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

[pepar]

What is it, specifically, about hi-res audio that makes it sound so good? I associate higher clarity, detail and dynamics with the high resolution audio found on DVD-A and SACD. Technically, what about it is causing it to be so much better?

Jeff

 

[Bruce B]

9 times out of 10 it has nothing to do with the sample rate but instread, the bit-depth and source. Usually if a label is going to the trouble of releasing hi-rez material, the files have been more carefully handled from the recording/mixing/mastering standpoint.

 

[pepar]

I understand the greater dynamics from higher bit depth ... is that responsible for the clarity and detail as well? Aren't the sources the same for the DVD-A/SACD as they were for the CD?

 

[Bruce B]

I understand the greater dynamics from higher bit depth ... is that responsible for the clarity and detail as well? Aren't the sources the same for the DVD-A/SACD as they were for the CD?

The greater dynamic headroom occurs at the bottom, since you have a lower noise floor, you can hear more clarity and detail because it's not masked in noise.

No.. most of the time, the SACD and DVD-A sources are different.

 

[pepar]

Is that the case for stereo SACD/DVD-A (compared to the stereo CD) or just multichannel SACD/DVD-A?

 

[Bruce B]

Is that the case for stereo SACD/DVD-A (compared to the stereo CD) or just multichannel SACD/DVD-A?

Yes it is... usually. Most of the time it's just a folded down version of the 5.1 mix

 

[microstrip]

9 times out of 10 it has nothing to do with the sample rate but instread, the bit-depth and source. Usually if a label is going to the trouble of releasing hi-rez material, the files have been more carefully handled from the recording/mixing/mastering standpoint.

Bruce,
OK for 9 times out of 10. And why 1 time out of 10 a higher sampling rate sounds better? Do you find great differences between 192/176 and 96/88 kHz sampling rates?

 

[Bruce B]

Bruce,
OK for 9 times out of 10. And why 1 time out of 10 a higher sampling rate sounds better? Do you find great differences between 192/176 and 96/88 kHz sampling rates?

O'kay... take the jazz trio files I posted some time ago. The clarity of the cymbals and the ambience could never be reproduced by a 16/44.1 file.

No, there is not a great difference between 192/176 and 96/88 kHz. I attribute a greater difference between DAC's that can reproduce those files. Some DAC's sound better at 192 or 176.4

 

[caesar]

Bruce, thanks for chiming in and explaining this, as always. Just so I understand, do the downloadable hi-rez files sound similar to the SACD disks, or do they sound very different using the same DAC?

 

[Bruce B]

Bruce, thanks for chiming in and explaining this, as always. Just so I understand, do the downloadable hi-rez files sound similar to the SACD disks, or do they sound very different using the same DAC?

A lot of the downloadable files on HDtracks came from SACD rips. If they sound different, it would be the DAC, or the filters applied when downsampling them from DSD to PCM.

 

[ack]

I consider the biggest benefit of hi rez to be the sample rate, then word length, but not by a wide margin. Reason being those subharmonics of the sum and especially the difference of two fundamental frequencies; that difference or the lack thereof - where the resulting subharmonic can often be in the audible range (when you have, say, two fundamentals at 25kHz and 8kHz) - is partly what rips music out of its soul with redbook digital, in my book. And there are many more issues - e.g. phase distortions by the brickwall filter working too close to the theoretical hearing limit - as explained by my reading of the HDCD patent. Feel free to disagree.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

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

 

[FrantzM]

Hi

I also have felt the pull of Hi-Rez, if only for intellectual reasons .. The frustration however is that it is too much hit and miss. Some content in Hi-Rez seems to surpass the 16/44.1 some just the same ...
My view on the subjects is that on certain material Hi-Rez is worth the additional expenses and bother .. On most 16/44.1 is good enough.

 

[NorthStar]

What is it, specifically, about hi-res audio that makes it sound so good? I associate higher clarity, detail and dynamics with the high resolution audio found on DVD-A and SACD. Technically, what about it is causing it to be so much better?

Jeff

Hi Jeff!

* The lack of compression => the added details, the openness of the room's ambiance.

 

[caesar]

Hi

I also have felt the pull of Hi-Rez, if only for intellectual reasons .. The frustration however is that it is too much hit and miss. Some content in Hi-Rez seems to surpass the 16/44.1 some just the same ...

Frantz, very interesting answer. It would be cool to be able to tag which content is "recycled" and which is truly better. Also, what is your DAC?

 

[mep]

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

Tim- are you inferring there is no difference?

Mark

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Tim- are you inferring there is no difference?

Mark

I'm inferring that whatever difference exists, beyond the obvious difference between mastering for audiophile systems vs. mastering for earbuds, remains largely unexplored by most hi-res proponents.

Tim

 

[rbbert]

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

The problem with this approach is the different sound of both the resampling and the dithering algorithms. None are perfect, most sound different, and some are clearly preferred (by most listeners) in listening tests. There are summaries of these tests at various Websites.

If you don't hear any difference, then one would have to question the resolution of your audio system or your ears.

 

[FrantzM]

Frantz, very interesting answer. It would be cool to be able to tag which content is "recycled" and which is truly better. Also, what is your DAC?

Benchmark .... Close to pull the trigger on a Weiss ...

 

[microstrip]

Benchmark .... Close to pull the trigger on a Weiss ...

Now I am very interested, as I am also considering a Weiss DAC. Which model has tempted you - may be the DAC202?