High resolution audio(not impressed)

bonenut

New member
Jun 21, 2016
9
0
0
Visit site
Over the last couple of weeks I have bought some high resolution audio from hd tracks and have been disappointed.i bought Robert plant/Allison Krause,raising sand and a couple of Eric Clapton albums.i was able to ab them against my rips of CDs and to be honest I will not be bothered again.i played them on Foobar,bit perfect to a marantz hd dac to Primare i20 to decent speakers.the cd rips sounded fuller and sounded like they were better recordings.

the volume on the had tracks seemed very low as well,I had to turn the volume up a lot more to get same volume as cd rips.i asked a couple of friends what they thought and everyone preferred the cd rips.
 
I can understand why you were underwhelmed. Where a big volume difference arises it is almost impossible for the quieter source to sound better.

That might be because the we prefer slightly louder sounds and you didn't turn the HD up enough. Unless levels were identical, it is hard to be sure.
 

andyjm

New member
Jul 20, 2012
15
3
0
Visit site
bonenut said:
Over the last couple of weeks I have bought some high resolution audio from hd tracks and have been disappointed.i bought Robert plant/Allison Krause,raising sand and a couple of Eric Clapton albums.i was able to ab them against my rips of CDs and to be honest I will not be bothered again.i played them on Foobar,bit perfect to a marantz hd dac to Primare i20 to decent speakers.the cd rips sounded fuller and sounded like they were better recordings.

the volume on the had tracks seemed very low as well,I had to turn the volume up a lot more to get same volume as cd rips.i asked a couple of friends what they thought and everyone preferred the cd rips.

There is a good chance you are comparing chalk and cheese.

It is quite possible that the two versions you have (the CD and the HD version) are from different mixes. Much better to compare your HD version with a downsampled version of the same file. I am not sure if native Foobar will do this, but there are certainly plugins that will allow you to downsample your HD track to standard CD resolution.

It then becomes a fair comparison. All other things being equal, you shouldn't be able to tell the difference between the HD version and its downsampled equivalent.
 

Native_bon

Well-known member
Nov 26, 2008
180
4
18,595
Visit site
Now this is the problem I have, cause I experienced the same thing listening to so called HI res audio. Just sounded thin & bright. People always fine ways to explain why it did not sound good. It if does not sound good it does not sound. Am feed up of hearing I am the expert & you don't know how to listen. No it just sounds rubbish cause real instruments don't sound that thin. Simples. *biggrin*
 

BigH

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2012
115
7
18,595
Visit site
I agree with the Major. Even in long term tests very few people can tell the difference between cd and hi-res. then it's only sound engineers listening at high volumes. So Hi Res is a con. There have been complaints about some of the HD tracks remasters. If it has less volume then that means its less compressed which is generally a good thing (more dynamic range), to compare you need to set the volume at the same level.
 

MajorFubar

New member
Mar 3, 2010
690
6
0
Visit site
There should be a claim-line for people who were mis-sold the concept of HD audio and who have expended sometimes heavily in 'HD' hardware and software. If the CD version and HD version are the exact same master other than their bit-depth and sample-rate, there are no sonic benefits to be had. The only factor which might marginally muddy the water is some DACs seem to just sound better at faster sample rates. But that's a hardware-quirk of the DAC and is not fundamentally linked to the sample-rate of the source file. Probably get the same benefit from oversampling, like many of the 2nd-generation CD players use to do.
 

The_Lhc

Well-known member
Oct 16, 2008
1,176
1
19,195
Visit site
So the selling point of HD audio is that it can support a greater dynamic range but when given a greater dynamic range people complain about it? Extraordinary but somehow entirely unsurprising...
 
BigH said:
I agree with the Major. Even in long term tests very few people can tell the difference between cd and hi-res. then it's only sound engineers listening at high volumes. So Hi Res is a con. There have been complaints about some of the HD tracks remasters. If it has less volume then that means its less compressed which is generally a good thing (more dynamic range), to compare you need to set the volume at the same level.

Not according to this research:-

http://www.qmul.ac.uk/media/news/items/se/178407.html
 

bonenut

New member
Jun 21, 2016
9
0
0
Visit site
I think it's just another way of companies selling product again and again.I was not expecting it to sound space age better or anything like that,but I was expecting an improvement.if anything it sounded worse.the reason I bought raising sand is its one of my favorite albums of the last few years and I know it inside out.
 

BigH

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2012
115
7
18,595
Visit site
Al ears said:
BigH said:
I agree with the Major. Even in long term tests very few people can tell the difference between cd and hi-res. then it's only sound engineers listening at high volumes. So Hi Res is a con. There have been complaints about some of the HD tracks remasters. If it has less volume then that means its less compressed which is generally a good thing (more dynamic range), to compare you need to set the volume at the same level.

Not according to this research:-

http://www.qmul.ac.uk/media/news/items/se/178407.html

Have not seen that before but it does not say how the tests were done, just pooled 18 tests together. I do find that surprising as all the blind tests I have seen have not shown up any great differences.
 
BigH said:
Al ears said:
BigH said:
I agree with the Major. Even in long term tests very few people can tell the difference between cd and hi-res. then it's only sound engineers listening at high volumes. So Hi Res is a con. There have been complaints about some of the HD tracks remasters. If it has less volume then that means its less compressed which is generally a good thing (more dynamic range), to compare you need to set the volume at the same level.

Not according to this research:-

http://www.qmul.ac.uk/media/news/items/se/178407.html

Have not seen that before but it does not say how the tests were done, just pooled 18 tests together. I do find that surprising as all the blind tests I have seen have not shown up any great differences.

Most that I have read also found little beyond pure chance guessing which was why I found this article quite interesting.
 

TrevC

Well-known member
The_Lhc said:
So the selling point of HD audio is that it can support a greater dynamic range but when given a greater dynamic range people complain about it? Extraordinary but somehow entirely unsurprising...

Why would you want a greater dynamic range than that of music itself?
 
TrevC said:
The_Lhc said:
So the selling point of HD audio is that it can support a greater dynamic range but when given a greater dynamic range people complain about it? Extraordinary but somehow entirely unsurprising...

Why would you want a greater dynamic range than that of music itself?

I think we are well aware of TrevC's standing on this, all I can say is each to his own. I liked very much Ken Ishwata's comment that SACD is 'analogue', isn't this what hi-res is aiming for?
 

Frank Harvey

Well-known member
Jun 27, 2008
567
1
18,890
Visit site
Al ears said:
I think we are well aware of TrevC's standing on this, all I can say is each to his own. I liked very much Ken Ishwata's comment that SACD is 'analogue', isn't this what hi-res is aiming for?
I would've thought hi-res is aiming for better sound quality than CD. That aim may or may not produce a naturally smoother sound, maybe more like analogue...
 

andyjm

New member
Jul 20, 2012
15
3
0
Visit site
David@FrankHarvey said:
Al ears said:
I think we are well aware of TrevC's standing on this, all I can say is each to his own. I liked very much Ken Ishwata's comment that SACD is 'analogue', isn't this what hi-res is aiming for?
I would've thought hi-res is aiming for better sound quality than CD. That aim may or may not produce a naturally smoother sound, maybe more like analogue...

Given that CDs have a greater dynamic range and wider bandwith than humans can hear in a domestic environment, I rather assumed hi-res was all about selling new boxes and getting customers to purchase the same album for the fourth time (LP, cassette, CD, and now hi-res)
 

BigH

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2012
115
7
18,595
Visit site
The_Lhc said:
So the selling point of HD audio is that it can support a greater dynamic range but when given a greater dynamic range people complain about it? Extraordinary but somehow entirely unsurprising...

It's not relevant.
 

Frank Harvey

Well-known member
Jun 27, 2008
567
1
18,890
Visit site
andyjm said:
Given that CDs have a greater dynamic range and wider bandwith than humans can hear in a domestic environment, I rather assumed hi-res was all about selling new boxes and getting customers to purchase the same album for the fourth time (LP, cassette, CD, and now hi-res)
Just researching (at source) - I'll be back to you on this shortly :)
 
andyjm said:
David@FrankHarvey said:
Al ears said:
I think we are well aware of TrevC's standing on this, all I can say is each to his own. I liked very much Ken Ishwata's comment that SACD is 'analogue', isn't this what hi-res is aiming for?
I would've thought hi-res is aiming for better sound quality than CD. That aim may or may not produce a naturally smoother sound, maybe more like analogue...

Given that CDs have a greater dynamic range and wider bandwith than humans can hear in a domestic environment, I rather assumed hi-res was all about selling new boxes and getting customers to purchase the same album for the fourth time (LP, cassette, CD, and now hi-res)

That one way to look at it. I thought hi-resolution was a sampling phenomenon and not necessarily attempted to extend the bandwidth. Higher sampling rates = less left out.
 

andyjm

New member
Jul 20, 2012
15
3
0
Visit site
Al ears said:
That one way to look at it. I thought hi-resolution was a sampling phenomenon and not necessarily attempted to extend the bandwidth. Higher sampling rates = less left out.

It requires a level of maths capability that I no longer have, but if you can wade through the Nyquist / Shannon sampling theorem, the amazing thing is that as long as you sample at twice the maximum frequency of the analogue signal you are sampling, then nothing gets left out at all.

Which is why increasing the sampling frequency makes no real difference*, and Hires is mainly about marketing.

*Not entirely true, as it makes the life of the downstream analogue anti aliasing filters easier, but this can be overcome by oversampling techniques.
 

busb

Well-known member
Jun 14, 2011
83
5
18,545
Visit site
andyjm said:
Al ears said:
That one way to look at it. I thought hi-resolution was a sampling phenomenon and not necessarily attempted to extend the bandwidth. Higher sampling rates = less left out.

It requires a level of maths capability that I no longer have, but if you can wade through the Nyquist / Shannon sampling theorem, the amazing thing is that as long as you sample at twice the maximum frequency of the analogue signal you are sampling, then nothing gets left out at all.

Which is why increasing the sampling frequency makes no real difference*, and Hires is mainly about marketing.

*Not entirely true, as it makes the life of the downstream analogue anti aliasing filters easier, but this can be overcome by oversampling techniques.

And dither will take care of low amplitude waveform integrity. Now owning a DAC that does DSD, I bought some music for £20 (Shostakovich No 7). I chose Audirvana Plus as the player that can be set up to use either Apple's Core Audio or an alternative. It also came with 3 months of Tidal.

Firstly, the DSD files sounded OK but didn't leap out with superior SQ. What people mean by "more analogue", I have no idea, none, ziltch! I also bought 24 bit 88.2k music which again sounded fine but no better than iTunes - heresy to some I know. Lastly, I compared loads of tracks on Tidal then iTunes then back again & heard no damn difference.

As for the increased dynamic range over & above what CD is capable of, we would be blowing out windows or giving ourselves heart attacks.

IMO, the whole music/radio/recording/Hi Fi industry made a big mistake in not offering adjustable amplitude compression in hardware, especially for cars where the background noise is even higher than at home.
 

shadders

Well-known member
Hi,

Hifi News analyse the high resolution download spectrum and some files are resampled CD files, so you gain nothing. I think this is an invaluable service - allows you to gauge whether you are being ripped off.

Regards, Shadders.
 
Not the answer to all our desires?

is cd still a source not yet perfected?

will the vinyl resurgence die on its ass?

What is the answer to providing the public with near perfect music reproduction?

another format? Another box on the rack? Digital? Analogue?

Basically, we need the original master tapes, recorded, sent to our computers losslessly, put through our own mixing software, re-recorded, played back on our own specific kit, in our own acoustically treated room, what's so hard about that?
 

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts