Jump to content

What Exactly Is Hi-Res Audio, and Should I Care About It?


Travis In Austin

Recommended Posts

My son came over to the house this weekend so I could build him a box that he'll eventually make into a portable stereo.  The garage system was on which uses a laptop and external DAC to stream music off the internet.  I told him to play whatever he wanted so he pulled up his Spotify account and played some things he enjoyed.  I paused it after one particular song and then replayed the exact same song on Tidal and asked him if he could hear a difference.   He described Tidal as much cleaner and more detailed.  The difference was very obvious to both of us.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For my ears DSD is clearly superior to any other digital format and the only one that delivers that special clarity of the finest analog.  Better than the higher PCM levels?  Rather doubt I could tell the difference right off, but DSD is still superior to them in being transcodeable transparently to any of them with losses due only to the limitations of the target format rather than from the transcoding process.  

 

My current "perfect world" would be one where all downloads were available in DSD.  Those wanting condensed versions could easily make them as smushed as desired.  

 

Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm also in the camp that thinks it is tough to beat a well-mastered CD (or its digital equivalent ALAC/FLAC 44.1/16).  The quality of the source and mastering is much more important than the digital container it is packaged in.  I've read that most DSD downloads were mastered in PCM format before being converted back to DSD to sell to the consumer.  Differences heard between PCM and DSD are real, but most likely due to the consumer's DAC favoring one format over the other (or the consumer playing different sources/masters of the same song).  If MQA takes off (taking off means companies with real money get behind it like Apple and Amazon) then you can park your DSD DAC right up there on the shelf next to your Sony DAT player.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My son came over to the house this weekend so I could build him a box that he'll eventually make into a portable stereo.  The garage system was on which uses a laptop and external DAC to stream music off the internet.  I told him to play whatever he wanted so he pulled up his Spotify account and played some things he enjoyed.  I paused it after one particular song and then replayed the exact same song on Tidal and asked him if he could hear a difference.   He described Tidal as much cleaner and more detailed.  The difference was very obvious to both of us.

I use tidal and I hear a very big difference between the other streaming apps. Other apps sound very muddy through the whole spectrum. I also listen to there Masters and notice very little over the regular hi res but I do notice it. I like listening in pure direct. Also, there library is tiny and there curators are the worse, IMO.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing is for certain, there are a lot of bad cd's out in the market. Whenever I contemplate an older release I always consult the dynamic range data base, and it's never let me down when I pick my version of the CD by its rating. On new CD's you really do not get much of a choice.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cost is always going to be a factor.  I recently did a thread By The Numbers.  The article also had a doctor that stated, many people can't hear a difference going from CD quality to studio.  The so called golden ear is more base or training than super hearing.  I won't jump on the band wagon soon.  I have heard tidal and am not willing to pay for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, derrickdj1 said:

The so called golden ear is more base or training than super hearing.

Fully agree when it comes to many things.  However, the difference between a CD and the best LPs didn't require any training on my part.  When I first dropped a needle on an LP after 10 years of CDs I heard it immediately.  No training required.  Same when I first heard DSD.  Granted, first rate CDs are perfectly OK and without an A/B not at all disappointing, but not in a class with media and formats without limits in the audible range. 

 

Speaker cord, resisters, interconnects?  Fully agree and don't even want to learn to tell the difference.  That way lieth insanity...

 

Dave

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its night and day for me.  I wish everything was available in a DVDA, Bluray audio, etc.    Now, I do have a few disappointing titles that aren't bad and a step above a CD, but they just don't have that wow factor like many others.

 

A few faves: Some two channel, some multi and/or both

 

Steely, Gaucho in DVDA is a phenomenal. If you find it cheap, buy it.

Donald Fagen, The NightFly might even edge out Gaucho

JT, Aqualung      

Fleetwood, Rumors   

Allman Bros, Live @ Fillmore   Surprisingly awesome for a Live re-hash

The Doors,  Perception.  Best sounding Doors collection I have ever heard. 

Getz Gilberto  Who cares, they sound great on 8-track

Queen,  A day at the races  

Rush, Moving Pictures

 

 

Its all just cleaner. The silent pauses are black, nuances, background instruments, things you missed that were crushed by a hot channel.  Its all there with separation and I hate to read that someone hasn't experienced the difference, because it is there and totally audible.  Now two speakers sitting in a workshop or a tile floored Den with a $300 AVR hooked up to them, maybe not.

 

Anyone wanting a game changer, buy sound panels and quite a few of them. I have 12, 2'X4' 2 inch thick panels on the walls and ceiling for a 20' X18' room.  I would never ever recommend a single brand of equipment over any other, but I would definitely say everyone is missing out if they haven't treated their room with some quality panels.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Max2 said:

Rush, Moving Pictures

I love Rush and Moving Pictures but never thought their albums were recorded well.   At least not of the caliber of Steely Dan and Fleetwood Mac.

 

1 hour ago, Max2 said:

Allman Bros, Live @ Fillmore   Surprisingly awesome for a Live re-hash

No joke there.

 

Bill

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, willland said:

I love Rush and Moving Pictures but never thought their albums were recorded well.   At least not of the caliber of Steely Dan and Fleetwood Mac.

 

No joke there.

 

Bill

 

 

 

They aren't in my book either, but it is a delight to hear a great improvement with a larger dynamic range and a bit more clarity.  "The Camera Eye" is crazy good and the beginning of YYZ  has Neil's triangle spinning around the room from speaker to speaker when he is doing the morse code bit in multi channel. Its a tad harsh or spitty at times, but expected in the harder type of rock.

 

The older low level recordings seem to fair better IMO.  Rumors is good too, but Gold dust and the chain are more forgetful in SQ than the rest of the songs....frustrating and I paid a pretty penny for that one.   Steely and Fagen rule my stack in shear SQ without a doubt. 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Max2 said:

Rumors is good too, but Gold dust and the chain are more forgetful in SQ than the rest of the songs..

That surprises me.  I shut myself up in isolation this last Saturday afternoon with my spare bedroom rig with Rumours on Spotify and thought that Gold Dust Woman and The Chain were off the chain(pun intended) with great imaging and detail.  I can add Dreams to that group also.

 

Bill

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, willland said:

That surprises me.  I shut myself up in isolation this last Saturday afternoon with my spare bedroom rig with Rumours on Spotify and thought that Gold Dust Woman and The Chain were off the chain(pun intended) with great imaging and detail.  I can add Dreams to that group also.

 

Bill

Was it the DVDA version?

 

Its not bad so to speak, its just that Stevie's voice seems tucked too far back. I just don't hear as much separation in the majority of the album, kind of like they were all singing in one track on the chain. Gold dust has the background too high at times. And then when Stevie fires up the vocals at her peak, you can hear it distort just bit at the end. I know, I am being picky, but when you can hear this at a 90ish db output it never goes away.

    "Never going back again,"  probably sounds the best to me on the album.  The picking in the beginning defiantly has a high res sound and Lindsay's voice just stands out raw and clean. Wish to song was longer than 2 min,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...