[POLL] Hi-res music

[Bullwinkle J Moose]

Bit-identical, no.

I agree.

That doesn't necessarily matter.

Compare the resultant decoded analog waveform, and report back.

---

Consider a test tone that is not a sub-multiple of the sample rate.

The sample values are all over the map, depending where you look, but the properly decoded analog tone is the same throughout.

Therefore, by my extrapolation, two bit-different digital files can contain the same musical analog waveform.

I would rather consider music to test tones

I get better imaging when the sample rate remains the same or a direct multiple of the original

I lose the coherent image and it becomes sleightly blurred when it is not a direct multiple

Like looking through one pane of glass versus 3 panes of glass

The entire spectrum of sound "IS" affected, even if your single tone seems fine

 

[Jim Matthews]

I have a sublime subscription to quobuz and mostly use it for the music discounts. I find that some HR files are just mastered better than cd. Vice versa. Just trying to horde as much music as possible lol.

This is an interesting take on streaming.

I use these services so that I need not keep track of trax.

 

[Rottmannash]

I think the poll is not about lossy and lossless formats. So, I can easily say that the term of "Hi-res" utterly wrong from right at the start. A 16/44.1 redbook file is already high resolution because it contains all information that you need, just noise floor is at -100dB region.

The actual definition of Hi Res is "files with greater than 44.1 kHz sample rate or higher than 16 bit audio bit depth".

 

[Zensō]

I spent most of a year switching between Tidal, Qobuz, Amazon HD, Spotify Premium, and Apple Music. I found little to no meaningful difference in sound quality. I use iPads as controllers and streamers, and because the Apple Music UI handily beats the others (and even Roon) on iPadOS, I’ve settled on Apple Music. I personally have no need for anything over 256 AAC.

 

[KeithPhantom]

I spent most of a year switching between Tidal, Qobuz, Amazon HD, Spotify Premium, and Apple Music. I found little to no meaningful difference in sound quality. I use iPads as controllers and streamers, and because the Apple Music UI handily beats the others (and even Roon) on iPadOS, I’ve settled on Apple Music. I personally have no need for anything over 256 AAC.

Me too, I use a Mini to listen and post when I’m on my bed. My only issue is not actually the streaming services, but I have a DAC that is draining the battery. I use Amazon HD since it has ‘seemingly’ better versions of the music I like (non-common music where many mastering are pretty bad) and have the extra of having FLACs directly from the CDs. Not bad I would say.

 

[RayDunzl]

The entire spectrum of sound "IS" affected, even if your single tone seems fine

As you wish.

Have a nice day.

 

[devopsprodude]

I believe this is an important and interesting topic. However, may I make the suggestion to define 'high-res' as music that was _mastered_ at at least 24bit (and optionally at least 88.2kHz)?

Technically it is difficult to justify 'high-res' albums/music that is up-sampled from standard definition masters or analog sources. These files usually don't contain any frequencies/bits beyond 16/44.1k and therefore we don't hear a difference. With high-res mastered files we 'may' hear a difference.

I know this excludes most 'high-res' music that should probably be sold/streamed as 'digitally remastered/restored' in standard def.

Yep, I agree that the music in question has to be natively high bit rate. If it was ever in CD quality or lower quality form, then we shouldn't consider it hi-res.

 

[Jimbob54]

Yep, I agree that the music in question has to be natively high bit rate. If it was ever in CD quality or lower quality form, then we shouldn't consider it hi-res.

@ophiuchia you are both correct however I'm looking at this from a consumer standpoint and what they know about the files they buy/stream, which is only that it has the black and gold sticker and the rates it plays at, not what the original content was mastered at. Does that make a lot of it a nonsense? Yes, but that's the "hi res" market for you

 

[Jimbob54]

The actual definition of Hi Res is "files with greater than 44.1 kHz sample rate or higher than 16 bit audio bit depth".

Yup, whether we like it or not. That's what gets the black and gold sticker.

 

[mansr]

“He who suffered through and survived five semesters of advanced information theory, communication theory, and digital signal processing is above conversing with them mortals on topics of resampling, whether by integer factor or not.”

I wouldn't say I suffered.

 

[Frank Dernie]

I changed my Qobuz subscription for a cheaper version at last update since I don't feel any need for any bigger than red-book files and no longer buy music as files rather than CDs.
I voted don't pay before reading the definition of if I subscribe to Qobuz I pay for high res.
OTOH I don't use Qobuz much, and usually only to decide if I want to buy a CD, or perhaps to listen to something recommended by a friend or family member.
As far as I am concerned CD is "high res" enough for my ageing human ears.

 

[taner]

The actual definition of Hi Res is "files with greater than 44.1 kHz sample rate or higher than 16 bit audio bit depth".

Yes, but it is not a technical/scientific definition. It is a commercial sticker that has nothing to do with "high resolution" in scientific terms.

 

[Jimbob54]

Yes, but it is not a technical/scientific definition. It is a commercial sticker that has nothing to do with "high resolution" in scientific terms.

Take that up with the people that put the sticker on things then. I'm asking if people think they can hear an improvement on music with the sticker on. Wisely, many are saying they can't.

 

[Atanasi]

48/16 is the sample format of DVD. I would count that as SD.

 

[JSmith]

I prefer de-rez to high-rez;





JSmith

 

[Aerith Gainsborough]

Dont think I have ever heard a hi-res music file.

Since there is no such thing as "High Resolution" for audio and since there is nothing to hear anyways, I deem this option the most accurate one.

 

[Jimbob54]

Since there is no such thing as "High Resolution" for audio and since there is nothing to hear anyways, I deem this option the most accurate one.

Tell that to the people that make the little black and gold stickers, they will be mortified ;-)

 

[taner]

prefer pre-loudness war recordings as originally released in CD format, not, remastered more compressed newer versions.

Ever I see a "REMASTERED" sticker on a reissue, it is highly valid for me to being suspicious over its Hi-Fi merits long gone for sake of compression madness..

 

[tonyo123]

Ever I see a "REMASTERED" sticker on a reissue, it is highly valid for me to being suspicious over its Hi-Fi merits long gone for sake of compression madness..

We agree although 'highly valid' = 99.9% certaincy that it is compressed with clipping to please the ipod>iPhone crowd (exclude much classical and jazz). Portable and loud have been the objectives of mastering for the last two plus decades. I'm of the belief that every recording should come out with two versions: mastered and unmastered.

 

[Deleted member 30699]

@ophiuchia you are both correct however I'm looking at this from a consumer standpoint and what they know about the files they buy/stream, which is only that it has the black and gold sticker and the rates it plays at, not what the original content was mastered at. Does that make a lot of it a nonsense? Yes, but that's the "hi res" market for you

From a consumer perspective hi-rez is a marketing term to sell old catalog. As a consequence, it is dead on arrival or at least condemmed to a niche because of two reasons:
- latest hot100 music rarely needs more than 8 bits (exagerating) - more objectively popular 'constant loud' music rarely uses anything close to CD quality
- allowing upsampled digital masters or sampled from analog sources/tape to be labeled high-rez = high-res does not mean anything 95% (99%?) of the time.

People that try to objectively evaluate it often buy their favourite album from the 70-80s, say 'Jazz in the Pawnshop', Beatles, what-have-you, downsample it and cannot make out a difference. Then, they dismiss it.

My experience is the following: I have some 24/88.2 and 24/96 mastered 'orchestra' music and I blind tested both myself and a few friends. People can tell the difference between 24bit and ('compressed' to) 16bits (you usually loose 1-2 bits with noise/dithering). People that can hear 16-18kHz frequencies hear also changes in DAC filters at 44.1kHz but not at 2x frequencies.
None of this is actually important. We (as in me and the 3 friends that participated) did not have a clear preference. Also, listening to music with wide open dynamic range is not everybodies cup of tea. I would not call it relaxing; it is acutually intimidaing - you will spill the glass of wine when percussions hit after a silent period.

For reference, testing was done on B&W 800 Diamonds, Bel Canto preamp+1000W monoblocks in a room that has about 10-20dB noise floor. Also, I have only 2 albums (out of hundreds) where I'd endorse high-rez (Frank Ticheli - Playing with Fire; and Haddad/Sherman/White - Exploreations in Space and Time). There may be more (maybe some sondtracks?) but I did not test further. It is excessively difficult to find true highrez albums so I usually don't bother.

Sorry if this comes off as a bit steep. I'm quite passionate about this topic because I think that the 'high-res' term hurts those people/businesses that want to give us objectively better music quality (whether we can hear it or not). This poll -as is- only enforces it.