Hi-Res vs CD quality - New album, which version?

[tonapo]

I subscribe to Qobuz, and I have been listening to the new Cure album (streamed on Roon/Qobuz using a M66 NAD pre-amp (Dirac applied), a NAD M23 power amp with Kef Reference one speakers), Songs of a Lost World (excellent by the way).

On Qobuz the album is available at 96kHz sample rate, and 24 bit depth. I like the album, and I like to own a physical version of music if possible, so I have purchased the CD. The sample rate of the CD is 44.1kHz with 16 bit depth.

How do I know which is the 'best' version of the album? And, by 'best' I mean higher fidelity (I think).

My general rule of thumb is the master of the music makes more difference than the format, but in this case I assume we are talking about the same master.

If I could be sure which version of an album (assuming we could be sure the master is the same) is better it may influence my buying decisions e.g. I might forgo the physical CD, and purchase the hires file via Qobiz for example.

 

[MaxwellsEq]

Assuming the CD is mastered exactly from the same version as the 96/24 version, you should struggle to hear any differences. The only real benefit of 96kHz files is there is less risk of artefacts due to the 22kHz reconstruction filter. But there's little content at that frequency and your hearing is unlikely to be good enough to hear any differences.

 

[Rednaxela]

I’d try and ABX it. Double blind of course.

 

[Mart68]

No need to ABX since it seems they are the same master, and 24/96 alone offers no benefit on playback:

 

[VMAT4]

You'll never hear a difference between the two.

 

[tonapo]

Thank you for the replies, it is much appreciated.

Assuming the CD is mastered exactly from the same version as the 96/24 version, you should struggle to hear any differences. The only real benefit of 96kHz files is there is less risk of artefacts due to the 22kHz reconstruction filter. But there's little content at that frequency and your hearing is unlikely to be good enough to hear any differences.

I tell myself something close to this, that I won't hear a difference but I then I end up wondering regardless...

I’d try and ABX it. Double blind of course.

I have tried this via roon of course (quick a/b'ing rather than the way Amir has described elsewhere on the forum), but I would just prefer something objective - see below.

No need to ABX since it seems they are the same master, and 24/96 alone offers no benefit on playback:

Thank you, so is it reasonable to assume in the future that if the dynamic range is higher, then it may be worth choosing the high res over the CD?

 

[whereisbrian]

DR 6 range, it's a pity.
i bought The Cure last record file in 96 kHz/24-bit FLAC, the sound is really horrible.

 

[manisandher]

Try this yourself if you like:

Take a hirez file (24/96, 24/192, or whatever). 'Downsample' to 16/44.1 (using something like Audacity, with its correctly-designed 'brickwall' filter). 'Upsample' back to original resolution. Use DeltaWave to compare the two files. The null will be way below the resolution of any DAC. (And this is the case even converting to a non-integer.)

Hirez files may be useful for processing. Simply not necessary for playback.

And 'ringing filters' are a myth. There's no signal in real music that could cause them to ring. A decent 'brickwall' that attenutates maximally before Nyquist is the best filter to use.

It's funny. I've got a decently-designed CD player from 1995 which still sounds wonderful with good ol' redbook. But I guess marketing departments have needed something to write about all this time...

Mani.

 

[aedagnino]

I couldn't believe how bad the record sounded when I heard it... just lifeless. His voice still sounds amazing, but the record is just plodding. A huge disappointment.

 

[Mart68]

Thank you, so is it reasonable to assume in the future that if the dynamic range is higher, then it may be worth choosing the high res over the CD?

Yes, every time.

Ironically with older recordings at least, it's often the original 1980s CD issue that has the highest DR. Higher than the SACD (If there is one) or the high res download or stream.

With contemporary music it's rare that the CD will be a different mastering to the download or stream.

 

[AnalogSteph]

No need to ABX since it seems they are the same master, and 24/96 alone offers no benefit on playback:

Squashed hi-res, yay. Just what the world needed. Not the first and last time, mind you. It wouldn't be the same exact master but certainly done to the same standard.

 

[deweydm]

I subscribe to Qobuz, and I have been listening to the new Cure album (streamed on Roon/Qobuz using a M66 NAD pre-amp (Dirac applied), a NAD M23 power amp with Kef Reference one speakers), Songs of a Lost World (excellent by the way).

On Qobuz the album is available at 96kHz sample rate, and 24 bit depth. I like the album, and I like to own a physical version of music if possible, so I have purchased the CD. The sample rate of the CD is 44.1kHz with 16 bit depth.

How do I know which is the 'best' version of the album? And, by 'best' I mean higher fidelity (I think).

My general rule of thumb is the master of the music makes more difference than the format, but in this case I assume we are talking about the same master.

If I could be sure which version of an album (assuming we could be sure the master is the same) is better it may influence my buying decisions e.g. I might forgo the physical CD, and purchase the hires file via Qobiz for example.

The lossy Atmos version on Apple Music, played back with a surround sound setup or sent to a DAC that can’t render Atmos, so in stereo, sounds much better than the lossless stereo version on AM, which is just everything loud, harsh. But this is just, like, my opinion. A more objective comparison of the Atmos and stereo versions of the single Alone from Tidal available here.

(Off topic and subjective, but the single LP version mastered by Miles Showell sounds pretty similar to stereo playback of the spatial audio to me, sounds very good. But most people don’t collect LPs, and I haven’t captured waveforms, can’t offer objective evidence supporting this.)

 

[Esprit]

LOL

 

[Martin]

I couldn't believe how bad the record sounded when I heard it... just lifeless. His voice still sounds amazing, but the record is just plodding. A huge disappointment.

The mix is very drone like and I think that is by choice. I rather like the new album. I may have to pick up the vinyl based upon the post above this one.

Martin

 

[DVDdoug]

This has been said before, but be careful comparing "DR" measurements. The vinyl cutting and playback process changes the wave shape and it tends to improve the DR measurement without changing the sound of the dynamics. The same thing often happens when you convert a CD to MP3. But it's usually only a couple of dB so in this case it may be a different master and it's probably real.

 

[scrubb]

If my understanding is correct, then:

CD = 44.1kHz, 16 Bit = 0Hz~22kHz frequency response, =>98 dB dynamic range
HiRez = 96kHz, 24 Bit = 0Hz~48kHz, =>146 dB dynamic range

Human hearing = 20Hz~20kHz (mine goes to 13kHz), ~140 dB dynamic range (I'll guess mine is more like 95 dB)

Most popular music recordings = ~30Hz~20kHz, ~2-14 dB dynamic range

A complete system of SOTA equipment *might* be capable of reproducing the full range of human hearing.
I do not think there will be any audible difference between a CD and a HiRez recording. It's almost as though they knew all this when they invented the CD format.

 

[unpluggged]

I do not think there will be any audible difference between a CD and a HiRez recording

There won't, as numerous proper AB tests have proven (provided the source master record is the same).

It's almost as though they knew all this when they invented the CD format

It's not "almost as though": of course they knew it, and 44.1 kHz was selected as a compromise to be compatible with both PAL and NTSC video line rates.

 

[Timcognito]

Unless it's really old most say the original release from the original master is the one to get. This topic comes up again and again. Unless you are 16 yr old you will never hear high resolution's advantages, and probably not then ether.

Compare Formats - Free Downloads | High Resolution Audio Downloads at Sound Liaison

Buy Compare Formats - Free Downloads and other great high-res downloads from Sound Liaison. All audio formats just starting from €17.95.

soundliaison.com

 

[jcarys]

What I want to know is what the Bluray surround version sounds like. I listened to the Tidal Atmos version and it's OK, but not truly immersive. I would hope that the Bluray is much better, but it's not worth the trouble and expense of importing it until someone credible does a review.

 

[Romario]

With The Cure's new album you won't have to discuss the S/N ratio of your system anymore, it's loud! For Reeves to cut through the intro of Warsong they could at least gave him the left channel. Great track nonetheless.