# How much extra would you pay for hi-res vs. CD quality music files?



## N Fowleri (5 mo ago)

There is still controversy over the benefits of hi-res audio (24/88, 24/96, or above.) There are limited valid studies of whether people can tell the difference. It is my understanding that the best studies show that SOME people can tell the difference, with training, up to 60% of the time, keeping in mind that 50% of the time would be random chance. Still, that indicates it isn't complete fantasy like some things in the world of audiophile expenditures.

I personally am willing to pay a little extra for hi-res audio, with the understanding that I might be wasting the supplemental amount.

Please note that this poll is NOT about compression (ie. MP3s) vs. lossless (ie. FLAC) CD-quality, also referred to as red book.

Also, if you prefer DSD, please read the question to include whichever level of DSD for which you are willing to spend extra (ie. DSD64, DSD128, DSD256)

Edit: Clarification: Although surround sound is another interesting question, this poll is only addressing 2-channel stereo.


----------



## HenryPenfold (Apr 29, 2018)

I voted 25%, because that is effectively what I do. I

I will confess to not being able to tell the difference most of the time. I think placebos were invented for people like me!

The original recording quality is far more important than anything else. 

One of my all time favourite rock recordings is my AAD cd of Talk Talk's 'Colour Of Spring' just as good as the original vinyl (well nearly as good!).

My hearing is not great these days, too high volume with headphones down the years and ridiculously loud gigs - Black Sabbath, Ted Nugent and Deep Purple spring to mind, couldn't hear for days after those gigs.... so Hi-Res is probably wasted on me anyway.......


----------



## N Fowleri (5 mo ago)

[QUOTE="HenryPenfold, post: 2349391, member: 50684"
The original recording quality is far more important than anything else.
[/QUOTE]

Yes, even audiophiles will generally agree that the original recording quality and then the mastering/remastering matter far more than hi-res, in itself. Then, there is the idea that labels will do a better job of mastering when they are selling hi-res versions, but this is less of a factor now, because nearly all the classical labels are trying to sell hi-res versions of all of their new release, at the very least.


----------



## HenryPenfold (Apr 29, 2018)

N Fowleri said:


> [QUOTE="HenryPenfold, post: 2349391, member: 50684"
> The original recording quality is far more important than anything else.


 nearly all the classical labels are trying to sell hi-res versions of all of their new release, at the very least.
[/QUOTE]
And their back-catalogue - can we even begin to imagine how many times Beatles albums have been sold and resold?


----------



## N Fowleri (5 mo ago)

HenryPenfold said:


> nearly all the classical labels are trying to sell hi-res versions of all of their new release, at the very least.


And their back-catalogue - can we even begin to imagine how many times Beatles albums have been sold and resold?
[/QUOTE]
I was mainly thinking of classical, but, you are very correct. With both classical and other genres, it is also happening that some remasters are worse than the original masters or previous remasters. In popular music, songs are often remastered to be louder with less dynamic range. Ugh.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

If I were young and my ears were what they once were, maybe something. But I voted Less Than Nothing because to be really honest, at my age it's impossible to hear a difference. There is none. I can perceive a difference with SACD vs. RBCD with some well-engineered recordings using a high end headphone set up, but even that's becoming a non-issue. If you can actually hear a value in hi rez then I'm happy for you.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

HenryPenfold said:


> I voted 25%, because that is effectively what I do. I
> 
> I will confess to not being able to tell the difference most of the time. I think placebos were invented for people like me!


I'm interested in this, because I'm about to purchase a download of Brahms' piano sonatas and Beethoven's cello sonatas. I can see needing the high resolution with orchestral works with a lot of parts needing clarity, but with something lke a solo piano, would hi-res would make that much of a difference over CD-quality?


----------



## N Fowleri (5 mo ago)

Manxfeeder said:


> I'm interested in this, because I'm about to purchase a download of Brahms' piano sonatas and Beethoven's cello sonatas. I can see needing the high resolution with orchestral works with a lot of parts needing clarity, but with something lke a solo piano, would hi-res would make that much of a difference over CD-quality?


 I debated adding an option, "Yes, but only for some types of music."


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

I'm 65 and my hearing while OK for my age is of course not as good as it was. I never did tests with "hi-res vs. CD quality", but I'm sure I would fail (I tried FLAC versus 320kbps MP3 in a blind test, and could hear no difference). So there is no need to pay more for something I most likely can't hear anyway.


----------



## HenryPenfold (Apr 29, 2018)

Manxfeeder said:


> I'm interested in this, because I'm about to purchase a download of Brahms' piano sonatas and Beethoven's cello sonatas. I can see needing the high resolution with orchestral works with a lot of parts needing clarity, but with something lke a solo piano, would hi-res would make that much of a difference over CD-quality?


You're asking the wrong person!


----------



## Bwv 1080 (Dec 31, 2018)

Idagio does lossless for $10/mo, same price as Spotify so what more do you need?


----------



## N Fowleri (5 mo ago)

Bwv 1080 said:


> Idagio does lossless for $10/mo, same price as Spotify so what more do you need?


Yes, both with downloads and streaming, the price of hi-res is sometimes the same as CD-quality. The question remains for those cases when one must pay extra for hi-res, do people feel it is worthwhile to do so? It is also important to note that no streaming service has every recording and that some streaming service might have more or fewer recordings in hi-res.


----------



## NoCoPilot (Nov 9, 2020)

Art Rock said:


> I'm 65 and my hearing while OK for my age is of course not as good as it was. I never did tests with "hi-res vs. CD quality", but I'm sure I would fail ...


I'm 68 and I think my hearing's pretty good. I actually HAVE done extensive A-B tests and I can't hear any difference. Either it's a titanic marketing gimmick aimed at the rubes, or the differences are beyond my hearing. 

Either way I voted nein danke.

Plus, as N Fowleri pointed out, unless the recording was originally made in hi-res you're not gonna get something that was never there to begin with.


----------



## Floeddie (8 mo ago)

Presto Music has been offering FLAC downloads for less than their 320 kpbs pricing, so I bit. Presto's download bandwidth rate is tediously slow, I was at it for 11 hours. I have a 150 mbps cap on my high speed internet, and I see downloads from other sources at up to 20 mpbs, Presto typically ran at 1-3 mbps. I was saving $0.25/download, I had purchased 31 downloads, and you can't batch download from Presto. It was one click at a time.

Further, one can fill a 1TB hard drive quite quickly with FLAC files, and my ears are just not that good. I even have a slight amount of tinnitus in my left ear, as a result from playing live drums to Rock/Prog/Jazz. So because I hear no value in FLACs vs mp3/m4a, I used MusicBee, a free public domain PC music library manager I downloaded on the net to compress the FLAC files I got back down to 320 kpbs with no perceptible loss in sound quality. I recovered 75% of my hard drive space in a very short amount of time. I have a currently upgraded custom PC that I put to use a few months ago.

MusicBee is neat!

Downloads


----------



## Floeddie (8 mo ago)

Bwv 1080 said:


> Idagio does lossless for $10/mo, same price as Spotify so what more do you need?


Some of us want to own because streaming services pull individual items from their offering without notice, the offering disappearing in the night as a result. I don't even buy CD's any more, but I have 4 backups of my digital collection.


----------



## AndorFoldes (Aug 25, 2012)

HenryPenfold said:


> The original recording quality is far more important than anything else.


Amen.



NoCoPilot said:


> Either it's a titanic marketing gimmick aimed at the rubes


Yes! It's aimed at people who are willing to spend a lot of money on their hobby.

I don't pay for downloads/streaming, so for me the question is hypothetical. But if it was the same mastering just downsampled to CD resolution, I wouldn't pay more for it.


----------



## NoCoPilot (Nov 9, 2020)

Floeddie said:


> I have a 150 mbps cap on my high speed internet


Wait, what? That's not "high-speed internet." That's what I got in 1980 with dial-up.

These days I have gigabit speeds and that sometimes seems slow.


----------



## Floeddie (8 mo ago)

NoCoPilot said:


> Wait, what? That's not "high-speed internet." That's what I got in 1980 with dial-up.
> 
> These days I have gigabit speeds and that sometimes seems slow.


10 -20 Megabytes per second. You never got that with dial up, that is not 56kbps. Gigabyte is a lot of hype. Yes, your ISP will do it, but the sending end will not. When the rest of the world starts sending at Gigabyte speed I will consider it. You are buying fluff. I've been watching my DL speeds since 1980 as well. Back off.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

mbhaub said:


> If I were young and my ears were what they once were, maybe something. But I voted Less Than Nothing because to be really honest, at my age it's impossible to hear a difference. There is none. I can perceive a difference with SACD vs. RBCD with some well-engineered recordings using a high end headphone set up, but even that's becoming a non-issue. If you can actually hear a value in hi rez then I'm happy for you.


Thanks mbhaub, you saved me a long-winded explanation. ^ what he said.


----------



## Hogwash (5 mo ago)

HenryPenfold said:


> The original recording quality is far more important than anything else.
> 
> 
> My hearing is not great these days, too high volume with headphones down the years and ridiculously loud gigs - Black Sabbath, Ted Nugent and Deep Purple spring to mind, couldn't hear for days after those gigs.... so Hi-Res is probably wasted on me anyway.......


I agree that recording quality is more important than bitrate up to a point. When I listen to stuff below 128 (like 64 or 32 bits) the audio quality tends to suffer dramatically.

That being said I voted for "nothing but would select hi res if given the choice." I'm still waiting on Spotify to deliver hi res. 

And, finally, my ears bled for three days after hearing Metallica in concert. Should have sued them for hearing loss at around the same time they sued their own fans for downloading their music. I can hear the difference between CD and MP3 quality but not so much when stepping up from CD to SACD and FLAC. Maybe I need better speakers?


----------



## progmatist (Apr 3, 2021)

What I find obscene and absurd is HDTracks charging $35 or $40 for a Pink Floyd Hi-Res download. The same price as the vinyl reissue. The price is justifiable for the vinyl record because vinyl is expensive to produce these days. Vinyl presses were commonplace in the 70s and 80s. Most were scrapped when vinyl fell out of favor. The few that remain have become rare and valuable commodities. Some major labels seem to believe the vinyl price is just what music costs now. Not taking into account how much less it costs to distribute Hi-Res files.


----------



## Kiki (Aug 15, 2018)

The higher resolution of high-res never appealed to me, because I do not believe I can hear beyond human's hearing range, therefore I will not pay extra to get high-res.

However, I do have a lot of high-res recordings, simply because they were cheaper than their corresponding CDs when I bought them.

Also when something is only available on BD, of course the audio ripped from it will be high-res.

For hybrid SACD, why rip the Red Book layer when I can rip the Scarlet Book layer, right? 

You see, different lights will light up on the DAC when high-res is fed to it. That's satisfaction... but this is at best a weird bonus, never a deciding factor to get high-res.

Oh, but there are other factors that determine what format I would buy, e.g. presence of recording data/libretto, or if it is a pre-2010-ish BIS recording better avoid download of any resolution.


----------



## N Fowleri (5 mo ago)

progmatist said:


> What I find obscene and absurd is HDTracks charging $35 or $40 for a Pink Floyd Hi-Res download. The same price as the vinyl reissue. The price is justifiable for the vinyl record because vinyl is expensive to produce these days. Vinyl presses were commonplace in the 70s and 80s. Most were scrapped when vinyl fell out of favor. The few that remain have become rare and valuable commodities. Some major labels seem to believe the vinyl price is just what music costs now. Not taking into account how much less it costs to distribute Hi-Res files.


Although the poll is meant to see how people feel about hi-res audio at any premium over CD-quality, I will say that hdtracks.com is just an over-priced place. PrestoMusic.com, Qobuz.com, 7digital.com, and eclassical.com all tend to have better prices on hi-res (and cd quality). Between them, which has the lowest price, sometimes by a large margin, will vary from one album to the next.

Of course, then there are the streaming services that are beginning to offer hi-res for no premium...


----------



## progmatist (Apr 3, 2021)

NoCoPilot said:


> I'm 68 and I think my hearing's pretty good. I actually HAVE done extensive A-B tests and I can't hear any difference. Either it's a titanic marketing gimmick aimed at the rubes, or the differences are beyond my hearing.


As I stated in another thread, most people can't hear the difference. In the same way, and for the same reason most people can't hear the individual notes in a chord. The way most young people could never qualify as a naval Sonar Technician. Because they can't hear the subtle difference between the various tones. Before investing a single dollar training new Sonar Techs, the US Navy will thoroughly test candidates' hearing. To ensure they can in fact distinguish the subtleties. One of my own A School classmates was originally slated to be a Sonar Tech, but failed the hearing test. He instead trained as an Avionics Tech.

Everyone who joins the armed forces can "hear" just fine. A hearing impairment would disqualify anyone military service. The test given to prospective Sonar Techs is an entirely different kind of test. BTW: one of my uncles was a Sonar Tech in the Navy. I have a family history of being able to hear subtleties most people can't. My younger brother has a slight impairment which disqualified him from joining the military in the mid 80s. He can hear the difference in Hi-Res to this day.


----------



## N Fowleri (5 mo ago)

Kiki said:


> Oh, but there are other factors that determine what format I would buy, e.g. presence of recording data/libretto, or if it is a pre-2010-ish BIS recording better avoid download of any resolution.


I haven't had any problems with pre-2010 BIS recordings or downloads of them. I tend to get them from BIS's own subsidiary shop: eclassical.com. Eclassical.com guarantees satisfaction or your money back.


----------



## Kiki (Aug 15, 2018)

N Fowleri said:


> I haven't had any problems with pre-2010 BIS recordings or downloads of them. I tend to get them from BIS's own subsidiary shop: eclassical.com. Eclassical.com guarantees satisfaction or your money back.


I should have been clearer on what I meant. BIS infamously hanged on to pre-emphasis coding well into the 1990s. When they sell some, if not all, of those recordings as downloads, they kept the pre-emphasis coding in the FLACs, which is wrong because, unlike CD and LP, digital files are not supposed to have pre-emphasis coding. One will have to manually de-emphasize the FLACs, otherwise they will sound brighter than they should.

Edit: Well into the 1990s definitely. Not too sure why I thought this century.


----------



## bharbeke (Mar 4, 2013)

I am regularly worried about whether there will be a fire engine siren or landscaping machine going on in the background, so I am not as concerned with the subtleties of the best sound quality in the music I buy.


----------



## Floeddie (8 mo ago)

I use MusicBee to listen to my digital music because it has a 15 wavelength adjustable setting equalizer in it, and it helps a lot. It isn't a sophisticated sound engineer level program, so I cannot mix to resolve quality issues. The source material is the source material, so I do what I can. I also use headphones and/or earbuds depending which works better for the genre in general. CM works better with my Sony headphones. I have a decent stereo system that gets used with my HD now and then. It is 2 channel sound.


----------



## N Fowleri (5 mo ago)

Kiki said:


> I should have been clearer on what I meant. BIS infamously hanged on to pre-emphasis coding well into the 1990s. When they sell some, if not all, of those recordings as downloads, they kept the pre-emphasis coding in the FLACs, which is wrong because, unlike CD and LP, digital files are not supposed to have pre-emphasis coding. One will have to manually de-emphasize the FLACs, otherwise they will sound brighter than they should.
> 
> Edit: Well into the 1990s definitely. Not too sure why I thought this century.


For any given FLAC file, how would I know whether it has this pre-emphasis coding or is just bright? (I am on a Mac, btw.) Thanks!


----------



## jegreenwood (Dec 25, 2015)

I voted up to 25%, and that only sometimes. I would rarely pay 25% more these days. Most of my high end purchases in recent years have been remasters by audiophile, few of which are classical. My Miles Davis hi-rez collection is the largest by a single artist, and I treasure my MFSL Sinatra discs, among others.


----------



## Kiki (Aug 15, 2018)

N Fowleri said:


> For any given FLAC file, how would I know whether it has this pre-emphasis coding or is just bright? (I am on a Mac, btw.) Thanks!


That's the problem - one cannot tell if a FLAC is pre-emphasis coded. All one has got is a file with pushed treble.

A fellow TC member once has got a BIS FLAC download, thought it sounded too bright, suspected it was pre-emphasis coded but there was NO way he could tell; so he also bought the CD to prove it - that FLAC was indeed pre-emphasis coded, which should not have happened. (link)


----------



## NoCoPilot (Nov 9, 2020)

progmatist said:


> What I find obscene and absurd is HDTracks charging $35 or $40 for a Pink Floyd Hi-Res download. The same price as the vinyl reissue. The price is justifiable for the vinyl record because vinyl is expensive to produce these days.


That is freakin' NUTS for a download. The cost of distribution is $zero, the cost of production is $zero, the value after downloading is $zero. It's not only obscene and absurd, it's highway robbery.


----------



## advokat (Aug 16, 2020)

When I got my first A&K player I downloaded about 20 CM DSD files (256 and, when not available, 128-bit rate). Firstly, I cannot really tell the difference between DSD files of different bitrates. Thus the strategic decision not to upgrade to the latest generation of A&Ks that handles 512 bitrate files. Secondly, I can tell the difference between FLACs and DSDs, at least about 60% of the time. However, to discern the (not crucial) difference one must have a dedicated headphone amplifier and a tolerably decent pair of cans. In my case, the first position was filled with Graham Slee Solo Ultra Linear Diamond edition. Despite its ugly marketing name, it is a fine piece of British artisanal electronics. The second position was supplied by Audeze cans. The sound quality was better, but it rather defeated the primary purpose of A&Ks - to provide an ample portable library of decent quality when travelling. And the last point, portability, ruled out in the end the purchase of more DSD files. They are too large, and fill the HD and the CD card of the player too fast. I prefer to have a greater selection of red book files over a much reduced collection of DSD files, with the sound benefits undetectable when on the run and without access to the amplifier and large cans. I somehow never got to the point of listening to DSD files on my home systems. CDs do just fine. I prefer to invest in a better system rather than in supposedly better files.


----------



## AlexD (Nov 6, 2011)

It is the same recording costs, as a CD would cost in a recording studio.

The manufacturing and distrbution cost is smaller - there's no CD to be made and distributed around the world and no booklet to be printed. In addition, I need a piece of kit so that my amp can play the piece of music to get the benefit of hi-res. 

I also have to have somewhere to store the music, and a back-up too. Storage costs money. Most of my CDs that are 30 years old still play perfecty well on my new kit. I also need to pay a monthly sub to a broadband provider to access my music and buy from the store. Record stores do not charge an entrance fee, whereas digital stores do.

I don't have a hard drive, floppy disc or file on my coomputer that is more than 30 years old. The formats change, as does the medium. 

I can read the essays I wrote by hand in the first years of my University degree, I can't read the files from my last year, because they are in an old legacy format that 21st Cenury computer cannot read. The Prince CD I bought in the same year still plays

In my experience, a lot of digital downlaods etc are ephemeral. They don't last - so why should I pay more?


----------



## OCEANE (10 mo ago)

advokat said:


> When I got my first A&K player I downloaded about 20 CM DSD files (256 and, when not available, 128-bit rate). Firstly, I cannot really tell the difference between DSD files of different bitrates. Thus the strategic decision not to upgrade to the latest generation of A&Ks that handles 512 bitrate files. Secondly, I can tell the difference between FLACs and DSDs, at least about 60% of the time. However, to discern the (not crucial) difference one must have a dedicated headphone amplifier and a tolerably decent pair of cans. In my case, the first position was filled with Graham Slee Solo Ultra Linear Diamond edition. Despite its ugly marketing name, it is a fine piece of British artisanal electronics. The second position was supplied by Audeze cans. The sound quality was better, but it rather defeated the primary purpose of A&Ks - to provide an ample portable library of decent quality when travelling. And the last point, portability, ruled out in the end the purchase of more DSD files. They are too large, and fill the HD and the CD card of the player too fast. I prefer to have a greater selection of red book files over a much reduced collection of DSD files, with the sound benefits undetectable when on the run and without access to the amplifier and large cans. I somehow never got to the point of listening to DSD files on my home systems. CDs do just fine. I prefer to invest in a better system rather than in supposedly better files.


Thanks for sharing and I share your views.

IMHO, unlike Blu-ray vs DVD that we could easily tell the resolution differences by a mid-high quality TV, the sonic qualities could be relatively difficult to judge and a dedicated audio system from-source-to-speakers/headphones may be essential. 

Like advokat, I have similar experience about FLAC & DSD listening through dedicated headphones (T1 2nd Gen & Denon 9200) & audio setup. There is noticeable difference but not very significant (a bit wider sound image, clearer tones & more dynamic, etc). Such "a bit better sonic quality" does not affect my appreciation of music content and the standard of sound quality is really a personal preference. Having said that, if possible, I would prefer a better sonic quality for those music I love.


----------



## NoCoPilot (Nov 9, 2020)

advokat said:


> The sound quality was better, but it rather defeated the primary purpose of A&Ks


And I suspect, you wouldn't really notice the difference unless you were comparing them, side-by-side?


----------



## OCEANE (10 mo ago)

Agreed, very often the differences of sonic quality are only noticeable when comparing side by side.


----------



## advokat (Aug 16, 2020)

NoCoPilot said:


> And I suspect you wouldn't really notice the difference unless you were comparing them, side-by-side?


Well, I did not compare them side by side, but the discs that I bought were clearly of a different quality. Now, I suspect that many of the modern DSD files that from the outset were meant to be commercially available are simply recorded with more care than ordinary CDs. However, there is no doubt that there is an additional level of detail. How important it is for each CM work is another matter. I have given the process some thought and decided that the trade-off between a higher detalisation and the huge size of DSD files is simply not worth it - after all, ordinary CDs, on a good system, are pretty good. The one thing that I do is when Presto offers a choice between, FLAC and higher quality FLAC I opt for the latter, especially if there is no great difference in price. At least I do it for orchestral music, and especially for baroque works where a clear detalisation of the high pitch playing is essential. It is not so important for piano solo works, of course.


----------



## Caroline (Oct 27, 2018)

Whether  I purchase FLAC or Hi-Res depends largely on the quality and remastering of the original recording. Otherwise - most Hi-Res files do not have an advantage in sound quality. This is based on the quality of my phones and equipment. The Hi-Res player generally doesn't warrant extra money. I tend to think these are a marketing gimmick and an opportunity for labels to increase revenue. 

What I have found well worth the additional expense are remasterings of works that were well recorded prior to the digital age. One example is Alexandre Bak (Classical Reference Recordings). Some of his work is available in FLAC only or Hi-Res. The FLACs are noticeably better than other remasterings. I can't comment on mono vs stereo recordings as I don't own any mono.


----------



## thejewk (Sep 13, 2020)

FLAC is more than enough for me, and I encode my CDs in that format now because hard drive space is less of a cost issue nowadays, and if I want to create CDs from them in the future nothing is lost. That said, I have no issue with 320k MP3s. Anything lower than that and I can end up distracted by unpleasant warble in the treble regions, particularly in percussion.

As for 'Hi Res', I detect no difference compared to CD quality whatsoever, even with blind tests using good quality headphones. Therefore I would not pay anything extra for larger file sizes with no perceivable benefit to me.


----------



## NoCoPilot (Nov 9, 2020)

AlexD said:


> In my experience, a lot of digital downlaods etc are ephemeral. They don't last - so why should I pay more?


This raises a point I mentioned in passing a minute ago: you cannot _*legally*_ sell a download to somebody else. A CD or DVD can be sold by your heirs once you pass away. Your downloads cannot.

Does it make any difference to you, the listener, to have a collection that is WORTHLESS once you die?


----------



## Caroline (Oct 27, 2018)

thejewk said:


> I encode my CDs in that format now because hard drive space is less of a cost issue nowadays, and if I want to create CDs from them in the future nothing is lost.


Same here. May I ask what file format you convert to? I convert to AIFF-C (Mac user) - which are huge files. I would appreciate knowing if there are options for audio CDs to maintain FLAC quality. I do hear the difference between mp3 and FLAC (still )


----------



## NoCoPilot (Nov 9, 2020)

AlexD said:


> It is the same recording costs, as a CD would cost in a recording studio.


_COULD_ be, but probably not.

Most "hi-res downloads" are simply dubbed from existing CDs and upsampled－so no actual recording costs at all. Even if they're new recordings, from a 96/24 master, the recording cost will be shared because the same master will be downsampled for CD release.
And very few people can tell the difference in a blind listening test.

And you need a state-of-the-art stereo system to play them on, or you're not getting the full experience.


> Audiophiles have eagerly embraced High-Resolution Audio formats, but many have not experienced the full capabilities of these new formats. They would do well to focus on acquiring playback equipment with true high-resolution performance. 24-bit audio provides no benefit if the power amplifier can only deliver 17-bit (103 dB) signal to noise ratios. Likewise, high sample rates are useless when played through speakers having an 18 kHz top end.











What High-Resolution Audio is NOT


by John Siau The music industry is struggling to define High-Resolution Audio or "HRA". In doing so, most have focused on the delivery formats - analog vs. digital, 24-bits vs. 16-bits, 1X vs. 2X and 4X sample rates, PCM vs. DSD, uncompressed vs. compressed. But, High-Resolution Audio is much...




benchmarkmedia.com













Led Zeppelin Remasters in HD


Wow... how do I objectively and fairly tackle reviews of these HDTracks downloads of the remastered original run of Led Zeppelin albums? I mean, here I am a fairly decent fan of the band from ea...




audiophilereview.com




Hi-res recording did not exist in 1969.


----------



## N Fowleri (5 mo ago)

Caroline said:


> Same here. May I ask what file format you convert to? I convert to AIFF-C (Mac user) - which are huge files. I would appreciate knowing if there are options for audio CDs to maintain FLAC quality. I do hear the difference between mp3 and FLAC (still )


The Apple equivalent of FLAC lossless is ALAC. As far as I know, there aren't any issues with ALAC. One can listen to ALAC on non-Apple devices. One can convert it back to AIFF-C or FLAC. XLD is a great freeware application that can convert files between formats quickly and easily on a Mac.


----------



## Caroline (Oct 27, 2018)

N Fowleri said:


> Once can convert it back to AIFF-C or FLAC


Thanks. Another good file converter for the Mac platform is Tunesify. I think audio CD format is only AIFF...?


----------



## N Fowleri (5 mo ago)

Caroline said:


> Thanks. Another good file converter for the Mac platform is Tunesify. I think audio CD format is only AIFF...?


I have not heard of Tunesify, but thanks for the tip. I am not an expert, but, yes, CD files are AIFF files at 16/44.1 quality, as far as I know. However, you can have AIFF at hi-res too, such as 24/96.


----------



## Abstract Landscape (Jun 24, 2014)

Manxfeeder said:


> I'm interested in this, because I'm about to purchase a download of Brahms' piano sonatas and Beethoven's cello sonatas. I can see needing the high resolution with orchestral works with a lot of parts needing clarity, but with something lke a solo piano, would hi-res would make that much of a difference over CD-quality?



_Original recording quality, and your stereo playback quality_ would be my ways to approach the decision on what to buy, Hi Res or red book/CD. A re-release, "new" hi res version of an old average recording doesn't impress me. A recording made with a sound technicians' craft at the highest level, working with great equipment and the end goal of a hi res playback, that's good stuff.

I purchased the hi res downloads of Steven Isserlis Bach Cello Suites from Hyperion.
The difference in sound quality has probably to do with my stereo playback. Sounds best on my main stereo rig. I would venture a guess that the red book cd quality would be fine, and that I could tell but wouldn't mind the difference. 

I also purchased the hi res download of Renaud Capucon and the O. Lausanne Arvo Part Tabula Rasa. 
(Note, the hi res 24/96 is only $2 more than red book quality at Presto.)








Arvo Pärt: Tabula Rasa


Arvo Pärt: Tabula Rasa. Erato: 9029502957. Buy CD or download online. Renaud Capuçon (violin), Orchestre de chambre de Lausanne



www.prestomusic.com





I also have the Arvo Part ECM Kremer from 2010. I read now, that was a DDD recording and mastering. 

The playback sound quality of the Capucon is far better than the ECM. Night and day. I still listen to both, as I enjoy both, different performances. The new Capucon Arvo Part makes for a great listening session, one worthy of sipping on a delicious beverage in a good chair while listenting as if one were at a concert. 

Original recording quality is the main difference. Excellent micorphones, soundstage, all comes through in the end output. I think this holds true for solo work almost as much as orchesteral works. The room sound, the mic on the solo instrument, the quality of the instrument become the spotlighted elements. 

I suggest finding the details on the recordings, and stream samples to see if you can tell if the original sound recordings are of a quality that make it worth it on a case by case basis. 

Enjoy the listening!


----------



## NoCoPilot (Nov 9, 2020)

N Fowleri said:


> I am not an expert, but, yes, CD files are AIFF files at 16/44.1 quality, as far as I know.


Actually CDs contain files in the .CDA format (CD Audio). AIFF is Apple's propriety format -- lossless but condensed from WAV.


----------



## N Fowleri (5 mo ago)

NoCoPilot said:


> Actually CDs contain files in the .CDA format (CD Audio). AIFF is Apple's propriety format -- lossless but condensed from WAV.


I believe you, but it's odd because the files appear as .aiff when I open up a standard audio CD on my Mac.


----------



## Caroline (Oct 27, 2018)

N Fowleri said:


> I believe you, but it's odd because the files appear as .aiff when I open up a standard audio CD on my Mac.


Do you mean when you import a file? The 'default' is AAC (Apple's proprietary format - comparable to an MP3. Did you set your default to AIFF for importing?

For my default, I set it to ALAC/FLAC (see attached) for better-quality, uncompressed files.









Does that help?


----------



## N Fowleri (5 mo ago)

Caroline said:


> Do you mean when you import a file? The 'default' is AAC (Apple's proprietary format - comparable to an MP3. Did you set your default to AIFF for importing?
> 
> For my default, I set it to ALAC/FLAC (see attached) for better-quality, uncompressed files.
> 
> ...


Thank you, but I was referring to how the files appear in a Finder window if you open the audio CD as a regular data drive.


----------



## Caroline (Oct 27, 2018)

N Fowleri said:


> Thank you, but I was referring to how the files appear in a Finder window if you open the audio CD as a regular data drive.


Ah, I misunderstood. Same thing here.


----------



## NoCoPilot (Nov 9, 2020)

N Fowleri said:


> Thank you, but I was referring to how the files appear in a Finder window if you open the audio CD as a regular data drive.


Yes, if you "open" the disc on a MAC the files show as AIFF files. However, if you "Get Info" on the disc the file format is shown as "CD Audio" or .CDA.


----------



## N Fowleri (5 mo ago)

I found this on Wikipedia:


> Unlike on a DVD or CD-ROM, there are no "files" on a _Red Book_ audio CD; there is only one continuous stream of LPCM audio data, and a parallel, smaller set of 8 subcode data streams. Computer operating systems, however, may provide access to an audio CD as if it contains files. For example, Windows represents the CD's Table of Contents as a set of Compact Disc Audio track (CDA) files, each file containing indexing information, not audio data. By contrast however, Finder on macOS presents the CD's content as an actual set of files, with the AIFF-extension, which can be copied directly, randomly and individually by track as if it were actual files. In reality, macOS performs its own as-needed-rips in the background completely transparent to the user. The copied tracks are fully playable and editable on the user's computer.
> 
> In a process called ripping, digital audio extraction software can be used to read CD-DA audio data and store it in files. Common audio file formats for this purpose include WAV and AIFF, which simply preface the LPCM data with a short header; FLAC, ALAC, and Windows Media Audio Lossless, which compress the LPCM data in ways that conserve space yet allow it to be restored without any changes; and various lossy, perceptual coding formats like MP3, AAC, and Opus, which modify and compress the audio data in ways that irreversibly change the audio, but that exploit features of human hearing to make the changes difficult to discern.


----------



## NoCoPilot (Nov 9, 2020)

I'm not sure "a continuous stream of LPCM audio data" precludes the idea of there being "files" on the disc. Certainly there are file markers (headers) that indicate when a new song begins. I also don't think the .CDA designation is Windows-centric.

But I could be wrong. Wouldn't be the first time. 

Also wouldn't be the first time Wikipedia is wrong.


----------



## NoCoPilot (Nov 9, 2020)

Damn. I'm wrong:


Wikipedia said:


> .*cda* is a common filename extension denoting a small (44 byte) stub filegenerated by Microsoft Windows for each audio track on a standard "Red Book" CD-DA format audio CD as defined by the Table of Contents (ToC) (within the lead-in's subcode). These files are shown in the directory for the CD being viewed in the format Track##.cda, where ## is the number of each individual track.
> The .cda files do not contain the actual PCM sound wave data, but instead tell where on the disc each track starts and stops. If the file is "copied" from the CD to a computer, it cannot be used on its own because it is only a shortcut to part of the disc.


----------



## progmatist (Apr 3, 2021)

AlexD said:


> It is the same recording costs, as a CD would cost in a recording studio.
> 
> The manufacturing and distrbution cost is smaller - there's no CD to be made and distributed around the world and no booklet to be printed. In addition, I need a piece of kit so that my amp can play the piece of music to get the benefit of hi-res.
> 
> ...


Most CDs are created by downsampling the original Hi-Res source. With different mastering to compensate for the shortcomings of of 16 bit digital. Hi-Res downloads pretty much "ARE" the Hi-Res source.


----------



## That Guy Mick (May 31, 2020)

N Fowleri said:


> There is still controversy over the benefits of hi-res audio (24/88, 24/96, or above.) There are limited valid studies of whether people can tell the difference. It is my understanding that the best studies show that SOME people can tell the difference, with training, up to 60% of the time, keeping in mind that 50% of the time would be random chance. Still, that indicates it isn't complete fantasy like some things in the world of audiophile expenditures.
> 
> I personally am willing to pay a little extra for hi-res audio, with the understanding that I might be wasting the supplemental amount.
> 
> ...


I have yet to see a proper refutation of the Meyers and Moran's study "Audibility of a CD-Standard A/D/A Loop Inserted into High-Resolution Audio Playback"


----------

