Disappointed with hi-resolution (HD) audio

[wilro15]

I recently purchased the new Daft Punk album from HDTracks to try out high resolution audio. I have to say I am disappointed. I have setup my DAC to play at 24/88.2 which matches the Daft Punk music files, my setup you can see below. I would have thought might setup is good enough for high resolution sound.

If I switch between 24/88 and 16/44 I am not sure I can really tell the difference. It *might* be better, but then it might be my imagination too.

I was expecting it to be a WOW moment like when I saw a HD picture on my TV for the first time, but no.

Just curious as to what other people think of HD audio.

 

[NHL]

http://www.ayre.com/insights_dsdvspcm.htm

 

[hammill]

I would expect no difference if it is the same recording.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_rate

Read about the Nyquist–Shannon sampling theorem

 

[BigH]

For me the mastering makes the biggest difference, the difference between 16 and 24 bit is very small from what I have heard.

 

[wilro15]

So whats the point of it, if it sounds the same?

 

[John Duncan]

Margin, mostly.

Personally I can't tell the difference between 320k and 16/44, or between 16/44 and 24/96 (etc) if I take one and downsample to the other. Dunno if I;ve ever compared 24/96 to 320k, since I don't remember having the urge.

On the other hand, if a record company takes the opportunity to use all that bandwidth to produce a more sympathetic, dynamic mastering (as they have done on occasion) then all to the good, but I've never found it to improve sound quality given exactly the same master.

 

[BigH]

So whats the point of it, if it sounds the same?

They can sell them for more money.

You may find this of interest: http://www.soundonsound.com/forum/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=1019661&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1#1019661&utm_source=supporter_message&utm_medium=email

 

[MakkaPakka]

Try converting the file to MP3 and move down the bit rates till you can detect a clear difference - you might be surprised how low you get!

 

[NHL]

Try converting the file to MP3 and move down the bit rates till you can detect a clear difference - you might be surprised how low you get!

I can hear a difference between 320kbps and cd quality, using WIMP vs WIMP HiFi. The 320 kbps hi-hats lacks the natural timbre. On the other hand, for some music style it is sometimes a benefit with rolled off treble.

 

[Clare Newsome]

Margin, mostly.

Personally I can't tell the difference between 320k and 16/44, or between 16/44 and 24/96 (etc) if I take one and downsample to the other. Dunno if I;ve ever compared 24/96 to 320k, since I don't remember having the urge.

On the other hand, if a record company takes the opportunity to use all that bandwidth to produce a more sympathetic, dynamic mastering (as they have done on occasion) then all to the good, but I've never found it to improve sound quality given exactly the same master.

Agreed that the mastering is what matters most. I've got some stunning 24bit albums; i've heard others that are pointless.

PS: You really do need to come round one evening

 

[John Duncan]

Yes I do. Send me some dates...

 

[CnoEvil]

I agree with Clare, in that I have stunning examples, and ones that are a bit meh.

One example where I can hear a clear difference is from Linn Records - Ian Shaw's "A case of you" from the album "Drawn to all things".

For me, the improvement comes from the extra ambient information on the 24 bit version eg. The breaths of the artist, the squeak of the fingers on the strings of the double bass, the resonance of the piano as the note decays. In other words, it's like going from listening to a good recording, to moving up to the front row and listening to a live performance.

I cannot tell you if the 16 bit version, is from a different master to the 24 bit one.....but this is academic, as the only way to get the better version is pay through the nose for the hi-res version.

I find it easier to hear these differences, in very simple, very well recorded stuff.....where you can listen out for that subtle info, which makes the recording seem that much more real and tangible.

I am lucky to have a very revealing system, so it makes any differences easier to spot.......if you are interested, you can download that one track (listed above) in up to 3 resolutions, and try for yourself. It is a very simple recording with piano, double bass and vocals......and it's beautifully recorded.

 

[Native_bon]

I agree with cno there is a difference but not some thing of which is night & day. IF I RECORD A TRACK IN A RECORDING STUDIO, 24BIT FILES AS SUPPOSE TO 16BIT FILES WILL GIVE MORE DYNAMIC HEAD ROOM TO MY FINISH TRACK WHEN MASTERING. IT IS AT THIS EARLY STAGE THAT 24BIT FILES MAKE A MASSIVE DIFFERENCE TO SQ

 

[AlmaataKZ]

I recently purchased the new Daft Punk album from HDTracks to try out high resolution audio. I have to say I am disappointed. I have setup my DAC to play at 24/88.2 which matches the Daft Punk music files, my setup you can see below. I would have thought might setup is good enough for high resolution sound.

If I switch between 24/88 and 16/44 I am not sure I can really tell the difference. It *might* be better, but then it might be my imagination too.

I was expecting it to be a WOW moment like when I saw a HD picture on my TV for the first time, but no.

Just curious as to what other people think of HD audio.

you are absolutely right. Both in what you have heard and in being honest with yourself. Welcome to reality! As many have said above, in our digital age once the file and the playback system are adequate, the sound is down to the mastering. And the speakers. And from these two guess which one you have any control over?

You trying hi res means you are looking for the best possible sound. The route is short: adequate files, adequate playback and high performance speakers. Done.

note: room acoustics matter (a lot) but not practically addressable more than at basics in normal domestic environment.

 

[michael hoy]

I agree with Clare, in that I have stunning examples, and ones that are a bit meh.

One example where I can hear a clear difference is from Linn Records - Ian Shaw's "A case of you" from the album "Drawn to all things".

For me, the improvement comes from the extra ambient information on the 24 bit version eg. The breaths of the artist, the squeak of the fingers on the strings of the double bass, the resonance of the piano as the note decays. In other words, it's like going from listening to a good recording, to moving up to the front row and listening to a live performance.

I cannot tell you if the 16 bit version, is from a different master to the 24 bit one.....but this is academic, as the only way to get the better version is pay through the nose for the hi-res version.

I find it easier to hear these differences, in very simple, very well recorded stuff.....where you can listen out for that subtle info, which makes the recording seem that much more real and tangible.

I am lucky to have a very revealing system, so it makes any differences easier to spot.......if you are interested, you can download that one track (listed above) in up to 3 resolutions, and try for yourself. It is a very simple recording with piano, double bass and vocals......and it's beautifully recorded.

Have you tried the 192 version.

 

[CnoEvil]

Have you tried the 192 version.

No, my versions are 24/48, 16 bit and 320 kbps.

Have you tried my experiment?........and if you have, what did you find?

 

[johngw]

I agree with Clare, in that I have stunning examples, and ones that are a bit meh.

One example where I can hear a clear difference is from Linn Records - Ian Shaw's "A case of you" from the album "Drawn to all things".

For me, the improvement comes from the extra ambient information on the 24 bit version eg. The breaths of the artist, the squeak of the fingers on the strings of the double bass, the resonance of the piano as the note decays. In other words, it's like going from listening to a good recording, to moving up to the front row and listening to a live performance.

I cannot tell you if the 16 bit version, is from a different master to the 24 bit one.....but this is academic, as the only way to get the better version is pay through the nose for the hi-res version.

If you take your 24 bit file, downsample it to 16 bit 44.1kHz, and replay the two files through your system you will not be able to tell the difference. I guarantee you. Or if in doubt, have someone else swap them around for you to try and tell which is which. You will fail.

You make an excellent point though in that the files may differ in other ways than the bit length / sample rate. In fact I remember seeing evidence on another forum (forget which one.. hydrogenaudio?) where a bloke had ran a frequency analyser across a 24 bit and 16 bit download respectively and found that the 24 bit version had been given some gentle eq (or the other way around). Of course when downsampling the 24 bit file (to 16/44.1) and doing the same comparison he did not see the same difference (as expected).

 

[CnoEvil]

If you take your 24 bit file, downsample it to 16 bit 44.1kHz, and replay the two files through your system you will not be able to tell the difference. I guarantee you. Or if in doubt, have someone else swap them around for you to try and tell which is which. You will fail.

You make an excellent point though in that the files may differ in other ways than the bit length / sample rate. In fact I remember seeing evidence on another forum (forget which one.. hydrogenaudio?) where a bloke had ran a frequency analyser across a 24 bit and 16 bit download respectively and found that the 24 bit version had been given some gentle eq (or the other way around). Of course when downsampling the 24 bit file (to 16/44.1) and doing the same comparison he did not see the same difference (as expected).

IMO. There is a difference in the 3 resolutions, which has been heard by more than me. What I don't know with any certainty is whether they are from the same master. You make a good point though.

IME. Matters hifi are seldom black and white, like some would have you believe, but various shades of grey. :silenced:

 

[michael hoy]

Have you tried the 192 version.

No, my versions are 24/48, 16 bit and 320 kbps.

Have you tried my experiment?........and if you have, what did you find?

I have tried all the version of this song, I played the mp3 version for my wife and then after a few minutes played the 192 version without telling her anything about it, both of us thought that the person felt to be in the room with us.

I know what you mean about the piano and the squeak of the fingers, there is a difference in well mastered audio.

 

[BigH]

Have you tried the 192 version.

No, my versions are 24/48, 16 bit and 320 kbps.

Have you tried my experiment?........and if you have, what did you find?

Its been discussed before that certainly some of Linn recordings are not the same apart from the bits. People have converted a 24 bit to mp3 and its exactly the same but the Linn mp3 certainly is not. SO I would say Linn is not a good example. HDtracks maybe a better source to try?

 

[CnoEvil]

I have tried all the version of this song, I played the mp3 version for my wife and then after a few minutes played the 192 version without telling her anything about it, both of us thought that the person felt to be in the room with us.

I know what you mean about the piano and the squeak of the fingers, there is a difference in well mastered audio.

I'm glad I'm not going mad......it's a great track to use for this purpose.

 

[CnoEvil]

Have you tried the 192 version.

No, my versions are 24/48, 16 bit and 320 kbps.

Have you tried my experiment?........and if you have, what did you find?

Its been discussed before that certainly some of Linn recordings are not the same apart from the bits. People have converted a 24 bit to mp3 and its exactly the same but the Linn mp3 certainly is not. SO I would say Linn is not a good example. HDtracks maybe a better source to try?

It's Steve's experiments that have led me to question what is in fact causing the differences I hear......though I tend to keep an open mind on this subject.