Do you think High res audio is an audible improvement over CD quality sound?

Discussion in 'Audio Hardware' started by Higlander, Jan 12, 2018 at 12:19 PM.

  1. ralf11

    ralf11 Active Member

    No, I think he is asking the right question.

    From a consumer viewpoint, the thing to do is to find the best sounding 'thing' which will likely involve recording/mastering and to some extent bit depth & rate too... not to mention all the components in the consumer's audio chain...
    angelo73 likes this.
  2. ggg71

    ggg71 Active Member

    Boston, MA
    I voted "Maybe, not sure."

    From a technical perspective, I want to believe that increased resolution sounds better. I know many people here on this forum claim it does. My stereo is by no means low end, and sadly I can't hear a difference. I don't think my hearing is the greatest though, so I'm hoping all of you silver eared devils are enjoying the really good stuff!
    apesfan and angelo73 like this.
  3. Steve Hoffman

    Steve Hoffman Your Host Your Host

    Of course it (can) sound better. I've explained the "Creedence Test" DSD vs. PCM too many times to type it over here though. If someone else wants to oblige, my thanks.
    56GoldTop, LeeS, Soundslave and 6 others like this.
  4. telepicker97

    telepicker97 Forum Resident

    Depends on the mastering.
    enfield likes this.
  5. telepicker97

    telepicker97 Forum Resident

    I've read that myself, and no reason to doubt it at all.
    angelo73 likes this.
  6. avanti1960

    avanti1960 Forum Resident

    Chicago metro, USA
    interesting thread!
    a bit better sounding all else being equal. a double rate DSD file of a wyntom marsalis recording is the second best sounding recording that I own- right next to a 33-1/3 LP of "the nightfly" by donald fagan.
    in general DSD > CD >>>> MP3 to my ears.
    Kiko1974 likes this.
  7. Channel Z

    Channel Z Forum Resident

    I have compared DVDA vs. CD on my sound system with the following:

    Donald Fagen-The Nightfly
    Could not hear any difference between them. The DVDA was slightly louder that's all.

    Talking Heads- Speaking In Tongues
    Again could not hear any difference between them.

    I'm not saying someone with better speakers cannot hear a difference. I cannot on my audio equipment. I'll stick to CD and Vinyl.
  8. Rose River Bear

    Rose River Bear Forum Resident

    An interesting poll but too many variables invovled as others have stated. We probably all have different systems. I really heard the difference when I spent a good amount on an SACD player. I voted Yes far better.
    angelo73, LeeS and Mr. Explorer like this.
  9. Kiko1974

    Kiko1974 Active Member

    DSD is my prefered sound format. DSD done well (good masstering, no PCM intermediate steps) definetely sounds better than CD and even 192/24, it has an "ease" to the ears that I think PCM lacks. It didn't surprised me when on the early days of the format it was called "Doesn't Sound Digital".
    LeeS and Mr. Explorer like this.
  10. walrus

    walrus Forum Resident

    Nashville, TN
    I've tried noticing a difference between the same master at 24/96 and 16/44, and honestly, it's barely discernible on my HE-560's. I love the idea, and think that, when it's available, we might as well use the higher rates (because so much of audio enjoyment is subliminal and how the brain perceives frequencies), but I don't think there's a tangible difference.

    When I rip my LP's, I do them at 16/48 (the Phono Box USB can't output any higher than that, unfortunately), and it's completely adequate for my needs. I really don't think I'm losing anything I can actively hear by doing it that way.
    apesfan and angelo73 like this.
  11. Kiko1974

    Kiko1974 Active Member

    Wasn't The Nightfly an early, so no High Res, digital. recording?
    DPM, LeeS and telepicker97 like this.
  12. Channel Z

    Channel Z Forum Resident

    I'm checking it out now it says:

    Advanced Resolution Stereo (48kHz/24 bit). This is the DVD Audio from 2002.
    I guess that's not much difference from CD. But I think you should hear a little difference between the two. I cannot.
  13. telepicker97

    telepicker97 Forum Resident

    I mean, wasnt that one like 12b+4b w/a converter?
  14. telepicker97

    telepicker97 Forum Resident

  15. Higlander

    Higlander Forum Resident Thread Starter

    Florida, Central
  16. Dante Fontana

    Dante Fontana Active Member

    When doing needledrops I've noticed the raw file at 44KHz with a 32-bit float (whatever that actually means) played in Audacity sounding slightly more alive than the exported 16-bit version played through iTunes, but then the problem could be iTunes. I wasn't on the lookout for a difference at all because I had assumed the sound would be identical.
    Mr. Explorer likes this.
  17. nedwho

    nedwho Member

    Hong Kong
    I voted ‘maybe not sure’.

    For standard CD 2 channel listening I use Cambridge audio 851a through 851C amp. I tend not to hear any major difference if I listen to the same album on 2 channel via Blu-ray or DVD-A on my oppo - despite the fact that the latter would almost always be hi-res or at least higher res than cd (my main point of comparison here would be sets that include the album on CD + higher resolution Blu-ray or DVD - like the King Crimson 40th anniversary series, Jethro Tull book sets, & XTC surround series).

    Very occasionally something sounds a bit ‘sharper’ on hi-res than CD - the Pet Sounds 50th springs to mind.
    angelo73 and Mr. Explorer like this.
  18. LeeS

    LeeS Roll Tape!

    The more resolution one’s rig has, the more obvious the sound quality boost from hirez but you can hear it on a $100 Audioquest Dragonfly.
  19. TapeHoarderDude

    TapeHoarderDude New Member

    Because there probably isn't. The CD engineers of the 80s had it correct, that 16-bit/44.1khz was sufficient for the human ear. Anything higher, they concluded would not be discernible unless you had the right set up, which most people do not.
  20. testikoff

    testikoff Forum Resident

    Oh, I forgot to also provide a link to post containing spectral graphs of 2 excerpts & their null-test delta...
  21. ccbarr

    ccbarr Forum Resident

    Iowa, USA
    I hear quite an improvement on some albums, Rumours in 24/96 coming out of my Pono comes to mind. But it could be just that, my mind. But I do tend to think High Res sounds better.
  22. Tony Plachy

    Tony Plachy Forum Resident

    Pleasantville, NY
    I am sorry that is not how I understood your post: "I wonder why others have had great results using 16/44.1 doing rips of vinyl?" If you have a digital recorder that allows you to experiment with formats such as 16/88.2 or 20/88.2 or 16/176.4 you will find that it is the higher sampling rates that give better sound and that the higher quantization bits are less important. I could go into a long discussion of why higher sampling rates give better sound quality, but it is late and I am tired. If you are really interested, reply back in this thread and I will address it on Sunday (my Saturday is already full).
    LeeS and IanL like this.
  23. Tony Plachy

    Tony Plachy Forum Resident

    Pleasantville, NY
    Can you please give me an AES reference on this?
    LeeS likes this.
  24. abzach

    abzach Well-Known Member

    If it's brick walled it doesn't matter.
  25. Mr Bass

    Mr Bass Forum Resident

    Mid Atlantic
    My answer of a Modest improvement is based on hearing the same recording in the studio at different levels of PCM resolution from 176 to 88 to 44. I happen to like DSD and would guess that DSD would have produced a further subjective improvement.
    Mr. Explorer and Higlander like this.

Share This Page