Moving from CDs to hi-res downloads

Computer audio and the bargain prices of used CDs got me back into music, but now I'm looking into hi-res downloads. I'd appreciate your advice.

Some people say that hi-res downloads aren't worth it, because we can't hear the difference between 16/44.1 and 24/96. They say that any audible difference is usually due to compression. My ear isn't developed enough to hear the difference, and I want to be sure before I start paying 3-4 times the price of the used CDs that are so plentiful these days (not to mention the price of storage and backup).

If we can do better than 16/44.1, how high is the ceiling? For example, should I pay more for 24/192 than for 24/96?

If quality hi-res music is worth it, do you know of any reliable sources that aren't upsampled or compressed? Are there degrees of acceptable and unacceptable compression that I should know about?

Regards,
Vincent3

 

Ok, you may be opening pandoras box with this topic. Often the difference between the high definition (HD) download and the CD is negligible. It depends on the original source of the music file. Some HD files are sourced from SACD or DVDA or other high information source. Others are nothing more than up sampled 16/44.1 files. You need to know what your downloads are if you are going to get any benefit. If you don't have this information the benefit of buying HD music is a random thing. The "mastering" of the music makes the most difference, the lack of compression or the use of less compression on some HD material is a benefit over compressed media, often the HD and CD sound the same regardless. Most light and middle weight playback systems can't resolve the differences between the two, many people can't hear the difference. This being stated, I have a few HD downloads that are amazing compared to their CD counterparts. Nowadays I constrain my music shopping to vinyl and compact disk.

 

Buy a hi-rez download of an album you already have on CD and do your own comparison. Don't assume you can't hear the difference or rely on the ears of others. You don't know the hearing acuity of the nay-sayers. They could have hearing damage, for all you know.

 

His question is if folks know of high-rez music stores that definitely don't upsample or compress the music, not if he should download from a place proven to do this and determine for himself if an upsampled 44/16 file sounds better. There is definitely such a thing as great sounding high-rez files, but I too am put off by not being sure what I'm going to get - it's not like you can return it if you don't like it.

 

Hi-rez is a scam. Don't bother with it. That's my take on it after ripping my cd collection to disk and trying out a couple dozen 'hi-rez' files.

A new mastering is more important than bit depth. Buy good recordings, don't worry about how many bits there are.

If you want the best sound from cd's try a digital to digital re-clocker like the W4S Remedy. It's a better upgrade than buying all your albums again in 24/96.

 

John Darko just wrote an article about compression / brick walling in Oasis' What's the Story Morning Glory.

http://www.digitalaudioreview.net/2014/10/oasis-whats-the-story-with-the-brickwalling-glory/

 

Buy a couple and check out the scene.

 

The following article should be of interest: http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

 

Well, then, what he doesn't realize is that the stores don't have anything to do with what the files sound like, or what is done to them. That's all on the record label.

 

Bingo!

 

CDs sound better.The weakness seems to be the connection between the computer and DAC.
I have friends with high end DAC /CD/SACD players and the players sound better than the computers on CD and SACD is better again [especially on the Vitus]/
I have used a lot of DACs with my SSD hard drive Mac Mini and none of them sound as good as my old Krell KAV 300 CD player.Not even close.

 

Before spending any substantial amount of money, you should probably do a comparison. Go to a site that has both 16/44 and 24/96 or 24/192 downloads of the same material, get a few tracks and listen to those. Note that you cannot just download a 24/96 track and compare it to a CD version you already own. Doing that would introduce a potentially confounding variable, specifically, the nature and quality of the CD mastering versus the hi-res mastering.

 

Here is a download site that has 16/44.1 and 24/96 files of the same tracks for free.

http://www.bakoonproducts.com/downloads/recordings/

 

This is horrible advice. Please don't pay much attention to it.

I've got over 1000 high resolution recordings, and the great majority of them are definitely worth the money I paid for them.

I fully understand that many can't, or don't know how to hear the differences, but to make a blatant statement that they don't exist is pure ignorance and very misleading.

Sorry if I offended, but there is no doubt in my mind that high resolution recordings can offer a huge advantage over cd's in many cases. I'd surely not try to discourage somebody from enriching their musical listening development, just because I wasn't able to note any difference. Many of us do. There is absolutely no BS about it.

 

This is true.

 

I've spent a fortune on something and now have to tell other people to spend a fortune on it.

Right.

I know someone who bought the newly remastered Led Zep cd's, ripped them, then bought the 'hi-rez' downloads and compared? Result? Hard to tell the difference. If you are comparing the same recording/mastering from 16/44 to 24/96.... the difference is so slight most people wouldn't have a preference.

Sorry you thought the Emperors new clothes were so pretty.

 

If CDs sound "better" to you, it is because the converter in your player is superior to the one in your particular sound card. The problem is not with the cabling or interface.

 

This is true for YOU. It may not be true for everyone else.

The problem with discussions like this is that some people decide that what is true for them must be true for everyone else.

 

This is an honest statement. the can in bold is where it is up to the individual buyer to asses the additional cost vs the benefit.

Sometimes there is a fine line between what people perceive as having no much marginal benefit and a scam. But I think it's wrong to call this a scam.

 

I wasn't really sold on sample rates > 44.1 kHz until I improved my needledropping signal chain and ADC. Having a high resolution digital file that you can downsample yourself is a great way to experiment.

To my ears, 88.2 kHz material easily bests Redbook. The midrange is richer, fuller and more "natural". Vocals sound more like vocals and less like CDs, if that makes sense. Having a modern DAC really helps with hearing the difference.

I used to finish my needledrops to Redbook (and have for years). On a lark, I put raw (no track markers or other processing) 88.2 kHz files on my Fiio X5 and even tooling around in the car, those 88.2 kHz files sound better than 48 kHz or 44.1 kHz. Now, bit depth may have something to do with this as well (those 88.2 kHz files are 24 bit), but that is perhaps a slightly different discussion.

I don't purchase commercial hirez for the issues of provenance that have been discussed ad nauseam. But now that I can actually hear the benefit of higher than Redbook sampling rates, I'm sold. Simply put, if Redbook sounds "digital" to some, higher sampling rates can sound less so, depending on many things.

I was a "sampling rate skeptic", but I'm formally recanting as of now

 

I don't think high-rez should be shoehorned into the same skeptics vs. believers dichotomy that we commonly see in the audiophile tweaks world.

Saying a person "doesn't know how to listen to" a 96/24 track that has simply been upsampled from 44/16 and contains no additional sonic information doesn't accomplish much - there's no room for "to your ears, in your system" in this particular instance.

IMO the thrust in threads like this should be identifying what available high-rez music is actually sourced from high-rez masters and what is bogus. It's similar to asking which reissue LPs come from analog sources and which are basically cut from CDs.

 

It's the opposite for me, I was a huge hirez supporter before, but after upgrading my digital chain with reference selections, my redbook playback got very good, catching up to my hirez material. Currently I find it very difficult to ascertain the difference between same masters in hi rez and redbook. But that being said, often times hirez gets a special mastering not found on redbook. Thus Hi rez is a very selective purchase for me, not due to higher sampling but superior mastering.

 

So after reading everything that has been written here, I stand by my original statement.

 

I don't buy stereo SACDs because of the extra frequency range (which I probably can't hear) but because often they have been carefully remastered. For example, the Stones' ABKCO remasters on SACD are generally considered the best versions of those early albums. So if you buy a hi-res download sourced from the SACD and compare it to the regular CD, you will certainly hear a difference. But this has nothing to do with kHz and bits.

 

Focus on the source...not the bits and sample rates. If the source is inferior, the end sound will be as well. It's like putting lipstick on a pig, dresses the pork up a bit, but in the end, it's still a pig.

There are plenty of examples where hi-rez files are extremely well done - and several where they are not (at least compared to what else is available - eg. CD, LP, etc.). It all comes down to the source and the mastering. Hell, there are redbook discs that are widely known (thought) to be superior to other redbook pressings - same for vinyl as well. This alone should be reason enough to focus your attention on what was used to create the hi-rez file in the first place...not the fact that you have more bits or a higher sampling rate.

A hi-rez download of Nickelback's Dark Horse that came from the same mastering that was used in the creation of the CD would be a waste of money in my opinion. But one that came from the mastering used to create the vinyl...now I'm listening (yes, I have both). The problem is, discovering what was used to make the hi-rez file is often close to impossible. Was it just upsampled from a lower sample rate? What was it upsampled from? Personally, I would never buy a hi-rez file without hearing it first.

There are countless threads on this forum that discuss the "best sounding redbook version of ___" or the "best sounding vinyl version of ___" . While there are often varying opinions as to what is "best", you'll typically see one or two pressings getting lots of votes and one or two others listed as dogs. Since these threads are so prevalent, why would we throw the mastering out the window when the topic changes to hi-rez files?

Just because something is released on vinyl does not mean it will sound better or different from the redbook version. Just becasue you're handed a CD doesn't mean you've got something inferior to another source. Hi-rez is no different. If getting the "best" sound means seeing the lights on your DAC register at 24/96 or greater, then I guess you can assume you've got the best there is. But many other people know better than this.