Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Hi-Res Music Question (Read 6753 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Hi-Res Music Question

So, it's pretty clear high res music doesn't buy you anything, quality-wise.  But I am wondering whether additional digital cleanup is done to the source files to make them sound better than their lossy counterparts sold on iTunes, and that's what's deceiving people.  I posted my ABX results on this earlier, so I am just rehashing, so don't go flaming me.

I ripped my Phil Collins Face Value CD to FLAC 44.1/16, and then went and bought the album off hdtracks.com and downloaded a 192/24 copy.  The ABX test showed that I could hear a difference between the two, and I subjectively thought the 192/24 sounded "better."

Then one kind soul pointed out to me that this was not a valid ABX test, because the source files were mastered differently.  They gave me instructions on how to convert my 192/24 FLAC to a 44.1/16.  When I compared those two on the ABX test, I couldn't tell the difference.

So, I'm wondering if there is value in hi-res audio, because it may have been remastered and digitally enhanced to sound "better?"

Opinions?



Hi-Res Music Question

Reply #1 –
Provided it was properly level-matched, the ABX test was valid, it just isn't very useful in answering the question as to whether the difference was due to the differences in resolution.

Anyway with old recordings like that you can't even be sure the digitization came from the same analog master tape.

Even if the same digital master was used to create both versions (highly doubtful with an album released three decades ago), cleanup  doesn't adequately describe the differences in processing (IMO), which usually involves equalization and the application of additional dynamic range compression.  In many instances this processing isn't exactly subtle.

Hi-Res Music Question

Reply #2 –
It's somehow ironic how HD tracks are being advertised as better sounding because of higher resolution/sampling rate, even though they're just mastered without butchering the music. Does not apply to all HD albums though.

Hi-Res Music Question

Reply #3 –
Quote from: ChronoSphere on
It's somehow ironic how HD tracks are being advertised as better sounding because of higher resolution/sampling rate, even though they're just mastered without butchering the music. Does not apply to all HD albums though.


Well, the problem the record industry faces is, they've always been able to sell you the same music in a new format.  CDs made the industry a TON of money.  The advent of digital music has, for the first time, allowed consumers to create their own format without significant or really any loss of quality.  So, everyone took their CDs and ripped them down to MP3 (or FLAC) and were happy.

In an attempt to combat  this, the SACD and DVD-A was invented, but it never really caught on.  DVD-A dragged it's heals because of constant attempts to make the DRM unbreakable.  They were claiming the audio was as good as a studio master and could be used to pirate mass copies of these recordings.  Never mind the fact that you can just copy a CD.

So then the digitally remastered train happened.  Old albums got converted to digital and were cleaned up to make them sound better.  And for some albums there was a definite improvement.  For others, it was a train wreck.

Well, that ship has sailed, and there's really not much more they can do to get you to buy the same music you had over again.  But they want to make money, so they need to find a way.

Along comes high res music.  The same stuff you own, but now BETTER?, cause it's "high res."  TV was better when it went high res,  Music will be too.

Unlike electronics and appliances, you can't force obsolete music anymore by having it break.  You could do that in the analog age, because things like reel to reel tapes and 8 track tapes couldn't be played when they stopped making that kind of hardware.  But I expect FLACs to be around for the next 100 years easily if not longer.  Thee's no HARDWARE needed to play these things.  It's now all software.



Hi-Res Music Question

Reply #4 –
Quote from: apastuszak on
I expect FLACs to be around for the next 100 years easily if not longer.
That's a brave statement. Those of us who want to own our own copy of a piece of music are already looking rather old fashioned.


Do you own your own well? Or do you just use the water that's available on tap?

Cheers,
David.

Hi-Res Music Question

Reply #5 –
Quote from: 2Bdecided on
Quote from: apastuszak on
I expect FLACs to be around for the next 100 years easily if not longer.
That's a brave statement. Those of us who want to own our own copy of a piece of music are already looking rather old fashioned.


Do you own your own well? Or do you just use the water that's available on tap?

Cheers,
David.


If I could get a well drilled where I live, I would.  Sadly, well drilling is not an option where I live.

Whether or not new music 100 years from now will be available for purchase can be debated, but I am pretty sure that that the FLACs I already own are still going to be playable in 100 years.  The same can't be said for 8-track and reel to reel tapes.

Hi-Res Music Question

Reply #6 –
Quote from: apastuszak on
CDs made the industry a TON of money.  The advent of digital music has, for the first time, allowed consumers to create their own format without significant or really any loss of quality.

Almost two decades had passed before the average Joe could take a CD and make mp3s from it.

Quote from: apastuszak on
So then the digitally remastered train happened.

The digitally remastered train happened as more and more titles became available on CD, in the mid-to-late '80s.

The quest to make discs louder began in the early '90s.  By the early '00s this had pretty well been perfected, to the dismay of anyone who liked dynamic range.  As a commercially available format, SACD and DVD-A were in their infancy at this time.

Quote from: apastuszak on
Old albums got converted to digital and were cleaned up to make them sound better.  And for some albums there was a definite improvement.  For others, it was a train wreck.

I have a feeling that the proportion of old albums that were remastered a second or third time, by this time, that didn't trend toward "train wreck" was fairly small.

Quote from: apastuszak on
Along comes high res music.

That happened at the time people could buy SACD and DVD-A.  I think you're actually talking about hi-res downloads.

The hi-res vs. CD debate has raged for over a decade now.

Hi-Res Music Question

Reply #7 –
Quote from: greynol on
The digitally remastered train happened as more and more titles became available on CD, in the mid-to-late '80s.


It started there.  Disc that had already been digitally remasters have been remastered more than once.  Rush, a band I am very fond off, is on their third set of remasters now.  Other bands have remastered mulitple times, such as The Kinks.

Quote from: greynol on
That happened at the time people could buy SACD and DVD-A.  I think you're actually talking about hi-res downloads.

The hi-res vs. CD debate has raged for over a decade now.


You are correct.  Hi-res downloads.  Hi-res music has been around for a little while.

The big plus to me when it comes to SACD and DVD-A is not the quality of the music, it's the availability of 5.1 and rerelease of older 4.1 mixes.  I bought Day of Future Past by the Moody Blues, A Night At The Opera by Queen, and On Air by Alan Parsons as DTS CDs and quite enjoyed them.

Hi-Res Music Question

Reply #9 –
Quote from: greynol on
Right. That's the direction in which most people here wished technology had gone; not the needless bloat in data used for placebophile bragging rights.


Could not agree more.  Multi-channel music actually brought something to the table beyond what a CD offered.

I wonder if the digital trend and the advent of good consumer level headphones killed off the idea of surround music.

Hi-Res Music Question

Reply #10 –
I remember there were surround systems in the eighties too, and before that there were some "quadrophonic" mixes. But it didn't catch on for music, only (and only later) for movies. And I can certainly understand why; those multi-channel audio demonstrations I heard, sounded very artificial. Eric Clapton does not have three meters between his fretboard and his guitar pick. Evidently a lot of music is simply not recorded in multichannel, and would require a completely new production.

Besides I think there is a design flaw when all speakers are ear-level. No hight dimension.


Quote from: apastuszak on
So, I'm wondering if there is value in hi-res audio, because it may have been remastered and digitally enhanced to sound "better?"


Others have given their opinions. I would be inclined to think that some hi-rez files are not remastered (i.e. have not been butchered in the loudness war).


I assume you compared the 192/24 to the downconverted one, not to the CD. Then no difference is the expected result. But in fact, there may be more distortion from the hi-rez. Not in the file itself, but because your equipment needs to do a harder job reproducing ultrasonics. Even though you cannot hear the ultrasonics, you might in principle hear the distortion (and in extreme cases it will patently be audible - imagine that you are just about to burn your tweeter with signals you cannot hear).

Hi-Res Music Question

Reply #11 –
Quote from: Porcus on
Evidently a lot of music is simply not recorded in multichannel, and would require a completely new production.


That is not an issue if you only listen to "Dark Side Of The Moon"

Hi-Res Music Question

Reply #12 –
Quote from: apastuszak on
Hi-res music has been around for a little while.

The 20th anniversary of HDCD is next year:
Quote
HDCD (High Definition Compatible Digital) is a digital encoding and decoding process for compact disc and DVD audio recording. The HDCD process manages to encode 20 bits of audio information into a conventional CD 16-bit channel, yielding a greater dynamic range and a more true-to-life sound when decoded. HDCD was developed by Keith Johnson and Pflash Pflaumer between 1986 and 1991, and made publicly available in 1995. Johnson and Pflaumer went on to found Pacific Microsonics, which was later acquired by Microsoft. Since 1995, more than 5,000 HDCD recordings have been released and more than 175 of those have been nominated for GRAMMY awards. An article in Wired Magazine hailed HDCD technology as "the greatest single advance in digital reproduction to date."

Hi-Res Music Question

Reply #13 –
Quote
yielding a greater dynamic range and a more true-to-life sound when decoded
how often was a "greater dynamic range" potential realized? It is so silly a claim with the way so much mastering is done.

Hi-Res Music Question

Reply #14 –
Quote from: AndyH-ha on
Quote
yielding a greater dynamic range and a more true-to-life sound when decoded
how often was a "greater dynamic range" potential realized? It is so silly a claim with the way so much mastering is done.


well, for some HDCDs, you definitely get greater dynamic range from the decoded version, than the nondecoded version...of the HDCD.   

In other words, they crippled the audio, then gave you a way to uncripple it...for a price of an HDCD-decoding CD player.

(Though these are 'free'  now as software..and HDCD is all but dead)

They really expect us never to question such shenanigans.

Hi-Res Music Question

Reply #15 –
Quote from: Porcus on
I remember there were surround systems in the eighties too, and before that there were some "quadrophonic" mixes. But it didn't catch on for music, only (and only later) for movies. And I can certainly understand why; those multi-channel audio demonstrations I heard, sounded very artificial. Eric Clapton does not have three meters between his fretboard and his guitar pick. Evidently a lot of music is simply not recorded in multichannel, and would require a completely new production.


Emphasis mine. You mean *mixed* -- most music is recorded with enough separate tracks that it  could be mixed to >2 channels  too.

Quote
Besides I think there is a design flaw when all speakers are ear-level. No hight dimension.


Actually there is a height channel now is some multichannel formats.

But surely 2channel suffers from a lack of 'height dimension' too, as well as other fundamental issues that are addressed in multichannel.

 

Hi-Res Music Question

Reply #16 –
Quote from: Porcus on
Eric Clapton does not have three meters between his fretboard and his guitar pick.

No, but there may be several meters of cable running from his guitar and microphone to various places.