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. Plan9

    Plan9 Mastering Engineer Thread Starter

    Location:
    Toulouse, France
    PLEASE READ BEFORE VOTING:

    For the sake of this poll, let's say that "true" Hi-Res begins with 44,1kHz/24bits resolution (like the files in the Beatles USB apple).
    DVD-Audio (if at least equal to 48kHz/16bits in resolution) and SACD are included, but not vinyl. This is a poll for digital High-Resolution only.
    If you feel that 48kHz/16bits is already an improvement over 44,1kHz/16bits RedBook CD standard (in my case, yes), feel free to include your experience of this resolution in the poll.


    >>> If you have never experienced Hi-Res (for any reason: "CDs are enough", etc...) please refrain from voting.

    While I can hear the benefit of Hi-Res every day in my work, it appears that it is not obvious for everybody. When downgrading a master in Hi-Res to its RedBook version, I always hear a degradation, or at the very least, a difference, even with the best dithering and resampling algorithms.

    To my ears, the benefits of Hi-Res include:
    • The ability to follow a greater number of musical phrases simultaneously; i.e. to hear more easily in the dense musical passages without everything turning into a mess
    • The better reproduction of extreme frequencies: a tauter bass, cleaner highs
    • A more precise and stable stereo image...
    • The ability to hear micro-dynamics, ambiance and trails more easily


    >>> Please, as per forum rules, NO debate of ABX testing OR the results of competing "scientific" papers.

    Just state how you feel about this subject, in YOUR PERSONAL EXPERIENCE and why.
     
  2. Plan9

    Plan9 Mastering Engineer Thread Starter

    Location:
    Toulouse, France
    A couple more precisions:

    I don't personally include HDCD in my definition of Hi-Res, because there are too many variables with this format.

    The poll will stay open for a year.

    Please no debates concerning SHM or Blu-Spec.
     
  3. jmrife

    jmrife Wife. Kids. Grandkids. Dog. Music.

    Location:
    Wheat Ridge, CO
    I don't like to sound elitist, but if you can't hear a clear difference, it is most likely an equipment issue, iMO. Much like this:
     

    Attached Files:

  4. Metralla

    Metralla Joined Jan 13, 2002

    Location:
    San Jose, CA
    It was hard to choose between "subtle" and "important". Sometimes 1, sometimes the other.
     
  5. Plan9

    Plan9 Mastering Engineer Thread Starter

    Location:
    Toulouse, France
    While it's true that the benefits of Hi-Res are much more apparent on very good equipment, I think that even a "mid-fi" system can be adequate enough to hear them.

    In any case, the listening conditions are important (quiet environment, "knowing" the equipment...)
     
  6. Plan9

    Plan9 Mastering Engineer Thread Starter

    Location:
    Toulouse, France
    If the mastering is the same between the CD and HR versions, would you say it's "subtle" or "important"?
     
  7. stuckinthe60's

    stuckinthe60's Forum Resident

    Location:
    Princeton, NJ
    The improvement could be subtle. The improvement could be "important" (I would use the term "significant"). Or anything in between. Too many variables to make a general assessment. But yes, I almost always detect a difference -- for the better.
     
  8. mmars982

    mmars982 Forum Resident

    Location:
    Pittsburgh, PA
    I hadn't been listening to my hi-res music much this year (playing with new Christmas toys using CD,lossless ripped from CD's, or 320 download/streaming). I just got out some DVDs over the weekend & was reminded how big a difference it is. Now if you had asked last fall, when I was listening to hi-res all the time, I might have said "subtle difference" as I had just gotten so used to the sound.

    But as already mentioned, it really depends on the recordings. I have some SACDs that I would say subtle or no difference. But I have enough where I'd say the difference is important.
     
  9. brimuchmuze

    brimuchmuze Forum Resident

    Unless it's the exactly the same mastering, it would seem there is no basis for comparision?

    I think mastering differences are typically far more important and easy to differentiate than high res differences.

    Can anyone nominate a high res recording from HDTRACKS where they feel that the difference between the high res version and a downscaled 16/44.1 version is "important"?
     
  10. Metralla

    Metralla Joined Jan 13, 2002

    Location:
    San Jose, CA
    I think we would all agree with that.
     
  11. Metralla

    Metralla Joined Jan 13, 2002

    Location:
    San Jose, CA
    Agree that "significant" would have been better wording. Sorry OP.
     
  12. jackaroe

    jackaroe Active Member

    Location:
    Ontari-ari-ari-o
    The extra 8 bits on the world lengths means the world to my ears. I do find that mastering still plays a critical part of the sound, despite however HI the resolution is. But even in a less than great mastering, I can still hear that extra 8 bits.
     
  13. TStewart422

    TStewart422 Forum Resident

    Location:
    Nashville, TN
    With the same mastering, level-matched entries, and a blind test (all foobar does); I can say for sure that I hear zero difference between the two. I guess I have tin ears that don't require me to spend all kinds of money on all kinds of equipment, cables, overpriced amps, DACs, and other "audiophile" gear.
     
  14. I answered subtle improvement but the definition of subtle I used is very, very slight, essentially worth nothing. I wouldn't spend any money to move from stereo or mono CD to stereo or mono SACD, the difference isn't enough and I got bored trying to find a significant improvement when I had access to both and wasted some time. 24-bit/96KHz PCM might beat CD more decisively but even then, not worth paying anything for in my opinion. Differences in mastering are far more important. I am a big fan of lossless surround compared to lossy surround which is why SACD, DVD-A and Blu-ray music releases are common in my collection but stereo SACDs are being liquidated now when I can find buyers, I am fine with the CD.
     
  15. SBurke

    SBurke Nostalgia Junkie

    Location:
    Philadelphia, PA
    I voted "I'm not sure." I have some SACD's and 24/96 files that I think are thrillingly vivid. But I've not tried to do comparisons of those recordings to common-source Redbook versions where available. I haven't done the Creedence test yet -- been meaning to do that. Maybe this weekend.

    I will sometimes buy a SACD release of something I might not bother with on CD. For example, I really don't need extra versions of core classical repertoire at this point. But if there is a new SACD release, I might pick it up to see if there's an improvement in sound on other recordings. I will also get 24/96 downloads if I know the recording was made in 24/96 or better. The Classical Shop features a lot of Chandos recordings with outstanding sound.

    In other cases I will go for a SACD release just because I know the mastering is something Steve has done, such as with the CCR stuff, and some Blue Notes, etc. Actually this is also why I've been wanting to get a turntable, not so I can fiddle with a tonearm and whatnot, but so I can get some Joni Mitchell records mastered by Steve and a few other things. That's something I want to do this summer, maybe around my birthday.

    Here's a SACD that blew me away. Anyone with interest in contemporary composition who likes Glass, Reich, etc. should check this out. Awesome! :cheers:

    [​IMG]
     
  16. SBurke

    SBurke Nostalgia Junkie

    Location:
    Philadelphia, PA
    By the way, it would be interesting to hear from folks who vote "yes" which format they like best, whether 24/96, SACD, or whatever, and for what reasons.

    Thanks to the OP for posting this interesting poll and thread.
     
  17. 5-String

    5-String μηδὲν ἄγαν

    Location:
    Sunshine State
    I cannot vote since I am using Tapatalk, but here 's a funny thing.
    With my computer and with some average Sennheiser headphones I can very distinctly hear a significant difference between a 16/44.1 file and a 96/24 file. The HD track always sounds better.

    With my main system I often have hard time distinguishing between a SACD and a regular CD. Go figure!
     
  18. Todd W.

    Todd W. It's a Puggle

    Location:
    Maryland
    Subtle to important. Depending on the disc of course.
     
  19. Doug Sclar

    Doug Sclar Forum Legend

    Location:
    The OC
    To me it's a huge difference, and it's pretty much across the boards. Almost every single hi-res recording I've heard has more three dimensionality, more inner detail, more impact, more delicacy in the top end, better portrayal of reverbs and ambiences and is just more involving than just about any CD I've ever heard. To me the difference isn't even close, and I'd even say the difference between CD and Hi-Res can be more than the difference between lossy files and CD, of course assuming the bit rate of the lossless files is reasonable.

    Yes, this is my personal opinion, but other forum members who have been over here have come to the same conclusion. In the last case, a forum member and I listened to many hi-res files and after we were done he asked me to play a recent CD that has gotten rave reviews on this forum. He only listened to a few seconds and noticed that the whole presentation went from 3D to essentially 2D. The difference wasn't even close and after a few seconds he asked me to turn the CD off.

    Is this true for all discs? I don't think so as of course the mastering comes in to play. I hear a difference between the 16 and 24 bit Beatle remasters, but it's not nearly as prominent as it is in most cases. OTOH, I'm not a huge fan of the Beatle remasters as they generally sound hard to me. I'm not sure why that is, but IMO it is.

    I've now got hundreds of Hi-Res discs and digital files, and I'd say that more than 90% of them sound far better (to me) than any other versions I have of those recordings.

    Btw, we've got plenty of members here who apparently don't hear a difference between lossy mp3's and CD's, so I'd expect that these members would have no use for hi-res recordings.



    The best sounding format I've heard is 192k or 176k at 24 bits. In some cases I notice little or no difference between these formats and the 96k and 88.2k formats, but in some cases I notice a significant difference. Once again I think it just depends on how well the transfer was made and how good the source material is.

    I haven't noticed a major difference between the various formats as far as DVD-a and SACD are concerned, but in all honesty I really haven't tried to compare them. Sure there are differences between different discs that are in different formats but as long as the mastering is different it seems futile to compare these formats. They almost all seem to sound far better to me than anything I've heard on a CD.
     
  20. Plan9

    Plan9 Mastering Engineer Thread Starter

    Location:
    Toulouse, France
    Yes I agree. As you may know, English isn't my native language. I'll try to have a Gort change it.
     
  21. soundQman

    soundQman Senior Member

    Location:
    Arlington, VA, USA
    I went with subtle, but it's a strong subtle. This is based mainly on comparisons of high-res DSD and standard redbook layers of many of the hybrid SACD discs I have. I suppose there are some cases where the mastering is different on the two layers, thus invalidating direct comparison of hi-res to 44.1 standard res. But generally I hear an improvement - smoother, less listening fatigue and edgy brightness in the treble; more dynamic, usually.
     
  22. Plan9

    Plan9 Mastering Engineer Thread Starter

    Location:
    Toulouse, France
    That's okay. :)
    I assume you checked that your soundcard and/or Foobar doesn't automatically resample the output?
     
  23. Barnabas Collins

    Barnabas Collins Senior Member

    Location:
    NH
    I didn't vote, but it really depends on the mastering. Hi-res can be great, but whether it's SACD, DVD-A, vinyl or CD, it's the mastering that counts, not the medium. I've heard some that sound excellent and others, not so much. There is usually a difference, but whether it's an improvement I guess is a matter of opinion.
     
  24. drbryant

    drbryant Senior Member

    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    I was going to say "subtle", but having just heard the Stones Undercover on SACD, I changed it to "important". Man, I used to think that was such a weak album.

    One thing I have noticed is that the difference is more difficult to appreciate when listening on headphones. It is much more noticeable when listened to on speakers - not sure why this is the case.
     
  25. Plan9

    Plan9 Mastering Engineer Thread Starter

    Location:
    Toulouse, France
    If there's a difference, wouldn't you say it's one in favor of Hi-Res?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

molar-endocrine