14 reasons why HI-RES AUDIO is DEAD (for the mainstream)
Vložit
- čas přidán 3. 06. 2024
- This video is brought to you by Headphones.com: www.headphones.com/ ← paid promotion
Camera: Olaf von Voss | Editor: John Darko | Motion GFX: John Darko | Ad segment: Jana Dagdagan
PATREON: / johndarko ← more videos like this one can be found here
0:00 Intro
1:30 #1 Hi-res supply
1:53 #2 CD-quality is good enough (see #14)
2:26 #3 Bluetooth isn't hi-res-capable
3:10 #4 Android OS resampling
3:33 #5 Sonos is capped at 48kHz
4:21 #6 The difference isn't that large...
4:59 #7 ...and requires a decent hi-fi system
5:20 #8 Mastering quality matters far more
5:40 #9 Tidal and Qobuz are niche services
5:59 #10 Amazon HD's impact has been small
6:12 #11 Lossy audio isn't the devil (see #8)
6:53 #12 Apple Music #1
7:46 #13 Apple Music #2
8:26 #14 Spotify Hi-Fi will be CD-quality only (see #2)
Further reading / viewing:
Apple's Eddy Cue Believes the Future of Music Isn't Lossless - It’s Spatial Audio:
www.billboard.com/articles/bu...
No, Bluetooth can not do hi-res audio:
darko.audio/2020/11/no-blueto...
The ultimate guide to Bluetooth headphones: LDAC isn’t Hi-res:
www.soundguys.com/ldac-ultima...
Worth the wait: Qobuz US launch bumped to ‘early 2019’:
darko.audio/2018/11/worth-the...
Apple Music’s hi-res streaming is a bit of a mess:
darko.audio/2021/06/apple-mus...
Apple Music & hi-res audio (again):
darko.audio/2021/06/apple-mus...
Spotify to launch ‘HiFi’ tier in 2021:
darko.audio/2021/02/spotify-t...
Thinking more about Spotify HiFi:
darko.audio/2021/03/thinking-...
#hires #lossless #audiophile
__________________________________________________________________
Darko.Audio FAQ:
darko.audio/faq/
Why are/were comments turned OFF?
darko.audio/2020/10/why-im-sw...
What the bloody hell am I talking about?
• What the bloody hell a...
How is Darko.Audio funded?
darko.audio/funding/
__________________________________________________________________
DID YOU KNOW WE HAVE A PODCAST?
podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...
open.spotify.com/show/1mnKixp...
/ johnhdarko
__________________________________________________________________
Darko.Audio is a web magazine covering new and exciting developments in the audio world and we aren’t afraid of indie rock or techno.
Web: Darko.Audio
Instagram: / darkoaudio
Facebook: / darkodotaudio - Zábava
To me this shows what a great job the engineers at Sony and Philips did developing the CD standard 40 years ago. Chapeau.
They were implementing sampling theorem, first discovered in 1915 by E. T. Whittaker, and known as the Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem.
Agreed
@@Andersljungberg At least partly due to: greedy, paranoid, copyright protection, higher cost, and entangled with HDMI.
@@Andersljungberg That's a good point about S&P also being major music labels. But Sony (I'm not sure about Phillips) is still a major record label.
Should’ve picked 48k and we wouldn’t be having this convo
There are 3 types of audiophiles : 1/ those who are more passionate about their gear than about music (that’s the most common ones : and I understand them, because I tend to be like that) 2/ those who are just rich enough to buy high end stuff and 3/ the real music lovers with great ears. Let’s be honest : those in the third category are not so many.
Well, you also can be at the intersection of three of them !
For 1&2
Music is just content to play on their pricey gear that the pedestrians can’t afford.
Even I can here the difference after 20 years.
I am always able to make my friends catch the difference. They just don’t care so they don’t get hook on improving their equipment.
I wish mastering engineers in extreme genres would start to care about quality. It's exceedingly rare to find metal albums that don't have brick wall limiting and clipping on the master bus.
Agreed most Metal albums today are just too loud for their own good. I noticed this the most when I switched from listening to Metal via my bluetooth speakers and then switching to playing it through a CD player (Cambridge Audio AXC35); what I noticed immediately was just how much louder the CD was over bluetooth. It seemed as if it was almost twice as loud. If you listen to some old Metal Albums that haven't been Remastered like from the 1980s you notice that they are much quieter than those released in the 1990sand virtually all Remastered albums!
Thank you for the clear statement. I used to be an audiophile for decades, but it lost me 10 years ago, when I realised, that I was mainly listening to my equipment, rather than to the music. Being an audiophile is certainly a nice hobby and lots of fun, but the reality for 99% of the ordinary people is exactly what you say: They just don't care, because there's barely an audible difference. Convenience wins …
I agree and appreciate great sound quality to enjoy my music. I ended up with a Hi Res certified Sony Receiver STRDH190 and SCS5 Bookshelf Speakers - playing FLAC from deezer - this system has thorougly enriched my listening experience with an audible difference in sound quality from my google home speaker or wireless bluetooth speakers -
That comment only makes half sense.
What gear where you listening to? FLAC? So you where concentrating so hard on the FLAC that you stopped listening to music.
If you mean headphones. An high end Headphone makes an difference even with 128kbps MP3. Not an positive as you're able to hear in detail how bad they actually are but you can listen to your gear with 128kbps MP3 and you can listen to music and enjoy it with Hi-Res Audio
@@Vamp898 He meant to choose music that only sounds good on his system vs good music in general.
@@Vamp898 are you responding to the OP or the first reply?
I'm one of those but happy with everything i got. But really like compliments from friends or there mates when they say its best sound they have ever heard. Lol money well spent problem with audiophiles is there chasing the dream for perfect system. For me ive spent £12000 in total on my system. About £7000 just for the audio but ive been enjoying it it since 2013 and never thought i need to upgrade it ever i don't go round chasing the latest unless the format is upgraded.
The Recording Engineer is KING. And that's why an analog recording from 1959 can sound just as good (or bad) as any digital recording (hi-res or not) or analog recording made today. What the recording engineer does or doesn't do at the very beginning of this sound reproduction chain affects everything we hear at the end of the line regardless of the equipment (or "synergy") in between. Room acoustics is next.
As an engineer of 30 plus years, you are correct.. But the second half of that equation is the source material. We were recording fully formed, interactive bands of musicians. No click tracks, no blocks of beats, no quantified, detached, auto tuned vocals sitting on a grid. But a group of musicians interacting with each other in real time! The job of the engineer as I was taught was to capture the air of the performance. Listen to BB King.. Live at the Regal, or Allman Brothers Live at the Fillmore. To this day, they are considered to be contenders for the best live albums ever recorded! There's a reason to listen to those performances in the best format to transport you to those venues. I want to hear the air in the Regal that night. There's really nothing to hear beyond the beat and Vox in 90% of today's tracks. A pair of ear buds and iPhone are sufficient!
I totally agree that it’s all about the mastering. Hi-res cannot save poorly recorded music or mastering. Then there’s MQA, which is currently causing a stir in the audiophile community.
The “mainstream” has never been overly interested in hifi (let alone CD quality) - and this has been the case forever, not just now. After all, most people used to do most of their music listening to vinyl records on cheap equipment in their bedrooms! I suspect that most pop records in the sixties and seventies were actually engineered with this set up in mind and this is apparent even in the latest “remastered” versions. In other words, “HI Fi” has always been a niche market.
As mentioned, the delivery format is not the limiting factor in most cases. Let's lobby to raise the quality for recording, mixing, and mastering before focusing on demanding hi-res formats. Too many records still do not even exploit CD capability to its maximum potential.
Instead, many record labels have decided to exploit maximum loudness and clipping.
Thanks for reminding us audiophiles that we are a distinct minority of the population who listen to music. Indeed, I have a strong suspicion that it is non-audiophiles who get the greatest pleasure at whatever bit they listen.
At last, someone who sees the bigger picture painted by this video. 👍🏻
Exactly. The audiophile community has never been the "mainstream".
Ok then... what we (the public) need is an accurate "pleasure meter". Feeling small....
So much pleasure that they never sit down to actually listen? Hmmm…
Those who have the gear and the ear notice and care. The audiophiles may stick their nose up to it now as it is going mainstream so they will seek out something else like vinyl with a 10k cartridge or maybe DAT or SACD or a more expensive version of qobuz. A flat white (what @&@$£&@&@) is far better than a cappacino as it needs to be made by a fixie rider in a boutique cafe and pay 10 euros a fix/hit/cup/glass and snort it through a steel straw ; yet the mainstream love a seat;e coffee house coffee mixed with sweet syrup 🥲🤣🤣🤣. Keep it real gentlemen keep it real. I love my audio just not the snobbery and my daughter plays her music via my system too and 24/96 really does sound better at least through the system I have anyhow perhaps if only to do with the filter ; who knows !? The guy with the beard who is too old to ride a fixie or perhaps the Manc who moved on from white labels as trends change and utmost important to keep ahead of them of course to be Uber chic. Love the channel ✅
It's sad that people are so obsess with the numbers and forget to enjoy the music itself...
correct I total agree
Very true, I try to remind myself often of that and I find it does make a difference in how I listen
I don't believe that I can judge what someone should love about their experience. If they love numbers more than music and that is their Bliss then who am I to say they are wrong?
Chee, Your statement is a false dilemma. One may both obsess over the numbers and enjoy the music.
@@chubtoad157 Can't agree more, Mr Toad. I for one don't give a damn if if my listening pleasure is being enhanced by the placebo effect and psychoacoustics or if DSD or 24/192 is actually better. If it puts a smile on my face and I feel I am listening to the best possible version of a beloved track I'm happy. After all I still listen to vinyl as well and by all objective criteria it is clearly inferior. But I admire the art and the feel and the ritual and the faffing about with the turntable. All part of the fun.
"Good enough" is not known in the audiophile, quality way of life.
Well said :)
@@EllasPOSEiDON But that way of life turns into eternal no satisfaction. My audiophile friend used to say "sounds so so but I will not afford for more expensive"
I think the solution is to only listen to live music and without amplification. Like that you’re certain that the quality is pure and not resampled at all.
(Just a joke 🙏😌)
@@ValdemarDeMatos Nah! Still not the Pinnacle, I want to immerse into the music, better than live. Makes no sense, but many are like this, when we spend mega cash on our systems, and heat audible improvement, that only means more curtains need to be opened… and opened
@@ValdemarDeMatos I agree, never enough chasing quality sound!
Great summary. All valid points!... And to me, these 2 are the biggest takeaways:
- CD quality is good enough (if you crunch the numbers, it really is!)
- Mastering matters most
Really? CD quality is ordinary for those who like their music to sound live.
And yet most people who listen to a studio quality recording can hear the difference. Your so called "crunching the numbers" is based on a theorem that states the sample rate only needs to be twice the maximum frequency you can hear. That theorem doesn't seem to be true to most people who have actually heard both. It may appear true on an oscilloscope but is that what really matters? I'm not suggesting everyone needs to run out and shell out the big bucks for the new high-res lossless audio gear. But I'll tell you this: Don't dismiss it until you have heard it. You may find after hearing it, that it is worth the money.
I use deezer hi fi with a sony hi res receiver and bookshelf speakers and its the best system I have had, sound quality is amazing -
I'm pretty sure hi-res became a moot point for me and my hearing after seeing Motorhead back in 1991!
Likewise with The Faces in '71 :(
Guided by Voices and Swans. Hurt so good.
Kiss in '79 with all the explosions and then for sure Frankie Goes To Hollywood in '84. The pyro at the end was set up for the size of an arena and the show was in the UBC War Memorial Gym in Vancouver. It was so loud that the building shook and some of the windows around the top of the building blew out. My ears rang for 2 days afterwards.
LMAO my ears rang for 3 days after every Motorhead concert I saw.
Hawkwind 1979, job completed by Slade 1980.
I really liked the format and the aesthetic of this video! There is something peaceful about you just sitting behind the desk and talking about the broader discussions/news in the world of audio. Thanks for your content and effort!
I even like the way you handle the paid promotion. Well done. One of the best around.
Agreed with both of the above. It's a higher standard than most. Ad placement is first non annoying ad I've seen. So weird being treated like an adult these days.
Its the wall...
And the Power Corruption and Lies shirt!
Of course non-audiophiles don't care about audio quality. Neither do they care about picture quality on their TVs - 99% of viewers have hugely saturated screens that are in no way representative of real-life calibration. That's fine - they worry about other things that we don't take in interest in.
OMG, I remember when I first got this tv. Under the default settings, EVERYONE appeared to have fluorescent pink makeup around their mouths, and orange everywhere else.
the problem is, that most of the people don´t have the equipament to hear the hi fi music, is expensive, and even if you have good earphones also you need a dac. I paid tidal hi fi, and i honestly couldn´t hear the difference between 320 kbps and Flac, but that´s becouse lack of good equipament, or my ears aren´t that good xD, sorry my english
@@matiasarenas7475 I have some HD 560S and I can't hear the difference between Tidal and Spotify either, lol.
I think you're right. I had Tidal MQA and after trying to convince myself I could hear the difference compared to its CD quality option, I came to the conclusion if there was a difference, I just couldn't hear it in a "normal" listening venue......my living room. So, I'm saving the price of MQA and still love what Tidal has to offer.
I have always found that the recording and mastering engineers are the most important part of the eventual sound we hear. Regrettably you have only mentioned streaming services as opposed to download services, but I still agree with you in the end.
Quality of mastering is probably 98% of SQ. But, get a recording that excels from start to finish, the differences between Redbook and hi-res, at least for me, become readily become apparent.
For me a big reason to do lossless rips of CD's instead of lossy, is that music produced during the loudness wars does not always survive the lossy process as well as music with more headroom in it.
I mostly listen to mp3/m4a/streaming, but my CDs are all ripped to FLAC on my NAS, so if I want e.g. a 320kbps AAC or a 128kbps MP3, I can just run ffmpeg over it to make one. And it's only serious listening, which I don't do all that often, where CD quality is necessary, so I copy those few tracks I want lossless over from my NAS to my music player/PC.
It's good to keep in mind while this HighRes enthusiasm, that the most of even today's released music, the sound quality is not even as good than CD allows.
Haha, interesting. I don't like much modern music so even in Hi Res I'm not likely to listen. There are some classic songs from the 60's though that were mastered badly and I would love to have some of them in a much better quality.
Love my CD collection, but do see big differences in mastering from album to album. From ridiculous to sublime!
I think the early 90's CD's sound the best to me. After the mid 90's they all got way too loud and compressed.
@@endezeichengrimm Except its not all. Some CD's like the last re-release of the dark side of the moon are not compressed or overly loud and are regarded by some as better than some of the earlier releases. The Chronic Re-lit & from the vault that came out in 2009 is the easily the best sounding version of that album.
Agree on all points. How dare you being practical...
Now all the 70 year old audiophiles with golden ears will attack you lol.
Absolutely spot on Johnno.
I still do CDs and I can't tell the difference - so no Hi-Res for me. In fact, none of my audiophile friends can spot the difference either. I actually burnt some very well mastered 256kbps files to CD and no one could tell lossy from lossless - and I used a headphone set up for the test. So .....
@@net_news Well yeah, if you compare two identical 24 bit files both converted down to 16 bit they probably will sound the same. Hence the benefit of 24 bit playback...
You can tell the difference between hi res and CD on particular instruments like a mouth organ in particular or brass instruments. It shows up on the treble notes.
The _only_ time I remember hearing a clear difference between CD and 256kbps AAC was when listening, carefully, to a piano piece I was learning, and listening specifically for the left-hand part, where the main melody was in the right hand. And, frankly, if listening to the same track for enjoyment, I would just listen to it as a whole and not notice the subtleties of the LH part that were getting mushed by the audio compression.
@@hillybobs56 How so? CD encoding caters for any frequencies your ears can hear, and covers more than enough dynamic range. There may be differences in the filtering, but have you ever seen a test where anyone can hear that difference?
How to identify well mastered albums?
True arguments! Only small detail is that 48/24 is already a "hi-rez" format as 24bit encoding represents VASTLY higher level of detail compared to 16 bit. Even 20bit does so - check any of the HDCD titles of 20 years back - they sound clearly superior to a standard CD of the same material. Higher sample rate on the other hand make much less sense, especially for the final carrier format. It is widely used in studios though - 96k tracking and (sometimes) 192k mastering are a usual practice in higher-tier studios. Resampling and dithering are very mature and advanced nowadays, so you can sense much of the detail in a 44.1/24 or even 44.1/16 dithered LOSSLESS file. MP3 is another story. For Pop music it's kind of OK, but for Jazz and especially Classical it truly messes up the emotional impact of the music.
Give me an amazing master that doesn't use horrific dynamic range compression over a hi-res container any day of the week.
Absolutely :)
Great video John. Also streaming services do some mastering that I noticed that even bigger difference between the same resolution than hi-res vs CD. For example, Tidal is warmer than originally mastered CD, Amzon is brighter and Qobuz is about the same.
CD is not going away anytime soon, and because of the rush to streaming there’s never been a better time to collect music on the format. I’m convinced many will regret the decision to get rid of there collections. But as they say there loss is someone else’s gain . What I would say in streamings defence is if you only desire the latest releases then yes compared to a new CD , that would make economic sense regardless of the persevered difference in sound quality. Best wishes and kind regards to all
I got me over 4,500 CDs. A friend has a streaming account. It’s surprising how many tracks or albums are not available on it.
I still have my collection of CD's which I've bought over the last 3 decades. They are all ripped to 320 kbit/sec AAC and are stored on my computer. I don't have highres audio gear, so they sound good enough.
Even so, I'm keeping my collection. I might end up re-ripping them, but then into FLAC at some point.
I agree. Using streaming services you don’t own the music. I learned that, when a stream of a CD I liked suddenly didn’t play some of the songs on it. This happened in Apple Music as well as Tidal, so it was probably a licensing issue. As I found these songs important to my listening experience of that CD, I purchased it and ripped it to my music library. The moral: get CDs of music which is important to you.
Friendly reminder (like those bots over on Reddit) -- "there" (there collections, there loss) = somewhere other than here / "their" = plural possessive pronoun for people
@@TavisAllen core blimey that shot me down in flames. 😀 Bless you Best wishes and kind regards to you 👍👍👍
Excellent video as usual. Hi-res never took off during the days of physical media and likely will not go mainstream with streaming services either.
I really hoped that multichannel mixes would see wider adoption as some of the ones by Elliot Scheiner and Steven Wilson are excellent. Not to mention the quad mixes from back in the day (The Moody Blues 👌🏼). That's the only thing that appealed to me about Hi-res (SACD/DVD-A) before.
To my knowledge no providers are giving Hi-Res for low res money, probably the biggest reason it's not mainstream.
Finding a well mastered Hi-Res track that's actually something I like is a rare delight. Music is one of the great joys of life and the quality is irrelevant in many situations the emotion and pleasure it brings is what counts.
One word: Nyquist. And consistently, properly conducted tests have shown that 'audiophiles' are unable to distinguish audible differences between CD quality and supposedly higher resolution formats.
15.5: There is no recording in existence that has actually reached the dynamic limits of regular 16/44.1.
I think there are quite a few classical recordings that have dynamic range that pushes the limit of 16 bit, which is why it is recorded at 24 bit. Understanding noise floor doesn't mean momentary musical dynamics, ppp vs FFF, but room tones, acoustic reflections, vs the loudest transients. So you have to be able to record sounds much softer or louder than the average musical dynamics. To have a big musical dynamic range and have the subtleties be above the noise floor you really do need 24 bit.
Telarc Rite of Spring by Lorin Maazel. Or was it Telarc by Erich Kunzel- Empire strikes back
A good recording in 16/44.1 is indeed enough, even with a good hifi system.
Great fan of your videos, you are a genuine audiophile and the passion can be measured by watching your thoughtful videos with specific details. All the best and thankful for the contribution.
I agree with everything, and also think that it’s not necessary at all. Cd quality is great when used with a good quality amp and speakers- much more important than greater number crunching.
will you be able to hear a difference with cd quality?
I agree with you. CD quality is the sweetspot of high quality audio for mainstream.
@@Andersljungberg Vinyl isn't popular because of it's sound quality over CD's.... I'm 48 and as a young teenager in the 80's we bought Cassettes until CD's took over, Vinyl is just a cool fad.
Thank you very much for your sharing about your views. Extremely educative to learn in Macro perspective...I totally agree that apreciating high quality musics comes with a kind of experience, education and passion. It will be and remain a niche, I hope we will be able to continue to get good production on CD's.
Great comments, keep the good work going! What about Android DAPs, like Hiby R5 or the Shanling M3X? They play ANY streaming service bitperfect and are produced at accessible prices.
Great video! I've seen some lively debates in the music production community, and it seems that most mixing engineers think that 44.1kHz or 48kHz is best, while most mastering engineers want to use 96kHz and above. The only thing everyone agrees on is 24bit. Meanwhile, musicians don't really care. As long as their music reaches as many people as possible, that's all that matters.
There are benefits to using 96kHz *while mastering*, but there is literally no advantage to more than ~40kHz for playback. I don't mean "it's so small as to not be worth it" - I mean there is *literally* no improvement in sound quality. It isn't a quality metric.
Best summary of the subject I've read, thanks.
excellent video, good sir...I just made the switch to Spotify from Qobuz as a result and it turns out, I have access to more of the music that I love...anxiously awaiting their hi-fi rollout.
Really glad I've stumbled across your channel. You raise some interesting & very valid points. Thanks.
My music journey started with vinyls and tapes, moved on to CDs and now high res audio files. I prefer to buy and own my music and not be held ransom to a streaming service that removes all my favorite music if I end my service with them.
I’m curious what you use to discover new music?
@@nico3641 He said "my favorite music" and so I say too. I keep in my media for 1 month no stop listening in my shelves , it is result of many years of emotional selection and it gives me enough comfort. Do not look for competition with Bach or King Crimson I think it is good to set limits to our needs
@@nico3641 Hmm, i wonder how they discover new music 30-40 years ago with no streaming:))
Spot on. Thanks for the great content.
Thank you John for the informative video. As a relative newcomer to streaming I have started out on the Bluesound Node 2i and love it. I am feeding it directly wired for best results and have a pretty decent high end system albeit my main priority are still LPs. Naturally I am wanting the very best quality possible and right now in a quandary as to which direction to go for my music services. As a Prime Amazon member I am enjoying their music streaming for now and also recently started a 30 day trial with Qobuz. Here is my concern-apart from the obvious wanting Hi Res (CD quality or better) WHO offers the greatest selection as well in your opinion? Also I do not like using my smartphone as an interface (I have an Android)....what type of notepad works best? Many thanks!!
I was once at a large spacious cafe enjoying my Java and reading something, and there was this kid maybe 18 who was the barista playing Beethoven’s symphony no. 3, on what looked like a radio he brought from home. I was amazed how much I was enjoying it, just like the old Doctor Who, with it’s leanness, it allowed my imagination to fly with it. Einstein once said: “ Imagination is more important than knowledge.” In this case imagination was more important than hi-res.
That said I think it’s still significant to get hi-res whenever available. Especially if it’s a favorite of yours. I have my speaker connected to the Schitt modi 3. And like Mr. Darko put it, it puts more meat on the recording; especially I’ve noticed this with vintage pieces .One guy on CZcams said that to him, using the modi 3 was like giving digital music a soul. I listen to music from Mozart to Johnny Cash, so I’ve experienced this in many genres. Whether hi-res or a descent DAC I think it’s worth it.
Good video. I love to buy Hi-Res audio as it gives me a good feeling to have bought the best version available, but I actually have yet to find a 24 Bit recording that would sound so much better than its 16 bit equivalent if based on the same master...so yes, mastering is far more important. next the headphone/speakers are very important to get more out of your music, the audio device used can be important at least to a certain point, your listening room can be important, but the file format alone does not really say all too much in my experience.
Oh, and here is point 15: your very personal music taste. You love Classical concerts, Jazz and have lots of live music experience? Well you might actually notice subtle differences. You like singer/songwriter material: at least some have put a lot of effort into recording and mastering and you MIGHT hear a bit more texture on voices and more space on instruments. If you concentrate on it and know where to look(listen) for. You love black/death/doom metal like me? ha ha, yes I have records in 24 Bit and they sound as bad as you would expect them to sound and as they are supposed to. There is no magic Hi-Res that turns it into audiophile material. Same goes for most pop songs out there today.
I would have hoped that mastering could improve when Hi-Res could become a new standard (ppl love 4k TVs f.e.), but most ppl listen to music while going to work by subway or in the background while doing other things - in such cases/environments I also would not hear ANY difference or it would not matter. Also many records out their are mixed at high loudness levels - they are supposed to be liked while being played / streamed in the subway, not your home stereo.
Not judging on ppl, it is same with me and all those movie/series streaming and 200 million usd blockbusters coming out every month - I loved movies back when I was younger but the market has become so huge, you just get fed up with stuff and bored. Think it is similar with fast consuming of music which is always available everywhere. So companies would always want to have masters that feel attractive at first listen - usually that´s the case when the bass is punchy and song is loud. Master it more neutral and ppl might skip it. Do a third master for Hi-Res besides CD and Vinyl? Too expensive and most people would not care/buy.
I still think that Hi-Res COULD outshine both CD and Vinyl if they would get mastered accordingly and be available to mainstream consumers by streaming sevices and better affordable audio quality devices or mobiles f.e., but as long as this is not going to happen, you could actually stay with CD format for 90% of the music out there.
Oh and last point: No matter the format, music should be listened to primarily to be enjoyed - not dissected bit by bit. Once I returned to this mindset , I actually had more fun and peace listening to music again.
Hello,
this reminds me of a conversation I was having with a friend recently. He is a music lover (started his own record label, massive vinyl collection etc) but until recently did not have anything decent in terms of stereo equipment. He is mainly into punk / post-punk / new wave etc and his argument was that the records he plays do not deserve the high-end high-res treatment.
His eyes were opened when he bought a decent budget vinyl based system, suddenly Hendrix and his jazz records sounded great but (in his own words) “nothing will make Crass sound good”.
So, instead of chasing ultimate resolution, should the equipment be purchased to suit the music you actually listen to? What is the point of buying a highly resolving system if it makes poor recordings you actually want to listen to sound bad.
Kudos to you John, you’re spot on. I totally agree with you. You’re my best reference when it comes to audio gear, you’re very honest in your reviews and comments. I’m first and foremost more a mélomane (music lover) than a pure audiophile ( well I’m not as obsessed by equipment than some of you.) That being said, I enjoy good sounding audio recording and can recognize and appreciate the difference between an ordinary sound system and a good one. I don’t own super high end audio equipment but I have a decent hifi system (NAD receiver and CD player and Paradigm speaker enclosures). But for me nothing beats a live concert in a good environment. Merci! From the Province of Québec in Canada.
Great video. Surely super enlightening. I couldn't agree more. Was it just me or was there a subtle bass note playing throughout the video? I kinda noticed it towards the end though.
From my experience in the hobby, in terms of perceived audio quality, upgrading the analog end (like a getting a really good headphone with a really good amp) is always going to be 10 or 20 times more impactful than upgrading the digital end (good DAC and high resolution digital audio source). It makes perfect financial sense to only upgrade the former and stop there. The diminishing return is oh so real.
I’m the only one in my circle that owns a hi-fi system. Everyone else just plays a mini system or Bluetooth speaker.
Same, very few people do these days. It's a niche hobby!
After getting a pair of ADS 910s, ( my end-gamers, most likely, as I'm old and budget-locked in retirement ) I have a room stacked full of bookshelf's and some tower speakers that I can barely give away to family and friends, because they like their BT speakers. I won't even bother telling them to come and listen to my system to find the joy of great music because I might as well try giving celery to my dogs as a treat.
The same with my friends. Its really sad I think. They pay more for a new smartphone than on speakers...
@@rap4live39 my headphones cost more then my iPhone 12 Pro max
I feel that Hi fi dead when "Hi FI" tag became a selling container. Hi Fi is sound that is hard to recognize from reality around No way to be sure if it comes from speakers or not. Because what was sold later was gear which fulfilled tech requirements, was loud like a gig and sounded like gig, 100% opinions say it is today out of reach. Because it was bad most listeners fall in love with only sopranos and bass. Then was the right time for endless technologies and that is where we are.
Yep, I think you are spot on. Plus, in the past I caught myself, in the pursuit of high res, thinking "well, can't listen to those tracks I love anymore"... which then made me smack myself in the head! After all, I assume most of us are pursuing our love and connection we find we have with music. I don't want to dismiss that cuz there is no version of a song, album or artist I love that meets the needs of the equipment I'm using. And I don't want to be that guy who listens to music he dislikes just because it is in 24/192!
Agreed with all your points. Good thing is that lufs measurements and other tools that are getting popular are fixing the masters (kinda it's going to take some time). When master get less loud all the other stuff will not matter so much anymore.
How about a piece recommending people buy a decent mid-range DAC rather than investing in a Vinyl playback system (particularly a turntable with bluetooth out for listening on headphones).
Okay, but I listen to both mediums of playback; records, CD Players; and I also have a Topping D10 DAC, portable eSynic amplifier from last year. DAC is connected to one of my computers; mostly from a desktop computer.
Bluetooth? Really? LOL!
I fully agree, John, and many thanks for your efforts. The shirt, however ... haven't I seen it on Steve Guttenberg 😉?
Have they ever been seen together ?
Without the denim shirt I didn't know who he was for a second. 😎
@@Jedi71 Shirts matter 😁
Who wore it better?
@@conkerman01 now you nention it......
Thought provoking and well presented as always. I am beginning to think that the transmission and storage formats are much less important than the mastering (ADC in the studio) and the reconstruction methods (in the DAC). For me the Hugo Mscaler has made the differences between Red Book and HiRes *stored material* moot. Greetings to you and yours John (Very Nice Shirt ;¬)
The day I moved from 320kbps to FLAC's, I was blown away. This was about 18 years ago when I got my first professional audio interface. But honestly, after everything I have learned from being a sound engineer behind the scenes, making the music records, "hi-res" audio above CD (44.1-16) makes no sense.
For music 44.1-6 is the target. Always. The only reason for going higher is typically to capture more detail in the recording stage, when you're actually capturing live instruments. But once it has been captured, dithering down to 44.1 with good converters makes little to no appreciable difference; even on reference monitors. And if it's electronic music made with samples, hi-res makes even less sense.
As long as the CD quality resolution survives and can be easily accessed, I'll be a happy lad.
As someone who grew up watching VHS and using a Back to the Future type Walkman, CD is more than good enough for me. In fact so is Spotify. The discover aspect is the best part of it. My tastes have shifted significantly back towards electronic music, Depeche Mode were my favourite band in the 80’s, and Spotify has completely transformed my appreciation of music. I own Grado headphones, and have a Zen DAC V2, but the music always comes first for me. Great shirt by the way.
How do you like zen dac v2? Thinking of getting this to complement my Sundara setup with hip-dac. I first plan to invest into a closed back headphones like dt770 or Sony-msr7b though.
Right. Music first, always.
@@TomBabula I was expecting more from it. The extra power is useful with a pair of headphones I had to run at nearly 100% volume on my phone, but I personally don’t notice any real sound quality improvement. As someone who’s never used a dedicated DAC before, my Cambridge amp has one built in, I was quite disappointed. That includes with hires files. I’m currently using it as a pre-amp and DAC into my desktop speakers via RCA off my PC via usb.
I do actually find the truebass function works well with both the grados and my speakers, not significant, just enough to give a bit of extra kick to some electronic music. I listen to pretty much every genre.
Agreed about CD quality being plenty good enough. I was informed that a “Hi-Res” master transfers very nicely to regular CD.
Nicely Done.
Thanks for changing it up from time to time :)
I agree, the mainstream will never care about Hi-Res. At one time 8-Track and Cassettes were all the rage with all that tape hiss...people didn't care. Vinyl with all the surface noise, pops & clicks...people didn't care. We finally have a way to play music with the highest quality ever and mainstream people don't care.
I agree the mainstream don't care about hi-res. It's only an audiophile thing.
Unless they're exposed to audiophile equipment they'll never know what they're missing. When I was first buying home speakers I was given sage advice, never listen to speakers you can't afford because you'll regret the ones you purchased. I never knew what I was missing in the high end audiophile equipment because I didn't even give them a chance.....which was on purpose.
Well... predicting the future is a silly business. So there's that. Secondly, CD-quality was frozen in an age when computing was in its infancy, just as lossy-encoding was frozen in an age when internet speeds were much slower. Third, what is hi-rez? I can sit on a Sunday night listening to an unfamiliar Qobuz playlist and predict with at least 80% accuracy when the songs switch from 16/44.1 to 24/anything. Now, some people can't even hear the stereo effect, so for those people "air" in the soundstage is a meaningless concept. But if you CAN hear it, then once you miss it, you know you're missing it. Nothing about "good mastering" or "loudness wars" can explain the loss of air associated with early-80s bit-depth. Fourth, sample rate is less of an issue than bit-depth. If John has a point about the difficulty of hearing hi-rez's benefits (and I think he does), it's sample rate that he's right about. Fifth, most of the Apple ecosystem and aptX HD can pass 24/44.1 or 24/48 (not sure about Sonos), which I would argue is good enough. Sixth, most 4g and 5g networks (and almost all homes with cable internet) can pass 24/44.1 and 24/48 uncompressed with little dropouts (which is why MQA is a solution in search of a problem). Ultimately, technology will be good enough so 24-bit audio can become the standard. It is reasonable to hope for that. Higher sample rates? Maybe. But to me, that's not the hill to die on.
If I could push like button more than once, I would. We're on one page.
I am apposite. I hear sample rate differences more than bit depth. I am all in favour of a minimum 48khz sample rate standard. That 4khx above cd quslity makes a noticeable difference in the high frequencies. Smoother and more natural. At 44khz sample rate there are only 4 samples at 11khz. That leaves big gaps for the filters to fill in
See, only you and people like you think that.
CD quality specs were set for a reason and the reason is that they are good enough and more than 44.1/16 is not needed for 99.5% of people.
If it was even possible for an average guy to hear the difference you (claim to be able to) hear, the average guy would need to own a decent system (which the average guy would call "ultra high end") and he will simply never spend that much. Not today and not ever.
The average guy buys a pair of tws earbuds for $30 and calls it a day.
And for that level of equipment 44.1/16 is not only enough, it is too much
@ Michael Jarmin-I am with you if I understand your point correctly! I would consider myself a budding audiophile. I decided one day to try out apple HiRes setting , and was going through some of my saved albums not realizing that I hit on one that played back at 192khz, not knowing at the time as I was standing away from my Dac as it shows the bit rate etc when playing a song. I Immediately said wow this song sounds more crystal clear and better then the last. To my amazement I noticed that the current album was playing at 192 and the prior was at 44. To make sure I was not just hearing it in my subjective mind I immediately went back and forth between albums and I could hear the difference in clarity!
As one who was an audiophile and is now part of the mainstream type of listener, what killed it for me was my listening habits changing (90% during commute), hearing slightly deteriorating due to age, and listening to the music required a type of solitude and isolation from my wife I’m not interested in. For the commute on national rail and London Underground there are no benefits to trying for audiophile quality, decent isolating BT’s are enough to make me smile. It’s a great hobby no doubt, and I loved it while I was in it, and the technology still really interests me, so one day I may return, but for now non-audiophile quality is of good enough standard that I don’t miss it.
The wife point is important. My hi-fi hobby went into hibernation when we married in 2000. When she dumped me for another man I dug out the Linn TT and the old Naim olive 72/140 amps, added some f-off floor standers from Fyne and everything now sounds wonderful! Even Spotify via my Raspberry Pi. If your budget, time and living space are shared then hi-fi barely has a chance, let alone high res
Very enlightening, really appreciated that one
I think you are spot on. I use Qobuz via Roon on a 17K system. I ditched Tidal because I was very disappointed with some of the Masters. With Qobuz it's better. I do hear the higher quality but only just. It's almost like you have to concentrate your hearing to listening to the quality rather than the music to hear the difference, but it gives me a form of satisfaction hearing the finer details, but ultimately it is about the music enjoyment, and there CD quality is mostly good enough.
If you really want the best audio. Just listen to flacs
@@lazlobang2282 Qobuz and Tidal are both lossless.
I'm so glad I found this channel. So refreshing and the production value is on point! Regained my love for hifi again! Thank you
Tying in to something you said a couple of years ago in a video about vinyl, I wonder if labels originally marketed CDs with the same packaging as vinyl albums if things would be different today.
Hi John,
This is an excellent video and very good 14 points! I have a minimal audio setup. I listen to my music on my amazing Dutch & Dutch 8c via AES3 from my miniDSP SHD Studio. I used Spotify but now I switched to Apple Music for their high quality. I stream my music over AirPlay from my iPhone or iPad Pro and is sounds amazing. I enjoy it every day. If Spotify comes with a better quality, then I will decide if I stay with Apple Music. Who knows. What I just want to say with all this is that I totally agree with you about the importance of the master quality. And most of the times, we don’t even know how it is actually been created. So, I enjoy my music with what I have. I it sounds damn good on my 8c’s 😁🎶🔊
Lot’s of greetings, Dennis 🇳🇱
As usual the best thorough analysis on the subject and I’m not sorry as you concluded because with my very high end 15000 +$ hifi system and my poor 57 years ears I can’t hear any difference between CD quality and HiRes tracks. But lossy vs CD quality makes a huge gap for me. You just need a 1000$+ DAC for that. Which is really worth it. Best regards to you all.
Great points. But you miss the point. For a long, long, time one of the pillars of marketing is to plaster the word “New!” across the box. “Hi-Res!” is just another word for “New!” Hi-Res will have a long life until the next new thing comes along.
It has been around since at least 1999 with first SACDs and 24/96 DVD-Audio discs came a year or two later. 24/96 has existed in pro audio since the late 90s. So whether the format entices people to buy like a "New!" label, these actually aren't new at all
I fully agree. I had one of my mates hook her phone into my system to play a couple of tracks she wanted to run and I was met with the conjested smeared phasey underwater version of the track. It was horrific. I think I got in about 20 seconds before I said hold up, hold up and removed the offending mobile device from my signal chain. I then found the same track which i had already on cd and played it at the same volume to show her the difference. She said it sounded a lot better but I knew she really wasn't that fussed about it.. it was just my concern. This led me to wonder if the general population really gives a sh!t or whether they don't know any better. I personally couldn't believe she liked the mp3 version (really really bad mp3). Bear in mind my example of improvement for her was only cd quality. If she didn't really care about that then she deffo would have no love for Hi-res. As you mentioned, one must have a proper setup or a good pair of cans+amp to really take advantage of Hi-res. Most of these kids are listening on unbranded Bluetooth speakers or the cheap iems that came with their phones. They don't care lol xx
Thanks for talking about this, while I do enjoy the gear to make music, it's all about listening to the music in the end. Whether that's your favorite song playing on a supermarket speaker or on the home rig, it's all about enjoying the music. Hi-Res could go the way of the DAT tape :-)
What I mainly care about is knowing that the hi-res source is the same resolution as originally recorded, as intended by the artist or as close as possible. Would be nice if there was a "artist source" indicator in addition to Dolby Atmos, Spacial Audio or other modified audio indicators.
Yeah, seems like audiophilia is mostly a mind game :-)
"No 8. The Mastering quality matters". It may be more important than the delivery container but it has little to do with sound quality. Audiophiles really do not get the recording process, and so I guess in this instance "Mastering" is being used to consolidate production, editing, mixing and mastering. If the first three deliver a turd, you have a polished turd after mastering.
Mastering is one of the biggest factors in sound quality. When you squash a piece of music down in the mastering stage so it's extremely loud you end up losing impact, detail, and can even introduce clipping which all contribute to bad sound quality.
That's really the problem with a lot of high res remasters, one step forward, two steps back. Nobody wants an expensive 24 bit recording if it hurts to listen to.
An interesting take. What I think was missing in the conversation is that the reproduction experience and sonic differnces very much depend on the music complexity. For instance, artificial (created by electronic devices) sound would not benefit too much from hi-res recording (btw, I totally agree about the mastering quality - just listen to Chesky's CDs). However, for complex orchestral classical records hi-res Is beneficial and sounds noticably better. And I agree that to hear hi-res recording a pair of good headphones and a guiet environment is a must. While I do not own very expensive equipment (Pioneer DVD-Audio/SD Audio - Yamaha Amp - Seinheiser HD600), my friends are virtually blown away when they listen. And here is another reason - those who did not experience hi-res music do not know what they miss - thus no demand.
You may have some delusion about electronic music instruments. Analog synthesizers can benefit from 24bit recording. Digital synthesizers also benefit from 24bit format due to high polyphony numbers they provide.
John, all great points! And I couldn’t agree with you anymore on #7 and #8….to me that’s the cusp of enjoying the best possible sound available to us regardless of resolution. I have CD’s that easily trumps 24/192 streaming content and vice versa. For audiophiles, the saving grace is DSD downloads.
I could listen to Jana talking about sponsor all day :)
Quick test who was the sponsor
Totally agree, there has been a lot of snobbery about compressed files. They sound fine in most situations. CD quality is excellent with the right equipment! It's all about the music and how it's recorded imo!
I think this all started in the time between when people were ripping (their own) CDs to horribly compressed MP3-files and then later to lossless FLAC-files, when the FLAC codec, and cheaper hard drives with more space became available. And I think most people still confuse MP3 compression with lossy music streaming, and FLAC lossless (CD-quality) audio with lossless, high-res music streaming.
I feel your most valid point, (there were others too) was mastering maters more than format, and more than format quality. ex: sound garden sounds to me terrible on vinyl but great on cd, while Metallica (black album) sounds great but slightly different on both, amazon HD does sound slightly better than regular but only with good recordings and on my recently upgraded focal kanta's paired with a hegel h390! (Hegel was not on my radar until I started watching your channel, thanks I feel I owe you that one! great pairing between kanta and hegel)
Never saw the arguments presented so succintly (or in such a smashing blouse), thx!
:-)
Thank you for making this video John. I agree with all that you've said. I tried qobuzz and couldn't tell the difference between even Spotify premium and it. I love Spotify and I'm really looking forward to the HiFi package later this year. It's got by far the best control panel and a vast music library with most of what I am into. Can't beat Spotify for me and I personally believe that we will be seeing one or two of their competitors disappearing.
Very Good 14 points! I want to raise a question that I do not know if anyone has talked about. What about the errors in the stream offered. For instance I have noticed noise spikes in the middle of a track or even a file stopping some 10 seconds before it should have. I am a classical music listener and this is not trivial. I experienced this in Spotify and mainly in Tidal. They seem to have the same sources...
Excellent monologue of an intricate topic. Loads of practical permutations to consider to be able to optimise HRA between quality of source, hardware/software and DAC. And, finally, the finesse of your sound delivery system-whole to be able to hear the audible difference between, for eg, between 192 and 384 kHz sampling.
I will agree with you about CDs. You're not getting a TON of improvement going from CD to 24 bit. I like to describe the different between the 2 as you get a little more "space" for the instruments to play in with 24 bit. Just ever so slightly easier for me to hear each instrument clearly on 24 bit vs 16 of a CD.
I would say MP3 320 is about the bare minimum for good quality music. It's just a shame that most streaming services are giving people 128. I can hardly listen to 128 after having been listening to 24 bit.
As long as high resolution is always available for me to play with on my system 💥💥😁
You are right, and most people and that incudes audiophiles don´t have good enough placement and room acoustics to begin with so it makes it extremely hard to hear those last procent of the source quality, nice gear need nice room!
I think most people would be surprised at how good a well mastered CD will sound using modern dac tech. I read about how complicated computer based server systems can get to serve the music when a simpler chain is CD > Transport > DAC> Amplification > Speakers. In my tests with gear, Streaming at 24/48 or above misses more often than it matches or exceeds the SQ using my local source. Can’t beat the catalog access when streaming- but then again I love physical media.
Now is the perfect time to start a CD collection, the prices are so cheap.
I’ve started to realize that cd’s are the way to go at the moment. I love my vinyl but when I put a cd on of an album I have on vinyl, I fall in love with the clean, crisp sound. As vinyl has its “warm” sound, much can be said for the detailed sharpness of a cd. It’s another way to hear your favorite music.
Love Cds but have ran out of room to store them so would like to buy them and be able to record them to play back exactly as if it was in the CD player
This is the video I've been waiting for. I suspected all of this based on my own experiences, but could not quite understand it all nor did I have the universal knowledge of all the issues and ability to talk about it like Darko has. Thank you. Pretty good is often pretty good enough....
I have the choice of listening to the same source via Bluetooth or wired. The wired connection is a recent addition and it clearly has more something. I don't know if it's more detail at the low decibels and at the boundaries of the frequency range (high and low) or just more gain in those areas. The equalizer on my source is tuned for the bluetooth transmission and it sounds very good, and it's a little more convenient (my BT receiver has a play/pause button), so that's what I mostly use, especially if I'm just listing to music for background filler. And I enjoy how the BT transmission sounds. If it annoyed me I would make the effort to tune equalizer for my wired connection.
Nice video. Regarding my experience, with most of my friends I do agree. Personnaly, I came from Cd to AAC for convenience and after 10 years, went back to Cd quality (minima) because of the convenience of Qobuz and of course, the sound quality. That said, lots of young people never heard cd quality. And they listen via very poor equipement. Sonos, BT connection etc.
When has hi-res audio ever been mainstream?
It's not, but it's probably a selling point used in advertising to make people think something is good, even if they don't really understand why. I mean, higher numbers (sampling/bit rates) are better, right? That's all the masses need to know.
Brought the everso master edition for $1100 hooked it up tried it out for 2 days sounded terrible was glad to return it and play my CDs again high resolution players suck
hi res is okay. hi res streaming is complicated. that's it.
Yeah, like Facebook relationship: it's complicated 😋
I get great sound with my Schiit Modi 3 DAC and powered monitors. To think I could get "better" sound just seems ridiculous. Plus I'm a bass guy so I need to have the thump of a sub which will take any idea of the subtle nuances and stomp them anyway. I'm ok with that because my system is for me nobody else.
Love that wall behind you!
Hello Mr Darko, greetings from Portugal.
I have a minidisc 920 from Sony that I am using as a headphone amp connected either via coax or spidif from my CD player or the streamer or analog via my tube integrated amplifier. I just got may hands on the 800s. Do you feel that it is enough or not to power them properly?
Thank you in advance.
Stay safe.
Considering when the CD standard was created, it's quite an impressive spec. (Having said that, I use Tidal, and love it).
BTW... 15) Most modern music has a tiny dynamic range and doesn't really need anything more than 16 bit.
Define 'modern music' please.
@@dougdavis8986 practically everything to be listen publicly, except some classic concerts etc, where dynamic range is due to original concert volumes
I think, for me at least, is if streaming services offered true-CD level quality AND had an accurate catalog of albums regarding their released date then that would be a huge plus in the camp of audiophiles. Meaning there wouldn't be just one version of an album which had iterated many "remastering" versions and all you get is the latest version. So if 'Thriller' had 12 different versions, then all 12 could be streamed and sound slightly different due to dynamic compression.
Waste of bandwidth.
Interesting stuff, indeed. I can definitely hear the difference between a Spotify and Qobuz track through my Chord TT2 with M-sampler - in fact the difference is huge, the Spotify track sounding very 'flat' and compressed compared to the standard CD quality of Qobuz. HiRes differences? More difficult to discern, especially where music was originally recorded fifty years ago. Having said that, some Miles Davis albums recorded in the late 1950s sound amazing through HiRes. But as you say, tracks brilliantly mastered will always sound excellent. I also have a basic Sonos set up and can hear no difference between Spotify and Qobuz - it all sounds fine and that's what I'd expect from the system and accept that. If that's what many people are happy with, you're right - HiRes is a difficult sell.