14 reasons why HI-RES AUDIO is DEAD (for the mainstream)

[@professorcalculus5315]

To me this shows what a great job the engineers at Sony and Philips did developing the CD standard 40 years ago. Chapeau.

[@robinbowes]

They were implementing sampling theorem, first discovered in 1915 by E. T. Whittaker, and known as the Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem.

[@pureblood8307]

Agreed

[@dennismanning6684]

@@Andersljungberg At least partly due to: greedy, paranoid, copyright protection, higher cost, and entangled with HDMI.

[@nickburak7518]

@@Andersljungberg That's a good point about S&P also being major music labels. But Sony (I'm not sure about Phillips) is still a major record label.

[@ksbav8r]

Should’ve picked 48k and we wouldn’t be having this convo

[@wooster1173]

There are 3 types of audiophiles : 1/ those who are more passionate about their gear than about music (that’s the most common ones : and I understand them, because I tend to be like that) 2/ those who are just rich enough to buy high end stuff and 3/ the real music lovers with great ears. Let’s be honest : those in the third category are not so many.

[@nfstaughtmedriving6540]

Well, you also can be at the intersection of three of them !

[@autecheee]

For 1&2 Music is just content to play on their pricey gear that the pedestrians can’t afford.

[@krownedklown420klik9]

Even I can here the difference after 20 years.

[@jorgeu111]

I am always able to make my friends catch the difference. They just don’t care so they don’t get hook on improving their equipment.

[@RoyaltyInTraining.]

I wish mastering engineers in extreme genres would start to care about quality. It's exceedingly rare to find metal albums that don't have brick wall limiting and clipping on the master bus.

[@mansurkhan2764]

Agreed most Metal albums today are just too loud for their own good. I noticed this the most when I switched from listening to Metal via my bluetooth speakers and then switching to playing it through a CD player (Cambridge Audio AXC35); what I noticed immediately was just how much louder the CD was over bluetooth. It seemed as if it was almost twice as loud. If you listen to some old Metal Albums that haven't been Remastered like from the 1980s you notice that they are much quieter than those released in the 1990sand virtually all Remastered albums!

[@Dikkker]

Thank you for the clear statement. I used to be an audiophile for decades, but it lost me 10 years ago, when I realised, that I was mainly listening to my equipment, rather than to the music. Being an audiophile is certainly a nice hobby and lots of fun, but the reality for 99% of the ordinary people is exactly what you say: They just don't care, because there's barely an audible difference. Convenience wins …

[@wyvez4313]

I agree and appreciate great sound quality to enjoy my music. I ended up with a Hi Res certified Sony Receiver STRDH190 and SCS5 Bookshelf Speakers - playing FLAC from deezer - this system has thorougly enriched my listening experience with an audible difference in sound quality from my google home speaker or wireless bluetooth speakers -

[@Vamp898]

That comment only makes half sense. What gear where you listening to? FLAC? So you where concentrating so hard on the FLAC that you stopped listening to music. If you mean headphones. An high end Headphone makes an difference even with 128kbps MP3. Not an positive as you're able to hear in detail how bad they actually are but you can listen to your gear with 128kbps MP3 and you can listen to music and enjoy it with Hi-Res Audio

[@hkraytai]

@@Vamp898 He meant to choose music that only sounds good on his system vs good music in general.

[@PeacefulPariah]

@@Vamp898 are you responding to the OP or the first reply?

[@harpalchauhan428]

I'm one of those but happy with everything i got. But really like compliments from friends or there mates when they say its best sound they have ever heard. Lol money well spent problem with audiophiles is there chasing the dream for perfect system. For me ive spent £12000 in total on my system. About £7000 just for the audio but ive been enjoying it it since 2013 and never thought i need to upgrade it ever i don't go round chasing the latest unless the format is upgraded.

[@engelschmidl2907]

I'm pretty sure hi-res became a moot point for me and my hearing after seeing Motorhead back in 1991!

[@TernaryTrout]

Likewise with The Faces in '71 :(

[@earlfenwick]

Guided by Voices and Swans. Hurt so good.

[@Splashadian]

Kiss in '79 with all the explosions and then for sure Frankie Goes To Hollywood in '84. The pyro at the end was set up for the size of an arena and the show was in the UBC War Memorial Gym in Vancouver. It was so loud that the building shook and some of the windows around the top of the building blew out. My ears rang for 2 days afterwards.

[@g.d.1722]

LMAO my ears rang for 3 days after every Motorhead concert I saw.

[@richardsinger01]

Hawkwind 1979, job completed by Slade 1980.

[@artkulak9802]

The Recording Engineer is KING. And that's why an analog recording from 1959 can sound just as good (or bad) as any digital recording (hi-res or not) or analog recording made today. What the recording engineer does or doesn't do at the very beginning of this sound reproduction chain affects everything we hear at the end of the line regardless of the equipment (or "synergy") in between. Room acoustics is next.

[@GDawg2K2]

As an engineer of 30 plus years, you are correct.. But the second half of that equation is the source material. We were recording fully formed, interactive bands of musicians. No click tracks, no blocks of beats, no quantified, detached, auto tuned vocals sitting on a grid. But a group of musicians interacting with each other in real time! The job of the engineer as I was taught was to capture the air of the performance. Listen to BB King.. Live at the Regal, or Allman Brothers Live at the Fillmore. To this day, they are considered to be contenders for the best live albums ever recorded! There's a reason to listen to those performances in the best format to transport you to those venues. I want to hear the air in the Regal that night. There's really nothing to hear beyond the beat and Vox in 90% of today's tracks. A pair of ear buds and iPhone are sufficient!

[@Djenghiz98]

I really liked the format and the aesthetic of this video! There is something peaceful about you just sitting behind the desk and talking about the broader discussions/news in the world of audio. Thanks for your content and effort!

[@babaker48]

I even like the way you handle the paid promotion. Well done. One of the best around.

[@peterlarkin762]

Agreed with both of the above. It's a higher standard than most. Ad placement is first non annoying ad I've seen. So weird being treated like an adult these days.

[@patrikbjorling4391]

Its the wall...

[@stevenhoward3358]

And the Power Corruption and Lies shirt!

[@hookem7060]

Great summary. All valid points!... And to me, these 2 are the biggest takeaways: - CD quality is good enough (if you crunch the numbers, it really is!) - Mastering matters most

[@ronlel6773]

Really? CD quality is ordinary for those who like their music to sound live.

[@Robert08010]

And yet most people who listen to a studio quality recording can hear the difference. Your so called "crunching the numbers" is based on a theorem that states the sample rate only needs to be twice the maximum frequency you can hear. That theorem doesn't seem to be true to most people who have actually heard both. It may appear true on an oscilloscope but is that what really matters? I'm not suggesting everyone needs to run out and shell out the big bucks for the new high-res lossless audio gear. But I'll tell you this: Don't dismiss it until you have heard it. You may find after hearing it, that it is worth the money.

[@wyvez4313]

I use deezer hi fi with a sony hi res receiver and bookshelf speakers and its the best system I have had, sound quality is amazing -

[@swimmad456]

Thanks for reminding us audiophiles that we are a distinct minority of the population who listen to music. Indeed, I have a strong suspicion that it is non-audiophiles who get the greatest pleasure at whatever bit they listen.

[@DarkoAudio]

At last, someone who sees the bigger picture painted by this video. 👍🏻

[@stephenhanson3647]

Exactly. The audiophile community has never been the "mainstream".

[@dennismanning6684]

Ok then... what we (the public) need is an accurate "pleasure meter". Feeling small....

[@bencausey]

So much pleasure that they never sit down to actually listen? Hmmm…

[@cestmoi7829]

Those who have the gear and the ear notice and care. The audiophiles may stick their nose up to it now as it is going mainstream so they will seek out something else like vinyl with a 10k cartridge or maybe DAT or SACD or a more expensive version of qobuz. A flat white (what @&@$£&@&@) is far better than a cappacino as it needs to be made by a fixie rider in a boutique cafe and pay 10 euros a fix/hit/cup/glass and snort it through a steel straw ; yet the mainstream love a seat;e coffee house coffee mixed with sweet syrup 🥲🤣🤣🤣. Keep it real gentlemen keep it real. I love my audio just not the snobbery and my daughter plays her music via my system too and 24/96 really does sound better at least through the system I have anyhow perhaps if only to do with the filter ; who knows !? The guy with the beard who is too old to ride a fixie or perhaps the Manc who moved on from white labels as trends change and utmost important to keep ahead of them of course to be Uber chic. Love the channel ✅

[@jamesfarrow6752]

I totally agree that it’s all about the mastering. Hi-res cannot save poorly recorded music or mastering. Then there’s MQA, which is currently causing a stir in the audiophile community.

[@cheewanng6138]

It's sad that people are so obsess with the numbers and forget to enjoy the music itself...

[@jameswelsh453]

correct I total agree

[@christmas_doggo5537]

Very true, I try to remind myself often of that and I find it does make a difference in how I listen

[@hilde45]

I don't believe that I can judge what someone should love about their experience. If they love numbers more than music and that is their Bliss then who am I to say they are wrong?

[@chubtoad157]

Chee, Your statement is a false dilemma. One may both obsess over the numbers and enjoy the music.

[@jimfarrell4635]

@@chubtoad157 Can't agree more, Mr Toad. I for one don't give a damn if if my listening pleasure is being enhanced by the placebo effect and psychoacoustics or if DSD or 24/192 is actually better. If it puts a smile on my face and I feel I am listening to the best possible version of a beloved track I'm happy. After all I still listen to vinyl as well and by all objective criteria it is clearly inferior. But I admire the art and the feel and the ritual and the faffing about with the turntable. All part of the fun.

[@willx9352]

The “mainstream” has never been overly interested in hifi (let alone CD quality) - and this has been the case forever, not just now. After all, most people used to do most of their music listening to vinyl records on cheap equipment in their bedrooms! I suspect that most pop records in the sixties and seventies were actually engineered with this set up in mind and this is apparent even in the latest “remastered” versions. In other words, “HI Fi” has always been a niche market.

[@frankverschoof8083]

Agree on all points. How dare you being practical...

[@Chopper153]

Now all the 70 year old audiophiles with golden ears will attack you lol.

[@Bambam21476]

I think you're right. I had Tidal MQA and after trying to convince myself I could hear the difference compared to its CD quality option, I came to the conclusion if there was a difference, I just couldn't hear it in a "normal" listening venue......my living room. So, I'm saving the price of MQA and still love what Tidal has to offer.

[@chutgowdingo-loon3212]

Absolutely spot on Johnno. I still do CDs and I can't tell the difference - so no Hi-Res for me. In fact, none of my audiophile friends can spot the difference either. I actually burnt some very well mastered 256kbps files to CD and no one could tell lossy from lossless - and I used a headphone set up for the test. So .....

[@chipsnmydip]

@@net_news Well yeah, if you compare two identical 24 bit files both converted down to 16 bit they probably will sound the same. Hence the benefit of 24 bit playback...

[@hillybobs56]

You can tell the difference between hi res and CD on particular instruments like a mouth organ in particular or brass instruments. It shows up on the treble notes.

[@Chalisque]

The _only_ time I remember hearing a clear difference between CD and 256kbps AAC was when listening, carefully, to a piano piece I was learning, and listening specifically for the left-hand part, where the main melody was in the right hand. And, frankly, if listening to the same track for enjoyment, I would just listen to it as a whole and not notice the subtleties of the LH part that were getting mushed by the audio compression.

[@ytsgb]

@@hillybobs56 How so? CD encoding caters for any frequencies your ears can hear, and covers more than enough dynamic range. There may be differences in the filtering, but have you ever seen a test where anyone can hear that difference?

[@shoezqt]

How to identify well mastered albums?

[@ronaldbrunsvold5632]

Love my CD collection, but do see big differences in mastering from album to album. From ridiculous to sublime!

[@endezeichengrimm]

I think the early 90's CD's sound the best to me. After the mid 90's they all got way too loud and compressed.

[@amartinez97]

@@endezeichengrimm Except its not all. Some CD's like the last re-release of the dark side of the moon are not compressed or overly loud and are regarded by some as better than some of the earlier releases. The Chronic Re-lit & from the vault that came out in 2009 is the easily the best sounding version of that album.

[@immovableobjectify]

As mentioned, the delivery format is not the limiting factor in most cases. Let's lobby to raise the quality for recording, mixing, and mastering before focusing on demanding hi-res formats. Too many records still do not even exploit CD capability to its maximum potential.

[@vladimirarnost8020]

Instead, many record labels have decided to exploit maximum loudness and clipping.

[@roccobruno8027]

I have always found that the recording and mastering engineers are the most important part of the eventual sound we hear. Regrettably you have only mentioned streaming services as opposed to download services, but I still agree with you in the end.

[@doowopper1951]

Quality of mastering is probably 98% of SQ. But, get a recording that excels from start to finish, the differences between Redbook and hi-res, at least for me, become readily become apparent.

[@PDCRed]

Of course non-audiophiles don't care about audio quality. Neither do they care about picture quality on their TVs - 99% of viewers have hugely saturated screens that are in no way representative of real-life calibration. That's fine - they worry about other things that we don't take in interest in.

[@Robert08010]

OMG, I remember when I first got this tv. Under the default settings, EVERYONE appeared to have fluorescent pink makeup around their mouths, and orange everywhere else.

[@matiasarenas7475]

the problem is, that most of the people don´t have the equipament to hear the hi fi music, is expensive, and even if you have good earphones also you need a dac. I paid tidal hi fi, and i honestly couldn´t hear the difference between 320 kbps and Flac, but that´s becouse lack of good equipament, or my ears aren´t that good xD, sorry my english

[@FedeXBL]

@@matiasarenas7475 I have some HD 560S and I can't hear the difference between Tidal and Spotify either, lol.

[@aakar88]

"Good enough" is not known in the audiophile, quality way of life.

[@EllasPOSEiDON]

Well said :)

[@Mikexception]

@@EllasPOSEiDON But that way of life turns into eternal no satisfaction. My audiophile friend used to say "sounds so so but I will not afford for more expensive"

[@ValdemarDeMatos]

I think the solution is to only listen to live music and without amplification. Like that you’re certain that the quality is pure and not resampled at all. (Just a joke 🙏😌)

[@aakar88]

@@ValdemarDeMatos Nah! Still not the Pinnacle, I want to immerse into the music, better than live. Makes no sense, but many are like this, when we spend mega cash on our systems, and heat audible improvement, that only means more curtains need to be opened… and opened

[@arichison]

@@ValdemarDeMatos I agree, never enough chasing quality sound!

[@nick0703]

I agree with everything, and also think that it’s not necessary at all. Cd quality is great when used with a good quality amp and speakers- much more important than greater number crunching.

[@reece3134]

will you be able to hear a difference with cd quality?

[@aquaevitae]

It's good to keep in mind while this HighRes enthusiasm, that the most of even today's released music, the sound quality is not even as good than CD allows.

[@hannahdobbs226]

Haha, interesting. I don't like much modern music so even in Hi Res I'm not likely to listen. There are some classic songs from the 60's though that were mastered badly and I would love to have some of them in a much better quality.

[@1x3dil]

CD is not going away anytime soon, and because of the rush to streaming there’s never been a better time to collect music on the format. I’m convinced many will regret the decision to get rid of there collections. But as they say there loss is someone else’s gain . What I would say in streamings defence is if you only desire the latest releases then yes compared to a new CD , that would make economic sense regardless of the persevered difference in sound quality. Best wishes and kind regards to all

[@Coneman3]

I got me over 4,500 CDs. A friend has a streaming account. It’s surprising how many tracks or albums are not available on it.

[@SandsOfArrakis]

I still have my collection of CD's which I've bought over the last 3 decades. They are all ripped to 320 kbit/sec AAC and are stored on my computer. I don't have highres audio gear, so they sound good enough. Even so, I'm keeping my collection. I might end up re-ripping them, but then into FLAC at some point.

[@michaelwerner5165]

I agree. Using streaming services you don’t own the music. I learned that, when a stream of a CD I liked suddenly didn’t play some of the songs on it. This happened in Apple Music as well as Tidal, so it was probably a licensing issue. As I found these songs important to my listening experience of that CD, I purchased it and ripped it to my music library. The moral: get CDs of music which is important to you.

[@TavisAllen]

Friendly reminder (like those bots over on Reddit) -- "there" (there collections, there loss) = somewhere other than here / "their" = plural possessive pronoun for people

[@1x3dil]

@@TavisAllen core blimey that shot me down in flames. 😀 Bless you Best wishes and kind regards to you 👍👍👍

[@jarms40]

Well... predicting the future is a silly business. So there's that. Secondly, CD-quality was frozen in an age when computing was in its infancy, just as lossy-encoding was frozen in an age when internet speeds were much slower. Third, what is hi-rez? I can sit on a Sunday night listening to an unfamiliar Qobuz playlist and predict with at least 80% accuracy when the songs switch from 16/44.1 to 24/anything. Now, some people can't even hear the stereo effect, so for those people "air" in the soundstage is a meaningless concept. But if you CAN hear it, then once you miss it, you know you're missing it. Nothing about "good mastering" or "loudness wars" can explain the loss of air associated with early-80s bit-depth. Fourth, sample rate is less of an issue than bit-depth. If John has a point about the difficulty of hearing hi-rez's benefits (and I think he does), it's sample rate that he's right about. Fifth, most of the Apple ecosystem and aptX HD can pass 24/44.1 or 24/48 (not sure about Sonos), which I would argue is good enough. Sixth, most 4g and 5g networks (and almost all homes with cable internet) can pass 24/44.1 and 24/48 uncompressed with little dropouts (which is why MQA is a solution in search of a problem). Ultimately, technology will be good enough so 24-bit audio can become the standard. It is reasonable to hope for that. Higher sample rates? Maybe. But to me, that's not the hill to die on.

[@EllasPOSEiDON]

If I could push like button more than once, I would. We're on one page.

[@hello-pq5pj]

I am apposite. I hear sample rate differences more than bit depth. I am all in favour of a minimum 48khz sample rate standard. That 4khx above cd quslity makes a noticeable difference in the high frequencies. Smoother and more natural. At 44khz sample rate there are only 4 samples at 11khz. That leaves big gaps for the filters to fill in

[@nissimtrifonov5314]

See, only you and people like you think that. CD quality specs were set for a reason and the reason is that they are good enough and more than 44.1/16 is not needed for 99.5% of people. If it was even possible for an average guy to hear the difference you (claim to be able to) hear, the average guy would need to own a decent system (which the average guy would call "ultra high end") and he will simply never spend that much. Not today and not ever. The average guy buys a pair of tws earbuds for $30 and calls it a day. And for that level of equipment 44.1/16 is not only enough, it is too much

[@mden2490]

@ Michael Jarmin-I am with you if I understand your point correctly! I would consider myself a budding audiophile. I decided one day to try out apple HiRes setting , and was going through some of my saved albums not realizing that I hit on one that played back at 192khz, not knowing at the time as I was standing away from my Dac as it shows the bit rate etc when playing a song. I Immediately said wow this song sounds more crystal clear and better then the last. To my amazement I noticed that the current album was playing at 192 and the prior was at 44. To make sure I was not just hearing it in my subjective mind I immediately went back and forth between albums and I could hear the difference in clarity!

[@gavinhall4112]

For me a big reason to do lossless rips of CD's instead of lossy, is that music produced during the loudness wars does not always survive the lossy process as well as music with more headroom in it.

[@Chalisque]

I mostly listen to mp3/m4a/streaming, but my CDs are all ripped to FLAC on my NAS, so if I want e.g. a 320kbps AAC or a 128kbps MP3, I can just run ffmpeg over it to make one. And it's only serious listening, which I don't do all that often, where CD quality is necessary, so I copy those few tracks I want lossless over from my NAS to my music player/PC.

[@dkokalanov]

True arguments! Only small detail is that 48/24 is already a "hi-rez" format as 24bit encoding represents VASTLY higher level of detail compared to 16 bit. Even 20bit does so - check any of the HDCD titles of 20 years back - they sound clearly superior to a standard CD of the same material. Higher sample rate on the other hand make much less sense, especially for the final carrier format. It is widely used in studios though - 96k tracking and (sometimes) 192k mastering are a usual practice in higher-tier studios. Resampling and dithering are very mature and advanced nowadays, so you can sense much of the detail in a 44.1/24 or even 44.1/16 dithered LOSSLESS file. MP3 is another story. For Pop music it's kind of OK, but for Jazz and especially Classical it truly messes up the emotional impact of the music.

[@renebarrow.virtualreality]

Great video! I've seen some lively debates in the music production community, and it seems that most mixing engineers think that 44.1kHz or 48kHz is best, while most mastering engineers want to use 96kHz and above. The only thing everyone agrees on is 24bit. Meanwhile, musicians don't really care. As long as their music reaches as many people as possible, that's all that matters.

[@Aethid]

There are benefits to using 96kHz *while mastering*, but there is literally no advantage to more than ~40kHz for playback. I don't mean "it's so small as to not be worth it" - I mean there is *literally* no improvement in sound quality. It isn't a quality metric.

[@elitetrader5468]

If you like classical music, I highly recommend Native DSD. Many symphonies are recording in high res formats (DSD64, DSD256) and I've admired the transparency of Native DSD as to the source of the recording (unlike HD Tracks!). The music sounds fantastic.

[@fabe8204]

I agree with you. CD quality is the sweetspot of high quality audio for mainstream.

[@thomasward00]

@@Andersljungberg Vinyl isn't popular because of it's sound quality over CD's.... I'm 48 and as a young teenager in the 80's we bought Cassettes until CD's took over, Vinyl is just a cool fad.

[@BERTVVANHORCK]

I think you are spot on. I use Qobuz via Roon on a 17K system. I ditched Tidal because I was very disappointed with some of the Masters. With Qobuz it's better. I do hear the higher quality but only just. It's almost like you have to concentrate your hearing to listening to the quality rather than the music to hear the difference, but it gives me a form of satisfaction hearing the finer details, but ultimately it is about the music enjoyment, and there CD quality is mostly good enough.

[@lazlobang2282]

If you really want the best audio. Just listen to flacs

[@lbsiuk]

@@lazlobang2282 Qobuz and Tidal are both lossless.

[@paulmilligan3007]

How about a piece recommending people buy a decent mid-range DAC rather than investing in a Vinyl playback system (particularly a turntable with bluetooth out for listening on headphones).

[@georgeanastasopoulos5865]

Okay, but I listen to both mediums of playback; records, CD Players; and I also have a Topping D10 DAC, portable eSynic amplifier from last year. DAC is connected to one of my computers; mostly from a desktop computer.

[@dosstodd8014]

Bluetooth? Really? LOL!

[@ProjectMockingbird]

Really, the only reason I go for the hi res versions of anything is because it’s usually a much better mix for the non-mainstream. Even “CD quality” mixes anymore are targeted for streaming to AirPod quality headphones or straight out of the phone and are usually maxed and crushed. If they sold an “audiophile” mix of 16/44 I’d be all over it. I used to work at Slacker Radio and the vast majority of our users couldn’t tell the difference in our lowest quality or our highest. And when I first started we ripped our own files from the CDs that were sent to us. That stopped when record companies started sending us digital files, and most were inferior to the ones we did off of CD. THE MASSES DON’T CARE.

[@mrkitewine7700]

Hello, this reminds me of a conversation I was having with a friend recently. He is a music lover (started his own record label, massive vinyl collection etc) but until recently did not have anything decent in terms of stereo equipment. He is mainly into punk / post-punk / new wave etc and his argument was that the records he plays do not deserve the high-end high-res treatment. His eyes were opened when he bought a decent budget vinyl based system, suddenly Hendrix and his jazz records sounded great but (in his own words) “nothing will make Crass sound good”. So, instead of chasing ultimate resolution, should the equipment be purchased to suit the music you actually listen to? What is the point of buying a highly resolving system if it makes poor recordings you actually want to listen to sound bad.

[@mbgaomo]

I agree, the mainstream will never care about Hi-Res. At one time 8-Track and Cassettes were all the rage with all that tape hiss...people didn't care. Vinyl with all the surface noise, pops & clicks...people didn't care. We finally have a way to play music with the highest quality ever and mainstream people don't care.

[@doifeellucky]

As someone who grew up watching VHS and using a Back to the Future type Walkman, CD is more than good enough for me. In fact so is Spotify. The discover aspect is the best part of it. My tastes have shifted significantly back towards electronic music, Depeche Mode were my favourite band in the 80’s, and Spotify has completely transformed my appreciation of music. I own Grado headphones, and have a Zen DAC V2, but the music always comes first for me. Great shirt by the way.

[@TomBabula]

How do you like zen dac v2? Thinking of getting this to complement my Sundara setup with hip-dac. I first plan to invest into a closed back headphones like dt770 or Sony-msr7b though.

[@DrOz-007]

Right. Music first, always.

[@doifeellucky]

@@TomBabula I was expecting more from it. The extra power is useful with a pair of headphones I had to run at nearly 100% volume on my phone, but I personally don’t notice any real sound quality improvement. As someone who’s never used a dedicated DAC before, my Cambridge amp has one built in, I was quite disappointed. That includes with hires files. I’m currently using it as a pre-amp and DAC into my desktop speakers via RCA off my PC via usb. I do actually find the truebass function works well with both the grados and my speakers, not significant, just enough to give a bit of extra kick to some electronic music. I listen to pretty much every genre.

[@GHHF666]

Good video. I love to buy Hi-Res audio as it gives me a good feeling to have bought the best version available, but I actually have yet to find a 24 Bit recording that would sound so much better than its 16 bit equivalent if based on the same master...so yes, mastering is far more important. next the headphone/speakers are very important to get more out of your music, the audio device used can be important at least to a certain point, your listening room can be important, but the file format alone does not really say all too much in my experience. Oh, and here is point 15: your very personal music taste. You love Classical concerts, Jazz and have lots of live music experience? Well you might actually notice subtle differences. You like singer/songwriter material: at least some have put a lot of effort into recording and mastering and you MIGHT hear a bit more texture on voices and more space on instruments. If you concentrate on it and know where to look(listen) for. You love black/death/doom metal like me? ha ha, yes I have records in 24 Bit and they sound as bad as you would expect them to sound and as they are supposed to. There is no magic Hi-Res that turns it into audiophile material. Same goes for most pop songs out there today. I would have hoped that mastering could improve when Hi-Res could become a new standard (ppl love 4k TVs f.e.), but most ppl listen to music while going to work by subway or in the background while doing other things - in such cases/environments I also would not hear ANY difference or it would not matter. Also many records out their are mixed at high loudness levels - they are supposed to be liked while being played / streamed in the subway, not your home stereo. Not judging on ppl, it is same with me and all those movie/series streaming and 200 million usd blockbusters coming out every month - I loved movies back when I was younger but the market has become so huge, you just get fed up with stuff and bored. Think it is similar with fast consuming of music which is always available everywhere. So companies would always want to have masters that feel attractive at first listen - usually that´s the case when the bass is punchy and song is loud. Master it more neutral and ppl might skip it. Do a third master for Hi-Res besides CD and Vinyl? Too expensive and most people would not care/buy. I still think that Hi-Res COULD outshine both CD and Vinyl if they would get mastered accordingly and be available to mainstream consumers by streaming sevices and better affordable audio quality devices or mobiles f.e., but as long as this is not going to happen, you could actually stay with CD format for 90% of the music out there. Oh and last point: No matter the format, music should be listened to primarily to be enjoyed - not dissected bit by bit. Once I returned to this mindset , I actually had more fun and peace listening to music again.

[@HSNG10]

My music journey started with vinyls and tapes, moved on to CDs and now high res audio files. I prefer to buy and own my music and not be held ransom to a streaming service that removes all my favorite music if I end my service with them.

[@nico3641]

I’m curious what you use to discover new music?

[@Mikexception]

@@nico3641 He said "my favorite music" and so I say too. I keep in my media for 1 month no stop listening in my shelves , it is result of many years of emotional selection and it gives me enough comfort. Do not look for competition with Bach or King Crimson I think it is good to set limits to our needs

[@SaraNZW]

@@nico3641 Hmm, i wonder how they discover new music 30-40 years ago with no streaming:))

[@bikdav]

Agreed about CD quality being plenty good enough. I was informed that a “Hi-Res” master transfers very nicely to regular CD.

[@bongofury3176]

I'm not a big fan of high res but there are some recordings that I have to admit sound better than CD quality - especially the Doors and the Wailers. Riders on The Storm in 24/96 sounds superb - full of drama and sparkle. As does Redemption Song. Comes down to your DAC's abilities aswell of course. CD is my sweet spot - particularly as they are so cheap second hand.

[@timothystockman7533]

Riders on the Storm sounds good because that recording has peaks which allow the drums, instruments, and vocals room to breathe. It's amazing when one compares it to a garden variety rock track.

[@patrickmeylemans9627]

A good recording in 16/44.1 is indeed enough, even with a good hifi system.

[@peterruler48]

"No 8. The Mastering quality matters". It may be more important than the delivery container but it has little to do with sound quality. Audiophiles really do not get the recording process, and so I guess in this instance "Mastering" is being used to consolidate production, editing, mixing and mastering. If the first three deliver a turd, you have a polished turd after mastering.

[@baddriversofcolga]

Mastering is one of the biggest factors in sound quality. When you squash a piece of music down in the mastering stage so it's extremely loud you end up losing impact, detail, and can even introduce clipping which all contribute to bad sound quality.

[@chipsnmydip]

That's really the problem with a lot of high res remasters, one step forward, two steps back. Nobody wants an expensive 24 bit recording if it hurts to listen to.

[@PotentChr0nic]

Excellent video as usual. Hi-res never took off during the days of physical media and likely will not go mainstream with streaming services either. I really hoped that multichannel mixes would see wider adoption as some of the ones by Elliot Scheiner and Steven Wilson are excellent. Not to mention the quad mixes from back in the day (The Moody Blues 👌🏼). That's the only thing that appealed to me about Hi-res (SACD/DVD-A) before.

[@davidhiggen3029]

One word: Nyquist. And consistently, properly conducted tests have shown that 'audiophiles' are unable to distinguish audible differences between CD quality and supposedly higher resolution formats.

[@timothystockman7533]

IF MP3 is properly decompressed, it is often hard to put your finger on just what is wrong with it. I think much of MP3's errors are tiny pitch errors. However, with equal temperament intonation, we are subjected, on a daily basis, to far larger pitch errors from the just intonation we are physically designed to hear as more consonant. And throw into the mix artistic bending of pitches by the performer. It's no wonder that MP3's tiny errors often remain hidden. MP3 decoders often have other problems. They may clip during the decoding process when the encoded audio is already hugging 0 dBFS. Some MP3 decoders throw away resolution that was generated in the decoding process beyond 16 bits. Therefore one of the best ways to properly decode MP3 is to use the MAD plugin for SOX with -b 24 and -v 0.9. Sometimes I hear "something going on" with the treble in MP3, but I'm not sure if it's artifacts or just low-pass filtering to reduce artifacts. Also, sometimes when I'm very tired my perception seems to be altered in such a way that MP3 sounds bad. It only happens when I'm really tired, and not all the time, but it does happen often enough that I think there's something to it. I agree that the biggest problem with much of popular music recordings is the mastering. Rather than hi-res, I'd like to see "unmastered" (or at least not clipped to death) versions of popular music. Ironically, less clipped versions are sometimes available on LP, which has less inherent dynamic range than even 16-44.1. So far as hi-res, the first thing I'd want is 24-44.1. Higher sampling rate is way down on my list.

[@jimmygreer2140]

I will agree with you about CDs. You're not getting a TON of improvement going from CD to 24 bit. I like to describe the different between the 2 as you get a little more "space" for the instruments to play in with 24 bit. Just ever so slightly easier for me to hear each instrument clearly on 24 bit vs 16 of a CD. I would say MP3 320 is about the bare minimum for good quality music. It's just a shame that most streaming services are giving people 128. I can hardly listen to 128 after having been listening to 24 bit.

[@Ballacha]

From my experience in the hobby, in terms of perceived audio quality, upgrading the analog end (like a getting a really good headphone with a really good amp) is always going to be 10 or 20 times more impactful than upgrading the digital end (good DAC and high resolution digital audio source). It makes perfect financial sense to only upgrade the former and stop there. The diminishing return is oh so real.

[@michaelhall9211]

Totally agree, there has been a lot of snobbery about compressed files. They sound fine in most situations. CD quality is excellent with the right equipment! It's all about the music and how it's recorded imo!

[@shkermanshahi]

Great video John. Also streaming services do some mastering that I noticed that even bigger difference between the same resolution than hi-res vs CD. For example, Tidal is warmer than originally mastered CD, Amzon is brighter and Qobuz is about the same.

[@SnowyAspenHills]

To my knowledge no providers are giving Hi-Res for low res money, probably the biggest reason it's not mainstream. Finding a well mastered Hi-Res track that's actually something I like is a rare delight. Music is one of the great joys of life and the quality is irrelevant in many situations the emotion and pleasure it brings is what counts.

[@psipsitronick9250]

As usual the best thorough analysis on the subject and I’m not sorry as you concluded because with my very high end 15000 +$ hifi system and my poor 57 years ears I can’t hear any difference between CD quality and HiRes tracks. But lossy vs CD quality makes a huge gap for me. You just need a 1000$+ DAC for that. Which is really worth it. Best regards to you all.

[@FatNorthernBigot]

Considering when the CD standard was created, it's quite an impressive spec. (Having said that, I use Tidal, and love it). BTW... 15) Most modern music has a tiny dynamic range and doesn't really need anything more than 16 bit.

[@dougdavis8986]

Define 'modern music' please.

[@donalexey]

@@dougdavis8986 practically everything to be listen publicly, except some classic concerts etc, where dynamic range is due to original concert volumes

[@DominikPhilipp1]

Great comments, keep the good work going! What about Android DAPs, like Hiby R5 or the Shanling M3X? They play ANY streaming service bitperfect and are produced at accessible prices.

[@emmgeevideo]

Great points. But you miss the point. For a long, long, time one of the pillars of marketing is to plaster the word “New!” across the box. “Hi-Res!” is just another word for “New!” Hi-Res will have a long life until the next new thing comes along.

[@chipsnmydip]

It has been around since at least 1999 with first SACDs and 24/96 DVD-Audio discs came a year or two later. 24/96 has existed in pro audio since the late 90s. So whether the format entices people to buy like a "New!" label, these actually aren't new at all

[@vlrdngr4911]

15.5: There is no recording in existence that has actually reached the dynamic limits of regular 16/44.1.

[@chipsnmydip]

I think there are quite a few classical recordings that have dynamic range that pushes the limit of 16 bit, which is why it is recorded at 24 bit. Understanding noise floor doesn't mean momentary musical dynamics, ppp vs FFF, but room tones, acoustic reflections, vs the loudest transients. So you have to be able to record sounds much softer or louder than the average musical dynamics. To have a big musical dynamic range and have the subtleties be above the noise floor you really do need 24 bit.

[@junacebedo888]

Telarc Rite of Spring by Lorin Maazel. Or was it Telarc by Erich Kunzel- Empire strikes back

[@dangerzone8408]

I agree the mainstream don't care about hi-res. It's only an audiophile thing.

[@kalel33]

Unless they're exposed to audiophile equipment they'll never know what they're missing. When I was first buying home speakers I was given sage advice, never listen to speakers you can't afford because you'll regret the ones you purchased. I never knew what I was missing in the high end audiophile equipment because I didn't even give them a chance.....which was on purpose.

[@jonathandunne7826]

Hi John, what do you make of this letter from KEF re the LS50 Wireless II? Hello XX The absolute maximum output resolution will be 192kHz/24bit, this is if both the Primary and Secondary speakers are linked together using the supplied cable, if using in Wireless Mode, then the upper limit is 96kHz/24bit. Typically, Airplay 2 will stream at least CD quality files at 44.1/16Bit, so, regardless of the incoming file, it will be upscaled to these using the internal DACs. With Best KEF

[@lakerssuperman]

Give me an amazing master that doesn't use horrific dynamic range compression over a hi-res container any day of the week.

[@maa1649]

Absolutely :)

[@andrewcrossley2448]

It may be just my early musician training (violin, classical guitar and good choirs) and 50 years of protecting my ears but the best of the new Apple Music hi res lossless and digital master recordings come over much clearer and with better sound staging on my good hifi than the same recordings from the CDs using a very highly rated 2020/21 award winning CD deck and even the vinyl on my reference (broadcast spec) turntable. So no I am not imagining it. There is a very clear difference and many of the new top res tracks are brilliant. I do agree on Bluetooth. Even the top Apple headphones cannot achieve the same quality as hi res streaming. Even if Apple hi res isn’t full on, as per your statements, it is still excellent and lifts things like solo violin and piano music to a different level. Given it doesn’t cost extra and I use all the family share spots it is a bargain.

[@kokhoongcheah8440]

I could listen to Jana talking about sponsor all day :)

[@adrianmorrish8494]

Quick test who was the sponsor

[@jkenefake]

I agree that hi-res is and always will be a niche thing. I do believe however, that we need way more CD lossless. I agree 320kbps lossy sounds extremely good and almost nobody could tell it apart on a wired system. The problem lies when sending a lossy source over bluetooth. Doing this ends up stacking 2 different lossy compressions on top of each other which leads to unpredictable results. I can tell a big difference when streaming in my car over SBC bluetooth between Apple lossless and Spotify 320kbps. The SBC bluetooth codec is not great, buts it's acceptable when it's the only compression being applied. The situation gets even better with lossless source using AptX or LDAC. I commonly hear people say lossless is a waste of time over bluetooth, but it's not. Sure, it's not lossless anymore, but it still sounds much better.

[@steverees1936]

Thank you for making this video John. I agree with all that you've said. I tried qobuzz and couldn't tell the difference between even Spotify premium and it. I love Spotify and I'm really looking forward to the HiFi package later this year. It's got by far the best control panel and a vast music library with most of what I am into. Can't beat Spotify for me and I personally believe that we will be seeing one or two of their competitors disappearing.

[@paultreneary]

Got to agree that CD is fine for me - I have a few HD-Res purchases that I've downsampled and blind back-to-back compared and I honestly cannot tell the difference, so I've kept with the downdsampled version. Music is so often all about the mastering (or at least that's the point where it can be so easily ruined) and there are good, and bad, examples of that on CD, Vinyl and on HiRes too.

[@guidok.9853]

I fully agree, John, and many thanks for your efforts. The shirt, however ... haven't I seen it on Steve Guttenberg 😉?

[@conkerman01]

Have they ever been seen together ?

[@Jedi71]

Without the denim shirt I didn't know who he was for a second. 😎

[@guidok.9853]

@@Jedi71 Shirts matter 😁

[@jonnywishbone4805]

Who wore it better?

[@nwr99nwr99]

@@conkerman01 now you nention it......

[@frankcoffey]

I would be happy just to get (uncompressed) CD quality. Bluetooth can't even do that yet so HI-RES is a non issue. The other issue is I can't verify how the provider got the HI-RES file. If they just upconverted the CD I can do that myself. They really can't go back and resample the analog master because many of those are either destroyed (Universal fire, etc.) or in need of a restoration that will never be done or done poorly. I do my own restoration and remastering from uncompressed CD rips so my collection is already better than what they have.

[@djmaxxhtx]

I’m the only one in my circle that owns a hi-fi system. Everyone else just plays a mini system or Bluetooth speaker.

[@andrewcopley6454]

Same, very few people do these days. It's a niche hobby!

[@trog69]

After getting a pair of ADS 910s, ( my end-gamers, most likely, as I'm old and budget-locked in retirement ) I have a room stacked full of bookshelf's and some tower speakers that I can barely give away to family and friends, because they like their BT speakers. I won't even bother telling them to come and listen to my system to find the joy of great music because I might as well try giving celery to my dogs as a treat.

[@rap4live39]

The same with my friends. Its really sad I think. They pay more for a new smartphone than on speakers...

[@darickfoxo7986]

@@rap4live39 my headphones cost more then my iPhone 12 Pro max

[@Mikexception]

I feel that Hi fi dead when "Hi FI" tag became a selling container. Hi Fi is sound that is hard to recognize from reality around No way to be sure if it comes from speakers or not. Because what was sold later was gear which fulfilled tech requirements, was loud like a gig and sounded like gig, 100% opinions say it is today out of reach. Because it was bad most listeners fall in love with only sopranos and bass. Then was the right time for endless technologies and that is where we are.

[@EricIzabelle]

There’s a strange misconception in this video (and in some of the comments): 24/48 or 24/44.1 is hires. The bit depth is the single most important factor in digital audio, the sampling rate (Hz) is almost a detail. ‘True’ 24 bit is what really matters, and it can very easily be heard by anyone listening to classical or orchestral music. Using a maximum resolution of 24/44.1 or 24/48 is actually a sensible decision for streaming platforms, because it limits the total bandwidth, storage, processing power and energy that these services will use. A 24/48 file will contain the high quality information of a 24/96 master, and what has been removed by downsampling from 96kHz to 48kHz is mostly the same info repeated twice (a simple integer operation limits the risk of creating artificial data at that stage). In addition, most consumer platforms downsample audio at 48 kHz, so it really does not make sense to mass-deliver 96 kHz files, if for nothing else, to protect the environment. Tidal has elected to use MQA, which is a proprietary codec with no open-source control over the sound processing (and mounting evidence that, like MLP, it degrades audio signal in highly modulated material). Many competent analysts suggest that MQA actually serves as a black box for various quality upsampled files (many of 20-bit quality), and compares poorly with open-source encoded 24 bit files). Qobuz (not Cobas, as the automatic subtitles of the video has it) has decided to let the publishers make available the format that they want, so many records are ‘true’ hires 24 bit so-called master quality. Anyone with Audirvana and a good DAC can hear the difference between 24 bit and 16 bit, if they are interested in music that justifies the added resolution (ECM, Naim, Verve, Impulse, …) many labels offer ‘true’ 24 bit remasters through Qobuz and maybe other platforms. Anyone with LS-50 Wireless (1st gen) and a decent USB cable (e.g. Audioquest Pearl) connected to a laptop with Audirvana playing 24 bit music will immediately hear a leap in quality that is impossible to ignore… and from a huge catalog for the price of a CD every month. Note - Whoever has not tested this particular setup probably has no idea what these speakers are capable of, and the difference is not subtle. Having said this, will Hires become a mass market? - Well probably not, but who cares, as long as people listening to CD-quality subscribe to the audiophile services like Qobuz, it subsidizes the smaller segment of the market that wants and pays high resolution formats. Whether people actually bother to choose the best format in their service is another question, and the answer is probably that 80% of consumers don’t care. But in the music industry like many others, 20% of customers account for 80% of revenues (and the real profit margins). So let people enjoy their music at whatever sample rate they find convenient to stream wirelessly, and if it pays for the audiophile market, that’s fine.

[@Riegholt]

Never saw the arguments presented so succintly (or in such a smashing blouse), thx!

[@felipeavalos3404]

:-)

[@ekres56]

Hello there... Just recently I did a comparison with some software measuring apps a difference between the Spotify, Tidal and Amazon Ultra HD files. I took a same downloaded FLAC file and passed it through the app. The figures shocked me. Most of Spot. and Tid. recordings cap out on 18kHz and 20kHz respectfully while Amazon UHD files passed the 24kHz. Most streaming services limit their high frequencies and that bothers me. Professionally I was a sound engineer for many years... worked on live radio for a while and back in the 80's the same thing was with the FM radio limiting frqcy response from 100-15kHz in order to save the transmitters (they tried higher fq. and the transmitters burn out fast) My opinion is that the bandwidth in most networks is still low to stream 24/96 or higher but the day will come and Hi-Res will shine.

[@greghancock5465]

I'm a hobbyist musician who regularly records and masters, and I have to say the big thing about hi-def audio is how well it mixes, and the fidelity it masters at. Although the end product is dithered to whatever the desired output is, and most people won't tell the difference between the hi-def master and the dithered one, when you are editing it makes a hell of a difference. As an example, I record in 96/32, master in 192/32, then output into 96/24 for the final master.

[@diego750]

As one who was an audiophile and is now part of the mainstream type of listener, what killed it for me was my listening habits changing (90% during commute), hearing slightly deteriorating due to age, and listening to the music required a type of solitude and isolation from my wife I’m not interested in. For the commute on national rail and London Underground there are no benefits to trying for audiophile quality, decent isolating BT’s are enough to make me smile. It’s a great hobby no doubt, and I loved it while I was in it, and the technology still really interests me, so one day I may return, but for now non-audiophile quality is of good enough standard that I don’t miss it.

[@oneofthelastmen5873]

The wife point is important. My hi-fi hobby went into hibernation when we married in 2000. When she dumped me for another man I dug out the Linn TT and the old Naim olive 72/140 amps, added some f-off floor standers from Fyne and everything now sounds wonderful! Even Spotify via my Raspberry Pi. If your budget, time and living space are shared then hi-fi barely has a chance, let alone high res

[@filipepaninho6558]

100% agree! Being a practical audiophile I'm just waiting for Spotify CD Quality!

[@gomez3420]

Yeah and you willing to pay more for it. You may not have to however since Apple made their upgraded service for free.

[@filipepaninho6558]

We'll see!

[@tonym8358]

They already raise the price twice this year first to 16.47 now 17.57

[@johnmc3862]

You’ll be waiting!

[@Mikexception]

I have suspicions there are some under rated problems with digital processing which may be result of digital and analog smog around which may knock down any streaming. . I can hear some deficiency in sound in even CD digital comparing to LP, I wish CD would be let's say " the same" but I do not know if this is to be tied to AD/DA conversions. In other words it could be not development fault but it came to us with digital society where neighbor fridge can affect DA

[@SohaillGandhi]

The day I moved from 320kbps to FLAC's, I was blown away. This was about 18 years ago when I got my first professional audio interface. But honestly, after everything I have learned from being a sound engineer behind the scenes, making the music records, "hi-res" audio above CD (44.1-16) makes no sense. For music 44.1-6 is the target. Always. The only reason for going higher is typically to capture more detail in the recording stage, when you're actually capturing live instruments. But once it has been captured, dithering down to 44.1 with good converters makes little to no appreciable difference; even on reference monitors. And if it's electronic music made with samples, hi-res makes even less sense. As long as the CD quality resolution survives and can be easily accessed, I'll be a happy lad.

[@spaceiabox4685]

"You need to train your ear to hear the difference" is rather subjective. First of all - why? If I cannot tell the diff between 320 and hi res - no biggie, it is what it is, just enjoy what you can. Get a nice aesthetically pleasing 1000euro audio system and get on with your life. Why push it? I've tried Tidal HiFi vs my Spotify trying to find those marginal wins with the hi-res streaming, and went back to spotify - its interface works better for me.

[@mr_ion]

Any suggestions on the audio setup, for a beginner? Also, my audio files are stored locally, on a NAS.

[@SaraNZW]

I agree, well done.

[@bujoun76]

Also HRA is a bit of a hassle. What kind of gear do I buy? How do I connect the gear properly? What settings if necessary? Frankly it's been a complete waste of time chasing HRA. CD "quality" is good enough because I'm just not that into music.

[@amyn227]

hi res is okay. hi res streaming is complicated. that's it.

[@kmwong1786]

Yeah, like Facebook relationship: it's complicated 😋

[@Splashadian]

I get great sound with my Schiit Modi 3 DAC and powered monitors. To think I could get "better" sound just seems ridiculous. Plus I'm a bass guy so I need to have the thump of a sub which will take any idea of the subtle nuances and stomp them anyway. I'm ok with that because my system is for me nobody else.

[@lattugatartaruga]

excellent video, good sir...I just made the switch to Spotify from Qobuz as a result and it turns out, I have access to more of the music that I love...anxiously awaiting their hi-fi rollout.

[@afrojoe24]

As long as high resolution is always available for me to play with on my system 💥💥😁

[@Blackwing2345635]

I saw a great general picture of Hi-Res recently: one online native DSD store have DSD1024 section with collection of several tracks, which are... Originally recorded in DSD128 or DSD256) And they pompously advertise those upscales as "the first-ever commercially available DSD1024 tracks") There are not many Hi-Res tracks, and much fewer really use it, and even when they do - you need to actively look for it to notice. It is fun to try a new DAC with the highest possible bitrate, but for me most of the times it is just... Digitized vinyl by one guy, who just put record in highest settings their ADC able to handle and that's it. And sure, you hear a huge difference between this and what you get from streaming... Because it is vinyl, and streamings usually have digital mix (even old records are remastered for digital), and those two are so different because of the nature of the medium. But when you took random track, digital release CD quality and Hi-Res digital release - you can't tell the difference, because sound engineer's target was - surprise - CD quality. Oh sure, there is digital noise moved further in the spectrum, because maths, and with DSD that noise being moved even much further (though it has much higher level), but, really? Maybe it is a shitty record if you need higher frequency to mask noise better? Maybe high digital noise isn't the only flaw, and other flaws still will be there even in 384kHz PCM or even in mind-blowing 45MHz DSD? As many people said here and in many other places - the biggest problem of Hi-Res is to find music that actually benefits from it. It is possible, especially if you are not stuck to a certain genre, but it is incredibly rear. Other cons are far less important, than records themselves. Especially funny to see Hi-Res release of something highly compressed and "loud")

[@52Xmaxx]

Great fan of your videos, you are a genuine audiophile and the passion can be measured by watching your thoughtful videos with specific details. All the best and thankful for the contribution.

[@Dampfaeus]

I think this all started in the time between when people were ripping (their own) CDs to horribly compressed MP3-files and then later to lossless FLAC-files, when the FLAC codec, and cheaper hard drives with more space became available. And I think most people still confuse MP3 compression with lossy music streaming, and FLAC lossless (CD-quality) audio with lossless, high-res music streaming.

[@the_emmo]

HiFi CD quality is good enough. Thanks for coming to my Ted Talk.

[@grahamserle7930]

Yep, spot on John. Always the biggest difference for me has been the quality of the recording. There are some great songs out there that want to have in my Spotify library etc but they're not simply because the recording is rubbish. You have to EQ the crap out of them to sound half decent and even then they're still rubbish.

[@takingcharge8229]

This is the video I've been waiting for. I suspected all of this based on my own experiences, but could not quite understand it all nor did I have the universal knowledge of all the issues and ability to talk about it like Darko has. Thank you. Pretty good is often pretty good enough....

[@georgedesjardins6080]

My view as a Vinyl collector from the sixties, a good turntable/cartridge phono stage into whatever floats your boat is for the times you want to connect with the music, CDs can offer the same but different with less of a personal connection and streaming of any sort for the bridge game or a lifestyle choice. At 64 my ears probably aren’t what they used to be but when I put on an album, assume the position and listen my mind fills in the blanks and sonic bliss is achieved. All three formats have attributes and errors but thankful for all formats and the ability to choose, I just hope the bean counters and lawyers don’t take that away.

[@audioguy7372]

Great episode as usual! So, I did the research and ultimately trusted my ears, listening to MP3s, MP4s, AAC, and Apple high res lossless ALAC (I’m limited to 24 bit thanks to Airplay 2) and… I CAN tell the difference, thankfully. As you rightly said, you need the equipment to materialize the added resolution, dynamics, and enhanced gradations of distortion-free loudness. I was pleasantly surprised and subsequently cancelled my Tidal and Spotify accounts in favour of Apple Music-something I would NOT have expected I would do before this analysis.

[@audioguy7372]

Update: In the spirit of sharing with our community of music lovers here, Apple now has a Digital Master version of The Dave Brubeck Quartet’s ‘Time Out’ album. Listening to it in 24 bit/48kHz is, well…sublime. With that said, I can’t imagine you could possibly hear or feel anything more at a higher resolution than this.

[@Mikexception]

There is always a minimal difference in any gear and source - the main trouble is when to say "it is better" and when "it is worse" My experience is that when system plays faulty it is more simple to say that because one one source enhance that always annoying fault more then other When system is ideal it starts to be only a matter of own actual mood to choose what we want to hear . Feeling like mastering engineer. In my case for evening silent listening I am charmed with solid amplifier playing a bit smaller like distant stage and for louder in day time I prefer valves because they present bigger stage like magnifying glass For me bit rates no matter

[@audioguy7372]

@@Mikexception interesting point. I haven’t thought about it that way. Happy listening!

[@strandvaskeren]

I wish there were a badge for how well recordings are mastered. Imagine if there were a "Dynamic Master" badge similar to the Lossless and Hi-Res badges to look for and that badge had a set of requirements for the mastering process, putting certain limits on limitors and compressors, requiring a certain dynamic range and so on. It makes way more sense to talk about mastering than whether or not something is Hi-Res or Lossless because mastering has a lot bigger impact on what you end up hearing. And if you listen to music in noisy environments just have the audio player do the compression, adding compression to a dynamic signal is dead easy, it's much harder to extract a dynamic signal from a compressed one.

[@anacap007]

I think, for me at least, is if streaming services offered true-CD level quality AND had an accurate catalog of albums regarding their released date then that would be a huge plus in the camp of audiophiles. Meaning there wouldn't be just one version of an album which had iterated many "remastering" versions and all you get is the latest version. So if 'Thriller' had 12 different versions, then all 12 could be streamed and sound slightly different due to dynamic compression.

[@Gulliveck]

Waste of bandwidth.

[@sholtham1]

Interesting stuff, indeed. I can definitely hear the difference between a Spotify and Qobuz track through my Chord TT2 with M-sampler - in fact the difference is huge, the Spotify track sounding very 'flat' and compressed compared to the standard CD quality of Qobuz. HiRes differences? More difficult to discern, especially where music was originally recorded fifty years ago. Having said that, some Miles Davis albums recorded in the late 1950s sound amazing through HiRes. But as you say, tracks brilliantly mastered will always sound excellent. I also have a basic Sonos set up and can hear no difference between Spotify and Qobuz - it all sounds fine and that's what I'd expect from the system and accept that. If that's what many people are happy with, you're right - HiRes is a difficult sell.

[@Sampardhanani]

But it’s night time Spotify launches the CD quality service asap. It’s been a while since the announcement.

[@TomBabula]

@@Andersljungberg I hope they don’t. I am even in Apple ecosystem and have AirPods which still require air playing Spotify. But price increase might be last strike in camel back to bring me to Apple Music.

[@ritvikarora4552]

@@TomBabula literally same here. I really hope Spotify keeps it the same cuz I love their algorithm over Apple Music.

[@reece3134]

@@TomBabula well since you’re in the apple ecosystem can’t you listen to cd quality at 16 bit?

[@larrypoulton6401]

I agree. I am not a professional but over my lifetime (60 years) have investigated various upgrades. Now I have a Audiolab 6000A, Nad C542, Kef 300 speakers and a Shitt Modi DAC. I have decent cables and have recently bi-wired the speakers. Now I am happy. Regardless if the source is 320 Mp3, CD, ripped CD or Hi Res, well produced music sounds fantastic. However, this setup highlights not so well produced music without a problem. Yes, I think CD quality is more than enough but that production, including mastering plays an important role whatever the quality.

[@PerpetualPreponderer]

CD Quality is the holy grail. A lot of the tech that matured & gained their final form in the 20th century has just been the perfect balance between form & function, between practicality & quality. That is true excellence imo.

[@puertoricanaudiophile4840]

I think most people would be surprised at how good a well mastered CD will sound using modern dac tech. I read about how complicated computer based server systems can get to serve the music when a simpler chain is CD > Transport > DAC> Amplification > Speakers. In my tests with gear, Streaming at 24/48 or above misses more often than it matches or exceeds the SQ using my local source. Can’t beat the catalog access when streaming- but then again I love physical media.

[@thomasward00]

Now is the perfect time to start a CD collection, the prices are so cheap.

[@autocrossstar17]

I’ve started to realize that cd’s are the way to go at the moment. I love my vinyl but when I put a cd on of an album I have on vinyl, I fall in love with the clean, crisp sound. As vinyl has its “warm” sound, much can be said for the detailed sharpness of a cd. It’s another way to hear your favorite music.

[@robertbaird7001]

Love Cds but have ran out of room to store them so would like to buy them and be able to record them to play back exactly as if it was in the CD player

[@crespojosef]

I was once at a large spacious cafe enjoying my Java and reading something, and there was this kid maybe 18 who was the barista playing Beethoven’s symphony no. 3, on what looked like a radio he brought from home. I was amazed how much I was enjoying it, just like the old Doctor Who, with it’s leanness, it allowed my imagination to fly with it. Einstein once said: “ Imagination is more important than knowledge.” In this case imagination was more important than hi-res. That said I think it’s still significant to get hi-res whenever available. Especially if it’s a favorite of yours. I have my speaker connected to the Schitt modi 3. And like Mr. Darko put it, it puts more meat on the recording; especially I’ve noticed this with vintage pieces .One guy on KZbin said that to him, using the modi 3 was like giving digital music a soul. I listen to music from Mozart to Johnny Cash, so I’ve experienced this in many genres. Whether hi-res or a descent DAC I think it’s worth it.

[@thisisaniki]

I'm so glad I found this channel. So refreshing and the production value is on point! Regained my love for hifi again! Thank you

[@felipeiglesias]

Mastering is everything. Couple of years ago I bough 2 CD editions of Fleetwood Mac's "Rumors". One was a 2012 edition and the other, an original 1985 edition. The difference is astonishing: the 1985 edition sounds super well recorded, every instrument clear and obviously, it requires more volume but that wasn't a problem for my Marantz PM6005 + Kef Q150 kit. So, the real enemy is 1) too much audio compression 2) lousy encoding. And yes, I have some Hi Res files and CD and only in some cases, you could spot the differences (mainly in jazz and other well recorded genres). But if the music is too compressed in mastering, you will notice shit.

[@TrueBlueGamer]

I think it would be useful to make a video doing an A/B test with tracks, both lossy and lossless, while wearing a true high end audio gear to prove if hi-res audio is dead or not.

[@thevashfan12392]

Kinda did that, 320 kbps mp3 file vs. 24 bit 92 khz 2488 kbps FLAC file Song sample: helena by my chemical romance Only noticeable difference is the soundstage is much smaller and that's all. The soundstage on 24 bit is much more resolved and fuller. It's, in percentages, about an 80~90% difference of the soundstage but this is negligible to most. I only collect it in 24 bit because I enjoy the better soundstage. Edit: cd quality and hi res is easily the smallest difference. Maybe 10~30% in my experience. The 24 bit has a bit more depth and resolution but it's barely a difference. There's also the caveat of a much smaller pool of music to choose from in 24 bit or higher resolution audio. I can find an immeasurable number of CD quality recordings but only a few thousand of hi res audio.

[@oneofthelastmen5873]

If you need A/B tests to tell the difference, then the difference is too small for most listeners to care. Most listen on their phones through cheap Bluetooth headphones!

[@skyfall1975]

Perfect! I like to be a separate user for the hi-res audio. When everybody will use it and on poor devices it’s not exclusive anymore. So leave it to the mostly experts customers to use the more expensive services. Also consider that Roon software also is not for same people who use Spotify as a main service only.

[@simonjgriffiths]

All very logical arguments, although marketing sometimes trumps rational thinking. If the mainstream audience perceives that hires is better, then they might buy it anyway even though they cannot actually listen to hires on their devices.

[@bladelefusyn3337]

Pretty much how marketing works, an ever-changing strategy to keep folks coming for more. Many folks believe cable quality makes a difference, while many others don't, and boy do they back their logic up every which way imaginable. People will buy anything if marketed properly, sad reality.