRES FILES.

 

[Gray]

All of the replies here were rubbish, sorry to point this out.

You should be.

 

[Vincent Kars]

WHAT PLAYBACK SOFTWARE WERE YOU USING TO PLAY THE FILES.

Yamaha/Steinberg ASIO USB driver

In general one use ASIO to obtain automatic sample rate switching, isn't it?
It is not the media player taking care of it but the ability to choose a driver allowing exclusive lock on the audio endpoint like ASIO or WASAPI/Exclusive.

 

[12th Monkey]

Couldn't hear the difference between CD and SACD myself.

 

[Friesiansam]

MOST OF THE STANDARD PC PLAYBACK SOFTWARE WILL DOWNSAMPLE HIRES FILES.

Foobar2000, working with the Pathos M2 ASIO drivers, outputs the files unmolested, at the correct bitrate.

 

[Al ears]

A lot (maybe all) of what many of us listen to is via original analogue tape, so noise and dynamic range performance will necessarily be limited to that tape - no matter what it's subsequently transferred to.

I've got a 24/48kHz download of a live recording.
It was almost certainly recorded direct to digital - no tape involved.
I reckon that's a major factor in making it sound so good.
Even then, the 16/44.1 CD probably sounds comparable to the hi-res version (not that I've compared).

Quite agree. Digital aside you see many vinyl offerings stating " taken from original analogue recording" so nothing is going to improve on the nature and limitations of that original recording.
That said there are companies these days recording direct to DSD so you pay your money and make your choice.

 

[plastic penguin]

Couldn't hear the difference between CD and SACD myself.

Not sure I've ever heard SACD.

 

[Gray]

That said there are companies these days recording direct to DSD

Sadly about 45 years too late for my music.

 

[bigfish786]

Not sure I've ever heard SACD.

Think I’ve got three, couldn’t tell the difference. got a couple of hd-cd, no difference.
bought a couple of shm-cd and they were noticeably different. I wouldn’t say better, just different.
sounded like they had been remixed rather than improved.
redbook done well is excellent. No real need for the other formats.
(kinda how I feel about hi res streaming)

 

[Al ears]

Think I’ve got three, couldn’t tell the difference. got a couple of hd-cd, no difference.
bought a couple of shm-cd and they were noticeably different. I wouldn’t say better, just different.
sounded like they had been remixed rather than improved.
redbook done well is excellent. No real need for the other formats.
(kinda how I feel about hi res streaming)

True, the only real difference I can perceive, and it may be just me but ultimately that's all that matters is an SACD recording versus CD and there was no remastering involved .
Have heard bluray audio of the same recordings and no noticeable improvement there although in theory therew should have been.
Ultimately I will put it down to my ild ears....

 

[Edbostan]

Lately I have been purchasing digital hi-res files of some old albums.

I had read a few views that hi-res files were a waste of time. Could this be true? It got me thinking about the differences between a standard CD that has been ripped to flac and a hi-res digital rip.

It just so happens that I had bought an album from Qobuz in hi-res. They also allowed me to download in various qualities.

So...

I downloaded Street Life by the Crusaders in CD, 24bit 96KHz and 24bit 192KHz.

For the geeks
[Geek mode on...]
Digital files located on my laptop.
LG Gram 1790p with 12th gen I7 CPU.
Connect via USB to my Yamaha CD S2100 CD player's USB input via an Amazon Basic 5m USB A to B cable.
Yamaha/Steinberg ASIO USB driver
[Geek mode off...]

For everyone else. I
Yamaha CD s2100 --> Onkyo TX RZ800 --> Tannoy Revolution XT8F floorstandaers
Chord C-Line interconnects between the CD player and amp.
QED and some non brand 79 strand cable between the amp and speakers.

First test was the CD 16bit 44.1KHz flac file
Next up I jumped straight to the 192KHz flac file

The CD file sounded great. I donot have the words to fully describe the sound. Let's just say that I am happy with my system. It had warmth and weight (no it wasn't heavy)

OK on to the 192KHz flac file. It sounded just as good. Not better. In fact I could not tell the difference between the files.
Backwards and forward and no dicernable differences heard.

So are we being conned with hi-res (and the extra expense) files?
Are my poor 61 year old ears not up to it?
IS ny system not up to the task of revealing the subtle differences?

It does make me wonder
I purposely didn't include the MP3 file as I can clearly hear the difference in an A-B comparison.


So... am I missing something?
Do I stick with CD quality flac files?

Ears are analogue.

 

[manicm]

Foobar2000, working with the Pathos M2 ASIO drivers, outputs the files unmolested, at the correct bitrate.

Agree. The OP gave all the details, except what he's using to play the files.

 

[Symples]

All of the replies here were rubbish, sorry to point this out. No-one here asked, and the OP did not state WHAT PLAYBACK SOFTWARE WERE YOU USING TO PLAY THE FILES.

AND DID YOU CHECK THE SETTINGS?

MOST OF THE STANDARD PC PLAYBACK SOFTWARE WILL DOWNSAMPLE HIRES FILES.

I was using the Microsoft Groove Music player.

The ASIO driver had been set to 44,96 and 192KHz whilst playing the individual files.

 

[manicm]

I was using the Microsoft Groove Music player.

The ASIO driver had been set to 44,96 and 192KHz whilst playing the individual files.

I could be wrong but Groove downsamples hires files.

Here's a good list.

The 7 Best Windows Music Players for Hi-Res Audio

Searching for a music player that supports hi-res audio? Here are the best hi-res music player apps for Windows.

www.makeuseof.com

 

[RobSys]

Hi all...

Wouldn't any discernible differences between CD quality and high res quality audio files be entirely dependent on the audio equipment being used?

Anything coming from a computer via either the onboard sound chips or even a dedicated sound card is going to be subjected to computer noise! That noise is also transferred via USB circuits/cables to an extent. Hence the need for for a good DAC, DAC/Amp or streamer that can isolate/filter the background noise. (I have a really good sound card rattling around in a drawer somewhere... I don't bother with it.)

As for a good music player, I use a free(!) program called PlayPcmWin - "A WASAPI audio player for audiophiles by yamamoto2002". It's available for download at:

https://sourceforge.net/projects/playpcmwin/files/PlayPcmWin/PlayPcmWin584x64en.zip/download

The program itself is very basic without library features but works brilliantly.

Rob

 

[Gray]

Hi all...

Wouldn't any discernible differences between CD quality and high res quality audio files be entirely dependent on the audio equipment being used?

Those selling it would no doubt say so Rob.

But if hi-res was as good as some of the hype suggests, you wouldn't need the very best equipment (and hearing) to discern a worthwhile difference, would you?

Plenty of people claiming to have both, have judged hi-res to be pointless when compared to 16/44.1.

There's a case for recording directly and playing back at the highest resolution, but not really where tape has been involved.
(Don't know about anyone else, but that applies to virtually all of my music).

 

[npxavar]

The reconstruction filter can play a role in hearing any benefits. The higher sampling rate means that aliasing is pushed father away from the audioband, meaning that a Minimum phase filter will be as good at suppressing artifacts close to 20KHz as a Fast Roll-off/Brickwall filter, when working at 96 or 192KHz, significantly less so in 44.1KHz.

When using Minimum phase filter, aliasing artifacts close to 20KHz are replaced with silence or actual music content. That may be perceptible, assuming a) that the amplifier and speakers have the necessary high-frequency extension and b) The angle of tweeter to listeners head and room acoustics do not cancel/blur the frequencies over 20KHz.