Highres audio to take over CD

[matthewpiano]

I can't really comment on vinyl much as I only have cds. I'm listening to Haydn,'s Cello Concertos 1 and 2 as i'm typing and the sound is excellent on cd through the hifi. If there was a significant jump up in performance I may decide to go for hi-res audio - in what format i'm unsure. I tend to listen to a whole album in one go rather than skip through songs between artists. I can't imagine not having a physical music format like cd. As long as you don't scratch cds they last ages and sound the same everytime they are played. I've never tried Sacd either but like the idea of a hi-res physical format.

Funnily enough I too listened to the two Haydn Cello Concertos on CD this afternoon - the Rostropovich recordings with the Academy of Saint Martin in the Fields on EMI. Sounded superb here too.

 

[lpv]

vinyl is technically inferior and measure worst than CD and definitely sounds different.

But vinyl can sound magical. Inferior it may be but to my ears it's much more enjoyable than half of my hi res digital recordings.

This is exactly what I was saying.

 

[Blackdawn]

I can't really comment on vinyl much as I only have cds. I'm listening to Haydn,'s Cello Concertos 1 and 2 as i'm typing and the sound is excellent on cd through the hifi.

Funnily enough I too listened to the two Haydn Cello Concertos on CD this afternoon - the Rostropovich recordings with the Academy of Saint Martin in the Fields on EMI. Sounded superb here too.

Yep, that is the cd - very good recording. I put Frairie wind (NY) album on later, followed by a Wilson Pickett box set - sounded really good -arh you just can't beat a good cd! or maybe you can.....

 

[SteveR750]

For me its all about CD and vinyl, with Spotify for trying out new music before I purchase the CD. Hi-res files hold no interest for me at all.

Same for me too. The only benefit of hi res that I have heard is when it has been mastered in that format, and even then it's arguably possible to do just as good a job in CDA, i.e. it's simply down to the recording engineer, not the bit depth/rate. What convinces me further that hi res music is never going to be more than a hobbyists indulgence is that Spotify premium sounds so good.

 

[BigH]

The only advantage of HiRes is sometimes the mastering is better. When will it take over from cd, I don't know if it will, most people arn't interested and just buy mp3 downloads, hifi listeners are a very small proportion of music buyers. Yes price is a major barrier, if you buy cds you can buy used ones for around £1, try buying used HiRes? For me I use Deezer, as its free for 1 year and no adverts. Buy the odd cd mostly used ones. HiRes I may buy the odd special one if I think its worth it for the mastering.

 

[fr0g]

The only advantage of HiRes is sometimes the mastering is better. When will it take over from cd, I don't know if it will, most people arn't interested and just buy mp3 downloads, hifi listeners are a very small proportion of music buyers. Yes price is a major barrier, if you buy cds you can buy used ones for around £1, try buying used HiRes? For me I use Deezer, as its free for 1 year and no adverts. Buy the odd cd mostly used ones. HiRes I may buy the odd special one if I think its worth it for the mastering.

I regard myself as a "Hifi listener". I have 2 pairs of Avi ADM speakers and a pair of Dali Ikon 6 for the TV.

I also buy MP3s (although I usually buy FLAC if possible) and I use Spotify as my main source.

From extensive (blind) testing I don't think well ripped MP3 sounds any different to CD (or indeed Hi res)

I also have good hearing (recently tested), although it's fairly typically down for my age at the high frequencies (can't hear much over 15 KHz).

MP3 and other lossy formats are here to stay, and I say more power to them. I do wish the producers of CDs and downloads would give an "audiophile" higher DR version option though (again, where some Hi res downloads are noticably better (and still better when downsampled to MP3))

 

[ellisdj]

Support for mp3 noooooo
What are you on lol

For once I don't want any

 

[Blackdawn]

Tape and minidisc were better than MP3 imo.

 

[fr0g]

Tape and minidisc were better than MP3 imo.

Except they weren't. Quite clearly and demonstrably. Unless you mean DAT. And Minidisc was a fairly pointless gap-filler destined to failure. (I loved it at the time and had portable, Hifi and car units, but MP3 is clearly better if you do it right. The Atrac encoding was okay and better still in the later guise that was and still is used on the Playstation. Trouble is it's propriatary, typical of Sony. MP3 or AAC are just fine and work on most players. Either way, tape was audibly terrible compared to MP3 and Atrac is probably indistinguishable.

And I challenge anyone here to do a proper ABX test (Foobar and plugin) of an EAC ripped 320 Kbps MP3 vs the CD (or any HiRes track of your choosing). You won't pass. But in true WHF style you probably won't even try it even though it takes but a few minutes.

 

[Reijer]

In Holland, on a hi-fi website you can order different types of cd's: Gold-CD, K2CD, HDCD, platinum SHMCD, SHM-SACD, XRCD etc. Is there an audiable difference between these or is it that the quality of the cd over time is beter.

What is the size (in Mb) of a average song on a cd? And what is the minimum size for a song to be called Hi-res. I'm wondering what the rules are for music to be called Hi-res? As analog (vinyl) as possible or as big (24 bit WAV, 4 minuntes= 150 Mb) as possible?

 

[matt49]

And I challenge anyone here to do a proper ABX test (Foobar and plugin) of an EAC ripped 320 Kbps MP3 vs the CD (or any HiRes track of your choosing). You won't pass. But in true WHF style you probably won't even try it even though it takes but a few minutes.

I've done it a few times. Foobar ABX on PC into Audiolab M-DAC with Hifiman HE500 cans. By the end I was scoring 8 or 9 out of 10.

But in true WHF style you probably won't believe me.

 

[fr0g]

And I challenge anyone here to do a proper ABX test (Foobar and plugin) of an EAC ripped 320 Kbps MP3 vs the CD (or any HiRes track of your choosing). You won't pass. But in true WHF style you probably won't even try it even though it takes but a few minutes.

I've done it a few times. Foobar ABX on PC into Audiolab M-DAC with Hifiman HE500 cans. By the end I was scoring 8 or 9 out of 10.

But in true WHF style you probably won't believe me.

Have you the logs and a copy of one of the MP3s to evaluate?

 

[Laurens_B]

And I challenge anyone here to do a proper ABX test (Foobar and plugin) of an EAC ripped 320 Kbps MP3 vs the CD (or any HiRes track of your choosing). You won't pass. But in true WHF style you probably won't even try it even though it takes but a few minutes.

I've done it a few times. Foobar ABX on PC into Audiolab M-DAC with Hifiman HE500 cans. By the end I was scoring 8 or 9 out of 10.

But in true WHF style you probably won't believe me.

Still, 8 or 9 out of 10 is not really a good result to defend hi-res imo. If it's really audible you should easily score 100%. 80/90% shows that it's quite difficult to hear, which imo does not justify the extra cost of hi-res audio.

 

[davedotco]

In simple terms the higher the resolution, the more bits are required.

At CD standard, one stereo minute is, roughly 10 megabytes, one minute of a file at 24/96 standard is about 33 megabytes.

Any musical file that has a bit rate in excess of CD standard is usually considered hi-res, do not be taken in by some streaming companies that offer hi-res streaming, this is bullsh!t and simply refers to the files being higher resolution than low bitrate mp3 streaming.

Tidal, for example, refers to it's premium offerings as hi-res because they are higher resolution than their standard output which is 256 or 390 kb/s mp3. At best it is CD standard.

As a reference, vinyl records are limited by their noise performance (and other factors) to about 10-11 bits, budget digital systems (CD, downloads, streaming) in a home environment might struggle to resolve 16bits.

 

[fr0g]

And I challenge anyone here to do a proper ABX test (Foobar and plugin) of an EAC ripped 320 Kbps MP3 vs the CD (or any HiRes track of your choosing). You won't pass. But in true WHF style you probably won't even try it even though it takes but a few minutes.

I've done it a few times. Foobar ABX on PC into Audiolab M-DAC with Hifiman HE500 cans. By the end I was scoring 8 or 9 out of 10.

But in true WHF style you probably won't believe me.

Still, 8 or 9 out of 10 is not really a good result to defend hi-res imo. If it's really audible you should easily score 100%. 80/90% shows that it's quite difficult to hear, which imo does not justify the extra cost of hi-res audio.

Not only that, there were a few revisions of LAME that did have some problems with artifacts. I remember reading that for full transparency you had to stick to a slightly earlier version. This was a few years ago mind you and it may have changed.

Now these artifacts are generally pretty invisible to the ear, but apparently it was possible to train yourself to catch them. Not that you would ever notice in normal listening circumstances of course.

I absolutely am willing to believe it is possible, given the right (wrong) version of LAME, or in fact any other, possibly older and less efficient MP3 codec version. BUT, even using these does not change the overall quality of the playback, but just introduce a musical cue that can be differentiated if you really strain and can train yourself to pick up on them.

That is how close MP3 is to High res.

MP3 IS Hi-fidelity to all intents and purposes.

And if you're really worried, simply use AAC, which is even better.

 

[Reijer]

Thanks Dave!

 

[Vladimir]

In simple terms the higher the resolution, the more bits are required.

At CD standard, one stereo minute is, roughly 10 megabytes, one minute of a file at 24/96 standard is about 33 megabytes.

Any musical file that has a bit rate in excess of CD standard is usually considered hi-res, do not be taken in by some streaming companies that offer hi-res streaming, this is bullsh!t and simply refers to the files being higher resolution than low bitrate mp3 streaming.

Tidal, for example, refers to it's premium offerings as hi-res because they are higher resolution than their standard output which is 256 or 390 kb/s mp3. At best it is CD standard.

As a reference, vinyl records are limited by their noise performance (and other factors) to about 10-11 bits, budget digital systems (CD, downloads, streaming) in a home environment might struggle to resolve 16bits.

In consumer terms 16/44.1 is high resolution and 24/96 is nothing more than just high disc usage. However, in the pro world despite recording at 16/44.1 is beyond sufficient, using 24/96 is beneficial headroom because every resampling during production and mastering deteriorates the original slightly. When I play a CD it has the same resolution each and every time, limited only by amortization of the actual physical media. Every time when you apply an effect such as reverb, delay or echo in Cubase, the original waveform is resampled and there is loss in resolution.

Similar to pro audio, in graphic design I use higher resolution images as building materials than the final output artwork. I work with large width, height (5000px X 3000px) and density (300 dpi), but for final output for web there is no need for anything beyond 72dpi and 1920px. Imagine browsing the internet where every image is 1GB heavy. Even if you had superfast internet that loads a 1TB site in 1sec., why the need for such resolution far beyond the ability of our sight to appreciate it?

 

[matt49]

Have you the logs and a copy of one of the MP3s to evaluate?

I thought you'd say that.

No, it was about two years ago. And I did it for my own satisfaction, nothing else. But since you issued a general challenge to the good folk of this parish, I thought I'd mention it.

Still, 8 or 9 out of 10 is not really a good result to defend hi-res imo. If it's really audible you should easily score 100%. 80/90% shows that it's quite difficult to hear, which imo does not justify the extra cost of hi-res audio.

It wasn't hi-res, it was CD quality (16/44.1). I have no interest in hi-res. CD quality is perfectly good enough for me.

I see no reason whatsoever to downsample my music to 320kbps, since memory is so cheap. Although I subscribe to Spotify Premium for other members of my family, I don't use it myself, because it's not so good for classical music, which is what I mainly listen to. Qobuz Classical works better for me: a perfect lossless stream, a huge catalogue, and bang up to date with the latest releases.

Also I wouldn't deny that distinguishing 320kbps from red book CD is difficult. But fr0g's question was whether it's possible, which is different.

 

[manicm]

And I challenge anyone here to do a proper ABX test (Foobar and plugin) of an EAC ripped 320 Kbps MP3 vs the CD (or any HiRes track of your choosing). You won't pass. But in true WHF style you probably won't even try it even though it takes but a few minutes.

I've done it a few times. Foobar ABX on PC into Audiolab M-DAC with Hifiman HE500 cans. By the end I was scoring 8 or 9 out of 10.

But in true WHF style you probably won't believe me.

Still, 8 or 9 out of 10 is not really a good result to defend hi-res imo. If it's really audible you should easily score 100%. 80/90% shows that it's quite difficult to hear, which imo does not justify the extra cost of hi-res audio.

Don't know about that. Thing is after doing it 5 times of 30s snippets fatigue set in and it became a pain in the arse. I did the Tidal test, 5 songs and 5 tests each. After a certain time you really don't give a .... I think Matt's result is pretty good, even though he may not have passed absolutely.

 

[manicm]

In simple terms the higher the resolution, the more bits are required.

At CD standard, one stereo minute is, roughly 10 megabytes, one minute of a file at 24/96 standard is about 33 megabytes.

Any musical file that has a bit rate in excess of CD standard is usually considered hi-res, do not be taken in by some streaming companies that offer hi-res streaming, this is bullsh!t and simply refers to the files being higher resolution than low bitrate mp3 streaming.

Tidal, for example, refers to it's premium offerings as hi-res because they are higher resolution than their standard output which is 256 or 390 kb/s mp3. At best it is CD standard.

As a reference, vinyl records are limited by their noise performance (and other factors) to about 10-11 bits, budget digital systems (CD, downloads, streaming) in a home environment might struggle to resolve 16bits.

As far as I've seen with Tidal, they're not making any such claims, though the press is reporting they will release true hires streaming, but their website currently (rather) honestly states:

'Normal 96kbps AAC'

'High 320kbps AAC'

'Hifi Flac 1411kbps lossless'

That's pretty accurate, except I'd rate their 'Normal' Low or Horsepoop.

They are planning to launch MQA streams which warrants the label hires - for players equipped with the decoder.

 

[fr0g]

In simple terms the higher the resolution, the more bits are required.

At CD standard, one stereo minute is, roughly 10 megabytes, one minute of a file at 24/96 standard is about 33 megabytes.

Any musical file that has a bit rate in excess of CD standard is usually considered hi-res, do not be taken in by some streaming companies that offer hi-res streaming, this is bullsh!t and simply refers to the files being higher resolution than low bitrate mp3 streaming.

Tidal, for example, refers to it's premium offerings as hi-res because they are higher resolution than their standard output which is 256 or 390 kb/s mp3. At best it is CD standard.

As a reference, vinyl records are limited by their noise performance (and other factors) to about 10-11 bits, budget digital systems (CD, downloads, streaming) in a home environment might struggle to resolve 16bits.

As far as I've seen with Tidal, they're not making any such claims, though the press is reporting they will release true hires streaming, but their website currently (rather) honestly states:

'Normal 96kbps AAC'

'High 320kbps AAC'

'Hifi Flac 1411kbps lossless'

That's pretty accurate, except I'd rate their 'Normal' Low or Horsepoop.

They are planning to launch MQA streams which warrants the label hires - for players equipped with the decoder.

I think you would struggle to differentiate 96Kbps AAC to CD to be honest. AAC is MUCH better than MP3 at low bit-rates.

Not saying you couldn't but 96Kbps is certainly more than good enough for portable (iPod/ smartphone) listening which is where most listening is done these days.

 

[Al ears]

Perhaps I might politely enquire as to just how many people that have posted on this thread have actually heard a DSF64 file played back on a decent networked or portable system.

 

[davedotco]

In simple terms the higher the resolution, the more bits are required.

At CD standard, one stereo minute is, roughly 10 megabytes, one minute of a file at 24/96 standard is about 33 megabytes.

Any musical file that has a bit rate in excess of CD standard is usually considered hi-res, do not be taken in by some streaming companies that offer hi-res streaming, this is bullsh!t and simply refers to the files being higher resolution than low bitrate mp3 streaming.

Tidal, for example, refers to it's premium offerings as hi-res because they are higher resolution than their standard output which is 256 or 390 kb/s mp3. At best it is CD standard.

As a reference, vinyl records are limited by their noise performance (and other factors) to about 10-11 bits, budget digital systems (CD, downloads, streaming) in a home environment might struggle to resolve 16bits.

As far as I've seen with Tidal, they're not making any such claims, though the press is reporting they will release true hires streaming, but their website currently (rather) honestly states:

'Normal 96kbps AAC'

'High 320kbps AAC'

'Hifi Flac 1411kbps lossless'

That's pretty accurate, except I'd rate their 'Normal' Low or Horsepoop.

They are planning to launch MQA streams which warrants the label hires - for players equipped with the decoder.

I think you are correct in that Tidal do not directly refer to their Flac stream as hi-res. They do make quite a lot of the superiority of their Flac streaming without being too precise, often using the phrase 'hi-definition'.

However a lot of the publicity around the launch did use the term 'hi-res', sure it may have been artistic licence but the idea came from somewhere and does cause confusion among the less well informed. Perhaps not entirely Tidal's fault.

 

[manicm]

In simple terms the higher the resolution, the more bits are required.

At CD standard, one stereo minute is, roughly 10 megabytes, one minute of a file at 24/96 standard is about 33 megabytes.

Any musical file that has a bit rate in excess of CD standard is usually considered hi-res, do not be taken in by some streaming companies that offer hi-res streaming, this is bullsh!t and simply refers to the files being higher resolution than low bitrate mp3 streaming.

Tidal, for example, refers to it's premium offerings as hi-res because they are higher resolution than their standard output which is 256 or 390 kb/s mp3. At best it is CD standard.

As a reference, vinyl records are limited by their noise performance (and other factors) to about 10-11 bits, budget digital systems (CD, downloads, streaming) in a home environment might struggle to resolve 16bits.

As far as I've seen with Tidal, they're not making any such claims, though the press is reporting they will release true hires streaming, but their website currently (rather) honestly states:

'Normal 96kbps AAC'

'High 320kbps AAC'

'Hifi Flac 1411kbps lossless'

That's pretty accurate, except I'd rate their 'Normal' Low or Horsepoop.

They are planning to launch MQA streams which warrants the label hires - for players equipped with the decoder.

I think you would struggle to differentiate 96Kbps AAC to CD to be honest. AAC is MUCH better than MP3 at low bit-rates.

Not saying you couldn't but 96Kbps is certainly more than good enough for portable (iPod/ smartphone) listening which is where most listening is done these days.

On my first iPod - the 1994 Mini, it sounded great with the supplied buds at 128k AAC with bass boost on. On the 1997 iPod Mini 'fatty' no way Jose, the minimum I had to use was 256k with a pair of Sennheiser CX300s. Any lesser bit rate and it sounded awful. I've had 4 iPods.

AAC introduces its own artifacts - it might be fine for headphone listening but on my hifi there was a definite 'smearing' for want of a better word on my own 320k rips. This was through an iPod touch and my Arcam rDock. And no it's absolutely not the rDock - this is a pretty transparent device and uses the iPod's dac - garbage in garbage out - the iPod touch sounded fab on it. The Classic mediocre.

 

[steve_1979]

On my first iPod - the 1994 Mini

?