Does HiRez really sound better?


I came across this article from Goldmund Audio which I"m sure will raise some hackles. Don't think me a troll but I'd like to read some feedback on the supposed benefits of HiRez. Some of this has already been gone through but the blind listening test mentioned concluded that the ability to hear a difference between PCM and DSD was no better than the flipping of a coin.
http://attachments.goldmund.com.s3.amazonaws.com/2015/01/23/15/49/42/359/goldmund_does_high_resolution_audio_sound_better_white_paper.pdf.

All the best,
Nonoise
128x128nonoise

Showing 8 responses by geoffkait

Z Man, not only that but for CDs that were remastered from the original master analog tapes, I kinda doubt digitizing he thing will result in higher resolution than what you started out with -- the original master tape. Duh!

:-)
What a pretty thought, that we will see significant improvements in CD and hi Rez for years to come. It appears to me that in fact the quality of CDs has steadily gone down the tubes ever since they started compressing the music for some hare brained reason. As a matter if fact generally speaking the dynamic range of new and remastered CDs has in some cases gone from a value of 15 to a value of 8 or 9 according to the Official Dynamic Range Data Base.
Cassettes to my ear have more resolution than CDs. Notes are more rounded, the harmonics are richer, there is more air and you can hear all the squeaks and whirring noises of instruments like violins that are missing in action on CDs. Tape is a natural medium. It breathes.
Ironically, perhaps, tape frequently sounds like it has more dynamic range than CDs. Yes, I realize that theoretically CD should deliver many orders of magnitude greater dynamic range than tape, especially the humble cassette, but I'm not hearing it. And the dynamics of tape sound more natural and unrestrained. Of course there are exceptions but I'm speaking generally. In addition, from what I hear comparing digital to tape, tape is much sweeter and has more, uh, resolution.
Tim, here's an example. There are many examples of what I'm referring to. Take the RCA Living Stereo CD of Heifetz playing the Brahms and Tchaicovsky violin concertos. Listen to the Brahms piece enough to get an idea what the sound is like. Then listen to the cassette version of the same Brahms violin concerto, same recording, same piece. What you should notice is that the cassette version is much sweeter and much more musical in terms of believing it's a real violin. On CD the sound is very synthetic, washed out, bland, boring. On cassette you can't help thinking this guy is freaking great. Which of course he Heifetz was. Just not on CD. I was listening to the cassette of Heifetz on a bog standard SONY Sports cassette player.
Actually, as I understand it cassette tape has higher resolution than Redbook CD. That would probably help explain my preference, but also the sheer musicality, you know, things like sweetness, warmth and air.
I didn't say ALL CDs are compressed. But the trend is not your friend. And at least for me dynamics is VERY important. If it ain't got that swing it don't mean a thing. Music when you cut away all the jibber jabber is all about dynamics and microdynamics. Everything else is secondary.
I have some (compressed) CDs that are at least 3 times louder than the average (uncompressed) CD. Example: Radiohead Amnesiac. That's not "slightly louder." Hel-loo!