Great topic! When working as a sound engineer I now and then played various well-known songs to people in the control room, and asked them to rate the songs from 0 to 10. To rate the tune, not the sound quality. Over half an hour or so I had played maybe snippets of 20 songs, 3 times each. What I did not tell people was that I played every song at 3 different volume levels. People thought they were grading the music, not the sound quality. However, consistently people graded the same song higher when played at a high level, and lower when played at a low level. :)
Andrew discovers the loudness war. We like volume, apparently. In regards to Hi-Res digital, Nyquist-Shannon rules the day. In most cases, 44.1kHz / 16 bit CD quality (or 48 kHz / 24-bit if you can get it easy and cheap) is really, really, really, good enough. Without "perfect ears" (which you don't have) and hugely expensive gear, there is no difference to speak of vs 96kHz or 192kHz or higher. Some say even then there is absolutely no possible way it can make a difference. It does, though, increase file sizes to the point where it starts to matter, especially if you count the appropriate number of backups one should make.
Absolutely. It doesn't matter the format, every recording with lower dynamic range compression just sounds better than one that is heavily compressed. Give me a better, less compressed master in any format over a heavily compressed one in whatever new and exciting format you'd like.
Andrew, First of all, congratulations on your channel, specially by your approach on demystifying many myths around audio, from the practical perspective (such as the role of boutique brands and the real value of “mainstream” brands), but also from the role that a given system or technology plays in each one’s life. Regarding that "loud is better" when comparing audio, I hear that all the time, which leads me into trying to explain the facts (that takes some time), or not saying anything at all (out of exhaustion). No mix/mastering engineer would ever compare two recordings (or even an Eq, compressor, pre-amp, etc) without proper level matching (unless they want to fool themselves for whatever reason). It is well-known that even a 1dB difference while comparing two exact audio files will likely give an edge to the louder one, even for the most trained ear. Most reputable mix engineers will even share with others that the often grab the wrong knob (be it on an analogue console or DAW) and not immediately find out that they’re actually not doing anything to the sound (which might happen on subtle EQ adjustments), only to find out later (after adding 10 dB or more on a certain frequency and nothing changing) that the subtle difference was actually no difference at all! Our ears are really terrible at compensating for different loudness (special thanks to Mr. Fletcher and Mr. Munchen for clarifying why that happens more than 80 years ago). IMO, Level matching should always be the first approach when comparing most pieces of gear (which is often overlooked), and specially (apparently) similar recordings. And I can’t stress enough that recordings often “look” similar, but were subjected to the biggest difference of all, which is Mastering. No matter what the format is (vinyl, CD, Hi-Res or Ogg/Mp3), there are very different masters of the same album released on the same format. It doesn’t matter if we’re talking about “The Dark Side of the Moon” or “Thriller” (which have a lot more than 5 completely different masters on CD that I know of each, only in the CD version). They will sound different (some of them VERY different) even when you level-match them, and they will still sound different if you compress them to 192 kbps mp3, because the source from what those mp3’s are being made has a much more pronounced difference than the lossy encoding by itself (unless we’re using some encoder from 1999 😊). That is why (after gain matching) you can often prefer the Spotify (premium) version of a particular record over vinyl, CD or even hi-res, which evidently also works the other way around. Most often than not, I see people comparing apples to potatoes, and while some reviewers state the particular release of the CD/Vinyl that they used on a particular review, many others don’t, and streaming services only made it a lot harder to identify which version we are listening to (it is rarely stated and it often changes over time). Let me share one particular eye-opening album between two releases - “Stevie Ray Vaughan - The Sky is Crying” on the regular CD version vs the MFSL Original Master Recording (also on CD). In the “regular” version you either have a very forgiving system on the high frequencies (I would say “with a big roll off on the high end”) or it will rip your ears off! On more revealing loudspeaker it’s close to unlistenable! It’s very harsh, with loads of dynamic compression and a total mess. Then listen to the same album on the MFSL Mastering CD on that same revealing loudspeaker/system, and you’ll hear a full, detailed sound and you’ll likely enjoy the sound performance a lot. This has nothing to do with resolution, let alone with being analogue or digital. If a vinyl was made from that same terrible master, it will always sound bad, harsh and compressed, because that “source” is already on a terrible shape. In the end, we all must use our ears and listen to the version which sounds best in our system and to our ears. If it ends up being on vinyl, hi-res, cd or even Spotify, by all means use it without any judgement or expectations around the delivery format itself! We live in an amazing era as music listening is concerned, with more options than ever. Why stick to a single option as “the best and only” if we can have most (if not all) of them for the price of one or two new albums some years ago?? Sorry about the long text, but while this can be shown with audio samples in 3 minutes, it takes a lot more to explain (and it's still far less persuasive).
You are exactly right about that! I have what I think is a pretty decent system.(Pioneer SX-1250 ,JBL LX600 speakers etc.....) over 1000 records,almost 1500 cd's...... but I never considered myself a audiophile. I just like my music,and sometimes I like to crank it up a lil' bit!!! That's all......
I’ve been out of HiFi since my early 90s Denon amp..so I appreciate Andrew’s explanation of the “new” stuff…a lot has changed since the original CD players..Keep doing your thing AR
Hi res files files often appear as a result re mastering older digital or analog albums to take advantage of modern digital audio technology. It's this remastering that results in the output jump. Modern recordings are tracked, mixed and mastered in 24bit-48 - 24bit-96 (hi res PCM) with its extra dynamic range for transients such as drums. The mastering engineer will then dither the final album down to 16bit-44.1 for CD consumption (redbook standard). Hi res files of the same album i.e left in their native 24bit won't be any louder but with good headphones or speakers will resolve slightly more detail and in some cases more dynamic range, usually classical or acoustic recordings .
@ReaktorLeak You're right most recordings don't have anywhere near the 144db of soft to loud range although a live symphony orchestra can achieve over 110 db range which is beyond the reach of cd and way beyond vinyl. This why hi res recordings and playback is huge in the classical world. A common misconception is that you have to play it at these levels when you can just turn it down to limit the loudest passages and still enjoy the extra dynamics available. Again you are correct the 24bit will not produce more detail. However higher sampling rates( 96 - 192K) can reproduce frequencies above the threshold of our hearing that are certainly present in the same live orchestra and have a distinct effect on the frequencies we do hear. Many studio microphones are sensitive to 40khz and more and more speakers and amps are capable of "higher than human hearing" for this reason.
These days, I see each medium as its own thing. The limitations of each medium are intrinsic to its musical experience. This attitude keeps the hobby fun for me.
Comparing sound is a nightmare. Even if we exclude psychological factors, which will always be present in anything other than a ''blind'' trial, we still have to control for very many variables. Volume is just one, another is channel balance, then there's the genre of the music and the equipment: DAC, amplifier, speakers/headphones and even the environment we are listening in. These days for many clarity is synonymous with high end. So often we read reviewers saying ''I heard sounds I have never heard before''. Nobody questions whether the composer or artist expects or even wants us to discern such individual sounds within the harmonious mix. More often than not they most probably won't. In addition, where the clarity is achieved by boosting the upper frequencies at the expense of the lower, which is a common ploy by manufacturers, ear fatigue soon becomes evident at home even if it wasn't evident when more briefly auditioning in a shop. Trying to achieve a concert hall experience is not possible given the lack of psychoacoustic and haptic phenomena present in our homes. The best we can achieve from what is nothing more than an electronic impression of the live performance is a pleasant and involving listening experience. This depends as much on our brains as on our ears, which is why there is such a variation of opinion.
Hi, I think what you say is interesting enough, playing background music distracts me - significantly. I love my vinyls, I love my CDs, my spotify and I love my Tidal - they all serve a different purpose.
can you elaborate on the difference in purpose of tidal and Spotify? I also have both, but I'm constantly wondering if I wouldn't cancel one of the other...
@@Pirxel Well, I can certainly put my two cents in on that question.. I use Spotify almost everyday for DJ-ing, or for parties, or when I'm in my car or where ever lol. It's a great platform to use. On the other hand, when I sit down for some quality time with my main system at home, I currently use Tidal's top tier which guarantees CD quality at the minimum. Tidal on my laptop with a Chiit Modi 3 DAC going to my pre-amp via quality rca calbles. The sound is magnificent!!!!!!
I listen to music from Spotify, too! Lately I have been listening to Amazon Music. Thumbs up. However, remember that music over the Internet has a couple of notes from music that are not there! For me I prefer music CDs, vinyl records, cassette tapes, and FM radio.
Most higher sampling / bitrate music plays back at lower volume, I thing Tidal is just pushing the volume up to take advantage of the perception that louder is better. i agree that higher quality music files sound better but it's not night and day. I recently replaced My Schitt Bitfrost (not the multibit version) with a PS Audio perfect wave DAC and I was very surprised how good redbook recordings sound, it really was a big step up and it should be given the cost difference. I'm 72 so a lot of my high frequency hearing is shot but the human brain does a pretty good of manipulating things so you can tell a good recording from a meh recording even with dulled hearing and what you hear when listening to a CD depends on the quality of the decoding and filtering in the DAC that decodes the digital stream. I have high quality versions of tracks (192k/24) that when compared to redbook recordings of the same recording (downloads) sound better but only if I listen intently. This may or may not be what you find when comparing tracks. What counts most is the care that was taken when the music was recorded, a lot of music is not recorded well. The design of the DAC used to reassemble the music is very important, it costs money to design a good DAC because you have to be willing to throw designs away if they aren't doing a great job of reassembling the music. You also have to be willing to buy the right parts, a great design with mediocre parts is not the solution. I find simply recorded small groups with no gimmicks like AutoTune are most revealing when it comes to judging the quality of music
Well said. And there are thankfully labels out there like MA and Chesky and MoFi that understand this although somewhat regrettably they're very set in the musical genres and styles they promote. If you don't happen to love those genres you are S- outta luck.
To be honest, I really struggle o hear any improvements above 320 kbps mp3... In my opinion, the bottom line is: on a decent system, an improvement should be fairly noticiable right away. If one has to really sit down and make a huge effort to hear a difference, for me, its not worth it. That applies not only to higher quality files but also to gear itself such as dacs, amps or sources.
I agree with you. Indeed, I’d say that, controlling for SPL levels, CDs played on a good quality transport and through a good quality DAC will trump MQA or Hi-Res Flac. I use a PS Audio combination on disk player and DAC and indeed, I’m more ‘satisfied’ by the product than I am playing the same piece of music that has been MQAd through an Aurender server. I’ve used a Realistic sound pressure meter to get the volumes right.
I can't tell the difference between CD, Flac and Hi-Res audio. They all sound the same to me. My hearing's probably affected from all the gigs I've attended when I was in my twenties :) I do also enjoy listening to my old records (vinyl) and I buy some new stuff on vinyl too. In general, I like listening to music, the format or medium isn't that important to me.
Maybe a 10 year old with golden ears can distinguish between a 44.1kHz and 48kHz sampling rate but that's about it. If a CD was encoded in 14bit then some people would hear the noise floor but with 16bit it's also for most people comfortably beyond the edge of where transparency begins.
To be fair, FLAC and CD shouldn’t sound any different (assuming the FLAC file is made from the physical disc). FLAC is just a lossless compression format.
When you get audio from a service like spotify, tidal, etc.. it gets repackaged so it can be streamed/downloaded. It often gets compressed in transport too, even if its uncompressed audio. It also gets processed and sometimes resampled as well by whatever device you are playing it from.
The splitting of the uncompressed file shouldnt be different when you put it trough Layer 2&3. They use checksums to make sure it is the same after it recived. I mean when was the last time you had a broken download or stream? UDP can be troublesome, but even then I come back to my question.
Hey Andrew, as a Tidal HiFi subscriber and a Qobuz studio subscriber, I listen to both through a Roon membership and I can tell you this. Listening to your favorite music with the highest quality recording possible, gives you piece of mind that you are hearing the music as intended. Does 24/192 sound better than cd quality? Not much, in my opinion, and I have done back and forth tests on hundreds of songs. But I keep paying for these subscriptions just for the piece of mind that it’s the best. My desktop gear are a pair of Adam Audio t7vs powered by a schiit jotunheim and my headphones are the sennheiser hd650s with a balanced cable, just in case you were wandering. For what it’s worth, I test my wife and kids ears all the time, to see if they can hear a difference, and 9 out of 10 times they say there is no difference lol. Remember, piece of mind. Take care.
Sure, but if I can't hear a difference (or if anyone can't) is it really there? If I can't hear it, why pay for it? I too think it is important to test one's hearing (as a side note) and I do test mine once a year or so, which I think is FAR more important on the "piece of mind scale" than bit rate ;). Take care!
Hey Andrew, your volume argument is definitely valid and on point. I have done the free month tryouts for Tidal and Deezer. I could not justify the price difference and bandwidth issues to give up my Spotify account. 320 Spotify is just fine on my 2 channel system, although my system is the sh*t. I'm 44 years old and sure as hell cannot hear above 14k, newsflash, most of y'all can't either. Good content Bro!
@@psipsitronick9250 i hear ya, can't distinguish between flac and hi res, mqa masters, etc. either! I just pay for the streaming service who's interface is the most useful to me...the mighty Spot! To me the sonic differences are so small its a moot point...for me. Thanks for the reply, Man! Happy listening!
I've been listening to one of my favorite albums on Spotify at least twice a month at Spotify's highest bit rate that they offer. I recently listened to the master recording on Tidal. The difference to my ears was stark. It was like going from boxed mac and cheese to gourmet restaurant mac and cheese. It hits you right away. You think, "Wow! I had no idea what I was missing." To me, the hifi quality is worth it for what I like. My wife, however, can't tell the difference. Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Andrew. Cheers!
I have experimented with lossy format, physical CDs, CD quality streaming, ‘high res’ streaming, MQA streaming and physical SACD formats and I agree that there are tremendous differences in SPL levels. I believe that with the playing levelled, I can still hear a difference, or be it in many cases subtle. I tender this challenge:- compose a list of 60 of your favourite tracks, which you know intimately. Play then in multiple formats. I bet you, that the higher the resolution, the less chance there is of ‘listener fatigue, soo you will listen for a lot longer’
The human hearing range is from 20 HZ to 20KHz, and most cannot even hear all of that range. CDs are recorded at 44.1 KHz, so they should, in theory, play the entire range that we can hear. So, how can a recording, above 44.1 KHz, sound better other than being louder?
I hear this topic popping around from time to time. As a mixing engineer I have to ask: does anyone did a blind test when comparing audio formats? This is a huge topic in audio recording community, and every time someone decides to do a blind test, he(she) gloriously fails. No one can tell the difference between formats in a blind test. 😀Hope this helps to shed some light in this discussion
as a musician my self and also a sound designer... what I only want to say is, if you made the track in higher resolution then just sell it like that so what you made is what your fans get instead of driving the crowd nuts of which is the best while you're just releasing it at 44khz for streaming services, if you dont think your 96khz or 192khz recording is not worth selling it that way then it's your choice, just dont argue with audiophiles anymore at that point lol..
What does it matter. Storage space is so cheap these days. Just take the best quality. Or like me 24/96. My 1 terabyte usb cost me like 100 dollars and it fits all my music.
I'm an electrical engineer. I told my audiophile friends they were wasting their money on HD. If there are any differences it's due to differences in the analog processing, not to more bits or higher frequency range. RBCD standards are as good as you need for all music. Even between DACs the analog FR is most or all of the difference. I analyzed the technology of MQA and its audio origami. It can't work as claimed. It violates something called Shannon Nyquist by 400 percent. It's a solution that doesn't work for a problem that doesn't exist.
It’s common being a audiophile and loving music that when you have your room treated and all the great gear. One tends to spend a whole bunch of money to find only a little difference in sound. Mqa, I find is used to bring old recordings to life and any other music one must listen carefully but there is a improvement. Combining the room, equipment cables music source is what makes the sound become alive. Getting there is a slow process but a awesome outcome. I’m happy to be able to use tidal. Hope they will always be in biz.
Same here, i did buy some 24bit Flac but can't say I really hear any difference. Where I do hear difference is between a £60 pair of headphones and the £400 pair of headphones.
Hey Andrew, I am so sorry you had to go through this mess from online streaming services. They dont tell you that it starts as high res but when it reaches your playback equipment it is not the same any more. You have to keep in mind that there is a bandwidth limitation on streaming High res music. It might start off as a Master recording but when it reaches your ears it's down sampled because of the band width transmission to you equipment. It has to be compressed then de compressed and processed then converted to music. So there are a lot of steps that needs to be done in order to send it to your system. You can check the format if you have a DAC with a audio format display. But it might still say its high res like 96khz 24 bit but it is still not a true representation of the original. Thats why there are differences between volume etc...But try to download a true high res music file like 196khz 24bit pcm or DSD formats. And you will have a solid reference to what it sounds like.
I am watching this video in Oct. 2022. I do not stream and probably never will. Nothing wrong with streaming for those that do stream. Personal preference. I am 67, I started with vinyl when it was the only game in town. I have over 2000 CDs and about 1300 vinyl albums. I also have a little over 62,000 songs in one of my computers. Mostly my ripped CDs. I happily alternate between playing my vinyl records and playing my CDs. The computer with the music is connected to a stereo receiver so it's like a mini stereo system. I like to listen to the music there when I'm editing my photos. As far as listening to music I am well taken care of and have no need for streaming. I love my vinyl and I love my CDs. I love the whole vinyl playing process, as that is what I grew up with. I do not compare vinyl to digital. I simply enjoy both formats.
Recovering audiophile here. I once ripped a 192/24 audio file to 128kb mp3. Couldn’t tell the difference between the two in a double blind test (through headphones). Mastering, volume, speakers and room treatments are the only things that make a difference IMO. Everything else is snake oil.
As several commenters have already stated, and as I also remember reading in Stereo Review, this phenomenon was utilized routinely by salesman to move whatever product they wanted to move at the time. The louder speaker was always preferred in an A/B comparison. And that has been my experience. I think (but don't know for sure) that it comes down to the fact that human hearing is not linear. What I mean by that is human hearing is not as sensitive to the frequency extremes at lower volume levels. This was the thrust for incorporating "loudness" controls into audio gear during the time that I was growing up. Most were either engaged or not engaged, but I remember that Yamaha produced a loudness control that was adjustable - and I loved it.
There is a lot of noise on UA-cam about how High Res audio is a con, that there's no difference, yada yada. The fact is, there is a difference, but the difference is subtle. It is, as you say, dependent on the recording, how that recording was mastered [or remastered for high res]... and what you're comparing it with, and the system you're listening to it on. Fact is: that yes, the differences are often nuanced. I have done a lot of listening to ascertain this for myself, and I think your whole "loudness" point is somewhat simplistic. In my listening experience, standard resolution [CD] versions of tracks are often louder - compressed - harsh, and the high res equivalents have more dynamic range - and so sound quieter. But it's the nuance in amongst this dynamic range that makes the high res compelling. It's the improved sub bass richness. The instrument separation. The smoothness, as opposed to the harshness of the CD recording. These differences are subtle, but they are definitely there. Some music types, you are hard pressed to hear a difference - rock/pop often sounds very similar. But any acoustic based recordings such as Jazz, folk, classical reveal detail and nuance. Ultimately, it's a matter of taste, and subjective experience - if you can't hear any difference, then cool... stick to CD... but I resist the notion that because someone can't hear any difference, they right it off as a con - because I don't think it is, at all.
We mock what is called the "placebo effect": "Oh, it's all in your mind!" But we need to remember that to the person experiencing the placebo effect, for them it is really happening. If you try something in your audio system and to you it improves or distracts from the sound, that is really all the evidence you need. Did you pick your wife or girlfriend based on the reviews of her previous boyfriends? You most likely chose to be with her because of the effect she has on YOUR life, YOUR feelings. We treat subjectivity as being somehow less, but everything is a subjective experience! And when it comes to audio, the opinions of others can help with regard to things like gear quality and reliability, and it is helpful to be aware of the subjective impressions of others. But in the end, it should all come down to: "what is YOUR subjective experience?" Do hi-res digital files sound better TO YOU? Does MQA sound better TO YOU? If they don't, then don't buy or listen to them!
Subjectivity is definitely not bad, but not all things are equally subjective. When it comes to what you like to listen to it's entirely subjective, but whether something actually changes the sound in a manner that's perceptible by the human senses is not subjective. If you are OK with wearing the emperor's new clothes then that's fine, but I think there is a lot of value to learning one's own limitations. It's hard to learn if you don't accept that your own perceptions and thoughts can be flawed. I'm saying this in a general sense, not about the particular topic of the video. Even if the guy buying an expensive set of cables that de facto doesn't result in a different signal is happy with them I still think he was taken advantage of by the manufacturer.
My experience mirrors yours. I've spent a lot of time AB comparing high res on Qobuz to my cd's at same volume levels and can't really tell the difference between the two different formats. A recent hearing test confirms that my ears are good. Recent AB comparisons of a Chord Mojo @ £350 and a Chord Qutest @ £1200 also failed to reveal night and day differences to my ears.The Qutest did sound slightly better but not £850 better. These are my experiences and I acknowledge that others may well be able to hear night and day differences whilst I can't.
I firmly believe that standard CD resolution is effectively perfect for human hearing and cannot be surpassed as it already surpasses any human's ability to hear. Yeah there are more accurate formats, but only in ways that no human can hear, so they are meaningless for regular playback.
Your hearing isn’t very good, then. I have never heard CD sound that matches 24 bit sound, using the same master sourced recordings volume matched (such as on the 2L site). And, the difference of a 48/24 vs. 96/24, is audibly noticeable, and the trend continues up to DSD. To me, it’s like jumping up from a 15w to 30w light bulb, then from 30w to 60w, etc. yes, as you get to the higher levels, the difference becomes less noticeable, but I can always detect a benefit on ANY PCM as the bit or sampling rate increases.
Is that because you know when you're switching source material/formats? Ever done it in a double blind test where you couldn't see, nor knew what was coming next? Ever done it in a space you yourself weren't familiar with? These are all variables that go A LONG way in informing us as to what we think we're experiencing, remove them, and I wonder if your certainty would be as absolute. Not accusing, just curious. Thanks for watching!
@@doowopper1951 I think it's great that you can tell the difference. I tried it for myself and I truly cannot. I did hear an amp create distortion when I played a 192k file through it because it couldn't handle the high frequencies it was getting, but I have tested myself and I really can't hear over about 17,500Hz. If you can tell the difference between a 48k sample and a 96k sample, then are you saying you can hear not only 24,000Hz, but all the way up to 48,000Hz, and maybe even beyond?
@@seraphthecreator it's encouraging to hear that there are people like you who can drive improvements in the field. I continue to listen to higher resolution and frequency range files but with no improvements. I do like Led Zeppelin. I'll have to see if I can get my hands on some high res versions of their stuff.
How do you adjust for the SPL? Just put the volume higher? Serious question. Another comment, if you "feel" it sounds better, then who cares if it is or isn't. You are getting a better experience and YOU like it. So proceed.
Thank you for your thoughtful video. 1) Assuming the CD version uses maximal bit range (many uses a compression due to loudness war) , you must realize that the "higher SPL" MQA files are reproduced on our digital system with further lower Dynamics? 2) MQA files are not real master files but rather an "extended sampling rate MP3 like files" meaning that the 48KHz or 96KHz or 192KHz /24Bit master file is digitally compressed to a CD streaming bitrate of 44.1KHz/16Bit while a HiFi version is streaming of CD files without any digital compression. 3) A true analog Master or 96Khz/24bit Digital master musical information produces frequency range that reaches 45Khz range, so a true Hires master version is definitely a needed format. This information can easily be measured however not necessary to be easily recognized by listening, it depends on many other parameters like system quality (not necessary has to be audiophile system)/speakers/listener ability/room acoustic condition .
I am stunned and amazed that you are just now discovering this! Now you can do real A/B comparisons with meticulously matched loudness levels. As Jerry Davis said, " Read it in Stereo Review 40 years ago: 'Volume always makes music sound better.' " And yes, addressing a comparison of dynamic range is an excellent future topic.
CD done right from initial recording to final disc was never that bad. In fact it was very good. I really get into audio at the dawn of the CD format. I think the problem the younger generation has with CD audio is most of it is recorded and mastered so poorly. You can really see this in old recordings that are "remastered" and re-released. Compare that to the original CD recording if the original is say 20-30 years old when recording engineers still gave a damn. Untimely what's killing recorded music is the loudness war.
I have a lot of 80s albums that sound so flat with no life. Downloaded the remasters and way better. Some of those old álbuns you can’t even tell there’s any bass
Yes....but everything in your signal flow makes a difference. For example having the best mic in the world ..if your A/D converters don't match it very well then even if the mastering is done very well the 'bad' synergy at that early stage will still have an effect. :/ :) But I very much take your point. Its ironic that some, for example Ella Fitzgerald recordings from the 1950's sound way WAY more natural and 'real' than anything being produced today !
It's actually all in every link in the chain bringing the performance to your ears. But yes, mastering is an often overlooked link. One needn't read deeply into recording forums to find overconfident mastering engineers whose comments about e.g. monitoring preferences call into question their ability or intention to preserve the (remaining) vital acoustic data (breath of life) in the mix. Of course with electric/electronic music, like Lipton, it's not soup untill it's served.
Yes. All of it. You can't hear or recover what wasn't captured in the first place. Most of us can't unscramble the egg and rescramble it the way we want. Attempts to do this at the moment of playback in living rooms (or wherever) is like rearranging the deck chairs on a ship that's already sunk. Nothing rises above the source, and the final master - the recording we are listening to - is THE source. For everything else downstream, it's job is to get out of the way, adding or subtracting nothing. And the vast majority of recordings aren't made to satisfy the microscopic-sized audiophile community. And that's okay. My audio experience becomes simply listening, and enjoying or not, what the artist and producers has put in my hands as they delivered it. I've explored just about every digital file format. What I've come to is that a poorly produced recording is going to sound just as awful regardless of format. No file format will change or save a poorly produced recording. I am loving Tidal. More than I suspected I would. It's heavy with MQA - Master Quality Authenticated. I have a Meridian (who developed and are advocating for the format) Explorer2, which will do native high-performance hardware MQA decoding ("unfolding"), and I try Tidal's software MQA presentation. I suppose that MQA is intended to sound better, but it's not an ultra high resolution file format spec. Part of it is just to try to ensure that the recorded information gets correctly moved from one place to another, and efficiently, especially via streaming. On the more rigorous and formal production end of MQA design and intention, it sets up studio recording and playback specifications to do the same thing - ensure that what was recorded is exactly what gets delivered; that the blue or green light lights up on your little Explorer2 showing you you are getting exactly what was originally captured. (There is an entire MQA website describing and promoting MQA, and lots of good technical discussion floating around) Recordings made by 2L are one nice way to explore the file format thing. They have new, modern recordings, audiophile focused, in various formats, from Redbook, to MQA, to monster-sized 1-bit DSD. To make an honorable mention, I really like XRCD and HDCD files. Again, most of these were done for "audiophiles", but I feel a preponderance of the music I've listened to in these formats - the nano-sized volume of it - sounds really great. And mostly, Redbook still works just fine. Maybe Shannon and Nyquist were mostly right - 60'ish years ago. What I LOVE about Tidal is simply being able to hear SO much music in CD quality. Songs I love that I've never heard even at that quality level before. I'm listening to them for the first time!
That's the ticket laddie. If Red book standards are taken full advantage of the additional bits and sample rates aren't worth obsessing over. The majority of us can't distinguish between Red Book or a High Resolution copy of the same master.
its actually not though. If you listen to a mixed song pre-mastering, you will hear very little difference between that and a final master. Some hi frequency transients might be gone, but that's about it. What most non-music studio savvy folks don't realize is that they're talking about mixing and not mastering. Especially since most "re-mastered" albums are actually re-mixed.
I believe you hit it on the head about ‘falling prey’ as I’ve been listening to music on systems since the early 80’s when I could afford separate components. I haven’t come across any big wow factor unless it was just the mastering itself. I think if the truth was let out that these corporations work up these marketing tricks and just causing us to purchase music all over again! The ‘amazing’ difference isn’t there and playing the game in our mind of putting out more money means better sound for more bits added to a file we are just fooling ourselves. My opinion yes but it is what I have to base it on from countless years and hours I have listened to music and not from what someone wants me to believe. I think we just get taken advantage of because there are people out there who love music and an easy way to get more money from us. All about the bottom line in ‘most’ circumstances 😉
First of all, congratulations on your marriage Andrew and wishing you Kristi all the best. Love the topic (again) and was most interested to hear your take on hi-res audio. For what it's worth, I think there is a noticeable difference between a lossy audio format (e.g. mp3 and streaming services) when compared to a lossless one such as FLAC. So much so that all the music on my phone is FLAC only. When listening to these FLAC audio files via a quality set of IEM or headphones it is clear to my ears there is a difference when compared to that of listening to say Spotify. Yes, I know that this isn't meant to be hi-res audio but I just wanted to make the point that there is a clear difference. In saying that, Spotify still offers a more than reasonable sound quality when listening via a range of devices (earphones, headphones, Bluetooth speakers, etc.) and like most people I enjoy the portability of being able to listen to just about any album where ever I might be. In a nutshell, I will always try to source the FLAC equivalent of an album that I own so that I can get the optimal listening experience. Slightly off-topic, I think you could also make a strong case that there is a noticeable difference within the analog sphere (e.g. vinyl) between a standard recording and a "high-res" format. I have a number of albums that I've listened to and enjoyed for years in the standard vinyl format, only to be blown away by the outstanding sound quality of the same album that has been remastered by companies such as Mobile Fidelity and Intervention. The difference in quality is such that I've spent way too much money purchasing my favourite albums in the superior Mo-Fi range! :-) So, in a long-winded way, my suggestion for your next video is to test this theory out on your own gear with an album that you're familiar with and has (hopefully) been remastered by Mo-Fi. Assuming of course that you're willing to spend a little more on one of those albums ;-). Cheers.
Touche and yep. The format analysises are getting clarity from many tuber reviewers and hifi critiques. The science will ultimately rest upon the sciences of engineering, mastering and human hearing/cognitive parameters. Your honesty is appreciated. Ps congrats too!
CD quality sound or slightly above is just enough for me via Apple Music or my CDs. I use a simple Hi-res audio DAC (£30) with Hi-X15 (£96). I can get good sound out of my headphones via smartphone or laptop. Basically you can get good quality sound for under £150 (not including subscription, phone and laptop). Basically don't need to spend a lot to get a lot suitable quality music.
It’s very very hard to hear the differences. 10 % is already very generous. I would say 2-5 % better the most. And only if you focus on it. I will continue to use hires where I have it, but I won’t mind having certain albums only in CD quality.
This comes down to how an artist captured their recording and how they manipulated it. There are countless ways to do this, but the rule I always go by is if the artist record in analog, you want the highest possible resolution possible, whether that's on an analog format like vinyl or 24-bit digital audio. Then there's the mastering process and what the producer and artist do to the recording to level it out between stereo and its own three-dimensional quality. Either way, just try to get what the artist intended you to hear. It's the only way to try and appreciate what they created.
I've been researching this topic, and audio engineers believe HD is not BS, but not for the reasons you think. The Nyquist theorem has never been disproven (16 bit, 44.1K sampling is the range of human hearing). That said, even though HD extends the dynamic range beyond the range humans can hear, the extra data we can't hear does make a difference to the filters used to reconstruct and smooth the audio signal, resulting in a more accurate reconstruction of the original audio.
I personally knew that there was not much difference but because of that I concentrated to get the differences. Made A/B comparisons with Studio Master Flacs and files downconverted by myself. I could hear differences between original flac and 192 bit mp3 without any problem. Then I burnt the same flac files on a cd and listened to it. The difference was very little but when you know what you are looking for, it's much easier to find the differences. AND: I noticed another very big thing. Not every hifi system grants you the capability of hearing the differences. As I performed this test I had a Sony TA-F470 and a pair of Magnat Vector 77 speakers (they have a bad reputation but they reach 35 kHz and I already get used to the sound color). Then I swapped my amp for a Yamaha AS-700. Same results. Very clear differences for me. 5 years later it was much harder for me to notice the differences. But my 16 year old nephew could still hear them (I told him what he has to look for and then performed a blind test out of curiosity). A very interesting thing was that we (nephew and I) were able to hear ("notice" would be the better word) 24 kHz but we had to turn the amp to extreme levels and stay on axis with the tweeter. 24 kHz test file was downloaded from the internet and was verified with spek (spectrum analyzer). Same tests were performed a week later on my uncles hifi system (elac speakers and denon integrated amp) and there it was harder, even his system was much more expensive then mine. So to test something like this to have a good base for our discussions we need to define a reference system. Not sure if everything makes sense here. Had to feed and lay my son asleep while I was writing this.
This video is on point. I have a very good enthusiast audio system with a pair of Chora 826 as my front channels, a Klipsch SW-311 subwoofer, and an RZ-50 driving them. I will go one step further than what is mentioned here and include DVD Audio, SACD, and even HFPA in the conversation. I made a point to buy/listen to the same music on all these formats in addition to Tidal streaming, and after quite a bit of A/B and long listening sessions, I was hardly pressed to hear a distinguishable difference between any of these sources. I am using an Oppo BDP-83 for my physical media Hi-Res listening and my RZ-50 as well as a separate Bluesound Node gen 3 streamer for streaming Hi-Res audio from Tidal. With the exception of HFPA, all the other formats were practically indistinguishable to my ears, and I would classify any difference that I perceived under possible "placebo effect." Moreover, I would even go as far as saying that the reason why I heard a clear distinction with HFPA is the mastering process and the additional separation and clarity a multi-channel audio experience can offer, not necessarily the impact of the higher bit/sample rate. I know that this will compel audiophiles to point out my inferiority and make it sound as a problem with my ears and perception, but I am very convinced that it's not the case. When I run any of these Hi-Res formats, I ensure that any other source of electronic interference (AC, TV, other electronics... etc.) is switched off and not interfering with the audio signal, and I used both wireworld Luna 8 and audioquest Robin Hood SILVER (ZERO) cables to connect my speakers to the RZ-50, as well as a Ricable Supreme AI HDMI 2.0b MKII from the Oppo to the RZ-50. So, the quality of cables was not a variable I would consider. The only thing is that my room is not "officially" treated, but I have almost 80% of my walls covered by wooden cabinets and books, and music sounds better in my room than a few treated rooms I've been to. The only thing I haven't tried yet is to use my earphones to try and discern actual differences between these formats, but this is not how I usually listen to my music in any case! So, are any marginal gains I could not hear using my multiple thousand dollar setup really worth it? My genuine belief is a solid NO! However, at this point, I am honestly still buying and subscribing to Hi-Res audio out of pure FOMO...
Thank you for this informative video. Personally I think the difference in quality between CD quality and 24bit-48khz is barely noticeable (but nice!) and everything beyond 48khz is totally indistinguishable for me. (And beyond 96khz my equipment doesn’t even manage to keep up with). So I basically settle with 24bit/48khz.
Everything above 48kHz SHOULD be totally indistinguishable to you, because the only thing sample rate does is determine what the band-limit is on the reconstructed analogue waveform. It is 24kHz for a 48kHz sample rate, which is already above the limits of human hearing. There is absolutely no benefit to a higher sample rate. Literally none.
I'm no audiophile, but there is a difference. Using my Nuraphones, I tested hi-fi vs MA with the Lada Gaga track 'Is That Allright?' This is what I noticed. The Hi-Fi track is smoother, but thin sounding while the MA sounded warmer, fuller, but digitized... as if they put more emphasis on her voice. Now, I decided to try out the Atmos setting with both versions. The Hi-fi now sounded as if i were listening in a room with a speaker playing a CD track while the MA track sounded like she was in the room with none of the digital enhancements noted before. So, I'm for MA, but it all comes down to the mastering process.
That track should have won the Oscar , best track of the A Star is Born OST ,pure gold. To tell the entire lifespan of a relationship in 3 minutes that is genius.
When you carefully level match and blind compare in a controlled fashion... many things on the audio chain... many things we herald don't stand up. People can't reliably tell them apart. Sample rates is one of them (beyond Redbook/CD). Stereo Review got in big trouble with the advertisers many years ago comparing all the various high end amplifiers (ss/tube) of the day. The participants could not reliably tell them apart when operating in the normal range and level matched. Follow up studies found the same.
So the advantage of high resolution is the possibility to get closer to the red line without compression / clipping issues? As far as I'm concerned I did the 1 month trial of tidal with master quality, and I didn't really like it so much, I preferred uncompressed files played in local. Maybe it's just because when I listen to music I set the volume to the maximum I know I can keep for long times without fatiguing. If it gets too loud (something that happens if the source is 6db louder!) I simply lower the volume!
there are three main arguments I use against hi-res audio. 1. Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem. For any band limited signal, we only need a sampling rate that is twice that of the maximum frequency we wish to record. Human hearing tops out at 20 KHz and low pass filters aren't perfect, so 44.1 KHz was chosen for standalone audio (in digital video that standard is 48 KHz, maybe they thought not having a consistent number of samples per frame at the common frame rates of 24, 25, 30, 48, 50, and 60 could've been a cause of problems) 2. Outside of highly specialized equipment, nearly every piece of audio equipment is tested within the bounds of human hearing, 20 Hz to 20 KHz, even if something in your library has content outside that range is your equipment validated for it? 3. if at any point between recording and you playing the file back it was anything less than 24-bit/96 KHz or whatever your preferred bit-depth and sample rate are, there is literally zero benefit. It's like using AI to upscale something from 360x240p to 2880x2160p (81x the total pixel count)... sure, it may be less blurry and blocky but you're getting no additional detail. Can you trust that your 24/96 files were at least 24/96 until it got to you? Way I see it, from a listening experience, improvement is minimal or unproven, at a space cost of nearly 3.3x for 24/96 compared to 16/44.1 before compression. That being said, I do see how there could be significant benefit to using 24/96 or even higher for the purposes of production, but for listening... assuming there even is a benefit the law of diminishing returns will hit like a car crashing into a wall at 40 mph. I don't particularly care about chasing quality that much, but at the same time my equipment isn't the kind of thing you'd buy just because you NEED speakers, and I rip to FLAC because I just have zero reason not to. Storage is dirt cheap these days, and might as well reap the space savings that lossless compression affords.
I 100% agree, Andrew!! I subscribed to EVERYTHING. I cannot, after nearly an entire month of comparing Master vs HiFi, tell the difference! I agree on the volume hypothesis, I actually find Spotify premium boosts SPL too! So i'll stick to my Deezer Hifi! thanks but no thanks Tidal!! End of the day "the only person that has to like the sound of your system is you"
Great discussion. I had to agree with everything you said because of my experience. There's not much of a difference between Hi-Res and CD quality FLAC files. Not to say Hi-Res / Master aren't better, but just slightly if you concentrate on micro details.
I've just gone over your video again and was wondering about a follow up question on the topic....Quick Question..... How does Hi-Res and Dolby Atmos differ as new albums are coming out as Atmos releases on Amazon, Apple and Tidal ?
I kind of agree with your premise. I have Tidal, Spotify, a turntable, and a CD player all connected to a Rega Brio integrated amp and I have played the same track on each and I have found the biggest difference is the volume. And the winner there is a well recorded CD.
Short answer due to work requirements: IMO, Tidal vs Apple music through my Klipsch R6 earphone's, the MQR deliver a noticably higher quality sound experience. Brought out notes and instruments not before noticed. Very cool!
A lot of Hi Res file are master to be louder or less bass. Higher SPL generally sounds better. And music with less bass (50Hz or below) will sound more clean and detail.
Master quality to me is how well the recording sounds. The medium it's played back on shouldn't matter much nowadays. Cd quality is the best I will hear. The weird thing is some hifi or high res tracks are not only on preceved higher quality more expensive medium but it's also remastered as well. I believe it could sound better than it's cd version but not because high res. It's the quality of the remaster that matters and the recording.
Thank you for posting this, Andrew. I love the clean, crisp, and clear sound of Hi Res Audio, but for that smooth, buttery sound you can't beat a record on a turntable, you just can't. And if you have to turn the volume high to get a good sound from any source, something is very wrong.
@@daverich3352 I have Grado SR225i + little dot 1+ with Vokshod tubes and a Modi 2. Or I can use my WH1000XM4s or I have B&W 605s connected to a Cambridge Audio AXR85.
You must be deaf. If you said 320kbp then I’ll I’d believe you. But 256 is noticeable to almost everyone. Unless you listen to your music with Apple earphones and Bluetooth From what you said your equipment was. I also have the wf1000mx4. Use it for jogging. And I can still hear the difference, especially these with the Sony A105. Even though I’m running and not focusing much on the music. It’s still a big difference. Now in the car and at home the difference is massive.
So first of, THANK YOU for another great video, now as relevant as ever with Apple joining the Lossless Hi Res game. 100% on volume, but there are other factors, like the limitations of what you use to listen to your music. Duh. While I'm waiting on a Topping to use as a USB interface to get the music off my Mac into my Yamaha Aventage, I played the Hi Res files off Apple TV thru HDMI into the Aventage and WOOOOOOAH. Mind you it wasn't played loud, nor was it a loud track (End of Love by Florence) but the presence, space and detail were just spectacular. Is it subjective? For sure, but I have always trusted my ears and more than that, the immersive quality of the audio triggered an emotional response. I am now legit thinking about getting a Mac Mini just to be able to feed the audio to HDMI. Anyway, my 2ç.
Bottomline here is it all goes down to your playback preference whether you use physical or streaming service. As long as you are happy with the playback, nothing matters.
As per you talking about music you use to test audio equipment. I started picking out Flac, and hi bit recordings and I was astonished by the difference in quality of the sound. I attributed this to the fact that my Marantz preamp would use the built in DAC, 24 bit 192 khz and to me it seemed the instrumentals were cleaner, bass was tighter, saxophone passages and orchestral music was more lifelike than before. I could tell a difference between standard digital and high res at the same level. I'm still experimenting and will keep you posted
"This presentation was not sponsored by Tidal." :) Thanks Andrew, somehow missed this when it came out. I appreciate about your channel that you do call things out and don't only post positive reviews about everything.
You can scientifically test for differences in formatting simply by performing a diff. Take one waveform and subtract it from the other (or invert one and add them causing wave negation). The resulting difference will give you empirical binary differences you can actually listen to...... this is really easy in something like audacity. The differences are so ridiculously retarded you can't even hear them under 70db. People that buy "hi fidelity" audio formats are idiots. The only real rule of thumb to consider is using a good clean lossless format and encoded properly (44.1/16).
I recently started experimenting with Qobuz, but not via streaming. I'm downloading hi-res FLAC albums to an external HD which is connected to my CXN v2 streamer. I didn't account for SPL but can hear a subtle improvement in the non-streamed FLAC playback vs Apple Music hi-res streaming playback, which is what I've been using day-to-day for over a year now. The difference is subtle but still noticeable to me. The downloaded FLAC sounds deeper/fuller, with a slight improvement in detail. The hi-res streams can sound flatter and less full-bodied. I can see why some who prefer analog might say digital is "soulless," as the streams still feel a bit compressed in that regard...to my ears. I still enjoy hi-res and/or lossless streaming, but if I want to critically listen to a favorite album or a well-recorded one, I'm giving serious consideration to purchasing the hi-res FLAC version for playback. I have robust WiFi in my home, so it's not a bandwidth issue. There just seems to be an improvement in the physical version vs. streamed IMO. Again, to answer AR's question, it's a subtle difference but noticeable. Watching this video three years later, I quickly thought of the "loudness wars" and how that has become a mainstream critique at this point.
Andrew I think you have a good point here, maybe the MQA is higher quality but not day vs night, the quality level may be about 10 to 15 percent at most but the psichological aspect is playing a big role and so I completely agree with you.
To listen for differences, you must really know your system very, very well. And it goes without saying that, of cause, identical interconnect cables are used from both sources. But true, 24 bit files will often be louder.
The tidal MQA tracks are often remastered that's probably what you hear. You probably could pick spotify out of a volume matched test using the same mastering if you were testing blind.
Exactly, i have come to the same conclusion. Mastering, not format, is what makes a track sound better. Vinyls for example usually have a very midrange oriented master which people mistake for "warmth". Some of the "mastered for itunes" tracks are notorious for sounding better (not all of them) despite being 256VBR. I also find Led Zeppelin's 2014 remasters better sounding than my old vinyls regardless of format.
In my experience it is all down to how the music is produced nowadays if you take a vintage piece of hi-fi take the original recording and play it it will sound the same as it did forty years ago if you take the same vintage amplifier and play a remastered copy of the same album it will sound surprisingly better So in my experience it isn't the kit that is better it is how it is produced Most of the groundbreaking advancements haven't been in hi-fi have been in the recording studio don't get me wrong there has been leaps and bounds of how we listen to a music on how it is delivered but at the end of the day it is still the same as it has always been You only get off a recording what is on a recording
CD sounds the same to me as a FLAC, including 24bit96K and higher. I think it's still even difficult to tell the difference on some recordings from 326kb MP3 to CD/HIRES.
@ReaktorLeak This is not true because our hearing in the middle register is so sensitive that it corresponds to more than 16 bits. that's the reasons why sony created super bit mapping. the purpose was to create a 20 bit quality to 16 bit data
Mannnnn!! You really broke that down. I thought it was just me! But on some recordings that I have on CD, like R.E.M.’s “Automatic For The People.” the CD sounds better than Tidal’s Master Quality. Maybe because I’ve listened to this CD over 1000 times. So is it really Perception or Reality? Who knows? I’ve certain convenience plays a role in this too. As always thanks for the videos. Man I want those La Scalas. Yours in particular. 😀
Tidal isn't even as good as your CD with the DRM scheme of MQA adding noise and artifacts to the audio. Don't believe the Tidal lies, you get better qaulity from Deezer and Amazon HD. Stay away from all things MQA.
I agree with much of what Andrew is saying. I was unaware of the volume differences so, thank you. My suspicion is that MQA is more for collecting royalties than anything else. The folks at Meridian even admit that there is a psycho-acoustic component to MQA. And as noted in other comments, MQA is a lossy format so, I am not sure it is better than physical media. What has worked for me to improve playback on all my files, MP3, FLAC, and WMA is to play them through Audirvana. The software is designed to reduce/eliminate processing noise/artifacts caused by the streaming PC or MAC source and does, in my opinion, lower the noise floor and sound better. Audirvana will also make the first "unfold" of MQA files without a MQA compatible DAC and give a 24 bit 96 kHz output. It also integrates with Tidal to assist when streaming. I promise I am not a shill for Audirvana. I hear a difference and am curious if others do as well.
Audirvana is indeed a nice UI/Player, but, MQA unfolding aside, isn't it just using WASAPI or ASIO direct sound drivers? Many other players can be configured to do so too. Or is something more being done to lower the noise floor? Edit: Hmmm - I see from the Audirvana site it suggests it does more such as stabilizing the power supply and minimizing CPU activity.
I didn't even know that you needed a compatible dac for mqa! So if I am playing tidal (master quality) with audirvana with a non certified dac it "converts" to 24/96, but what if I am using the official windows application? It may explain why I didn't like the tidal sound compared to flac played in local! I like the idea of a super mp3, 16/44 flac size but with a lot more quality due to an efficient compression, but with all those limitations I am not sure it's what I want...
@@ShellstaTube I am running a WIN PC out USB through a Jitterbug to a Schiit Modi 2 Uber DAC so I am not sure it makes any difference whether or not it is WASAPI or ASIO. I can change the setting in Audirvana from one to the other and I don't notice a difference. I will check on that tonight. Thx.
@@karellen00 Your you referring to the official windows version of Audirvana? If not what app are you talking about. Just so I clearly understand your question. Thx.
Thank you for saying this. Here I am 3 years after this posting, just now dipping my toes into the waters of Hi Res Audio. I have to say I'm disappointed. I bought a couple external DACs and compared their output with that of the built-in DACs of my existing equipment. I cannot tell the difference. In fact, all things equal, the output from my Blu-ray player (that I use to play CDs) was a bit punchier. Is that a good thing? I don't know. Is it a limitation of my off-the-shelf home stereo? That seemed more likely. So to find out, I bought a set of audiophile headphones and a headphone amp. I still don't hear anything I hadn't heard before. Do I just have crappy hearing? I hope not. But I did take a couple hearing tests on line and scored well for my age. I also downloaded a sample album with 10 versions of the same song in different sampling rates and bit depths. There is no discernable difference between 44.1 FLAC and DSD 64. None. Sorry. Maybe in a million dollar system, but not for the everyday man. Our hearing is limited. Sounds outside that range will not be heard. Hi Res Audio is snake oil. It's the Emperor's New Clothes. People spend thousands of dollars on high end systems that, by all technical measurements, should be superior to "normal" systems. So in their minds they convince themselves it's better. And let's face it, what's the use in having a system like that? I mean, aside from bragging rights? No one wants to come over to your house and listen to your music collection, hi res or not. You'll not get 20 seconds into a song before the other person gets bored with it and you press that pause button until he leave later that day. Also, active listening is hard work. Just enjoy the music for what it is and stop obsessing over whether or not you can hear the pick hit the string a millisecond before the note rings out.
I had the same experience when I played music on Blu-Ray it was punchier. Then listening more, I came to the conclusion that to get the full effect in a movie of high energy bursts like a gun shot or bomb blast relied on this punchier sound.
@Gordon Fadie Exactly how did you perform your tests? Specifically, what kind of speakers and amplifier did you use? One has to realise that if their amplifier isn’t able to decode or process hi res formats, then quite obviously playing hi res music through such an amplifier won’t provide any benefit whatsoever. Much the same happens with speakers if they’re not of a high enough quality to actually elucidate and express the improvements which hi res allows for. Most important of all, imho, is to be intimately familiar with the songs one is using to audition hi res audio. I’m a musician, an electric bass player, mostly playing jazz, funk, blues and classical music. I’ve many, many albums which I’ve listened to well over 500 times each, and particular songs that I’d have listened to easily over 1000 times. I believe this is one of the major keys to noticing much, if any benefit from hi res audio, that is, being incredibly familiar with the subjects you’re auditioning. And that’s precisely the exact reason why, when you listened to the same song recorded in multiple formats, you noticed no differences between them. If you’re unfamiliar, or even familiar but not intimately so, there will be myriad sections in most songs which go completely unnoticed by the ‘untrained’ ear of a ‘casual’ listener. Even for a trained musician, it’s just amazing how much one literally misses out on and simply cannot hear until one has the sheet music in front of them and is reading through it as the notes are being played from the speakers. So many times I’ll be listening to an album or song which I’ve been both listening to and also playing the song on my own instrument for, at times, over a decade and then when I finally get hold of a known accurate transcription and literally I hear passages which I’d never heard until the sheet music pointed it out for me. Consider, if you will, if this happens to a highly trained musician, imagine just how much one is missing out on if they’ve no musical training at all. Obviously, I’m not referring to whatever is in the top 40, etc, as the music is far too simplistic for anything to go unnoticed. Not to mention the fact that all these styles of music just repeat the same words, chords, etc, over and over and over, never presenting the listener with anything unexpected, improvised or melodically/harmonically complex, so it’s not at all surprising that one wouldn’t notice any improvement from hi res versions of these types of music. An easy analogy to further bring home the point is that billboards often have pixels, or ink dots/line screens which make each drop of ink up to the size of a golf ball!! But have you ever driven past a billboard and thought, “wow, those dots on that billboard are SUCH low resolution and just SO chunky that I can’t even figure out what it’s a picture of or what they’re trying to advertise!”?? I’m guessing the answer is no. Now consider how much lower the resolution on a billboard is compared to a 4K laptop screen and it’s oftentimes an order of magnitude or even greater. So this is analogous to having either or both an amplifier and/or speakers which simply don’t have the capability to reproduce the higher resolution sounds which is being fed into them. And that’s not even taking into account the fact that the listener is just as much, if not even more of an issue when performing such auditions. I can tell you with absolute, 100% certainty that the improvement when listening to the identical album on CD and SACD, through the same SACD player, the improvements are myriad! Very obvious, is the soundstage, which is far more detailed, presents much greater separation between not only instruments, but even musicians, the clarity and acuity is increased with subsequent levels of finesse and fluidity one simply could not hear from the musician on the CD recording as the medium just doesn’t have the ability to faithfully record, let alone reproduce such almost imperceptible differences which the musician produces on their instrument, again, not forgetting that one MUST be very familiar with the music being auditioned or the point is moot. Just to belabour the point, one wouldn’t expect to find a homeless hobo judging a fine dining cooking competition because their palate just isn’t experienced enough and trained well enough to even be able to notice some very intricate and delicate, nuanced differences between how one chef makes the dish compared to the competitors rendition of the same recipe. People, don’t fool yourselves, in ANY AND ALL occasions where there is more information being provided and said info is readily accessible (meaning, trained listener, high quality amplifier, speakers, etc) and one possesses the means to be able to access the additional info, and it was writing on a wall, well, even Blind Freddy himself could see the differences. I’m hoping you understand what I mean. Seriously, this is the last one: I also used to race motorcycles and now, when watching the MotoGP on tv, often the commentator might mention something which the rider just did (or didn’t do) and I have to rewind it and play it back in slow motion to be able to even just perceive what it is the expert commentator saw very obviously at full speed, on a tv screen, not even in person at the track. That’s just a very easy to understand example of exactly how much of an insanely huge difference the person listening makes to this whole process.
@@aaronperelmuter8433 Thanks for your insights. I respect your knowledge as a trained musician. My son also plays the bass. So that's cool. I'm coming from more of a basic position. I'm wondering how much my listening enjoyment, and my life in general, would improve by investing in a super-high-end system. If money was no object, then by all means, give me the best of the best. But someone like me has to make choices and those choices involve compromise. So I just wanted to experiment with some supposed hi-res products, just to test if I could hear the difference. My stereo is a basic off-the-shelf Onkyo with JBL speakers in a 12x10 nook in the basement. I realize that whole setup might be a bottleneck, but to borrow your analogy, even on a crappy TV, one can tell the difference between VHS and DVD, and between DVD and Blu-ray (but I can't really tell the difference between 1080p and 4K). So I should at least be able to distinguish between 44. 1 and DSD. But you yourself said reading sheet music helped you hear things in songs you missed otherwise. Let's say my stereo IS the problem. As I mentioned in my rant, I bought some high-end headphones, an external DAC and a headphone amp. Completely cut my crappy stereo out of the picture. Still not blown away by what I'm hearing. I thought it was supposed to sound like the musicians are right there in the room with you. It all sounds nice and clear... No pops or hiss. You can hear more details typically with headphones anyway so I'm not quite ready to attribute that to a higher bit rate. As a musician you should be quite aware of limitations human hearing. I too have a collection of music made from 1970 to today. I have vinyl, cassette tapes, CDs, and downloads that I've listened to a million times and I know ever note, every nuance, every change, every drum fill. Problem is I have to buy them all again now just to enjoy them in the way you described. Or use a streaming service like Qobuz (which I do). Oh well I'm beating a dead horse now so thanks again for your input.
Real quick clarification on the above. An amplifier does not 'decode' anything. It takes an already decoded analog signal and amplifies it. Cheaper components within the amp may introduce noise or distortion, but decoding is done by a DAC. And that's what lured me down this rabbit hole; the promise that the built in DAC in your component is garbage and therefore you need an external DAC to make your existing CD collection sound good. Rubbish. Rubbish. F*cking rubbish.
I did the experiment with the same album from Bandcamp and Qobuz Hi Res: the file in Qobuz was nominally identical (24/48) to the download but it was +6dB and according to my brain it was sounding far better. Added to my file the 6dB and it sounded as good as in Qobuz app. Welcome to loudness war
Great discussion.... As for me.. .I have about $10k in my stereo and I only stream. I have spent a lot of $$ (for me) to get the very best quality sound that I can. I even have spent about $1200 on speaker cables looking for the very best sound.. So my answer to the question “ Is High Res Audio worth it?” Is Absolutely .. At least for me it is. Great video and great discussion.
I have to be honest and say that my feelings about vinyl V cd etc depends on my mood. Sometimes I want that warm afternoon sunshine sound of vinyl and I want to experience it through multiple senses. Sometimes I want CD glitz. Mostly though I think it's like food. Sometimes I want this flavour and sometimes I want a different flavour.
An interesting analysis, Andrew, but I never gave it a thought. I get the high quality sound I'm very satisfied with, whether it be digital or analogue reproduced, with my mish-moshed component system. I don't stream. I can generally hear minute electronic "background noise" even on a CD, let alone on streaming. Admittedly, MQ audio tends to be much more of a brighter sound and you have to decrease the volume.
I've listened to iTunes Mastering, Tidal Masters, MQA, Flac, DVD-Audio, SACD, etc.... I don't really hear a difference. Again, I don't really hear a difference or too much of one if any at all. You are correct in saying the volume increases depending on the format but otherwise, I don't really hear a difference. If there is a difference is so minuscule it doesn't matter. Well, not for me. I am not going to spend extra money on something I don't hear or so small of a difference it doesn't increase my hearing pleasure. I just saw some guy on youtube that did a test between a $1300 and $2500 subwoofer. He sounded as if it was worth it to spend an additional $1200 on a sub because of a 5 decimal increase in how it performed. To me that is crazy. He didn't really hear that much if any much of difference he said when listening to it himself. If the sounds good to you then buy it. Why would you spend that much more for something you really can't hear? You're the first person I've heard tell the truth. I really think it's in peoples head to get sound that may or may not be there but because they say it the best we buy into it. If you have the ears and really hear a real difference, then do what you want. Buy the best and enjoy it. I don't hear a difference. I really wanted to hear the difference but I didn't hear. So I don't need to buy anything that doesn't really benefit me. I like the show. Keep being honest. I like your reasoning. We don't have to spend thousands of dollars to have a good audio experience. Buy what you can afford and enjoy. I do.
A different take on the same argument of, "leveling the playing field." When I first started using my MC phono cartridge and Denon AU-300LC stepup ~15yrs ago, having spent lots of undergrad summer job on the upgrade, I expected to have my socks knocked off. While the experience was noticeably richer (in terms of the system reproducing sound I had not heard before and clarity of the sound I did hear), it was not apparent until I adjusted for the significantly lower output of the MC setup. Depending upon the source vinyl, I was used to having to crank the same recording vs CD counterpart anyways. But the MC-even with stepup-needed even more amplification due to the inherently, "weaker," signal that setup produces. Once I had adjusted for this, I could hear the difference. I would not, however, recommend the trouble I went through to get my MC setup (importing AudioTechnica hi-end MC cartridge from Japan, sourcing Denon stepup, etc) to a beginner. It was a tippy-toe step toward Hi-Fi not the leaps/bounds I made when I bought my Marantz 2238b or got my eBay Polk Monitor 7Bs working.
It's easy to PROVE that there's no audible difference. Subtract a 16-bit track (downsampled from 24 bit) with the 24-bit original and you will create a difference track but it will be inaudibly quiet as no-one has listening environments (or even hearing ability) to hear something 100dB quieter than listening volume. Case closed. Any audible difference MUST be due to mastering.
For me there is an 'improvement' in HiRes (beit MQA or 24bit variants) ... but, like you, think it's down to percentages and whether that's worth it (cost:improvement) to you (the individual). Other, perhaps 'better', percentage improvements can be gotten from: a. Recording / Mastering - e.g, mic setup, stereofield, dynamic range. b. 'Better' gear - e.g, more revealing, better imaging - usually pricier (to a point when 'luxury tax' comes to bear). For me - I have/seek HiRes/24bit for a subset of my collection. If it were the same(lower) price - i'd seek it for all (the increase in storage is a factor - not a big one for me).
I have a pretty revealing system and I also find the differences between Tidal Hifi, Tidal MQA and Hi-Res files on my hard disk so so subtle at best, that I really dont care about it any more. In fact, sometimes I prefer Tidal Hifi over MQA. Pay attention to another things that will give you MUCH better results, like a dedicated streamer, AC treatment, speaker placement, a pair of subs, a good HiFi Ethernet switch (if you stream music), etc. Thats my experience.
Master Quality could be louder because the dynamic range is greater. The maximum dB for 16 bit (CD) is 96dB, but 24-bit is 144dB. If you reduce the volume to equalise the dB then you're effectively removing one of the hi-res differentiators. Having said that, if I stream Tidal "Hi-fi" from my phone via Airplay through Apple TV and a Toslink cable to my active Kef speaker (so the speaker controls the volume), vs streaming via Airplay directly to the speaker vs using the Kef app to stream directly from Tidal to the speaker, the SPL is different for the same song in all three cases. Streaming directly to the speaker often allows for a max volume 10db or more over streaming via Airplay. Also, Airplay only supports CD quality, so I can't directly compare master quality
I did a similar test with myself after i got my budget system setup. I wanted to see if I could tell a difference between my CD's, Spotify, Qobuz and Tidal (Hi Fi, since my network player doesn't decode MQA). I pulled out 3 of my favorite CD'S..The Crusaders - Street Life, Sting - Nothing Like The Sun and Steely Dan - Aja. Comparing song for song and format to format, I can say that there was a difference. While there were differences in detail, they weren't night and day to me. The biggest difference to me was in tonality. Qubuz seemed to more detailed and on the bright side of the scale while Spotify was more warm and less detailed, but again, not a huge difference on my system.. With Tidal and my CD's being in the middle. For my tastes, I concluded that I still prefer the sound of my CD's overall and will continue to buy them as long as they exists. Also, I grew up with albums so having physical media is important to me. Spotify is my daily driver when it comes to music listening. For me, It can't be beat for convenience and the ability to be introduced to new music that I won't hear on the radio. For now, I chose Tidal over Qobuz, simply because they have more music that I like. I use Tidal to augment my CD collection since the sound quality is very similar. I say all of this to say that I don't think it's all in our minds but only IF you know what you are listening for and you know how you want your music to sound. Most of my friends are casual listeners so to them, my little system sounds great. But to an audiophile used to listening to high end equipment, my stereo probably sounds like garbage. I don't consider myself an audiophile or casual listener. I know how I want my music to sound but I'm not offended if it's not played on a "highly resolving" system, as my man Paul McGowan would say. I agree with you Andrew that the only opinion that matters is your own. Just enjoy your music. I enjoy your videos. Thank you.
Thanks for posting this. I have (on occasion) done CD to Vinyl on comparisons (on my own channel) and on certain albums in the past. I have always been careful about "Volume". CDs are always louder than Vinyl after I digitize them into my iTunes. and CD Remasters tend to always be louder than their previous release version. I always play the CD remaster a bit lower in volume when comparing it against it's earlier CD release in order to make sure if any improvement in the new version is just due to it being louder. Sometimes I find a difference even when the volume is even and sometimes I find no difference and realize it's just louder.
a) MQA is a lossy format. b) Many MQA "highres" files are just "doctored" 16/44 sourced. c) "highrez" means that there are values more precise than 1:65536 (16bit = 2 power 16). The analog section of most DAC has not exactly good power transformer, so even 14bit (1:16384) might just do for most audio systems. Most audiophiles hunt for the "better" and doing so ignore the good. . A well built DAC with a 16bit 44.2/48khz TDA1541 or TDA1545 etc. chip can sound very very musical and analog (Non-Oversampling!) and with a tube output stage just magical. I like CDs and downsample vinyl rips and dornload to 24/48khz - which my DAC output as 16/48. Such a non-oversampling DAC with a tube amp and sensitive speakers can sound just so "right" that the question if there is something "better" out there becomes academic. Of course, there is, but who cares?!
Awesome episode Andrew! It was so interesting I was glued to it from beginning to end. One thing that I liked most about it was that it made me as a viewer sit down a sit down , and do some thinking. Which is always a good thing. Recently I ripped my whole CD collection into WAV files onto my computer. (1500+ CD's) I stream them via Bluetooth to my main listening system. I noticed that streaming the album I gained @ 3db, compared to playing the same album in CD format on my player. I have had some of my CD's for 30+ years, and some of them sound definitely richer, and higher sound quality streaming the WAV file. I have no idea why this is, I just roll with it, and enjoy the music! Love the bitPERFECT series!
@@AndRewUK24 Zero songs need it, when you go to a concert and see a band. Some instruments might be to the left and others to the right. When was the last time a band flew over your head and landed behind you like a helicopter? I'm going to assume never. Stereo is the most accurate representation of real live music. They just want to sell computerized garbage.
Thanks for putting out all those questions to us Andrew for consideration and discussion. One thing for sure is that hifi as it is today has become more political than an entertainment subject compared with times gone by, ie during our parents’ and grandparents’ hifi era. Average consumers today are being pulled in all directions. It does get confusing. But for me, asking the rights QUESTIONS appear to be the ANSWER, if I may put my few cent$ worth. Cheers!
Read it in Stereo Review 40 years ago: "Volume always makes music sound better".
But only if the dynamic range is preserved and the music hasn't become compressed.
@@stewstube70And if one isn't clipping.
99 per cent of music is compressed as part of the mix.
@StringerNews1
But it's happened till now, even crazier
See #LoudnessWar
Yes and no.. yes to fact that u can hear more notes when u crank volume up
Great topic! When working as a sound engineer I now and then played various well-known songs to people in the control room, and asked them to rate the songs from 0 to 10. To rate the tune, not the sound quality. Over half an hour or so I had played maybe snippets of 20 songs, 3 times each. What I did not tell people was that I played every song at 3 different volume levels. People thought they were grading the music, not the sound quality. However, consistently people graded the same song higher when played at a high level, and lower when played at a low level. :)
Andrew discovers the loudness war. We like volume, apparently.
In regards to Hi-Res digital, Nyquist-Shannon rules the day. In most cases, 44.1kHz / 16 bit CD quality (or 48 kHz / 24-bit if you can get it easy and cheap) is really, really, really, good enough. Without "perfect ears" (which you don't have) and hugely expensive gear, there is no difference to speak of vs 96kHz or 192kHz or higher. Some say even then there is absolutely no possible way it can make a difference. It does, though, increase file sizes to the point where it starts to matter, especially if you count the appropriate number of backups one should make.
Absolutely. It doesn't matter the format, every recording with lower dynamic range compression just sounds better than one that is heavily compressed. Give me a better, less compressed master in any format over a heavily compressed one in whatever new and exciting format you'd like.
But...But...MQA is magical! ;-)
Andrew,
First of all, congratulations on your channel, specially by your approach on demystifying many myths around audio, from the practical perspective (such as the role of boutique brands and the real value of “mainstream” brands), but also from the role that a given system or technology plays in each one’s life.
Regarding that "loud is better" when comparing audio, I hear that all the time, which leads me into trying to explain the facts (that takes some time), or not saying anything at all (out of exhaustion).
No mix/mastering engineer would ever compare two recordings (or even an Eq, compressor, pre-amp, etc) without proper level matching (unless they want to fool themselves for whatever reason).
It is well-known that even a 1dB difference while comparing two exact audio files will likely give an edge to the louder one, even for the most trained ear.
Most reputable mix engineers will even share with others that the often grab the wrong knob (be it on an analogue console or DAW) and not immediately find out that they’re actually not doing anything to the sound (which might happen on subtle EQ adjustments), only to find out later (after adding 10 dB or more on a certain frequency and nothing changing) that the subtle difference was actually no difference at all!
Our ears are really terrible at compensating for different loudness (special thanks to Mr. Fletcher and Mr. Munchen for clarifying why that happens more than 80 years ago).
IMO, Level matching should always be the first approach when comparing most pieces of gear (which is often overlooked), and specially (apparently) similar recordings.
And I can’t stress enough that recordings often “look” similar, but were subjected to the biggest difference of all, which is Mastering.
No matter what the format is (vinyl, CD, Hi-Res or Ogg/Mp3), there are very different masters of the same album released on the same format.
It doesn’t matter if we’re talking about “The Dark Side of the Moon” or “Thriller” (which have a lot more than 5 completely different masters on CD that I know of each, only in the CD version).
They will sound different (some of them VERY different) even when you level-match them, and they will still sound different if you compress them to 192 kbps mp3, because the source from what those mp3’s are being made has a much more pronounced difference than the lossy encoding by itself (unless we’re using some encoder from 1999 😊).
That is why (after gain matching) you can often prefer the Spotify (premium) version of a particular record over vinyl, CD or even hi-res, which evidently also works the other way around.
Most often than not, I see people comparing apples to potatoes, and while some reviewers state the particular release of the CD/Vinyl that they used on a particular review, many others don’t, and streaming services only made it a lot harder to identify which version we are listening to (it is rarely stated and it often changes over time).
Let me share one particular eye-opening album between two releases - “Stevie Ray Vaughan - The Sky is Crying” on the regular CD version vs the MFSL Original Master Recording (also on CD).
In the “regular” version you either have a very forgiving system on the high frequencies (I would say “with a big roll off on the high end”) or it will rip your ears off!
On more revealing loudspeaker it’s close to unlistenable!
It’s very harsh, with loads of dynamic compression and a total mess.
Then listen to the same album on the MFSL Mastering CD on that same revealing loudspeaker/system, and you’ll hear a full, detailed sound and you’ll likely enjoy the sound performance a lot.
This has nothing to do with resolution, let alone with being analogue or digital.
If a vinyl was made from that same terrible master, it will always sound bad, harsh and compressed, because that “source” is already on a terrible shape.
In the end, we all must use our ears and listen to the version which sounds best in our system and to our ears.
If it ends up being on vinyl, hi-res, cd or even Spotify, by all means use it without any judgement or expectations around the delivery format itself!
We live in an amazing era as music listening is concerned, with more options than ever.
Why stick to a single option as “the best and only” if we can have most (if not all) of them for the price of one or two new albums some years ago??
Sorry about the long text, but while this can be shown with audio samples in 3 minutes, it takes a lot more to explain (and it's still far less persuasive).
Don't get me wrong I lile your channel but sometimes it feels a bit like the art of saying the same thing over and over for 12 minutes
You are exactly right about that! I have what I think is a pretty decent system.(Pioneer SX-1250 ,JBL LX600 speakers etc.....) over 1000 records,almost 1500 cd's...... but I never considered myself a audiophile. I just like my music,and sometimes I like to crank it up a lil' bit!!! That's all......
Mate. Spot on.
I’ve been out of HiFi since my early 90s Denon amp..so I appreciate Andrew’s explanation of the “new” stuff…a lot has changed since the original CD players..Keep doing your thing AR
This explains why yelling at people makes them understand you better---and probably makes them like you better because you boost the SPL.
That's not working out so well for me.
Hi res files files often appear as a result re mastering older digital or analog albums to take advantage of modern digital audio technology. It's this remastering that results in the output jump. Modern recordings are tracked, mixed and mastered in 24bit-48 - 24bit-96 (hi res PCM) with its extra dynamic range for transients such as drums. The mastering engineer will then dither the final album down to 16bit-44.1 for CD consumption (redbook standard). Hi res files of the same album i.e left in their native 24bit won't be any louder but with good headphones or speakers will resolve slightly more detail and in some cases more dynamic range, usually classical or acoustic recordings .
@ReaktorLeak You're right most recordings don't have anywhere near the 144db of soft to loud range although a live symphony orchestra can achieve over 110 db range which is beyond the reach of cd and way beyond vinyl. This why hi res recordings and playback is huge in the classical world. A common misconception is that you have to play it at these levels when you can just turn it down to limit the loudest passages and still enjoy the extra dynamics available. Again you are correct the 24bit will not produce more detail.
However higher sampling rates( 96 - 192K) can reproduce frequencies above the threshold of our hearing that are certainly present in the same live orchestra and have a distinct effect on the frequencies we do hear. Many studio microphones are sensitive to 40khz and more and more speakers and amps are capable of "higher than human hearing" for this reason.
These days, I see each medium as its own thing. The limitations of each medium are intrinsic to its musical experience. This attitude keeps the hobby fun for me.
Comparing sound is a nightmare. Even if we exclude psychological factors, which will always be present in anything other than a ''blind'' trial, we still have to control for very many variables. Volume is just one, another is channel balance, then there's the genre of the music and the equipment: DAC, amplifier, speakers/headphones and even the environment we are listening in.
These days for many clarity is synonymous with high end. So often we read reviewers saying ''I heard sounds I have never heard before''. Nobody questions whether the composer or artist expects or even wants us to discern such individual sounds within the harmonious mix. More often than not they most probably won't. In addition, where the clarity is achieved by boosting the upper frequencies at the expense of the lower, which is a common ploy by manufacturers, ear fatigue soon becomes evident at home even if it wasn't evident when more briefly auditioning in a shop.
Trying to achieve a concert hall experience is not possible given the lack of psychoacoustic and haptic phenomena present in our homes. The best we can achieve from what is nothing more than an electronic impression of the live performance is a pleasant and involving listening experience. This depends as much on our brains as on our ears, which is why there is such a variation of opinion.
Hi, I think what you say is interesting enough, playing background music distracts me - significantly.
I love my vinyls, I love my CDs, my spotify and I love my Tidal - they all serve a different purpose.
V i n y l s
The different purposes being?
can you elaborate on the difference in purpose of tidal and Spotify? I also have both, but I'm constantly wondering if I wouldn't cancel one of the other...
@@Pirxel Well, I can certainly put my two cents in on that question.. I use Spotify almost everyday for DJ-ing, or for parties, or when I'm in my car or where ever lol. It's a great platform to use. On the other hand, when I sit down for some quality time with my main system at home, I currently use Tidal's top tier which guarantees CD quality at the minimum. Tidal on my laptop with a Chiit Modi 3 DAC going to my pre-amp via quality rca calbles. The sound is magnificent!!!!!!
I listen to music from Spotify, too! Lately I have been listening to Amazon Music. Thumbs up. However, remember that music over the Internet has a couple of notes from music that are not there! For me I prefer music CDs, vinyl records, cassette tapes, and FM radio.
Most higher sampling / bitrate music plays back at lower volume, I thing Tidal is just pushing the volume up to take advantage of the perception that louder is better. i agree that higher quality music files sound better but it's not night and day. I recently replaced My Schitt Bitfrost (not the multibit version) with a PS Audio perfect wave DAC and I was very surprised how good redbook recordings sound, it really was a big step up and it should be given the cost difference.
I'm 72 so a lot of my high frequency hearing is shot but the human brain does a pretty good of manipulating things so you can tell a good recording from a meh recording even with dulled hearing and what you hear when listening to a CD depends on the quality of the decoding and filtering in the DAC that decodes the digital stream. I have high quality versions of tracks (192k/24) that when compared to redbook recordings of the same recording (downloads) sound better but only if I listen intently. This may or may not be what you find when comparing tracks.
What counts most is the care that was taken when the music was recorded, a lot of music is not recorded well. The design of the DAC used to reassemble the music is very important, it costs money to design a good DAC because you have to be willing to throw designs away if they aren't doing a great job of reassembling the music. You also have to be willing to buy the right parts, a great design with mediocre parts is not the solution. I find simply recorded small groups with no gimmicks like AutoTune are most revealing when it comes to judging the quality of music
Well said. And there are thankfully labels out there like MA and Chesky and MoFi that understand this although somewhat regrettably they're very set in the musical genres and styles they promote. If you don't happen to love those genres you are S- outta luck.
To be honest, I really struggle o hear any improvements above 320 kbps mp3...
In my opinion, the bottom line is: on a decent system, an improvement should be fairly noticiable right away. If one has to really sit down and make a huge effort to hear a difference, for me, its not worth it. That applies not only to higher quality files but also to gear itself such as dacs, amps or sources.
I agree with you. Indeed, I’d say that, controlling for SPL levels, CDs played on a good quality transport and through a good quality DAC will trump MQA or Hi-Res Flac. I use a PS Audio combination on disk player and DAC and indeed, I’m more ‘satisfied’ by the product than I am playing the same piece of music that has been MQAd through an Aurender server. I’ve used a Realistic sound pressure meter to get the volumes right.
I can't tell the difference between CD, Flac and Hi-Res audio. They all sound the same to me. My hearing's probably affected from all the gigs I've attended when I was in my twenties :) I do also enjoy listening to my old records (vinyl) and I buy some new stuff on vinyl too. In general, I like listening to music, the format or medium isn't that important to me.
Grhrd. Great attitude. The more you investigate the more I lean toward this too.
Maybe a 10 year old with golden ears can distinguish between a 44.1kHz and 48kHz sampling rate but that's about it. If a CD was encoded in 14bit then some people would hear the noise floor but with 16bit it's also for most people comfortably beyond the edge of where transparency begins.
Please call records "records " not "vinyls " sorry just a pet peeve of mine. I'm a bit old school
@@johnbartel5229 How many vinyls do you have? hehehehe/hahahah
To be fair, FLAC and CD shouldn’t sound any different (assuming the FLAC file is made from the physical disc). FLAC is just a lossless compression format.
When you get audio from a service like spotify, tidal, etc.. it gets repackaged so it can be streamed/downloaded. It often gets compressed in transport too, even if its uncompressed audio. It also gets processed and sometimes resampled as well by whatever device you are playing it from.
The splitting of the uncompressed file shouldnt be different when you put it trough Layer 2&3. They use checksums to make sure it is the same after it recived. I mean when was the last time you had a broken download or stream?
UDP can be troublesome, but even then I come back to my question.
Hey Andrew, as a Tidal HiFi subscriber and a Qobuz studio subscriber, I listen to both through a Roon membership and I can tell you this. Listening to your favorite music with the highest quality recording possible, gives you piece of mind that you are hearing the music as intended. Does 24/192 sound better than cd quality? Not much, in my opinion, and I have done back and forth tests on hundreds of songs. But I keep paying for these subscriptions just for the piece of mind that it’s the best. My desktop gear are a pair of Adam Audio t7vs powered by a schiit jotunheim and my headphones are the sennheiser hd650s with a balanced cable, just in case you were wandering. For what it’s worth, I test my wife and kids ears all the time, to see if they can hear a difference, and 9 out of 10 times they say there is no difference lol. Remember, piece of mind. Take care.
Sure, but if I can't hear a difference (or if anyone can't) is it really there? If I can't hear it, why pay for it? I too think it is important to test one's hearing (as a side note) and I do test mine once a year or so, which I think is FAR more important on the "piece of mind scale" than bit rate ;). Take care!
Same here
I have a piece of beachfront property in Kansas I think you'll be very interested in...
Hey Andrew, your volume argument is definitely valid and on point. I have done the free month tryouts for Tidal and Deezer. I could not justify the price difference and bandwidth issues to give up my Spotify account. 320 Spotify is just fine on my 2 channel system, although my system is the sh*t. I'm 44 years old and sure as hell cannot hear above 14k, newsflash, most of y'all can't either. Good content Bro!
Well said. I felt the same.
I personally don’t hear much difference between CD and HRes. CD though much better than mp3 on my system.
@@psipsitronick9250 i hear ya, can't distinguish between flac and hi res, mqa masters, etc. either! I just pay for the streaming service who's interface is the most useful to me...the mighty Spot! To me the sonic differences are so small its a moot point...for me. Thanks for the reply, Man! Happy listening!
I've been listening to one of my favorite albums on Spotify at least twice a month at Spotify's highest bit rate that they offer. I recently listened to the master recording on Tidal. The difference to my ears was stark. It was like going from boxed mac and cheese to gourmet restaurant mac and cheese. It hits you right away. You think, "Wow! I had no idea what I was missing." To me, the hifi quality is worth it for what I like. My wife, however, can't tell the difference. Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Andrew. Cheers!
I have experimented with lossy format, physical CDs, CD quality streaming, ‘high res’ streaming, MQA streaming and physical SACD formats and I agree that there are tremendous differences in SPL levels. I believe that with the playing levelled, I can still hear a difference, or be it in many cases subtle.
I tender this challenge:- compose a list of 60 of your favourite tracks, which you know intimately. Play then in multiple formats. I bet you, that the higher the resolution, the less chance there is of ‘listener fatigue, soo you will listen for a lot longer’
The human hearing range is from 20 HZ to 20KHz, and most cannot even hear all of that range. CDs are recorded at 44.1 KHz, so they should, in theory, play the entire range that we can hear. So, how can a recording, above 44.1 KHz, sound better other than being louder?
@@gwine9087 you could not be more right 👍. How can people not know this in 2024 with audio as a hobby
I hear this topic popping around from time to time. As a mixing engineer I have to ask: does anyone did a blind test when comparing audio formats? This is a huge topic in audio recording community, and every time someone decides to do a blind test, he(she) gloriously fails. No one can tell the difference between formats in a blind test. 😀Hope this helps to shed some light in this discussion
as a musician my self and also a sound designer... what I only want to say is, if you made the track in higher resolution then just sell it like that so what you made is what your fans get instead of driving the crowd nuts of which is the best while you're just releasing it at 44khz for streaming services, if you dont think your 96khz or 192khz recording is not worth selling it that way then it's your choice, just dont argue with audiophiles anymore at that point lol..
@@yasunakaikumi Human ears don't hear sounds above 20kHz so why would anything above 20kHz be needed? You'll only be making pets go crazy.
What does it matter. Storage space is so cheap these days. Just take the best quality. Or like me 24/96.
My 1 terabyte usb cost me like 100 dollars and it fits all my music.
It's called THE LOUDNESS WARS!!
I'm an electrical engineer. I told my audiophile friends they were wasting their money on HD. If there are any differences it's due to differences in the analog processing, not to more bits or higher frequency range. RBCD standards are as good as you need for all music. Even between DACs the analog FR is most or all of the difference.
I analyzed the technology of MQA and its audio origami. It can't work as claimed. It violates something called Shannon Nyquist by 400 percent. It's a solution that doesn't work for a problem that doesn't exist.
It’s common being a audiophile and loving music that when you have your room treated and all the great gear. One tends to spend a whole bunch of money to find only a little difference in sound. Mqa, I find is used to bring old recordings to life and any other music one must listen carefully but there is a improvement. Combining the room, equipment cables music source is what makes the sound become alive. Getting there is a slow process but a awesome outcome. I’m happy to be able to use tidal. Hope they will always be in biz.
I'm perfectly fine with standard FLAC 44.1 16 bit.
It remains the gold standard for me.
Same here, i did buy some 24bit Flac but can't say I really hear any difference. Where I do hear difference is between a £60 pair of headphones and the £400 pair of headphones.
ok but did you try the opposite meaning boosting the volume on the lower res version to compare it to the "master"?
Hey Andrew, I am so sorry you had to go through this mess from online streaming services. They dont tell you that it starts as high res but when it reaches your playback equipment it is not the same any more. You have to keep in mind that there is a bandwidth limitation on streaming High res music. It might start off as a Master recording but when it reaches your ears it's down sampled because of the band width transmission to you equipment. It has to be compressed then de compressed and processed then converted to music. So there are a lot of steps that needs to be done in order to send it to your system. You can check the format if you have a DAC with a audio format display. But it might still say its high res like 96khz 24 bit but it is still not a true representation of the original. Thats why there are differences between volume etc...But try to download a true high res music file like 196khz 24bit pcm or DSD formats. And you will have a solid reference to what it sounds like.
I am watching this video in Oct. 2022. I do not stream and probably never will. Nothing wrong with streaming for those that do stream. Personal preference. I am 67, I started with vinyl when it was the only game in town. I have over 2000 CDs and about 1300 vinyl albums. I also have a little over 62,000 songs in one of my computers. Mostly my ripped CDs. I happily alternate between playing my vinyl records and playing my CDs. The computer with the music is connected to a stereo receiver so it's like a mini stereo system. I like to listen to the music there when I'm editing my photos. As far as listening to music I am well taken care of and have no need for streaming. I love my vinyl and I love my CDs. I love the whole vinyl playing process, as that is what I grew up with. I do not compare vinyl to digital. I simply enjoy both formats.
I know that the music will still sound great on a streaming service, cost less and leave my home less cluttered... But I just love a physical format.
Recovering audiophile here. I once ripped a 192/24 audio file to 128kb mp3. Couldn’t tell the difference between the two in a double blind test (through headphones). Mastering, volume, speakers and room treatments are the only things that make a difference IMO. Everything else is snake oil.
I’d have to add “amplifiers” make an impact as well as “cables”. This has been my experience.
This is 100% accurate in regards to your last sentence.
As several commenters have already stated, and as I also remember reading in Stereo Review, this phenomenon was utilized routinely by salesman to move whatever product they wanted to move at the time. The louder speaker was always preferred in an A/B comparison. And that has been my experience. I think (but don't know for sure) that it comes down to the fact that human hearing is not linear. What I mean by that is human hearing is not as sensitive to the frequency extremes at lower volume levels. This was the thrust for incorporating "loudness" controls into audio gear during the time that I was growing up. Most were either engaged or not engaged, but I remember that Yamaha produced a loudness control that was adjustable - and I loved it.
There is a lot of noise on UA-cam about how High Res audio is a con, that there's no difference, yada yada. The fact is, there is a difference, but the difference is subtle. It is, as you say, dependent on the recording, how that recording was mastered [or remastered for high res]... and what you're comparing it with, and the system you're listening to it on. Fact is: that yes, the differences are often nuanced. I have done a lot of listening to ascertain this for myself, and I think your whole "loudness" point is somewhat simplistic. In my listening experience, standard resolution [CD] versions of tracks are often louder - compressed - harsh, and the high res equivalents have more dynamic range - and so sound quieter. But it's the nuance in amongst this dynamic range that makes the high res compelling. It's the improved sub bass richness. The instrument separation. The smoothness, as opposed to the harshness of the CD recording. These differences are subtle, but they are definitely there. Some music types, you are hard pressed to hear a difference - rock/pop often sounds very similar. But any acoustic based recordings such as Jazz, folk, classical reveal detail and nuance. Ultimately, it's a matter of taste, and subjective experience - if you can't hear any difference, then cool... stick to CD... but I resist the notion that because someone can't hear any difference, they right it off as a con - because I don't think it is, at all.
Congrats on new marriage! I pray for many years of happiness for you both.
We mock what is called the "placebo effect": "Oh, it's all in your mind!" But we need to remember that to the person experiencing the placebo effect, for them it is really happening.
If you try something in your audio system and to you it improves or distracts from the sound, that is really all the evidence you need. Did you pick your wife or girlfriend based on the reviews of her previous boyfriends? You most likely chose to be with her because of the effect she has on YOUR life, YOUR feelings.
We treat subjectivity as being somehow less, but everything is a subjective experience!
And when it comes to audio, the opinions of others can help with regard to things like gear quality and reliability, and it is helpful to be aware of the subjective impressions of others.
But in the end, it should all come down to: "what is YOUR subjective experience?"
Do hi-res digital files sound better TO YOU? Does MQA sound better TO YOU?
If they don't, then don't buy or listen to them!
Dennis Wade truth. I have claimed this for a while as well.
Subjectivity is definitely not bad, but not all things are equally subjective.
When it comes to what you like to listen to it's entirely subjective, but whether something actually changes the sound in a manner that's perceptible by the human senses is not subjective. If you are OK with wearing the emperor's new clothes then that's fine, but I think there is a lot of value to learning one's own limitations. It's hard to learn if you don't accept that your own perceptions and thoughts can be flawed.
I'm saying this in a general sense, not about the particular topic of the video. Even if the guy buying an expensive set of cables that de facto doesn't result in a different signal is happy with them I still think he was taken advantage of by the manufacturer.
My experience mirrors yours. I've spent a lot of time AB comparing high res on Qobuz to my cd's at same volume levels and can't really tell the difference between the two different formats. A recent hearing test confirms that my ears are good. Recent AB comparisons of a Chord Mojo @ £350 and a Chord Qutest @ £1200 also failed to reveal night and day differences to my ears.The Qutest did sound slightly better but not £850 better. These are my experiences and I acknowledge that others may well be able to hear night and day differences whilst I can't.
“Not £850 better.” Well said.
I firmly believe that standard CD resolution is effectively perfect for human hearing and cannot be surpassed as it already surpasses any human's ability to hear. Yeah there are more accurate formats, but only in ways that no human can hear, so they are meaningless for regular playback.
Your hearing isn’t very good, then. I have never heard CD sound that matches 24 bit sound, using the same master sourced recordings volume matched (such as on the 2L site). And, the difference of a 48/24 vs. 96/24, is audibly noticeable, and the trend continues up to DSD. To me, it’s like jumping up from a 15w to 30w light bulb, then from 30w to 60w, etc. yes, as you get to the higher levels, the difference becomes less noticeable, but I can always detect a benefit on ANY PCM as the bit or sampling rate increases.
Is that because you know when you're switching source material/formats? Ever done it in a double blind test where you couldn't see, nor knew what was coming next? Ever done it in a space you yourself weren't familiar with? These are all variables that go A LONG way in informing us as to what we think we're experiencing, remove them, and I wonder if your certainty would be as absolute. Not accusing, just curious. Thanks for watching!
@@doowopper1951 I think it's great that you can tell the difference. I tried it for myself and I truly cannot. I did hear an amp create distortion when I played a 192k file through it because it couldn't handle the high frequencies it was getting, but I have tested myself and I really can't hear over about 17,500Hz. If you can tell the difference between a 48k sample and a 96k sample, then are you saying you can hear not only 24,000Hz, but all the way up to 48,000Hz, and maybe even beyond?
@@AndyBHome depends on the music you listen to. Try led Zeppelin. Bonham's drumming was enough to convince me that 24-96/192 is the way to go.
@@seraphthecreator it's encouraging to hear that there are people like you who can drive improvements in the field. I continue to listen to higher resolution and frequency range files but with no improvements. I do like Led Zeppelin. I'll have to see if I can get my hands on some high res versions of their stuff.
How do you adjust for the SPL? Just put the volume higher? Serious question. Another comment, if you "feel" it sounds better, then who cares if it is or isn't. You are getting a better experience and YOU like it. So proceed.
Thank you for your thoughtful video.
1) Assuming the CD version uses maximal bit range (many uses a compression due to loudness war) , you must realize that the "higher SPL" MQA files are reproduced on our digital system with further lower Dynamics?
2) MQA files are not real master files but rather an "extended sampling rate MP3 like files" meaning that the 48KHz or 96KHz or 192KHz /24Bit master file is digitally compressed to a CD streaming bitrate of 44.1KHz/16Bit while a HiFi version is streaming of CD files without any digital compression.
3) A true analog Master or 96Khz/24bit Digital master musical information produces frequency range that reaches 45Khz range, so a true Hires master version is definitely a needed format. This information can easily be measured however not necessary to be easily recognized by listening, it depends on many other parameters like system quality (not necessary has to be audiophile system)/speakers/listener ability/room acoustic condition .
I am stunned and amazed that you are just now discovering this! Now you can do real A/B comparisons with meticulously matched loudness levels. As Jerry Davis said, "
Read it in Stereo Review 40 years ago: 'Volume always makes music sound better.' " And yes, addressing a comparison of dynamic range is an excellent future topic.
CD done right from initial recording to final disc was never that bad. In fact it was very good. I really get into audio at the dawn of the CD format. I think the problem the younger generation has with CD audio is most of it is recorded and mastered so poorly. You can really see this in old recordings that are "remastered" and re-released. Compare that to the original CD recording if the original is say 20-30 years old when recording engineers still gave a damn. Untimely what's killing recorded music is the loudness war.
I have a lot of 80s albums that sound so flat with no life. Downloaded the remasters and way better. Some of those old álbuns you can’t even tell there’s any bass
It’s all in the mastering
Yes....but everything in your signal flow makes a difference. For example having the best mic in the world ..if your A/D converters don't match it very well then even if the mastering is done very well the 'bad' synergy at that early stage will still have an effect. :/ :) But I very much take your point. Its ironic that some, for example Ella Fitzgerald recordings from the 1950's sound way WAY more natural and 'real' than anything being produced today !
It's actually all in every link in the chain bringing the performance to your ears. But yes, mastering is an often overlooked link. One needn't read deeply into recording forums to find overconfident mastering engineers whose comments about e.g. monitoring preferences call into question their ability or intention to preserve the (remaining) vital acoustic data (breath of life) in the mix. Of course with electric/electronic music, like Lipton, it's not soup untill it's served.
Yes. All of it. You can't hear or recover what wasn't captured in the first place. Most of us can't unscramble the egg and rescramble it the way we want. Attempts to do this at the moment of playback in living rooms (or wherever) is like rearranging the deck chairs on a ship that's already sunk. Nothing rises above the source, and the final master - the recording we are listening to - is THE source. For everything else downstream, it's job is to get out of the way, adding or subtracting nothing. And the vast majority of recordings aren't made to satisfy the microscopic-sized audiophile community. And that's okay. My audio experience becomes simply listening, and enjoying or not, what the artist and producers has put in my hands as they delivered it.
I've explored just about every digital file format. What I've come to is that a poorly produced recording is going to sound just as awful regardless of format. No file format will change or save a poorly produced recording.
I am loving Tidal. More than I suspected I would. It's heavy with MQA - Master Quality Authenticated. I have a Meridian (who developed and are advocating for the format) Explorer2, which will do native high-performance hardware MQA decoding ("unfolding"), and I try Tidal's software MQA presentation. I suppose that MQA is intended to sound better, but it's not an ultra high resolution file format spec. Part of it is just to try to ensure that the recorded information gets correctly moved from one place to another, and efficiently, especially via streaming. On the more rigorous and formal production end of MQA design and intention, it sets up studio recording and playback specifications to do the same thing - ensure that what was recorded is exactly what gets delivered; that the blue or green light lights up on your little Explorer2 showing you you are getting exactly what was originally captured. (There is an entire MQA website describing and promoting MQA, and lots of good technical discussion floating around)
Recordings made by 2L are one nice way to explore the file format thing. They have new, modern recordings, audiophile focused, in various formats, from Redbook, to MQA, to monster-sized 1-bit DSD.
To make an honorable mention, I really like XRCD and HDCD files. Again, most of these were done for "audiophiles", but I feel a preponderance of the music I've listened to in these formats - the nano-sized volume of it - sounds really great.
And mostly, Redbook still works just fine. Maybe Shannon and Nyquist were mostly right - 60'ish years ago. What I LOVE about Tidal is simply being able to hear SO much music in CD quality. Songs I love that I've never heard even at that quality level before. I'm listening to them for the first time!
That's the ticket laddie. If Red book standards are taken full advantage of the additional bits and sample rates aren't worth obsessing over. The majority of us can't distinguish between Red Book or a High Resolution copy of the same master.
its actually not though. If you listen to a mixed song pre-mastering, you will hear very little difference between that and a final master. Some hi frequency transients might be gone, but that's about it.
What most non-music studio savvy folks don't realize is that they're talking about mixing and not mastering. Especially since most "re-mastered" albums are actually re-mixed.
I believe you hit it on the head about ‘falling prey’ as I’ve been listening to music on systems since the early 80’s when I could afford separate components. I haven’t come across any big wow factor unless it was just the mastering itself. I think if the truth was let out that these corporations work up these marketing tricks and just causing us to purchase music all over again! The ‘amazing’ difference isn’t there and playing the game in our mind of putting out more money means better sound for more bits added to a file we are just fooling ourselves. My opinion yes but it is what I have to base it on from countless years and hours I have listened to music and not from what someone wants me to believe. I think we just get taken advantage of because there are people out there who love music and an easy way to get more money from us. All about the bottom line in ‘most’ circumstances 😉
First of all, congratulations on your marriage Andrew and wishing you Kristi all the best.
Love the topic (again) and was most interested to hear your take on hi-res audio. For what it's worth, I think there is a noticeable difference between a lossy audio format (e.g. mp3 and streaming services) when compared to a lossless one such as FLAC. So much so that all the music on my phone is FLAC only. When listening to these FLAC audio files via a quality set of IEM or headphones it is clear to my ears there is a difference when compared to that of listening to say Spotify. Yes, I know that this isn't meant to be hi-res audio but I just wanted to make the point that there is a clear difference. In saying that, Spotify still offers a more than reasonable sound quality when listening via a range of devices (earphones, headphones, Bluetooth speakers, etc.) and like most people I enjoy the portability of being able to listen to just about any album where ever I might be. In a nutshell, I will always try to source the FLAC equivalent of an album that I own so that I can get the optimal listening experience.
Slightly off-topic, I think you could also make a strong case that there is a noticeable difference within the analog sphere (e.g. vinyl) between a standard recording and a "high-res" format. I have a number of albums that I've listened to and enjoyed for years in the standard vinyl format, only to be blown away by the outstanding sound quality of the same album that has been remastered by companies such as Mobile Fidelity and Intervention. The difference in quality is such that I've spent way too much money purchasing my favourite albums in the superior Mo-Fi range! :-)
So, in a long-winded way, my suggestion for your next video is to test this theory out on your own gear with an album that you're familiar with and has (hopefully) been remastered by Mo-Fi. Assuming of course that you're willing to spend a little more on one of those albums ;-). Cheers.
Touche and yep.
The format analysises are getting clarity from many tuber reviewers and hifi critiques.
The science will ultimately rest upon the sciences of engineering, mastering and human hearing/cognitive parameters.
Your honesty is appreciated.
Ps congrats too!
CD quality sound or slightly above is just enough for me via Apple Music or my CDs. I use a simple Hi-res audio DAC (£30) with Hi-X15 (£96). I can get good sound out of my headphones via smartphone or laptop. Basically you can get good quality sound for under £150 (not including subscription, phone and laptop). Basically don't need to spend a lot to get a lot suitable quality music.
Very interesting. My gut feeling is you are right, it is mostly just louder.
It’s very very hard to hear the differences. 10 % is already very generous. I would say 2-5 % better the most. And only if you focus on it. I will continue to use hires where I have it, but I won’t mind having certain albums only in CD quality.
This comes down to how an artist captured their recording and how they manipulated it. There are countless ways to do this, but the rule I always go by is if the artist record in analog, you want the highest possible resolution possible, whether that's on an analog format like vinyl or 24-bit digital audio. Then there's the mastering process and what the producer and artist do to the recording to level it out between stereo and its own three-dimensional quality. Either way, just try to get what the artist intended you to hear. It's the only way to try and appreciate what they created.
I've been researching this topic, and audio engineers believe HD is not BS, but not for the reasons you think. The Nyquist theorem has never been disproven (16 bit, 44.1K sampling is the range of human hearing). That said, even though HD extends the dynamic range beyond the range humans can hear, the extra data we can't hear does make a difference to the filters used to reconstruct and smooth the audio signal, resulting in a more accurate reconstruction of the original audio.
The Raging Dolphins Maniac - Great comment and sums it up perfectly.
I personally knew that there was not much difference but because of that I concentrated to get the differences. Made A/B comparisons with Studio Master Flacs and files downconverted by myself. I could hear differences between original flac and 192 bit mp3 without any problem. Then I burnt the same flac files on a cd and listened to it. The difference was very little but when you know what you are looking for, it's much easier to find the differences.
AND:
I noticed another very big thing. Not every hifi system grants you the capability of hearing the differences.
As I performed this test I had a Sony TA-F470 and a pair of Magnat Vector 77 speakers (they have a bad reputation but they reach 35 kHz and I already get used to the sound color).
Then I swapped my amp for a Yamaha AS-700. Same results. Very clear differences for me.
5 years later it was much harder for me to notice the differences. But my 16 year old nephew could still hear them (I told him what he has to look for and then performed a blind test out of curiosity).
A very interesting thing was that we (nephew and I) were able to hear ("notice" would be the better word) 24 kHz but we had to turn the amp to extreme levels and stay on axis with the tweeter. 24 kHz test file was downloaded from the internet and was verified with spek (spectrum analyzer).
Same tests were performed a week later on my uncles hifi system (elac speakers and denon integrated amp) and there it was harder, even his system was much more expensive then mine.
So to test something like this to have a good base for our discussions we need to define a reference system.
Not sure if everything makes sense here. Had to feed and lay my son asleep while I was writing this.
i worked at tech hi-fi. the louder speakers were always the best sellers.
This video is on point. I have a very good enthusiast audio system with a pair of Chora 826 as my front channels, a Klipsch SW-311 subwoofer, and an RZ-50 driving them. I will go one step further than what is mentioned here and include DVD Audio, SACD, and even HFPA in the conversation. I made a point to buy/listen to the same music on all these formats in addition to Tidal streaming, and after quite a bit of A/B and long listening sessions, I was hardly pressed to hear a distinguishable difference between any of these sources. I am using an Oppo BDP-83 for my physical media Hi-Res listening and my RZ-50 as well as a separate Bluesound Node gen 3 streamer for streaming Hi-Res audio from Tidal. With the exception of HFPA, all the other formats were practically indistinguishable to my ears, and I would classify any difference that I perceived under possible "placebo effect." Moreover, I would even go as far as saying that the reason why I heard a clear distinction with HFPA is the mastering process and the additional separation and clarity a multi-channel audio experience can offer, not necessarily the impact of the higher bit/sample rate. I know that this will compel audiophiles to point out my inferiority and make it sound as a problem with my ears and perception, but I am very convinced that it's not the case. When I run any of these Hi-Res formats, I ensure that any other source of electronic interference (AC, TV, other electronics... etc.) is switched off and not interfering with the audio signal, and I used both wireworld Luna 8 and audioquest Robin Hood SILVER (ZERO) cables to connect my speakers to the RZ-50, as well as a Ricable Supreme AI HDMI 2.0b MKII from the Oppo to the RZ-50. So, the quality of cables was not a variable I would consider. The only thing is that my room is not "officially" treated, but I have almost 80% of my walls covered by wooden cabinets and books, and music sounds better in my room than a few treated rooms I've been to. The only thing I haven't tried yet is to use my earphones to try and discern actual differences between these formats, but this is not how I usually listen to my music in any case! So, are any marginal gains I could not hear using my multiple thousand dollar setup really worth it? My genuine belief is a solid NO! However, at this point, I am honestly still buying and subscribing to Hi-Res audio out of pure FOMO...
Thank you for this informative video. Personally I think the difference in quality between CD quality and 24bit-48khz is barely noticeable (but nice!) and everything beyond 48khz is totally indistinguishable for me. (And beyond 96khz my equipment doesn’t even manage to keep up with). So I basically settle with 24bit/48khz.
Everything above 48kHz SHOULD be totally indistinguishable to you, because the only thing sample rate does is determine what the band-limit is on the reconstructed analogue waveform. It is 24kHz for a 48kHz sample rate, which is already above the limits of human hearing. There is absolutely no benefit to a higher sample rate. Literally none.
Very true. 24/48 is the sweet spot.
I'm no audiophile, but there is a difference. Using my Nuraphones, I tested hi-fi vs MA with the Lada Gaga track 'Is That Allright?' This is what I noticed. The Hi-Fi track is smoother, but thin sounding while the MA sounded warmer, fuller, but digitized... as if they put more emphasis on her voice. Now, I decided to try out the Atmos setting with both versions. The Hi-fi now sounded as if i were listening in a room with a speaker playing a CD track while the MA track sounded like she was in the room with none of the digital enhancements noted before. So, I'm for MA, but it all comes down to the mastering process.
That track should have won the Oscar , best track of the A Star is Born OST ,pure gold. To tell the entire lifespan of a relationship in 3 minutes that is genius.
When you carefully level match and blind compare in a controlled fashion... many things on the audio chain... many things we herald don't stand up. People can't reliably tell them apart. Sample rates is one of them (beyond Redbook/CD). Stereo Review got in big trouble with the advertisers many years ago comparing all the various high end amplifiers (ss/tube) of the day. The participants could not reliably tell them apart when operating in the normal range and level matched. Follow up studies found the same.
So the advantage of high resolution is the possibility to get closer to the red line without compression / clipping issues? As far as I'm concerned I did the 1 month trial of tidal with master quality, and I didn't really like it so much, I preferred uncompressed files played in local. Maybe it's just because when I listen to music I set the volume to the maximum I know I can keep for long times without fatiguing. If it gets too loud (something that happens if the source is 6db louder!) I simply lower the volume!
there are three main arguments I use against hi-res audio.
1. Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem. For any band limited signal, we only need a sampling rate that is twice that of the maximum frequency we wish to record. Human hearing tops out at 20 KHz and low pass filters aren't perfect, so 44.1 KHz was chosen for standalone audio (in digital video that standard is 48 KHz, maybe they thought not having a consistent number of samples per frame at the common frame rates of 24, 25, 30, 48, 50, and 60 could've been a cause of problems)
2. Outside of highly specialized equipment, nearly every piece of audio equipment is tested within the bounds of human hearing, 20 Hz to 20 KHz, even if something in your library has content outside that range is your equipment validated for it?
3. if at any point between recording and you playing the file back it was anything less than 24-bit/96 KHz or whatever your preferred bit-depth and sample rate are, there is literally zero benefit. It's like using AI to upscale something from 360x240p to 2880x2160p (81x the total pixel count)... sure, it may be less blurry and blocky but you're getting no additional detail. Can you trust that your 24/96 files were at least 24/96 until it got to you?
Way I see it, from a listening experience, improvement is minimal or unproven, at a space cost of nearly 3.3x for 24/96 compared to 16/44.1 before compression.
That being said, I do see how there could be significant benefit to using 24/96 or even higher for the purposes of production, but for listening... assuming there even is a benefit the law of diminishing returns will hit like a car crashing into a wall at 40 mph.
I don't particularly care about chasing quality that much, but at the same time my equipment isn't the kind of thing you'd buy just because you NEED speakers, and I rip to FLAC because I just have zero reason not to. Storage is dirt cheap these days, and might as well reap the space savings that lossless compression affords.
I 100% agree, Andrew!! I subscribed to EVERYTHING. I cannot, after nearly an entire month of comparing Master vs HiFi, tell the difference! I agree on the volume hypothesis, I actually find Spotify premium boosts SPL too! So i'll stick to my Deezer Hifi! thanks but no thanks Tidal!! End of the day "the only person that has to like the sound of your system is you"
Great discussion. I had to agree with everything you said because of my experience. There's not much of a difference between Hi-Res and CD quality FLAC files. Not to say Hi-Res / Master aren't better, but just slightly if you concentrate on micro details.
@@filippiasec Oh, okay.
I've just gone over your video again and was wondering about a follow up question on the topic....Quick Question..... How does Hi-Res and Dolby Atmos differ as new albums are coming out as Atmos releases on Amazon, Apple and Tidal ?
I kind of agree with your premise. I have Tidal, Spotify, a turntable, and a CD player all connected to a Rega Brio integrated amp and I have played the same track on each and I have found the biggest difference is the volume. And the winner there is a well recorded CD.
So is Tidal not worth the extra cost over Spotify?
Short answer due to work requirements: IMO, Tidal vs Apple music through my Klipsch R6 earphone's, the MQR deliver a noticably higher quality sound experience. Brought out notes and instruments not before noticed.
Very cool!
A lot of Hi Res file are master to be louder or less bass. Higher SPL generally sounds better. And music with less bass (50Hz or below) will sound more clean and detail.
Master quality to me is how well the recording sounds. The medium it's played back on shouldn't matter much nowadays. Cd quality is the best I will hear. The weird thing is some hifi or high res tracks are not only on preceved higher quality more expensive medium but it's also remastered as well. I believe it could sound better than it's cd version but not because high res. It's the quality of the remaster that matters and the recording.
Thank you for posting this, Andrew. I love the clean, crisp, and clear sound of Hi Res Audio, but for that smooth, buttery sound you can't beat a record on a turntable, you just can't. And if you have to turn the volume high to get a good sound from any source, something is very wrong.
This video acts so trance inducing upon me, must be the blend of music and the stagnant picture...
I honestly can't tell the difference between 256 kbps MP3 Vs lossless
How are you listening to these?, equipment makes a difference.
@@daverich3352 I have Grado SR225i + little dot 1+ with Vokshod tubes and a Modi 2. Or I can use my WH1000XM4s or I have B&W 605s connected to a Cambridge Audio AXR85.
You must be deaf. If you said 320kbp then I’ll I’d believe you. But 256 is noticeable to almost everyone. Unless you listen to your music with Apple earphones and Bluetooth
From what you said your equipment was. I also have the wf1000mx4. Use it for jogging. And I can still hear the difference, especially these with the Sony A105. Even though I’m running and not focusing much on the music. It’s still a big difference.
Now in the car and at home the difference is massive.
@@vitorfernandes651 Do you hear a difference between the A105 Vs devices when using Bluetooth?
So first of, THANK YOU for another great video, now as relevant as ever with Apple joining the Lossless Hi Res game. 100% on volume, but there are other factors, like the limitations of what you use to listen to your music. Duh. While I'm waiting on a Topping to use as a USB interface to get the music off my Mac into my Yamaha Aventage, I played the Hi Res files off Apple TV thru HDMI into the Aventage and WOOOOOOAH. Mind you it wasn't played loud, nor was it a loud track (End of Love by Florence) but the presence, space and detail were just spectacular. Is it subjective? For sure, but I have always trusted my ears and more than that, the immersive quality of the audio triggered an emotional response. I am now legit thinking about getting a Mac Mini just to be able to feed the audio to HDMI. Anyway, my 2ç.
Bottomline here is it all goes down to your playback preference whether you use physical or streaming service. As long as you are happy with the playback, nothing matters.
As per you talking about music you use to test audio equipment. I started picking out Flac, and hi bit recordings and I was astonished by the difference in quality of the sound. I attributed this to the fact that my Marantz preamp would use the built in DAC, 24 bit 192 khz and to me it seemed the instrumentals were cleaner, bass was tighter, saxophone passages and orchestral music was more lifelike than before. I could tell a difference between standard digital and high res at the same level. I'm still experimenting and will keep you posted
"This presentation was not sponsored by Tidal." :)
Thanks Andrew, somehow missed this when it came out. I appreciate about your channel that you do call things out and don't only post positive reviews about everything.
Only way to compare formats is with "Double Blind" level matched listening test.
True.
You can scientifically test for differences in formatting simply by performing a diff. Take one waveform and subtract it from the other (or invert one and add them causing wave negation). The resulting difference will give you empirical binary differences you can actually listen to...... this is really easy in something like audacity. The differences are so ridiculously retarded you can't even hear them under 70db. People that buy "hi fidelity" audio formats are idiots. The only real rule of thumb to consider is using a good clean lossless format and encoded properly (44.1/16).
I recently started experimenting with Qobuz, but not via streaming. I'm downloading hi-res FLAC albums to an external HD which is connected to my CXN v2 streamer. I didn't account for SPL but can hear a subtle improvement in the non-streamed FLAC playback vs Apple Music hi-res streaming playback, which is what I've been using day-to-day for over a year now. The difference is subtle but still noticeable to me. The downloaded FLAC sounds deeper/fuller, with a slight improvement in detail. The hi-res streams can sound flatter and less full-bodied. I can see why some who prefer analog might say digital is "soulless," as the streams still feel a bit compressed in that regard...to my ears.
I still enjoy hi-res and/or lossless streaming, but if I want to critically listen to a favorite album or a well-recorded one, I'm giving serious consideration to purchasing the hi-res FLAC version for playback. I have robust WiFi in my home, so it's not a bandwidth issue. There just seems to be an improvement in the physical version vs. streamed IMO. Again, to answer AR's question, it's a subtle difference but noticeable.
Watching this video three years later, I quickly thought of the "loudness wars" and how that has become a mainstream critique at this point.
Andrew I think you have a good point here, maybe the MQA is higher quality but not day vs night, the quality level may be about 10 to 15 percent at most but the psichological aspect is playing a big role and so I completely agree with you.
To listen for differences, you must really know your system very, very well. And it goes without saying that, of cause, identical interconnect cables are used from both sources. But true, 24 bit files will often be louder.
The tidal MQA tracks are often remastered that's probably what you hear. You probably could pick spotify out of a volume matched test using the same mastering if you were testing blind.
Exactly, i have come to the same conclusion.
Mastering, not format, is what makes a track sound better. Vinyls for example usually have a very midrange oriented master which people mistake for "warmth". Some of the "mastered for itunes" tracks are notorious for sounding better (not all of them) despite being 256VBR.
I also find Led Zeppelin's 2014 remasters better sounding than my old vinyls regardless of format.
In my experience it is all down to how the music is produced nowadays if you take a vintage piece of hi-fi take the original recording and play it it will sound the same as it did forty years ago if you take the same vintage amplifier and play a remastered copy of the same album it will sound surprisingly better So in my experience it isn't the kit that is better it is how it is produced Most of the groundbreaking advancements haven't been in hi-fi have been in the recording studio don't get me wrong there has been leaps and bounds of how we listen to a music on how it is delivered but at the end of the day it is still the same as it has always been You only get off a recording what is on a recording
CD sounds the same to me as a FLAC, including 24bit96K and higher. I think it's still even difficult to tell the difference on some recordings from 326kb MP3 to CD/HIRES.
depends on what equipment you have.
@ReaktorLeak This is not true because our hearing in the middle register is so sensitive that it corresponds to more than 16 bits. that's the reasons why sony created super bit mapping. the purpose was to create a 20 bit quality to 16 bit data
Mannnnn!! You really broke that down. I thought it was just me! But on some recordings that I have on CD, like R.E.M.’s “Automatic For The People.” the CD sounds better than Tidal’s Master Quality. Maybe because I’ve listened to this CD over 1000 times. So is it really Perception or Reality? Who knows? I’ve certain convenience plays a role in this too. As always thanks for the videos. Man I want those La Scalas. Yours in particular. 😀
it's a good sounding CD for sure......
Tidal isn't even as good as your CD with the DRM scheme of MQA adding noise and artifacts to the audio. Don't believe the Tidal lies, you get better qaulity from Deezer and Amazon HD. Stay away from all things MQA.
Best most honest video on audio
I agree with much of what Andrew is saying. I was unaware of the volume differences so, thank you. My suspicion is that MQA is more for collecting royalties than anything else. The folks at Meridian even admit that there is a psycho-acoustic component to MQA. And as noted in other comments, MQA is a lossy format so, I am not sure it is better than physical media. What has worked for me to improve playback on all my files, MP3, FLAC, and WMA is to play them through Audirvana. The software is designed to reduce/eliminate processing noise/artifacts caused by the streaming PC or MAC source and does, in my opinion, lower the noise floor and sound better. Audirvana will also make the first "unfold" of MQA files without a MQA compatible DAC and give a 24 bit 96 kHz output. It also integrates with Tidal to assist when streaming. I promise I am not a shill for Audirvana. I hear a difference and am curious if others do as well.
Audirvana is indeed a nice UI/Player, but, MQA unfolding aside, isn't it just using WASAPI or ASIO direct sound drivers? Many other players can be configured to do so too. Or is something more being done to lower the noise floor?
Edit: Hmmm - I see from the Audirvana site it suggests it does more such as stabilizing the power supply and minimizing CPU activity.
I didn't even know that you needed a compatible dac for mqa! So if I am playing tidal (master quality) with audirvana with a non certified dac it "converts" to 24/96, but what if I am using the official windows application? It may explain why I didn't like the tidal sound compared to flac played in local! I like the idea of a super mp3, 16/44 flac size but with a lot more quality due to an efficient compression, but with all those limitations I am not sure it's what I want...
@@ShellstaTube I am running a WIN PC out USB through a Jitterbug to a Schiit Modi 2 Uber DAC so I am not sure it makes any difference whether or not it is WASAPI or ASIO. I can change the setting in Audirvana from one to the other and I don't notice a difference. I will check on that tonight. Thx.
@@karellen00 Your you referring to the official windows version of Audirvana? If not what app are you talking about. Just so I clearly understand your question. Thx.
@@edholmwood Sorry, I intended "what if I use the TIDAL official Windows application?", In comparison with audirvana and its 24/96 unfold
Thank you for saying this. Here I am 3 years after this posting, just now dipping my toes into the waters of Hi Res Audio. I have to say I'm disappointed. I bought a couple external DACs and compared their output with that of the built-in DACs of my existing equipment. I cannot tell the difference. In fact, all things equal, the output from my Blu-ray player (that I use to play CDs) was a bit punchier. Is that a good thing? I don't know. Is it a limitation of my off-the-shelf home stereo? That seemed more likely. So to find out, I bought a set of audiophile headphones and a headphone amp. I still don't hear anything I hadn't heard before. Do I just have crappy hearing? I hope not. But I did take a couple hearing tests on line and scored well for my age.
I also downloaded a sample album with 10 versions of the same song in different sampling rates and bit depths. There is no discernable difference between 44.1 FLAC and DSD 64. None. Sorry. Maybe in a million dollar system, but not for the everyday man. Our hearing is limited. Sounds outside that range will not be heard.
Hi Res Audio is snake oil. It's the Emperor's New Clothes. People spend thousands of dollars on high end systems that, by all technical measurements, should be superior to "normal" systems. So in their minds they convince themselves it's better. And let's face it, what's the use in having a system like that? I mean, aside from bragging rights? No one wants to come over to your house and listen to your music collection, hi res or not. You'll not get 20 seconds into a song before the other person gets bored with it and you press that pause button until he leave later that day. Also, active listening is hard work. Just enjoy the music for what it is and stop obsessing over whether or not you can hear the pick hit the string a millisecond before the note rings out.
I had the same experience when I played music on Blu-Ray it was punchier. Then listening more, I came to the conclusion that to get the full effect in a movie of high energy bursts like a gun shot or bomb blast relied on this punchier sound.
@Gordon Fadie Exactly how did you perform your tests? Specifically, what kind of speakers and amplifier did you use? One has to realise that if their amplifier isn’t able to decode or process hi res formats, then quite obviously playing hi res music through such an amplifier won’t provide any benefit whatsoever. Much the same happens with speakers if they’re not of a high enough quality to actually elucidate and express the improvements which hi res allows for.
Most important of all, imho, is to be intimately familiar with the songs one is using to audition hi res audio. I’m a musician, an electric bass player, mostly playing jazz, funk, blues and classical music. I’ve many, many albums which I’ve listened to well over 500 times each, and particular songs that I’d have listened to easily over 1000 times. I believe this is one of the major keys to noticing much, if any benefit from hi res audio, that is, being incredibly familiar with the subjects you’re auditioning. And that’s precisely the exact reason why, when you listened to the same song recorded in multiple formats, you noticed no differences between them. If you’re unfamiliar, or even familiar but not intimately so, there will be myriad sections in most songs which go completely unnoticed by the ‘untrained’ ear of a ‘casual’ listener.
Even for a trained musician, it’s just amazing how much one literally misses out on and simply cannot hear until one has the sheet music in front of them and is reading through it as the notes are being played from the speakers. So many times I’ll be listening to an album or song which I’ve been both listening to and also playing the song on my own instrument for, at times, over a decade and then when I finally get hold of a known accurate transcription and literally I hear passages which I’d never heard until the sheet music pointed it out for me.
Consider, if you will, if this happens to a highly trained musician, imagine just how much one is missing out on if they’ve no musical training at all. Obviously, I’m not referring to whatever is in the top 40, etc, as the music is far too simplistic for anything to go unnoticed. Not to mention the fact that all these styles of music just repeat the same words, chords, etc, over and over and over, never presenting the listener with anything unexpected, improvised or melodically/harmonically complex, so it’s not at all surprising that one wouldn’t notice any improvement from hi res versions of these types of music.
An easy analogy to further bring home the point is that billboards often have pixels, or ink dots/line screens which make each drop of ink up to the size of a golf ball!! But have you ever driven past a billboard and thought, “wow, those dots on that billboard are SUCH low resolution and just SO chunky that I can’t even figure out what it’s a picture of or what they’re trying to advertise!”?? I’m guessing the answer is no. Now consider how much lower the resolution on a billboard is compared to a 4K laptop screen and it’s oftentimes an order of magnitude or even greater. So this is analogous to having either or both an amplifier and/or speakers which simply don’t have the capability to reproduce the higher resolution sounds which is being fed into them. And that’s not even taking into account the fact that the listener is just as much, if not even more of an issue when performing such auditions.
I can tell you with absolute, 100% certainty that the improvement when listening to the identical album on CD and SACD, through the same SACD player, the improvements are myriad! Very obvious, is the soundstage, which is far more detailed, presents much greater separation between not only instruments, but even musicians, the clarity and acuity is increased with subsequent levels of finesse and fluidity one simply could not hear from the musician on the CD recording as the medium just doesn’t have the ability to faithfully record, let alone reproduce such almost imperceptible differences which the musician produces on their instrument, again, not forgetting that one MUST be very familiar with the music being auditioned or the point is moot.
Just to belabour the point, one wouldn’t expect to find a homeless hobo judging a fine dining cooking competition because their palate just isn’t experienced enough and trained well enough to even be able to notice some very intricate and delicate, nuanced differences between how one chef makes the dish compared to the competitors rendition of the same recipe. People, don’t fool yourselves, in ANY AND ALL occasions where there is more information being provided and said info is readily accessible (meaning, trained listener, high quality amplifier, speakers, etc) and one possesses the means to be able to access the additional info, and it was writing on a wall, well, even Blind Freddy himself could see the differences. I’m hoping you understand what I mean.
Seriously, this is the last one: I also used to race motorcycles and now, when watching the MotoGP on tv, often the commentator might mention something which the rider just did (or didn’t do) and I have to rewind it and play it back in slow motion to be able to even just perceive what it is the expert commentator saw very obviously at full speed, on a tv screen, not even in person at the track. That’s just a very easy to understand example of exactly how much of an insanely huge difference the person listening makes to this whole process.
Gordon...you absolutely nailed this one!! Kudos to you!!!
@@aaronperelmuter8433 Thanks for your insights. I respect your knowledge as a trained musician. My son also plays the bass. So that's cool.
I'm coming from more of a basic position. I'm wondering how much my listening enjoyment, and my life in general, would improve by investing in a super-high-end system. If money was no object, then by all means, give me the best of the best. But someone like me has to make choices and those choices involve compromise. So I just wanted to experiment with some supposed hi-res products, just to test if I could hear the difference.
My stereo is a basic off-the-shelf Onkyo with JBL speakers in a 12x10 nook in the basement. I realize that whole setup might be a bottleneck, but to borrow your analogy, even on a crappy TV, one can tell the difference between VHS and DVD, and between DVD and Blu-ray (but I can't really tell the difference between 1080p and 4K). So I should at least be able to distinguish between 44. 1 and DSD. But you yourself said reading sheet music helped you hear things in songs you missed otherwise.
Let's say my stereo IS the problem. As I mentioned in my rant, I bought some high-end headphones, an external DAC and a headphone amp. Completely cut my crappy stereo out of the picture. Still not blown away by what I'm hearing. I thought it was supposed to sound like the musicians are right there in the room with you. It all sounds nice and clear... No pops or hiss. You can hear more details typically with headphones anyway so I'm not quite ready to attribute that to a higher bit rate. As a musician you should be quite aware of limitations human hearing.
I too have a collection of music made from 1970 to today. I have vinyl, cassette tapes, CDs, and downloads that I've listened to a million times and I know ever note, every nuance, every change, every drum fill.
Problem is I have to buy them all again now just to enjoy them in the way you described. Or use a streaming service like Qobuz (which I do).
Oh well I'm beating a dead horse now so thanks again for your input.
Real quick clarification on the above. An amplifier does not 'decode' anything. It takes an already decoded analog signal and amplifies it. Cheaper components within the amp may introduce noise or distortion, but decoding is done by a DAC. And that's what lured me down this rabbit hole; the promise that the built in DAC in your component is garbage and therefore you need an external DAC to make your existing CD collection sound good. Rubbish. Rubbish. F*cking rubbish.
I did the experiment with the same album from Bandcamp and Qobuz Hi Res: the file in Qobuz was nominally identical (24/48) to the download but it was +6dB and according to my brain it was sounding far better. Added to my file the 6dB and it sounded as good as in Qobuz app. Welcome to loudness war
Great discussion.... As for me.. .I have about $10k in my stereo and I only stream. I have spent a lot of $$ (for me) to get the very best quality sound that I can. I even have spent about $1200 on speaker cables looking for the very best sound.. So my answer to the question “ Is High Res Audio worth it?” Is Absolutely .. At least for me it is. Great video and great discussion.
You wasted far too much money to chase your imagination.
My dog claims he can definitely hear a difference 👍
I have to be honest and say that my feelings about vinyl V cd etc depends on my mood. Sometimes I want that warm afternoon sunshine sound of vinyl and I want to experience it through multiple senses. Sometimes I want CD glitz. Mostly though I think it's like food. Sometimes I want this flavour and sometimes I want a different flavour.
An interesting analysis, Andrew, but I never gave it a thought. I get the high quality sound I'm very satisfied with, whether it be digital or analogue reproduced, with my mish-moshed component system. I don't stream. I can generally hear minute electronic "background noise" even on a CD, let alone on streaming. Admittedly, MQ audio tends to be much more of a brighter sound and you have to decrease the volume.
I've listened to iTunes Mastering, Tidal Masters, MQA, Flac, DVD-Audio, SACD, etc.... I don't really hear a difference. Again, I don't really hear a difference or too much of one if any at all. You are correct in saying the volume increases depending on the format but otherwise, I don't really hear a difference. If there is a difference is so minuscule it doesn't matter. Well, not for me. I am not going to spend extra money on something I don't hear or so small of a difference it doesn't increase my hearing pleasure. I just saw some guy on youtube that did a test between a $1300 and $2500 subwoofer. He sounded as if it was worth it to spend an additional $1200 on a sub because of a 5 decimal increase in how it performed. To me that is crazy. He didn't really hear that much if any much of difference he said when listening to it himself. If the sounds good to you then buy it. Why would you spend that much more for something you really can't hear? You're the first person I've heard tell the truth. I really think it's in peoples head to get sound that may or may not be there but because they say it the best we buy into it. If you have the ears and really hear a real difference, then do what you want. Buy the best and enjoy it. I don't hear a difference. I really wanted to hear the difference but I didn't hear. So I don't need to buy anything that doesn't really benefit me.
I like the show. Keep being honest. I like your reasoning. We don't have to spend thousands of dollars to have a good audio experience. Buy what you can afford and enjoy. I do.
A different take on the same argument of, "leveling the playing field." When I first started using my MC phono cartridge and Denon AU-300LC stepup ~15yrs ago, having spent lots of undergrad summer job on the upgrade, I expected to have my socks knocked off. While the experience was noticeably richer (in terms of the system reproducing sound I had not heard before and clarity of the sound I did hear), it was not apparent until I adjusted for the significantly lower output of the MC setup. Depending upon the source vinyl, I was used to having to crank the same recording vs CD counterpart anyways. But the MC-even with stepup-needed even more amplification due to the inherently, "weaker," signal that setup produces. Once I had adjusted for this, I could hear the difference. I would not, however, recommend the trouble I went through to get my MC setup (importing AudioTechnica hi-end MC cartridge from Japan, sourcing Denon stepup, etc) to a beginner. It was a tippy-toe step toward Hi-Fi not the leaps/bounds I made when I bought my Marantz 2238b or got my eBay Polk Monitor 7Bs working.
It's easy to PROVE that there's no audible difference. Subtract a 16-bit track (downsampled from 24 bit) with the 24-bit original and you will create a difference track but it will be inaudibly quiet as no-one has listening environments (or even hearing ability) to hear something 100dB quieter than listening volume. Case closed. Any audible difference MUST be due to mastering.
For me there is an 'improvement' in HiRes (beit MQA or 24bit variants) ... but, like you, think it's down to percentages and whether that's worth it (cost:improvement) to you (the individual).
Other, perhaps 'better', percentage improvements can be gotten from:
a. Recording / Mastering - e.g, mic setup, stereofield, dynamic range.
b. 'Better' gear - e.g, more revealing, better imaging - usually pricier (to a point when 'luxury tax' comes to bear).
For me - I have/seek HiRes/24bit for a subset of my collection. If it were the same(lower) price - i'd seek it for all (the increase in storage is a factor - not a big one for me).
I have a pretty revealing system and I also find the differences between Tidal Hifi, Tidal MQA and Hi-Res files on my hard disk so so subtle at best, that I really dont care about it any more. In fact, sometimes I prefer Tidal Hifi over MQA.
Pay attention to another things that will give you MUCH better results, like a dedicated streamer, AC treatment, speaker placement, a pair of subs, a good HiFi Ethernet switch (if you stream music), etc.
Thats my experience.
Master Quality could be louder because the dynamic range is greater. The maximum dB for 16 bit (CD) is 96dB, but 24-bit is 144dB. If you reduce the volume to equalise the dB then you're effectively removing one of the hi-res differentiators. Having said that, if I stream Tidal "Hi-fi" from my phone via Airplay through Apple TV and a Toslink cable to my active Kef speaker (so the speaker controls the volume), vs streaming via Airplay directly to the speaker vs using the Kef app to stream directly from Tidal to the speaker, the SPL is different for the same song in all three cases. Streaming directly to the speaker often allows for a max volume 10db or more over streaming via Airplay. Also, Airplay only supports CD quality, so I can't directly compare master quality
The truth will set us free. Nowadays I check any music first for Dynamic Range and its peak values before adding to my collection
I did a similar test with myself after i got my budget system setup. I wanted to see if I could tell a difference between my CD's, Spotify, Qobuz and Tidal (Hi Fi, since my network player doesn't decode MQA). I pulled out 3 of my favorite CD'S..The Crusaders - Street Life, Sting - Nothing Like The Sun and Steely Dan - Aja. Comparing song for song and format to format, I can say that there was a difference. While there were differences in detail, they weren't night and day to me. The biggest difference to me was in tonality. Qubuz seemed to more detailed and on the bright side of the scale while Spotify was more warm and less detailed, but again, not a huge difference on my system.. With Tidal and my CD's being in the middle. For my tastes, I concluded that I still prefer the sound of my CD's overall and will continue to buy them as long as they exists. Also, I grew up with albums so having physical media is important to me.
Spotify is my daily driver when it comes to music listening. For me, It can't be beat for convenience and the ability to be introduced to new music that I won't hear on the radio. For now, I chose Tidal over Qobuz, simply because they have more music that I like. I use Tidal to augment my CD collection since the sound quality is very similar.
I say all of this to say that I don't think it's all in our minds but only IF you know what you are listening for and you know how you want your music to sound. Most of my friends are casual listeners so to them, my little system sounds great. But to an audiophile used to listening to high end equipment, my stereo probably sounds like garbage. I don't consider myself an audiophile or casual listener. I know how I want my music to sound but I'm not offended if it's not played on a "highly resolving" system, as my man Paul McGowan would say.
I agree with you Andrew that the only opinion that matters is your own. Just enjoy your music.
I enjoy your videos. Thank you.
Thanks for posting this. I have (on occasion) done CD to Vinyl on comparisons (on my own channel) and on certain albums in the past. I have always been careful about "Volume". CDs are always louder than Vinyl after I digitize them into my iTunes. and CD Remasters tend to always be louder than their previous release version. I always play the CD remaster a bit lower in volume when comparing it against it's earlier CD release in order to make sure if any improvement in the new version is just due to it being louder. Sometimes I find a difference even when the volume is even and sometimes I find no difference and realize it's just louder.
a) MQA is a lossy format. b) Many MQA "highres" files are just "doctored" 16/44 sourced.
c) "highrez" means that there are values more precise than 1:65536 (16bit = 2 power 16). The analog section of most DAC has not exactly good power transformer, so even 14bit (1:16384) might just do for most audio systems.
Most audiophiles hunt for the "better" and doing so ignore the good.
.
A well built DAC with a 16bit 44.2/48khz TDA1541 or TDA1545 etc. chip can sound very very musical and analog (Non-Oversampling!) and with a tube output stage just magical. I like CDs and downsample vinyl rips and dornload to 24/48khz - which my DAC output as 16/48.
Such a non-oversampling DAC with a tube amp and sensitive speakers can sound just so "right" that the question if there is something "better" out there becomes academic. Of course, there is, but who cares?!
Awesome episode Andrew! It was so interesting I was glued to it from beginning to end. One thing that I liked most about it was that it made me as a viewer sit down a sit down , and do some thinking. Which is always a good thing. Recently I ripped my whole CD collection into WAV files onto my computer. (1500+ CD's) I stream them via Bluetooth to my main listening system. I noticed that streaming the album I gained @ 3db, compared to playing the same album in CD format on my player. I have had some of my CD's for 30+ years, and some of them sound definitely richer, and higher sound quality streaming the WAV file. I have no idea why this is, I just roll with it, and enjoy the music! Love the bitPERFECT series!
I appreciate you watching.
The Audio industry has long been filled with a lot of gimmicks to grab your money. Hi Res Audio is just another in a long list.
Dolby Atmos is the newest gimmick. Alongside other competitors. They call it spatial audio. Some songs don't need it.
@@AndRewUK24 Zero songs need it, when you go to a concert and see a band. Some instruments might be to the left and others to the right. When was the last time a band flew over your head and landed behind you like a helicopter? I'm going to assume never. Stereo is the most accurate representation of real live music. They just want to sell computerized garbage.
In my music collecting I've found you look for the mix over the bit rate but often the high res audio has better mixes.
Thanks for putting out all those questions to us Andrew for consideration and discussion. One thing for sure is that hifi as it is today has become more political than an entertainment subject compared with times gone by, ie during our parents’ and grandparents’ hifi era. Average consumers today are being pulled in all directions. It does get confusing. But for me, asking the rights QUESTIONS appear to be the ANSWER, if I may put my few cent$ worth. Cheers!