Do you hear an improvement with Hi-Res?

On most things 24/96 or above I hear a distinct difference. When the redbook is exceptionally well done then I usually hear some improvements when playing HiRes.

 

I voted "not sure" because I don't know if it's high-res itself, or the mastering at play.

I've done some of my own tests with vinyl as needle drops where there is information above 44khz. I've saved these as 24/96 FLAC files and downsampled to 16/44 lossless and ABX tested, and I'm hard pressed to hear a difference.

I've also done this with at least one HDTracks offering, with the same result - very hard to tell them apart. I think that it's just too early to say for me, and that I'd need to get a bigger sample to play with. I'm still saving my drops as 24/96 however, as I figure that I might upgrade my hardware later and the differences may become more significant.

 

It would be interesting reading what CDs/SACDs/DVDAs people are using for comparison as there isn't a heck of a lot of them that have the same mastering across formats. Otherwise it's not apples to apples.

 

I use the redbook layer of a hybrid to compare with the Sacd.

 

In many cases the masterings are different.

A reliable one is the Credence SACDs.

 

This would be a good point, except that almost all of the hi-res recordings I've listened to seem to have common characteristics that have little to do with mastering. I'm talking about depth, three dimensionalty, low level detail and things like that. I do realize that in general when multiple recordings have common sounds it's usually the sound of the system, but in this case it's different. These are not necessariy common sounds, but common qualities that just don't seem to exist with CDs.

I've even heard Hi-Res recordings with unfavorable masterings that have these characteristics. An example of this is the Nirvana offering on HDTracks. Yes it's compressed more than most would like, and consequently many have dismissed is as inferior to other releases of the same title. This may be, but it still has those characteristics I savor.

I keep going back to one thing. Apparently many here either don't notice or don't assign much value these qualities. I've panned remixes many times because they usually have altered reverb sounds. Most seem to say, "who cares?" To me that's a huge thing, and as important as the sounds of the instruments, while to others it is insignificant. Well, one of the main reasons I love the hi-res recordings is because of the sounds of the reverbs. If that is a meaningless distinction to so many, I'm not surprised that many don't appreciate the differences between CD and Hi-Res.

 

True, but many are the same, like Steve's AS Blue Note SACDs for instance.

 

This is my experience as well.

 

Or Roxy Music Avalon, Bowie's Ziggy Stardust, Scary Monsters, etc... In fact I think *generally* the hybrids have the same mastering on both layers...?

 

Nailed it!


Easy to compare on the 40th Aqualung. More there, there. Yes, I hear a significant improvement.

 

It really depends on the title in my experience.

 

I'm going with significant improvement as well.

 

My experience and conclusions are similar to your post. Anyone that can't hear a difference on one of the better Hi-Rez discs from redbook either has hearing problems or something is drastically wrong in their equipment. There are musical nuances missing from redbook audio, no matter how much care the mastering engineer took with it. Guitars and other instruments sound much closer to the real thing from Hi-Rez.

The only complaint one may have is that Hi-Rez is too good and that it reveals all the flaws in the original production that were hidden by CD. That effect is particularly noticeable on older recordings where studio trickery was employed.

 

Agree also, these are the improvements that I notice when comparing "low" vs "high" res files on my computer. HD files that I have purchased from HDTracks remind me the three dimensionally of vinyl.
On the other hand, I cannot say that I notice that much of a difference when comparing redbook vs SACD layer on my stereo.

Maybe my Sony does a pretty good job in "upconverting" redbook and eliminating major differences between cd and SACD? Maybe there is no much difference to begin with? Maybe there is something else that happens?

 

Absolutely! The E-MU 0404 USB can handle up to 24 bit/192 khz and I made sure they were setup to replicate the exact bit/sample rate of the music. No difference.

Oh, it's more than OK, because I can focus on buying better masterings instead of improving my gear.

 

To all the tin ears out there (like me), thanks for your honesty in the midst of gearhead audiophiles. (<-- Not a slam.) I fully understand the want to hear something better but in the end not hearing it.

 

Dude, don't feel bad! We can buy more music! Hooray for music!

 

I went significant, mainly for 96/24 & 192/24 2ch DVDA. IMHO its so superior to Redbook, no discussion is needed.

 

I wouldn't be so harsh. The experience and to know what to listen for play a big part in it.

 

Same.

My gut is telling me it's my hardware that's at fault - for example, I've proven recently that my Cowon D3, although it plays back 24/96, doesn't actually output 96khz. Did this test via an analog record and a Spek test. I also read that Rockbox doesn't do true 24/96 either, it allegedly downsamples to 44khz.

All my tests really need to be on my DAC, which should be outputting to 24/96. So if most of my setup isn't really taking advantage of 24/96, it's going to take time to really know for sure (for me).

I'm not even sure if my Audigy2 does true 24/96 -- something to read up on. I have the KX Project drivers, but I might need to tweak some things.

 

I think I said this on an earlier thread, but one example of a difference I can hear with hi-rez digital audio was the HDAD of I Robot by The Alan Parsons Project. Changing between the 24/96 and 24/192 layer I could hear a difference in the may the music resolved itself in relation to the noise floor. In both cases tape hiss was audible (as I assume it should have been) but in listening to it through headphones the hiss seemed to separate from the music in a way I didn't hear from my old Arista CD, and in being separate thew music was easier to hear at lower volumes than before, even though the hiss level was not any lower itself. Further to that, the separation seemed to take on an aspect of height, as if the hiss did not recede behind the music but tended to rise to a plane above where I was hearing the music if I concentrated on hearing it. This apparent height was higher on the 24/192 layer than on the 24/96 layer.

Now what would happen with a digitally recorded album would probably be another story.

 

That's about my experience as well. I'm only really interested in DVD-A and SACD for surround mixes. I actually voted "I'm not sure" because often I don't hear a notable difference and when I do, I'm not sure I'm imagining it. Either way, it's far from significant or night and day. I guess that means something is wrong with my gear or my ears, according to some here.

 

But if it was really such a clear improvement, shouldn't everyone be able to hear it without these requirements?

 

I put significant, but with a few disclaimers.

Not all are significant, and in some cases, actual masterings or simply better recordings at "normal res" can sound better at times, depending on what aspects of the recording are being put to the test.

With classical the difference is most notable to me, But some rock stuff the added resolution seems almost wasted or not taken advantage of by lack of air or resolution in the original recording.

Sometimes a lot, sometimes barely at all. Many factors!

 

Not necessarily. You may just need somebody to help show you what to listen for. Until you cross that threshold it may be hard to hear the distinctions, but once you see the light it never goes off.

I hear the differences here on my smaller systems, but they're much more pronounced on the big rig.

I've mentioned this before, but I have a friend who had a large TV with 2 speakers in it. They were wired out of phase, which was extremely obvious to me. I couldn't for the life of me demonstrate this to him, and I tried every trick I know. How he could not hear something that was so obvious to me is something I can't explain.

Of course this had nothing to do with the quality of his system. It was strictly a matter of me having experience hearing these types of things. Needless to say, he thinks mp3's sound just fine and can't believe others can hear a difference between them and CD's. Obviously he wouldn't bother with hi-res if he's content with lo-res.

Btw, just yesterday I was in my local Best Buy and by the Apple notebook section they have a large demo kiosk with two speakers wired out of phase. I walked by and couldn't help but notice it. I surely wasn't trying to hear it. I pointed it out to the manager and he asked me how I could tell. He said he'd look at the wiring, but if it wasn't wired wrong he'd not change it, giving me the impression that he didn't believe me. He also said that I was the only one to mention it. How could it be that nobody else noticed this, or that the manager had no way to tell other than to look at the wiring?

If this is typical for the average listener, it's not hard to understand how the average listener would not appreciate hi-res. If you can't tell if speakers have reversed polarity, you most likely can't recognize any of the other benefits of hi-res.

I'm surely not trying to insult anybody here, and I assume most of us can tell if our speakers are in phase with each other, but who really knows?