Do you hear an improvement with Hi-Res?

Discussion in 'Music Corner' started by Plan9, Mar 5, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. testikoff

    testikoff Seasoned n00b

    The revelation of the year?
     
  2. soundQman

    soundQman Senior Member

    Location:
    Arlington, VA, USA
    Hardly, but it's worth noting that these folks have taken a comprehensive approach to evaluating different digital music file formats and players and have published their observations. Others are free to repeat the experiments to see if the results can be repeated and verified. That's science, is it not, however loose and vague the evaluations are ? A step in the right direction, anyway. :)
     
  3. hazard

    hazard Forum Resident

    So they recommend against FLAC downloads - interesting. I have done informal listening tests, can't tell the difference. But more critically, what do they think of MLP?? I think nearly all DVD-As are compressed with MLP, if compression is bad does that mean all DVD-As are flawed by the use of MLP?
     
  4. brimuchmuze

    brimuchmuze Forum Resident

    Did they do ABX testing?

    If there are audible differences in their testing, it really points to poor software/hardware.
     
  5. SBurke

    SBurke Nostalgia Junkie

    Location:
    Philadelphia, PA
    10 points? What does that mean? :confused: If there really were an issue, couldn't you just convert the FLAC to WAV and go from there?
     
  6. Robin L

    Robin L Musical Omnivore

    Location:
    Fresno, California
    My best SACDs—the Living Stereo series of Classical titles from RCA—are obviously better than their Redbook counterparts. Some SACDs are also as clearly improved over their Redbook versions. Some SACDs I've heard were not as clear an improvement over the CD but more than enough were. There's more "there" there.
     
  7. tspit74

    tspit74 Senior Member

    Location:
    Woodridge, IL, USA
    I hear an improvement.

    However, the improvement doesn't provide enough overall "enjoyment" to justify any further purchases or aquisitions of SACD's or DVD-A's. I prefer "feel" over "detail" and just don't get enough of it digitally. Vinyl when available. Otherwise, I don't much care. Once it's gone digital, it's been compromised. It just isn't the real deal for me.

    The above is an oversimplification. But with literally tens of thousands of records at my disposal and multiple thousands of cd's and files, I just don't care about high rez.
     
  8. Matthew B.

    Matthew B. Scream Quietly

    Location:
    Tokyo, Japan
    Nope.

    These are the guys who claim that converting from WAV to FLAC to WAV again degrades the file. It's a bunch of nonsense.
     
  9. Metralla

    Metralla Joined Jan 13, 2002

    Location:
    San Jose, CA
    Might be time to think about upgrading your NAD turntable. ;)
     
  10. john greenwood

    john greenwood Senior Member

    Location:
    NYC
    A lot of variables at play here (of course). Having to choose, I went with subtle instead of significant. In my experience, the improvement is not as great as I hear with better mastering (e.g.).
     
  11. TVC15

    TVC15 Forum Resident

    Location:
    New Jersey
    The issue for me is: am I hearing the effects of "high res", or of a remaster? I'm not sure I've heard a single straight transfer at high-res and then offered the opportunity to compare against the same source at lower resolution.

    With my needle drops, I don't hear a diff between 16 bit and 24 bit at 44khz. But could be my capture method.
     
  12. Metralla

    Metralla Joined Jan 13, 2002

    Location:
    San Jose, CA
    That would be possible with certain hybrids. SH has stated that his Creedence SACDs have exactly the same mastering on the CD and DSD layers.
     
  13. tootull

    tootull Looking through a glass onion

    Location:
    Canada
    :cool:
    I love Blu-ray
     
  14. mando_dan

    mando_dan Forum Resident

    Location:
    Beverly, MA
    Very true. If the test was blind and has a statistically sound basis, I'm in. Until then skeptical.
     
  15. stuckinthe60's

    stuckinthe60's Forum Resident

    Location:
    Princeton, NJ
    Yup. You can use foobar 2000's Bit-Compare component, to name one, to easily refute this preposterous claim. You can convert between and among any lossless codecs and wav. until the cows come home, and the file remains the same.
     
  16. soundQman

    soundQman Senior Member

    Location:
    Arlington, VA, USA
    I have no idea what it means, other than they have scaled their ratings of various files (relative to a score of 100 I presume) to give a rough listening impression comparison. I'm at the inquiring stage, investigating the technologies before I actually go and buy anything like high res downloads on line, playback software, or an external hard drive to configure as a music server. The articles are useful starting points for thinking about the different options, if nothing else. I'm quite happy that the WAV files and FLAC files are identical sonically and datawise, if that's true. I'd rather not waste time doing conversions.
     
  17. chriss71

    chriss71 Active Member

    Location:
    Austria
    I quote me on my own. Interesting article: http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

    Worth to read it!

    :cheers:
     
  18. testikoff

    testikoff Seasoned n00b

    ^ You may wanna make sure your profile lists your digital playback chain in its entirety then ;)
     
  19. Metralla

    Metralla Joined Jan 13, 2002

    Location:
    San Jose, CA
    It's been linked a couple of times already, and has a dedicated thread. Please post in that thread if you want to comment on this article.
     
  20. chriss71

    chriss71 Active Member

    Location:
    Austria
    Yep, I just saw it seconds ago!
     
  21. Plan9

    Plan9 Mastering Engineer Thread Starter

    Location:
    Toulouse, France
    Seems like a bit more than 3 out of 4 people feel that Hi-Res provides a benefit.

    I am myself pushing the artists I work for to offer HR versions of their music (of course all my masterings are at least in 24bits resolution).
     
  22. brimuchmuze

    brimuchmuze Forum Resident

    I like what Bleep has done for the last couple of Brian Eno projects: purchase the CD, and get instant access to 24/44.1 files and 320kbps mp3's as well.
     
  23. kevin5brown

    kevin5brown Analog or bust.

    Well ... another way to look at it is that right now, the majority holds that the improvement is subtle to none. :wave:
     
  24. GT40sc

    GT40sc Senior Member

    Location:
    Eugene, Oregon
    Yes, I do believe that Hi-Rez makes a difference.

    But...

    Spend some time in the recording studio. Listen to the loss of fidelity from the live band, the raw monitor feed in the control room, down to the hi-rez digital multitrack.

    OK, don't worry about that...can't do anything about it...so be at peace, and do your best.

    After overdubs and mixing (all in hi-rez) you will have to take your mix down to 16-bit/44.1 for CD mastering.

    The result can be quite disappointing, and will cause you to question many decisions made throughout the recording, mixing, and production process.

    Reverb, delay, and other subtle effects will suffer the most, as the low-level resolution goes to hell--in comparison to the hi-rez mixdown. EQ may sound different as well; when smooth, gradual tone-shaping can feel much more jagged and raw at 16-bit.

    If you get too cranio-rectal about it, you may even begin to doubt the recording itself...that rhythm part should have been a Paul instead of a Tele, and the whole song would feel much better at 2 bpm slower...

    Have fun, kids...and let's be careful out there.
     
  25. I have just lost all faith in that publication and won't be able to take anything they say seriously.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

molar-endocrine