Click to view our Accessibility Statement or contact us with accessibility-related questions
Showing 1 of 59 conversations about:
psuKinger
110
Feb 19, 2019
bookmark_border
-"I want to up my music listening game. Where are the best places, and what are the best methods for me to do so?" Up until 3 weeks ago, I listened to/discovered new music using Google Play Music (high-bitrate-lossy 320 kbps MP3). Good enough to discover new music. I kept multiple "albums I don't own" playlists of things I liked and thought I might want to acquire in higher quality for optimal listening under ideal circumstances. If I decided I liked it enough to buy a better copy of it, I'd either:
  1. Buy the CD (often referred to as "Redbook" or "lossless") and rip it losslessly to FLAC files using a free program called Exact Audio Copy. CD-quality is done at 16-bit depth and sampled at 44,100 Hz; 16-bits * 44,100 samples/second * 2 channels (left and right) = 1411.2 kbps for uncompressed CDs.
  2. Buy the lossless CD-quality direct from websites like 7Digital.
  3. Buy HiRez FLAC files from sources like 7Digital or HDTracks. HiRez is defined as being stored at 24-bit depth and sampled at frequencies of at least 44,100 hz (96,000 hz is common).
I often made the decision between CD-quality (either via disc or digital download) vs. HiRez by first checking "the dynamic range database" (http://dr.loudness-war.info/). If users/posters had data supporting that the HiRez version had gotten a better recorded version (less-brickwalled, more dynamic range), that would often drive me to splurge for the HiRez version rather than Redbook. For modern/synthetic music (stuff that was "played" through a digital system before it was recorded) I generally find their to be minimal benefit to anything beyond "high-bitrate-lossy" (256 kbps or 320 kbps), but for anything with strings that are plucked (piano's, acoustic guitars, violin/cello/etc), and for very complex or nuanced vocals, I think the difference between 320 kbps and CD-quality is pretty significant. If the CD and the HiRez are of the same mastering, I think the difference between 16-bit "CD quality" and 24-bit "HiRez" is usually pretty minimal, but not necessarily "always zero" the way some will claim. I stream my local FLAC files and cast to my whole-home-audio of Google Chromecast Audios by way of the Plex Media Server that I run within my home. I recently signed up for a 30-day-free-trial of a streaming service called Qobuz, and I think I"m going to keep it. I really like it. I tried Tidal and liked it, but Qobuz works better for me. Tidal sounded great; it was clearly a step up, sound-quality-wise, from lossy streaming services, but I often felt like it didn't sound IDENTICAL to my own CD rips. Sometimes I thought it was as benign as maybe Tidal bumped the gain up, even just a little bit, to make Tidal sound louder than the CD? Sometimes I could hear the "watermark" some refer to with Tidal. Sometimes I couldn't. With Qobuz, so far, my experience has been that Qobuz streaming, at CD quality and at HiRez, sounds (to my ears) IDENTICAL to my own FLAC library of CD rips and HiRez purchases. The fact that it supposedly integrates well with Roon will probably be the final straw/tipping point that causes me to give Roon a go sometime in 2019 too. - "Can I truly get the most out of HiFi music with standard equipment?" In short: no. I generally can't hear much difference between CD quality and compressed "streaming" music on what I consider "standard equipment," but on my best speakers-and-headphones, the difference is real. In my opinion and experience, the last component to upgrade in the chain is the DAC. It's not unimportant. That's not what I'm suggesting at all. What I'm suggesting is that upgrading the DAC will make the least benefit/improvement to sound quality UNTIL your source material (files) are in good shape and you have quality transducers (speakers or headphones) to play them out of (and obviously, whatever speakers/headphones you end up with need to be properly powered, so make sure you don't buy high-impedence low-sensitivity headphones if you don't also have or plan to buy a proper AMP to drive them with). Get your files right, and get a quality pair of speakers or headphones (and whatever power you need to properly drive them) first, then look into different DACs, is my general recommendation. Hope this helps.
Feb 19, 2019
ElectronicVices
2937
Feb 25, 2019
bookmark_border
psuKingerAgree on the vast majority of points, will add that FLAC has various levels of encoding so the net bit rate may differ from 1411kbps.
Feb 25, 2019
psuKinger
110
Feb 25, 2019
bookmark_border
ElectronicVices"Agree on the vast majority of points, will add that FLAC has various levels of encoding so the net bit rate may differ from 1411kbps." Agreed, and apologies for the confusion. The point that I was trying to make was that uncompressed (not FLAC, as FLAC is losslessly-compressed) CD-quality (WAV, etc) is 1411.xyz kbps. FLAC (and other lossless compression algorithm's) find ways to compress file sizes in ways that result in zero loss in fidelity (I am not a computer programmer, but I like to imagine a notation like "14x0" to represent fourteen binary "0" values in a row rather than writing out "0,0,0,0..." fourteen times, hence "compressing" the file size in a way that results in zero loss in fidelity). My FLAC CD rips are on-average ~60% of the uncompressed size (900ish kbps). Uncompressed Hi-Rez files are calculated the same way, but rather than 16-bits sampled at 44,100 Hz (times 2 channels), the calculation would be 24-bits sampled at something equal to or greater than 44,100 Hz (often 44.1 khz, 48 khz, 96 khz, or 192 khz). So a 2-channel, 24-bit, 96 khz uncompressed signal would be 24*96*2 = 4,608 kbps. My (limited) experience in buying 24/96 FLAC files again suggests ~60% file sizes, as my 24/96 FLAC tend to be around ~3,000 kbps (slightly more than 60% of 4,608, the same way 900ish kbps is slightly more than 60% of 1411 kbps). When I buy Hi-Rez files, I buy them in FLAC format, and (this part might be controversial; some will not agree with this) I opt for the lowest sampling rate I can get; I see little (no?) value to sampling beyond 2x the highest frequency I can hear ("nyquist theorem").
  • I'm very confident that getting a "better" (more dynamic) recording can result in a better listening experience. And *sometimes* a better recording is available via "Hi-Rez Master" compared to what was released via "redbook" CD.
  • If the Hi-Rez version isn't a "better recording" than the CD (CD rips have the same dynamic range as the Hi-Rez Master), I personally don't usually buy them; however, I am *open to the idea* that 24-bit bit-depth can add audible value over 16-bit (CD-quality) bit-depth. I see people make the argument that it only increases the minimum and maximum dynamic range of the sample (to below-inaudible on the low-end and above-pain-threshold on the high end), and I don't question that; but I've never understood why people are so confident that all the different (smaller) steps between 0 and 2^24 (compared to 2^16) are inaudible to the human ear; I'm not 100% convinced it is, but I do think it's, at-best, minimal-and-law-of-diminishing-returns-y.
  • I'm personally not much of a believer of sampling rates beyond 44.1 khz (or 48 khz). I think they're probably just taking up extra disc space without any audible benefits (at least none that I've personally ever heard when A-B comparing a 96 kHz FLAC purchase against a 24-bit 48 kHz downsampling of the exact same file using Audacity or similar).
But if someone tells me they can hear a difference with their equipment between 24/48 and 24/192, I don't have much appetite to argue the point; it's enough for me to just say that I can't (yet) with my (current) gear. I've certainly experienced PLENTY of situations in which someone on the internet insisted to me that I couldn't hear the difference between 320 kbps MP3 and CD, which I know to be incorrect. When CD quality (16 bit/44.1 khz) is "done right" (well-recorded, with lots of dynamic range retained), it sounds GREAT to my ears...
Feb 25, 2019
ElectronicVices
2937
Feb 26, 2019
bookmark_border
psuKingerIf you want to play around with higher resolution format comparisons these are great sources: http://www.soundkeeperrecordings.com/format.htm
http://www.2l.no/hires/ Same gear, same master, same source, different bit rates/sampling frequencies and formats.
Feb 26, 2019
rastus
1391
Feb 28, 2019
bookmark_border
psuKingerHave you evaluated native DSD 5.6?
Feb 28, 2019
psuKinger
110
Mar 5, 2019
bookmark_border
rastusI have no experience with DSD. I'd love to check out someone's else's DSD collection sometime, as I'm into that sort of thing. I don't have much appetite to bring it into my own house/ecosystem/listening setup(s).
Mar 5, 2019
rastus
1391
Mar 6, 2019
bookmark_border
psuKingerYou may like DSD, if you know someone with quality DSD ready hardware, it would be worthwhile to check it out,, well anybody for that matter... A true , recorded in 5.6 DSD - not upsampled, comparison set of eight (8) format files: https://bluecoastmusic.com/meghan-andrews/fire-single#.XH84yaROklQ
Mar 6, 2019
View Full Discussion
Related Posts
Trending Posts in Audiophile