Do 2021 HI-RES RECORDINGS sound better than 1960s, '70s, '80s, or '90s recordings?

[@PresentDayProduction]

Great video - I’m a mastering engineer based in London, and I was asked by a major label to remaster some of their back catalogue for a “hi-res” streaming service, with a brief to “make it sound different”. When I asked what the delivery format to ME for mastering would be I was told it would be the original CD. Already mastered. Not even the original pre-masters. I just had to ‘tweak’ it for 96/192/384K and send the files back at 24bit 48K! I didn’t take the job on, but there’s evidence from the inside that hi-res in terms of sample rate is pure marketing BS.

[@frank_tank]

Thank you for this comment! 👍

[@Hotel_Chuck]

Man… that confirms a lot!

[@MgShewchuk]

AES Canada did a study on the various sample rates. A friend on mine participated. None of the audio engineers (all kinds) could tell any difference over 48. None.

[@MrGorpm]

So, it's the old "Rubbish in Rubbish out" problem. I'm really glad that you are here to remind us that the recording and mastering of music is the most important part.

[@chamade166]

The Dark Dark Dark singer appears to be a transsexual.

[@emcachia]

@@chamade166 and your point being?

[@piccman1]

Steve, I agree, you can’t fix a bad recording. Everything starts with the quality of the recording. Some of the finest recordings I’ve ever heard we’re done with two microphones , of the highest quality, with Symphony Orchestra‘s many from the 50’s and some of the best jazz recordings are from the 50s. I’ve been listening on high-resolution systems for several decades and totally agree with your observations

[@piccman1]

@GeneralCurtis3LeMay Well recorded audio can sound surprisingly good on an inexpensive, properly set up system. However, this could lead to, heaven forbid, a journey down the rabbit hole! As you probably well know!

[@JohnJohn-lk4lq]

@GeneralCurtis3LeMay at least those people you speak of aren’t raciest “GeneralLeMay” 🖕🏿

[@doctorbritain9632]

An old recording engineer friend of mine once told me a story of when he was working with the Stranglers on the Peaches track. They didn't quite know how to handle it, and ended up just compressing the heck out of it (dynamically) effectively it's just all scream no whisper in Steve's parlance. Anyone who knows the track can attest it still sounds great.

[@mladenbasic1]

Tell it like it is Steve! As a former recording engineer I can tell you that it is all about the initial recording and the approach taken by the production crew and musicians.

[@StephaneVorstellung]

And if you're like me, a fan of inspired amateurism, live bootlegs, and field recordings, there is really little sense in chasing any of this.

[@adams5389]

@@StephaneVorstellung I have an appreciation for the sound of different mediums and levels of fidelity, and a lot of the music I like isn’t typically well engineered or meant to replicate a natural soundstage. I do really like high res field recordings, though. Its the medium best suited to 24 bit, even more so than live classical, jazz, electro-acoustic, etc.

[@alexxbaudwhyn7572]

I don’t care about Mqa, wouldn’t pick a dac because it had it, unless included for free. AFAIK, most/all mqa sources to date are lossy compressed. IMO all lossy compressed audio should not be considered for audiophile critical reviews of any hardware, only lossless audio Re: dac tech specs It sounds like you are referring to feature list items like what sampling rates ie 44.1/88.2/96/192/2xdsd/etc the dac can play without conversions. I think this is relevant to ensure no resampling, conversion or processing is applied to whatever file you are playing, unless you want to apply those conversions. That is, ensure it plays all your digital sources and files natively, regardless if the higher bits or sampling rate makes a real difference itself, just want to avoid unnecessary conversions that may affect the sound regardless of resolution

[@alexxbaudwhyn7572]

Considering all local audiophiles I’m aware of have dropped tidal and gone to qobuz pretty much tells you the perception of mqa

[@alexxbaudwhyn7572]

Re dsd Agreed that unless a recording was made direct to dsd, I would avoid a dsd release if converted to and from pcm However, there may be value in well done flat transfers from recordings made to analog tape to dsd, assuming that is the only hi res transfer available. If an equivalent (88.1/24 or 96/24) pcm version was available I would probably opt for that, like the Steve Wilson remasters of yes or Tull and similar from rush released on DVD or Blu-ray with 24/48 and or 24/96 or 192 tracks

[@randallcollura]

Steve, you have hit the nail on the head here. This is exactly what I have found with hi-res audio. The most important thing is how the music was recorded and mixed, above a certain point the numbers don't mean much of anything. I'd much rather listen to a well recorded/mixed track on CD than a poorly recorded/mixed one in "hi-res". Yes! - some recordings from the 50s are amazing and put modern ones to shame!

[@BruceNitroxpro]

Steve, my family has always been at the top of the heap when it comes to audio... from back when we built our first hi-fi in 1948, to the present day... I KNEW what was going on "behind the curtain," as some people think of it. It is the music usually recorded with a Decca Triangle on whatever people had at the time. But the MODERN "music" recording is much more technically perfect and noise free, yet the very things which should bring the music out are keeping it hidden because the people are no longer around who were the mixers and recording engineers who understood the MUSIC. The things you speak of are true... and I of course agree. But the better part of music is in the listening. Too many people listening to their systems instead of the music.

[@rooannaroo446]

Ain’t that the truth.

[@BrianVallotton]

Hi Steve, even though you did this a while back I enjoyed listening to you today. I really appreciate your perspective. I am 61 years old and am still loving and learning about music and sound. It is a great hobby and brings me so much enjoyment. God bless you and all you love.

[@mvh2275]

The recording/mix engineer are the key to great sounding recordings. Perfect! Thanks for sharing, mvh

[@dennislynch4783]

Once again, I believe you are spot on with the hi-res craze. While I am certainly not a "sophisticated" audiophile, I believe I have a good grasp on what what sounds good. Overall, I am underwhelmed with high res recordings, some have sounded pretty good, others not so much......there are some artists who care about their recordings and it shows with their standard 16/44.1 CDs. I pretty much have abandoned purchasing hi res downloads as it's sort of like flipping a coin as to whether or not the original recording was done with any detail to attention. Thank you for your youtube videos, I watch them all and they are informative and interesting. I really like seeing other people's gear.

[@VladVexler]

Thank you. There is a sort of consensus in the classical music world that some of the best sounding recordings still come from the 1930s. Edwin Fischer’s piano recordings in particular.

[@pimianimavdo1523]

9:15 to 10 :44 is spot on! This is, imo, one of your very best videos as it touches to the biggest fundamentals of good music audio listening realism (and why music listening usually sucks too often, in spite of all the hype put in by techno-babble spewers and marketing reps & "influencers" on the Web). Good job Sir. :) As for MWA nad/or DSD DACs, of course it would be nice to have the maximum flexibility, but... the actual recordings are the element with the most impact on the listening experience (and again, I have to agree with your statement about some really great "old" recordings that are non-compressed & natural sounding being fantastic even in "normal res" playback on decent gear). Too often in audio, the Best is the enemy of the Good. Specially when we are distracted by specs and not adressing the fundamentals of good recording practices and actual sonic performance. PS I Really Hate Compressed music! And I'm not tallking of codec compression here although these can also really mess up sound quite a bit -- pun intended.) Dynamics are fundamental to music (both Macro-Dynamics and Micro-Dynamics has to be respected for any realism in sonic reproduction. This is demanding, but it is achievable as some great recordings have proven it -- you can look for them. As for the actual music; its always a matter of personal taste. Cheers!

[@Sab7254]

Great point regarding the importance of the analogue section in a DAC. I still (occasionally) use a Mark Levinson No. 360s that I purchased new in 2001 and I think it still sounds really good on 16/44.1 material (it will decode up to 24/96). I believe the analogue circuitry is the reason.

[@1jhnpennington]

Best explanation of dynamic range compression I’ve heard.

[@o2i3u5klwerh8]

Agree.

[@EdwardCBurton]

Yeah, I was waiting for more of that myself, but didn't catch it. That's the bane of so many CDs today: bad DRM, sound crushing. I try to steer clear of "remasters" and instead get the 80s analog versions. I can hear a marked difference.

[@timothylindsay3244]

Steve, I don’t know why it’s taken me so long to notice, but your wardrobe is Krameresque, you must start your own line of leisure/fitness shirts and tops. Love your Audiophiliac videos…as 67ish audiophile contemporary I can’t get enough of your content.

[@paulpavlou9294]

The best listening experience I’ve had in recent times has come from my turntable. I have however improved the sound coming out of my vintage system with the addition of a good DAC. They all have different flavours - you just have to find the one you like and that works best in your system.

[@ChannelSyxx]

Thank you for stating what I been telling my friends for years. It’s all about the source. So many recordings from the 70s and even before sound better than many recordings made this century. It makes me wonder if sound engineering is digressing. Great episode Steve.

[@russputin6294]

Couldn't agree more. We've now got the multi-track technology tail wagging the musical dog. Musical instruments in a natural acoustic interact with each other in ways that can't possibly happen with overdubbed multitracking and as for microphone placement don't get me started; if you were at a concert would you stick your head in the bass drum or inside the saxophone bell? Most modern recordings aren't even stereo; they're just multi-tracked mono panned across an artificial soundstage. It's no coincidence that nearly all old recordings made straight to 78rpm masters sound more natural and musical than most modern Frankenstinian multitracks; the technology simply wasn't there to allow the engineers to mess things up!

[@mimofi]

Just viewing this one now, guess I missed it,.. Great upload Steve, I have always believed the number one by far most important factor is the recording and mastering quality. If the content can exploit the higher res then it can add to the experience but it will be the last few percent if your system chain is capable. Final comment, Nick Cave Idiot Prayer, it was same for me.. I heard on Tidal and soon after bought the vinyl record as well as the CD. Spectacular, can't stop listening once I start it. Love your music choices as well and have added to Tidal and purchased many of the albums you refer to in your reviews. Awesome job. Michael

[@bootsarmstrong8421]

Steve, you're the best. I've heard a few hi-res recordings on KZbin (pop) and they did sound really good. The problem with most pop recordings (70's onward) is there's too much reverb, especially on the vocals. And like you mentioned, too much compression as well.

[@alfagerup]

Hi Steve. Thank You so much for Your good way to tell, about what counts in a good recording. Man I wish there was more on the KZbin hifi channels, with this, easy to understand, way to explain even hard technical stuff.. 👍😊

[@CP-oe3kt]

"Polishing a turd"... Ha Ha Ha! By far, in my opinion, your best video yet Steve. Understandably you have to be all smiles and thumbs up on your product reviews but it's refreshing to hear you take your considerable experience and tell it like it is. As an amateur audiophile, I would love to see more videos, like this one, where you share your honest views based on your years of audio experience. Thank you!

[@HomeStudioBasics]

So glad to hear you harp on these really really important points in audio, Steve! What you talk about here are things I try and re-iterate time and again on my channel and I think more reviewers need to tell the truth rather than shill. DACS are becoming a huge problem in this hobby and frankly, I'm getting tired of it.

[@jonesvox1]

Thanks, Steve for sharing some artists and suggestions!

[@JoelOman1980]

I quite recently bought a Marantz NA6006 to complete my marantz amplifier. I'm still only playing through Spotify Connect (320kps, NOT CD-quality, by numbers standard) but the fidelity of this streamer is still warm, engaging and "foot-tapping" which is basically what I am looking for in a music system. Though the launch of Spotify Hifi later this year sounds awfully intriguing (bringing the quality up to 1411kbps, similar to CD-quality). I will try some free downloadable DSD64 tracks later on and see how that turns out. Thanks Mr. Guttenberg, always enjoyable to watch your videos and hear your take on music/gear. Kudos!

[@yourmaninlondoncollecting5749]

Really informative and enlighten video that I think Many have been looking for. Hopefully with lower cost of today in producing good sound.. and the more general interest in High Res sound/music among the average listener, it will be enough demand for the recording industry to take the job of recording more serious. Knowing that word of mouth spreads the interest in the final product they sell.

[@315Geoff]

I just wanted to say that I really enjoy your content. Very authentic feel

[@Fastfwd01]

Well, I'm currently really enjoying the old stuff personally. I'm sort of on a MoFi SACD kick right now. Those are really hard to beat. It's stunning that recordings over a half century old are that good. I'm really trying to NOT listen to any current artists as much as possible. When I got high rez streaming capability last year or so I went on a mission of discovery of what was happening. Generally, just checking out nominees and winners for the Grammy for best engineered albums over previous years. Some of that is no joke imo. Beck's albums have some really wild soundstage trickery. The newest NIN albums - Ghosts? are intense too. I pulled out my CD of Buena Vista Social Club the other day and was stunned by how good it sounded with all the new gear I've put together the last couple of years. It made me wonder what other 'CD' quality albums I haven't yet discovered that sound that good. I'm sure there are more really great modern albums that recorded well. Billie Eilish was sort of what revived my interest in what was happening with 2 channel. I would never had guessed it would lead to me shunning all of the new stuff in favor of really old recordings.

[@martinkatz7639]

Thank you for your review of dark dark dark. After listening to just a few tracks I believe their thing is natural ambience. You can tell from their videos they Relish in the places that they play . I love it and their recordings are designed to take advantage of that.

[@gokhanersan8561]

Of the 300 some in my collection, I discovered 6-7 superbly recorded, mixed, mastered CDs. Steve Winwood, Pat Benatar, Yes, Dave Brubeck, Oscar Peterson, John Williams. Instruments are separated, and there is a 3D soundstage - because the original recording is superbly made. It is a rare thing.

[@tomgilbertson2279]

Hey Steve, great topic as always. But even better are the music suggestions. Foxwarren record is really well done. Listening through a recently acquired Vali 2 and some Grado Headphones. All purchased with the advice of the Audiophiliac! Thank-you Steve.

[@stevepickering5978]

I have had my Arcam Alpha 9 HDCD 24/96 for many years and the HDCD disc's are amazing the clarity of the vocals and the instruments is great

[@DueM]

HDCD is a weird thing, I have a rotel player that supports it and it's always a nice surprise when the HDCD light pops on when there's no mention of it anywhere on the cd. Pity it didn't take off in a big way

[@grahamstrahle4010]

The most intelligent discussion I've heard yet on this subject. Food for thought. Thank you.

[@sdjgfashjasbfasd]

I need to thank Steve for two things. 1 Turning me on to the free Chesky sampler a few months ago. Fantastic sound quality. I downloaded several more since. 2 FIP. So many artists I never would have discovered otherwise. Play it all day long.

[@tonesbones502]

I love learning stuff from you Steve. So what I took from this is if songs originally come out 44.1/16bit then that's the copy you want to listen to. I bought a new preamp this year and is supports MQA (not that I knew what that meant at the time). I am currently swapping from KZbin music to Tidal and I'm on a two month trial of the premium hi-res package. Good recording sound amazing through my hifi, but I'm starting to think I should just go the 'hifi' standard streaming because it's half the price and I don't think I'd be able to hear the difference. I just hope all of the 'master' songs (probably 150 of them) that I've added to my library can be played at a lower bit rate if I downgrade the deal. Imagine if I can't play them!.

[@thomaskelly2560]

Thank you Steve. I always appreciate your insight. I too love vinyl but I have also been listening to high res music. I have downloaded music from Chesky, Blue Coast Music and Octave records in DSD. It’s been a challenge trying to get my computer and DAC to play the music back in high res but I’ve notice a difference . Vinyl is not always convenient so for example, at my desk I have a Brooklyn DAC + and Audeze LCD 2 headphones connected to my MacAir. It allows me to listen to quality music while I work.

[@benjaminqilafku5714]

Thanks Steve for your musical suggestions. Posting while listening to the relaxing sounds of Snorre Kirk in the background.

[@valdiskrebs566]

The same trend is happening in photography... people are fawning over the latest high megapixel sensors. The sensor is better, but the photographer remains the same. As another KZbinr put it so aptly ... we are now getting a lot of “high quality” rubbish photos. Garbage in, garbage out... and unfortunately in high res the garbage looks worse and stinks more.

[@petek6031]

Agree R6 is enough --R5 is too much.

[@lindsaywebb1904]

Oh I love that. ‘High quality rubbish photos’

[@JoelOman1980]

X-T1 still a beast. A perfect example of this. Have a great weekend!

[@lindsaywebb1904]

@GeneralCurtis3LeMay this is a weird concept to me. If someone apportioned social status to the acquisition of gear or media based on market segmentation and not a deep personal relationship with sound and music, then doesn't that miss the point?

[@lindsaywebb1904]

@@JoelOman1980 The context is everything though. A prosumer camera can't compete with a large format analogue or high-end digital medium format camera... When you see a Struth, or Gursky image in the flesh, it is very clear. In this way I feel like the print is kind of like a pair of speakers. The camera, data and post processing is the electronics. Pre-production, composition and lighting is then musicianship and recording

[@ML-rm3vk]

steve thank you your ears will tell you what sounds better at any time you are listening to sounds.its not about numbers its what sounds better to you.great video

[@PteroWorks]

So true! It's all about the quality of the recording process. Thanks for putting this out there.

[@edmaster3147]

You're absolutely right Steve, the recording is essential. I only stream and Hi Res 24/192 with a great recording really sounds amazing. I guess the business model of MQA will prevent it being the next industry standard. FLAC seems to be the VHS of the streaming market. Audio is all about imperfections, otherwise the fun of the hobby would not be there.... I just stream to a tube pre-amp and a nice solid state MOSFET amp, in an effort of getting a really smooth sound and the power of transistors... Thanks for your channel, greetings from The Netherlands

[@mayssebmasenya9132]

Thanks for the videos and information,- it’s educational for some of us, really. PS: I played the entire Love is King album- couldn’t skip a song. I enjoyed the music (well recorded and reproduced on my system and to my ears), and I didn’t have to worry about analysing. I’ll be going to Wanderer next.

[@roscoenyc]

Love that copy of Re.Ac.Tor right there up front. As a record producer I settled into doing everything 96/24 years ago. I use a lot of analog equipment to get to the DAW. We did purchase the Burl Audio Mothership convertor rig for our place. That really helped everything. The Burl sounds more like 'audio gear' as opposed to 'computer gear' if that makes any sense? Recording secret is that a whole lot of recording studios are using old convertors that really should have been retired a while ago. What you said about the Dark Dark Dark record is how I feel too. If the music is great, if the mix is great and if the mastering is great, it is great! Most records we make are released as CD, Vinyl and Downloads and I try to make sure the 96/24 is available for people who want it. In the studio when we went to 96/24 it was a turning point for me, it's when I started to like digital. Thanks for your videos.

[@davegardner7731]

Nice work Steve I'm new to your channel and have watched heaps.......But can't help to notice your LP shelves , Dude you need some separators in my view you shouldn't have more than a cube space (12" max ) Keep up the good work Cheers from NZ

[@marckant3611]

Hello Steve, I find this HiRes-thing is a great and interesting topic. Recently I ripped all my CD's to 16/44 FLACS just for the convenience. I also bought a really good DAC, pre-amplifier and Class-D Purifi Eigentakt mono blocks. I am very happy with the clean and linear sound of my system. Sometimes I download a higher resolition FLAC or DSD file and it is convenient that my DAC can process them but I totally agree with you that the quality is not always what you expect. MQA is something I avoid at all cost.

[@JRABSLLC]

Thanks, Steve! I use Hi-Res in my retail store, and love it. Home just isn’t an option to listen to good sound. I agree that vinyl is better, but not practical for everyone (especially me). I’m using an Adcom GFA-555ii, BlueSound Node 2i, SVS Prime Pinnacles w/ their new micro 3000 sub, and love it. I appreciate your insight and will listen to the recordings that you suggested. Thanks again!

[@frostycanada6404]

Hello Steve, really enjoyed this. My daily driver has been a Sugden DAC-4. I have been using this exclusively for sometime now. I have no idea as to it’s exact specifications as Sugden does really post this information but it sounds really, really good - better than some higher spec offerings?Many on the Internet will say that it measure like crap, but to me it sounds, right, perfect. Take care, Brian.

[@thedude3423]

"You can't make chicken salad out of chicken shit, no matter how much you try and spice it up..." Thanks Steve for all you do! 👍😊

[@ProgRockKeys]

Steve Wilson’s work was the primary driver for most of my entire audio system. Denon flagship AVC x8500h, Oppo 203, Infinity IRS Beta and Kappa speakers for surround. It just so happens that he was remixing and re-releasing all of my favorite bands - Yes, Gentle Giant, King Crimson, early Genesis, Jethro Tull, ELP etc - into the surround format that really fascinates me. The Denon includes a mono block design with 8 AK “Velvet Sound” DACs ... whatever the DACs are doing as far as analog stage coloration and warming up of the sound, it’s a good match for my planar speakers, to my ears. A big improvement over my Denon x6200.

[@BryanRuby]

Thank you for recommending Snorre Kirk! First time I listened to his music...and glad I did!

[@idigbebop]

Follow his band mate Stephen Riley on tenor. Excellent artist.

[@audioupgrades]

It's about having the option. Some DSD files sound great. The higher resolution translates into greater clarity and better soundstage in some instances. As good as vinyl, tape or CD are they can't fully match that.

[@audioupgrades]

@ReaktorLeak That reductionist approach does not explain it. Spatial information is encoded in the audio and the lack of resolution may result in it being lost. Hifi is full of people trying to explain very complex phenomena with simple soundbites, it never works.

[@audioupgrades]

@ReaktorLeak You're doing it again, over-simplifying. It's not going to help anyone, so I won't waste any time responding.

[@antigen4]

ReaktorLeak no

[@antigen4]

ReaktorLeak that is only true with respect to frequency. There is more to audio than what you see on the screen if an oscilloscope.

[@audioupgrades]

@@antigen4 Yeah. Frequency sweeps and other measurements are diagnostic tools. They don't correspond to music or how the device sounds to our ears. I use measurements and can correlate them to certain sonic properties but the listening test is always the most important.

[@nick4uBB]

I've bought a external network streamer with DAC lately (limetree network) and switched from my integrated amp built-in one. I was shocked how much I was missing before from CD quality recordings. I thought I need DAC with HiRes. Absolutely not the case. I've stopped looking at the numbers since I have it and just look for good quality recordings. Thanks Steve for your album recomendations 🖖

[@timsmith1426]

Great video, thanks for putting this together! :)

[@ralphm5840]

Thanks for this, Steve. I listen to a lot of classical, and have come to appreciate well-recorded (!) SACD's which qualify as "high-res". BIS recordings have always been a safe bet for me - a demonstration disc is definitely Stravinsky's Rite of Spring played by the Bergen Philharmonic Orchestra conducted by Andrew Litton. This recording is amazing, I think... I have a few DSD downloads, and a few more 192/24 downloads, and a few more 96/24 downloads, but in all honesty, I feel no need to search them out for online downloads. Also, my Aurender streamer will do the first level unfold of an MQA file on Tidal, and I cannot really hear an improvement over turning the MQA toggle off on the Aurender. That said, I have heard some reviewers state that an MQA file on Tidal will still sound better because it is still benefiting from the 24 bit file.

[@m.b.6129]

No one needs more than CD quality, the recording and mixingprocess itself is what makes the difference... I hear my music with a cdtransport to my Sony signature headphoneamp,in my opinion hard to beat....

[@m.b.6129]

Hello from Germany, I use the signature Sony headphoneamp via toslink with my CD Player. This AMP is in use with a bunch of headphones such as Sony MDR z1r,ier z1r, Meze Empyrean,Fostex th909 and others.I stored my music also on my Walkman nwwm1z in CD quality. The headphoneamp is also in use as a preamp to hear with my Vintage Infinity Kappas,which were refurbished the last year. I couldn't be more happy.

[@matthewweflen]

@@m.b.6129 Z1R/WM1A here! Sony's Signature series is really great gear.

[@frankiepavinato]

@@m.b.6129 I have the ZX300 and I'm very very happy about it...the Wm1Z must be something really special!!!

[@thedma6000]

Hi Steve Because anyone with a laptop is now a recording engineer. Like anything else there is a small percentage with higher expectations. The only way to appreciate that last bit of audio quality with a hi res file is with a 1st class recording and a hi end headphone setup. You will hear the different breed of horsehair on the violin or cello bow.

[@CORVUSMAXYMUS]

Hi, Steve . I've learn a lot of things from you. First thing which I remember is : First golden rule : listen music. Without this nobody can pass to next level . After my opinion CD quality format is enough for any one in every circumstances : audio system from home, portable devices using paid premium audio streaming together with a very good DAC and a high end headphone. The difference from CD audio quality and the other one like DSD, MQA is not like from distance EARTH to MOON. I checked myself , on a premium paid streaming service with a very good DAC paired with my studio headphone and I've notice very clear a difference from CD quality to MQA but this doesn't mean that everyone must listen DSD or MQA, because the difference of price is worth only for who realy want to stay on top of the piramid. 1. LISTEN MUSIC ( CD QUALITY OR ABOVE ) 2. AUDIO PLAYER DEVICE ( 500 USD - 1000 USD ) aquire a DAC if the device does't have one integrated 3. VERY GOOD SPEAKER ( 300 USD - 1000 USD ) 4. HIGH END HEADPHONE ( 200 USD - 1000 USD ) NO BLUETOOTH

[@ethanmullenax3410]

I think you're absolutely right. As an engineer myself, engineering and mixing matter so much more than resolution. For me CD quality is enough. I like recording in a higher resolution if possible to make editing more precise, but for listening I can't tell the difference. (sometimes with pop masters I can't tell the difference between mp3 320 and cd). For reference I have a Steinberg interface with a decent dac in it, a pair of grado sr60e, a pair of sony mdr whatever (the ones you see everywhere), and also a yamaha rs202 receiver hooked up to wharfedale diamond 220s. Nothing crazy, but certainly nothing to sneeze at.

[@darrens7040]

Good call on the Nick Cave lp Steve think Ill be purchasing it too after hearing the samples. quick edit PURCHASED!!

[@LorDarkGoose]

You hit the nail on the head there Steve!

[@philpeters8200]

I just ran across this video today and it answers a long standing question that I've had about current music versus that from the 70s/80s. While I totally agree that more the more data provided by Hi Res services doesn't necessarily produce better sounding music I would also offer that well recorded music can withstand my well-intentioned, but totally amateurish efforts to covert music from my younger days. Let me better explain. In the 70s my brother purchased a stereo receiver with a cassette player/recorder. He also purchased a turntable. All the guys in the neighborhood would bring over their vinyl albums so that we could covert them to cassette tapes. In return we made a copy for ourselves since we were clueless about copy write laws. We typically bought 90 minute (45 minutes side) tapes since hardly any album was longer than 30-35 minutes. One cassette tape typically held two single albums. If we had unused tape at the end of an album we'd simply tune to our favorite radio station and fill the remainder of the tape. Vinyl lives another day on my walkman and car cassette player. Fast forward 20 years into the 90s. These cassette tapes have now been lying around my home for 20+ years and I'm reading about how you can digitize them. So I bring out my old boom box as a source and load some software on my laptop and away we go. The tapes now reside on my computer. The radio "fill" stuff from each tape was cut and put into its own file which is about 8 hours long. I load these files onto my mp3 player and my music lives on once again. Fast forward yet again to present day. I now mostly listen to music on Sirius/Spotify but just for giggles I'll periodically give a listen to my old stuff. Darn if that music doesn't sound as good as offerings from the streaming services. Granted my stuff has a lot more hisses and pops but that simply reminds me of happy days playing around with the then current technology. I'm neither an audiophile nor a sound engineer but just someone who enjoys music. Until this video I could never understand why these double converted (vinyl to tape - tape to digital) files held up so well. I guess well crafted music can just stand the test of time. Thanks so much Steve for enlightening me.

[@mmorales508]

*M-A-R-K-E-T-I-N-G* That's your answer about "hi-res"

[@oldgamecafe]

Yes, i think that too.

[@nantericable]

No just Qualités And Dynamic.

[@Columba_Kos]

I appreciate your honesty, Steve. I have no objection to higher bitrates and wider bandwidths being used in recording. The producers can knock themselves out, if they want to. But, it serves no useful purpose so far as audio reproduction is concerned. The PHILIPS/SONY Redbook standard is quite sufficient, and was from day one. It offers more dynamic range than you can realistically use, and perfectly reproduces the frequency spectrum to the satisfaction of the most discriminating 20 year-old.

[@jameswhitehouse5456]

All the best sounding recordings I own are old analogue recordings (50s, 60s, 70s, etc.) in high res digital formats. Currently I’m listening a lot to some of the Everest 35mm recordings in their original 3-channel format on DVD-A, but there is so much sublime catalog out there which sounds utterly superb when lovingly transferred to true hi-res digital and played through a good sounding system. MQA have been doing some loving restorations on early digital recordings, getting back to the original sound as far as possible on recordings which have been mangled over the years.

[@miguelbarrio]

In my opinion, the measure of a great DAC is how well it can play 16/44. This is because this is the hardest format to play - once you have higher sampling rates, it is easier to not muck up the audible band. As for source material, I have to say that I have MANY more albums in 16/44 that sound AMAZING than high-res files. And I have a lot of both. High-res that sounds high-res is rare to be honest. Polishing a turd is quite accurate.

[@rajendrabiswas]

Really ? The metrum flint has 16 bit DAC and I thought that would be inferior to 24

[@miguelbarrio]

@@rajendrabiswas I don’t understand what you mean. A 16 bit DAC is not necessarily inferior to a 24 bit DAC if you’re using a 16 bit source.

[@rajendrabiswas]

@@miguelbarrio does Apple Music have 16bit? Nowadays most video games and movies have 24 or 32

[@miguelbarrio]

@@rajendrabiswas Apple Music for anything that is not lossless is 16 bit (the AAC format). Since then it’s moved many titles to lossless CD quality, which is still 16 bit. Many new releases are coming out in 44/24 or 48/24. However, my original point was not that DACs should not handle 24 bit but that the hardest thing for a DAC to do is to do a good job decoding 44/16

[@rajendrabiswas]

@@miguelbarrio okay

[@drdiesel1]

Most audio engineers over the past 30 or so years need collectively slapped.

[@MrMichaelfalk]

twice

[@espenboholm1112]

those that say that others should be slapped, should be slapped themselves

[@380stroker]

@@espenboholm1112 hey, hey....

[@drdelewded]

Id blame the producers and not the engineers.

[@roberthart9886]

Agreed. CDs like Jennifer Nettles Playing With Fire or Any Lennox (and Adele) might have 1-2 decent recordings, but a lot of really good songs are poorly recorded to the point of being unlistenable

[@lorindamikaela]

I agree with you Steve. Many years ago I had bad TV reception, I could go buy a signal booster but it would also boost the bad signal as well. A bad recording will always be just that "bad" regardless of the Hi-Res label. I've heard good recordings in mp3 which were impressive to say the least.

[@kentreuber8026]

I still buy physical CDs, primarily classical. I’m ripping them using Apple lossless format and playing using Sonos. I don’t currently have any hi res sources.

[@doopisday]

I started doing the same after I realized I couldn’t tell the difference between this and playing the actual CD. Also started downloading Flac files directly to skip the ripping step, but only if the price is the same or a few $ more than the CD.

[@robjones8733]

Same here D!

[@westernartifact580]

If you’re playing back through Sonos it won’t make a bit of difference.

[@theaudiocircle]

CDs in a good transport and with a good DAC still excite me much more than a 192/24 streaming. Plus there is a plus side on having the booklet and the case... holding the thing. (As you all already know). I have a few DACs and MQA has not impressed me enough to be a deal breaker when it comes to DAC buying. And yes, the source is the genesis of good sound in any format afterwards (given that is properly implemented of course). Great stuff Steve, keep up the good work!

[@marcellavankraaij253]

Absolutely agree on that. My CDT in combination with an tube DAC blows HiRes away!

[@theaudiocircle]

@@marcellavankraaij253 :) yeah its hard to beat! I still stream don't get me wrong, but I find myself much more looking in my own shelves rather than browsing for Hi-Res in my streaming service. 🎶💿

[@oldgamecafe]

CD quality is enough and impressive, same as the vinyl sound, hi-res is purely Marketing.

[@spencexxx]

MQA is not Hi Res. It is LOSSY.

[@skip1835]

Excellent vid - educational even for an old stuck in his ways audiophile like myself - although I play a lot of records, CD's are a close second - and most of the time I'm playing regular PCM, "red label" CD's - and Steve is most definitely right - CD playback, especially within maybe the last 5 years or so has come far enough that I can thoroughly enjoy them - even after playing a decent pressing on my reference table, I can switch off to a CD and not feel like throwing a brick at my playback set up - (although - not every CD in my collection - forget some of the stuff from the "loudness" war years) - -thanks Steve.

[@bobb.9917]

Thanks for this! ...and also including a "bad" recording of good music to compare.... I have the same experiences with some "hi-Rez" streamed music. It's good to compare notes. It helps confirm my own awarenesses.

[@ftgphoto]

Thanks for the information on Nick Cave’s album. Ordered it just now after watching this. 💪🏽😎

[@chetanramesh951]

Incredibly informative! Thanks.

[@garysmith8455]

Hello Steve..ML guy here again..May I add to one of your questions? I am in the orchestral camp mostly, and have been a TELARC fan since 1986. I have MANY of their DSD recordings, and with their minimal miking scheme, I believe they produced some of the finest, pure digital orchestral recordings to say nothing of the performances and musicians involved. (O:

[@SteveGuttenbergAudiophiliac]

I agree.

[@drp1036]

I think CDs get a bad rap because of the CD loudness wars which destroyed the audio quality of the format. CDs started out with great dynamics and pretty good audio quality, but then with each subsequent remaster, they became louder and louder and more brickwalled. Most albums that first came out on CD back in the '80s were transfers from analog tape of classic albums from the Beatles and Steely Dan. They sounded pretty good, but not perfect because back then, the format was so new and the engineers didn't have a full knowledge of the format. The question you have to ask yourself is this: Are the streaming services using old holdover remastered digital sources of classic albums that are still brickwalled, still victims of the old CD loudness wars? Or are they getting newly remastered albums with their original dynamic range restored and tonal qualities restored, like they sounded before the CD loudness wars? If I had to guess, most old classic albums that were recorded on tape and transferred to digital that you hear on streaming services still suffer from poor dynamic range, loudness and brickwalling.

[@jondubb35]

Great point. Some of the earliest CDs just sounded awful, as we all know that they were nothing more than tape transfer to digital, still in its infancy. Some of the best sounding CDs in my collection, are from the 90s and early 2000s. Unfortunately, as time progressed, the loudness wars really turned me off and so I got back into analogue. But I would never say vinyl sounds better than digital and vice versa, as it’s really subjective. In the ear of the beholder, if you will. I might prefer spinning records, and you might prefer popping in a CD, but in the end, the pure joy of listening to your favorite album or artist through your HiFi rig on your preferred format, is what really matters.

[@machintelligence]

It really depends on how far back you go as far as recording quality of (especially) classical music. Some of the vintage performances and performers are only available on 78 rpm records. The degree of lack of audio spectrum and dynamic range makes them obvious even when listened to on a job site boom box. I used to amaze my co-workers when I announced that "that was an old recording." (I listen to classical music while doing construction work -- so shoot me.)

[@classicrock7890]

There are quite a few Classical and Jazz recordings from the 50s now available from Analog Productions, Tone Poet and the new Acoustic Sounds Jazz vinyl etc. Certainly stand up to anything since due to great miking. No multitracking and overdubs could be done so essentially live takes.

[@Craig_Spurlock]

You nailed it exactly, a well-mastered CD still sounds great! Interestingly, most of my favorite CD's to listen to are ones made from 80's and even older recordings that were taken as-is, and not messed with. I have gotten kind of "gun shy" when a CD has the word "remastered" on it. Remastered used to mean helpful things were done, like noise reduction, but now all it really means is slam the sliders up till all the lights are red!

[@miguelbarrio]

CDs definitely evolved from the early days, when they sounded harsh, to the current state, which is excellent. But then the loudness wars kicked in (not for classical or jazz). I want to stress your point about remasters: oftentimes they are louder and more compressed and worse than the previous version. I take remasters with a grain of salt.

[@walterkasper467]

I owned and ran Ghost Studios. Recorded everything in high resolution. Then had to dither it to 16 bit. Offered the music in high resolution. No one wanted it in the early 2000s. Boy did it sound great. A lot of depth and detail. Should really hear it with 20 to 40 tracks all high resolution over great speakers. Even when mixing it down to 96 or 24 two tracks it loses a lot. Thanks for the great videos

[@drewwilson1477]

Excellent and accurate discussion. No MQA and no DSD. Don’t add anything of value. It’s all about the providence of the recording as you most aplenty pointed out. You should look at the work of Dr. Mark Weldrep and his efforts to see if people can actually hear the difference based on double blind evaluations of the same native hires recording offer in different data formats with identical loudness. Almost imported to tell a difference after the CD red book standard. Very interesting work.

[@drewwilson1477]

Bloody spell check. The Apple guesses are getting worse and worse. Sorry “Almost impossible to tell the difference......”

[@kozmiczian795]

. . . but, Steve. If you know how to use Qobuz, you can play a tune at 16/44.1 and then, while playing request an uptic to hi-rez 24/96, and the dif is similar to the dif between regular CD and SACD . . . I feel as though, in that regard, the use of some hi-rez recordings is pretty darn sweet . . . but, you are absolutely right about the original recordings. Love the new set up.

[@phatjbl]

Yes yes yes Steve you have hit the target. I use Michael Ruff Speaking In Melodies and Patricia Barber ...standard cd version amongst others for judging cd players. Many people haven't even heard the beat 44.1 16bit recordings before they dismiss redbook or garden variety cd. I love both vinyl and cd and like many listen to 90% cd as it's easy even at home. Records are a special treat. On the move it's mostly tidal via my dragonfly red and a range of headphones 🎧.. I'm a power and dynamics guy. It's got to be loutish and detailed minus the harsh. You are one voice I hear and listen to. Like that you keep it real for most of us not on huge incomes. I like my new Rotel Rcd1572 cd player.

[@airmangirard]

Thanks for the introduction to Foxwarren. Some nice tunes in there.

[@YuriItape11]

Steve, I pretty much agree with your opinion. Certainly my experience shows that what matters the most for Sound quality is recording quality. Not High quantity of bits, either in PCM or DSD. But is also True that when High quality recording is natively done with higher "density" of bits we get closer to the Music. Another point you mentioned is also very true ... most of the recordings that are being offered in HD ( again, in both PCM or DSD) are just "processed" from original CD quality or even analog Recordings ( packing and adding a lot of additional bits) but without improving the Sound ( and several times making it worst). And all this misleading marketing of MQA ( which is a very clever compressing/decompressing technology to save band in transmission (streaming)), trying to convince customers that the audio quality is miraculously improved once passed trough their coding process is really a great disservice to us...

[@freddavidson73]

Excellent points, thank you. I'd be curious to know your reaction to some of the 24-bit mastered jazz releases from the Venus label in Japan, e.g. Eddie Higgins' "My Funny Valentine" -- these are on SACD, CD, and streaming services too. And thanks for your recommendations. I'm streaming that Kirk jazz on Qobuz now and agree on your assessment. (equipment: CA CXNv2 Dac into a CA 851 integrated amp and Focal Chorus 704 speakers with an SVS SB1 sub).

[@richardlaub889]

I think that the songs I listened to in the 60's, 70's, and 80's on real stereo equipment (Not a car radio) do sound different from today's higher res copies of that same music. I was listening to Boston's first album on vinyl and then on my old iPod, and then on Tidal. The album version sounded the way I remember, the iPod version was just flat, and the Tidal version was a master and it sounded boosted in the bass and mids. I did like the Tidal version but I prefer the LP version....It just sounds more true to my ears.

[@westernartifact580]

Yep. This is exactly the experience I’ve had on / with many many albums. Modern recording engineers and mixing and mastering people are a mixed bag. Commercialism (making thing sound more interesting on crappy gear: tv, KZbin, phones, ear buds, etc. ) has yielded some tricks but it’s generally not very good sounding on a good resolving system.

[@redstang5150]

I've done some spectral analysis of original recordings I have vs. the 'digital remastered' version - and the remastered version - which you would think would be cleaned up and better, has been compressed. Totally changed my thinking on the need to go out and get remastered copies of stuff.

[@matthewv789]

But the difference you are hearing is the remastering, not the high-res. And chances are the remastering sounds better because they REDUCED the dynamic range, not increased it (along with some mid-high EQ, which you hear at frequencies well below 20khz) or whatever else.

[@stevefoster6047]

Steve, I stream exclusively from Apple Music, so I suppose my take on hi res is obvious. I don't even thin about it. I do choose lossless whenever it's available, which seems to be nearly always, and I'm perfectly happy with that, and I couldn't agree more that the quality of the original recording is of primary importance!

[@chrisc7262]

Thank you Steve! Very true, the digital resolution is only a small part of the chain and can probably be given less focus by us "the consumers" of the music.

[@timoleary5815]

I'm old school and you are bang on correct, it's the mastering of the original recording and the skill of the engineer that's key. Hi res is mostly marketing hyperbole. I watched a presentation recently with David Solomon (Qobuz) and he said only about 10% of their content is Hi res, so if you have your panties in a twist about hi res then you're severely restricting your options. 16/44 is perfectly adequate for petty much all audiophiles ears and the majority of audiophies are aged 45 - 65, so I would actually question how good their ears anyway? So enjoy the music and ignore the numbers, a good recording is a good recording.

[@gurdyman1]

Anyone remember J Gordon Holt's Law: "The better the performance, the worse the recoding, and the better the recording, the worse the performance." Seems to still hold true today for the most part.

[@RobWhittlestone]

I bought the Topping D90 WITHOUT MQA. I don't know anything about streaming or even how to. I play CDs. The D90 sounds pretty good with 44.1kHz CDs over coax, and optical. Bluetooth is good for free internet radio apps like TuneIn on the smartphone. More concerning is the lack of good CD mechanisms in the industry. So many major players are getting out of CD playback because the mechanisms are rubbish. All the best, Rob.

[@matthewweflen]

I listen on Sony MDR-Z1R headphones directly from my Sony WM1A Walkman via balanced cable (no amp or DAC). My primary listening is classical, but I also listen to plenty of Jazz, Rock, and Pop. I have a wide range of files from old MP3 rips from the early aughts, CD rips to FLAC, hi-res rips from Blu-Ray audio, and hi-res downloads from stores like HDTracks and Presto Classical (Presto is SO GOOD and everyone should go there). My take is similar to Steve's. Hi-Res only matters when the recording was done entirely in the digital domain with good equipment and mastering. And the amount it matters over 44.1khz/16b CD audio is marginal. You would have to be doing serious A/B comparisons in order to eke out the differences. London Symphony Orchestra has some great DDD recordings available for download on their site, including cycles of Carl Nielsen, Sibelius, Mendelssohn, and Scriabin symphonies. If you're into John Williams, the 192/24 release of the Rise of Skywalker soundtrack is absolutely mind-blowing, and audibly better than a CD quality recording. CD recordings that exist entirely in the digital domain can sound basically just as good, though. Sony Classical has a release of Shostakovich's symphonies by Michael Sanderling/Dresdner Philharmoniker that just blows me away every time I listen to it - more impactful than nearly any Hi-Res recording I own. BUT, and this is a big BUT, sometimes analog recordings released in hi-res are better than their CD counterparts because they are offering the consumer the latest remastering work. My main man Herbert von Karajan has a huge catalog of releases, some of which have been mastered 3 times by DG and Decca. Generally speaking, the latest masters are the best, and those masters often are released on Blu-Ray Audio. Some examples include the Beethoven 1977 cycle released on Blu-Ray in Dolby Atmos, and Holst's "Planets" released on Blu-Ray in Japan. I sourced these recordings and jumped through the hoops required to rip them, and they do sound audibly better than their CD counterparts (which I also own). But it's mainly because of remastering. There are pop releases in which a hi-res download audibly improves upon the CD release as well - Lady Gaga and Michael Jackson spring to mind. But this is not owing to any inherent flaw in the CD format, but the mastering decisions made in the mixing room. So yeah. DDD recordings done well can beat ADD recordings from prior decades. Hi-Res is just icing on the cake. It's kind of like buying a 4K television. Yeah, you're not going to really see a ton of difference at normal viewing distances. But you're going to get all of the best technical features and new media releases on 4K. Hi-Res audio is like that. CD is amazing and should in no way be considered "less than." A great CD will beat almost any other format.

[@archstanton9206]

Well said Steve. I think this is just another way to hook the people who need the coolest bestest, and want it first. Even if maybe, later, they start looking at stuff, and listening...and finding maybe it ain't. What was that poem about the emperor and his clothes...or lack thereof?

[@markmywords9649]

Hi Steve, thanks for the important video since I think it can't be repeated too often that the initial recording/mixing/etc. matters the most. I have recordings in various formats and must say that the best ones are on CD or Vinyl. That said, I have quite a number of SACD's and DSD recordings that sound amazingly good, but sadly arround 85% of them are recordings of classical music. To your list of labels that care about music, sound AND high-res, I would have to add 2L, High Definition Tape Transfer (all sourced from analog tape), Harmonia Mundi, Octave Records and Stockfisch Records. The "numbers" of a DAC might matter because the higher they are the higher the internal upsampling may be and so the better the sound, but then again there are non-oversampling DAC's that sound as good as the best DAC's with oversampling...not even mentioning DAC's that convert everything to DSD or different DAC-types like R2R...there are just so many approaches. I'm curious Steve, have you ever tried playing music files, ripped CD's, etc. through Signalyst's HQPlayer software that has the option of upsampling everything to high-res PCM or DSD? Oh and back to the importance of good recording and mixing: After listening to music recorded in so many different ways, I find that the best sounding records are those that have been altered as little as possible during mixing&mastering, most of the time have been recorded with a minimalist microphone setup (1 or 2) and where the band/orchestra performs together at the same time, no matter if in a concert hall, church, theatre or studio, the important thing is that they are all together in the same room/enviroment and are not recorded one at a time. I guess you would mostly agree, correct? Best regards Steve, stay healthy and I am looking forward to more reviews and especially record recommendations! (A video about your favourite (don't have to be the best sounding/audiophile!) CD's, or records in general might be interesting)

[@dennis2494]

I did a comparison of a Stones Flowers CD burned to my PC in Flac and a 1960's Stones Flowers vinyl record played on a debut carbon turntable with a Denon $230 MC cartridge , I started the songs at the same time and switched the sources to my powered Vanatoo Transparent One Encore Speakers with a switchbox and to me once I normalized the volume levels of the two sources they sounded just about identical except for the occasional pops and clicks from an older vinyl record. I agree with your opinion in that what matters the most is how the recording was produced and mastered more than the Hi Res specs that are listed on paper.

[@frederickjones4185]

Being skeptical but also curious about Hi-Res I went looking for some authoritative sources where I could learn more about the technical aspects. I discovered some things I didn't know or realize about digital audio before: e.g. that our hearing can distinguish extremely small timing differences between sounds (5-10 microseconds), and these intervals cannot be resolved by 48 kHz sampling rates (20,.8 microsecond intervals), which in effect smear out the timing information; hence the interest in 96 and 192 sampling frequencies. Also that our hearing can detect extremely low-level sounds, if they are not masked by ambient noise. In this respect 24 bits offers better control of the noise floor, as well as more dynamic range. There is more to dynamic range than I thought -- e.g. it can reveal quieter instruments to the ear even though louder instruments are playing at the same time (provided the audio system is sufficiently linear and low-noise). Whether these hi-res technical improvements result in audible improvements depends on many external factors. My listening experience is limited but after trying some 24/96 and 24/192 computer files through a very low-cost Zen DAC, I think the most noticeable difference to me is not so much in clarity but in "definition" and in more striking dynamics, especially in percussion and bass. It's hard to find authoritative sources but I found Hans Beekhuyzen's tutorial videos to be very helpful. On DSD, PS Audio are big enthusiasts and want to tell you all about it, and in particular Ted Smith's videos on DSD and DACs are fascinating if you like tech stuff. He shows how hard it is to do digital audio really well, and that you are up against some fundamental limitations! They also touch on jitter, enough for me to see what it is and how it happens, but I think I need to see the actual logic and circuit diagrams to really understand it. Going down the hi-res path, other issues emerge: is my media player delivering bit-perfect data out the USB to my DAC, without being altered by some onboard computer audio processing? I don't think so, but does it matter? Is there a way to detect bogus hi-res files (i.e. upsampled from lower-res sources)? More things for audiophiles to obsess about.

[@dovlidor8941]

Excellent review ! Especially appreciate the reference to some excellent recording. Any new technology to improve sound is welcomed,however garbage in garbage out , in other words it’s all in the original recording. But In my experience music can be improved sonically if it was originally well recorded and played back on better technology.

[@jeremiahchamberlin4499]

I’m considering a purchase of a DAC in the next 6 months: High Resolution is a factor for me: I am interested specifically in DSD, not so much MQA, and I’m still trying to figure out what exactly Roon is. On the other hand, many ‘experts’ like you, Steve, tell me that Hi-Res audio is a distraction, and however the digital signal is decoded, it is the analog section that really distinguishes one DAC from another.

[@ptg01]

From what I gather, ROON is a music management system that makes it significantly much simpler (more logical) to search / access your music, and other related info about the track / album / artist... The music tracks are either locally stored (e.g. USB Thumb Drive physically attached to your streamer) , network stored (e.g. Network Attached Storage (NAS)), or file shares (through an actual Windows or Mac computer) or in the 'cloud' through a music service provider like Qobuz, Tidal. I don't use ROON as it does not have any hooks into Amazon Music. I assume if a streamer is ROON READY, then you use ROON to access it and not the APP provided by the streaming device manufacturer. Hope this helps !

[@skipgordon5382]

A studio I know today that is focused on Hi Res DSD is Octave Records. This a division of PS Audio and is recording directly in DSD. Gus Skinas at the controls

[@skipgordon5382]

Adding something in support of Steve. I purchased a $29 recent release from Octave records called Say Something in 192/24. Yes it is very good but the 44.1 recording from Snorre Kirk - Beat is equally as good. Ther message is clear. The quality of the recording is everything.

[@Djskdhsjq]

To use a digital camera analogy - more megapixels don't necessarily make a better picture. On the other hand, a better lens and sensor make a dramatic difference.

[@oldskool4572]

@@johnsmith1474 Up to a point. In the case of music anything past 16/44 becomes redundant. And in the case of cameras no matter how many megapixels you throw at it the human eye cannot detect them past a certain point. Denying that is denying science. But yes, I agree, too few (and too low bit rates) you end up with junk.

[@johnholmes912]

try a plate camera.........that's high res old school the human eye can most certainly see the difference when you make an enlargement

[@hansfijlstra5932]

This is the first time that I hear an audiophile say what it is all about: it all starts with an excellent recording. This requires exceptional skilled people of which there are only a few. Therefore nothing has changed over the last 70 years… It has been a big disappointment for me when I realized that, after finally having that much wanted high end system, many recordings turned out to be very bad. But fortunately you forget this instantly when you listen to an excellent recording, in which case 16 bit will do!

[@socialite1283]

There are two factors in digital audio that affect the result: 1/ How frequently you sample the analogue voltage (sample rate), and 2/ How granular do you quantify the sampled voltage (bit rate/ bit depth). 1/ The frequency of sampling directly impacts on the frequency bandwidth that can be captured. The higher the sampling frequency the higher audio frequency can be captured. As you know the best human hearing can't hear above 20kHz. However frequencies above that can affect the sampled signal and create what is called "aliasing" where a higher frequency signal creates lower frequency artifacts in the samples. Becasue of that they need to filter out all frequencies higher than the maximum frequency that can be captured by the sample rate. The mathmatical theory behind it is that two samples of a sine wave are sufficient to perfectly recreate the original sine wave. Very few microphones today can capture audio frequencies higher than 25kHz, so there is no significant value to be gained by sampling audio faster than 48kHz - few microphones can capture that and nobody can hear that high. 2/ The bit rate affects the maximum dynamic range that a digital signal is capable of representing without either having quantization artifacts or hitting a maximum sound pressure level above which the digital signal cannot go. Very few people enjoy listening to music with excessively wide dynamic range, and human hearing sustains damage if exposed to a high sound pressure levels for a sustained length of time. In fact for each increase in the SPL of only 3dB (the average untrained person can barely detect a 3dB increase) we halve the length of time we can be subject to that SPL without incurring hearing damage. If you are using 8bit quantization then you have 256 possible values to represent the line level voltage from noise floor to maximum. That means there are large gaps between quantized voltages. If you are using 16bit quantization then you have 65,535 different possible values to represent the line level voltage from noise floor to maximum. That means the voltage gaps are much smaller, and the digital noise floor can be much lower. 24bit digital audio has 16,777,215 different possible values to represent the line voltage between noise floor and maximum. I think there is a good case to be made for capturing original audio recordings in 24bit audio, and doing any internal signal processing (such as digitally blending two different audio recordings) at much higher bit depths such as 32 bit or 64bit before outputting a finished product at 24 or 16bit. But for home audio using a domestic sound system in domestic spaces, there is little value, if any, to be gained from digital audio greater than 16bit 44.1kHz played on a CD player with a good Digital Audio Converter. Western Concert Art Music started being recorded digitally in the mid to late '70s, long before any other style of music started to be recorded digitally. this was because the classical/art music very much benefited from the greater dynamic range and cleaner reproduction that digital recordings facilitated. These days, CDs have so faithfully captured the original analogue recordings that the flaws of the original recordings are being revealed. These flaws are what a lot of vinyl lovers don't like - because the vinyl has too low a dynamic range and too great a level of introduced noise generated by the needle gouging the groove, and too little channel separation, and that hides many flaws. When you can hear the tape hiss off the original studio master recordings, and the maximum loudness of the audio isn't hitting the digital ceiling, then you can be certain that you can hear everything that is on the recording.

[@BlackthorneSoundandCinema]

Sometimes when a recording is fantastic and its in true hi res flac, it's amazing. I feel like those recordings definitely elevate sound reproduction. I can see how amazing it can be, but I can also see how useless it is a lot of the time when a record doesn't sound that great in the first place.

[@timberlinehiker]

Does SACD count a high-res? If so, Let it Bleed on SACD is revelatory. I'd be interested to hear how it compares to the vinyl version.

[@petek6031]

I have heard that SACD is equiv of DSD.

[@infinite1der]

SACD is the medium for DSD audio format (analogous to PCM audio format on a standard Redbook CD). The question Steve presents is if the SACD (...DSD files) was produced from the original analog masters, is anything gained?

[@barbecuetechtips6024]

@@infinite1der Yes, you get the best version of the album from the source.

[@antigen4]

Pete K it IS DSD.

[@GrahamAtDesk]

To answer your question Steve, I'm very happy with my locally stored FLAC files, ripped from my CDs. Spotify's 320 kbps also sounds great on my system. I'm much more interested in enjoying the music now than I am in higher res file formats. And I couldn't be less interested in MQA. It's not an open standard, so I'll avoid it on principle if decent alternatives (for my use cases) are available. FLAC and Spotify both qualify, for me.

[@homesteadric]

And me too

[@GrahamAtDesk]

@@johnsmith1474 I've installed Logitech Media Server on the computer that has the FLAC files on it. I listen to them on any of my other computers (or mobile devices) using a squeezebox client. So basically I stream them over my local network. A Raspberry Pi with a HiFiBerry Digi+ HAT running piCorePlayer (another squeezebox client) plays the FLAC on my Hi-Fi. The user interface for all these players is the browser based UI for Logitech Media Server, with the Material Skin plugin installed. Admittedly setting all this up isn't a five minute job, but I'm very satisfied with it. The user interface is as good/better than any desktop player I've ever tried, and the sound quality and convenience are superb. For anyone wondering whether to try LMS or Volumio, Volumio is less work to setup. But LMS with the Material Skin is superior in every other way. It has fewer bugs, is nicer to use, and the Spotify support is actually reliable. Liked albums on Spotify appear in your normal music library too, so you don't need to use the Spotify app to control it.

[@joemarz2264]

My friend, MQA is a bastardized version of Hi-Res. Trust me, you don't need it.