Does HiRez really sound better?

"02-11-15: B_limo
ouch, my head hurts.

I really cant tell much difference with hi rez files. I suppose it is system and recording dependant. Another thing to take into account is if the slight difference is worth the pita of finding all your favorite music in hi rez"

Its really no different than any other element in the chain that you would try to evaluate. When you go out and listen to something like a new CD player or TT, there's usually some planning involved. We make sure the dealer has everything set up properly, we bring music that we are familiar with, do some prior research, etc... People seem to avoid doing that type of stuff with high rez digital formats. I remember when SACD came out. Everyone went out and bought a cheap Sony player and a few SACD's to test it with (myself included). How well did it compare to my Wadia 861? Not very well. The Wadia was better in practically every way. Given my experience in audio, it didn't take me long to figure out that it was silly for me to expect good results the way I went about trying SACD. Unfortunately, not everyone made the connection. Most just walked away with the opinion that its not something they want to get involved with. I don't blame them. It was a smart choice for them not to buy anything if they didn't hear a difference.

The only thing that I think may save High rez audio, are downloads. I doubt very much that the industry will ever sell any type of new format on something like a disc that you buy in a store. Too much damage has already been done. With downloads, high rez music can be made available with little, to no, outlay of money from the record companies. They can offer the downloads and if people buy them, its found money. The cost is so low, there really is no downside.

Noble100 - thanks for the music suggestion; I'm going to dl it tomorrow!

Zd542,

I generally have an attitude of 'listen to whatever format that brings you the most enjoyment when listening to your music' and have no interest in discouraging anyone from doing this. However, I find it curious that you would object to vinyl being accurately described as not hi-resolution.

You stated in your last post: "that there is no reliable way to measure the resolution of an analog source and equate it to any to a similar resolution in digital."

Are you saying that common audio measurements (such as frequency response, signal to noise ratios, dynamic range, etc.) mysteriously cannot be measured for vinyl but can be exactly measured on digital formats? This would be very troubling but convenient for anyone wishing to avoid objectively comparing the two formats. Fortunately,however, your statement is not factual.

You may be correct in stating my previous post lacked objective facts. So, here are some facts comparing various performance measurements between vinyl and 24 bit/96khz digital formats that are audible and directly affect audio quality:



Dynamic Range Vinyl 55-70db Digital 110-120db

Signal/Noise Ratio Vinyl 70db Digital 144db

Frequency Response Vinyl 20-20k hz +/-3db Digital 20-20k hz +/-.5db

You may like the warmer sound of vinyl or the rituals involved with playing vinyl but insisting it is a hi-res format defies the facts and is, ultimately, not relevant to your enjoyment of it.

Also, you stated: "A recent NY Times article? Do you really think they're qualified to conduct such a test? You can do whatever you want, but if I was trying to make your point, I would be embarrassed to reference a source like that. And then expect someone to take me seriously"

The reason I referred to this article was to demonstrate the reporter's total lack of understanding of the importance of a recording's provenance. No, I don't think he was qualified to conduct such a test, precisely because he didn't realize he was asking his subjects to choose which recording sounded best when both recordings were identical. Because of this, the results of his test are meaningless.

My main point is that the major labels are using standard resolution older masters of their recordings, transferring them into hi-res formats, increasing the prices and marketing these as hi-res without disclosing the provenance of these recordings. Doing this adds no improvements in sound quality but may garner large revenues from uninformed consumers. I'd prefer these potential buyers to be well informed. I'm fairly sure the major labels would prefer otherwise.

Nonoise,

completely agree with your comment that good recordings make for good playback.

Tim

All things being equal (ie provenance being the mastertape), I'll take a well engineered hirez over a well engineered redbook recording. That being said, it all gets back to the recording and reproduction chain. Of course, things being unequal or with a 16/44.1 source, redbook can equal or even beat hirez.
Disclaimer ---have not heard products like PS Audio Directstream DAC which converts everything to dsd so don't know if or how that would change my opinion.

Just me in the context of my rig.

Even though live music recorded directly to a hi rez format sounds better, the fun still lies in getting the most out of the redbook standard. There's a lot more potential there than many have ever heard, because you have to spend some money on the player to get there, and then you have to have the right power supply, the right power cords, the right isolation, on and on--then, the music will finally emerge with enough resolution to satisfy anyone. But, because of the cost to get there, the allure of hooking up a computer/dac without moving parts is tempting, but very distracting from the real fun of focusing on the little things that really bring out what was hidden in the 16/44 format. What, you're going to park your turntables and CD players for a computer? I have that in my lap right now. The music is coming from somewhere else.