Hi-Res, High End Hardware and Old Ears

And anytime your in a very loud environment, using loud tools etc.

 

Does it ever! No musicality whatsoever in the sound. What a waste of time and effort by all involved that the end result sounds like *that*!

The irony that anyone would or should ever use that in any way for any audiophile-related purposes unless to show exactly what *not* to do is disheartening. One of the most revolting sounding productions I've heard in a while.

Now, where's that barf emoticon?

 

Totally respect your opinion,but i think it needs highlighting that any benefits of Hi-Rez remain debatable.Especially the argument that it provides better resolution across the whole spectrum.

 

That isn't debatable. What is is whether you hear it. Some so-called hi-res albums are simply up-sampled to 96KHz in which case there's no difference from a CD if that mastering is what was up-sampled. The real hi-res albums are factually providing better resolution and I've already mentioned the factors which would need to be present for there to be a chance to notice a difference.

 

The audible changes due to being better able to hear absolute polarity affects the whole spectrum from bass to treble.
Get gear that allows you to hear the effects of changing absolute polarity and learn how to hear those differences and you'll be on the way to being able to hear some benefits of high-res.

 

Wow...this sounds like a lot of work (and $) to (possibly) hear differences. My 50-year-old ears are good with CD-level software/hardware.

 

Right..So now you have to be able hear something that is highly debatable,in order to hear something else that is highly debatable.?
As someone said previously on this forum. 'If there are many dozens of pages of debate as to whether something sounds different or not,then it probably doesn't.'

 

Until someone can pick out hi-rez over 16-bit in a controlled blind listening test then it is debatable.

 

Sounds like you just want to pick stir the pot. Take care.

 

Nah, he just doesn't want to buy the gear that is good enough to hear these things. Cause it requires some subjective listening to find that gear. Can't find it by measurements alone.

 

Not at all..But just saying: 'I am convinced that Hi-rez sounds better' is not proof that it does.It's just a valid opinion.
The same as my opinion is as valid that it sounds identical to CD quality . (Given the same mastering).

 

So you have to have certain magical gear,and have advanced hearing in order to pick out hi-rez?
That conveniently rules out blind listening tests then.

 

I could be off base here, but I assume the brain also helps to fill in information, especially with a well known song or piece, kind of like reading a well known book that's a little blurry or missing words here and there. So, I think I agree that it's not as simple as "you can only hear X frequency this well, so your ability to recognize music quality is broken."

 

Tell the synths we apologize...

 

My hearing starts diminishing by about 12.5 kHz, and by 14 kHz I hear nothing. However, it hasn't stopped me from hearing pretty much everything there is in music, including subtle improvements. Case in point: I bought Aperion super-tweeters for both pairs of my tower speakers, and I can certainly hear the HF resolution improvements. Mainly hi-hats and brushes (in Jazz), also an occasional triangle (the instrument), are all much better defined and audible.

As to hi-rez files, the only instance I use them is FLAC's in my phone, for use at the gym and the beach. There, I don't expect much to begin with, although the sound coming from the quad-DAC of my LG V40 into relatively high-impedance cans is way better that what I used to get from iPhone and low-impedance cans.

At home though, where most of my listening done, I use no "files" or streaming: it's only vinyl, Redbook CD, and FM radio - and I can hear everything I need to hear. Even if there's anything to hear above what my super-tweeters are able to reproduce - that's something I can easily live without.

 

Exactly! And remember that exposure to moderately loud noises over time can do just as much or more damage than short duration noises that are extremely loud.

 

Here's a recording I have that is able to demonstrate the benefits I hear with high-res compared to CD. I've mentioned this recording in other posts about high-res.

The recording is Ēriks Ešenvalds: The Doors of Heaven performed by the Portland State University Chamber Choir. The recording engineer was John Atkinson from Stereophile.
High-res version available at Qobuz and other high-res shops: Album Ēriks Ešenvalds: The Doors of Heaven, Portland State University Chamber Choir | Qobuz: download and streaming in high quality
CD version available direct from Naxos: Eriks Ešenvalds: The Doors of Heaven - NaxosDirect

Get both and compare. The CD and high-res are very budget priced. $9 for the CD shipped and $9 for the high-res download.

In the high-res version there is an envelope around the sounds that is more enveloping than the CD version. More ambiance with the high-res. Better imaging. On the first track there is a bass drum that is more lifelike in the high-res version vs the CD. The bass drum hits show off the acoustics of the church the recording was made in. The high-res does it better than the CD version. And there is something that just makes the bass drum hits more lifelike in the high-res version. And yes, you can flip absolute polarity and hear differences.

 

You don't need or want to hear ultrasonic frequencies to enjoy hi res. In the case of SACD, the noise shaping approach pushes the noise up into the ultrasonic range, so you wouldn't want to hear that even if you could. Plus, you have no need to hear your neighbor's dog whistle.

There's no reason to stick with red book or MP3 when hi res is a much better product. I'm speaking as much to the content creators as the end users.

 

But there is always those that try to get less out if life than they could for the same investment. Seek every way possible to diminish the return. It's a way of life. They pop up for every hi-rez thread to tell you they can't... I'm sure it applies to every aspect of life.

CJ

 

There are other aspects you are missing.

A) - I have a couple of thousands CD's, literally. Do you really think I want to spend time, effort, and money for a huge hard drive (that may one day die and take all these files with it) in order to rip all of them?

B) - CD's offer an organized and easily accessible storage, way more convenient than browsing through tens of thousands of entries on your computer looking for a certain album, artist, or song. I sometimes find a CD I want to play be remembering the color of the cover and/or its approximate location in the rack (if I don't remember the name exactly). Good luck doing the same on your computer, when all your visual memory cues are gone. And, finally:

C) - With a good DAC, amp, and speakers, i.e. - a quality Hi-Fi system, CD's are capable of sounding tremendously good. Good enough, in fact, that you don't feel the need for improvement (I know I don't). We all know that theoretically there is always something better, but we don't always need or have to have it. My Zu Denon 103 cartridge sounds so good at $500 that I don't need a $2,000 Lyra Delos, even if I know (presume) that it's way better and can afford the Delos.

You want to go hi-rez - by all means, enjoy yourselves. But don't try to accuse those of us who don't of being retrograde schmucks who don't know any better and stand in the way of progress.

 

Hasn't this topic been bludgeoned to death yet? In audio-land there is no consensus and never will be.

 

You have very good headphones and hearing! And I'm in total agreement with your assessment of the sound quality. But I chose that one video so that it wouldn't overwhelm the OP's hearing in the high frequencies. If the screech still sounds like a trumpet even when reducing volume which he would have to do then he can appreciate the sound of music.

I always have to turn down the volume (about 4db) on the YouTube version of that song and the mp3 download I bought on Amazon.

But to add concerning the OP's hearing is that some hi-fi systems that don't have even a basic bass/treble EQ adjust would most likely force the listener to turn down the volume making high frequencies "seem" like they can't be heard. Not all music is mastered the same way as if to some kind of industry standard. The CTA Jessup remix thread is a perfect example.

So if the OP ran a sound test with some standard input signal CD on his home Hi-Fi system how would he know if regular music was mastered to make high frequencies sound the same as the test CD vs whether his hearing was going bad? I think I have perfect hearing at the age of 60 but I have to turn down a lot of songs whose high frequencies seem like they're cutting my eardrums. Do I have a hearing problem if that's the case?

 

I can't tell if you're complaining about my choice of sound test or the dude who mastered the song which according to the mp3 metadata indicates a copyright of 2007 Desert Dog Studios. Sounds like a DIY operation. No major label using professional equipment and personnel.

And I guess you missed my point about relying on sound relationships to test one's hearing, not some sustained test tone around 1Khz ramping up to around 16kHz which a person's adaptive sensory hearing system as it is with seeing would be influencing results. We don't listen to music in that way.

 

It really depends on how much the upsampling pushes the noise floor (hiss/air/whatever was captured in the recording) into the inaudible frequency range say 20kHz and above and hear this reflected in the digital audio tools like a multiband EQ during editing.

 

I broadly agree with you, but I still have a collection of hi-res files. I treat my files and CD collection as entirely separate entities – I must have around 10,000 CDs and I don't have the time or inclination to rip them. I ripped one as a test, as I heard claims that the files would outperform the CD due to the lack of jitter. I found precisely the opposite – the CD sounded slightly better when played via my transport. My dealer also agrees that CDs will outperform files ripped from them when using a decent transport.

However, if artists make hi-res files available for new releases, I will often buy them as it enables me to hear bit-for-bit what they signed off in the studio. I will also buy hi-res files for back catalogue albums if I particularly love them and/or can get the files at the right price – I'm not paying £20+ to download back catalogue albums from HD Tracks when I already have the CD or can stream them.