They consider 44.1/24 as better than CD quality, due to better bit depth, as it does give a theoretical improvement of dynamic range (rarely utilized) . Notice, they do not mention resolution, just a very vague “better than CD quality”. Quality is a combination of both sampling frequency and bit depth. IMHO, the former is noticeable more important, so improving bit depth may or may not yield a real improvement.
No, it does not refer to the “whole chain”. Hi-res audio files are hi-res audio files even if you what you play them on downsamples them to 16/44.1.
Their decision on the definition was clearly meant to be a “soft pitch” for the industry and not a consumer-friendly rule.
1 Like
I find it interesting that you mention an Austin A40 which was my first car as a teenager and I’m 73 now and it’s the car I have the most fond memories of. I digress, I’m also a bedroom guitarist of many years and always record at 24/44.1 then down mix to 16/44.1. 24 bit gives me enough superfluous information to edit, similar to what I do in photography where my picture files are taken at 30mb but end up much smaller after editing for the same reason as music. As for advances in music hires production there is only so much information the human ear can hear and we are past that point so hires has become academic and pointless and it’s become a bit of a challenge to see who can produce the highest res music for no practical benefit. I expect, like you, that there will be advances in the way we listen to music, it may be implants directly into our brain but at this point in time hires is a bit of a game.
2 Likes
Why would you want to let Qobuz downsample everything above 44.1k?
2 Likes
Re-igniting and old thread here.
I am getting worried that Hi-Res is going to be killed off.
We don’t have many options for purchasing Hi-Res over the web in Australia (unless you use a VPN) but ZDigital who were one of our choices are removing the option to purchase an album in anything higher than 16bit. Many purchases that I have made from there in the past have been removed and I can’t even find the new album by Angus & Julia Stone anywhere in Hi-Res, their last two album were released in Hi-Res.
Every time I go to ZDigital to make a purchase there isn’t a Hi-Res version of the album I am looking for so I have to use a VPN to make the purchase from HDTracks or elsewhere.
How are other Austrlalians getting on with their Hi-Res purchases? Or anyone else from other countries?
Well, I’ve all but given up on hi-res… I just don’t hear any improvement. Perhaps I need golden ears?
7 Likes
Seems most of us can’t tell the difference given our general getting on it the years 
I still buy high resolution if available and not a heavy premium over CD quality (Bandcamp to be applauded for this) but unless sitting in living room or with headphones I tend to stream CD quality.
I listen to a lot of symphonic metal and the difference between AAC (or 320kb) and CD quality is big, but between CD & 24/48 and 24/96 is almost indistinguishable on my systems. Sometimes I think I can hear it, but then I think it’s just me wanting to hear the improvement.
Maybe for people who have invested much more money than me they can hear more.
I mainly use Bandcamp so get quite a few high res files there, maybe 30-40% of all my purchases. Qobuz is now in Australia but I havent yet signed up for it.
1 Like
That’s not valid though. You need to compare each track to a version of itself that went through the 44/16 bottleneck, not to other tracks. Besides, don’t you know already how each track is encoded?
wait, are you saying that the high res you are referring to is only uprezzed 44/16?
that will have a markedly smaller improvement factor over comparing a redbook 44/16 file and an original conversion from analog or digital capture at 96/24 (or whatever). the high-end is what it’s all about and much of the imaging, timbre and micro dynamics (life) has to do with reverb and ringout which is often contained substantially in the higher frequencies, yes, even higher than you think you can ‘hear’.
well, my lumin streamer will feed a 96/24 signal to my chord dave, which has a measured resolution of more than 20bits, and from there it goes analog to a krell amp and dynaudio speakers that both have freq resp greater than 30kHz and infinite dynamic resolution (being analog). so, yeah. it’s being reproduced. now, what of that i’m hearing/sensing, we could debate all decade to no real use… but, the cones are vibrating the air, so… yeah, it’s there. (and, for what it’s worth, i am a 50+ y.o. film industry professional who takes very good care of his ears, and i can ‘feel’… maybe not ‘hear’ close to 20kHz. even from a laptop transducer. you may call ■■, but i had my brother press play and pause on the file from the other room and i could absolutely ‘feel’ the 19k+ signal playback start. without a doubt. not boasting or any crap like that, i’m sure it will degrade and soon… i’m just saying, before we cement the notion that above 15k is useless… I Beg To Differ. and in that area is very useful information - see above.)
Yes. And also because the resolution isn’t higher in a practical way. What up-rezzing will do, and well, is smooth out the transitions between data points from the original sampling. What it will not do is capture or manufacture audio that wasn’t present in the sampling. So it will smooth, it will lessen harshness, it will warm bass notes… it will do those things, but not by adding any new information captured from the instruments at the recording, it is mathematically averaging. That is key to understanding up-rezzing. Now, high rez capturing… is different. And therein lies all the difference.
1 Like
Well, let’s just say you don’t catch fish with your breath…
1 Like
No, what I mean is, in principle:
- Take hi-res track A and copy it to B.
- Convert B to 44/16.
- Convert B back to original resolution.
- Have a computer randomly choose either A or B and copy to X, without anyone knowing what the selection was.
- Listen back and forth to A, B, and X on the same equipment and determine if X is A or X is B.
- Repeat the above process (for same track or different ones) and see what correct rate you get.
Ah, that’s different than what I understood from your original post. That is a blind test of uprezzing, yes, but from a dithered down-rezzed file, and so also a different test to what I was referring to. Valid and interesting, but not testing the inherent differences in high-res capture and redbook, dithered down or no. My scenario was testing more like between your steps 2 and 3. At any rate. Copy. That. So to speak. Thanks for clarifying.
Do you? -------------
Not sure what you mean by ‘hi-res capture’, but this kind of test (‘double-blind ABX’) - including other, very similar variations - will tell you whether hi-res makes any audible difference over red book by doing an apples-to-apples comparison, independent of the track source, mastering etc. That’s the only valid, scientific test I know of. If you don’t do that, you can’t claim ‘I can tell the difference’.
i am not disputing the method of testing, sure, yes, do double blind. all for that.
what i am talking about is what you are actually testing, and why. i’ve explained it as much as i possibly can. if you don’t understand the difference between capture and conversion… well. just think about it a little more.
the main thing i’m trying to say is there is high-res audio, and then there is up-rezzed audio, and they are very different. that was the main distinction i was trying to make.
i don’t think we are very far off in our opinions actually, i just don’t have the appetite for spurious arguments on this board. it can be an endless cycle and just wastes my time. not saying this one or you in particular mind you… thanks.
lol, well… that was the joke now wasn’t it? i thought maybe you’d run across such a phenomenon in your research, kal!
1 Like
There is no technical dispute that we can get from A to B quickly and safely with different vehicles, but there will always be people who think it can’t be done for less than $100,000.
What driving pleasure everyone gets out of it is only subjective and cannot be answered with technical arguments.
The dispute only arises because even arguments that are technically easy to refute continue to be asserted as generally valid.
If I think I hear something or can’t hear it, I have the right to say so. The one refers to his ears, the other to technical studies in the right experimental arrangement.
1 Like
It’s just clickbait from Darko.
Hi-res has always been for the tiny minority. Nothing new.
It’s debatable whether there’s any audible improvement ; and if there is, it may be due to different mastering, not the file format itself.
It will continue to be produced b/c it’s considered advantageous to mix/master 24 bit, and sometimes in hi-res sample rate. So classical and some other music will be released in hi-res as long as a premium is paid for it.
3 Likes