[POLL] Hi-res music

[taner]

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.

Sure, Remaster and "High-Res" who can resist to not getting one?

 

[maverickronin]

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.

There is no such thing as "high resolution" in "scientific terms". It's just a name. It's called "high" because it's higher than the old standard. That's all there is to it.

You might as well start a debate about whether or not 1080P counts as "high" definition or if 4K is" high" enough to qualify as "ultra" high.

 

[Jimbob54]

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.

I don't disagree with most of that. I'm not sure how the poll reinforces anything though.

"hi res" as defined here is a "thing"/ a brand/ a marketing concept and it is being bought and sold. The assertion made elsewhere on this site recently was along the lines of "I assume most of the people here can tell the benefits of hi res over redbook". I was interested to find out if that were true.

 

[Raindog123]

I was interested to find out if that were true.

Did the good guys win?

 

[Robin L]

Did the good guys win?

Everybody knows the war is over
Everybody knows the good guys lost

 

[taner]

There is no such thing as "high resolution" in "scientific terms". It's just a name. It's called "high" because it's higher than the old standard. That's all there is to it.

You might as well start a debate about whether or not 1080P counts as "high" definition or if 4K is" high" enough to qualify as "ultra" high.

So, what kind of "high" is that? If we talk about "resolution", scientifically a regular audio file can not be higher resolution than lossless 16/44.1 since human hearing capabilities are well documented since last century. If someone mentions about resolution, there have to be some extra information that doesn't exist on "inferior" one, in this case: 16/44.1 redbook format.

You analogous of HD and Ultra-HD comparison is irrelevant because we are actually discussing about perception of ultra-violet and infrared light waves. We are discussing about that we need or not to include infrared and ultraviolet wave patterns in our TIFF, PNG files in order to make them "High-Res". This is the correct analogous.

 

[mansr]

Did the good guys win?

Not according to Leonard Cohen. Maybe the lyrics are different in high-res.

 

[Jimbob54]

Did the good guys win?

70 % of responders currently saying they don't detect an improvement. So either only the sceptics are answering, people are fibbing , people genuinely can't tell or some mixture of the above.

You will note I didn't state that having undertaken a controlled listening test was a requirement for answering. I would hazard a guess most havent done one. I certainly haven't.

A few people commenting (rightly) that the hi res sticker doesn't mean it isn't just upsampled redbook.

 

[mansr]

Everybody knows the war is over
Everybody knows the good guys lost

Darn, you beat me to it.

 

[Jimbob54]

So, what kind of "high" is that? If we talk about "resolution", scientifically a regular audio file can not be higher resolution than 16/44.1 since human hearing capabilities are well documented since last century. If someone mentions about resolution, there have to be some extra information that doesn't exist on "inferior" one, in this case: 16/44.1 redbook format.

You analogous of HD and Ultra-HD comparison is irrelevant because we are actually discussing about perception of ultra-violet and infrared light waves. We are discussing about that we need or not to include infrared and ultraviolet wave patterns to our TIFF, PNG files in order to make them "High-Res". This is the correct analogous.

Don't confuse audibility of content with existence of content.

 

[Raindog123]

Everybody knows the war is over
Everybody knows the good guys lost

RIP

"...and everybody knows, that's how it goes..."

 

[taner]

Don't confuse audibility of content with existence of content.

Exactly, existence of extra 50MB "noise content" in a 96Khz FLAC confirms this.

 

[Raindog123]

You will note I didn't state that having undertaken a controlled listening test was a requirement for answering.

Yep, I've noticed... And was one of those who "believed" he "might" hear the difference. But then, I also power my DAC with an ion-Li bank, and cannot force myself to check the spectrum of its voltage stabilizer output. "Some stones are better left unturned."

 

[maverickronin]

So, what kind of "high" is that? If we talk about "resolution", scientifically a regular audio file can not be higher resolution than lossless 16/44.1 since human hearing capabilities are well documented since last century. If someone mentions about resolution, there have to be some extra information that doesn't exist on "inferior" one, in this case: 16/44.1 redbook format.

Are you being obtuse on purpose? Resolution is the bit depth and sample rate a PCM file is encoded in.

Whether anyone can hear a difference past Redbook (which they almost certainly can't, barring weird downsampling artifacts messing up the Redbook) is a completely separate question.

 

[Geert]

70 % of responders currently saying they don't detect an improvement.

Probably even more, as it seems some people thought it was lossless versus lossy audio formats.

 

[AdamG]

I thought we were talking about file storage size?

 

[Freeway]

I am not paying yet (3month Qobuz trial). Yes, I do hear a difference but is it an improvement? Seems so but that is subjective.
Qobuz comes over my system louder at default. Is it just higher gain? Using different computer drivers? When turning down volume to compare/match Spotify not much difference.

 

[AdamG]

Welcome Aboard @Freeway.

 

[Atanasi]

A few people commenting (rightly) that the hi res sticker doesn't mean it isn't just upsampled redbook.

Was this kind of use approved by JAS, which licenses the Hi-Res audio sticker? I would assume it's abuse, considering the criteria of the mark: at least 96/24 format for digital processes and 40 kHz bandwidth for analog processes.

 

[Jimbob54]

I am not paying yet (3month Qobuz trial). Yes, I do hear a difference but is it an improvement? Seems so but that is subjective.
Qobuz comes over my system louder at default. Is it just higher gain? Using different computer drivers? When turning down volume to compare/match Spotify not much difference.

You may have volume levelling switched on one not the other (I would guess Spotify?)