HiRes FOMO - Am I really missing anything?

[AudioSceptic]

or indeed the reason why it sounds worse - remixing and remastering aren't always an improvement.

Yes, as I also said. ;-)

 

[101geo]

I have found that original, pre mid 90's CD's almost always sound and measure better than any hi-res remaster that followed. Claude wrote a short script to measure DR and the results were surprising. This from different versions of Santana's Abraxas LP.

Version DR
1983 Japanese CD 16
SACD 1998 12
MFSL 24/96 12
hi-res 24/176.4 download 12

The differences were clearly audible to my kids and my 60+ year old ears when concentrating on the tom-toms and cymbals

I now get the AI to run that test and a spectral test that catches CDs upsampled to "hi-res" (nothing above 22 kHz) and now look for original year cd releases to rip. It also catches the wrong vinyl high DR results.
Hi-res means nothing if the mastering is crap.

 

[voodooless]

Claude wrote a short script to measure DR and the results were surprising.

There is nothing surprising…

Loudness war - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Album list - Dynamic Range DB

 

[101geo]

There is nothing surprising…

Loudness war - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Album list - Dynamic Range DB

The surprise was that supposedly elite labels like MFSL were much worse than the ordinary CD's they were supposed to out perform rather than the loudness war victims.

 

[voodooless]

The surprise was that supposedly elite labels like MFSL were much worse than the ordinary CD's they were supposed to out perform rather than the loudness war victims.

Yeah, reality is a bitch sometimes... And no, I'm still not surprised

If you want proper DR nowadays, try to get the Atmos version. They usually have considerably higher DR in an attempt to prove the format is superior

 

[AudioSceptic]

I have found that original, pre mid 90's CD's almost always sound and measure better than any hi-res remaster that followed. Claude wrote a short script to measure DR and the results were surprising. This from different versions of Santana's Abraxas LP.

Version DR
1983 Japanese CD 16
SACD 1998 12
MFSL 24/96 12
hi-res 24/176.4 download 12

The differences were clearly audible to my kids and my 60+ year old ears when concentrating on the tom-toms and cymbals

I now get the AI to run that test and a spectral test that catches CDs upsampled to "hi-res" (nothing above 22 kHz) and now look for original year cd releases to rip. It also catches the wrong vinyl high DR results.
Hi-res means nothing if the mastering is crap.

Interesting. Which language did Claude write it in?

 

[Ste_S]

Also, my ears tell me that EQ via my WiiM Ultra provides far more presonal listening benefit than higher sample rates ever would.

Digital music reproduction is very much a solved science, and as you say, EQ to compensate for deficiences in the analog chain - your hearing, the room, speakers/headphones, or just your personal taste, are much more important. Which kinda makes it laughable that audiophiles spend thousands on DACs, whilst EQ is still a dirty word to them.

 

[101geo]

Interesting. Which language did Claude write it in?

Python

 

[somebodyelse]

The surprise was that supposedly elite labels like MFSL were much worse than the ordinary CD's they were supposed to out perform rather than the loudness war victims.

It may depend on whether you talked to anybody who worked for such labels. As I heard it from a low ranking employee of such a label, he was sent out to buy the CD because the label wouldn't provide another version. They did nothing other than pass it on to the manufacturer to make the vinyl master and press it. They got a load of unsolicited testimonials for how much 'better' it sounded. There's the question there of which version of CD they got - an original or a remaster/remix. A lot of the original CD masters from the '80s and '90s have more dynamic range than the more recent remasters. Depending on whether you're listening in a noisy environment, and personal preference, you'll find one 'better' than the other. In a noisy environment I'll probably take the compressed version. In a quiet environment with a good system I'll probably take the one with more dynamic range. Some listening tests have suggested younger listeners prefer the mp3 versions to the original PCM. Preference is odd like that, sometimes taking the familiar distorted version over the unfamiliar cleaner one.

 

[xanalog]

I read the whole 8 pages and most of the links but this AES abstract confirmed what I've always believed:

There are lots of studies on audibility, and one of the most useful is a study of studies by Reiss:
Reiss Meta-Analysis AES E-library page - AES

Eighteen published experiments for which sufficient data could be obtained were included, providing a meta-analysis that combined over 400 participants in more than 12,500 trials.
Results showed a small but statistically significant ability of test subjects to discriminate high resolution content, and this effect increased dramatically when test subjects received extensive training. … The overall conclusion …

…would be to NOT waste time with extensive listening training.
The better conclusion would be to spend that time --you did not go blind w/extensive listening training -- more productively by taking some music training, or

Does anyone listen to music?

Amen!

 

[Frunse]

I guess the Recording dudes and Producer know all the fakts!

Or why all new Productions with all the new aviable technical Devices and possibilitys there and new Recordings still most Time aviable on CD only Reselution.

Only some give you Hires i guess the Mainstream still CD's right?

But wait there still some nice Recordings aviable like snarky puppy.

Somni [CD+Blu-Ray]

Videos of all of the music contained on the CD with audio options of Dolby Atmos, 5.1 & Stereo Plus separate audio only tracks in Dolby Atmos, 5.1 and 96/24 Hi Res Stereo

Or from Yello also in Dolby Atmos

And i am sure no one needs more than 96/24 Hires and i mean it not bacause high Frequencys aviable (i am not an BAT) but because less steep FIlters are usable on DAC'S with 96kHz

On the other Hand i use SMSL SU-2 DACS (CamillaDSP FIR full aktive setup) and they have only one Outputfilter aviable LOOOOOL So there the snake bites his own Arse.

 

[AudioSceptic]

It may depend on whether you talked to anybody who worked for such labels. As I heard it from a low ranking employee of such a label, he was sent out to buy the CD because the label wouldn't provide another version. They did nothing other than pass it on to the manufacturer to make the vinyl master and press it. They got a load of unsolicited testimonials for how much 'better' it sounded. There's the question there of which version of CD they got - an original or a remaster/remix. A lot of the original CD masters from the '80s and '90s have more dynamic range than the more recent remasters. Depending on whether you're listening in a noisy environment, and personal preference, you'll find one 'better' than the other. In a noisy environment I'll probably take the compressed version. In a quiet environment with a good system I'll probably take the one with more dynamic range. Some listening tests have suggested younger listeners prefer the mp3 versions to the original PCM. Preference is odd like that, sometimes taking the familiar distorted version over the unfamiliar cleaner one.

Your last sentence is highly relevant. Consider how much pop and rock music depends on various distortions to get a particular sound. That's a large part of why we like some electric guitar players more than others, as just one example.