Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[blgentry]

I own a very small number of high resolution albums.  I've found that some of them have less dynamic range than the original album.  Fleetwood Mac's Rumours albums is a good example.  The high res (94/24) version has about 3 dB less dynamic range than the CD version that I have.  Does it sound better or worse?  It's really hard to tell because the mix is different.  It sounds louder.  For many people this would cue them to think that the high resolution version has more of something because it's louder. 

Interestingly, in the home theater realm. with DTS-HD-MA or Dolby True-HD tracks, I hear a remarkable difference from what I used to get from DVDs sound tracks.  I'm talking night and day, slap you in the face, and bring you a drink.  Is this difference from the format differences?  The format went from a medium bit rate lossy format (Dolby Digital or DTS) to lossless high bit rate.  It also went from 16 bits to 24.  Sample rates should be the same for most tracks. 

Or is it, again, the mix?  I'm really not sure.  What I can tell you for sure is:

1.  High resolution audio albums seem questionable to me in terms of improvement over CD.  Maybe I hear something I like better, maybe I don't.
2.  High resolution, lossless movie audio is a revelation.  It's so incredibly different that I encouraged a friend to purchase a new home theater receiver that can play modern formats, just to hear the differences.  (His old one did not have HDMI).  He heard the difference and was impressed.

Brian.

[bob]

Continuing on Brian's musings, our local Orchestra (Minnesota Orchestra) contracts with BIS of Sweden to produce SACD recordings of some material, notable a Sibelius symphony cycle, a Beethoven symphony cycle and a Mahler symphony cycle that's been recorded but is 2 disc releases from being complete.
So far I've been ripping the DSD to ISO for my IdNUC to distribute around the house to my IdPi's (and 1 Sonos).
It's especially nice in my living room setup connected directly to the IdNUC since it's multichannel.
I've started out ripping the 44k PCM for using on portable devices but recently switched to converting the individual DSF tracks to 24 bit 48k (for various iDevices), on the mostly intuitive guess that 24 bit will have more dynamic range and that 48k will work on all iDevices that I have.

Thoughts??

[Awesome Donkey]

I hate to say it, but most "hi-res" releases of albums on sites like HDTracks, Qobuz, etc. are basically scams. If you do an analysis of the tracks and look at the spectrals of most "hi-res" tracks, you'll see a sharp drop off of audio data above 20 kHz to 22 kHz which basically means what you're paying for is empty space (and/or noise). Most "hi-res" releases I've looked at seem to be using the same master as a CD release, and appear to be resampled redbook tracks.

https://www.realhd-audio.com/?p=6207
https://community.roonlabs.com/t/buying-hi-res-files-is-it-a-scam/108111

There has been a few instances where "hi-res" downloads were unique, the 2015 24/192 Rush remasters come to mind. If I recall, those used the same master as the vinyl re-releases.

[aliciaviola]

Interesting, that an own LP rip with 192/24 or 96/24 shows a frequency range that goes far over 30 kHz.

[Awesome Donkey]

It'll depend on the vinyl. If it's an older vinyl release from the early 80's and earlier it was likely recorded on tape (analog) so this wouldn't be uncommon to see. However, if the album was recorded digitally, as albums in the 80's started doing this, then pressed to vinyl usually you'll start to see the frequency drop offs past a certain point. Most albums after the mid-80's started recording digitally, and most only recorded up to 24/48 (which seems to be the case these days with most digital recordings). And that's not taking into consideration re-releases of albums on vinyl that were remastered digitally. Then there's the question whether or not humans can actually hear the extra frequency, among other things. Everything about this "hi-res" stuff is pretty complicated and is a very large rabbit hole to get stuck in. IMO, I don't really think anything above 16/44.1 or 24/48 max is actually audible to humans and thus "hi-res" is a waste, generally.

But, there are some digital "hi-res" downloads (usually releases meant for vinyl re-releases) that are not available on CD that are unique (not because they have extra frequency present because there isn't, but because of the mastering being unique with good dynamic range). The aforementioned Rush 2015 24/192 remasters being one of these up to the Permanent Waves album, as with the digital re-release of Moving Pictures on are only available in 24/48 as "hi-res" on sites like HDTracks, because those were recorded digitally. I ignore the bit-depths and sample rates of all of them because "hi-res" in this case doesn't matter, what matters is they all sound pretty nice compared to way more compressed album re-releases or new releases. But then again, so would CD releases if they were released with the same master. I guess that's what I'm trying to get at here in a roundabout way.

[bob]

BIS is upfront about the mastering process. Every SACD has the original format of the recording in the liner notes.
In the cases I mentioned 96khz/24bit 5.0 channel PCM with no mixing to a bass channel. That's also their standard for recordings in general.
In Orchestra Hall Minneapolis which has excellent acoustics, you can see the microphones positioning suspended from the ceiling on long thin wires.

[blgentry]

Ultrasonic response (greater than 20,000 Hz) is not the reason to use high resolution recordings.  I do not believe that humans meaningfully sense sound in that area.

However, a "high resolution" file that is actually simply up-sampled is no better than the original and possibly worse.  So perhaps looking at the spectrum as a measure of the ORIGIN of the file has some utility.

I reject the idea that "most all high res" is simply upsampled.  On the other hand, I really don't care as I'm not a  big proponent of the format.  I've heard some really good high res recordings.  Most notably The Grateful Dead, American Beauty.  But others I don't seem to hear anything better than a CD version.

The real magic, as I previously stated, is in lossless movie audio.  Those are amazing.  Just watch the jungle scene in Raiders Of The Lost Ark as an example.

Brian.

[bob]

Interesting, that an own LP rip with 192/24 or 96/24 shows a frequency range that goes far over 30 kHz.

I was really amazed by the specs of different styluses regarding frequency response.

[EnglishTiger]

To add to Awesome Donkey's "most "hi-res" releases of albums on sites like HDTracks, Qobuz, etc. are basically scams" comment.
If any of you have an Amazon Music Account select a few Albums that are claimed to be in "HD" and you will eventualy come across one or more where there is mix of tracks in HD and SD.
You also easily find UHD Albums that have a mix of tracks in both UHD and HD, I've even found UHD Albums with a mix of UHD, HD and SD tracks.

Not only is it evident that those HD and UHD tracks are the result of Upsampling the fact that there are different sample rates on the same album points to them having been created by somebdy other than the Recording Company that released the album.

P.S. There is more than enough eveidence on sites like Discogs that the highest rate used for most Recording Studio downloadable releases is 24/48 and that the majority of them were in ALAC format.