• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required as is 20 years of participation in forums (not all true). There are daily reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

hi res music equipment

Lambda

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 22, 2020
Messages
1,568
Likes
1,294
96dBa? is still more than enough.
Well no.
I have no problem hearing 6dB at 6khz And 130dB at 20hz for a view cycles.

And having a higher sampling rate can give you more dynamic trough noise shaping at lower frequency. Thats a fact and how for exaple DSD works with 1 bit...
 

tonycollinet

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Sep 4, 2021
Messages
2,258
Likes
3,223
Location
UK/Cheshire
Bottom line is "most"?? people can't hear anything better than CD quality 44/16 bit. Middle aged and older probably can't even manage that. **

Sure - maybe 14 year olds with exceptional hearing might do a bit better than 16 bits under ideal test coniditions or with excellent headphones, but probably not easy to distinguish in real peoples listening rooms. **

So don't sweat it. If you are not able to hear a difference you are in the vast majority. Be glad you don't have to spend extra money to buy and listen to the best music you can hear.

Then:
Get a drink
Put on your favourite music
Kick back, relax and enjoy it.


**there may be traces of opinion in these statements. Certainly I'm not about to dig out any papers to back them up. ;)
 
OP
C
Joined
Nov 15, 2021
Messages
13
Likes
7
K, Guys , it seems even if I spend $$ I will never hear better than what I am currently listening to, I may try Tidal just to see, it just seems odd that all the buzz of people suggest that one needs much better equipment than I have to listen to better audio.
my Denon is 2007 with the best audio possible is optical to connect the tv. So, I will accept that Cd probably is the best I can discern with any equipment.
 
OP
C
Joined
Nov 15, 2021
Messages
13
Likes
7
Bottom line is "most"?? people can't hear anything better than CD quality 44/16 bit. Middle aged and older probably can't even manage that. **

Sure - maybe 14 year olds with exceptional hearing might do a bit better than 16 bits under ideal test coniditions or with excellent headphones, but probably not easy to distinguish in real peoples listening rooms. **

So don't sweat it. If you are not able to hear a difference you are in the vast majority. Be glad you don't have to spend extra money to buy and listen to the best music you can hear.

Then:
Get a drink
Put on your favourite music
Kick back, relax and enjoy it.


**there may be traces of opinion in these statements. Certainly I'm not about to dig out any papers to back them up. ;)
Thanks Tony, I just thought it was my older Denon and tv connection issue
 

M00ndancer

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 4, 2019
Messages
719
Likes
719
Location
Sweden
K, Guys , it seems even if I spend $$ I will never hear better than what I am currently listening to, I may try Tidal just to see, it just seems odd that all the buzz of people suggest that one needs much better equipment than I have to listen to better audio.
my Denon is 2007 with the best audio possible is optical to connect the tv. So, I will accept that Cd probably is the best I can discern with any equipment.
The thing that can improve the audio is the final part of the chain. Speakers, DSP, room treatment.
 

tonycollinet

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Sep 4, 2021
Messages
2,258
Likes
3,223
Location
UK/Cheshire
The thing that can improve the audio is the final part of the chain. Speakers, DSP, room treatment.
Trudat

I've listened to music more in the last 3 months, than the previous 10 years. Why? I bought some new speakers that sound simply stunning to my 59yo ears. I didn't spend a fortune - just 3 times my previous speaker purchase at around £700.

I'm still powering them from a 15+yo Sony AVR, and a poorly measuring DAC (soundblaster omni 5.1 measured at the bottom end of the orange section of the DAC chart with Sinad about 80db).

Still loving it all.
 
OP
C
Joined
Nov 15, 2021
Messages
13
Likes
7
The thing that can improve the audio is the final part of the chain. Speakers, DSP, room treatment.
Speakers make sense of course, room acoustics too, DSP? The Denon has a mic that one uses to set up the Room A.
Speakers are so subjective, now I may purchase headphones, this can be another topic if it will sound better? New Grado maybe ?
I appreciate these replies , I purchased in 74 ess amt 1 towers , Ariston Audio sme 3009 II improved with different cartridges. Marantz receiver 2325. Only the speakers remain which may be rebuilt.
thanks again
 
OP
C
Joined
Nov 15, 2021
Messages
13
Likes
7
Speakers make sense of course, room acoustics too, DSP? The Denon has a mic that one uses to set up the Room A.
Speakers are so subjective, now I may purchase headphones, this can be another topic if it will sound better? New Grado maybe ?
I appreciate these replies , I purchased in 74 ess amt 1 towers , Ariston Audio sme 3009 II improved with different cartridges. Marantz receiver 2325. Only the speakers remain which may be rebuilt.
thanks again
Oh, I still listen to the studio 60 v4 too, headphones as my Wife will live in peace lol
 
OP
C
Joined
Nov 15, 2021
Messages
13
Likes
7
Trudat

I've listened to music more in the last 3 months, than the previous 10 years. Why? I bought some new speakers that sound simply stunning to my 59yo ears. I didn't spend a fortune - just 3 times my previous speaker purchase at around £700.

I'm still powering them from a 15+yo Sony AVR, and a poorly measuring DAC (soundblaster omni 5.1 measured at the bottom end of the orange section of the DAC chart with Sinad about 80db).

Still loving it all.
Good stuff
 

steve59

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Dec 18, 2019
Messages
635
Likes
397
is this the perfect sound forever camp? if so my mistake.
 

JaccoW

Active Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2021
Messages
191
Likes
280
Location
The Netherlands
I can hear the difference between a 320kbps mp3 and a cd-quality FLAC most some of the time. On the right speakers, in a quiet room and at higher volume.

In certain songs I can enjoy the advantages of hi-res music through my Laptop > DAC > speaker combo. But that's not because I can hear it but because I can sometimes feel (like an extra low rumble) it. But it's very small and I'm not sure whetherI could hear it in a blind test if I downsampled it. But generally anything above 16-bit/44.1kHz isn't audibly better.

I can see it if I watch the spectrogram of certain audio files but that's it. And sometimes I wonder if it wouldn't have been better to record it in lower resolution...
Now I am not an audio professional but I can gather the basics from a spectogram with a guide like this: Understanding spectograms - iZOTOPE
Click on the images and open those in a new tab for the higher resolution images.

Here is someone's LP recording of Dave Brubeck's famous song Take Five:

24-bit/176kHz FLAC 6154kbps
  • What the hell is going on around the 55kHz mark?
    • Probably a hum somewhere in the recording setup. But at a frequency we cannot hear.
    • Your cat would probably go crazy though.
  • What is that line around 28kHz?
  • If this would have been recorded at 16/24-bit/48kHz you probably wouldn't miss a thing. Instead of the 24-bit/176kHz file we have now at 6154k/s for a nearly 250Mb file size.
Here is a slightly hi-res file of a song called Broken by 44th Move. I can see a clear difference in the spectogram. But besides sounding fuller and with better highs it is amazing how decent the 128kbps Mp3 can sound. And I can hardly hear a difference between the FLAC and the 320kbps mp3.

16-bit/48kHz FLAC 903kbps


16-bit/48kHz Mp3 320kbps


16-bit/48kHz Mp3 128kbps


And here is one of the few files I have that I know for sure were originally hi-res. A usb-stick hi-res release of the original Ghost in the Shell movie soundtrack.


24-bit/96kHz FLAC 2828kbps
  • Some buzz at 16kHz, 21kHz, 22kHz, 27kHz and 32kHz.
  • The strong vertical lines would usually be clicks and pops... but this is an acoustic song with percussion and chanting.


48kHz Mp3 320kbps


48kHz Mp3 128kbps


And just for fun; an 8kbps Mp3. It sounds a bit like trying to play a song through a birthday card speaker while holding it underwater. While your 5 year old nephew is trying to follow along with a flute... and failing. o_O

8kHz Mp3 8kbps
 
OP
C
Joined
Nov 15, 2021
Messages
13
Likes
7
Thanks so much, i did try a site that asked one to try to pick the best audio, i tries 3 out of 6 songs, t really had to listen and did get the best audio for all three. 128 kbps, 320 , and it had one labelled lossless WAV, I really had to listen and the 320 was extremely similar.
I just thought the higher number like 24 32 etc would have to be so detectable, so in the end i think good speakers is where the $ should be spent?
 

BN1

Active Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2020
Messages
118
Likes
62
I had an interesting experience recently. With old ears & damaged hearing, I've been very skeptical of those who claim to have "golden ears". I typically fail to hear any differences on the various hi-rez tests out there. I have been listening to 160 kbps on Spotify for background music and it sounds ok but I have gotten tired of Spotify's intrusive ads and was considering a move to premium streaming. A lot has happened around lossless streaming this year and deals abound in the $8 - $10/mo range (except for Spotify ...). I started a subscription to Amazon Music HD primarily because it is the best deal out there for CD or better music. When I listened to AMHD on my decent HT 5.1.2 system I was impressed by the sound quality of CD/96/192 songs but on my distributed system, playing thru ceiling speakers and downscaled to CD quality, not so much difference there. Maybe a bit of bias playing in here but, so far, I'm enjoying the difference.
 

tonycollinet

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Sep 4, 2021
Messages
2,258
Likes
3,223
Location
UK/Cheshire
I had an interesting experience recently. With old ears & damaged hearing, I've been very skeptical of those who claim to have "golden ears". I typically fail to hear any differences on the various hi-rez tests out there. I have been listening to 160 kbps on Spotify for background music and it sounds ok but I have gotten tired of Spotify's intrusive ads and was considering a move to premium streaming. A lot has happened around lossless streaming this year and deals abound in the $8 - $10/mo range (except for Spotify ...). I started a subscription to Amazon Music HD primarily because it is the best deal out there for CD or better music. When I listened to AMHD on my decent HT 5.1.2 system I was impressed by the sound quality of CD/96/192 songs but on my distributed system, playing thru ceiling speakers and downscaled to CD quality, not so much difference there. Maybe a bit of bias playing in here but, so far, I'm enjoying the difference.
I’ve yet to hear *any* distributed / ceiling speaker driven audio system that even approaches medium FI. I’m not surprised you were unable to detect a difference there.
 
Top Bottom