Hi Res files

[The_Lhc]

this is not the way to hear the differences between CD quality downloads and DSD downloads -

Given you've said this twice now, have you even grasped the point that this is not what people are talking about when they speak of comparing hi-res with CD quality (or even lower)? Even if you take two downloads, one hi-res, one standard CD res, of the same piece from the same website or vendor you have no guarantee that they are from the same master. The point is to take your hi-res download and convert it yourself to CD res and THEN compare the difference. That way you are removing the mastering from the equation. Of course you then need to do the listening in a way that doesn't allow you to know in advance which one you're listening to.

Comparing two different downloads is a waste of time.

I quite agree. However if you can prove both files can from the same master ( just how many recordings of a orchestral piece do you think they make before issuing?)

It's not a different recording, it's a different master of the same recording, with a compressed dynamic range that makes the difference. You could master one recording a dozen ways and make them all sound different if you wished (case in point the last NIN album and the remastered Band on the Run were both issued with TWO different 24-bit options, one with a compressed DR at a level the market would expect, the other with a fuller range DR to more readily reflect what was heard in the studio, complete with the proviso that if you feel it's too quiet, turn it up. Both options came from the same recording, only the mastering differed).

Using software to compress that hires file down to 16/44 is going to make it sound like a highly compressed CD, and that's not what I want to listen to.

*sigh* no, it isn't, you are confusing dynamic range compression with bitrate compression and they are not the same thing. Bear in mind the available dynamic range of a 24-bit audio file is all but unusable, it's so wide the maximum volume, if it could ever be reproduced by home audio equipment, would cause instant deafness, typically the dynamic range used in 24-bit files is comfortably within the range available in a 16-bit file. That being the case converting a 24-bit file to a 16-bit file will NEVER compress the dynamic range (in theory you could produce a 24-bit file with a DR large enough to exceed the 16-bit range but you'd never actually be able to listen to it in a sensible way.

If I am spending good money on a download I'd want the best possible quality available for that particular piece even if you are convinced I cannot hear any difference. It's the same reason I will buy an LP recorded at 45 rpm if one is available rather than 33.3.

The point is there is nothing in the 24-bit version that you are paying extraof your hard-earned money for that couldn't be provided in a 16-bit file (but deliberately isn't provided for). That's why it's a ripoff.

 

[Al ears]

this is not the way to hear the differences between CD quality downloads and DSD downloads -

Given you've said this twice now, have you even grasped the point that this is not what people are talking about when they speak of comparing hi-res with CD quality (or even lower)? Even if you take two downloads, one hi-res, one standard CD res, of the same piece from the same website or vendor you have no guarantee that they are from the same master. The point is to take your hi-res download and convert it yourself to CD res and THEN compare the difference. That way you are removing the mastering from the equation. Of course you then need to do the listening in a way that doesn't allow you to know in advance which one you're listening to.

Comparing two different downloads is a waste of time.

I quite agree. However if you can prove both files can from the same master ( just how many recordings of a orchestral piece do you think they make before issuing?)

It's not a different recording, it's a different master of the same recording, with a compressed dynamic range that makes the difference. You could master one recording a dozen ways and make them all sound different if you wished (case in point the last NIN album and the remastered Band on the Run were both issued with TWO different 24-bit options, one with a compressed DR at a level the market would expect, the other with a fuller range DR to more readily reflect what was heard in the studio, complete with the proviso that if you feel it's too quiet, turn it up. Both options came from the same recording, only the mastering differed).

Using software to compress that hires file down to 16/44 is going to make it sound like a highly compressed CD, and that's not what I want to listen to.

*sigh* no, it isn't, you are confusing dynamic range compression with bitrate compression and they are not the same thing. Bear in mind the available dynamic range of a 24-bit audio file is all but unusable, it's so wide the maximum volume, if it could ever be reproduced by home audio equipment, would cause instant deafness, typically the dynamic range used in 24-bit files is comfortably within the range available in a 16-bit file. That being the case converting a 24-bit file to a 16-bit file will NEVER compress the dynamic range (in theory you could produce a 24-bit file with a DR large enough to exceed the 16-bit range but you'd never actually be able to listen to it in a sensible way.

If I am spending good money on a download I'd want the best possible quality available for that particular piece even if you are convinced I cannot hear any difference. It's the same reason I will buy an LP recorded at 45 rpm if one is available rather than 33.3.

The point is there is nothing in the 24-bit version that you are paying extraof your hard-earned money for that couldn't be provided in a 16-bit file (but deliberately isn't provided for). That's why it's a ripoff.

Best I stick to vinyl then eh?

 

[The_Lhc]

Listen to whatever you like, just be aware that any improvement you might hear is not down to the format of the files.

I'm not averse to getting 24-bit audio occasionally myself, I bought the last Björk album on 24-bit but only to ensure I got the best master. It only cost a quid more than the 16-bit version as well, so wasn't any hardship.

 

[Al ears]

Listen to whatever you like, just be aware that any improvement you might hear is not down to the format of the files.

I'm not averse to getting 24-bit audio occasionally myself, I bought the last Björk album on 24-bit but only to ensure I got the best master. It only cost a quid more than the 16-bit version as well, so wasn't any hardship.

In that case you were fortunate. I have found they tend to price up the downloads to the equivalent of the LP which I think is absurd considering there is no physical packaging or transport involved in a download. Perhaps this is, in away, maintaining the sales of vinyl.

 

[Rethep]

To me it is only a big marketing trick.

First you pay for the LP, then for the CD, after that for the SACD/DVD-audio, Blu-ray-audio or high resolution audio. In the end you buy a new copy of the LP, which was the best from the start, as they say ;-). Then you have paid 5 times for the same music! No thanks!

I'd rather listen to the music (that counts) then concentrate on a sounddifference which is not there or can hardly be heard (even less with aging ears!).

 

[MajorFubar]

With absolutely no intention to belittle Al Ears, his view, caused by his general lack of understanding of digital audio, is probably typical of the majority. It is almost certainly why the 'hi-res scam' proliferates. 'They' (the system) don't want knowedgeable consumers, they want sheep who'll go out and buy their old albums again on a new digital format. Annoyingly though, sometimes that's the only way you can ensure you're getting the best master, particularly for old albums recorded on analogue tape.

 

[The_Lhc]

Listen to whatever you like, just be aware that any improvement you might hear is not down to the format of the files.

I'm not averse to getting 24-bit audio occasionally myself, I bought the last Björk album on 24-bit but only to ensure I got the best master. It only cost a quid more than the 16-bit version as well, so wasn't any hardship.

In that case you were fortunate. I have found they tend to price up the downloads to the equivalent of the LP which I think is absurd considering there is no physical packaging or transport involved in a download. Perhaps this is, in away, maintaining the sales of vinyl.

I'm going to make you sick now, 7digital, 16-bit download, £6.99, 24-bit £7.99! Normally I wouldn't have bothered but for 8 quid it wasn't worth worrying about. I've no idea if the 16-bit version was the same master or not mind, I wasn't going to pay for it twice just to find that out...

For info, I then downconverted it to 16-bit FLAC AND 320kbps mp3 (for the phone/car) and I can't hear a difference between any of it.

 

[Al ears]

Listen to whatever you like, just be aware that any improvement you might hear is not down to the format of the files.

I'm not averse to getting 24-bit audio occasionally myself, I bought the last Björk album on 24-bit but only to ensure I got the best master. It only cost a quid more than the 16-bit version as well, so wasn't any hardship.

In that case you were fortunate. I have found they tend to price up the downloads to the equivalent of the LP which I think is absurd considering there is no physical packaging or transport involved in a download. Perhaps this is, in away, maintaining the sales of vinyl.

I'm going to make you sick now, 7digital, 16-bit download, £6.99, 24-bit £7.99! Normally I wouldn't have bothered but for 8 quid it wasn't worth worrying about. I've no idea if the 16-bit version was the same master or not mind, I wasn't going to pay for it twice just to find that out...

For info, I then downconverted it to 16-bit FLAC AND 320kbps mp3 (for the phone/car) and I can't hear a difference between any of it.

That's Bjork for you.

Not a bad deal at all if you like that sort of thing......

Must see what else 7digital have got.

I see the likes of hdtracks do frequent 25% off offers which brings price to reasonable levels.

 

[Vladimir]

I'm starting to notice grain in the vocals on Tidal, which I didn't notice before while I was sitting bit further away from the speakers. I compared an album I have with what they stream on Tidal (I have 320 streaming subscribtion) and the grain isn't noticable, sound is smoother.

I hate this hobby!

Now I don't know if this is in my head, is it bad streaming compression or were the speakers always grainy due to diffractions. Already sticking spongy things on the Seas tweeters that go from 2kHz and up... then I realized I have headphones that are clean and pure in the midrange and can be used as a reference. Duh!

Anyone else boiling eggs and dealing with streaming compression paranoia?

 

[MajorFubar]

Not me. I long since realised that beyond about 128k AAC / 256k MP3, the qualitative differences between lossy and lossless (to my ears) are so comparatively small that my attention was better focussed on other aspects of my system and surroundings that affect the sound quality in a bigger way, such as DAC, speakers, amplification, positioning, etc.

 

[Vladimir]

Is there a tool for me to check at what quality Tidal is streaming for me? Doesn't really sound 320 AAC to me.

 

[bill reid]

I,ve been away from my pc.Thanks for all your replies..

 

[Al ears]

Makes interesting reading,

http://www.audiostream.com/content/abx-tests-prove-hi-res-audio-legit#GJhhXmDbg07LAso7.97

 

[MajorFubar]

It's interesting, but what it tells me is 'Amir' probably has damn good (young) ears and can possibly hear the effects of the ani-ailaising filters. Particularly on the 32kHz files where he said the difference was 'night and day'. Nothing to do with hi-res sounding better, in itself. Double the sampling frequency and suddenly the artifacts are out of even his hearing range. It's a very interesting concept though and makes me wonder whether there would be any mileage in 2x upsampling. Oversampling (different to upsampling) was very common in the early days of CDs, and while I don't understand all the technicalities of it, I think it was for possibly the same reason? Mind you I'm 46 years old and my hearing slopes off after about 14kHz, so it would make absolutely no odds to me if I set my DAC to 88.2.

 

[The_Lhc]

It's interesting, but what it tells me is 'Amir' probably has damn good (young) ears and can possibly hear the effects of the ani-ailaising filters. Particularly on the 32kHz files where he said the difference was 'night and day'. Nothing to do with hi-res sounding better, in itself. Double the sampling frequency and suddenly the artifacts are out of even his hearing range.

I'm not sure it's that so much, you're coming at it from the wrong end. The "audio" was the sound of keys jangling, lots of top end frequencies there, dropping the sample rate to 32kHz will lose all the frequencies in the recording above 16kHz, I'd hope that even at my age I'd be able to hear that difference. I don't know why they even bothered with this part of the test, no-one uses a 32kHz sample rate for any normal audio format.

It's a vaguely interesting demonstration of the theory of sampling rates but that's about it.

 

[Vladimir]

ABX test not valid for cables and amps, but valid for hi-res?

 

[Vladimir]

 

[Laurens_B]

I failed that one too, and most people I know fail the test. I found it rather odd that they tried to advertise with this test. I also found a more elaborate test that requires you to do 20 trials for each track, to get any relevant results.

 

[Andrewjvt]

Send the link

 

[Vladimir]

http://test.tidalhifi.com/

 

[his dudeness]

well i just won the free month,do they not do a free trial anyway

 

[MajorFubar]

It's interesting, but what it tells me is 'Amir' probably has damn good (young) ears and can possibly hear the effects of the ani-ailaising filters. Particularly on the 32kHz files where he said the difference was 'night and day'. Nothing to do with hi-res sounding better, in itself. Double the sampling frequency and suddenly the artifacts are out of even his hearing range.

I'm not sure it's that so much, you're coming at it from the wrong end. The "audio" was the sound of keys jangling, lots of top end frequencies there, dropping the sample rate to 32kHz will lose all the frequencies in the recording above 16kHz, I'd hope that even at my age I'd be able to hear that difference. I don't know why they even bothered with this part of the test, no-one uses a 32kHz sample rate for any normal audio format.

It's a vaguely interesting demonstration of the theory of sampling rates but that's about it.

You'd be surprised. What people consider to be high frequency sounds, like keys jangling, orchestral triangles, tambourines, have their signature frequencies (the frequecies we hear that idenfify the sound) significantly under 16kHz. Anything between about 8-12kHz or thereabouts. Stick a brick wall filter at 16kHz and you lose very little, compared to what's below it. And if you're on the wrong side of 40 it's likely you won't hear much beyond 15kHz anyway, at least not to the same sensitivity. Still, I can tell the difference between a 32kHz file and 44.1kHz file; the former sounds closed in and somehow lacks upper-frequency space or breathing room. I don't exactly know why, but in my case it's not because of additional frequencies beyond 16kHz that have been lost, because I'm pretty-much deaf to the world beyond 15kHz.

 

[Laurens_B]

I failed that one too, and most people I know fail the test. I found it rather odd that they tried to advertise with this test. I also found a more elaborate test that requires you to do 20 trials for each track, to get any relevant results.

A trained listener with more than one go will probably get 5/5. I did it through my speakers playing on just my left side (while sitting on my desk). I would probably do better on my AKG K702s if concentrating, but if I need to try so hard to hear a difference, I don't see the point in going from 320 AAC subscribtion to 16/44.1.

Trained Listeners > Audio Retailers > Audio Reviewers > Marketing Sales > College Students

Source: Dr. Sean Olive, Harman International.

When is someone considered a trained listener?

 

[CnoEvil]

When is someone considered a trained listener?

When they have listened on a train? *wacko* .....harder on a Tube, mind you, as they are on strike.

 

[chebby]

When is someone considered a trained listener?

You can download the training here ...

http://harmanhowtolisten.blogspot.co.uk/