HiRes and Re Mastered. What the Hell is going on!

[StingRay]

Happily (for me) things are so much easier with most classical recordings. Streaming works really well for this genre imo.

You want to listen to a particular classical album? Right, that's it, there's one, no choices. And they usually sound good. I doubt there's any classical albums that are mastered for earbuds.

Even older, early stereo recordings often sound good when streamed - and much better than the often scrawny sounding LPs and CDs. It's weird that, but definitely my experience. Old classical albums sound better when streamed. Hmm.

I have tried some HiRez classical streams, but didn't hear it as being worthwhile bothering.

Remastering? Yes, they do that sometimes with classical, too. Tbh, I don't fuss about it.

Not that it's relevant to most folks here.

Jazz is similar, not compressed for earbuds or the car. But early cds were generally not well produced, many more recent remasters are better, these can be found on Qobuz, Tidal often does not have such a wide choice and not always the best mix or remaster, this can be important on some albums, such as The Bridge by Sonny Rollins, there are quite a few different mixes of this, no keen on the 2 track type mix with all the sound on the right and left and nothing in the centre, I prefer mono to that but there is a decent stereo mix.

 

[tuga]

That’s not what I said. Mainstream releases are becoming overly compressed and sampled to the extreme and some need to be left well alone

Yes, a lot of rock and pop etc. music being produced for a decade or two is overly loud and compressed, that is not new.
Same with some remasters. But it has nothing to do with High Res. As with anything High Res has a higher potential than lossy formats like CD or vinyl, if it doesn't sound good it's due to human error.

On the other hand I think that the higher potential of High Res is wasted in a lot of music and most recordings from the 60s and 70s.
For this reason I only buy High Res of Classical music that was recorded/produced in High Res.
Anything else I buy in Redbook/CD format.
Some recordings may be worth buying the latest High Res remaster if it is better than previous issues, but in most cases the CD or 16/44.1 downsized version is enough as mentioned earlier.

You probably know this already but the DR Database is a good place to compare different masters (but it doesn't work with vinyl so ignore):

https://dr.loudness-war.info

And there's also the Music Corner of mastering engineer Steve Hoffman's forum:

https://forums.stevehoffman.tv/forums/music-corner.2/

 

[tuga]

The reason why ears are important in this game. Can you remember how Hi-res was the be it all of high quality music? The same is happening with perfect measuring with digital. The ears always question when something is off.

High Res is potentially "better" (more accurate) than CD or vinyl or tape. But it depends on implementation. Just like with digital audio equipment.
And you may not like "better" (it may not "sound good" to you).

 

[Blzebub]

High Res is potentially "better" (more accurate) than CD

Really? How?

 

[Nativebon]

High Res is potentially "better" (more accurate) than CD or vinyl or tape. But it depends on implementation. Just like with digital audio equipment.
And you may not like "better" (it may not "sound good" to you).

If by "better" you mean sounds harsh than the real thing then no thanks. But if "better" means sounds like the real thing then I'm in. I'm a music producer and like to think I got a general idea of realism or if you like accurately sounding.
Some of the music we listen to today if not most, is produced on systems 10x cheaper than our systems we play the music back on.

With all things being equal, if we lived in a world were all music was perfectly produced to a very high standard then absolute accuracy would be ideal.
I see you... "Well I listen to classical music and all that...

 

[tuga]

Really? How?

If a recording is made at anything higher-res than Redbook/CD (e.g. 24/48) it will have to be downsized, and that process is lossy.
In other words, when the master is high-res then CD is a lossy format (although from a psychoacoustics perspective one could say that CD encompasses all of the audible range).

 

[tuga]

If by "better" you mean sounds harsh than the real thing then no thanks. But if "better" means sounds like the real thing then I'm in. I'm a music producer and like to think I got a general idea of realism or if you like accurately sounding.
Some of the music we listen to today if not most, is produced on systems 10x cheaper than our systems we play the music back on.

With all things being equal, if we lived in a world were all music was perfectly produced to a very high standard then absolute accuracy would be ideal.
I see you... "Well I listen to classical music and all that...

Better is objectively better. "Sounds good" to me means "sound good" to me (it may or may not "sound good" to you).
Ah, and Brexit means Brexit.

What kind of music do you produce? Can you give an example of one of your productions/recordings?

 

[Nativebon]

Better is objectively better. "Sounds good" to me means "sound good" to me (it may or may not "sound good" to you).
Ah, and Brexit means Brexit.

What kind of music do you produce? Can you give an example of one of your productions/recordings?

No can do... copyright infringement.

 

[Blzebub]

If a recording is made at anything higher-res than Redbook/CD (e.g. 24/48) it will have to be downsized, and that process is lossy.
In other words, when the master is high-res then CD is a lossy format (although from a psychoacoustics perspective one could say that CD encompasses all of the audible range).

Hi-res is marketing nonsense. You've been had.

I had a demo of a Linn CD12 vs a Linn DS playing a "hi-res" file, zero difference to me, but a huge deal apparently to the salesman!

 

[DomT]

Better is objectively better. "Sounds good" to me means "sound good" to me (it may or may not "sound good" to you).
Ah, and Brexit means Brexit.

What kind of music do you produce? Can you give an example of one of your productions/recordings?

As we have discussed before the absence of an internationally recognised standard of what consistitutes 'better' does not exist so we only have opinion.

 

[DomT]

Yes, a lot of rock and pop etc. music being produced for a decade or two is overly loud and compressed, that is not new.
Same with some remasters. But it has nothing to do with High Res. As with anything High Res has a higher potential than lossy formats like CD or vinyl, if it doesn't sound good it's due to human error.

I wasn't aware that an LP was considered a 'lossy format'. I can't find anything on the web that confirms this so would be grateful for a link if you have one.

 

[tuga]

Hi-res is marketing nonsense. You've been had.

I had a demo of a Linn CD12 vs a Linn DS playing a "hi-res" file, zero difference to me, but a huge deal apparently to the salesman!

Maybe it is. Like I wrote earlier, my opinion is that High-Res is only worth for Classical music.
I spent an afternoon comparing files that were mastered on purpose for comparing formats, made of minimally-mic'ed unproduced recordings (by PlayClassics), and I could hear a difference, albeit a small one, both between 16 vs 24-bit and between 44.1 and 96kHz.
But I only buy High-Res if on promo and the sale price costs less than the CD.

But I think that all music should be available in it's original format, and for the price of a 16/44.1 download.
Record labels were worried about releasing their masters but most people listen to streaming services nowadays...

 

[tuga]

As we have discussed before the absence of an internationally recognised standard of what consistitutes 'better' does not exist so we only have opinion.

I disagree.
There is no standard for better sounding because it depends on taste; it is a matter of opinion.
But there is a standard for better performance which is the measurements (or set of measurements); it is a matter of fact.

 

[tuga]

I wasn't aware that an LP was considered a 'lossy format'. I can't find anything on the web that confirms this so would be grateful for a link if you have one.

Lossy format means that information is discarded and the process is irreversible.

Vinyl can only do 9 or 10-bit of dynamic range at best, so it is lossy even when the master is 16/44.1.
But for most rock and pop music, which generally has a dynamic range of 30dB or less, it is perfectly fine.
And even though it can go as far as 30kHz, above 20kHz it is mostly distortion and noise.

 

[bigfool1956]

Face value has a 2013 24/192 remaster and the later 'old face' remaster. The former is really good IMO, but the latter is brickwalled to death and sounds terrible. Qobuz seems to have a 24/96 version of the 'old face' remaster, but not the earlier one. Yuk.

As has been said before, a well mastered CD is preferable to a brickwalled or badly EQed hi-res, but given the option on the same mastering then I'd go for the hi-res every time personally.

I really enjoy the flat transfers that you get with some of the Steven Wilson remix sets, such as the Yes and the Gentle Giant.

 

[garn63]

Generally those that make the "hi res" recordings think that slightly louder & pushing part of the mix forward is the dogs. I dont personally. I like things further back, more subtle, so dynamism (if there) is evident. Horses for courses though...I guess I have become an old Nag.

 

[Paul55]

Really? How?

Say you were archiving an LP. 96kHz sampling will preserve the supersonic noise floor. Not audible but possibly interesting historically.
Say you were archiving a master tape. 192kHz sampling (or higher) may allow the detection of the bias signal used in recording. This allows the undoing of wow and flutter effects, or speed correction if it drifts through the recording.
Say a recording you wanted was transferred at 96kHz and then downsampled to 44k1 by a mathematically inadequate tool, you might choose the original.
If you're making a live recording then 24 bits (albeit 21 or 22 actual resolution) gives you a lot more margin before clipping

The limits of our hearing are well inside CD quality, when people were gushing over Naim tuners back in the 80s the BBC were distributing to their transmitters using 32kHz sampling at 13 bits. CD being 16 bits was due to some late specmanship from Sony, the original design was 14.

But there are some justifications for using higher resolutions, and if you're a purist why not carry that all the way to the speakers. But if anybody claims they can hear the difference then either there is incompetence in the processing or it's a delusion.

 

[tuga]

Here's a technical comparison of Sony's first ADC (16/44.1) with a 2-track 38cm/s R2R:

 

[DomT]

I disagree.
There is no standard for better sounding because it depends on taste; it is a matter of opinion.
But there is a standard for better performance which is the measurements (or set of measurements); it is a matter of fact.

I don’t believe there is an agreed universal standard for ‘performance’ to use your word. The performance of any given audio device is determined by it’s whole and is not governed by any single measurement do you not agree?

So a person can measure several aspects of technical performance of two components and these individual measurements in isolation will vary between the two components. The combination of these measurements defines the performance of the component.

Please post a link to the paper that has defined these specific measurements and also show how the various measurements are combined to produce an overall result therefore demonstrating performance.

If this paper does not exist then we cannot say that one product performs better than another and all we have is an opinion of what the measurements could mean

 

[tuga]

I don’t believe there is an agreed universal standard for ‘performance’ to use your word. The performance of any given audio device is determined by it’s whole and is not governed by any single measurement do you not agree?

I agree that a single measurement will only quantify a single parameter, which is why I always say that a comprehensive set of measurements is needed to characterise performance.

Performance in this case is the equipment's ability to perform its function with the least amount of distortion; it's the accurate reproduction of the recorded signal, or high fidelity.

So a person can measure several aspects of technical performance of two components and these individual measurements in isolation will vary between the two components. The combination of these measurements defines the performance of the component.

I agree, and not all parameters or characteristics have the same importance. There is a hierarchy, which varies depending on the piece of equipmet being measured.

lease post a link to the paper that has defined these specific measurements and also show how the various measurements are combined to produce an overall result therefore demonstrating performance.

Stereophile performs comprehensive measurements of audio equipment:

Speaker measurements explained:
https://www.stereophile.com/features/99/index.html
https://www.stereophile.com/features/100/index.html
https://www.stereophile.com/features/103/index.html

Amplifier and digital source measurements:
https://www.stereophile.com/features/112/index.html

Audibility thresholds:
https://www.******************.com/...-thresholds-of-amp-and-dac-measurements.5734/

If you are genuinely interested I recommend that you start with Toole's book, which is a very comprehensive compilation of the most relevant research in the fields of audio electronics, acoustics and psychoacoustics (and not, as many believe, a retrospective of his own research):
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Sound-Reproduction-Psychoacoustics-Loudspeakers-Engineering/dp/113892136X/

The "Audio" folder in my computer has "3,358,227,574 bytes (3.39 GB on disk) for 4,450 items"...