Guest The Fresh Prince Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 Just wondering whether anyone has compared high res with vinyl and what people think. Apologies if this thread already exists. Please provide a link, if this is so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Muon Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 Are you asking for personal preferences here? Just a little hard to link such a thing... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest The Fresh Prince Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 Are you asking for personal preferences here?Just a little hard to link such a thing... Sorry, I should have been clearer. By "link" I meant "hyperlink" to the appropriate thread. Yes, I'm just looking for personal preferences. Interested to see if other peoples finding s are similar to my own Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Muon Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 OK, I prefer vinyl, but I do use digital for convenience if I'm up and about constantly and not critically listening (getting into the groove). I don't bother with hi-res though. No links, just my preference Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest The Fresh Prince Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 (edited) Thanks 'fone. Wondering of anyone else has any experience they want to share specifically relating to High Res (rather than CD)? The reason I ask is I have recently got into downloading albums from HD tracks. I was fairly sure that these would sound better, or get close to vinyl. This evening I have been comparing Rumours on High Res compared to the remastered vinyl Rumours (33.3). To my surprise, vinyl still rules the roost to my ears and in my system. It's no that high res is bad, it's just so different (on this particular recording. I plan to try others) Edited November 4, 2011 by teddyboy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolster Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 I think the Linn experience is educational. They provide both, turntables plus digital streaming of high res. but no CD players. If you read through the Linn forum you will find that many members have both and enjoy both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest The Fresh Prince Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 many members have both and enjoy both. Well said. I certainly enjoy both, but I'm amazed at how different they sound Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Muon Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 Re:Hi-res I did do some up-sampling of redbook files to 64bit float/382Hz or what ever the max with Wavelab 6 is, and while many albums showed little or no difference (some sounded worse). One that did get better and better with higher encoding, and that was Fleetwood Mac's "The Dance" this album was very special after re-encoding. I didn't try Rumors. I'm not surprised with your findings teddyboy, for myself the vinyl sound has some qualities that are just not apparent with digital of any form, from my experience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest The Fresh Prince Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 Re:Hi-resI did do some up-sampling of redbook files to 64bit float/382Hz or what ever the max with Wavelab 6 is, and while many albums showed little or no difference (some sounded worse). One that did get better and better with higher encoding, and that was Fleetwood Mac's "The Dance" this album was very special after re-encoding. I didn't try Rumors. I'm not surprised with your findings teddyboy, for myself the vinyl sound has some qualities that are just not apparent with digital of any form, from my experience. Most of the high res files I have downloaded are 24 bit/96 kHz. (I have no idea what that actually means, but thought it might be useful for the purposes of this discussion). These have been ripped to DVD. MAX was used to convert to Wav. The DVD has then been played in my PerfectWave transport Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Muon Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 I will admit that in 64bit float/384Hz, files were a little on the large size. A pain for storage even these days. Yes they were that big Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicprObe Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 Bah! I told you not to respond to those emails! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Muon Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 Huh? what emails? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicprObe Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 Huh? what emails? The ones about making things huge...........unbelievably huge............ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Muon Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 *snort* I never answer those after the last.....eer, ummm......email. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hired goon Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 G'day, Just wondering whether anyone has compared high res with vinyl and what people think. I've posted this before, but Doug Sax, who has engineered and mastered lots of records including Pink Floyd and direct-to-disc Sheffield Labs LPs, mentioned the following in an interview recently: Beyond the LP what do you see? The other thing I hope takes off is high-resolution music on Blu-ray. You can put non-compressed 24-bit/192kHz audio surround or two channel on it, and I’m hoping that’s where it goes. Even though the LP is a technology I’m conversant and feel totally comfortable with, it’s pathetic that the best thing you can buy in 2010 is an LP—an artifact from the 1960s. For me, if I could go home and listen to a disc in 192kHz the way I hear it in the studio, you could keep your LPs. See this interview [warning: link to 25Mb PDF file]. Normally I would not get into vinyl-vs-digital debates but when someone like Doug Sax with 40+ years of vinyl experience starts preferring hi-res digital then I get interested. --Geoff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicprObe Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 Got SACD HG? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hired goon Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 G'day, Got SACD HG? Got some hybrid SACDs (and some more on the way) but no way to play the SACD layer, unfortunately. But I'm hoping that one day I will have a decent player, or find a way to rip 'em. --Geoff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicprObe Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 Just get one of these to tide you over. http://www.sony.com.au/support/product/BDP-S370 Plays videos as well! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warrengday Posted November 13, 2011 Share Posted November 13, 2011 After hearing classical musicians play and rehearse all morning once, I then went home and listened to vinyl and high res recordings; I find vinyl moves me emotionally almost as much as live and digital sounds more like the instruments do in real life. Thus I prefer vinyl. One of the reasons I got a Linn DS was to explore high res recordings. For me the best way to describe them is as a completely different source, much closer to vinyl in calibre than CD. Upsampling a CD to high resolution won't make any difference, it is like taking a 20 megapixel picture of a chess board, you still end up with an 8x8 image. Detail lost is detail lost. What does 24bit/96kHz mean. The khz is the frequency of the sampling done, how many times a second you take the analogue sound and take a sample at one point in time to be remembered as a part of the digital recording, the higher khz the better. The bit number is how detailed the number is, 16 bit means the voltage is remembered as a number between 0 and 65,000 whereas 24 bit is 50% more detailed, the sound is remembered as a number between 0 and 16,000,000. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bhobba Posted November 13, 2011 Share Posted November 13, 2011 (edited) Upsampling a CD to high resolution won't make any difference, it is like taking a 20 megapixel picture of a chess board, you still end up with an 8x8 image. Detail lost is detail lost. I have compared standard 44.1 to 192 upsampled many times on many DAC's and can hear clear and beneficial differences even between different upsamplers. A guy I know got a hold of some gear that does upsampling to 384 and he thinks it sounds a good deal better again. Chord have investigated this and believe gains can be made upsampling into the MHz region: http://www.chordelectronics.co.uk/chord-dac-technology.asp There are technical reasons for this eg in a NOS DAC you are moving digital hash from conversion to way outside the audio band which can cause inter-modulation effects even though you can not hear that high. In DACs that do over-sampling (a non sophisticated form of up-sampling) you get the benefit of the better up-sampling algorithms. Its not magic or anything like that its just that the technicalities of this are quite subtle which is why IMHO it is wise to base views on listening rather than simplistic technical analysis. As for High-Res vs Vinyl I have not done that comparison for ages but what people I trust who have done it tell me is - yes Vinyl is better - but not the el cheapo variety - you have to spend a substantial sum - well over $10K - one guy mentioned they did the comparison with a $100K rig. Also I recently had a quick listen to a good vinyl rig about the same price as my DAC (around 4K) and I would say my DAC is better but the sound was different enough for me to also say it is probably a personal preference sort of thing. Thanks Bill Edited November 13, 2011 by bhobba Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bhobba Posted November 13, 2011 Share Posted November 13, 2011 (edited) I've posted this before, but Doug Sax, who has engineered and mastered lots of records including Pink Floyd and direct-to-disc Sheffield Labs LPs, mentioned the following in an interview recently: Beyond the LP what do you see? The other thing I hope takes off is high-resolution music on Blu-ray. You can put non-compressed 24-bit/192kHz audio surround or two channel on it, and I’m hoping that’s where it goes. Even though the LP is a technology I’m conversant and feel totally comfortable with, it’s pathetic that the best thing you can buy in 2010 is an LP—an artifact from the 1960s. For me, if I could go home and listen to a disc in 192kHz the way I hear it in the studio, you could keep your LPs. See this interview [warning: link to 25Mb PDF file]. Interesting view. I believe the future is very bright for hi res recordings at 386 or even 764 in the 'cloud' via subscription services. Problem is audiophiles are a diminishing minority and it is doubtful anyone will have the financial incentive to bring that about any time soon. You average yobbo on the street cant even hear the difference between high bit rate MP3 and lossless. Actually while I can on my gear it is no give me - on occasion I actually prefer the MP3. Thanks Bill Edited November 13, 2011 by bhobba Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warrengday Posted November 13, 2011 Share Posted November 13, 2011 I have compared standard 44.1 to 192 upsampled many times on many DAC's and can hear clear and beneficial differences even between different upsamplers. Definitely. My Linn DS has got better over the years as the upsampling algorithms have been refined. However, what I was trying (and previously failing) to get at is that a CD upscaled to higher resolution is only upscaled and sounds smoother - it is not now magically a high res recording, just a better smoother sounding redbook CD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bhobba Posted November 13, 2011 Share Posted November 13, 2011 Definitely. My Linn DS has got better over the years as the upsampling algorithms have been refined. However, what I was trying (and previously failing) to get at is that a CD upscaled to higher resolution is only upscaled and sounds smoother - it is not now magically a high res recording, just a better smoother sounding redbook CD. On that basis abso-friggen-lutely. Thanks Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craigandkim Posted November 13, 2011 Share Posted November 13, 2011 (edited) However, what I was trying (and previously failing) to get at is that a CD upscaled to higher resolution is only upscaled and sounds smoother - it is not now magically a high res recording, just a better smoother sounding redbook CD. Exactly, up-sampling is not hi-res..... Hi-res these days is something like a DXD recording...recorded at 32bit/352.8khz for example. Edited November 13, 2011 by Craigandkim bold Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Volunteer sir sanders zingmore Posted November 13, 2011 Volunteer Share Posted November 13, 2011 Just get one of these to tide you over.http://www.sony.com.au/support/product/BDP-S370 Plays videos as well! Where do you put the cassettes in? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts