[Closed] Anybody got into hi res audio? (yes I'm after recommendations...)

I used to buy files from HDTracks and Qobuz, but now I just stream, but then I'm not on the move.
I have accounts through one of my clients for TIDAL and Qobuz Sublime. Both superb.

I also used to hunt for DSD downloads from a few sources, but unless the music you like is mainstream, it becomes painful.

I don't have any experience with portable audio.

Depends on what sort of music you want. Bleep.com is good for indie/electronic stuff.

Linn and Naim will both sell you hi-resolution downloads from their record shops online. There's some good stuff on Linn from Claire Martin.

Do you honestly have hearing good enough to be able to hear the difference between ‘hi-res audio’ and a regular CD or a Lossless/FLAC download?

I’ve got SACD and DVD-A recordings, and I’ve compared them with CD’s of the same album, and I’m not at all certain I can hear any significant difference, to make any extra cost worth while.

How old are you? Hearing deteriorates with age. You probably can't even hear the difference between 44.1khz and 192khz. Not long enough want to read more?

I got an Astell & Kern AK70 6 months ago.

Coupled with my Sennheiser SE535's or Audio Technica M70x's,  it's stunningly good. Way better than any phone or mp3 player I've ever had.

I would say that a good mp3 isn't that distinguishable from a hi res file so maybe don't get to set on rebuying all your music until you've tried a few comparisons

An uncompressed file is still distinguishable from an MP3 @ 320kbps. On a good system.

However, I have a half decent streaming Bluetooth setup and I couldn't tell with tidal but that's because it's not revealing enough via BT. Take all that to where I work on wired monitors and the difference is there.

So it depends on your setup, and you.

I like good music that's well recorded and can generally tell the difference between mp3 and flac / lossless etc.

Have relatively recently got Tidal Hi-Fi for high quality downloads and 24/96 content at home and tbh there isn't a huge difference in the reproduction.

Use the Onkyo HF player app on my iplop in the car to get 24/96 and unless stood still with the engine off, I'd generally say there is no need, so stick to the Tidal app to play my normal cd quality downloads.

If I was to be really picky, then the highest resolution audio does sound a little bit more open and dynamic but the difference certainly isn't night and day compared to any other lossless or CD quality recording.

As for players, I went with the ipod touch 128gb in the end as it just works and functions well in the car. (In the house my AV amp streams 24/96 from a music server). Others including Fiio X3 may be worth a look but ultimately they are probably mostly the same at price points, and choice is down to aesthetics and ergonomics.

To echo and refine what CZ says above high quality audio files are of no use if the recording engineer was no good at his job. Since the 'loudness wars' in the noughties and ongoing finding well recorded music that hasn't been knackered during the mastering process is becoming quite difficult in the mainstream.

Thanks for your replies. Much food for thought.

If I was a cynical type, I could conclude that over the last couple of decades we've elected to sacrifice quality for convenience and portability. And now, "hi-res" companies are selling an opportunity to claw back quality whilst maintaining convenience and portability. So basically what a CD walkman did 34 years ago?!!

I think my music consumption would be best served by reverting to a good CD/amp and headphones.

Do you honestly have hearing good enough to be able to hear the difference between ‘hi-res audio’ and a regular CD or a Lossless/FLAC download?

I can on my main system at home so I do use files from a NAS for replay on that, however the difference isn't as important on a mobile player so I don't bother for that.

I would consider myself a lover of music, but my ears aren't in tune enough to hear a difference above a 320kbps mp3 file. Flac and all that just seems to pander to the audiophile who wants to spend a ton on a talking point rather than a system for listening to music.

My first generation ipod touch with mRice earbuds do me fine for what I listen to, and I still notice things in music I never noticed before.

Fiio's do Flac and what not, expandable memory ports up to 256gb if you can put up with the OS. But factor in replacement earphones too, no point going for hi res audio and using apple Earpods

How old are you? Hearing deteriorates with age. You probably can’t even hear the difference between 44.1khz and 192khz.

Age has othing to do with whether you can hear the difference between 44.1 and 192. tbh I'll be very few can, and they are deluding themselves above a certain level, 320 mp3 I'd reckon people are just justifying their expense. That's just the resoltion of recordings.

People lose their hearing abilities at they get older though, ie the frequency range they can hear diminishes.

children generally 20hz-20khz is the maximum human range.

Me personally, I've tested myself, and I start to hear round about, 28hz, and completely lose it around 13-14khx. Can't hear above that. which isn't missed at all, 15khz is a very hi pitched sound.

I'd suggest if getting into hi quality audio, people should concentrate on understanding the music a bit more, rather than getting too fussed about gear and numbers.

There's very much a law of diminishing returns going on, and that curve ramps down fairly quickly.

fussed about gear and numbers.

well it's like mtbing isn't it, a lot of people are more into the gear and numbers than the experience itself. None of the old duffers on here can simply have the hearing left to hear half of what they convince themselves they can hear, but it keeps them and us amused and audiophile companies rolling around laughing in their excess cash.

Oh look a hi-fi thread. Oh look another load of people arguing about whether you should be able to hear the difference. All anyone has to do is go to a good hi-fi dealer and listen. If you can't tell or don't care, great. If you can/do then crack on.

I don't know why people get so worked up arguing that you cannot hear any difference. There are loads of sites online where you can compare blind. Also, all that guff about about flac costing more etc. - it usually doesn't cost much more than an mp3. I don't know why people bother with mp3 anymore as storage is so cheap.

As for good recordings not worth hi-res, then it's not as simple as that. Highly compressed recordings can cause more nasties on the reconstruction filter, so it could be argued that hi-res might be better for this. I think the difference is also very dac dependant so as always it's worth listening yourself and ignoring what every says.

I personally find mp3 and redbook very easy to discern the difference, but hi-res files much harder and more dependant on the recording. Everyone is different though so use what works for you.

To answer one of the original questions, it depends on what sort of music you want. But Bleep and Qobuz seem to be about the best that don't charge a fortune for the privileged of having more data in your file. Bandcamp as well though they usually don't advertise it as 'hi-res' so you don't pay extra for it.

Finally, there are plenty of examples of redbook files being upscaled and sold as hi-res for extra money so the whole thing can be a bit of a mind field.

On the compression point aswell, I reckon there's a lot of confusion on that. 192 and 320 kbps mp3 or lossless aren't compressed in a musical sense, they just have different resolutions, which may be percepible at very low resultion, ie 192 mp3(which you could argue is compressed I suppose, but in musical terms, they have no effect on the musical compression of audio(which isn't necessarily a bad thing, most musicians should have a compressor in their effects chain, and they are a certainly all over the shop at the mastering stage)). Compression in music is generally to do with dynamics not resolution. Google loudness wars for more info on that. 192 or lossless has nothing to do with that argument.

Anyhow, my points have been made, have fun! 😀

192 and 320 kbps mp3 or lossless aren’t compressed in a musical sense, they just have different resolutions

Not true afaik - with any level of MP3 compression, you are using a psychoacoustic model to throw away information. Hopefully that information was the least audible of any that you could throw away, but it's still gone. (afaik they throw away quiet things when there are also noisy things, frequency extremes during quiet sections, etc)

With so-called lossless (i.e. Redbook CD) there is only a resolution change. So the upper and lower frequencies are still there and no psychoacoustic filter has been applied.

MQA is controversial at the moment as it brings psychoacoustic filters (mostly based on keeping timing, while throwing away other information) to the high-res field. I.e. you are now getting higher general resolution than redbook, but there are portions being thrown away, albeit to a lesser extent than MP3 and with a different focus.

You don't lose upper or lower frequencies with mp3 compression.

seosamh77

Subscriber

You don’t lose upper or lower frequencies with mp3 compression.

It's not 'clipped' all the time, but my understanding is that the higher frequencies are the first target in the way the filters prioritize. It's not that it's not there, it's that the resolution of those frequencies is vastly reduced.

Compression in music is generally to do with dynamics not resolution

I don't understand why this isn't considered 'music' in your description above.

Clipped doesn't clip certain frequencies. It clips all frequencies and is part of the musical compression tool, used for artistic reasons. Compression in a musical sense doesn't always equal bad and it doesn't always clip either, you can make it clip for valid reasons if you want to.

Mp3 resultion doesn't clip. It introduces artifacts that have nothing to do with the sonic frequency range.

Point is stop worrying about the specifics. Simply buy what sounds good to you. Use your ears. One high (or low) end hifi will sound different to any other. And that's before you start with individual people messing with equaliser settings and speaker placement sound proofing etc.

It really depends on how good the production and recording was in the first place. Unlikely you are going to get a better music experience with a hi res file of a Husker Du recording for example 😀

It really depends on how good the production and recording was in the first place. Unlikely you are going to get a better music experience with a hi res file of a Husker Du recording for example

The more "hifi" the equipment becomes,  the more revealing of the original recording the playback is.

For instance, since upgrading my own system with new speakers, amps and speaker cable made out of unicorns' tails rolled on the thighs of virgin nymphs and suspended from the floor on cobwebs, I had a listen to Led Zeppelins' "Trampled Underfoot".

Sounded absolutely horrible, as if I was hearing it through a transistor radio made of tin. Jimmy "cloth eared" Page should be strung up by his thumbs for his appalling "remixes" of his own heritage.

In contrast, "Oh Patti" by Scritti Politti revealed Green Gartsides' obsessive OCD-like search for computerised perfection in astonishing depth and clarity whilst losing none of the foot-tapping musicality...

You pays your money and takes your choice.

I'm 45 and have probably hammered my ears a bit too much in my youth, and can definitely tell the difference between CD/lossless and MP3 on my system at home. It is pretty stark. Not through earphones or in the car as the limit to quality there is the technology you're listening it to, but if you're got a halfway decent HiFi setup at home the difference is noticeable. Never done the test against CD/lossless and higher res, I guess the law of diminishing returns means the difference will be less noticeable, but if you've spent alot of cash on a HiFi system you'll be silly not to play the best quality music you can on it.

I've bought a Marantz CD6006 to listen to a CD collection that I'm going to cultivate from scratch and enjoy through headphones in my office. First purchases : LCD Soundsystem, Interpol and Massive Attack.

Spotify through Sonos is good enough for casual listening downstairs while I'm doing chores!

Unless the rest of your system is absolutely the best you can make it I wouldn't bother with hi-res - with good DACs and good clocking CD quality can sound pretty damn good.

The mix of bluetooth capability and hi-res doesnt sit well with me either.

Note that if you do use an android phone, say a Z3, then you have bluetooth and you can use the BBC iPlayer radio app and download shows in higher quality than you normally get, and they are available for a month.

I would rather do that, listen to some of the esoteric shows which are late at night and which play music I might not otherwise be made aware of, and then buy it on CD or digital download.