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 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?