What's your experience been like with hi-res music?

[aerius]

A couple years ago I finally remembered that my DAC can decode hi-res digital so I got a bunch of music to see if 24/96 and SACD were any better than plain old CD.  The results have been mostly disappointing for me, most of the hi-res recording sound different but not really any better than the standard CD versions; I don't get the extra space, realism, details, and sweeter highs that hi-res proponents claim to hear.  I've tried a lot of different genres from jazz & classical to metal and I'd say only around 10-15% of the music is better enough to make the hi-res version worth it, the rest of it is either marginal improvements or just different but not better.

Overall I'm pretty disappointed, the potential is there with hi-res but like CD it's often limited by how good the recording & mastering was.  I'm curious to hear what you guys think, has  hi-res digital been worth it with the music you listen to?

[grawk]

I do a lot of live concert recording at 96/32 or 192/32, and so I do playback at that, but as you say, the primary advantage is hi res sources are likely better mastered. 48/16 has plenty of dynamic range and resolution for most recordings. 

[skullguise]

What Dan said....I also think it's about the recording and mastering first.

I have several things on 16-44 that I also have on hi-rez.  The improvements I hear seem to be less about the format and more about changes in how the recording was made.

All that said....I still like to have hi-rez copies of things because....well, hi-rez 🤣

[HiWire]

Ditto. I have a Sony UHP-H1 as an SACD player, so it's probably not comparable to a stack of separates from dCS or EMM Labs 💸

There have been very few pop/rock albums that were recorded for hi-res from the beginning - the few recordings were usually converted from old masters.

I have a few jazz and classical SACDs, but most of them were also from old sources (1950s-60s) so it's hard to say whether the better sound quality comes from the format or the number of times the masters have been fixed and edited.

In general, I get the impression it would take a knockout recording and an extremely expensive chain of equipment to notice the difference - also, I think people underestimate how good CD quality can sound on modern equipment.

In the early days of hi-res, I think much of the novelty came from the new multi-channel mixes (like 5.1 or more), rather than the actual quality improvement on a stereo recording. And don't get me started on HDCD...

Personally, I'd still rather buy CDs and SACDs than invest in a high-res digital streaming or files library setup.

Edited yesterday at 05:52 PM by HiWire