With same master i can t hear difference at all, but then it s hard to know it s the same master if you don t prepare it yourself.ALL of streaming services have different multiband compression schemes and encoding routines(which is usually called remaster).Even if you prepare your own files(start with hi rez,and down convert to cd rez),it s not a given that your software will do it properly.In my experience, when downconversion is done properly, there s no audible difference; even wave form in DAW looks the same(except ultrasonic info, of course).
???
Qobuz uses FLAC, and streams the provided distribution masters losslessly from the labels / distributors …
There really is no mystique or magic to this, is very straightforward, and these days is considered low bandwidth … 15 years ago I agree very different.
FLAC is lossless. Sure Spotify uses lossy Ogg Vorbis and that is something quite different…
Really this stuff is trivial…
The project this thread introduced gives the chance to listen blind to hi res and CD quality produced from the same masters…
Some preliminary findings
http://www.realhd-audio.com/?p=6928
Still time to take the test for those who are convinced they hear a difference.
.sjb
No. The quality of the original recording is much more important than the bit rates. I have many 16/44 Flac files that sound way better than much hi res stuff. Of course, well recorded hi res can sound exceptionally good.
I’m on the Mastering is more important side. I’m a big Joni Mitchell fan. I have both Blue and Court and Spark on the DCC/ Steve Hoffman Remasters that he did many years ago. Both the Hires versions sound like transfers from the original CD versions. The Hoffman versions are much better. The Steve Wilson remasters of Jethro Tull, Yes, King Crimson etc are amazing in either 16/44 or HiRes.
1 Like
He also did not allow responses of hearing a difference but not able to decide if one better than the other. I know that did not fit the purpose of “is hi res better?”, but it forced a decision or no response.
I’m just urging everyone to take the test. There seem to be many on here who can differentiate hires from 16/44 as I can differentiate blue from red.
It’s a pity if these results are missing from the analysis.
.sjb
I your buy an album or track on Qobuz, you can download it in 16/44 or hirez or both.
I have both versions on perhaps 15 albums, to see which version is better.
I would say 50/50. Sometimes the Hirez gives more lively sound, with better definition of bass and instruments, and bigger soundstage. But sometimes the hirez is a bit forceful, less well balanced and natural vs the 16/44 version.
Yup. I think 16/44 is an brilliant invention. Thanks to the Sony guys (otherwise we would have had Philips’ 13 or 14 bits I believe - happy to be enlightened on this matter though).
Qobus seem to be in the business of labelling recordings Taken directly from vinyl As Hi Res. I have heard all the past joys of wow and flutter not to mention snap crackle and pop on two albums in one evening .I suppose technically they are uncompressed and therefore “ Hi Res” but hardly from a supplied master tape. Enjoyed nonetheless!
That will be from the distributor that provides the media content to Qobuz etc. You can usually see who the distributor is who provides the media and the distributor catalogue ID for that media in the extended meta data from Qobuz such as from the Qobuz app or via Roon. In my experience that only occurs where the only master is a record cutting rather than any master tape master archive, and pretty rare.
I suspect the wow and flutter if evident (not that I have ever noticed that) would be from when the record was cut.
1 Like
I’ve come across this on Tidal in the past. There were the sort of clicks and pops you would get on an old, dirty LP, and the sound quality was what you would expect from a home recording on a mediocre turntable using a cheap cassette recorder.
Some years ago when I was first trying to find sources of hi res music I found these were quite common on dodgy websites, e.g. if you just searched “download hi res” - and I suspect numbers of such rips managed to get their way beyond that. All could be genuine hi res as opposed to upsampled, though even the best would also preserving the limitations of vinyl such as the limited dynamic range (compared to good digital), higher noise floor etc (unless ‘doctored’). Some might be done with superlative equipment making excellent digitised copies of vinyl - but others might be lesser offerings, and potentially very substandard though dressed up as hi res.
If someone is listening to 70’s classic pop or rock, or jazz from 60’s, 70’s, better listen on a turntable. The sound is so much livelier and real.
I have absolutely no interest in all these hirez digitized vinyls. Tried maybe 20 and don’t buy them anymore.
Just yesterday I listened to a track on a Stereophile test CD…there was one musical excerpt at standard 16/44 and then the same piece that had been bit-reduced to just 15-bit. The harmonics in the piano were just sucked out with the 15-bit recreation.
I agree, seems to be a common theme.
I’ve stopped buying hi res at 192, for the same reason I can’t hear the difference between 96 and the higher rate.
1 Like
Jusr because you can hear a difference dont assume it is the encoding format. It might just as well be your equipment reacting to the encoding format.
The best digital sound I have heard is 352kHz PCM encoded using no digital filtering. Unfortunately I dont own a DAC that can handle it.
that s what i said, it s mostly mastering and replay chain differences that are audible. Format itself, can t hear it; but then, i m a drummer:)
1 Like