Hi Res

BigH

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2012
115
7
18,595
Visit site
Edbo2 said:
Is High-Res that important? Sonos and Bose do not think so, nor do I! Will it fall by the wayside like SACD?

I don't think its that important, if you convert a 24bit to 16bit I very much doubt you can hear any difference. Having said that some high res have been remastered to a better standard, so they maybe worth having. I don't think they will fall by the wayside as downloads are becoming more popular and for the record companies no doubt very cheap to produce and high profit margin as no middlemen or retailers costs.
 
BigH said:
Edbo2 said:
Is High-Res that important? Sonos and Bose do not think so, nor do I! Will it fall by the wayside like SACD?

I don't think its that important, if you convert a 24bit to 16bit I very much doubt you can hear any difference. Having said that some high res have been remastered to a better standard, so they maybe worth having. I don't think they will fall by the wayside as downloads are becoming more popular and for the record companies no doubt very cheap to produce and high profit margin as no middlemen or retailers costs.

If all you have is Sonus then no.

And for your information SACD has fallen as much by the wayside as vinyl ;-)
 

busb

Well-known member
Jun 14, 2011
83
5
18,545
Visit site
Edbo2 said:
Is High-Res that important? Sonos and Bose do not think so, nor do I! Will it fall by the wayside like SACD?

I don't disbieve that so-called hi res often sounds better. However, I've seen lots of forum comments stating that they are from superior masters! If true, this is a very dishonest way of charging more. Why not make CDs (or equiv files) from these better masters & charge what it takes to produce bettert quality rather than hyping a possibly pointless medium with conseqent larger file sizes? I personally don't have enough experience to verify one way or another.
 
busb said:
Edbo2 said:
Is High-Res that important? Sonos and Bose do not think so, nor do I! Will it fall by the wayside like SACD?

I don't disbieve that so-called hi res often sounds better. However, I've seen lots of forum comments stating that they are from superior masters! If true, this is a very dishonest way of charging more. Why not make CDs (or equiv files) from these better masters & charge what it takes to produce bettert quality rather than hyping a possibly pointless medium with conseqent larger file sizes? I personally don't have enough experience to verify one way or another.

Just how many takes do you think they make of a performance? Superior masters? , my behind. It's the usual cop-out of unbelievers.
 

abacus

Well-known member
For domestic Hi Fi use there is no reason to go above CD quality as there will be no improvement.

Studios use 24bit 96 kHz as it gives them headroom for mixing purposes, which Hi Fi users don’t do.

The mastering engineer has to make a CD compatible with all types of equipment, (Including the cheapo stuff which would have problems with high quality) so they can be dumbed down to suit.

Hi-res will only be used on high quality equipment and so can be left as is, hence Hi-res files can sometimes sound better as it uses the original master.

Hope this helps

Bill
 

BigH

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2012
115
7
18,595
Visit site
busb said:
Edbo2 said:
Is High-Res that important? Sonos and Bose do not think so, nor do I! Will it fall by the wayside like SACD?

I don't disbieve that so-called hi res often sounds better. However, I've seen lots of forum comments stating that they are from superior masters! If true, this is a very dishonest way of charging more. Why not make CDs (or equiv files) from these better masters & charge what it takes to produce bettert quality rather than hyping a possibly pointless medium with conseqent larger file sizes? I personally don't have enough experience to verify one way or another.

Thats not the only reason, some companies downgrade their lower res music, its not a straight conversion, I have seen a test, if you convert 24bit to 16bit its exactly the same but their 24 bit and 16bit was not the same. Its just like on some hybrid SACDs the SACD maybe a different master from the cd layer. Its all about money. Most people don't care about quality of mainstream music, they would probably complain its not loud enough. Yes hi res is hyped up in order to sell it. Some of the claims are ridiculus. Mp3 is like black and white tv, cd is like colour tv and 24bit is like plasma tv. Funny because a lot of people can't hear the difference.
 
K

keeper of the quays

Guest
abacus said:
For domestic Hi Fi use there is no reason to go above CD quality as there will be no improvement.

Studios use 24bit 96 kHz as it gives them headroom for mixing purposes, which Hi Fi users don’t do.

The mastering engineer has to make a CD compatible with all types of equipment, (Including the cheapo stuff which would have problems with high quality) so they can be dumbed down to suit.

Hi-res will only be used on high quality equipment and so can be left as is, hence Hi-res files can sometimes sound better as it uses the original master.

Hope this helps

Bill
blimey! Why don't they put a label on cd cover saying general use cd or something like that? So at least I know what not to buy? As I have decent hifi..abd have banged on a few times that well recorded cd is excellent!
 

The_Lhc

Well-known member
Oct 16, 2008
1,176
1
19,195
Visit site
Al ears said:
busb said:
Edbo2 said:
Is High-Res that important? Sonos and Bose do not think so, nor do I! Will it fall by the wayside like SACD?

I don't disbieve that so-called hi res often sounds better. However, I've seen lots of forum comments stating that they are from superior masters! If true, this is a very dishonest way of charging more. Why not make CDs (or equiv files) from these better masters & charge what it takes to produce bettert quality rather than hyping a possibly pointless medium with conseqent larger file sizes? I personally don't have enough experience to verify one way or another.

Just how many takes do you think they make of a performance? Superior masters? , my behind. It's the usual cop-out of unbelievers.

Jesus Al, wake up and Google the loudness war. Cds have massive dynamic compression added to make them sound louder. Many 24-bit audio files don't have this compression, so they sound different from the 16-bit version. This is known fact. Down sampling the 24-bit to 16-bit gives a file that sounds exactly the same.

The compression is done after the recording and production, they don't have to do multiple "takes".
 

andyjm

New member
Jul 20, 2012
15
3
0
Visit site
Al ears said:
Just how many takes do you think they make of a performance? Superior masters? , my behind. It's the usual cop-out of unbelievers.

The master will be mixed down from a multitrack - and multiple different mixes are possible without any further takes. Just some dude sitting down at a mixing desk. This is what happens when a 'remixed version' of a track becomes available, they don't exhume some long dead musician for another go at it.

The final mixed down master isn't the version that finds its way onto a CD however, and it certainly isn't the version that drives the cutting head on a vinyl lathe. The 'original master' will be further mixed (perhaps 'equalised' is a better term) to produce a CD master (have the life compressed out of it in the case of current CDs) or mangled to produce a 'cutting master' for vinyl.

So when different masters are discussed, it isn't that the track has been remixed to produce a different 'original master', it is just that the output of 'original master' has been mixed /equalised differently to produce 16/44.1 and 24/96 files. It is most likely that if there is a difference, 16/44.1 is generally mixed/equalised for an iDevice audience with greater compression, and 24/96 mixed/equalised for listening with dedicated equipment in a quieter environment.

So the best way to see if there really is an audible difference with HiRes is to start with a 24/96 file and then produce your own 16/44.1 file from it by downsampling using one of the many software packages available.

Comparing commercially available 24/96 tracks with the same track at 16/44.1 is meaningless unless you know for certain that it was produced by downsampling rather than fiddling with equalistaion / compression before being distributed.
 

BigH

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2012
115
7
18,595
Visit site
andyjm said:
Al ears said:
Just how many takes do you think they make of a performance? Superior masters? , my behind. It's the usual cop-out of unbelievers.

The master will be mixed down from a multitrack - and multiple different mixes are possible without any further takes. Just some dude sitting down at a mixing desk. This is what happens when a 'remixed version' of a track becomes available, they don't exhume some long dead musician for another go at it.

The final mixed down master isn't the version that finds its way onto a CD however, and it certainly isn't the version that drives the cutting head on a vinyl lathe. The 'original master' will be further mixed (perhaps 'equalised' is a better term) to produce a CD master (have the life compressed out of it in the case of current CDs) or mangled to produce a 'cutting master' for vinyl.

So when different masters are discussed, it isn't that the track has been remixed to produce a different 'original master', it is just that the output of 'original master' has been mixed /equalised differently to produce 16/44.1 and 24/96 files. It is most likely that if there is a difference, 16/44.1 is generally mixed/equalised for an iDevice audience with greater compression, and 24/96 mixed/equalised for listening with dedicated equipment in a quieter environment.

So the best way to see if there really is an audible difference with HiRes is to start with a 24/96 file and then produce your own 16/44.1 file from it by downsampling using one of the many software packages available.

Comparing commercially available 24/96 tracks with the same track at 16/44.1 is meaningless unless you know for certain that it was produced by downsampling rather than fiddling with equalistaion / compression before being distributed.

I agree with most of that. My comment about comparing 24bit to 16bit, was don't assume the because the 24bit sounds better its due to the higher resolution, there could be other reasons. Re vinyl apparently due to demand it seems record companies have more less just used the cd master to produce the vinyl. Even companies that specialise in high res and vinyl remasters have been accused of doing the same.
 

Andrewjvt

New member
Jun 18, 2014
99
4
0
Visit site
going to download some test files

Its really good site from what ive just seen as I selected hegel dac and also jriver so its very user friendly
 
The_Lhc said:
Al ears said:
busb said:
Edbo2 said:
Is High-Res that important? Sonos and Bose do not think so, nor do I! Will it fall by the wayside like SACD?

I don't disbieve that so-called hi res often sounds better. However, I've seen lots of forum comments stating that they are from superior masters! If true, this is a very dishonest way of charging more. Why not make CDs (or equiv files) from these better masters & charge what it takes to produce bettert quality rather than hyping a possibly pointless medium with conseqent larger file sizes? I personally don't have enough experience to verify one way or another.

Just how many takes do you think they make of a performance? Superior masters? , my behind. It's the usual cop-out of unbelievers.

Jesus Al, wake up and Google the loudness war. Cds have massive dynamic compression added to make them sound louder. Many 24-bit audio files don't have this compression, so they sound different from the 16-bit version. This is known fact. Down sampling the 24-bit to 16-bit gives a file that sounds exactly the same.

The compression is done after the recording and production, they don't have to do multiple "takes".

It's all in the terminology I see. Perhaps 're-equilised' rather than remastered, which most are not.
 

spiny norman

New member
Jan 14, 2009
293
2
0
Visit site
Al ears said:
I use them both along with Blue Coast music.

I think BCR and Downloads NOW! are part of the same operation: I chose the 'downloads' link because there's some stuff one might want to buy there, whereas I find BCR a bit 'audiophile nonsense' ;-)
 

Barbapapa

Well-known member
Feb 13, 2016
3
0
18,520
Visit site
Interesting and informative discussion, thanks for that.

Something which I thought of recently is why 24-bit might be useful. I agree that the difference between 16 and 24 bit with respect to dynamic range and detail would usually not be noticeable for normal (human) listeners. However, I do listen to quite a bit of classical music in which the dynamic range is quite large: Bruckner and Mahler for example have very quiet parts followed (sometimes immediately) by extremely loud moments. What I do is to turn down the volume during the fortissimo, and turn it up at the pianissimo. In some recordings the pianissimo has noticeable noise. I'd prefer a format that has sufficient headroom to allow zooming into quiet moments without drowning in noise, and also preserving the necessary details.

One might argue that I shouldn't listen in this way. However, I like to hear the detail in the pianissimo without going deaf during the fortissimo. A more compressed dynamic recording of course would not require this, but I find the dynamic range integral to the music: the build-up from soft to loud should have the steepness of the real performance.

To sum up: might the advantage of 24-bit not be found in being able to zoom in on the music? I find it a good thing that a recording allows one to do this.

Admittedly part of the noise-problem may simply be due to bad recordings; recent CD (16-bit) recordings tend to be 'cleaner' anyway. I should calculate what the effect of turning up the volume is with respect to perceivable bit-depth, but can't be bothered just now. *sorry2*
 
K

keeper of the quays

Guest
Barbapapa said:
Interesting and informative discussion, thanks for that.

Something which I thought of recently is why 24-bit might be useful. I agree that the difference between 16 and 24 bit with respect to dynamic range and detail would usually not be noticeable for normal (human) listeners. However, I do listen to quite a bit of classical music in which the dynamic range is quite large: Bruckner and Mahler for example have very quiet parts followed (sometimes immediately) by extremely loud moments. What I do is to turn down the volume during the fortissimo, and turn it up at the pianissimo. In some recordings the pianissimo has noticeable noise. I'd prefer a format that has sufficient headroom to allow zooming into quiet moments without drowning in noise, and also preserving the necessary details.

One might argue that I shouldn't listen in this way. However, I like to hear the detail in the pianissimo without going deaf during the fortissimo. A more compressed dynamic recording of course would not require this, but I find the dynamic range integral to the music: the build-up from soft to loud should have the steepness of the real performance. 

To sum up: might the advantage of 24-bit not be found in being able to zoom in on the music? I find it a good thing that a recording allows one to do this. 

Admittedly part of the noise-problem may simply be due to bad recordings; recent CD (16-bit) recordings tend to be 'cleaner' anyway. I should calculate what the effect of turning up the volume is with respect to perceivable bit-depth, but can't be bothered just now. *sorry2*
which Mahler recording were you listening to? I find Mahler especially good for critical listening..theres so much going on..and such beautiful music!
 

Barbapapa

Well-known member
Feb 13, 2016
3
0
18,520
Visit site
Several, in fact. I've been browsing on Qobuz.

- Haitink with the Concertgebouw Orchestra, Mahler 2.

- Jansons with the Concertgebouw Orchestra, Mahler 6

- Michael Tilson Thomas with the San Francisco Symphony, Mahler 9

Indeed, I've kind of rediscovered Mahler. It really needs a good set-up, which I didn't have for several years. As you say it allows the system to show what it's capable of.
 

davedotco

New member
Apr 24, 2013
20
1
0
Visit site
Barbapapa said:
Interesting and informative discussion, thanks for that.

Something which I thought of recently is why 24-bit might be useful. I agree that the difference between 16 and 24 bit with respect to dynamic range and detail would usually not be noticeable for normal (human) listeners. However, I do listen to quite a bit of classical music in which the dynamic range is quite large: Bruckner and Mahler for example have very quiet parts followed (sometimes immediately) by extremely loud moments. What I do is to turn down the volume during the fortissimo, and turn it up at the pianissimo. In some recordings the pianissimo has noticeable noise. I'd prefer a format that has sufficient headroom to allow zooming into quiet moments without drowning in noise, and also preserving the necessary details.

One might argue that I shouldn't listen in this way. However, I like to hear the detail in the pianissimo without going deaf during the fortissimo. A more compressed dynamic recording of course would not require this, but I find the dynamic range integral to the music: the build-up from soft to loud should have the steepness of the real performance.

To sum up: might the advantage of 24-bit not be found in being able to zoom in on the music? I find it a good thing that a recording allows one to do this.

Admittedly part of the noise-problem may simply be due to bad recordings; recent CD (16-bit) recordings tend to be 'cleaner' anyway. I should calculate what the effect of turning up the volume is with respect to perceivable bit-depth, but can't be bothered just now. *sorry2*

The dynamic range of a decent CD playback system is huge, theoretically 96dB. The classical recordings you mention will, at best have a dynamic range of about 50dB, the noise you are hearing should not be from the playback system, but from the recording.

By adjusting the volume as you descibe you are further compressing the music because the dynamic range is too large, For example if this was 50dB, then in order to hear the low level passages above ambient noise (not system noise) you might need these passages to be around 50dB, so the crescendo will be 100dB, far higher tham most people would find comfortable in their home, even assuming the system can produce such levels.

The use of 24bit recording is to simply increase the possible dynamic range from 96dB to 120dB but we have already established that a 50dB dynamic range is too great for practical use so there really is no point in 24bits for home use.

If the noise is apparent in the pianissimo then it is most likely in the recording, not the playback. A wider dynamic range is considered preferable by enthusiasts, but it depends on the environment, an extreme example being Classic FM (on FM) where the dynamic range rarely makes double figures, ok for the car, useless at home.
 
K

keeper of the quays

Guest
Barbapapa said:
Thanks for the clarification. Hence 16 bit should suffice for my needs as well. Good to know. Now how to find good recordings...
Try George szell Cleveland orchestra..mahler 4
 

davedotco

New member
Apr 24, 2013
20
1
0
Visit site
keeper of the quays said:
Barbapapa said:
Thanks for the clarification. Hence 16 bit should suffice for my needs as well. Good to know. Now how to find good recordings...
Try George szell Cleveland orchestra..mahler 4

Though Mahler is not a favourite in our home.

Mrs DDC calls him 'Glenn Mahler'.
 

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts