[BlackstoneJD]

I am a pretty hardcore audiophile and tend to agree that the format itself is not as important as I thought. This is evidenced by the fact that a lot of the material that is being released on PONO and HDTracks is just better than what was released on CD. The differences between the Crosby Stills and Nash CDs and the 192KHz files is significant in my opinion, but they are also so different that it is not an apples to apples comparison. But almost without exception, the material I get from HD Tracks is superior to the prior releases, is less fatiguing to the ear and has a certain "quietness" or blackness between the notes. It is just more musical and effortless sounding. You do not necessarily loose that, however, in my experience, by playing those same files back at 44.1KHz. In fact much of the improvement is still there.
 
What I suspect is actually happening is that the content itself is better which makes up the lion share of the perceived improvement. But it does not really matter at the end of the day, because the product that is being put out is consistently superior, in my experience, than the CD releases that preceded them.
 
In some cases, music I like that I never considered "audiophile grade" in the sense that it sounded harsh or unpleasant when played loud now makes the cut. Led Zeppelin is one of the best examples of this. Some very old jazz albums that were thin and crackly now have real weight and body. For example, Joe Henderson's "Page One" was a terrible CD. It is an excellent high resolution download. It is also my favorite jazz record of all time.
 
Generally speaking, when I play something from my CD library, I am reaching for the volume control to turn it down. When I play something from my high resolution library, I am reaching to turn it way up.
 
 
Frankly, overall I am astonished at how good some of the downloads are. It could be that new techniques are being used in creating them. Regardless, I think it is worth the price of admission to subsidize what is clearly an improvement in many old, historic recordings.

 

[MatsP]

  Both do sound the same. The additional information 24 bit/192 kHz files can store is inaudible.
See here.

That's complete rubbish. A child would be able to understand that using more bits/higher frequency makes for a more accurately reproduced waveform, particularly in lower frequencies, and at lower levels.

 

[castleofargh]

 

  Both do sound the same. The additional information 24 bit/192 kHz files can store is inaudible.
See here.

That's complete rubbish. A child would be able to understand that using more bits/higher frequency makes for a more accurately reproduced waveform, particularly in lower frequencies, and at lower levels.

a child maybe, but someone who understands digital audio would find what you say even stranger than what you quoted.
because 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist%E2%80%93Shannon_sampling_theorem
and 2: the delicate part to reconstruct perfectly is in fact the upper limit of the frequency range recorded, not the low freqs.
 
I have no idea what low levels are supposed to change. you have enough dynamic range to record a signal and avoid hearing noise, or you don't.

 

[gregorio]

 
Frankly, overall I am astonished at how good some of the downloads are. It could be that new techniques are being used in creating them. Regardless, I think it is worth the price of admission to subsidize what is clearly an improvement in many old, historic recordings.

 
Your suspicions are correct, it's not the format, it's the content itself. And, it's not due to "new techniques" either, it's essentially due to techniques which date back to the 1940's. In other words, whether a song is released in 24/192 or 16/44.1 should make absolutely no audible difference whatsoever, the fact that there often is a difference is because you are listening to two different songs or more precisely, to two different versions of the same song which have been specifically designed to sound different. You could take that 24/192 version and providing it's converted properly to 16/44.1, you would be unable to hear a difference between them.
 
There is no technical or fidelity reason why HDTracks (or anyone else) couldn't still release two different versions, say an "audiophile grade" version and a "standard" version both in 16/44.1. The reason they don't, is marketing. It's trivially easy to convince people who know little or nothing about how digital audio works that bigger data numbers (a higher sample rate and more bits) means higher resolution/fidelity and then you've got the relatively easy marketing task of justifying a far higher price for an "audiophile grade" version because it's physically different. It would be far more difficult, maybe bordering on the impossible, to justify a far higher price between two different versions which are physically the same (both 16/44.1). This marketing strategy is obviously very effective for some/many consumers. MatsP for example has obviously swallowed it all, hook, line and sinker, even to the point of effectively saying that those who don't believe this marketing BS has a level of understanding lower than a child. But then, as with all the very best scams, they are so effective that the victims continue to believe the BS and never realise they've been scammed.
 
None of this really helps you in many cases though because often, if you want an "audiophile grade" version you don't have a choice, as they only sell that version in one of the "bigger data numbers" formats, not in 16/44.1. While you could just convert it to 16/44.1, with no loss of fidelity, you've still obviously got to pay for that "bigger data number" format in the first place. I'm not sure if this is ever going to change, as long as bigger data numbers can be converted (via marketing) into higher prices consumers can be charged/will pay, the data numbers will continue to get bigger, regardless of the actual fact that there are no resolution/fidelity differences. The only way this knowledge can help you in practice, is in knowing not to automatically dismiss 16/44.1 recordings just because they are 16/44.1, especially if there isn't a bigger data number version it's competing against.
 
G

 

[axle_69]

 
That's complete rubbish. A child would be able to understand that using more bits/higher frequency makes for a more accurately reproduced waveform, particularly in lower frequencies, and at lower levels.

Not nice... Actually you don't need 24 bits, if you want to be picky 20 bits is enough dynamic range for music, and 16 bits is better than vinyl. 88.2 or 96 kHz is useful to take the band pass filter during DAC away from our hearing limit because filters are not perfect, but most of us don't hear above 16-17 kHz and have some loss above 10 kHz, so having a filter at 22.05 kHz (for 44.1 kHz) isn't that bad. 192 kHz? Does your system play 96 kHz signals? They may be present in the original sound, some instruments vibrate that high, but it may be close to the limit of what the amplifier can handle.

 

[Baxide]

 
That's complete rubbish. A child would be able to understand that using more bits/higher frequency makes for a more accurately reproduced waveform, particularly in lower frequencies, and at lower levels.

Unfortunately a grown person can't tell the difference between an mp3 file and a 24/192 file in most cases.
The high bit rate and high sampling rate files come into their own when you have a wide audio spectrum and wide dynamic range file. But if you are listening to an audio track that has been subject to the audio loudness war then the mp3 file is as good as identical in the listening test.

 

[jcx]

actually I believe some have pointed to Loudness War dynamic level compression equivalent to clipping does add harmonics and IMD at high levels that can challenge mp3 codecs - perceptual lossy data compression codec algorithms often perform better on more "musical" source
 
if you are indirectly referencing mp3 18 kHz low pass filtering then even few youngsters are liable to notice or prefer music with an extra 2 kHz extension to 20kHz

 

[Baxide]

The problem I have with most of this is the fact that the word better is heavily misused in its intended understanding. Let's look at what we really mean when we are talking about being better. You'll first need a DAC that can decode the two types of audio files into an analogue audio sound where a difference can be detected in the first place. I have heard a couple of lovely sounding DACs that made mp3 sound amazing. They were mostly valve based. With such a DAC the argument for or against 16 or 24 bit sounding different would be next to impossible to resolve. So that brings me to the question as to exactly why we would want an even higher bit and sample rate if we are actually after a quality of playback that is enjoyable to our individual taste? I had a recent taste of this with a friend that I would like to share with you. For some reason he has a DAC and loads of 24/96kHz files that sound out of this world. He also has some of the files in CD format and 24/192. But they cannot match the same level of enjoyment and foot tapping experience in terms of bass solidness, soundstage, and cleanness of the highs. His set up is in total harmony with 24/96. As far as I am concern his other music collection in the other formats are just a waste of time and money. But we don't know what will sound best in our system until we have acquired them and tried them out. And that is what makes this kind of discussion controversial. It's not so much as what is better, but what makes your own system set up sound better, or at least just as good for a lower expenditure on music formats.

 

[castleofargh]

  The problem I have with most of this is the fact that the word better is heavily misused in its intended understanding. Let's look at what we really mean when we are talking about being better. You'll first need a DAC that can decode the two types of audio files into an analogue audio sound where a difference can be detected in the first place. I have heard a couple of lovely sounding DACs that made mp3 sound amazing. They were mostly valve based. With such a DAC the argument for or against 16 or 24 bit sounding different would be next to impossible to resolve. So that brings me to the question as to exactly why we would want an even higher bit and sample rate if we are actually after a quality of playback that is enjoyable to our individual taste? I had a recent taste of this with a friend that I would like to share with you. For some reason he has a DAC and loads of 24/96kHz files that sound out of this world. He also has some of the files in CD format and 24/192. But they cannot match the same level of enjoyment and foot tapping experience in terms of bass solidness, soundstage, and cleanness of the highs. His set up is in total harmony with 24/96. As far as I am concern his other music collection in the other formats are just a waste of time and money. But we don't know what will sound best in our system until we have acquired them and tried them out. And that is what makes this kind of discussion controversial. It's not so much as what is better, but what makes your own system set up sound better, or at least just as good for a lower expenditure on music formats.

it's not hard to get one or 2 highres albums and convert them down to lower resolutions for a test. if we're testing the resolution, it's way more pertinent than listening to a CD version and a highres version where chances are the mastering is different.
now some mastering are better than others. and just like we will have our own preferences for one interpretation of a classical piece by some maestro, we will have a preference for one mastering over another. that's obvious and fine as long as it's not mistaken for a resolution sounding better.

 

[old tech]

  I am a pretty hardcore audiophile and tend to agree that the format itself is not as important as I thought. This is evidenced by the fact that a lot of the material that is being released on PONO and HDTracks is just better than what was released on CD. The differences between the Crosby Stills and Nash CDs and the 192KHz files is significant in my opinion, but they are also so different that it is not an apples to apples comparison. But almost without exception, the material I get from HD Tracks is superior to the prior releases, is less fatiguing to the ear and has a certain "quietness" or blackness between the notes. It is just more musical and effortless sounding. You do not necessarily loose that, however, in my experience, by playing those same files back at 44.1KHz. In fact much of the improvement is still there.
 
What I suspect is actually happening is that the content itself is better which makes up the lion share of the perceived improvement. But it does not really matter at the end of the day, because the product that is being put out is consistently superior, in my experience, than the CD releases that preceded them.
 
In some cases, music I like that I never considered "audiophile grade" in the sense that it sounded harsh or unpleasant when played loud now makes the cut. Led Zeppelin is one of the best examples of this. Some very old jazz albums that were thin and crackly now have real weight and body. For example, Joe Henderson's "Page One" was a terrible CD. It is an excellent high resolution download. It is also my favorite jazz record of all time.
 
Generally speaking, when I play something from my CD library, I am reaching for the volume control to turn it down. When I play something from my high resolution library, I am reaching to turn it way up.
 
 
Frankly, overall I am astonished at how good some of the downloads are. It could be that new techniques are being used in creating them. Regardless, I think it is worth the price of admission to subsidize what is clearly an improvement in many old, historic recordings.

Funnily enough, I'm having the opposite experience, ie usually turning the volume up with CDs and down with Hi Res.  Probably because most of the CDs I've hung on to are either older CDs or the better mastered later ones - I can't stand over compressed/brickwalled music.  What this demonstrates to me at least, is that even most of the hi res remasters have not escaped the general trend towards loudness.

 

[RRod]

  Funnily enough, I'm having the opposite experience, ie usually turning the volume up with CDs and down with Hi Res.  Probably because most of the CDs I've hung on to are either older CDs or the better mastered later ones - I can't stand over compressed/brickwalled music.  What this demonstrates to me at least, is that even most of the hi res remasters have not escaped the general trend towards loudness.

 
It's because the hi-res push is, at its core, not about sound quality. They'll happily charge you $30 for a 60-year-old album that still sounds bad just because the format is more specced.
 
I have classical CDs that have me both turning the volume up and turning it down, which means that already the medium can present the material with enough dynamic range as to be annoying in my listening environment (a home, not even a bus or anything). The audiophile classical labels were putting out amazing sounding, dynamic stuff as soon as digital was even a thing back around 1980. By 1990 the engineers who knew their shinola had consistency down, I wager due to the leeway allowed by high bit depths and better DAWs. But still, it was all coming out on the lowly CD because the end product still didn't exceed the format's abilities. SACD and DVD-A brought a little bit of the hi-res shenanigans to the classical world, but the latter died and the former only hung on due to embracing the hybrid format (but unfortunately kept multichannel mixes in verdammten DSD) and was thus really a gussied-up CD. So basically I'm sitting here with 35 years or so of tremendous sounding classical CDs, that all fit on my rockboxed ipod classic thanks to the Opus codec, and wondering "What's the big deal?"

 

[gregorio]

  Actually you don't need 24 bits, if you want to be picky 20 bits is enough dynamic range for music, and 16 bits is better than vinyl.

 
If you want to be picky, around 10bits is enough dynamic range for music and most music genres require even less.
 

  His set up is in total harmony with 24/96. As far as I am concern his other music collection in the other formats are just a waste of time and money. But we don't know what will sound best in our system until we have acquired them and tried them out. And that is what makes this kind of discussion controversial. It's not so much as what is better, but what makes your own system set up sound better, or at least just as good for a lower expenditure on music formats.

 
That's not what makes this kind of discussion controversial. There are two reasons why it's controversial: 1. Compared to many audiophiles and to audio professionals, this approach is backwards! It's not about finding music which suits your system setup but about creating a system setup which suits the music/audio. 2. There is no sound system ever invented which can actually play 24bits, no commercial recordings ever released which use more than about 10bits or so and no human can hear audio frequencies up to 48kHz. It's therefore not possible to setup a system which "is in total harmony" with 24/96 without it being just as much in "total harmony" with 16/44.1, unless of course the system is defective/won't physically play 16/44.1. As others have said, it's the mastering which makes the difference, not the audio container (format) the master is contained in.
 

  By 1990 the engineers who knew their shinola had consistency down, I wager due to the leeway allowed by high bit depths and better DAWs.

 
Not so much. DAWs didn't really become practical until the mid '90's and even then, only for basic editing tasks (rather than recording, processing or mixing) and higher bit depths were not so relevant either. It was a combination of factors; improving ADCs, higher channel counts, the fact that digital was maturing and the engineers were really learning the tricks of how to get the best from digital and of course the pro audio manufacturers were coming out with improved mixing consoles and related equipment, with more functionality and signal paths more suited to the workflows and fidelity requirements of these engineers who knew their digital "shinola".
 
G

 

[dmbr]

My understanding is that there are reasons to record in "HD" (>44hz/>16bit), so what makes "HD" audio potentially better is that it eliminates the possibility of the conversion to 16/44 degrading sound quality.

That is to say, 24/192 files can sound better than 16/44 not because the sampling rate and bit depth are higher, but because the sampling rate and bit depth have not been altered.

 

[RRod]

My understanding is that there are reasons to record in "HD" (>44hz/>16bit), so what makes "HD" audio potentially better is that it eliminates the possibility of the conversion to 16/44 degrading sound quality.

That is to say, 24/192 files can sound better than 16/44 not because the sampling rate and bit depth are higher, but because the sampling rate and bit depth have not been altered.

 
Try for yourself. Take a 24/192 file, convert it to 16/44.1, then convert it back to 24/192 and compare it to the original. A good resampler doesn't do anything that my ears can detect.

 

[gregorio]

My understanding is that there are reasons to record in "HD" (>44hz/>16bit), so what makes "HD" audio potentially better is that it eliminates the possibility of the conversion to 16/44 degrading sound quality.

That is to say, 24/192 files can sound better than 16/44 not because the sampling rate and bit depth are higher, but because the sampling rate and bit depth have not been altered.

 
There are reasons to record using 24bit rather than 16bit but not because of higher fidelity and there's no longer much reason to record at higher than 44.1k, except obviously for marketing purposes. Your statement about conversion degrading sound quality used to be true, maybe 15 or so years ago. As RRod said, decent resamplers are transparent these days. In fact, sample and bit rate conversions are routine within mixing processors these days and a commercial mix is likely to contain multiple, possibly even dozens of sample and/or bit rate conversions before it even arrives at final mastering. The whole "keep it at 192k" (or whatever) to legitimately call it "Hi-rez" is just marketing BS which is largely divorced from the actual reality of creating a commercial recording these days.
 
G