Is this better than CD quality?

[kappclark]

I feel that FLACs do sound better than CD, in my case mainly because I never got a CD player >$250 ..ha ha ...

Besides the hard drive, there are no moving parts - no 'jitter' .. recordings are bit perfect, and seem to have no harshness..at least for me !

I don't even have a dedicated CD player, other than the one in my computer ... amazing that a format over 30 years old is still selling ! (others didn't fare so well - Beta, cassette, El-Cassette 8-track etc.)

Took a week or so and re-ripped entire CD collection to FLAC to replace 128K rips I had made at the beginning ....

Just my $ 0.02

[Grumpy Bob]

Well, I buy into the explanation as to why hi-res recordings don't bring benefits given here, with a rather good video demonstration. In any case, my ageing ears probably limit matters. I do have some hi-res files in my collection, but generally by accident rather than design!

Even more interesting than the longevity of the CD format is that vinyl is hanging on in there. It's interesting that buying a CD is often cheaper than buying a flac download.

Robert

[trott3r]

Hello,

The mastering matters more than the resolution.
Something put through a loudness wars mixing has its dynamics compressed
and sounds more tiring to the ears and flat.

dr.loudness-wars.info has a database with the DR ratio recorded by users.
I use it to decide on what format is likely to send better to me.

Martin



Those who would give up essential Liberty, to
purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
Benjamin Franklin (1706–1790)

[SlimChances]

Hello,

The mastering matters more than the resolution.
Something put through a loudness wars mixing has its dynamics compressed
and sounds more tiring to the ears and flat.

dr.loudness-wars.info has a database with the DR ratio recorded by users.
I use it to decide on what format is likely to send better to me.

Martin



Those who would give up essential Liberty, to
purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
Benjamin Franklin (1706–1790)

so true

[iwalker]

[QUOTE=trott3r;965725]Hello,

The mastering matters more than the resolution.


Spot on!

I'd take a well-recorded 16/44.1 over a so-called 'Hi Res' 24/96 ( or 24/192) recording any day!

It's mostly marketing hype.

This explains why 16/44.1 is all that is required

https://www.psaudio.com/article/audio-myths/

[kappclark]

Mastering is so often overlooked ... would be an interesting thread to start for tracks which we enjoy because they have been so well mastered..

and not just digital -- I remember how amazed I was when I found this recording recently, and played it back on the turntable --- lusciuos sound and performance..

[RobbH]

A very good piece on this subject by Mark Waldrep, who was mentioned by adamdea in post #8:

The Truth About High-Resolution Audio: Facts, Fiction and Findings

[kappclark]

Great article -- I signed up for the challenge !

[slartibartfast]

A very good piece on this subject by Mark Waldrep, who was mentioned by adamdea in post #8:

The Truth About High-Resolution Audio: Facts, Fiction and Findings

The comments section is worth reading.

Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk

[Mycenius]

I am part of the club that claims existing music playback tech probably doesn't allow me to hear beyond CD quality, and that's in the rather rare cases we're talking about a great recording - I'd estimate 90% of music is recorded indifferently, surprisingly often even ineptly.

Without doubt the vast majority of the world's music recordings are recorded and engineered ineptly or incompetently. And quite a few "highly regarded" sound engineers are pretty woeful, or at best extremely mediocre.