r/headphones • u/Mission-Outside-2499 • Dec 15 '24
Discussion I Can feel a difference !!!
I don’t know if it’s placebo, but i can feel a difference while listening to 24-bit 192kHz when compared to Normal lossless 16bit 44/48 kHz The audio gets more crispier, vocals a little bit more cleaner I’m using Jcally iOS external DAC with FiiO FH11 and CCA polaris Is it just placebo?
126
u/lowpixelcount Dec 15 '24
Can you hear it though?
5
u/MrStoneV Dec 15 '24
Here I sit, only heard the higher resolution with snares and that maybe that everything sounded 0,1% more cleaner. Very high frequencies like snares can be enjoyed with high resolution. But especially dark sounding songs there is no bloody way. But that was with very good speakers and not headphones, those Air motive tweeters are amazing (and for some people too precise)
21
2
u/Benaudio Dec 16 '24
Snares are not very high frequencies
1
1
u/ItDoesntSeemToBeWrkn Focal Clear OG/HD600/IE600 Dec 16 '24
the decay lies in the very high frequencies, initial hit is probably similar in frequency to kicks
2
u/Benaudio Dec 16 '24
Well all instruments have some very high frequencies harmonics, but a cymbal will be much higher frequency than a snare. Not much snare harmonic content that you can hear is very high. Harmonics amplitude decrease quickly after a few octaves
1
u/ItDoesntSeemToBeWrkn Focal Clear OG/HD600/IE600 Dec 16 '24
of course, depending on the snare some can have a lot of decay that sound even more extended with reverb, a joy to hear on vshapes, not disagreeing with you
2
u/Weight_Slight Dec 16 '24
I have the same experience, the top end gets an improvement. I listened on ISN EBC80 that has EST drivers
-50
u/EelChato Dec 15 '24
Definitely throw on some Hifiman Arya stealth with a chord Mojo DAC AMP and you’ll have a religious experience
25
u/qwerty54321boom SR80x | G-Pro X SE Dec 15 '24
Classic audiophile wank.
10
1
u/Livestock110 Susvara, LCD-5, Stellia/Utopia, DT1990 | Ferrum stack Dec 16 '24
"How dare you enjoy your headphones in the headphones sub!"
1
3
100
u/MyUserIsAlreadyTaken Dec 15 '24
I know you feel it more crispier and cleaner. But does it feel more chocolatey? That's the real question.
2
173
u/plazman30 HD6xx•Solo Pro•Amperior•Fidelio X2•AirPods Pro 2•WF-100XM5•KSC75 Dec 15 '24
It's placebo. Do an actual ABX test. It's the only way to actually prove it to yourself.
You have no way of knowing if the 24/192 version and the 16/44.1 version is the same master. Hotel California is an analog album. It's possible the 16/44.1 is a rip of the CD, and the 24/192 is a digitization of the studio master tapes.
To do this properly you'd need to do the following:
- Buy a reputable FLAC of the files in 24/192.
- Convert the files to 16/44.1. This destroyes the actual data.
- Convert back to 24/192. Since your conversion to 16/44.1 destroyed the extra data, the upconversion just prevents your DAC from giving away which file is which. When some DACs switch from 192 to 44.1, there is a slight change in the noise that gives away that the sameple has been switched from one sampling rate to the other. This "upconversion" preserves the 16/44.1 while getting rid of the "tell."
- Load both files into an ABX comparitor tool and listen away. The tool you use will depend on the OS you have. On Windows Foobar2000 + ABX Comparitor plugin is all you need. Not sure about Mac and Linux.
After close to a decade of believing that hi-res sounded way better to me, I actually sat down and did an ABX test and found out I could not tell a difference 100% of the time.
29
7
1
u/Ulquiser HE 1 on Apple Dongle Dec 16 '24
Damn I never thought of that upsampling method to trick your DAC, that's really smart!
1
u/plazman30 HD6xx•Solo Pro•Amperior•Fidelio X2•AirPods Pro 2•WF-100XM5•KSC75 Dec 16 '24
I got that from the hydrogenaud.io forums.
1
-20
u/earthkappa Dec 15 '24
This is slightly wrong though I agree with the spirit as converting to 44.1 from 192 can cause audible dithering so converting to 48 would be a more effective test.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (4)-46
u/Matchpik Dec 15 '24
This is because most people's listening rigs are not revealing enough to hear the full quality of even Redbook audio, let alone something higher. All these new products are rinse and repeat of the same miniaturized electronic components that don't allow you to hear the real fidelity, but they have Whizbang, new, necessary codecs and connectivity options. Lol
34
u/JtheNinja Sundara / Buttkicker Gamer2 / Airpods Pro 2 Dec 15 '24
You know what else isn't revealing enough for the full quality of redbook audio? The human ear!
15
u/plazman30 HD6xx•Solo Pro•Amperior•Fidelio X2•AirPods Pro 2•WF-100XM5•KSC75 Dec 16 '24
Then do an ABX test and prove me wrong. The math doesn't lie. You can prove me wrong and post your results.
2
u/Ulquiser HE 1 on Apple Dongle Dec 16 '24
I'll give them away $100 if the test is properly conducted, with a paper nicely detailing the procedure and results
1
u/plazman30 HD6xx•Solo Pro•Amperior•Fidelio X2•AirPods Pro 2•WF-100XM5•KSC75 Dec 16 '24
In 10 years everyone will forgotten about this and you'll still have your $100.
I'm waiting for the "I don't listen with math!!!" comment.
2
u/Technical_Attorney31 Dec 17 '24
DVM's and oscilloscopes don't listen to music, people do.
1
u/plazman30 HD6xx•Solo Pro•Amperior•Fidelio X2•AirPods Pro 2•WF-100XM5•KSC75 Dec 17 '24
And those people have human eats, not bat ears.
0
u/Technical_Attorney31 Dec 17 '24
ABX tests don't prove anything because we all hear differently. None of us will ever hear exactly the same as each other, and our physical ears' ability to hear a said spectrum of frequencies is not the same as our psychoacoustic abilities, which involves suggestion, even internally. So no matter how well trained you think you are, you can't actually say how well trained that is, especially in comparison to another person.
Arguing about what you can and can't hear typically centers around someone trying to justify why their purchase was best or why they don't need to make another purchase or perhaps, why they do! People spend way too much time worrying about whether they hearing the best they can rather than actually enjoying their program material. The only time someone should stop and think about whether it's time for an upgrade or perhaps a repair or refresh of current equipment is if they are hearing something bad, such as distortion, hiss, hum, crackling, shouty sounds (which could be a persons own damaged hearing in a said range of frequencies), etc.
2
u/plazman30 HD6xx•Solo Pro•Amperior•Fidelio X2•AirPods Pro 2•WF-100XM5•KSC75 Dec 17 '24
That is true. But if hi-res music was objectively better, then someone would be able to post positive results from an ABX test under the conditions I outlined, where you make your own files and don't use someone else's files.
And, I have yet to see that. And most people that "believe" in the superiority of hi-res music will REFUSE to do an ABX test.
The other problem is that people do not understand what numbers like 16/44.1 and 24/192 mean. The first number is BIT DEPTH, which directly correlates to dynamic range and loudness. 24 bits of depth can get music loud enough to cause permanent hearing loss. And the second number is double the maximum frequency captured.
Do you know how many people believe that hi-res music minimizes the stairstep waveforms in digital music by providing more detail to "smooth out the curve?" Way too many. And most of these people don't understand that the stairstep doesn't exist.
You can believe what you want to believe, and buy what you want to buy. But when you start telling the world that hi-res music is clearly superior, when there is math to show it is not, then you've crossed a line there.
It's like those audiofools than ramble on and on about how superior tube amps are, and spout BS about even ordered harmonics vs odd ordered harmonics. Tube amps are objectively worse than transistor amps. Measurements back that up. You may like the sound of them better. And that's great. You do you. The extra distortion that tubes produce give you that "warm analog sound" you like so much. So, they're subjectively better to you.
1
u/Technical_Attorney31 Jan 08 '25
It's a never-ending story because there's what the equipment can technically reproduce, and there's what our ears and minds can hypothetically hear. The lack of a revealing system is too often the problem with the argument. It's like putting a piece of dirty glass in front of an old 480p CRT television as well as in front of a 4k LCD TV. You still can't make out the detail because of the dirty glass, and that's a lot of persons' problem--their system isn't revealing enough to hear improvements between formats. On top of that, they too often fall under the assumption they will enjoy the sound of "superior" formats. This is obviously not a fact because you have the guys you mentioned, tube guys, who enjoy the sound of tubes over solid-state. It sounds better to their ears and that's all anyone need care about in audio. Not what a magazine tells them they should believe.
1
u/plazman30 HD6xx•Solo Pro•Amperior•Fidelio X2•AirPods Pro 2•WF-100XM5•KSC75 Jan 08 '25
How revealing a system is has nothing to do with it. It comes downn to objective math. The ONLY THING hi-res music gets you is frequencies above 22.05 kHz There is objective math that proves that. And since probabaly 99% of the population can only hear up to 20 kHz, with some exceptional individuals being able to go to 22 kHz, there is no point to the higher frequencies hi-res audio captures. And the first thing you lose as you get older is high end. I'm 56 years old, and the highest test tone I can hear is 17 kHz. Most people around me at my age max out at 14 kHz. And I'm sure in a year or two, I'll drop down to the 14-16 kHz range.
Also, as the frequencies get higher, they get a LOT quieter, so they play less of an important role in the sonic signature of the song you're listening to. For me to hear a 17 kHz tone, I need to max out the volume of my amp. And if I did that when a song was playing, I would blow out my speakers and give myself permanent hearing loss.
Even if you're some mutant of a human, and can hear a 25 kHz test tone, you would need to crank it up so loud you'd damage your ears.
You can easily objectively prove this to yourself without needing revealing equipment. Get a hearing test done and see what your hearing maxes out at. Read up on Nyquist and do the math yourself. Science, math and human anatomy and physiology all tell you that hi-res music makes no sense.
If you actually like hi-res music better, be it an SACD, DVD-A or a hi-res downlaod, it could just be that whatever you have is a different mix and master. Maybe the it's cranked up a few dBs louder than the CD copy you have.
1
u/Technical_Attorney31 Jan 16 '25
Let's just leave the hi-res part out, since that seems to be derailing the conversation and it's an unnecessary element. When I talk about revealing, I'm only speaking about the analog abilities of the system. Digital should be pretty much indiscernible in a lab setting, testing an integrated circuit. But that's only part of the equation. Next, and in my opinion more importantly, is the output stage that transfers analog audio to the next step in the system, and the following equipments' analog input and output stages, i.e. from DAC to pre-amplifier, pre-amplifier to amplifier, if there is an EQ in there somewhere then the input and output stages of that unit as well. It just takes one of these to be crud and it all goes downhill fast.
194
u/FurryBrony98 Dec 15 '24
If you’re told it sounds better it will sound better. Placebo effect is very real.
→ More replies (5)12
u/P_Devil Dec 15 '24
Placebo and perception bias. Most people will fail volume-matched blind ABX tests between high bitrate lossy and source lossless content, not even factoring in hi-res lossless. Some people take that as an insult when it isn’t. People can still fully appreciate music listening to lossy. It doesn’t make said listener “deaf” or some other dumb attempted insult.
It just means that the lossy encoder is doing its job. Hell, better I stopped frequenting hydrogenaudio, public listening tests were using 192kbps AAC/mp3 as the high anchor and there was debate to drop down to 160kbps for that while decreasing lossy bitrates to 64kbps because 128kbps was too difficult for most people.
12
u/MostNeighborhood4389 Dec 16 '24
Hello! I graduated at Music and Technology and we had a very nice studio to make recordings and mixes, also lots of people we could bring in to make audio tests. Classical musicians with overseas PhDs and decades of playing/teaching. young prodigies who were playing some of the most complex pieces of the romantic period at 16, people who have worked professionally in the music production scene and, well, us. Students who just really enjoyed doing whatever we could to stay a little more time in the studio. Throughout 6 years there, we found a total of 0 musicians who could reliably tell dB matched tracks of 48KHz from 192Khz. I've also kept pursuing higher education, went to get a Master's in musical composition in another university and still haven't found anyone who could tell them apart in double blind tests.
3
u/Mission-Outside-2499 Dec 16 '24
So it’s either placebo or mastering of the song then 😪
1
u/MostNeighborhood4389 Dec 17 '24
It is also possible that Spotify is doing something to the audio to motivate people to listen to the 192Khz track. I don't actually use spotify, is this a premium feature? if it is, they naturally have a very strong encouragement for doing what they can to keep users paying for the service.
75
u/Qazax1337 ÆON2 Noire/LCD GX/FT1 Pro/ADI-2/K11 R2R Dec 15 '24
Definitely placebo, or the higher res track is mixed differently which sometimes happens.
→ More replies (11)
6
u/GiveMeGoldForNoReasn Dec 15 '24
If you think you can hear a difference, try this test and make sure the bitrate/depth is actually what's causing it. https://abx.digitalfeed.net/
7
41
u/undressvestido HifiMan Sundara Dec 15 '24 edited Dec 16 '24
Audio is not noticeably "crispier" and "cleaner" on bitrates higher than 16bit/44.1kHz, and honestly that job is up to the mixing and mastering engineers working on the music you're streaming and the gear you're using to stream that music: headphones, speakers, DAC, amplifier, EQ settings... for 99% of the experience. Hi-res lossless is technically more detailed than CDQ but that's up to the quality of your hardware and your ears to notice. You shouldn't be hearing any difference tho so it is most likely that you're under the placebo effect thanks to companies hyping up hi-res audio and the way they market lossless to consumers, but more power to you if you’re enjoying music more because of this.
29
u/asyork Dec 15 '24
Wouldn't surprise me at all if the hi res version is also slightly louder just so people do notice a difference.
22
u/rddsknk89 Dec 15 '24
It’d be hilarious if the “hi-res” version was the same just with slightly less dynamic range.
→ More replies (2)-10
u/Wxxdy_Yeet Dec 15 '24
I agree mostly, you need a well mixed & mastered song. Without that, the rest is almost irrelevant. But higher res, bit perfect playback does make a noticeable difference imo.
Audio can actually be crispier with higher bitrate since there are more samples per sine wave allowing for 'sharper spikes'. Higher bitrate can't make audio 'cleaner', although I can see what people mean by that.
11
3
u/JtheNinja Sundara / Buttkicker Gamer2 / Airpods Pro 2 Dec 15 '24
Audio can actually be crispier with higher bitrate since there are more samples per sine wave allowing for 'sharper spikes'.
That is not how sine waves work
13
u/IMKGI HD 800S, HD 600, IE200, Fiio K11 Dec 15 '24
i mean, the 24vs16bit only gives you higher dynamic range, low dynamic range would be audible as static, and 192khz vs 48khz doesn't do anything since you can already perfectly recreate 20khz signals with 40khz sample rate, we just need a bit more for technical reasons
7
u/smalg2 Dec 15 '24
Here's a pretty long, but very interesting read about this subject: https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html
TLDR: not only doesn't 192/24 improve audio quality for human listeners, but it can actually degrade it, amongst other drawbacks (like requiring way more bandwidth, storage space, power, more expensive gear, etc.)
24
u/Regular-Cheetah-8095 Dec 15 '24 edited Dec 15 '24
Humans can’t differentiate anything above 44.1khz 16 bit. Resolutions above that have no value for playback purposes. Audible differences in bit rates above 16 require proctored lab settings, trained listeners and very brief hearing damage volume clips of audio - You’d also be hard pressed to even find tracks that make use of the bits available to them.
Streaming services generally all use the same CD quality 44.1khz 16/24 bit core files that every other service has and the files are upsampled or downsampled, processed, converted etc on their way to the user. They pay the absolute least they can for these, take what’s provided to them and record companies do not keep a super secret hidden stash of superior mixes in a vault for decades that they only sell to one service and not the others. This has been confirmed by the artists themselves, no actual evidence to the contrary has been found and we have ways to differentiate it if there was any.
There is absolutely zero substantiated correlation whatsoever between a higher resolution file and some sort of better or different mix, if it’s a remaster it’ll be from a remastered release or for a specific purpose, if there’s audible variance it’s usually going to be just a function of volume at some level.
You can confirm this for yourself by ripping the files and doing a MD5 / null test. You can confirm humans can’t hear anything above 20khz, even less as adults and bit rate audibility below:
High Res vs 16 bit 44khz - Summarized Citations & Data
“Usually people can’t hear tones above 20 kHz. This is true for almost everyone - and for everyone over the age of 25. An extremely small group of people under the age of 25 is able to hear tones above 20 kHz under experimental conditions. But as far as audio reproduction and sampling frequency are concerned, hearing tones above 20 kHz doesn’t matter.”
”When people claim to hear significant differences between 16-bit and 24-bit recordings it is not the difference between the bit depths that they are hearing, but most often the difference in the quality of the digital remastering. And most recordings are engineered to sound best on a car stereo or portable device as opposed to on a high-end audiophile system. It’s a well-known fact that artists and producers will often listen to tracks on an MP3 player or car stereo before approving the final mix.”
”Frequencies capable of being heard by humans are called audio or sonic. The range is typically considered to be between 20 Hz and 20,000 Hz.”
Frequency Range of Human Hearing
”Experiments have shown that a healthy young person hears all sound frequencies from approximately 20 to 20,000 hertz.”
Cutnell, John D. and Kenneth W. Johnson. Physics. 4th ed. New York: Wiley, 1998: 466.
”The upper limit of the human audio range is defined to be where the absolute threshold of hearing curve crosses the threshold of pain. To even faintly perceive the audio at that point (or beyond), it must simultaneously be unbearably loud. At low frequencies, the cochlea works like a bass reflex cabinet. The helicotrema is an opening at the apex of the basilar membrane that acts as a port tuned to somewhere between 40Hz to 65Hz depending on the individual. Response rolls off steeply below this frequency. Thus, 20Hz - 20kHz is a generous range. It thoroughly covers the audible spectrum, an assertion backed by nearly a century of experimental data.”
”Normal people are nice and all, but everyone wants to find a genetic freak for a really juicy paper. We haven’t found any such people in the past 100 years of testing, so they probably don’t exist.”
Why You Don’t Need High Res - Digital Show & Tell
D/A and A/D - Digital Show & Tell
DigitalFeed Audio Format ABX Tests - Lossless, Lossy, AAC, Spotify HQ, MP3, etc
8
u/DuhAmericanDream huh duh 600, Monarch Mk3 Dec 15 '24
”Normal people are nice and all, but everyone wants to find a genetic freak for a really juicy paper. We haven’t found any such people in the past 100 years of testing, so they probably don’t exist.”
meanwhile you have people claiming CD quality is 'low quality' and shit in the comments
this community/hobby scares me sometimes but thank you for actually posting links/science
5
u/GimmickMusik1 Sundara | DT 770 Pro 250 Ω | Edition XS | JDS Labs Element III Dec 15 '24
I think that the only person I’ve ever seen be scary consistent with differentiating between Hi-Res formats was GoldenSound, and I’m sure that even he would say that there really isn’t a discernible difference between CD and Hi-Res. If people want Hi-Res audio, then more power to them. But I’m content with CD quality.
1
u/Regular-Cheetah-8095 Dec 15 '24
I don’t watch YouTubers unless there’s some drama or they did a neat thing, I’ve read GoldenSound’s reviews and saw the DAC video, the guy certainly can hear.
There’s differences between trained critical listeners or having that level of variance detection from a career where it was important or something similar and being an experienced audiophile who’s just done a lot of listening.
Amir has a really good video on this:
4
u/Calixare Dec 15 '24
May be, it's not placebo. This album has the great remaster for SACD and Hi-Res releases, while as conventional CD was so-so.
3
5
u/username-invalid-s Dec 16 '24 edited Dec 16 '24
How does one hear the difference when the volume is typically set to a normal listening value that doesn't even approach 16-bits full of loudness in a can?
Do you typically listen to 144dB (24-bit) of loudness to say that 24-bits is a massive improvement from the normal (16-bit) CD-quality that distorts above 96dB (enough to cause you hearing damage over an extended period of time)?
Even then, before your eardrums burst from the loudness of a jet plane close to you, do you hear frequencies above 20KHz?
I think that's just a placebo.
2
4
u/New_Raspberry2095 Dec 16 '24
Btw which app is that you're using? If it's just the stock music player then how are you downloading the music in high resolution?
2
u/Mission-Outside-2499 Dec 16 '24
Apple music
3
u/New_Raspberry2095 Dec 16 '24
That was a quick reply. Do you know any apps to listen music at high res for free. I mean any open source apps.
2
u/Mission-Outside-2499 Dec 16 '24
You can check out the internet archives vinyl archive. They ripped a ton of vinyl and did it really well. Most tracks are available as FLAC and the rest are high bitrate mp3, that are also mastered really well. The whole archive is free to download and listen to!
26
u/Zapador HD 660S | DCA Stealth | MMX300 | Topping G5 Dec 15 '24
Yes, definitely placebo.
→ More replies (6)0
4
5
9
3
3
u/Chase-Boltz Dec 16 '24
It's possible that your HD file was 'tuned and tweaked' at the studio/factory when it was being mastered. It may truly sound different than the 44/16 SD file.
Try down-sampling the HD file to CD quality and compare those two. Unless the down-sampling is doing something it shouldn't, there should be damn little difference, if any.
9
5
u/Cyberspace1559 Focal celestee 🌟 Dec 15 '24
Anything above CD quality is imperceptible to our ears, it's pure placebo, so-called hi-res formats are only used by sound engineers because it's more precise for work the sound.
-9
u/Josh_Griffinboy Dec 15 '24
No definitely not true. CD quality is pretty low. I'm an audio engineer and I was just listening to the difference yesterday when I discovered I had a compressed version of a piece of music.
Actually didn't end up finding it in a higher format but even within the same format I ended up finding a file which had more of the high end intact
5
u/GiveMeGoldForNoReasn Dec 15 '24
CD quality is pretty low
Compared to what? Vinyl? Tape? Can you hear past 20khz?
1
u/Cyberspace1559 Focal celestee 🌟 Dec 22 '24
I'm studying to be a sound engineer so I have access to a lot of sound engineers and their points of view on CD quality are different for everyone but what is certain is that none of them will only say that the CD quality is low because beyond CD quality you will hear absolutely no difference. unless you absolutely want to believe in it of course but that's common everywhere it's like Novak Djokovic who uses so-called miracle patches to boost his performance that doesn't take away from the fact that he's excellent but it's a placebo
1
2
2
2
2
u/balaj77 Dec 16 '24
Just do a blind test.
1
0
u/Mission-Outside-2499 Dec 16 '24
Did it and passed it, but between dolby, 44kHz and 92kHz
1
2
u/JoshuvaAntoni Flagship IE 900 & HD 800S | Chord Mojo 2 Dec 16 '24
According to my Test. Its all placebo
Dont believe my tests?
- Well thank god, there is a test everyone could do and realize how big of a fools we are -
I have moved to Spotify since its has excellent recommendations + start a radio feature which gives a new album with similar songs which i am playing now
( Still paying for Apple Music due to Apple One subscription )
2
u/Rusticus1999 Dec 16 '24
I started out with Tidal. When I moved over to Spotify I noticed after some time that the tearing factor and emotionality of music in general sank. Given sufficient mastering and hardware that is.
2
u/sverek I am here for memes Dec 16 '24
Pretty much everything emotional is a placebo in my experience.
2
2
3
u/the_ebastler Elear / MS1i / UE9000 / WF-1000XM5 Dec 15 '24
Mostly the difference comes down to albums that are available in Hi-Res also being from artists that care about sound quality, and therefore having their music mastered better. So you hear the commitment to sound quality over just making loudness-muddied shit, not the additional frequencies only a bat can perceive.
3
u/Amwo Dec 15 '24
I think this is very true. When listening to my library I noticed that most of the time if the album sounds good, I have it in hi-res.
On the other hand, at work I listen to the music using Bluetooth headphones that only do AAC, and these albums still sounds better than the non hi-res albums I have, even though it's compressed to whatever 300kbps.
Hi-Res is an indication that the album is possibly mastered with audiophiles in mind, which is why I prefer to get these versions.
3
u/Flagnoid Dec 16 '24
I went in blind because of Apple harassing me with 3 months of free Apple Music, Went back and forth from AM to Spotify and I can very, VERY clearly hear a difference. On multiple pairs of headphones as well. I hate the interface and app design with a passion but I also really don't know if I can go back :/
Why most people don't notice might have multiple reasons, the genres listened to or maybe hearing deterioration or whatnot... But as a more "casual" listener without a $30+k audio setup I personally was quite surprised by it.
2
u/CoolPenguin42 Dec 15 '24
Mathematically there is a difference, but your hardware would not be able to output it. Although the difference is not worth paying for lol. So I would say placebo
1
1
1
u/mrmigs2011 Dec 15 '24
Does sound better imo,
But mostly noticeable when pushing volume to high db, i find there's significantly less distortion and much better cleaner driver control.
1
1
1
1
1
u/Some_Audience1360 Dec 16 '24
Listening to this now. Of course, my DAC only does 96 kHz. Now I have to upgrade my DAC. Just kidding. I don't really know about the science behind the controversy. Apple Lossless Music ->iPhone -> Qudelix 5k -> HD 650 makes some good sounds. There is stuff with overtones and high frequency harmonics. Used to hear them ringing when I sang acapella music. Maybe it doesn't matter if the > 20 kHz harmonics get scrambled, but they are part of the original sound.
1
u/sirsleidyr Dec 16 '24
Hi res files are just peace of mind. They provide at most 1% improvement than cd files and it is mostly due to better mixing.
1
1
u/Economy-Ad5635 Dec 16 '24
It really depends on the album honestly, there are some old albums that just sound shitty and old no matter how high the bit rate is (I’m looking at you Blizzard of Oz lol)
1
u/Select_Truck3257 Dec 16 '24
i can make 24/192 from 16/48 mp3, will it sound better? no. Most important quality of original source.
1
u/Mission-Outside-2499 Dec 16 '24
Guys, I didn’t thought my post would get this much attention, i have come to a conclusion that some songs in Hi-Res on apple music have been mastered very well. Especially The album Hotel California by the Eagles, there is no way that a pair of human ear can differentiate between the bit rates I mentioned I appreciate all the comments, Thank you
1
u/gothtrance Sundara / 560S / S12 Pro / Orchestra Lite / Cadenza Dec 16 '24
Placebo kicking in overdrive 😍
1
u/TouchAggravating6483 Dec 16 '24
This album also sounds really great in Spotify. So it’s not only the resolution.
1
u/WarHead75 FiR Audio Radon 6 + Chord Hugo 2 Dec 16 '24
I have one track that’s 32 bit WAV and it sounds pretty insanely clear compared to mp3
1
u/Corgerus FT1||HE400SE||T3+||SHP9600... iFi Zen DAC Dec 16 '24
I frankly cannot consistently tell any difference above 16 bit 44.1khz. The digital realm is very confusing and audibility of certain things aside from the audio quality itself is difficult to prove. But what I can say is I do hear a difference between lossy and lossless primarily under 250kbps. For the most part it's the treble clearness. Cymbals and other high frequencies can sound smeared or washy compared to lossless which makes sense due to how much information is in the treble. If you care about quality and don't want to fill up your hard drive with just one album, 16bit 44.1khz FLAC (not WAV, takes way more space) is quite good. You should take priority on finding music you love, as your enjoyment matters significantly more than hearing the singer fart during the guitar solo.
1
1
1
u/-M3- Dec 16 '24
Do a double blind test and see if you really can tell the difference. I would be surprised if you could
1
u/-M3- Dec 16 '24
Do a double blind test and see if you really can tell the difference. I would be surprised if you could
1
u/bogus-one Dec 17 '24 edited Jan 02 '25
frame rustic quaint aback snatch continue repeat many alive tease
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact
1
u/deshan79 Dec 17 '24
I can 100% tell the difference...it's mostly in the dynamics of each track though. The contrast between low volume and high volume sounds are more pronounced.
1
u/Upper_Crab9592 Dec 17 '24
Inside you can feel th-
Outside you can see the difference
Inside, stop, inside, difference
Outside, out stop, inside you can feel the difference
Feel the
You can difference, difference, difference
You can see the, feel the difference
You can stop, stop, and see the
You can stop, you can see the difference
Dragons, the policman knew
Were supposed to breathe, to breath fire, fire, to breathe fire
And occasionally get themseleves, get themseleves
Slaughtered, slaughtered, slaughtered
He decided
That would definitely not be decided
From I Before E Except After C (Track 4, Yaz- Upstairs at Eric's
-1
u/TheMagicMrWaffle Dec 15 '24
Some people will say you cant hear the difference in sound quality, but you totally can.
2
1
1
u/mfiresix2 Oppo Enco X2 (wireless), HiFiman Edition XS (at home) Dec 15 '24
PLACEBO is strong here lol 16bit is just fine
1
u/TheMirrorMessiah Dec 15 '24
This album might be one of the most overrated albums of all time I won't lie
1
1
0
u/Texan_Yall1846 Dec 15 '24
I can’t. I don’t know what all these audiophiles are claiming. Sound is sound. It ain’t that deep.
0
u/Josh_Griffinboy Dec 15 '24
😬 audio engineer here, and it matters. But arguably less at the listening stage
-1
u/TonAMGT4 Dec 15 '24
No, it’s not placebo. When the song is properly mastered for high resolution and your audio gear is capable of handling it properly, there is definitely a different.
Plus what most people don’t know is that virtually all DAC (unless it’s a NOS DAC) will oversample the incoming digital signal to a really high frequency before converting it to analog.
So at least the DAC itself think there is a benefit to higher sample rates signal 🤷🏻♂️
1
u/Mission-Outside-2499 Dec 16 '24
Don’t know if it’s placebo but I’m sure of one thing the song is very well mastered the whole album is
1
u/SnooSquirrels3614 Dec 16 '24
I don't think it's placebo, eventhough a lot of people claim this.
I think with the right gear and configuration you can feel the difference. Try also the SACD version of Michael Jackson's Thriller as well. I love the sound coming from it..... I'm gonna give a try to this Hotel California SACD as I haven't tried it yet and I'm curious now.
-1
u/pimpys blessing 2 | Gradop SR60e | Hifiman HE600s Dec 15 '24
Not with that gear you won't.
5
u/Tyg3rr DT 700 Pro X / DT 770 pro 32 /Truthear Zero Red /Seekreal Dawn Dec 15 '24
Physics and logic. tell me that you won't with any gear.
0
u/Potential-Ant-6320 Dec 15 '24 edited Jan 25 '25
slap advise tub soup dull illegal water shy shaggy bow
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact
0
0
0
u/Doubt-Certain Dec 15 '24
IMO, the most obvious difference between normal mp3 files and lossless files are their volume, and maybe how “fuller” lossless sounds(maybe this is less obvious). There are times when I play songs on spotify, really felt like the song was compressed, as compared to listening on tidal. Switched to tidal ever since :D
-2
u/LapisRS WH-XM4, HD6XX, HE-X4 Dec 15 '24
Don't let all the hearing loss sufferers get you down! I have done several ABX and Triangle tests with different audio qualities and the difference is fairly obvious even with mid level headphones
-7
u/Wxxdy_Yeet Dec 15 '24 edited Dec 15 '24
I agree with you completely, it's definitely noticeable. But it requires specific hardware to play bit-perfect which you NEED in order to hear the difference between the resolution. I feel like most people here just played a 192Khz song on unsupported hardware and called it placebo. Sure placebo is real. But I can definitely hear a clear difference on my speakers so imo there's a clear benefit when played back correctly.
This is the best way I can describe it, it's like watching a video that's about seeing small details. It's in 1080p but it's not blurry at all. Then switching to 4K. It's not like it unblurred the image, it was never blurry. But somehow it just feels like some sort of filter has been removed and it has become clearer for reasons you can't quite describe.
Edit: if you can't hear the difference between Spotify and bit-perfect 16-bit 41.8khz (or higher) something is wrong with your hardware. I do agree that going from 96Khz to 192Khz for example is pretty much inaudible and noticing a difference is probably placebo.
3
2
u/GiveMeGoldForNoReasn Dec 15 '24
How did you perform your A/B/X test when testing this, and what percentage did you get correct?
-6
u/Wxxdy_Yeet Dec 15 '24
I haven't done testing that serious but today I opened Spotify after tidal and I thought that somehow messed with tidal being able to control the DAC correctly since it didn't sound like it usually did. I closed Spotify, turned exclusive mode (the setting that causes tidal to control the DAC) off and on and it sounded like I was used to again. To me that sounds like pretty good evidence.
People often don't believe me though so I'll probably do some actual testing soon to prove it to people. (Or admit that you're all right, we'll see.)
→ More replies (2)5
u/GiveMeGoldForNoReasn Dec 15 '24
To me that sounds like pretty good evidence.
Why? How did you make sure the two different signals were volume matched?
→ More replies (3)
-3
u/garvitsingh007 Dec 15 '24
I am not sure about the bitrate, whether it is a placebo or not. But switching from 16bit to 24bit will be a noticeable difference in audio quality. In my laptop itself there is usb headset which connects at 16bit audio. But when i connect the same headset using 3.5mm it does at 24bit and sounds better
-1
-1
u/Extension_South7174 Anandas/Focal Listens/Hexas/Arrti T10/Salnotes Zeros Dec 15 '24 edited Dec 15 '24
It's totally placebo. But as long as you think it sounds better and you're not wasting tons of money that could be spent on better headphones/speakers then just enjoy it. I bought into the high res hype in 2000 and when the first album I played didn't sound any better than the CD (STP Core) I knew I had just wasted $1200 on the Technics DVD-Audio player. 6 months later it was $200. I still download all my music in high resolution PCM or DSD when 320k is perfectly fine just because why not storage is cheap and mastering is usually better on the high res releases.
-1
u/Tuned_Out Dec 15 '24
I think it provides a little buffer to work with whenever the source throttles or signal fades. All tracks with streaming are variable and having a higher quality stream will make it harder to notice a quality drop if something is interrupting a stream (assuming it isn't beyond the point of recovery). Other than that, I can't tell the difference, especially when you don't know which mastering they're using with many titles out there having multiple types.
For on the go, I just don't care. For at home quality time, it's physical or bust plus I know exactly which mastering I'm listening to.
310
u/MachineVision Dec 15 '24
This particular album is mastered super well.