High resolution same as CD in quality?

[leevitalone1]

I got into the discussion at another site about high res audio, and was promptly put down because I think even the early stuff on dvd a - sacd sounds better than a CD. I was "informed" that I would not be able to tell the difference in a blind test.
This, has been done-we tried it and guess what? ( stereo) man they really jumped all over me on this.
So, what do you guys think?

 

[fredblue]

good mastering practice and quality of source are key imho.. thereafter it's all icing on an already yummy cake, I reckon.

once you've got master tapes in great shape, which are then carefully transferred and sympathetically mastered I don't see the harm making the most of that best case scenario by presenting it to the end user in Hi-Res.. even if the science says audible benefits are up for grabs, if you were offered high quality source with high quality mastering with high quality/high resolution reproduction at home, why not go for it and get Hi Hi Hi in the midday sun!

ultimately, if you enjoy your Hi-Res that's what really matters, I guess you can argue the toss with people til the cows come home but if others are happy with CD let them enjoy it and you can lap up your Hi-Res for what it is

 

[DuncanS]

I'd suggest you get them to listen to Beck's Sea Change on Blu-ray at 24-bits/192kHz, the CD, and mp3, you can hear the difference!

Ultimately its about the music, but Hi-Res and 5.1 allows you to hear the nuances IMHO, re "The Yes Album" in 5.1 which is fantastic.

 

[Quad Linda]

Nearly every release of any given album have a different sound because of:
1- Different mastering
2- Source: what generation of tape was used
3- Condition of the tape, is there edge damage, dropouts, or does it need to be baked?
4- Equalization
5- Dynamic range, brickwalling, etc.
6- Noise reduction of source tape: Dolby A, dbx I, etc
7- Digital sources can eliminate some of this, BUT what was the sampling rate, among other factors
AND a host of other variables

THEN, how were you a/b'ing the copies?
1- Same drive?: Blu-Ray, DVD-A, SACD, CD Even the same player could have radically different specs on different formats
2- Same phono cartridge when a/b'ing vinyl
3- Same amp/preamp/decoder/processor?
4- Same speakers?
5- Same room? You are listening to the room acoustics.

If the recordings/pressings were listened to on different gear and/or at a different time, the comparison may be not valid. Tests done often indicated that the comparisons must be done no more than 30 seconds apart. If you're relying on memory as to what a pressing sounds like, comparisons are far from empirical.

Yet, like most folks here, I've a/b'ed many pressings over the last 45 years. I've owned/heard 10 different pressings of hundreds of albums. Quirks and defects are often evident. The basic sonics are often very different. Sit down with a beer, a smoke, something/someone to nibble on and some friends with golden ears and LISTEN. The differences become evident. DAMN, I never heard that fretwork before!

On of my top 10 albums of all time, Who's Next sounds best on the German CD or UK LP, both very early pressings on those formats. I've heard/owned dozens of others, and IMHO, the others don't stack up, including Gold CD and SHM-SACD.

IF it's done right, SACD, Blu-Ray-A, DVD-A, Gold CD, 1/2 speed mastered, Japan LP, German LP's, audiophile pressings, Q4 or 2ch 7 1/2 ips open reels usually sound better. Yet, I've heard many pressing on these formats that sound terrible. Blindly buying these formats, you're likely to have one of, if not THE best possible pressing the majority of the time.

 

[Ranasakawa]

Its a hit and miss. The Grateful Dead high res audio of their studio albums sound amazing. They were lovingly re-mastered by people connected to the band.
However the ZZ Top high res tracks sound very flat, nothing I had expected. The CDs actually sound better.

Bob Marley sounds great in 96/24 as well.

 

[dobyblue]

How you experience music simply can't be measured and I can't recall a single DBX that was done with someone in their own home in their own listening environment on their own stereo with two identical masterings of the same 24/96 source material or analogue material one presented in its original form and the other presented on CD.

But at the end of the day mastering/production is more important than the media you're choosing which is why it helps to be able to buy whatever version of a recording sounds best to you. Sometimes vinyl gets some flak around here but I'll tell you that in my experience the all analogue Grundman-mastered ORG Music release of Nirvana's Nevermind blows the pants off the 24/96 20th Anniversary high rez download, so too does the original 1991 CD.

 

[leevitalone1]

Nearly every release of any given album have a different sound because of:
1- Different mastering
2- Source: what generation of tape was used
3- Condition of the tape, is there edge damage, dropouts, or does it need to be baked?
4- Equalization
5- Dynamic range, brickwalling, etc.
6- Noise reduction of source tape: Dolby A, dbx I, etc
7- Digital sources can eliminate some of this, BUT what was the sampling rate, among other factors
AND a host of other variables

THEN, how were you a/b'ing the copies?
1- Same drive?: Blu-Ray, DVD-A, SACD, CD Even the same player could have radically different specs on different formats
2- Same phono cartridge when a/b'ing vinyl
3- Same amp/preamp/decoder/processor?
4- Same speakers?
5- Same room? You are listening to the room acoustics.

If the recordings/pressings were listened to on different gear and/or at a different time, the comparison may be not valid. Tests done often indicated that the comparisons must be done no more than 30 seconds apart. If you're relying on memory as to what a pressing sounds like, comparisons are far from empirical.

Yet, like most folks here, I've a/b'ed many pressings over the last 45 years. I've owned/heard 10 different pressings of hundreds of albums. Quirks and defects are often evident. The basic sonics are often very different. Sit down with a beer, a smoke, something/someone to nibble on and some friends with golden ears and LISTEN. The differences become evident. DAMN, I never heard that fretwork before!

On of my top 10 albums of all time, Who's Next sounds best on the German CD or UK LP, both very early pressings on those formats. I've heard/owned dozens of others, and IMHO, the others don't stack up, including Gold CD and SHM-SACD.

IF it's done right, SACD, Blu-Ray-A, DVD-A, Gold CD, 1/2 speed mastered, Japan LP, German LP's, audiophile pressings, Q4 or 2ch 7 1/2 ips open reels usually sound better. Yet, I've heard many pressing on these formats that sound terrible. Blindly buying these formats, you're likely to have one of, if not THE best possible pressing the majority of the time.

My feeling exactly! a good place to start is production values that I mentioned, example: "Morph the kat" Or just about anything done by ES. The newer digital masters. Now with all the high res download sites, it must be many others feel the same way or why bother with it at all? The main point not realized is 5.1!!! . No (redbook) CD's with that!

 

[ssully]

How you experience music simply can't be measured and I can't recall a single DBX that was done with someone in their own home in their own listening environment on their own stereo with two identical masterings of the same 24/96 source material or analogue material one presented in its original form and the other presented on CD.

It's DBT (or ABX, which is a kind of DBT), not DBX, and the test you propose is actually among the easiest to set up. All you have to do is find a 24/96 digital source, rip it, and convert it to 16/44 with a decent conversion software. Then use WinABX or some other ABX software to test your ability to identify the two versions, preferably a minimum of 16 trials. If you get 12 or more correct out of 16 tries, chances are good that you really heard a difference.

And yes, people have done them on their own; there's at least a couple of threads on hydrogenaudio on this, and of course theres teh famous Meyer/Moran paper on SACD converted to Redbook. People typically haven't been able to tell them apart, except for certain cases where they are auditioning very quiet parts, raised in volume to be very loud. Then (much depending on how downconversion was done) one can sometimes hear a difference in the quantization noise as the music fades to silence. No one would normally listen to music at that volume.

Btw the Meyer/Moran paper that did this, tried to standardize the playback device, so as not to introduce another variable. But otherwise various subjects -- which included audio pros -- were allowed to use the gear they preferred.

But at the end of the day mastering/production is more important than the media

By far. CD vs hi rez actually pales into insignificance beside this.

you're choosing which is why it helps to be able to buy whatever version of a recording sounds best to you. Sometimes vinyl gets some flak around here but I'll tell you that in my experience the all analogue Grundman-mastered ORG Music release of Nirvana's Nevermind blows the pants off the 24/96 20th Anniversary high rez download, so too does the original 1991 CD.

My preferred mastering is on Mobile Fidelity's CD from way back.

 

[holland123]

I got into the discussion at another site about high res audio, and was promptly put down because I think even the early stuff on dvd a - sacd sounds better than a CD. I was "informed" that I would not be able to tell the difference in a blind test.
This, has been done-we tried it and guess what? ( stereo) man they really jumped all over me on this.
So, what do you guys think?

I think that whomever you were discussing this needs a hearing aid if they are unable to hear the difference between say the sacd of Carole kings tapestry and the Redbook CD, or the dvd-a of Yes Fragile and it's CD counterpart.

 

[ssully]

I think that whomever you were discussing this needs a hearing aid if they are unable to hear the difference between say the sacd of Carole kings tapestry and the Redbook CD, or the dvd-a of Yes Fragile and it's CD counterpart.

But those examples don't demonstrate that high rez sounds different from or superior to CD. They demonstrate that different masterings can sound different. This is true of CDs (and of high rez releases too). Your next step would be to show that they sound better *because they are high rez*. How would you do that?

 

[ssully]

I got into the discussion at another site about high res audio, and was promptly put down because I think even the early stuff on dvd a - sacd sounds better than a CD.

Why would the early DVDA/SACD be any different from the later stuff, sound-quality-wise?

I was "informed" that I would not be able to tell the difference in a blind test.
This, has been done-we tried it and guess what? ( stereo) man they really jumped all over me on this.
So, what do you guys think?

I think it's hard to say what happened without a link to the actual discussion.

 

[EMB]

I got into the discussion at another site about high res audio, and was promptly put down because I think even the early stuff on dvd a - sacd sounds better than a CD. I was "informed" that I would not be able to tell the difference in a blind test.

Or you could tell them that there are no absolutes in anything in life except that you are born (same as everyone else), go through adolescence and adulthood with the thousands of hassles that go with it, and then die on a planet where billions of others are breathing the air and will eventually give way to billions of others who will breathe until the planet implodes on its own overindulgences and Antarctica melts and the few left live on the Himalayas somewhere are listening to "Black Dog" and wondering about all that was lost.

Or you could just hang here and not have to worry about being told that you're wrong and full of shit and your ears are liars and that it all makes sense.


ED

 

[leevitalone1]

Why would the early DVDA/SACD be any different from the later stuff, sound-quality-wise?



I think it's hard to say what happened without a link to the actual discussion.

The 1st productions are up-converted both formats, all the older stuff. My point was the newer digital master recordings are terrific sounding. It was just me going up against a bunch of smart asses ( probably audiophiles) who most likely have far superior sound playback equipment. I mentioned that I fact there was a big difference in sound quality, and got slammed.
Really bad, so much so I rather would just let it go. Pissed me off good.

 

[leevitalone1]

My own personal test was with 2 ES discs - Kamakiriad & Two against nature, that I have the CD's and dvd audio. Played back on my Oppo 93 NE, and only the stereo versions on dvd audio. Tried it on several, who all agreed the dvd a was better in sound. They had no idea of high res prior to listening. Just asked if they felt there was a difference.

 

[ssully]

The 1st productions are up-converted both formats, all the older stuff.

Not all. Some were, some were not.

My point was the newer digital master recordings are terrific sounding. It was just me going up against a bunch of smart asses ( probably audiophiles) who most likely have far superior sound playback equipment. I mentioned that I fact there was a big difference in sound quality, and got slammed.

But that's not a 'fact', it's a claim; maybe stating it that way is why you got 'slammed'?

(And in my experience plenty of 'audiophiles' with fancy gear buy fully into that claim too; in my experience they are the ones most fervently believing it)

 

[ssully]

\
Or you could just hang here and not have to worry about being told that you're wrong and full of shit and your ears are liars and that it all makes sense.

It's funny, years and years of these debates, you'd think there'd be understanding of the basics at this point; yet still, when some cite the technical aspects of high rez vs redbook, the limits of human hearing, and the reasons why science relies on blind testing methods, all some others see is "you're wrong and full of shit and your ears are liars".

 

[fredblue]

Hi-res-larious... :ugham:

Funny ha-ha, funny peculiar..

...one of the ironies is that this is a Quad forum and for the longest time quite a lot of people's main exposure to this surround stuff was in the form of Q8's (distinctly lo-fi compared to the likes of SACD, DVD-A, BD-A, DTS-CD, FLAC/Hi-Res downloads)...

..and yet we are still having this debate about sound quality on here.. and here we are in an age when we have many formats capable of delivering potentially better than ever sound quality.

Droll ain't the word.. but it is 'a little bit funny'.

 

[kap'n krunch]

Come ooooooooonnnn guys...
let it go!!!!

we ALL know there are a few members that will ALWAYS argue about the "blind test" thing....
And we KNOW they are wrong because of...again ...what's the use of 96/24 if it's gonna sound the same as 44/16???
Yes, a good CD is VERY close to a 96/24 source...but it ain't so...
Pros like Neil Wilkes and Elliot Scheiner are on our side, so stop this already...
If there are people who can't HEAR the difference ...well... tough titty!!! Too bad for you , I'd feel bad if you were considerate about it and not talk down to us...really , I do feel bad cause the tingling in my ears when I listen to REAL Hi Res is basically inexplicable in words, it's like having sex and having a real orgasm that takes you to another place..if you can't feel it , you can't..........

96/24 DOES NOT SOUND like 44/16, ....PERIOD!!!!

now , go have a beer or whatever you do to relax!!!!!

now, PLAY BALL!!!

 

[timbre4]

"Your story has become tiresome."
Dieter @ Sprockets


Tapatalk