HiRes makes no sense?

[bigpilot]

This article states that HiRes makes no sense and is only useful for mastering and production.

"the SACD version of a recording can sound substantially better than the CD release. It's not because of increased sample rate or depth but because the SACD used a higher-quality master. When bounced to a CD-R, the SACD version still sounds as good as the original SACD and better than the CD release because the original audio used to make the SACD was better."

IMHO this is rubbish. DSD sounds vastly better than Red Book CD and can reproduce sounds CD simply cannot.

 

[krabapple]

No, it isn't rubbish. Monty's article is right.

The 'vastly better' sound you claim to hear is due to different sourcing/mastering, and, it could be, simple output level difference. Not digital format.

 

[MAB]

This article states that HiRes makes no sense and is only useful for mastering and production.

"the SACD version of a recording can sound substantially better than the CD release. It's not because of increased sample rate or depth but because the SACD used a higher-quality master. When bounced to a CD-R, the SACD version still sounds as good as the original SACD and better than the CD release because the original audio used to make the SACD was better."

IMHO this is rubbish. DSD sounds vastly better than Red Book CD and can reproduce sounds CD simply cannot.

First you would need to prove you can hear a difference.

 

[respice finem]

HiRes etc. makes sense - for the people profiting from the "hype"

 

[Vincent Kars]

DSD sounds vastly better than Red Book CD and can reproduce sounds CD simply cannot.

Really?

You think bombarding your gear with an excessive high amount of quantization noise is an improvement?

 

[Ralph_Cramden]

This article states that HiRes makes no sense and is only useful for mastering and production.


IMHO this is rubbish. DSD sounds vastly better than Red Book CD and can reproduce sounds CD simply cannot.

Then prove it in a double blind test. Show your results.

 

[voodooless]

DSD sounds vastly better than Red Book CD and can reproduce sounds CD simply cannot.

None of those you can hear, though..

 

[Purité Audio]

Rob Watts can.
Keith

 

[levimax]

IMHO this is rubbish. DSD sounds vastly better than Red Book CD and can reproduce sounds CD simply cannot.

No one likes to have people tell them they are wrong so often these discussions devolve. I would suggest you figure it out for yourself as once you experience it you will know and not have to rely on dueling "internet experts". All you need is a "re-sampling" program which are available for free or my favorite is dBPoweramp, and an ABX program like foobar2000 ABX. Then simply take your favorite super Hi-Res DSD recording and downsample it to redbook. Then play the original file and the downsampled file in the ABX program and see if you can tell them apart. I have found this exercise to be well worth the effort and it may even save you thousands of dollars.

 

[voodooless]

Rob Watts can.
Keith

I don’t think he’s much of DSD fan, though. You can’t squeeze that data-stream though a bunch of taps , at least not without conversion.

 

[bigpilot]

No, it isn't rubbish. Monty's article is right.

The 'vastly better' sound you claim to hear is due to different sourcing/mastering, and, it could be, simple output level difference. Not digital format.

Then why can't I hear the sound reproduced the same way on the Red Book layer of the SACD?

 

[krabapple]

Then why can't I hear the sound reproduced the same way on the Red Book layer of the SACD?

You can, if they use the same mastering, and if you match output levels.

And to avoid sighted bias, do the comparison blind.

 

[bigpilot]

First you would need to prove you can hear a difference.

I have a SACD player and a CD player and dual-layer SACDs where the Red Book (CD) layer is digitally derived from the DSD layer.

I can clearly hear a difference, mostly in the width and depth of the sound stage, but also in the reproduction of certain instruments. And that with dynamic speakers.

I also own electrostatic speakers and these can clearly reproduce sounds that no dynamic speaker can. Same difference.

 

[Ropeburn]

No one likes to have people tell them they are wrong so often these discussions devolve. I would suggest you figure it out for yourself as once you experience it you will know and not have to rely on dueling "internet experts". All you need is a "re-sampling" program which are available for free or my favorite is dBPoweramp, and an ABX program like foobar2000 ABX. Then simply take your favorite super Hi-Res DSD recording and downsample it to redbook. Then play the original file and the downsampled file in the ABX program and see if you can tell them apart. I have found this exercise to be well worth the effort and it may even save you thousands of dollars.

Foobar ABX is the friend few deserve, but everyone needs.

 

[Ruediger]

A better mastering can make a huge difference. Much more than CD vs. HiRes formats. But the reason is not technical quality but work quality.

 

[bigpilot]

No, it isn't rubbish. Monty's article is right.

The 'vastly better' sound you claim to hear is due to different sourcing/mastering, and, it could be, simple output level difference. Not digital format.

"Vastly better" is subjective. The difference can be quite small but for an audiophile hugely important and insightful.

 

[Purité Audio]

I have a SACD player and a CD player and dual-layer SACDs where the Red Book (CD) layer is digitally derived from the DSD layer.

I can clearly hear a difference, mostly in the width and depth of the sound stage, but also in the reproduction of certain instruments. And that with dynamic speakers.

I also own electrostatic speakers and these can clearly reproduce sounds that no dynamic speaker can. Same difference.

I have to ask what kind of sounds can they reproduce ( that no dynamic speakers can ) ?
Keith

 

[CDMC]

I also own electrostatic speakers and these can clearly reproduce sounds that no dynamic speaker can. Same difference.

Which sounds are those? Wondering what instruments and sounds don’t play through my cone speakers.

 

[CDMC]

"Vastly better" is subjective. The difference can be imaginary but for an audiophile hugely important and insightful.

Fixed it for you.

 

[amirm]

Foobar ABX is the friend few deserve, but everyone needs.

You can't use Foobar for DSD playback.

The reason to use high-res is if it uses a better master and to a smaller extent, avoid the conversion to 44.1/16 which may have been faulty. With storage and bandwidth being essentially free for audio, might as well play the high res version if available to you for the same price.