Hey, another mastering guy here... You're right about the samplerate being 44.1k or 48k for the vast majority of contemporary (mainstream) productions. But since Apple requested "full production resolution" for their Mastered for iTunes program (since 2012), we at least submitted higher resolution masters (24/44.1k or 24/48k and even 24/96k occasionally) to our clients, which are now being distributed to all "hifi" streaming platforms as well and that's at least a little bit better than 16/44.1k in my opinion. Still we always provide a 16/44.1k "fallback" version of the masters. But the original production master resolution (which you can actually get from your streaming service) is mostly 24bit since at least 15 years, aside form the samplerate. If you see high resolution only as high samplerate, then you're absolutlely right, fair enough. But for me personally 24/44.1 (if that's the original prodution resolution) is already an improvement over 16/44.1. I own a Playback Designs MPD-5 and it is indeed able to reproduce analog-like sound with 16/44.1 material, but it does it even better with 24/44.1 and 24/48, 24/96. Another great (and nowadays cheap) DAC which can recreate a very analog-like sound is the rusty Benchmark DAC1, if you set it up right (no attenuation, bypass the volume knob). You should definately check that out (again). Yes, the DAC design is the key to the most realistic reproduction, if you care about coming close to how the recording was PERFORMED. Not "like the artist intended", since the artist is listening to the mixes and masters (for approval) through their earbuds in their hotel room while on tour... If you care about "how the artist intended" get yourself a pair of Air Pods and listen from your iPhone, then you're there.
I would love to see the differences between the 16/44.1khz and the 24/44.1khz files... commercial music never ever use DRs beyond 35 or 40db... in a 16 bits file you have 96db of DR!! What's the benefit of those additional 8bits of DR in the 24 bits exactly?
@@OCDHIFiGuy By recording it I guess. Anyway, it doesn't matter to me. I get excellent results with 16/44. I have more serious issues to deal with like my room. New place does not have a dedicated listening room, ugh.
MY experience is that if you're streaming you may as well have a dac that can decode 24/192 since that's the highest resolution available on most streaming platforms so you can compare yourself. A good example is play Heart's straight on off their greatest hits in 44.1 and then off Dog & Butterfly album in 192 on Quobuz and the difference is easily discernable. The 44.1 sounds great like I've always heard it on the radio but the 192 is more powerful in every aspect and almost like your in the studio. Of course, it could be just a better master as greatest hits albums are notorious for having worse sounding versions than original albums, but in this case, the 44.1 sounds great and the 192 sounds amazing. I have several dacs and can enjoy cd's playing a cheap PS1 which has a nice character as much a more expensive dacs. Just need a little more volume on the cheaper player. Tone controls do more to get that nice warm round sound I like with classic rock than any dac and I say this having been down the rabbit hole and will also tell you no digital or vinyl4 whatsoever can play Zeppelin 3's Since I've Been Loving You like my old eel to reel over my vintage Marantz separates and JBL l100 classics ( or Forte IVs on my newer class A hybrid system) and it's not even close. No tone controls needed with reel to reel either (strong bass and amazing mids and highs!)
Such a great video! Thanks Mikey! My thoughts exactly about audio creation, and playback! It all starts with how the original recording was recorded, and then choosing the best equipment to extract audio from a recording in a pure lossless way. Then, having the best equipment to play back what is presented in the most natural experience that YOU yourself has decided from what your hearing what sounds best to you. I have always lived with this in mind through my audiophile journey. My gear is very low quality compared to what you will find with OCD Mikey. I very much appreciate him, and his channel. I learn a lot, and what I do know is confirmed. However, my point is, is now I'm 61 and, I have an audio rig that the most average person would envy. I feel the reason my audio rig sounds as nice as it does, is because I have set goals with what characteristics I would like for my audio rig to provide to my listening pleasure. I am mindful of what I introduce to my audio rig, and I make certain that I accommodate the device the best way I can when making the addition. I then make certain that I give ample amount of time to analyze any change in the listening experience, and if such a change is a positive one, or not. If no change, I remove the addition. Why have it, unless it adds functionality? If the change is negative obviously it is removed. I want the best of what I can get that is within my budget. I am always being educated by worthy people in the industry from videos, and what I have read over the years. I am very content of what I have, however I am always open to that next addition that may take my audio rig to the next level, that again, that is within my budget. My audio rig consists of technologies from the 1940's to present, and it is synergistical heaven! I try to keep up with the latest technologies, and improvements in audio. I never compare what I have to what is considered the best, and is out of my reach. That is never a good idea. How could that bring anything positive to a happy audio experience? Could make one think less of what they do have. Then they are just chasing a dream that never gives complete satisfaction. Sometimes ignorance can be bliss in that regard. If your audio rig sounds great to you. THEN YOU HAVE A GREAT SYSTEM! CHEERS!
Yes, comparing yourself to others is suffering. Not having gratitude for what you have while living in the fantasy of what "could be", is also suffering. Enjoy the music and shut your analytical mind off.
Totally agree! I recently experimented with letting Audirvana upconvert files and then compared them with the original 16/44. I also converted them to DSD. The originals sounded best every time. My Denafrips DAC has an oversampling option that I never use either.
16bit 44.1khz when done to its limits on both ends is stellar. Problem is most of what's available on both ends is less than stellar. Most engineers lack comprehensive best practices knowledge and with the mastering side they don't have best possible implementation knowledge. Regarding the playback side recommendations, many are typically slightly better than low grade options with far higher price tags. Hoping those lacklustre performers in industry will come out of the proverbial stone age and begin to learn from advanced masters who PROVABLY have advanced developed knowledge and technologies.
If you are into classical music, Native DSD has a lot of material that was originally recorded in DSD 64, DSD 128, and even DSD 256. Some recordings were also done in native DXD. They are very honest about the original source recording. These recordings do sound better to me compared to the 44.1khz versions on the same DAC.
Fun and true 😂. We all get fooled by people with other motives. Luckily there are real audio/ music lovers recording music in Hi-Res so we can have the experience if we want to.
Absolutely correct, Mikey. There is no such thing as additive resolution. If you upscale, you're modifying the source data. Best results will generally come from the native resolution. Same with image files and video.
2:40 One cannot change the sampling freq of a track and increase its resolution> only the sampling freq increases. to which is no benefit acoutsically since it increases the voltages response per second> that function of that incrased reposnse dilutes transiet deifined b peaks that a 44khz audio track can more acuratly interpret< and not smear the high end unnecessarily etc
Yet you just said it: There IS additive resolution because sometimes what doesn’t come from the native resolution is better. Ultimately, what’s “resolution” except better sound to your ear?
Yup My Audio Research Ref CD9 sounds brilliant with standard CD’s and cd track of SACD. I stream via coax through this CD as a DAC. It’s marvelous. Shows your point.
When recording hardware companies offered 24/96 gear, the sell was that recording levels could be more relaxed with more headroom in order to avoid clipping. Same goes when adding effects, etc. The mastering was then going to most likely be 16/44. When first released to studios the prospect of 24/96 was daunting due to the huge file sizes and high cost of hardrives. I know I had no interest going that route due to cost, plus, 16/44 sounded very good anyway. I agree with you Mikey on this for sure, and from experience.
“What the artist intended” is in my opinion a way to make people open up their wallets. Thanks OCD, but your post needs no clickbait - good stuff as always.
Truth. Overly analytic DACs, and systems in general, are 90% of the reason demos at hifi shows and dealers play ‘smooth’ jazz and boring music. Metal and classic rock guitars should sound great and not hurt your ears - they’re a great litmus test.
My goal is to spend enough money on my rig that it'll make Nevermind the Bolocks sound as good as Aja. I'm gonna start with the cables. Them Nordost Odin's gonna make my Emotivas sound like Magicos, baby!
Not of fan of up sampling or hi rez. To my ears, regular CD quality mastered well sounds great. Gotta say I do enjoy HDCD and think its a little better. Cheers!
All records are produced to sound good on as many devices as possible. And since most devices these days are phone speakers, cheap earbuds and car stereos, fidelity has to be sacrificed just so people can actually hear the sounds clearly. When people are walking around listening to something on their phone or driving around in their car, there's tons of background noise the song has to compete with.
I think some dac chips work better at higher rates because the digital artifects are shifted to higher frequencies. That way its percieved as better but its not more musical information, just less artifects.
I was wondering if you have heard any of the PS Audio/ Octave Records offerings which are all recorded in DSD 256 or 512, converted to DXD for mixing. Although I’m not a fan of most of the genres they record, the ones I’ve purchased sound wonderful. As Paul has stated before, they realize that they are recording for a very small niche audience.
I see your point. On the other hand, to my mind, the concept of “accuracy” is ultimately no better under conceptual scrutiny than “artist’s intent”. Hence, go with whatever sounds better to you, whether resulting from something artificially added in the source format or not. As you yourself said in the video, more often than not, for you 16/44 is the best sounding.That implies that oftentimes it’s not the best and in any many cases you’d prefer the artificial hi-rez format.
Got it. What’s interesting is that we all have aesthetic preferences for certain sonic signatures but we equally have aesthetic preferences for certain mental models. To your mind, there is less “purity” in artificial hi-rez. a sentiment I also share - though analytically I can’t justify that conclusion based upon any notion of “accuracy” that doesn’t lead to a self-contradiction when I look at how I select components or source material in other contexts. For example, I am willing to buy remasters of decades old albums that sound better where the original artist died long ago and wasn’t a participant in the remastering but I wouldn’t dare use the DH Maria’s remastering functionality to remaster stuff myself because it would strike me as less “pure”. My mental model is highly arbitrary as to what counts as “pure”.
Mikey, yep totally agree it all comes down to the DAC and 24/44 is fully adequate when played back 'right'. So called 'analytical' playback is just a red herring for dynamic reactive behaviours that DO NOT belong. I totally agree truly capable playback systems (DAC) will play ANYTHING including the dirtiest recordings you can find (eg v early blues transcribed from 78s) and still reveal the fine nuances of the performances that somehow got captured BUT without modifying the original groove and vibe. Dynamic 'Excess Noise' is the culprit behind system voicing/signature and can be pleasing or quite the opposite. For me 'no signature' is the only signature worth listening to if that makes sense 🤔. Thanks for your channel as always, rock on 👊.
I have an Astell and Kern KANN loaded with everything from old MP3's to CD rips to the most popular versions of hi-res and by far the stand-out is "Toys in the Attic" by Aerosmith on DSD. My "Thriller" by Michael Jackson is the only other DSD and isn't that great, so not all DSD are made alike, but when it's good, there's none better
Why don't popular genres/artists routinely record in Hi Rez, whether PCM or DSD? Cost issues? It seems like only symphonies typically record in Hi Rez these days.
DVD Audio muddied the waters for SACD as well as Napster, AKA the starting gun of the race to the bottom as we know it. The failure to launch with SACD should also be taken as testament to the quality of CD as well. General consensus amongst common consumers of the late 90's was that CD was the apex of sound quality making it a hard sell for those beyond happy with CD . it was the vinyl nuts back then who were making any real complaints towards the CD., hence the marketing language used by Sony and the big review magazines of the time with the big SACD launch title of Miles Davis "Kind of Blue" remaster.
CD quality has always been enough for me. I have listened to the next best thing over and over and was never impressed. Stuff sounds different not usually better! Anytime the "machine" pumps out too many advances too fast I put the breaks on, that goes for everything. In my opinion it takes a very long time for a truly good jump in quality. Marketing, a tool for taking your money.
The Wall was almost certainly recorded on analog tape, so that’s one scenario where if a DSD file was made directly from the analog tape, it IS worth seeking high rez. But I 100% agree that virtually all recordings made since the late 80’s are certainly recorded in 16/44.1 and it makes ZERO sense to pursue an up-converted “hi-res” version. You’re just introducing more artifacts. Keep preaching, Mikey!
My understanding is that Toshiba didn’t want to pay Sony /Philips the royalty fee for a SACD license so they created a competing format called DVD-Audio. As a result, both formats collapsed commercially as a result of a format war. Mikey, do you still recommend the MPT-8?
I agree with every point, including converting to DSD at playback… I seriously wish the streaming sites, in my current case quobuz, would make switches, that actually work all the time, for no high res and for no remasters. Seems 95% of remasters completely fail to understand and keep the ‘thing’, the gestalt of the original that made the original a hit, so the remaster turns classics into soulless drivel. That said somebody did some really great remasters of The Clash stuff… upsampling is like increasing the resolution of a photograph, it has no choice but to blur the sharp edges. Put a new pixel between a black one and a white one and it’s gonna be grey. Cheers.
Hi Mikey, this is slightly off-topic but what do you think of Japanese CD pressings? I have an audiophile friend who swears by them, saying he’s compared them to American pressings and they sound better.
Our computers do this conversion every day. Look at any old film or tv shows and they are shown on your computer about as good as it gets and as you know, much of it is almost unwatchable . Garbage in, garbage out and it's the same with audio.
Hi Mikey…..have you tried records from Native DSD, Bluecoast records or Octave Records…… they will change your mind…..DXD and DSD recorded music exceeds in quality anything that is recorded in 16/44……. You have to hear it to believe it……DSD sounds much more natural….. but the problem is with mastering…….Octave Records has come up with good solutions….
I honestly wish people would listen to my videos before commenting. Lol. DSD is indistinguishable from Master Tape. It's the best. I say this in the video. High res ONLY means something IF RECORDED in hi rez digital (DSDx4 is my fave) very little material is recorded like this. Most "audiophile" music is horrible for us younger cats to listen to. I explain in my video how nobody worth a shit really cares about recording in high res due to the production complexity.
@@OCDHIFiGuy I watched the video Mikey that’s why I gave you specific websites. Many recordings today are made by directly recording in DSD and aren’t taken from tape. I totally agree with what you said in the video about upsampling etc……but what was missing in my opinion was the mention of specific websites that can deliver recordings in pure DSD/DXD (Native DSD, Bluecoast and Octave records). Great video all in all.
Mikey, Musicians follow the spirit and Play and PCM Mastering polishes it-then back to DSD! DSD is still in its Infancy when it comes to Mastering! Raw DSD Straight Recording with no Manipulation usually is on the Harsh side!🙉✌
@@OCDHIFiGuy Wow, I must be doing it all wrong for the last 40+ years! Analog Mics and Instrument Lines into my Digital Boards "A to D conversion then D to Computer conversion to PCM for Mastering then Back through D to A for Amplification!
I find that some 44/16 sound amazing and others are crap. But in general, for example, 44/24 sounds good. The other day I was listening to Led Zeppelin and I love LZ.... but I had to quit. It sounded horrible! And it says it was remastered! Go figure. I use Roon / Qobuz btw The other day I discovered The Hunter (digitally remastered) by Jennifer Warners - 48/24 on Qobuz. That sounds amazing! Is 48/24 considered hi-res? I guess it is.
Zeppelin is one of my favorite bands and I agree the digital remasters suck. If you must have digital just seek out the original cds which are cheap but if you're an aficionado then find the best pressing on vinyl like Robert ludwigs original 69 LZ2. This and my Zep 3 and 4 reel to reels are the prized in my music collection. With the exception of the RL 2, reels blow away the albums easily
Streaming is digitally compressed, no matter what vender you use. Lossless is not lossless. CD's are uncompressed. And they mostly sound better to me. And the streaming people are audio compressing them. That doesnt happen on the CD unless added by the producer or Mastering Engineer. In streaming it is added to everything, after the fact. And I am hearing on real new even " Hi Res " extremely reduced dynamics and hi frequencies, yet I go to old tracks and the sound brighter. These streamers are playing with the sound, in ways that CD mastering does not.
So exactly what is HD Tracks doing when they are selling me a Megadeth album in 24/192? LOL. Just up sampling a 16/44.1 recording and repackaging it? If so, that's really dishonest, because we could do the same thing with an up sampling DAC or software program.
@@a.s.2426 I did, will let you know. But the more I think of it, the more I have to think that most of HD Tracks is fake, especially anything older than 10 years. I mean, to have a 24/192 recording would mean the band would have had to re-record the album right? Remastering doesn't count. I'm actually pretty pissed off about this to be honest. The site should be shut down as far as I'm concerned.
@@elitetrader5468 Thanks! I would guess upsampling is just one of several approaches. I do think they remaster (which I personally don't have an objection to, as much) and also obtain the masters and do fresh transfers at high res. Wonder what the pie chart would look like vis-a-vis the various approaches relative to their entire catalog. Is it say, 90% upsampled? I know Megadeth did a bunch of "remixed / remastered versions of their catalog a while back. I have several. Wonder if they were don't at hi resolution during the mix down to two channel at that time and HD Tracks ran from those masters. Anyway, do update here. I'm curious, too.
Also I found out 16/44 and original album release sounds best.. when recorded higher ok also good.. staying original is best. Remastering 😢 no Bueno maybe there was one song where the base was enhanced in a good way but it was only that still preferred the original because of the fidelity.
Yep totally agree remasters are usually bad. I auditioned some remasters (I forget the label) where the creators extolled the virtues of their tube based remastering loop.....to my ears they were run out of the room screaming bad, totally wrong timbre and groove.
" Hi Rez AUDIO is CRAP " - if so , you do not need Playback design mpd 8 . But 70 years old recording of Elvis Presley in DSD 64 on good dac sounds amaizing good ( probably from master tape ) - vinyl like sound.
Come listen to my system and you’ll experience the highest resolving system ever created. 🎉🎉🎉😊 No you can’t add more resolution, but if a recording is made with highly resolving equipment then it makes all the difference. 🎉🎉🎉😊
I find most lower end files better. The higher file stuff sounds like crap. When you have a really high end system you can really hear how bad the up-sampled files are. Now I have ran across a few higher flaw files that sound excellent like superb but maybe 1 out of every 500 I listen to.
Artists need to stop recording at 44. it's pointless putting that on vinyl. I record my music at 96 or 192 now. If you go down to 44Khz you realize how dead it sounds.
@@REX4340 I'd like to. RU-vid supports 96Khz and a lot of people don't know you can encode it. But Verve released a 192Khz remaster of Oscar Peterson in FLAC and you can switch your converter between sample rates and hear it.
Yes, it is ONLY valid if you RECORD in 24/96... most people don't. I agree with you, more should. Actually they should record in DSD512, it's the closest to analog tape
@@OCDHIFiGuy Don't get me started on the situation with today's recording gear and the snake oil behind "we use the founder's original circuits" but filled with $0.02 sound-destroying Chinese SMD components.
You should have given your definition of "bad recording". For me it means bad microphones placements or wrong microphone for the task etc...please elaborate on this. I find that some mono recordings better, transmitting emotion better in some cases.
Well its worth 10K,i didnt pay 10K for it,people collect it,its a investment.Normal cds are made of plastic but the SHM are made of polycarbonat,the most clear/transparant plastic made on earth.
