[POLL] Hi-res music

[DWPress]

I can't really tell the difference between lossy and lossless file formats from my hard drive and my system is pretty resolving.

There are times when I'm streaming from Tidal (regular subscription) where I can hear some distortion though - when I switch to a local file of the same track (not sure if it's the same master) the problem goes away. But I attribute it to the streaming and possible network congestion, way too many variables on that front I think.

 

[JSmith]

this may have created the environment that enables stuff like MQA.

Agree... where there is money to be made and DRM to implement, they swoop in like vultures.



JSmith

 

[Jimbob54]

Let us assume a good share of people agree that MQA is worse than CD quality, they will answer 'cannot hear a difference' (at best).
This (and all the remastering that becomes hi res) will skew the answers. No?
Yes, 'hi res' is so inflated that even technically inclined people don't understand it - and this may have created the environment that enables stuff like MQA.

I only want to know people's perception of hi-res. If we want to know whether they truly can detect a difference and indeed prefer it (or not) that would take a proper controlled study.

Seems to me like the powers that be pushing hi-res might need to work harder.

 

[Deleted member 30699]

I only want to know people's perception of hi-res. If we want to know whether they truly can detect a difference and indeed prefer it (or not) that would take a proper controlled study.

Fair. How about clarifying that the questions is about 'hi-res' _branded_ music?

Seems to me like the powers that be pushing hi-res might need to work harder.

I'm afraid that ship has sailed. Maybe audiosciencereview @amirm could come up with a branding for true high-resolution hardware/software/source quality requirements

 

[Deleted member 30699]

Agree... where there is money to be made and DRM to implement, they swoop in like vultures.

JSmith

Yup. Different topic but I just don't get DRM. If you let me hear (or see) something, I can copy it.
Only way to prevent me from copying something is to not let me hear (see) it and use strong encryption.
Simple view of an engineer

 

[LaL]

I pay the $5 extra for (HD) on Amazon Music so I can have a minimum of 16bit /44.1kHz CD quality.
If I listen to the same track on their web player which is supposed to be 320kbps, and switch back and forth with the desktop player app you can hear the better quality of the apps minimum of 16/44.
I've downloaded a lot of the 24 /192 files for offline playing, that are about 150mb and maybe sometimes I think I hear a difference.
When I listened to MQA on Tidal I found it to be a little bit more sibilant than the regular streamed tracks.

 

[Raindog123]

Let us assume a good share of people agree that MQA is worse than CD quality, they will answer 'cannot hear a difference' (at best).
This (and all the remastering that becomes hi res) will skew the answers. No?
Yes, 'hi res' is so inflated that even technically inclined people don't understand it - and this may have created the environment that enables stuff like MQA

You‘re reading too much into the purpose of this poll. It really got started by one of mieswall’s long tirades (see the opening paragraph). With @Jimbob54 just trying to see how far from reality this “I bet everybody here do believe HD files sound better than Redbook” is. So, here we are...

 

[BinkieHuckerback]

What's the music like?

 

[Jimbob54]

Fair. How about clarifying that the questions is about 'hi-res' _branded_ music?

Nope. I want to know what people think of what is sold as "hi res", ie the stuff with the sticker on. If you pay for a "hi res" streaming service, you're not going to be analysing the file content. And a fair few will assume it "sounds better" just because of the sticker. Ditto mqa.

 

[Zensō]

I have to say, I find this so refreshing. One would be hard pressed to find this level of honesty and lack of self-delusion on any other audio forum.

 

[Robin L]

Nope. I want to know what people think of what is sold as "hi res", ie the stuff with the sticker on. If you pay for a "hi res" streaming service, you're not going to be analysing the file content. And a fair few will assume it "sounds better" just because of the sticker. Ditto mqa.

I got on board with "Hi-Rez Audio" early on with low-cost DVD players that doubled on SACD, eventually getting "Universal Players" or Universal enough players. This was around 2004. I assumed that the DSD layer of a SACD would sound better, now I'm pretty sure it doesn't. I do like surround, but that is another issue: found out that I liked Dolby surround just as much as discreet [SACD and DVD-A] surround. In any case, use Amazon Music a bit, like the higher tier better than when I had the lower tier. My Apple Lossless rips seem to have the same quality as Amazon Music HD, except when things go haywire, as they seem to on some of the older, more obscure titles in their catalog. Sometimes there's inexplicable wow 'n' flutter.

 

[JEntwistle]

I used Tidal for about 3 years, and recently started a trial for Qobuz. Obviously a lot of this content is just 44.1/16bit but there is high res stuff mixed in. As many have stated, differences come down more to the master, or the conversion though, so that's where it gets complicated.

I definitely cannot hear a difference between it and well made .mp3's in a blind test, but to me there's some sort of peace of mind that comes from having high res files, almost like I don't have to worry about it, because I'm getting the best quality streaming that's available, and that's that, whether audible or not. To me the hifi streaming prices are cheap, I mean getting access to thousands and thousands of songs, many of which I would never own or have access to if I was just buying cds, is amazing. I also listen to lots of stuff I would probably never own, and am more open to trying new types of music with streaming services. I remember buying a cd for one song in the past and hating the rest of the album, or buying albums without ever being able to hear them before hand and being disappointed. That was a part of the fun for sure, but also can be frustrating.

Ultimately it would be nice to actually own the music, or have exact info on what master I'm listening to, but I think the benefits of streaming in general, especially high res outweighs all of that. I think where we can make better progress with the streaming services is just providing more info about the actual file, and the process it's been through to get to that point.

I'm not sure how Qobuz presents the albums, but on Amazon HD, the albums are labeled so that you determine which version you are listening to. I often go and look up the details separately after I find something new.

 

[BinkieHuckerback]

The 'Hi-Res' logo is ok

 

[Deleted member 30699]

You‘re reading too much into the purpose of this poll. It really got started by one of mieswall’s long tirades (see the opening paragraph). With @Jimbob54 just trying to see how far from reality this “I bet everybody here do believe HD files sound better than Redbook” is. So, here we are...

I agree. Just for fun, a couple of more detailed "technical" hi-res questions:
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/high-resolution-audio-inquery.22678/

Feel free to recommend additional statements

 

[Deleted member 30699]

Nope. I want to know what people think of what is sold as "hi res", ie the stuff with the sticker on. If you pay for a "hi res" streaming service, you're not going to be analysing the file content. And a fair few will assume it "sounds better" just because of the sticker. Ditto mqa.

Ok. Just for fun, can I ask a couple of more technical high-resolution questions?
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/high-resolution-audio-inquery.22678/

 

[JSmith]

Sometimes there's inexplicable wow 'n' flutter

Are you suggesting they're selling vinyl rips?



JSmith

 

[Robin L]

Are you suggesting they're selling vinyl rips?



JSmith

One [Chopin Etudes, Claudio Arrau] was. A mono recording with surface noise in stereo. But this is something that infests certain tracks on one play, usually not the next.

 

[flyzipper]

The most accurate response for me...

Out of curiosity, I paid for a limited number of hi-res titles in the past, but since I can't discern an improvement over Red Book files, I no longer do.

 

[Bullwinkle J Moose]

High rez is irrelevant

I can remaster 100 bad CD's and put the result in a 128Kbps mp3 containers and virtually every one of you will claim that the vast majority of MP3 tracks are higher rez than the original CD tracks they came from (in a double blind test)

 

[Bullwinkle J Moose]

And with integer ratios they are? Hint: no, they are not.

Here are diffs of a pink noise resampled to 88'200 and 96'000 and then back to 44'100, using SoX:
View attachment 125061 View attachment 125062

I thought you were nuts until I retested

you were correct, and I was wrrrr.........I was wrrrrrr......

I was.............not entirely correct (LoL)

Lesson Learned
Leave sample rate alone