Buying Hi Res files... is it a scam?

I have no doubt that some of my hi res purchases are silly to call them hi res. To be honest, they are cheaper than redbook options on Qobuz (Sublime+) so I still buy them if it is the option. If I buy from bandcamp, I download the Wav file first to see if the package is larger than 16/44. If it isn’t, I just re-download the ALAC/FLAC file to retain any metadata.

I listen before I buy—the joy of Qobuz—so even if it doesn’t live up to its package size, I knew it was a sound I enjoy and feel is worth owning. That goes for 16/44 files as well.

There may be some scam, but I never feel swindled.

1 Like

Hi
Sorry I should have been more specific.
I know I should multiply the Y axis by 2.
So for this 24/96 record I was expecting to see some content between 24 and 48khz on the graph, which translates to 48 and 96khz in the real world.
But what I have is nothing beyond 22-24khz which transalte to 44-48khz.
So the files I am looking at are not 24/96.
I can hope they are 24/48 in the most optimistic scenario, but it is most probably 16/44.
That said, graphs are showing khz values, is there any way to measure bit depth and understand whether this is 16 or 24?

You aren’t, but it doesn’t prove the file isn’t “hi-res”. The original post shows a file. What the OP didn’t quite get is that a 96k sample will have a max frequency of 48k. The file in question looks like upsampled Redbook, but you can’t know for sure.

Several years ago there were many “hi-res” files that were upsamples from Redbook, but that seems to be pretty rare these days.
The online sellers sell what they are provided. The labels/distributors can cheat. Even with checks, some can get through. But as I said, in the last few years there don’t seem to be many instances of that.
With albums older than 2006 or so,it’s very unlikely they are “true hi-res”. Not much actual hi-res recording before that. Pretty much anything before that is an upsample or a “hi-res” conversion from tape. In classical music for DSD, this was an accepted (and not hidden) process in order to produce SACD-multichannel from existing recordings. People buying these knew what they were buying but preferred this SACD-multichannel format and didn’t care it was upsampled.

Today classical music is routinely recorded in some form of hi-res. More popular musics usually aren’t. At the larger labels Redbook recording is still common, as is 24.44/1 and 24/48. In jazz there is more recording in 24/96 and 24/88k. This type hi-res is mostly done at the smaller labels, it seems.

Whether all that matters is a different question. I have DSD or hi-res PCM conversions from tape sold as hi-res that I think sound very good, and better than other versions available.

Essentially what this shows is that the recording and mastering is more important than the format.

5 Likes

Mark, I clarified the OP.

Hi-Fi News & Record Review in the UK produce lab reports on high-res downloads. Essential, IMO.

1 Like

Qobuz have always said they rely on the distributor to provide details of the recording, and that they do not see it as their role to either verify, nor challenge this information.
I think that’s a fair, realistic stance to take.

It’s the distributors who should be held to account IMO.

1 Like

I guess some don’t record, mix and master in the non-audible range.

2 Likes

A lot of the benefit is not audio that you cannot hear but the lack of Brick wall filtering and less pre echo.

This is a good read on the subject

1 Like

Hate to sound so Emperor’s New Clothes, but if your ears can’t tell the difference, and you rely on graphs to show the difference, maybe hi-rez sound is overkill. I don’t get why recording sounds that are humanly inaudible is worth the premium price.

4 Likes

True. I had a hard time finding any benefit of Hi Res on most of the files I heard, hence my curiosity and the graph checking.
I think I found the answer :wink:

2 Likes

Mastering is often different on hi-res. Sometimes it is a better sounding version.And in any case, they charge a premium price for hi-res, so the consumer should get what he paid for, whether it sounds different or not.

1 Like

HDTracks and highresaudio say they check the files. Doesn’t mean they can’t be fooled.

1 Like

Spec was a cool find. I tested some of my Hi-Res files and confirmed that some of my 80’s remaster rock albums in Hi-Res arn’t. FYI. Spec does not recognize DSD tracks. Not sure where I got the files so can’t complain to anyone, but I will be testing downloads in the future. HDTracks, Prostudiomasters, and Native DSD are my goto shops presently. I have purchased one CD quality album from Qobuz.

I would say, though many may disagree, that unless the music was actually recorded in 24/96 or better then wrapping a CD quality recording in an 24/96 envelope will not improve the resolution. Some blind testing/listening with a couple of mates is quite revealing.

1 Like

It’s simply a fact that it won’t improve the resolution.
It might sound different on some DACs or setups depending on the DAC and how it handles the files and the filters in use. Different ways upsampling and filtering can flavor the sound - it’s one of the reasons people play with the upsampling and filtering in programs like Roon and HQP.

1 Like
  • Anything over 20kHz is not audible.
  • 16bit samples that are shaped-dithered can achieve a perceived dynamic range of 120dB.
  • A digital ‘brick-wall’ filter that preserves frequencies up to 20kHz, has good attenuation over 22kHz and very small in-band ripple is easily achievable these days and does not create objectionable pre-ringing.

In other words, hi-res is always a scam, regardless of its contents.

6 Likes

None of your points are factually incorrect. But you conclusion is not the logical result of your points; it’s
simply a valid opinion without any direct connection. Other valid conclusions can also take into account your points.

If all my points are factually correct, the logical conclusion is that property mastered 44.1kHz/16bit audio meets or exceeds human auditory limits, so anything beyond CD resolution (that is, anything that hi-res can contribute) is inaudible and potentially harmful (if it introduces in-band artifacts, e.g. through intermodulation distortion). Hi-res is a marketing gimmick that is not rooted in science.

8 Likes

There’s a difference between YOUR conclusion, and the possibility that the same facts can also lead to other conclusions. Your conclusion isn’t the only logical one, it’s just the only one you see. That doesn’t make it true, it just makes it one of the possible conclusions, any one of which could be true.

1 Like

I would love to hear other logical conclusions based on the facts I listed.