Boston Audio Society on High Resolution not being superior to CD

[PHC1]

Claims both published and anecdotal are regularly made for audibly superior sound quality for two-channel audio encoded with longer word lengths and/or at higher sampling rates than the 16-bit/44.1-kHz CD standard. The authors report on a series of double-blind tests comparing the analog output of high-resolution players playing high-resolution recordings with the same signal passed through a 16-bit/44.1-kHz “bottleneck.”

The tests were conducted for over a year using different systems and a variety of subjects. The systems included expensive professional monitors and one high-end system with electrostatic loudspeakers and expensive components and cables. The subjects included professional recording engineers, students in a university recording program, and dedicated audiophiles.

The test results show that the CD-quality A/D/A loop was undetectable at normal-to-loud listening levels, by any of the subjects, on any of the playback systems. The noise of the CD-quality loop was audible only at very elevated levels.


Full article. http://drewdaniels.com/audible.pdf

[cma29]

from page 778...

...one trend became obvious very quickly and held up throughout our testing: virtually all of the SACD and DVD-A recordings sounded better than most CDs—sometimes much better. Had we not “degraded” the sound to CD quality and blind-tested for audible differences, we would have been tempted to ascribe this sonic superiority to the recording processes used to make them.

Plausible reasons for the remarkable sound quality of these recordings emerged in discussions with some of the engineers currently working on such projects. This portion of the business is a niche market in which the end users are preselected, both for their aural acuity and for their willingness to buy expensive equipment, set it up correctly, and listen carefully in a low-noise environment.

This paragraph refers to the likes of us so it seems like products being marketed as hi-resolution are better quality due to the engineer's effort to cater to this selective market with high-quality systems.

Our test results indicate that all of these recordings could be released on conventional CDs with no audible difference. They would not, however, find such a reliable conduit to the homes of those with the systems and listening habits to appreciate them.

Bottom line: high resolution might not be superior to CD, but the better recordings are made and marketed for high resolution media so that is its value.

[PHC1]

Originally Posted by cma29

from page 778...



This paragraph refers to the like of us so it seems like products being marketed as hi-resolution are better quality due to the engineer's effort to cater to this selective market with high-quality systems.



Bottom line: high resolution might not be superior to CD, but the better recordings are made and marketed for high resolution media so that is its value.

Definitely. A well recorded and mastered material matters much more than the actual resolution. Turd in, turd out in higher resolution? No thanks. It is actually amazing how much of the MQA stuff offered on Tidal is still loudness mastered and sounds like crap.

[bart]

Carlos, I think you distilled the essence.
SACD and other hi-res often, not always, contain very well recorded material.
They're more expensive, and thus bought by people who care for sound quality.
There are of course labels that only bring out CDs, like ECM, of very good quality (although ECM now also offers 24/96 streams on Qobuz).

Yesterday, I compared Sgt Pepper's 2017 Anniversary Edition to the 24/96 stream and neither my wife nor I could hear a real difference.

[PHC1]

Originally Posted by bart

Carlos, I think you distilled the essence.
SACD and other hi-res often, not always, contain very well recorded material.
They're more expensive, and thus bought by people who care for sound quality.
There are of course labels that only bring out CDs, like ECM, of very good quality (although ECM now also offers 24/96 streams on Qobuz).

Yesterday, I compared Sgt Pepper's 2017 Anniversary Edition to the 24/96 stream and neither my wife nor I could hear a real difference.

Precisely why I decided to restore my music collection from scratch in SACD format exclusively this time around. Only my favorites will be purchased in SACD and for all the "occasional" music, Tidal and Roon will just have to do. I figure I should be good with approximately 150-170 SACD and that should be plenty to occupy most of my music listening free time with an occasional listening session to discover new music on Tidal and perhaps add to the collection if the recording quality is good, if it really engages me and is available on SACD or high resolution download.

[FreddieFerric]

Some of my regular Chesky CD's sound ultra superb. Some of my MOFI SACD's not so much. All depends on mastering and production values at play during the recording sessions.

So yeah, I believe it.

[Weirdcuba]

Ok. Obligatory throw in for vinyl here. Occasional content that you can’t get in any other format. Occasionally, it sounds really good. If it doesn’t, let’s hope you didn’t pay more than $5 for it (and you can likely sell it for close to what you paid for it).

[PHC1]

Don’t forget the often outstanding XRCD

[Soundmig]

+1 on the XRCD's I have a bunch of them and the majority sound great.

[krustycat]

Exactly, I've got dozens of DCC, MFSL, AF, AP CD's and SACD's; many of them are still the best sounding digital version ever.