HDtracks & Pono vs. CD & MP3 - Is High Definition Music Worth It? Quality Test

[@hyperliteBo]

Haha funny, I did a big test with a buddy of mine yesterday between 24-96 16-44 mp3 320kbps, remasters, vinyl rips etc. With our ears on a reference hifi system and scientifically within reaper like you did and we concluded EXACTLY the same. We long thought that 24-96 was better but as it turned out they were all vinyl rips with better master quality :)

[@MrFaabulous]

Dear Adam, as a closet audiophile learning more and more about track quality (recording, mastering, compression methods, etc..) your video is seriously the best technical explanation i have come across! thanks for taking your time to do this for the benefit of people like me. Christopher Adam Melbourne, Australia

[@RealHomeRecording]

This video does not change my stance/opinion on RECORDING at high sample rates. High sampling rate DELIVERY formats is what is being discussed/demonstrated here.

[@reggaefan2700]

CD quality is the best delivery format? Better than a vinyl? I think not....not in terms sound quality though.

[@RealHomeRecording]

Sorry Reggae Fan I just saw your reply here. Out of all the physical formats (CD, vinyl, cassette) yes it is the best delivery format. Now, for digital delivery I would say 16-bit/48 kHz FLAC is the best all around format for delivery. It has a -96 dBFS noise floor and the transition band doesn't begin until past the point of human hearing. The main consideration, because we still don't have unlimited storage, is the balance between quality and file size. 24-bit is overkill for delivery. One could argue for higher sample rates but as long as the mastering engineer uses a good sample rate rate converter that should not be an issue. That's even assuming the music was recorded and mixed at a higher sample rate. A lot of music is still recorded at 44.1 kHz...the CD sample rate.

[@dvamateur]

RealHomeRecording.com I personally don't have a problem with hdtracks.com I like their mission and all, and it seems they really deliver the hi-res files. Do they rip people off? Not as much as Apple do. Not even close. Apple charges nearly CD price for 1/5 or 1/6 of CD data. That's a solid rip-off. As far as frequencies go, do I hear 25kHz sine wave? Of course not. Will I perceive timbral changes if these high frequencies are filtered out? Possibly. After all, when we play acoustic instruments live (unfiltered) they sound quite real, and unique. So, I am all for it. Why downconvert things? I listen only to handful albums, and I want to have delivery quality as close as possible to the recording quality. Same file would be best of course. If you need million songs in your collection, then yeah, you probably need to downconvert and compress for practical reasons. hdtracks.com charger not much more than a standard CD. As I said, I buy from them, and so far I am satisfied. Free of iTunes leash as well. Feels quite good actually. Apple's conveniences and commercialism might be alright for Beatles fans. I am not a Beatles fan, sorry.

[@mattymattsidebyeach]

+RealHomeRecording.com what exactly do you mean by delivery format? You mean the audio-data-file format? or do you mean the specific hardware? (in which case that would imply the final D/A process) It would seem that a lot of ppl here are on your ass (and are confused) cause of ineffective or unclear terminology,

[@RealHomeRecording]

+ɥɔɐǝʎqǝpısʎʇʇɐɯʎʇʇɐɯ When producing music there are two types of formats. The format that you use during recording/mixing/mastering. I call that the production format. In the old days that format was 2" tape reels. In my studio the production format is 24-bit/96 kHz digital files. The delivery format is what the consumer listens to. What they can purchase. In the old days it was vinyl then 8-track then cassette tape then CD. At present time the popular formats are MP3, AAC and FLAC. Higher bit depths (24-bit) and higher sample rates have a purpose during the production process. Higher bit depths allow us to record at lower levels to avoid clipping the analog to digital converter. Before floating point audio processing was introduced it was also more advantageous to mix at 24-bit than 16-bit. Even so, 24-bit audio keeps the digital noise floor well below that of the analog noise floor so we don't even have to concern ourselves with it unlike 16-bit audio. For the final (delivery) format, 16-bit's digital noise floor is perfectly fine. -96 dBFS is about 26 dB below the typical analog noise floor of a master and therefore it gets drowned out by the analog noise. 24-bit's noise floor is at -144 dBFS and really serves no purpose other than to eat up hard drive space. It's overkill as a final consumer format. Top of the line speakers have a cut off around 24 kHz and most of us can't hear past 18-20 kHz anyway. As per Nyquist theorem a 48 kHz sample rate is more than sufficient for audio playback. The reason I want higher sample rates when mixing/mastering is because digital signal processing (i.e. plugins) benefit from those higher sample rates. To what degree I don't know but software developers have told me this on a number of occasions so I will trust them when they say/write it. The two things that stood in the way of digital being a great format were the quality of A/D and D/A converters and the quality of sample rate converters. A/D and D/A converter quality was handled to near perfection on the pro level back in the mid to late 90s. On the cheapest consumer level somewhere in the early to mid 2000s and software sample rate conversion was perfected (in my opinion) around 2004-2005 with the release of Voxengo r8brain. So, in summary: Production format = 2" tape or 24-bit/96 kHz digital file. Quality Delivery formats = 16-bit/44.1 kHz CD, 16-bit/48 kHz FLAC (anything more is overkill), LAME or Fraunhofer encoded 320 kbps constant bitrate (CBR) MP3 or Apple encoded 256 variable bitrate (VBR) AAC. Yes...the iTunes AAC encoder is quite awesome. We live in great times!

[@iowaudioreviews]

Awesome video man, loving the content! 1.- 24bit audio isn't possible due to electrical limitations of current DACs, the best DACs today can only reach about 21bits of dynamic range 2.- 24bit has 144db of dynamic range which would blow your eardrums out and very few audio systems that fit in the home can accurately even produce 144db SPL. Would require a schiit load of power. 3. Any music recorded in analog or tape will only have about 70 to 80db of dynamic range. Can never be converted to true 24bit. 4. CD quality 16bit/44.1khz with dithering is capable of 120db dynamic more than enough for 99.9% of use cases. 5. Sampling rate the main difference for human hearing is auditory time resolution, how fast your brain can register differences in sound. There is a difference between say 44.1khz and 192khz but statistically very few people would be able to notice this. A highly skilled composer, musician, or sound engineer might be able to actually notice with consistency. 99% of other humans absolutely not. 6. Music labels need new ways to make money so they remaster and upsample music catalogs to 24bit/96khz and resell you music you've already bought. Double dipping. Now remastered can sound better but its usually not because its 24bit/96khz. Remastered CD quality can be very good done properly. You want better sound just look for better recorded or remastered music.

[@EricLeland]

Thank you for posting this. I knew the basics but was still not able to SEE why modern (last 10 years) CDs were SO HARSH on my ears but CDs from the 80's and early-to-mid 90's sound pretty good. As far as HD downloads, I'm not sure I am ready to buy these and then have to convert for use (I do not have a computer hooked up to my stereo and itunes does not accept hi-def audio) As is the music industry as an entity has not done enough to disenfranchise it's core audience, why not make just about every consumer format sound worse! There are some exceptions (Beatles, Pink Floyd, McCartney - all done at Abbey Rd) where the CD's sound pretty fantastic. I know that the new Springsteen remasters crew were very mindful of the audiophile this time around. For my money, I am sticking with CDs and or used Vinyl for now

[@RealHomeRecording]

Eric Leland You're welcome! And yes, the audiophile backlash will hopefully turn the tide for better sounding music for all.

[@roderickstaples127]

Thanks for this. I'm not too surprised about how small the differences are, and your tests puts the lid on it for me. Perhaps we should ask to see waveforms before we buy now.

[@kellyraysmith7697]

Your demonstration fits your well entrenched point of view almost perfectly! Other than the fact that you could see a difference on the Spectrum analyzer...

[@jamesgarrison7397]

Right on! I don't think you are getting anything from more Hz to justify the price, but the 24-bit sample rates and just the better Dynamic Range is why I buy HDTracks, like you I wish they would add the DR of all their music it would make buying so much easier. Good review!

[@Cragrim]

Great video for educating people about bit depth, frequency range and the loudness war. This is great to send to friends who are "unaware" of why music sounds so terrible these days. Thanks!

[@RealHomeRecording]

You're welcome Cragrim thank you for the compliments.

[@YPO6]

"For Whom The Bell Tolls" is from 1984.

[@RealHomeRecording]

YPO6 What year did I say it was? According to this it was released in 1985: Looks like that Wikipedia entry needs to be updated because Ride the Lightning was definitely out in '84. My apologies! en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_Whom_the_Bell_Tolls_%28Metallica_song%29

[@phildavis1723]

Hey man. It is very nice to see someone who knows what they are talking about! Of course, that means someone who thinks the way I do, which HAS to be right. ;-) Deep down, I know that the audible difference between different sampling rates, and even lossy audio, past 128 kbps, is mostly imagined. (I DO like to collect the Higher resolution files, just because I enjoy having them.) Coincidentally, I have done a lot of this kind of testing on my own also. My two strong beliefs are (1) The reason Vinyl is making a comeback is that the mastering for vinyl has to be done WAY more conservatively, and people would rather put up with the noise, on a properly mastered recording, then listen to compressed crap. Plus people enjoy the artwork and the nostalgia, and hands on aspect. (2) I believe, as you have also shown, that a CD quality rip from vinyl, or a properly mastered CD quality file, sounds every bit as good as the original, and probably as close to perfection you will ever get to as far as human ears are concerned. (Of course, studio work which goes through multiple effects and processes benefits from higher sampling rates, to avoid artifacts from generations of changes.) Also, I have found many HDTRACKS files that have been compressed JUST as much as the CD's, which is a tragedy. (Clapton & Friends J.J. Cale Album. Even the vinyl was affected. I complained to the label, and they said 'Bob Ludwig did it, HE should know how!') Anyway, good demo! The nice fact is that more people, and artists, are bucking the loudness war trend, and that's AWESOME.

[@RealHomeRecording]

Phil Davis Thanks for your comments. Yes, coming across HDTracks albums that have the same DR rating (on the dynamic range database) as the CD/MP3 release is indeed tragic.

[@JonnyInfinite]

Joking aren't you? Mp3 can sound like crap, even at 320 and using LAME. It's a lottery.

[@phildavis1723]

***** It's not a lottery if you encode it yourself. Modern encoders at 192kbps or more, 224 for SURE, are pretty transparent. You are going to find a lot of people who agree with me, and a lot who agree with you. Just do the research for yourself.

[@JonnyInfinite]

Phil Davis dude I've bought 256 and 320 stuff from major distributors that has clearly audible distortion and sounds terrible. For example I've bought some Boston from Google Play that sounds like someone scraping my ears...the recent 'Guardians of the Galaxy' soundtrack from the same place: 'Hooked on a Feeling' has serious distortion compared to the CD release a friend of mine bought. I got 'Yankee Rose' as a free 256 k download from Amazon: the chorus is completely distorted (admittedly this example may be shitty mastering but I doubt it). The iTunes AAC encoder is a bit hit and miss even at 320: some more modern recordings sound good, the older CDs for whatever reason just don't translate well to lossy.Most iTunes stuff Ive got sounds ok, but I bought a download by Fanny (Blind Alley) that sounds extremely dopey. Now you could argue I could by my own encoding software, but if the big boys can't always get it right, what chance I? The only transparent stuff I've heard is the WMA VBR encodes in good old WMP that go up to 384 kb, which is a hairs breath from FLAC/ALAC anyway. The ALAC stuff I have on my old iPod Photo sounds really nice; even the reverb and subtle instrumentation is clear. I've had it with iffy downloads unless they're dirt cheap. If I want a single track in top quality I usually either buy an old CD second hand or buy from Onkyo if available.

[@RealHomeRecording]

***** That makes me wonder if the big boy engineers aren't following the -1.0 dBFS rule: kzbin.info/www/bejne/l6XWYayffr-Ji6M

[@EarlofSuave308]

I think I got the gist of it, haha, great job and very interesting to watch. Thanks!

[@Oneness100]

What I've noticed is this. There are albums like Santana's Abraxas which I got from HD Tracks and there is no audio compression on the 24 Bit version and you can hear a lot of subtle ambients sounds during the first minute that are not heard in the CD version because the CD version was mastered with audio compression to remove those seemingly unwanted sounds. I don't know about that track that you are using, but what some of the albums on HD Tracks are are simply up sampled from 16 Bit and they have audio compression, which they probably sound the same, but some albums in 24 Bit from HD Tracks don't have compression whereas the 16 Bit version does. What I would do is take the first song from Abraxas from HD Tracks and then compare it to the CD version and then do a comparison difference test.

[@MrFLAVIUS12]

At 24:21 you say CD version but you load an mp3 of this song...the waveform of the CD version was equal? Anyway, i watch all your videos.cheers from Argentina (sorry for my english)

[@RealHomeRecording]

Hi ***** . Yes that's an MP3 encoded from a CD rip. Encoding to MP3 won't change a song's waveform makeup that drastically. If you go to dr.loudness-war.info/ and search for Skillet you'll see that their Awake album that's labeled HDTracks has a dynamic range rating of 10 and the lossless (aka CD) version has a rating of 05.

[@savvysymbiont]

RealHomeRecording.com I've got this very special track that is a MP3 rip from a CD and it sounds really amazing to my ears (through a variety of speakers), but I do not know why. I'd like to send you the file and get your take on it Adam. How can I send you the track for analysis?

[@RealHomeRecording]

Savvy Symbiont Check your KZbin inbox in a minute.

[@thisisawsome34253212]

I've talked to my second year music theory professor a lot about weaknesses in modern music. He really can't stand the over-use of Auto-Tune, while I did sort of agree while mentioning that it is just a tool used for the wrong purposes most of the time. I later told him that I discovered another trend in music that has no positives whatsoever, Dynamic Range Compression. The moment those words left my lips he started shaking his head because he knew all about it. In his words, "It's like throwing your music in a trash can." I explained how Metallica's Death Magnetic sounds better in Guitar Hero compared to a CD. His response was, "That's bizarre." TLDR: It's all about the mixing, and Dynamic Range Compression for major CD releases need to die and stay dead.

[@thisisawsome34253212]

@@jackcooper021 I bought the ALAC-HD 24-bit/96kHz version from the site. If only that were the mix used for the 2008 CD. At least they learned some lessons.

[@thisisawsome34253212]

@@jackcooper021 For my sake, I'm going to stick to using HDtracks, QoBuz, Bandcamp, and other official sites for high res downloads and only buy CDs if there is no other option. I still consider the digital music age to be in its infancy and I expect much better things to come in the future.

[@CarMoves]

You ARE allowed to play music for your video without fear of violating copyrights. As long as you are playing snippets or for educational purposes. Which this is. Great video!

[@RealHomeRecording]

CarMoves It's less of an issue to deal with. Case in point, I'm going through a copyright dispute right now for music I used in a video where I had permission. That's KZbin's automated system for 'ya. Hopefully it'll be resolved shortly.

[@CarMoves]

RealHomeRecording.com - My point was, you don't need to seek permission when it falls under Fair Use -- which your video clearly does. 17 U.S. Code § 107

[@RealHomeRecording]

CarMoves I know, I appreciate the info. :-) 2005 was a year that was spent on a good deal of Fair Use and copyright law research for a project I was working on.

[@thisisawsome34253212]

I own The Green Day collection from HDtracks, and I just did a waveform comparison using Audacity. The version of Know Your Enemy that I have is way more dynamic than presented here, but Brian Stew and Jaded look like the same mix as shown in the video.

[@1900stratoliner]

This is a great demonstration. Very good.

[@MrUltraworld]

Cool video. The biggest improvement I noticed was going from 16 - 24bit, keeping everything else the same. My own recordings sounded fuller, playback on my iPOD Classic with good ear buds sound better as well. But as you point out, a lot of us who have been listening at ear splitting volumes for many years have lost a lot of high end. Also, not all recordings are equal. A well engineered recording (a Steely Dan Record for instance) at 16 bit will shit all over lousy 24 bit recordings everytime.

[@genuineuni]

... and there's probably a lot of noise in the high frequencies. And, as you mentioned, since there is so little power associated with these high frequencies, your music would have to be LOUD! That's something that audiophile hate. As I know, MAYBE 15% of people enjoy HQ sound. Why I feel PONO will die. I wouldn't mind hearing remixed material, in a digital world, but even PONO fails to offer that. Nice video.

[@Oneness100]

What I've been told is that classical, acoustic jazz primarily is typically recorded and mastered without too much altering in the mix down and mastering stage. But popular music like pop, rock, dance, etc., they will typically add audio compression, etc. to make the kick drum, bass, etc. punch throw the music better and they are typically catering the mix for people with less than high end stereos because the music is catered towards younger people with just cheap stereos, earbuds, etc. whereas the typical person that listens to acoustic jazz, classical music, etc. is more likely older which more financial means and if they are more serious about their equipment are going to have higher quality stereo systems where they want to hear everything as close to what it sounds like when the musicians performed the music in a concert hall without a PA system or a nice studio with a more ambient natural sound. Popular music is more produced where they are doing more close miking, using lots of outboard gear, plug-ins, using synthesized, modeled or sampled instruments instead of acoustic instruments. I think the high resolution files should essentially be without any altercations from the original 2 channel master and if it's originally tracked at 24/96 or 24/192, it should be left alone, if it was originally tracked at 16 bit, it should also be left alone because up sampling it is just going to produce artifacts and you can't get more than what's already there. Now, there is a new technology Meridian announced which is called MQA, the gist of it is allowing the studio to get a more accurate rendition of the master and then the consumer can then have s/w and/or h/w to play those files with the MQA technology. It's brand new, there is nothing yet to hear since the recordings have to be remastered using MQA technology (I don't know if Meridian is going to release a plug-in or whatever they need to do to get it in the hands of the mastering studios) and then the user either has to get a Meridian DAC that's MQA ready (they have a $300 USB portable DAC) and they are in the process of licensing this to other companies, so we have to see what the options are for the consumer. I don't think it's anything the consumer needs to worry about now, but it might be wise to at least be aware of it, and I'm sure there will be more information on MQA as time goes on. It's definitely worth checking out as some of the larger record labels seem to be enthused about it and Tidal just announced that they might be streaming MQA lossless audio in the near future.

[@motap001]

It was good information. I agree with your study. I think you need to be better organized. That will keep viewers attention

[@PeteKowalsky]

LOL @ 30:44 "I mean, that's DISGUSTING"! Agreed man! :D This is exactly why I like the hi-res format. You're also right in that we shouldn't have to be total nerds to determine whether or not our music is still "fun", because that's what the dynamics discussion translates to. CD's were always a balance between dynamic range and quality ... as you showed, when done well, the results are actually REALLY impressive. If you remember, CD's back in the day could cost upwards of $18-$20 depending on the release, so the HDTRACKS prices we pay 30 years later aren't really all that bad. ;D

[@bustersgotavmax]

I like HDTRACKS, If you have a album from HDtrackds ,just open a file in a A/V editing program and have a look at the waveform.I haven't found anything from them that has been crushed with compression nor have I found the gains to be anywhere near jacked up to just touching clipping levels. As far as high def goes I'm not sure my ears or equipment are capable of distinguishing the difference between 44.1 or 96, but I can for certain hear a poorly mastered file next to a good one.

[@RealHomeRecording]

+Glenn Steven Agreed!

[@bustersgotavmax]

+RealHomeRecording.com I know I've only restated what you've said in your video,but, congratulations on making the most comprehensive video I've seen on this topic.I myself do a lot of bitching when I get involved in music discusions with people and it's always about how poorly digital music is mastered. I used to go out and get the CD of whatever I wanted instead of getting mp3 downloads,but even the CDs sounded horrible. Even now I still get sucked into buying the odd one and usually find it unlistenable.Anyways I've already taken more than 50 out of my collection and use them for target shooting.they are a perfect size for 200m. It's got to be a hard pill to swallow as a mastering engineer to be told to make a recording lifeless and loud.

[@NickBarlow]

This guy is right. Every point of the audio chain matters. 99% quality can be ruined by the 1% cheap part.

[@ericcindycrowder7482]

True, most speakers will not reproduce sound over 18khz, and most older people can't hear over 18-30 kHz. However, high(er) end speakers will reproduce sounds up to 35 kHz, which has BE tweeters (beryllium alloyed dome tweeters) and many types of ribbon tweeters. These loud speakers typically range from $5000 a pair to over $55,000 a pair. If I buy a pair Of serious high end speakers, and the other high end electronics such as an audiophile quality DAC, preamp, and monoblock amps, and my ears are sensitive to higher freq sound, the yes I will listen to high def sound files. Still my preference is DSD format on good old fashioned SACD that's been around over a decade.

[@KoolKatRecordingStudios]

Once again. Youre Intelligent Brother...and I do believe that Im Learning quite a "Bit" from You ( & yes Pun intended too...haha) but Im really gaining knowledge from you & I also have & use Voxengo Analyzer....Plus I do Trust the name & R8Brain is by Voxengo too. I Plan on downloading it also...after watching Your Video on PONO first actually and now this one...I can see the difference & use for All the Different SAMPLE Rates & BIT Rates AND Now HOW They can Be Used for The Best & Translate, or in other words....Record In Higher Rates & Bits....and then Down Sample or Convert to CD &/Or MP3 Quality...however at the same time...as youre showing....CD Quality is No Less Quality than 96khz..its somewhat of a paradox it seems if Im understanding this correctly. Thanks Man...yea I would like to get a BlueKatz Multi...checked it out last nite after seeing your vid on it...but theres no Free Demo that I could see....(i usually like to try to free version and then sometimes buy it..) Thanks Man, Great SCIENTIFIC Proof & Data! "Truth"....Cheers REAL Home Recording; Adam....Respectfully; Jimmy

[@TimeMarchesOn]

Isn't the Pono and HD at 96 and higher and was your project at the same sample rate an if so how can you play audio at two different sample rates in the same project? Just wondering if this test was accurate.

[@Sci-Fi-Hooligan]

Thanks for this. Food for thought. I record my own music on PC. This has got me thinking...

[@RealHomeRecording]

See my comments below. This video does not change my stance/opinion on RECORDING at high sample rates. High sampling rate DELIVERY formats is what is being discussed/demonstrated here. There are benefits to record/mix/master at 24-bit and higher sample rates.

[@Sci-Fi-Hooligan]

Yeah. I watched it again. I got two of your video's mixed up as I was trawling around for info and stumbled upon your stuff (glad I did, very informative)

[@mkarchives1373]

I see some thumbs down in here but I personally think you know very well of what you're talking about. Being an amateur recorder digitizing my LPs (for my personal use/keep), I've learned quite a lot here of the errors that the recording industries are doing by over gaining the music level while mastering at the cost of lost in purety. The principle of the "free air" you've brought up here is much logical and I'll see that this is respected in any attempts to higher the gain in my later final mastering. However, where i'm not sure with the comparisons (ie 96vs 44.1) is the waves segments themselves. Pure air analog is a pure wave line. Isn't digitals zeros and ones switching to form the waves? in the result of having sizzling wave lines? so that using higher bit rates refines this? just wandering of that "mechanical" part with the digitals.

[@RealHomeRecording]

Thanks mk archives . I don't mind the thumbs down, people can think what they want. The science and facts don't lie. Lucky for vinyl it can't be brickwalled to death or it must be transferred at a quiet volume. So vinyl retains dynamics but unfortunately has other limitations. From about 1995 onward to the present time digital has gone to shit and vinyl certainly sounds "better" due to the lack of hypercompression. As for 96 vs. 44.1 audio only has to be sampled twice to capture every detail of a frequency. Typical human hearing goes from 20-20000 Hz. CD give us 22,050 Hz. 2,000 Hz is in what's known as the transition band and that can affect audible frequencies in the 17,000-20,000 Hz range. But the artifacts are usually buried under the music and too quiet to be audible so 44.1 kHz (CD quality) is fine for the vast majority of listeners. IMHO bumping things up to a 48 kHz would eliminate all transition band issues, placing it at the 22 kHz to 24 kHz frequency range. That's out of the range of human hearing but most importantly out of the range of virtually every speaker system out there. High sample rates and 24-bit audio is useful for production purposes. To keep digital noise levels low during recording (layering tracks = louder digital noise which can get nasty with enough 16-bit tracks). Higher sample rates give plugins more math to work with and math errors can be sent to upper frequency ranges. That's the basics of the benefits, there's more to it than that. Anyway, that data is a waste for the human ear though. 16-bit/48 kHz is all we need IMHO.

[@RealHomeRecording]

Google Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem for more info.

[@philipcooper8297]

Is Hi-res audio measurable with audio measuring devices? Yes. Can you hear the difference with your own human ears? No.

[@tuberoyful]

Philip Cooper 23khz ear = 16yr old person and down 20khz ear = 32yr old person and down 17khz ear = everyone else.

[@tuberoyful]

Your exactly right 96khz, 192khz and especially 320khz are very hard to distinguish.

[@tisbonus]

Ayamalach um, no. 20k = newborn baby 19k and under is EVERYBODY else. No human being has heard or felt a 22khz tone as of yet!

[@acewelding]

Are the recordings of the iTunes digital download tracks smashed as much as the recordings of the CD release? That would be a good comparison exercise to see if both recordings use the same master recording. Thank you for a great informative video, I learnt a heap of interesting stuff. Cheers.

[@acewelding]

+Mike P good shout, thanks

[@theonlydjtopcat]

ITunes refuses to sell all music in lossless you tell me?

[@youluvana]

Vinyl still has better dynamics than most DVD/HDtrack remasters. I think i'm gonna check out that HD tracks site if you say they are reliable. hopefully they have a good selection. Right now i'm listening to some Daft Punk on KZbin and I have to say that all of their stuff is mastered very well even on youtube. I guess that's what happens when you get to be your own producer :)

[@rogerwilco2]

At about the 9:00 mark I was shouting "get to the point". You take soo much time to get your point across. Secondly you should look up and explain what you're doing, like the flipping of the polarization. I do agree with you, but you should be able to do this in less than 5 minutes.

[@pureby]

RogerWilco and I enjoyed all the 33-and-a-half minutes and went on to watch 2 other videos of this author, then subscribed to his channel. The author takes the tests serious and takes his time to explain every single step of this complicated procedure to us in a scientific manner, which I highly respect and appreciate. I bet he could do all of the above even faster than 5 minutes and spoon-feed you a shallow outcome, but this way you wouldn't have learned or understood shit. Doesn't look like you did that anyway, but at least you were presented with a fair chance. It's funny how people start to complain about "looooong" and "boooooring" when confronted with a slightest attempt to let them think for themselves.

[@OscarBuelna]

PureBY same.

[@AllynVibes]

Thank you!

[@mxss.12313]

so cd is worse than hdtracks? Or is it just in this specific case? I bought a cd for mastering referencing and mine was just as squashed as yours

[@RealHomeRecording]

It really just depends on the CD. Remasters = usually squashed. You could have squashed 24-bit/192 kHz music like Linkin Park (for example) or very dynamic 16-bit/44.1 kHz music like classical or jazz. Finding old CDs on eBay that were released prior to about 1998 is where the gold is.

[@YPO6]

Is there (well documented) blind tests done comparing regular CD quality versus "high resolution" digital audio?

[@johnmimms9167]

good video. it all comes down to how good your speakers are in producing hi-res audio. truly flac has higher quality than cd.

[@GabryszBruno]

Hey! great video! Congrats... Wat I would really appreciate would be a tutorial about using Freqanalyst... I tried to understand it but was dumbfounded all the way so I quit even trying to use it, but you do a great job with it. I'm sure I am not alone. Thanks

[@RealHomeRecording]

Already made one. Blue Cat's FreqAnalyst Multi 2 Review Thanks for the compliments!

[@cybclinic]

BTW Well done Adam,!!

[@ollie101258]

Before you conducted your tests did you check as to what settings the album was recorded at, this is very important since the likes of HD tracks cannot give you what is not there if the engineer who recorded it compressed it at CD level (or worse)in the first place. I have used HD Tracks and other sources and can tell you now that in almost all cases when compared to the same cd that I have they do sound better no matter what so called scientific tests like the 1 you have done show, examples of better include hearing foot tapping, breathing, echo's etc. and less harshness esp at high volume levels. I accept that I have fairly high end gear but even played through a basic setup it does make a difference. I cannot explain why yours and others test equipment appears to show no difference but the fact remains that if you feed a crap signal into decent equipment it will still be crap when you hear it and in some cases sound worse than playing it through a basic system. If you are happy with what you get from a cd or mp3 file then fine save yourself some money and stick with them, but please don't try to prove by use of a test programme something that I and many other people who love their music and want to hear it as it was originally recorded know is not the case!!!!! My wife who has a hearing issue (only 20%/90%) often says Wow when she hears the difference and that is one of the reasons we and many others are prepared to spend the extra cash to get the best available. One further point is that you are right about the hearing range of the average human yet the differences we hear are actually in the midrange so that must prove that the way Cd's are compressed does affect the way we hear things on them.

[@RealHomeRecording]

+Dave Hollingsworth I don't think you watched the video fully or comprehended what I said in it. I certainly did say there is a difference and what that difference often is. To reiterate: HDTracks often gets masters that are not hypercompressed. Speculation on various internet forums is that they receive the master that goes to the vinyl mastering engineer. This has a better overall sound with better transients and a more "open" sound compared to what is achieved with loudness wars smashed CD masters. There is zero reason that non-smashed masters couldn't be on a CD copy of an album but the record companies choose to destroy the music because they are imbeciles. It didn't used to be that way but has been for about twenty years now on most mainstream releases including (unfortunately) remastered back catalog albums. This isn't always the case though. A lot of albums on HDTracks are just as smashed as their CD counterparts. Take a look here: dr.loudness-war.info/album/list/dr?album=hdtracks Secondly, tapes are often re-transferred with modern analog to digital converters. Converters that are indeed better than what technology in the 1980s and 1990s gave even the top mastering studios.

[@ollie101258]

+RealHomeRecording.com If you look at the file sizes of HD tracks esp 24/192 down loads you can see why they simply wont fit on a single cd hence I guess why the record companies compress them nor would the DAC built inside the cd player cope with them, The CD system was developed years ago to a set standard which in many ways suited the kind of playback equipment the average person in the street had and I think here lies the problem. Things have moved on greatly and as I said before the better gear you have the more you notice things, Most of the stuff I listen to comes from the 60s-late 80s and I have noticed that in most cases this is where you gain the most from a HD download as against the cd I might already have in my collection, maybe this is because the recordings were stored on a master tape with no compression and perhaps are still available now, the link you provided me with does seem to show that the older recordings score best

[@jk0000079]

I'm failing to see, what was the point in the conversion of a 24bit master track to 32bit FP. - Can you do me a favor and compare the 44.1kHz 32bit FP to the 44.1kHz 24bit, originating from the same 96kHz 24bit master track? - I would expect pretty much zero diff there (presuming no artefacts brought in by the convertor/codec SW). The "interesting" comparison here, is between 96kHz 24bit lossless, 44.1kHz 24bit lossless and 44.1kHz 16bit lossless (and then of course the comparison between lossless and lossy format {here: mp3})

[@Kwippy]

My ears told me long ago that hi-res music, either downloaded or on SACD trounce CD. As for vinyl, while you can get amazing quality on vinyl, you need very expensive gear and then you need a vinyl that has been made to the highest quality. An average vinyl LP just won't cut it. MP3 now that's only fit for background music while you are doing something else.

[@PatrickPleau]

Very nice tests Adam very clever of you. i'm gonna try this out :) but it also depends on the mastering sample rate. for example: I record and mix at 44.1. often the mastering guy will do mastering at 44.1. I will them upload my mastered 44.1 file to Pono.they will upsample it at 96 for example but it should not be different soundwise since all data are from a 44.1. so your band example you downloaded maybe they mixed the song at 44.1 so even at 96 for sure it wont have sound difference in theory. but if the band for example mixed the song in higher example 48 or 96 or 192, in theory you could have more data. I dont know if you understand what I mean.. for short. the future Pono format will only matter if the band or artists mixed and mastered the song in higher than 44.1. else 96 wont matter. so it should be NOTED in the digital download not too fool people. like specifing that that album was mixed in 96, etc..

[@RealHomeRecording]

Definitely do this test yourself, I'm just putting this out there so people who don't know how to run objective tests (which is what a phase reversal test is) realize what they're actually buying into. I don't like having to pay a premium for properly, non-hypercompressed music but if there's no other way and I love the music then I will. That to me is the only reason to buy into "high definition audio"--if it is mastered at quieter volumes and if it's sourced from reel to reel tape they went back and recaptured it with newer analog to digital converters. At the beginning of the video I showed that there was extra data above 20,000 Hz in the 24/96 track. A song that would be upsampled from 44,100 Hz would not have any frequency data above about 22,000 Hz. I'm going to post a few screenshots on the RHR Facebook page to show what I'm talking about. When you upsample you're not adding any additional data. Some plugins do upsample internally, even if your project/session is set to 44.1 kHz they will do their math at higher sample rates. So I am curious if plugins upsampling 44.1 kHz tracks would add additional frequency data. Maybe I'll do another video about that? I do agree that Pono/HDtracks and the other companies do need to get more information from the record companies. There is no reason in this day and age to record/mix at lower sample rates. If my computer that I bought in 2007 can mix at 24/96 then their newer/faster machines should be able to as well. It's a disservice to the musicians and customers to do otherwise. Plugins do work better at legitimately (native/actual) higher sample rates. Software developers that I've spoken with told me this is the case and I will believe them because they aren't trying to sell me hardware. If you Google it HDtracks got called out on upsampling music to 96 kHz and they took down the songs/albums that weren't authentic higher sample rate files. This could have been done on the record company end but either way HDtracks should have verified the premium sound. Even if in reality it makes little difference I would feel ripped off if the files I bought weren't truly giving me those higher frequencies.

[@JimijaymesProductions]

From this video I can see one reason to get HD tracks... They may be remastered to a better quality (less hyper compression) hmmmm.....

[@tuberoyful]

The purpose of DSD files is not to boast one must be willing to also spend a lengthy amount on hi-res portable audio players plus equally high-end earphones/headphones to complete the package.

[@paulphilippart7395]

So I put all my years of mic technique and correct leveling ,had great musicians with quality instruments and great imaginative music,got low noise great acoustically tuned spaces,phase linear monitors,have captured all the dynamics and subtle nuance,used compression etc as artistically and appropriate as it needs to be and my mix sounds airy full and articulate,and as everyone reminisces how sound used to be,it sounds even more magical as I turn it up,weighty kicking without distortion fatigue, exciting, immersing all of that.......I dont have to worry about hiss or any other extraneous noise digital is so freaking good ...but then what this is not tape,you no longer worry about a freaking needle jumping out of a restricted groove.....it goes to the mastering moron,mm ah the customer is always right mm the record company is always right ..the client is always right...oh! whats happened, everything good has been removed,everything everyone else is desiring and what they romantisize about the way things used to sound, has swanned off like a magnificent herd of wasps in a halo of distortion,now so freaking loud you cant turn it up cause its just screwed anyway,so people being a bit follow the freaking idiot leader with no cloths on,constantly desire that sound (stolen hoodwinked by a nothing) ,which is great for the pillocks steeped in ignorance that just want to take your money..if truth got out about and everyone decided I want a refund this is broken ,and most of it is! ,if consumer rights etc kicked in (you would not put up with a broken car or gone off food would you)Ironically billions of us seem to!!!!!,then your whole music industry would be well truly f*******ed, it was never broken it did not need fixing the standard has been around for a long time and now we could bask in the glory of it ,cuase digital is so freaking awesome ,memory isnt a problem,nor noise,if only this was dealt with then it would stop generations of people constantly being driven round the mulberry bush of slippery sales bullshit buying stuff they thought would satisfy them,and things would be a lot greener,truth green...peace out.

[@RealHomeRecording]

I really like your post so I'm going to add some line breaks/edit it a little so it's easier to read for everyone: "So I put all my years of mic technique and correct leveling. Had great musicians with quality instruments and great imaginative music. Got low noise great acoustically tuned spaces, phase linear monitors, have captured all the dynamics and subtle nuance, used compression etc as artistically and appropriate as it needs to be and my mix sounds airy full and articulate, and as everyone reminisces how sound used to be. It sounds even more magical as I turn it up, weighty kicking without distortion fatigue, exciting, immersing all of that.......I dont have to worry about hiss or any other extraneous noise digital is so freaking good ...but then what this is not tape, you no longer worry about a freaking needle jumping out of a restricted groove..... It goes to the mastering moron, mm ah the customer is always right mm the record company is always right ..the client is always right...oh! whats happened, everything good has been removed. Everything everyone else is desiring and what they romantisize about the way things used to sound, has swanned off like a magnificent herd of wasps in a halo of distortion. Now so freaking loud you can't turn it up cause it's just screwed anyway, so people being a bit follow the freaking idiot leader with no clothes on, constantly desire that sound (stolen hoodwinked by a nothing) ,which is great for the pillocks steeped in ignorance that just want to take your money.. if the truth got out about and everyone decided I want a refund this is broken ,and most of it is! If consumer rights etc kicked in (you would not put up with a broken car or gone off food would you) Ironically billions of us seem to!!!!! Then your whole music industry would be well truly f*******ed. It was never broken it did not need fixing. The standard has been around for a long time and now we could bask in the glory of it , cause digital is so freaking awesome. Memory isn't a problem, nor noise. If only this was dealt with then it would stop generations of people constantly being driven round the mulberry bush of slippery sales bullshit buying stuff they thought would satisfy them,and things would be a lot greener,truth green... peace out."

[@savvysymbiont]

I'm curious about this new meme as well...Have you heard of Pono? They are addressing this quality issue with an even newer and better format.

[@RealHomeRecording]

Savvy Symbiont Yes. I'd have to reach the same conclusion for Pono as well. Watch the video. :-) As for the Pono hardware component design (D/A converter and amplifier) it looks nice on paper. The exterior that won't fit in your pocket? Not so much. Unless it's tiny. Even then, I'm not a fan of the triangle design.

[@savvysymbiont]

RealHomeRecording.com Yes...I've learned that the old school capacitors they spec'ed on the board are necessary for the vinyl sound quality....and they are rather bulky to package.

[@Choronzon39]

Savvy Symbiont You may want to check out the documentary Sound City. A shit ton of great albums were recorded there with a Neve 8028 mixing board, one of only four ever made. Dave Grohl bought it when Sound City went out of business.

[@Oneness100]

In the test you are doing isn't really comparing HD Tracks 24 Bit vs a CD version of that same song, what you are comparing is the original 24 Bit version and then down sampled and up sampled from the same original source. The better test would be comparing the 24 Bit vs to a 16 Bit version of the same song, since that's what we are actually buying. Again, not all 24 Bit albums on HD Tracks are done exactly the same way. Some are just up sampled from the 16 Bit version, some are PCM conversions from DSD, some are reconverted from original analog tape, some have no audio compression, some do. I think you should consider that every version that's released might or might not have been mastered the same. They sometimes play around with added or remove compression, change EQ, etc. etc. So, the best comparison is just take a CD, maybe the Mobile Fidelity CD, SACD, HD Tracks and then compare what different versions of the same song and compare which are different and which aren't.

[@hamitcampos4989]

Yeah to really know the difference you'd have to run your test on a truely 96 KHZ 24 bits WAV. In other words on an album that was recorded in HD. Cause I suspect like video up sampled audio won't do the format justice.

[@thisisawsome34253212]

What about data compression?

[@RealHomeRecording]

That is in the video. Check around the 20 minutes mark.

[@cacahouetech]

If your high res 24bit signal is 90db dynamic source recording. I don't think you will visualize the difference with 16bit converted file. If you want to see your difference you need to make sure that the 24bit is of high dynamic content( >100dB wich is not common). Otherwise your demo is legit, I agree with your presentation.

[@SuperBarnab]

Hello could someone sum up this video cause iam french and can't handle that 33min video. TY in advance

[@RealHomeRecording]

ZelhiA Sure. CD quality audio (16-bit/44.1 kHz) is perfect for human hearing. What you may be paying for when buying "HD Music" is different masters. But not always. 320 kbps MP3 files are nearly indistinguishable from CD quality.

[@SuperBarnab]

RealHomeRecording.com Yeah but you talk about the pono project also nah? what about it? I heard the jack port of our computer lower the quality of what we listen to, is that true? Thx for answering really appreciating

[@RealHomeRecording]

ZelhiA Pono is directly related to HD audio. There are already portable HD audio players on the market right now that do the same exact thing. Pono offers nothing new to the marketplace.

[@icrin_]

can you tell me which program and plugins you used?

[@ovonisamja8024]

Icaro Vasconcelos try googling Cocos Reaper DAW. It's quite affordable. The plugs he used are all freeware plugs. For frequency analysis he used Voxengo SPAN, and Blue Cat Audio Blue Cat's FreqAnalyst. The gain plug is Sonalksis FreeG.

[@nizodizo9549]

You should include vinyl in your comparison. I think you will discover the kind of differences that you are looking for.

[@bentyreman5769]

I agree with you, in some ways this is the record company way of making their last money before they fail lol I don't want to have to re buy all my favourite music, mind you I haven't bought much music for the last few years because I noticed a shift in quality in the early 2000s.

[@maxxvidzs]

....more over your sound card may be insufficient to render the quality!

[@RealHomeRecording]

+marc nongmaithem Now you are just being silly. But if you want to waste your money on "high res" music files go ahead it's your money. I just wish these record companies would stop screwing up their masters with hypercompression.

[@theonlydjtopcat]

I'm an audio engineer 96k is overkill in the studio. Clients want 96 we record as requested. No point arguing with dummies.

[@theonlydjtopcat]

Pono was just a gimmick failed cash grab for Neil Young.

[@diosoth]

I'd guess that modern CDs took a hit because the RIAA knows that people will either buy the MP3s online or just pirate them, so they put in less effort, time and money into the production.

[@bentyreman5769]

good job there was no dog in the room, it would go crazy ha

[@RealHomeRecording]

Ben Tyreman Funny you should mention the dog. She walked in around the 20:10 mark. ;-)

[@louie000007]

Do AC/DC's hard times track in HD vs. and actual CD (not your conversion).

[@tuberoyful]

You also have AcousticSounds.org That provides DSD files too

[@hanspeter2210]

"one of the best converters" Well, there is not much to do wrong. Just round the 2^24 possibilities to 2^16. 24 bit -->16 bit. And the 96-->44.1 khz is a quite simple operation. and what is the quality supposed to mean? there is no data loss in wav.

[@xnoreq]

hanspeter2210 Let's see if you know what you're talking about. How would you implement 96->44.1 resampling? In essence, what filter(s) would you use?

[@hanspeter2210]

first folding with a sinc funktion (multiplay in frequencies)--> eleminate higher frequencies than 22 khz because of nyquist. For going from 96 khz to 48 just take every 2nd value. Sorry, for 96->44.1 I don't know the filter, had it in lecture. recunstruct signal with 96 khz and discrete it again with 44,1 khz would work.

[@xnoreq]

hanspeter2210 A sinc function is not a good filter, but you probably mean windowed sinc anyway. The latest concern in woo-woo audiophile land is the ringing introduced by such "brickwall" filters, I guess that is why r8brain starts rolling off the frequency response smoothly above ~18 kHz. 96->44.1 has a factor of 147/320, so there is no throwing away of every other sample. This is where things can and do go wrong in implementations: aliasing, time delays (will prevent subtraction/nulling) .... I cannot speak for the quality of r8brain, but it seems to work fine. The filter should be configurable though. I use SoX: sox.sourceforge.net/SoX/Resampling

[@ovonisamja8024]

hanspeter2210 +John Doe I think you guys should start a company together. :)

[@bradsour]

Watching this video and yes I watched it all as if I hadn't I would have left believing HDTracks is a hoax. But that isn't the truth. The truth is the hoax is on the CD Quality we get which should be better than we're getting. It's actually disgusting to see that we a have a perfectly acceptable medium (CD) for distributing high quality music and it gets butchered so we are then forced to pay even more for it to be done right.

[@BrendenChase77]

I think the obvious part starts at about 25 minutes. It's ridiculous to see how far music has fallen. Though I'm curious how this applies across all music. He gave us some samples, but that isn't a large enough sample to say that everyone is doing it. I could see a more in depth investigation into this across all music genres, and broken down by studio and publishers. I imagine done are worse than others. Also, he openly admits that hd tracks isn't perfect either.

[@bradsour]

Correct. I assume hd tracks works with the best they can get their hands on. I don't think they intend to be malicious but they want to have a wide variety themselves. Just like he is interested in I too would like to know the quality I would be getting both with a cd or with hd tracks.

[@BrendenChase77]

Right. I wasn't suggesting that HDtracks was doing anything wrong. If anything they are attempting to right the ship. Though taking advantage of the deficit of quality digital recordings at the same time.

[@AussieTVMusic]

hyper bowl

[@williamolsen20]

It is called dithering down it seem like you should know that.

[@RealHomeRecording]

I don't know everything.

[@HAWXLEADER]

compare it to aac?

[@RealHomeRecording]

HAWXLEADER AAC would be even better quality at the same bitrate.

[@TheResonating]

you know skillet?! Do you know the band red?

[@RealHomeRecording]

I know of Skillet/am a fan of their music. No, I've never heard of Red.

[@TheResonating]

RealHomeRecording.com you would love them especially their first two albums if you love skillet

[@tarstarkusz]

The scientific answer is very easy and I am not an audiophile at all. It's about resolution. Imagine a sheet of paper with horizontal and vertical lines for 1 second of music. 16b gives 65536 horizontal lines 24b gives you 16.7Million horizontal lines. 44khz gives you 44 thousand vertical lines and 96khz gives you 96 thousand lines.It's the difference between a 3MP camera and a 12MP camera (all other things equal). If you think of every box as a pixel and make an analogy to a picture, you obviously get more detail and a truer representation of the original. It's also like moving from a 35MM film to a large format film.

[@RealHomeRecording]

tarstarkusz Digital audio doesn't work that way though. See this video: kzbin.info/www/bejne/oaawqI1ojdaAfac and this one kzbin.info/www/bejne/Y3PHamyZdqmebZI for a comparison between "high res" formats and "low res" formats.

[@toddgreen2074]

As noted above. You need to learn about how digital sound works before you make any comments concerning it.

[@tarstarkusz]

Todd Green I haven't watched the links, but the best he could be saying is diminishing returns. Are you going to argue that 8bit 22khz is just as good? How about 12 bit at 44khz (sampling rates)? I have no experience in audio, but I have experience in digital electronics and programming.

[@RealHomeRecording]

You can lead a horse to water but...

[@tarstarkusz]

RealHomeRecording.com I just watched your link, you say 16b 48KHZ uncompressed is the best delivery method, but you are saying CDs are lacking by nearly 10% in sampling rate. What you are essentially arguing is diminishing returns which I concede.

[@jeroenfigee]

No dithering options in the software? Thats weird. Then using a daw and some mastering plugins might be more accurate when it comes to converting ....

[@WakeTheIsraelites]

I think ima stick with flac which is my current preference

[@phildavis1723]

Flac is just a way of storing lossless PCM audio. Flac can be CD quality, OR HDtracks files. It can cover all kinds of different levels, so just saying FLAC doesn't narrow anything down. It's almost like saying you prefer... digital.

[@ollie101258]

I don't understand why some people on here claim that you cant hear a difference between a HD download and a cd then when challenged over this statement claim that its only because its been taken from a different master, if this is the case what's the issue????? If you get an improved sound so be it, to me its worth spending the money. Others claim that the problem with cd's is that they are over compressed / smashed (whatever you want to call it) I agree with them but to be fair to the record company's you cannot fit most albums on a cd without compressing them and so explains the problem , however take a look at any cd album and you will see that in most cases its never full which to me proves that no real effort has been made to get the best sound possible, down perhaps to a lazy engineer and/or a penny pinching/careless record company

[@RealHomeRecording]

+Dave Hollingsworth LOL...where do I begin with the misunderstanding of technology. I'll just say this, to avoid typing a book. If I can convert a "high res" music track to 16-bit/44.1 kHz (CD quality) and burn it on a CD with has no perceptible or scientific quality difference than there is zero reason for record labels to not just put that on the CD. Other than them wanting to make an extra buck. Music should be properly mastered with good dynamics to begin with there shouldn't be a premium price in place to fix their original engineering mistakes. The same thing is happening with movies now. You have all these movies being shot at 4K but special effects are done at 2K. So, if properly done, they'll have to go back and redo every single special effect if they want to ever do a correct 4K movie release in the future. The chances of that happening are slim...a lot of films will just be uprezzed which is a hack job. Why even bother shooting in 4K?

[@ollie101258]

Your tests only seam to show the highs and the lows (peaks) what about the midrange can you conduct a test on that since other experts will tell you that the 10k mark IS affected by compression and also what equip do you use to listen and how do you use it? i.e. are you listening in a quiet room etc, by the way I am actually quite interested in what you are doing and I am not simply trying to create an argument for the sake of it and to that end I will shortly send you a link to a freebie on HD tracks (24/384) classical, may be not your thing but because of the extreme dynamic range on it, I thought you might like to compress it down to CD level then compare the 2 files with both your test equipment and your ears and maybe if I give you an e-mail address you could sent the compressed file to me with your comments, this would at least prove that there has been no re mastering etc. What do you think?

[@MichaelPassIOWA]

+Dave Hollingsworth I'd imagine that the method he used in taking a 96k-24bit master and superimposing it in live time with an amplitude-inverted version of its resampled/compression derivatives to be fairly sound. I just don't believe there was any real difference in the mids at the 320kbps LAME compression he did, plain and simple.

[@SergeySedlovsky]

RealHomeRecording.com I own a $3500 DAC, and I can hear the difference between CD and MP3 and Hi-Res Now FLAME ON BABY, FLAME ON!

[@pureby]

Sergey Sedlovsky 1) I am very happy that you can afford a $3500 DAC, that is very nice of you. Good boy! 2) It does not matter how much money you spend on equipment, it will not extend the limits of human hearing. By the way, in case you didn't know: those apply equally to both the poor and the rich ;-) 3) Difference between MP3 and CD can already be heard on a mid-range smartphone with a pair of $20-earphones. You don't need a $3500 DAC for that, all you need is a pair of good ears and some exercise. 4) Difference between 16 bit audio (CD) and 24-bit (Hi-Res) is NOT audible by humans. 5) Difference between 22.1 kHz (CD) and 98 kHz (Hi-Res) is NOT audible by humans either. Matter of fact, if you're 25 years or older, you probably don't hear ANYTHING above 16 kHz, unless you really have some extraordinary genes and never been to a party in your life. However - even though your DAC costs $3500 - your speakers are not designed for 98 kHz output (no matter how much they cost, they are simply not). Trying to output sound frequencies above your hardware's capabilities simultaneously with frequencies your speakers are actually designed to playback, may cause distortion of the latter frequencies, and those distortions in their turn MAY be audible. It goes without saying that you would enjoy better sound quality without those added distortions. 6) The difference you hear between CD and Hi-Res audio is probably something called the placebo effect. I bet you couldn't tell the difference on the ABX-test. Then again, I bet you've never done an ABX-test on your equipment. 7) If you CAN actually hear the difference on ABX tests, then you're not hearing the difference between CD and Hi-Res, but you are hearing the difference between 2 different masters. The same way you can hear a difference between an original 1989-CD-recording of artist X and a 'digital CD remaster' of the same record from 2008. Downsample your Hi-Res audio file to CD quality yourself (same way as done in the video), do ABX-test between the original and the downsampled version, and discover you can't hear the difference. Yes, even on your $3500-DAC.

[@SergeySedlovsky]

Çerastes Blind ABX test yourself, while you're at it, please blind test some food while covering both nose and eyes in a controlled environment where you can't have even a nano gram of air to pass through your nose, also don't inhale through your mouth before you take a bite, just put the food on your tongue and start chewing, see how much you can tell. Another thing, Blind test some images in a way that you can't watch both images at the same time or even close to it, there should be a margin between watching one picture to the other. No cheating allowed. Now die.

[@SergeySedlovsky]

Çerastes Butthurt? Your butt is hurt, I don't give a fuck what you think, you're just some stupid troll with inferiority complex.

[@ollie101258]

+PureBY As to why hi rez files sound better I don't know but in most cases they do or at least I can hear them as can most of my friends who come round and listen, even noticing sounds that appear to be missing from the cd version and some of these friends (like you) who originally insisted there could be no difference leave hear with a different point of view and by the way most of us are in our 50s

[@ollie101258]

+PureBY I guess you are from the same brigade who claim that quality of the cables used in a decent system make a difference, if you are happy with your cd's then fine enjoy the money you have saved but please don't try to force your views on others

[@lawrencerasmus]

24 bit goes above 20 and you can't hear it

[@tuberoyful]

I own a pair of Jerry Harvey Michelle's ☺️

[@VieuxBat]

and I thought sound engineer were professionnal !

[@davehollingsworth5876]

So if you either cannot hear the difference, your equipment is not up to it or you just do not want to understand that cd and their players create errors then do not buy from HD tracks or similar, no one forces you too!!!!! some even believe mp3's or lower are fine, so buy them, personally I can hear the difference on most but not all downloads most are less distorted/ Harsh than a cd this is caused by the compression and the unpacking of the same (errors) that why a high quality cd player SACD Player /or a good DAC sounds better.....if you disagree fine save yourselves some cash and do not buy it just stop trying to impress us with a pointless visual computer programme...you do point out that their is far less compression that on a cd, and you blame the engineer which in some cases is true however if HD tracks is offering a better sound what's the problem??? take a look at the size of the HD tracks album download and you will see that it cannot be fitted on to a normal cd in most cases hence why the engineer has in your words smashed it

[@NiharM77]

What software are you using?

[@ovonisamja8024]

NiharM77 try googling Cocos Reaper DAW. It's quite affordable. The plugs he used are all freeware plugs. For frequency analysis he used Voxengo SPAN, and Blue Cat Audio Blue Cat's FreqAnalyst. The gain plug is Sonalksis FreeG

[@SaZooCaballero]

Americans say 'com' funny. 'Calm'. hehe

[@danielsanichiban]

sure. the format is a limiting factor in quality yes, each has different constraints but if you want to do blind listening tests and otherwise try and quantify things then you need to consider that what matters is the particular master in question, not so much the format. for example. anything with a harmonically rich high frequency stereo sound like a tamborine in the left channel and some strings in the right channel, will sound like dogs balls on itunes compared to a flac or wav copy made as a separate master, but then for some 80s cindy lauper or madonna you can hardly hear the difference as you A B the formats, and untrained ears certainly can't. at the same time you will find an mp3 of a rip from vinyl of Africa Brasil by Jorge Ben and it will sound better than the universal re-issue remastered CD version because the mastering engineer in the later case was seemingly new on the job. the best sounding copy of that one is actually the mid 90s japanese CD release. I have some vinyls that sound better than any digital masters I can get, surface noise, distortion, wear etc included, even in some cases a cassette because the digital version sold online has been badly denoised and the side effects of the denoising are more irritating to hear than the noisy cassette copy. at the end of the day, get what you can get that's good. rarely do you even have options for different copies in different formats. when you do, if you care about quality then spend some time and see which copy is better. if you just wanna hear a song then who gives a fuck. one thing is for sure tho when you have options, itunes usually comes out as the shittest sounding copy outside of a freebie on youtube, except where the music lacks harmonic and stereophonic richness and therefore sounds fine.

[@RealHomeRecording]

Daniel Elleson "sure. the format is a limiting factor in quality yes, each has different constraints but if you want to do blind listening tests and otherwise try and quantify things then you need to consider that what matters is the particular master in question, not so much the format." And that's exactly what is concluded in the video. :-)

[@apathy2673]

hyperbibuboolee jeff gillooly

[@louie000007]

"Oh...wait a minute...". Pffft. Get outta here.

[@MrEdje5555]

44.1 or 96000 ? you cant hear the different , human ear 20hz troug 20Khz , Cd audio are cut off at 20Khz to mask JitterVinyl goes higer up to 23Khz.But when digital audio begon , we lost the real sound of music ! all recordings are digital and upmixed and compressd its not the sound how sound is supos be sound like from the orginial.Analoog Sound was the best way to keep sound natrual , al dynamics and tones where there !Lot of recievers,ipods,MP3 players and audio systems you buy are crappy digital shit , il beat the CD on my Vinyl on a High end audio system from 1979 on real Sound !yes , vinyl is not realy better then CD beacause the WOW and only 60db to noise ratio , but you Hear so much more in the music !Sorry for my opinion !

[@MykytaPopov]

You say "file" funny.

[@Clyde177]

maybe I have a lot of poorly recorded cd'... HDtracks sounds better to me.

[@pureby]

***** I think it's a part of human nature, some subconscious program that tells us "BIGGER IS BETTER!", no matter what. Because 24-bit releases DO sound better to me too, even tough I understand they shouldn't. They always sound better; untill the very moment I fire them up in an ABX test versus a CD... Then suddenly CD sounds just as 'better' ;-)

[@Clyde177]

That's so true PureBY. Dan D'agostino the creator of Krell Audio,has a new product line. his mono block amps are $55,000 and pre-amp I think $45,000. just like what you said about "BIGGER IS BETTER" some feel that a $55,000 mono block amp sounds better than a $10,000 amp,that's not necessary so.

[@Clyde177]

@PureBY NOT necessarily true, I meant

[@Clyde177]

+Çerastes I'll look it up bro. :)

[@louie000007]

32 bit conversion. Ummm yeah. Stay at the original quality, bud.

[@maxxvidzs]

you have got an agenda of defaming pono music. I dont think you have actually heard through your own ears. All that software analysis you are showing is useless... you are hearing the music by your eyes. Mp3 was created out of necessity got easy distribution over the net. Pono music files are for real people who have the real taste of music. If you are talking about very high definition music and not appreciating pono music you better stick to midi files.You may do the comparision for your eyes only but not ears.

[@RealHomeRecording]

+marc nongmaithem PONOs own head audio engineer conducts the same inverse polarity tests that I do to insure no loss in quality when files are encoded from uncompressed linear PCM files to FLAC. My only agenda is to keep people from wasting their money.

[@taeng8908]

I really wanted to learn something from your video, but the way you present it is beyond terrible. I had to stop at 9 minutes, thanks for the effort.

[@pureby]

Shiue Aaron I have learned a lot from this video. Enjoyed every minute of it. Subscribed to the channel. Maybe, just MAYBE, it's not the presentation, but...?

[@theonlydjtopcat]

SACD is still better

[@xearspoty8277]

wait, this is a bazinga no?, in fact the bazinga´s most ever, how you can to comparate those samples, when youpoop.com, cut, kill, disturbed, and how english language is a simple language, i proced to describ what youpoop.com is do when you upload your video&audio. step 1) when your video original is upload finish, the system part the file in audio and video. OK. The video file is dismissed in this explain, because you are showing audio samples. Your Audio, is now in the hell, youpoop.com's system, remake your audio in the best quality, and from this best quality, resample others files whit minor quality, is a violation and delit for ours brains. Let me show your best quality available. container : webm (audio only) (tiny) 133k , opus @160k (48000Hz), 25.98MiB. Final Question, for the ours brains´s Honor Diplome and our normality, how you can show a diferences between files of 24bits, etc. if the most quality en 133k, the 24bits have to be arround 9216kbps, 9216 samples per second, is obviusly that the people ordinary do not make the diference to your video, that i am secury that is a best explain. i promise to study english for explain to you with nices words... now i tell to you, in a language more dificult and rich, that youpoop.com sory youtpube.com do with all videos on www. los agarra y le corta la parte mas rica primero y principal y lo termina eliminando, es decir suponete que viene una rubia pintada en un cuadro valuado en 10.000.000 M de libras esterlinas, con un ort de 10, la agarra antes de mostrartela, le pega una buena cogida, le corta el pelo, the coce la concha, le corta los pechos, te la quema con acido, la recaga a sopapos, y te la entrega en una caja toda quebrada, para que entre en una cajita bien chiquita, de bajo peso que inventaron unos genios que se llama webm o algo asi, rompen el cuadro y te lo dan, donde vos ibas a explicar pintura clasica, bueno, creo que odio a youtube... no... a decir verdad son fieles, (cortando audio arre)

[@enlightment4747]

Sounds unheard doesn't mean it would be sounds that aren't felt. Music is supposed to be a full body experience.

[@jorgepeterbarton]

+EnlightMent So you 'feel' 20khz? I find that hard to beilieve, especially when most speakers don't output that high. 20hz, or even 10 hz sure, low frequencies are different..... Turning on a 20khz sine wave, pumped really loud i had no idea whether the audio was muted or not, through decent equipment. i'm sure a dog or very young child might have been able to tell though so its perhaps something to use for children's music, or 'music for pets'. You miss the point that much more degradation of sound was in the subjective mastering process and use of compression, between the two different masters 'for' hi and lo quality. The argument is we should be able to hear the less squashed master on cd quality, and its probably fine, but they wish to make the HD versions sound better so they sell, so they do this through dialing back limiters and other effects on the audio.

[@louie000007]

@@jorgepeterbarton subjective listening. You may not hear some higher frequencies but can you prove that it does not contribute to a different listening experience?

[@matteocaratozzolo538]

It's scientifically proven that higher bitrates are more accurate therefore of higher quality. No argument. ...a computer display cannot show what someone hears. With all due respect perhaps one person can't hear it while other people can and do. All this video proves really is that some people can't hear the difference, and that some people don't care. In a nutshell the sample rate determines the frequency range whereas the wordlength (bitSIZE *not* bitRATE) greatly impacts the "dynamic range" that can be represented. This has scientifically been proven since 1960s - look up "Sampling Theroem" Max Matthews.

[@JolietJake64]

+Matteo Caratozzolo Are you suggesting human ears are more accurate than scientific measuring equipment?

[@enlightment4747]

+JolietJake64 lab results are one thing, but then you have to step out of the lab into the real world. Can a deaf person feel the music and keep a beat? The answer is Yes. If a deaf person can feel it then why would we not want to feel the part of the track that may be unheard? We are made up of 80%water the sounds around us cause vibrations throughout our body cause a full body experience. Those sounds unheard then could add to the feeling the music gives you or the way it makes you feel. How does listening to a 320kb mp3 make you feel or how does it sound? to me like there is something missing. It is suppose to only cut of those sounds unheard, but why is there so much difference? When you play a cd on a high end player the listen to the cd in a flac file through a DAC there will be some differences. why is that when you can only see a few on the graph? It might come down to one thing. Music is like pain it is completely subjective.

[@brpadington]

Most of the tracks on hdtracks are just upsampled CD files. Some of them sound down right awful. Many are actually worse than the CD.

[@ollie101258]

+Scott Tucker Hd tracks do tell you if the track has been upsampled

[@louie000007]

Wrong! "Every 24 bit recording is tested to verify that it has 24 active bits. If an album is sampled from 16-bit, it would fail this test and be rejected" - HD Tracks.

[@louie000007]

@@ollie101258 Crimson Ghost is an idiot. Don't listen to him.

[@latourhighendaudio]

lol sorry your test proves nothing. The reality is there is a difference in the sound of higher bit rate music, simply use your ears. Its simple if you focus on the upper bandwidth, like cymbals or string instruments. And if you cant hear a difference then your system is either not good enough for you to hear the difference.

[@RealHomeRecording]

latourhighendaudio Are you sure we are talking about the same thing?

[@pureby]

latourhighendaudio ever heard of ABX-tests?

[@samiam7342]

buying the official retail cd is better than all of this crap.................................period!