Steven Wilson CD vs. High-Res: If SW can't tell the difference...

[abby normal]

the difference to me is that the hirez formats sound to me, "softer" in the trebles.

 

[jimfisheye]

the difference to me is that the hirez formats sound to me, "softer" in the trebles.

This is what I was talking about. So many CD editions have a bionic treble boost (along with the weapons grade brick wall limiting) that most people think the format causes that. You are hearing different intentional mastering work with the HD delivered titles you prefer. Neither 44.1k sample rate nor 16 bit sample size alters the high end like that.

This one you can prove to yourself with free software. Convert your favorite HD track (with the softer trebles) to 44.1k and then to 16 bit. What do you hear?

 

[JediJoker]

This is what I was talking about. So many CD editions have a bionic treble boost (along with the weapons grade brick wall limiting) that most people think the format causes that. You are hearing different intentional mastering work with the HD delivered titles you prefer. Neither 44.1k sample rate nor 16 bit sample size alters the high end like that.

This one you can prove to yourself with free software. Convert your favorite HD track (with the softer trebles) to 44.1k and then to 16 bit. What do you hear?

Unless, of course, the "softer trebles" are coming from the use of less steep reconstruction filters on a DAC with poor 44.1/48kHz performance. That's highly doubtful, though.

 

[MidiMagic]

No one can tell. It's placebo or the 'concentration effect' (whatever it's called) where you expect a difference so you listen harder and hear 'new details'. There I said it. Keep it civil

Oh, goodie! Another civil war over bit depth and bitrate.

 

[MidiMagic]

Before it was possible to reproduce sound with a virtual reality realism, early attempts had a "signature" to their sound caused by artifacts of the system. And caused by artistic use of the system that would try to give the vibe of unachievable realism in artistic ways.

Using green and purple makeup in a black and white movie production because it made more realism looking contrast. No one was thinking they actually wanted to see purple in that example. Early recordings had similar artistic approaches to get across touches of realism that was technically beyond the tech.

I read some articles on what they did in the days of acoustic recording to get a viable product. Here are some of the tricks they used:

- Used a cello instead of a string bass.
- A tom-tom was substituted for a kick drum.
- Special violins were made with a horn attached to the bridge to aim sound toward the recording horn.
- Some parts were placed in a big parabolic horn aimed at the recording horn.
- The front was removed from an upright piano to send more sound to the horn.
- Flutes were substituted for piccolos.
- Some recording horns had bells over 10 feet in diameter.

 

[MidiMagic]

This is what I was talking about. So many CD editions have a bionic treble boost (along with the weapons grade brick wall limiting) that most people think the format causes that. You are hearing different intentional mastering work with the HD delivered titles you prefer. Neither 44.1k sample rate nor 16 bit sample size alters the high end like that.

This one you can prove to yourself with free software. Convert your favorite HD track (with the softer trebles) to 44.1k and then to 16 bit. What do you hear?

In some early CD releases, they were not thinking and left in the RIAA pre-emphasis intended for an LP in the recording.

 

[JediJoker]

In some early CD releases, they were not thinking and left in the RIAA pre-emphasis intended for an LP in the recording.

There was also the foolish notion of CD pre-emphasis, which was entirely unnecessary and continues to cause headaches today.

 

[Sonik Wiz]

Oh, goodie! Another civil war over bit depth and bitrate.

He has risen !
Again.

 

[barfle]

I’ve done a couple of tests with my system, which is mostly comprised of an Oppo 105 and a Marantz 7701 pre-pro.

I have one album in both SACD and DVD-A. I prefer the SACD, because the DVD-A sounds kind of muffled compared to it. Other DVD-As don’t sound that way, so it doesn’t indicate that I can hear a difference between formats, just between those two releases.

I’ve played FLAC files, both on a thumb drive and from my NAS through both, and I prefer the sound when it’s decoded by my Oppo. But not by much. And it may well be a difference in volume that caused that difference. I admit that I didn’t measure the volume.

Oh, by the way, I have a large number of MP3s in my collection. Some are excellent. Some sound likr shit.

 

[GilWave]

Hearing, eyesight, etc, all goes to heck when we get old... Plus, he plays rock venues which are rough on the ears by their nature.

And rough on the feet, since he performs barefoot! ;-)

 

[M-K]

The problem is in the digital domain before the bits go onto the CD. The CD itself is a good media for storing music faithfully. I have some classical CDs that sound excellent. Rock CDs as well. An example is my latest buy: Porcupine Tree - The Sky Moves Sideways (2016 remaster). Although Wilson had some limitations of his digital sources, it sounds good.
Some more:
YES - Talk. I've the original release from the 90's. Good sound too.
Many Pink Floyd CDs. And so on.

 

[Dynamic Editor]

Oh, goodie! Another civil war over bit depth and bitrate.

I will die for the cause.

 

[ar surround]

This one you can prove to yourself with free software. Convert your favorite HD track (with the softer trebles) to 44.1k and then to 16 bit. What do you hear?

I've done that a few times. These old ears hear the same thing at 44.1/16 resolution as 96/24 resolution. Perhaps the source material cannot take advantage of 96/24 resolution either?

 

[Dynamic Editor]

I've done that a few times. These old ears hear the same thing at 44.1/16 resolution as 96/24 resolution. Perhaps the source material cannot take advantage of 96/24 resolution either?

It probably matters in regards to signal processing in production. Like, sped up sounds, pitch editing, stuff like that. From everything I've read about it though, listening in anything above 44.1 kHz, 16-bit is pointless.

 

[ar surround]

It probably matters in regards to signal processing in production. Like, sped up sounds, pitch editing, stuff like that. From everything I've read about it though, listening in anything above 44.1 kHz, 16-bit is pointless.

OK, but those 96/24 files...they look and 'sound' way cooler than 44.1/16. There are more lovely curves in the 9 and 2 than the straight 1's and 4's in the latter. Look at how the 9 and 6 flow together beautifully. 96/24 sounds better too. Say it: Ninety-Six Twenty-Four vs. Forty-Four Point One Sixteen. Could you imagine if Robert Lamm had written, Should I try to do some more, Forty-Four Before One or Sixteen After Twelve? But he could have written, Ninety-Six and Twenty Four.

 

[shokhead]

If it sounds good I listen to it.

 

[DuncanS]

When I was first taught programming ( that was 50 years ago, 1974!) it was GIGO that was drummed into us, Garbage In, Garbage Out.
So if you start with a poor quality analogue signal and digitise it ..........

 

[barfle]

24/96k is overkill. I have no problem with a certain amount of overkill. I have two 20 amp lines supplying the gear in my room (lights are on a separate circuit). My line-level cables are made from S-video cables with gold-plated connectors.

Going much beyond that seems silly to me, so I don’t do it. If you feel differently about your system, you may be able to hear things that I cannot - I readily admit that these aging ears ain’t what they used to be, so I’m in no position to argue.

 

[JohnN]

It means all good. Respect for the CD.

 

[jimfisheye]

I've done that a few times. These old ears hear the same thing at 44.1/16 resolution as 96/24 resolution. Perhaps the source material cannot take advantage of 96/24 resolution either?

I'm impressed that you could land on that conclusion! ie. That you must not have any music with extended "whatever it is" that requires HD res.

If you're being facetious... Nice one! If not... That's a logical twist I didn't expect, for sure. But I suspect you've listened enough to decide if that premise is worth entertaining or not. (ie. That you've never listened to whatever the high falootin thing is that requires HD.)

Ultimately there's this steadfast refusal to entertain the notion that a mastering engineer could ever deliver anything unintentional or make any kind of mistake. Or the notion that the industry would ever release second class or novelty versions of the product. And this is so strong that people entertain all kinds of theories and grab for all kinds of weird products and software to create explanations or excuses.

I understand being hungry to hear something special. I understand being hungry for better seats for a favorite recording. I understand used car salesmen too! I know this is often the simple answer. But there's still an extra something in this arena that boggles the mind some days!