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

[ar surround]

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.

The only 'new' stuff that I have are things like @Mr. Afternoon 's releases or the first new Tears for Fears album from SDE. And those albums are all 96/24 surround sound. So I have nothing of them in 44.1/16 with which to make a comparison. I doubt if taking the time to set up a double-blind test of the stereo versions volume adjusted to within 0.1 of a dB would even be worth the effort.

Besides, I'd rather listen to raunchy sounding material that I like instead of pristine music for which I have no interest. Well, OK, Tommy James and the Shondell's Hanky Panky and the Moody Blues Go Now are really horrid sounding. (Eric Records did a commendable effort trying to make these two singles listenable.)

 

[jimfisheye]

Level matching multiple analog devices is the daunting setup. Doing a trial of sample rate conversion or bit depth reduction can be done with free software. The levels will not change.

Don't over think it. Take the best sounding HD file you have at the moment. The question is weather or not we think the format can hold more audio goodness. So convert the thing to SD. If you don't hear anything degrade, now you have that data point.

One wants to find the most faithful copy. A fair quest because we have novelty editions often enough. I'm saying that the limitations heard in the novelty editions have little to nothing to do with any of these formats. Dismissing a CD and buying a bluray instead might be logical. And the bluray might turn out to also be the best sounding version often enough. The point is not to dismiss stuff in CD format because you will find random best copies in the format at times.

 

[Sal1950]

I try to find the best available release to put in my storage server, but that is determined by the sound "quality" of the mastered mix and not by it's data rate. I completely believe that 16/44.1 is fully capable of delivering every audible detail that is on the supplied master and a very high data is not required. I thought Mark Waldrep pretty much nailed that with his listening tests.
Mostly today I find that everything coming out that I want is already at better than Redbook. I see 24/96 5.1 & 7.1's, and 24/48 Atmos being used as todays standards and that's way more than acceptable IMHO.

 

[Dynamic Editor]

I will say the one good thing about higher sample rate music being released is in regards to other people sampling that work and manipulating it in speed, pitch, etc.

 

[KG10]

I do wonder how this debate will be affected when scientists successfully find a regenative hearing drug that works on humans some day.

 

[Mr. Afternoon]

I do wonder how this debate will be affected when scientists successfully find a regenative hearing drug that works on humans some day.

Trials are already happening last I heard, but AFAIK the recovery is limited.

 

[KG10]

Trials are already happening last I heard, but AFAIK the recovery is limited.

Do you think it will ever develop to a point where it can fully restore hearing loss?

 

[Mr. Afternoon]

Do you think it will ever develop to a point where it can fully restore hearing loss?

Not sure! From what I understand, the amount we can actually artificially repair damaged hair cells in the ear is limited.

 

[Petr Kropotkin]

Not sure! From what I understand, the amount we can actually artificially repair damaged hair cells in the ear is limited.

They've done it for heads, why not hair follicle transplants for ears?

 

[stoopid]

Mostly today I find that everything coming out that I want is already at better than Redbook. I see 24/96 5.1 & 7.1's, and 24/48 Atmos being used as todays standards and that's way more than acceptable IMHO.

That's an interesting note. While I, like you, agree that 'CD Quality' is more than sufficient in all the measurable ways previously mentioned and referenced, I'm not anti-higher resolution releases for the simple fact they're not making the playback quality any worse [unless the mixing/mastering for the high res mixes are botched in some way]. It's not a more is more situation, it's just that more isn't less.

 

[ar surround]

They've done it for heads, why not hair follicle transplants for ears?

Bald is beautiful. Deaf is not.

 

[SeeMoreDigital]

I'm of the opinion that if a music source has been recorded digitally and mixed digitally at a particular sample-rate and bit-depth (such as 96/24) then why not make it available for purchase at the same sample-rate and bit-depth. As well as offering it on a (44.1/16) CD...

 

[KG10]

I'm of the opinion that if a music source has been recorded digitally and mixed digitally at a particular sample-rate and bit-depth (such as 96/24) then why not make it available for purchase at the same sample-rate and bit-depth. As well as offering it on a (44.1/16) CD...

Sadly I think there's been a growing trend of new music and some new remasters being released in 24/44.1 dispite being recorded, mixed and possibly mastered in 24/96 or higher

 

[SeeMoreDigital]

Sadly I think there's been a growing trend of new music and some new remasters being released in 24/44.1 dispite being recorded, mixed and possibly mastered in 24/96 or higher

Really, released where?

 

[KG10]

Really, released where?

I meant on hi res download places like Qobuz and an example being the recent pet shop boys and blur albums where the bd is 24/96 while the download is 24/44.1.

It's also worth mentioning the 2023 in utero remaster as that still hasn't got a hi res release dispite the tapes being captured at 24/96.

 

[SeeMoreDigital]

It's also worth mentioning the 2023 in utero remaster as that still hasn't got a hi res release dispite the tapes being captured at 24/96.

Interesting... I wasn't aware 'In Utero' was recoded and mixed using analogue gear.

EDIT: I have it on an HFPA Blu-ray disc encoded at 96/24 in stereo LPCM, Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD MA...

 

[KG10]

Interesting... I wasn't aware 'In Utero' was recoded and mixed using analogue gear.

Dispite the advent of Digital audio in the late 70s, I believe analogue was still used a fair bit until protools largely took over in the late 90s to early 00s.

 

[KG10]

in stereo LPCM, Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD MA...

I do honestly wonder why blu ray audio disc's have a lossless audio stream (or multiple in this case) if there's already an uncompressed lpcm stream.

Like do the lossless formats really affect the final sound even though they should theoretically all sound the same?

 

[dobyblue]

I do honestly wonder why blu ray audio discs have a lossless audio stream (or multiple in this case) if there's already an uncompressed lpcm stream.

Like do the lossless formats really affect the final sound even though they should theoretically all sound the same?

Backwards compatibility in the case of PCM and dts-Ma - the latter at 1.509 Mbps gives the best audio quality for legacy setups using digital or coaxial while the former works with all BD players going back to the BD-P1000 from June 2006.

Of course this is referring to surround sound while most of those sorry Universal HFPA releases were stereo only. I say “sorry” because many of them used the same loudness wars mastering found on CD and vinyl while purporting to be for audiophiles.