What is it - specifically - about hi-res audio that makes it sound so good?

[audioguy]

Anyone serious about investigating this subject should download an AB/X comparator program, convert hi-res files to 16/44.1 and then compare them blind to the original hi-res. Use as many samples as you like. Listen as long as you like. Just make sure you don't know if it's the original hi-res or the redbook you're listening to. That will reveal exactly what advantages you hear.

Tim

I am trying another approach.

I recently downloaded (from HD-Tracks), for this very purpose, a hi-rez Diana Krall CD of which I already have the Redbook CD.

I will have my wife do the switching (equipment is in another room) and then I will know if my ears can tell them apart (I sure do WANT their to be a difference which I why I need to do this test --- I'm not objective.)

 

[RBFC]

I am trying another approach.

I recently downloaded (from HD-Tracks), for this very purpose, a hi-rez Diana Krall CD of which I already have the Redbook CD.

I will have my wife do the switching (equipment is in another room) and then I will know if my ears can tell them apart (I sure do WANT their to be a difference which I why I need to do this test --- I'm not objective.)

Chuck,

Are you going to rip your redbook CD to your server, so that the playback chain can be identical?

Lee

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Chuck,

Are you going to rip your redbook CD to your server, so that the playback chain can be identical?

Lee

It's important that you do this.

I'm anxious to hear your findings. I have, by no means, concluded that there cannot be/is never a difference, but I've run this test and can absolutely confirm that any difference I've heard is marginal at best. Sometimes I think I hear it, sometimes I don't. But it's always been in that "I think I hear" realm, never an obvious difference, even with headphones. But of course my informal testing proves nothing to anyone but myself, and it hasn't kept me from seeking opportunities to rip the redbook layer of SACDs, where the mastering is often of much better quality than the mass market release.

Tim

 

[RBFC]

it hasn't kept me from seeking opportunities to rip the redbook layer of SACDs, where the mastering is often of much better quality than the mass market release.

Tim

I agree wholeheartedly. Many of my Hybrid SACDs have better redbook layers than the stand-alone CD releases.

Lee

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I agree wholeheartedly. Many of my Hybrid SACDs have better redbook layers than the stand-alone CD releases.

Lee

Contemporary recordings are often re-mastered for vinyl as well. Sad that they just don't do good mastering and release it on all media. Maybe someday this madness will pass.

Tim

 

[garylkoh]

Contemporary recordings are often re-mastered for vinyl as well. Sad that they just don't do good mastering and release it on all media. Maybe someday this madness will pass.

Tim

IMHO, it boils down to the mastering. I've got high-rez downloads and DVD-A that sound worse than the redbook, but the opposite is equally true.

Upsampling/downsampling is another hairy subject. I've done the ABX comparison both ways using different algorithms. To my ears, in my system, the best sounding free sample rate comparator is SoX. Of the files where I have better sounding high-rez than redbook, upsampling to the same resolution, the high-rez still sounds better.

Even at the same resolution (redbook), different masterings sound different. The best example is Roger Waters Amused to Death. The standard CD sounds nothing like the SBM Mastersound long box. With something much easily available, compare any JATP with the FIM K2HD version. The K2HD sounds more "organic" and enjoyable.... but I don't get reliable results doing quick ABX switching between the two FIM versions.

A note about the ABX comparator in Foobar - it creates two temporary files and compares those two. If you have your files stored on a solid-state drive, and the foobar temp directory is on a fragmented spinning hard-drive, you may get totally confused as to why both the A and B during the comparison sounds worse that what you are used to.

 

[audioguy]

Chuck,

Are you going to rip your redbook CD to your server, so that the playback chain can be identical?

Lee

Lee/Tim: That could be a bit tricky. My server (Qsonix) won't let me put two of the same CD on it and apparently it doesn't look at things like bit-rate as a difference.

I have two choices: (1) Listen to the redbook CD digital out from my CD player to my TacT and do the same for my Qsonix for the hi-rez version OR (2) listen to the hi-rez version on the Qsonix and then re-load the redbook and do the same.

I'm going to start with option (1) and see what happens since option (2) will make it very difficult to make it a really blind test. My wife would need to keep re-loading one or the other whihc is far from a instant operation. I'm one who does not believe aural memory will last that long --- and as Tim suggested, anything other than a true blind test for this kind of experiment is a new version of the Emperors New Clothes.

I don't now if Bruce can recommend a CD that is in both formats that would be the BEST comparison or not.

 

[Vincent Kars]

Often you can fool media players like the Qsonic by renaming the album title e.g. Album Title > Album Title 1

 

[audioguy]

but I've run this test and can absolutely confirm that any difference I've heard is marginal at best. Sometimes I think I hear it, sometimes I don't. But it's always been in that "I think I hear" realm, never an obvious difference, even with headphones. But of course my informal testing proves nothing to anyone but myself, and it hasn't kept me from seeking opportunities to rip the redbook layer of SACDs, where the mastering is often of much better quality than the mass market release.

Tim

The reason I chose to do this test is that my first impression of comparing them (option 1) was that (I thought) I heard a difference in the two but much less than I anticipated....and I wasn't 100% sure there was ANY difference at all. One could say that my system/room doesn't have high enough resolving power to hear the difference and that may be true -- but if that is true, then the market for this product is REALLY small. Dunlavy VI's driven by Bryston mono blocks SHOULD be good enough. But then again, there is my hearing !!

Stay tuned ---

Chuck

 

[audioguy]

Often you can fool media players like the Qsonic by renaming the album title e.g. Album Title > Album Title 1

I will try that and see what happens but I think the Qsonix gets all of its data from some data base someplace since it is internet connected when I am loading a CD.

 

[Vincent Kars]

Like all rippers it gets the meta data from the internet databases.
The question is how the software recognize the CD is already ripped.
If this is by Album Title, the trick works
If it write and ID, eg FreeDBID=123456789 and uses this to identify, the trick won’t work.
Ripping outside the Qsonic or editing the tags with MP3Tag might work.

 

[microstrip]

I am trying another approach.

I recently downloaded (from HD-Tracks), for this very purpose, a hi-rez Diana Krall CD of which I already have the Redbook CD.

I will have my wife do the switching (equipment is in another room) and then I will know if my ears can tell them apart (I sure do WANT their to be a difference which I why I need to do this test --- I'm not objective.)

Can we know what will be the system and the listening conditions (distance from the speakers, some brief description of acoustic treatments) you are going to use in this test?

 

[RBFC]

I will try that and see what happens but I think the Qsonix gets all of its data from some data base someplace since it is internet connected when I am loading a CD.

It's probably connecting to CDDB or MusicBrainz for metadata information, if it's using the net when an album is loaded....

There is often a button that will allow you to "Edit Metadata", so you can rename the album to **** HI-REZ or similar.

Lee

 

[DonH50]

"What is it - specifically - about hi-res audio that makes it sound so good?"

Forgive if this has all been said, I did not read through everything...

I think, like most things, it is a combination of things:

1. A recording targeting hi-res is likely to receive more care in the recording and mastering process. Same thing happened with high-end LPs back in the day; more attention to getting the sound right no matter the medium when your audience is expecting more.

2. Products (components) targeting hi-res are again targeting a select audience of listeners who expect (demand?) the best sound. I would expect the most attention to design and build quality, from DACs to power supplies to chassis, in that class of products.

3. The bits themselves offer more when taken advantage of, with greater dynamic range, lower noise floor, greater resolution (so less quantization noise, particularly at lower levels), etc. The higher sampling rate provides finer time resolution and margin to design better filters with less impact on the audio band. The biggest advantages from hi-res, imo, are during the recording and mixing process, when the engineers have margin to capture and produce (capture, mix, master) a wider range of sounds without distortion.

FWIWFM - Don

 

[audioguy]

Can we know what will be the system and the listening conditions (distance from the speakers, some brief description of acoustic treatments) you are going to use in this test?

Distance from speakers is a tad over 10 feet. Source is qsonix feeding TacT 2.2XP with modded power supply by Maui Mods. That feeds two Bryston 7B-ST amp feeding Dunlavy SC-VI's. Speaker wire and interconnects are all by BlueJeans. I am also using APS power conditioners on all front end gear and amps. Room is 9 feet high, 17.5 feet wide and 22.5 feet long.

There are corner bass traps in all four corners. Soffits are also bass traps. Front side walls are RPG BAD ARC panels; rear side walls are GIK absorbers (not the entire wall); rear wall is RPG Skylines; rear portion of room ceiling is diffusers and front portion of ceiling are bass traps absorbers.

The only major defect are my aging ears