Music, Not Sound: Why High-Resolution Music Is a Marketing Ploy

High-resolution music has been in the news over the past few days. Neil Young’s Pono, recently announced, is a new music player designed to play high-resolution music files.[1] Pono will also have a music store; users will be able to buy high-resolution music files and sync them to the Pono Player, in a process that could be as seamless as using iTunes and an iPod.

High-resolution music files cost more than other digital downloads, and cost more than CDs as well. But are they worth the money? Can you hear the difference between a CD and a high-resolution music file?

The answer is most likely no. While there may be a small number of people who have the necessary audio equipment and good enough ears to hear this difference, those people are few and far between. Most people cannot even tell the difference between a high-bit rate MP3 or AAC file and a CD, let alone a high-resolution file.[2]

But digital music purveyors market high-resolution music in an attempt to make purchasers think that they are special, that they may, indeed, be one of the few people who can hear the difference between CDs and high-resolution audio files.

So what exactly is high-resolution music? Why couldn’t it sound better than CDs? And why doesn’t it? You can’t test the subjective experiences of listeners, so how much of that experience is just an expensive placebo effect?

Some Terminology

For any discussion of high-resolution music, it’s important to clear up some terminology. When you see high-resolution music files, you may see them described as, for example, 24/96. This means the music in the files is 24-bit, and 96 kHz. While high-resolution music comes in a number of different levels of quality[3], I’m going to focus here on the most common high-resolution files, which are 24/96.

Let’s begin by explaining the specifications for audio CDs. The Red Book standard[4] specifies not only how CDs are manufactured, but also how recorded music is formatted for them. Audio CDs contained two-channel linear PCM audio [5] at 16-bit and 44,100 Hz; this is commonly abbreviated as 16/44.1. There are two elements here: the bit depth, which is 16-bit, and the sample rate, which is 44,100 Hz.[6]

Bit depth affects the dynamic range of music as well as the signal-to-noise ratio. The dynamic range of music is the difference between the softest and loudest parts of the music. A good example of music with a very broad dynamic range is Mahler’s third symphony. Listen to the final movement, and you’ll hear some very soft sounds as well as an extremely loud sounds. Or listen to Led Zeppelin’s Stairway to Heaven; it starts with a soft acoustic guitar and builds up to a fuzz-box crescendo.

The bit depth is essentially the number of variations a recording can choose from in a given slice of time. 16-bit audio allows for a range of 65,536 possible levels; 24-bit audio increases that to 16,777,216 levels. However, between the threshold of hearing and the threshold of pain, humans cannot distinguish enough of these volume differences for this to be noticeable.[7]

The second number in our pair is the sample rate: this is the number of “slices” of audio that are made per second, and are measured in Hz (Hertz). 44.1 kHz means that the music is sampled 44,100 times a second; 96 kHz means it is sampled 96,000 times a second. The sample rate primarily affects the range of frequencies that can be reproduced by a digital music file.

And the combination of the two determines the size of audio files. A CD can contain up to around 80 minutes, but if it were encoded at a different bit depth or sample rate, it would contain less music. A four-minute piece of music on a CD takes up 41.1 MB; at 256 kpbs (AAC or MP3), it takes up 7.5 MB. But jump to a 24/96 file and it is around 138 MB, though, using lossless compression, it can be shrunk by about 1/3 to 1/2 of its original size.

Is Bigger Better?

This is where the marketing comes in: bigger is always better. It could seem logical that higher numbers would result in better sounding music, but this isn’t the case. Let’s take the bit depth. 24-bit music, according to the marketing department, sounds better than 16-bit music. Yet 16 bits are more than enough to cover what human beings can hear.[8] Too broad a dynamic range can be harmful; if you set the volume to hear the quiet parts of the music, the loud sections could burst your speakers, and hurt your ears.

And that sample rate? Interestingly, CDs use a sample rate, as we saw above, of 44,100 Hz; not a random number at all. This number was chosen because the highest frequency that humans can hear is around 20,000 Hz. According to the Nyquist theorum[9], the sample rate of music must be at least twice the maximum frequency that humans can hear. Since it’s best to leave a little bit of wiggle room, audio engineers took 20,000 Hz, multiplied it by two, and then added bit of padding, just in case.[10] Most of us don’t even hear up to 20,000 Hz: and, as we age, our hearing deteriorates. I can’t hear above around 12,000 Hz; you can test your hearing here.

Yet high-resolution audio files at 96 kHz can reproduce sounds up to around 48,000 Hz. Dogs can hear sounds that high; but not humans. In fact, it’s very likely that your stereo system cannot reproduce sounds at such levels. Most standard stereo equipment reproduces sounds from 20 to 20,000 Hz. So for ultrasonic sounds to be reproduced, every element of the audio chain needs to be able to reproduce these sounds. If your amplifier can go up to 40,000 Hz, but your speakers or headphones cannot, no amount of voodoo or magic can make high frequencies audible.

While it is certainly possible to have stereo equipment that can reproduce ultrasonic frequencies, you’ll never hear them. Yet, very high sample rate music files can actually cause distortion. As an article on xiph.org[11] says, “If the same transducer reproduces ultrasonics along with audible content, any nonlinearity will shift some of the ultrasonic content down into the audible range as an uncontrolled spray of intermodulation distortion products covering the entire audible spectrum.” There are a lot of $10 words in a sentence, but what they mean is that very high sample rates — in this case, 24/192 – can actually make music sound worse; harmonic distortion can occur when the ultrasonics intrude on audible frequencies.

On top of that, hardly anyone can distinguish music at high sample rates from CDs. A number of blind studies have proven this, time and time again.[12]

“Music as It Was Intended to Be Heard”

One of the biggest marketing arguments for high-resolution music files is that “this is how music was intended to be heard.” Pono Music says, “[Musicians] want their music heard and experienced the way they brought it to life with great care and commitment, in the studio.”[13] This is how the music was recorded; this is how engineers heard it when they edited the music. Therefore, this must be better.

Two elements separate the recording studio – or, more correctly, the engineer’s control room – and home listening spaces. First, control rooms have high-quality monitors (speakers) which are neutral, and which are designed to provide the best possible audio fidelity. Second, control rooms are completely soundproof rooms with no parallel surfaces and completely absorbent walls. Again, they are designed to have no obstacles to reproducing the music as it was recorded. But you won’t have that at home, unless you have a very expensive listening room (and there are some people who go to this expense).

Some websites sell high-resolution files under the moniker “studio masters.” And, in fact, these files are studio masters; what engineers used in the studio. But that doesn’t mean that these are files that we should use when listening to music, and it certainly doesn’t mean that they’ll sound the same on home audio systems.

There is a very simple reason why engineers use high bit depths and sample rates when recording music. Digital music involves a lot of calculations; when you make changes to music, with equalization, speed changes, etc., you are multiplying and dividing numbers. When mixing and mastering an album, an engineer performs thousands of operations to alter sound. Each one of these calculations — to simplify — leads to numbers being rounded off. The bigger the numbers, the less of a chance there is for rounding errors to affect the music. But this doesn’t mean that we, as listeners, need the same types of files. We don’t manipulate these files; we may change volume, or even use some subtle EQ, but that’s it. Nevertheless, many vocal audiophiles will provide a number of reasons why they need to listen to music files that contain sounds that they simply cannot hear.

However, if someone really wants to provide “music as it was intended to be heard,” they’d do a lot better to look at the mastering process that’s been destroying music in recent decades. Colloquially known as “the loudness wars,” music producers, prodded by record labels, use dynamic compression to increase the overall volume of music, making it sound horrendous. Since, in general, louder sounds better, or brighter, when you compare two songs, producers have been cranking up the volume to make their songs stand out. But string together an albums worth of overly loud tracks, and it’s fatiguing. But it’s a war of attrition, and our ears are the losers. No high-resolution files will make this music sound better, ever.[14]

Also, mastering is often done by someone other than the recording engineer, and someone who may not have been involved in the recording process. So is this music truly the way the artists and engineers intended you to hear it?

Listen Better

As I said in the title of this article: music, not sound. There is a small minority of music listeners who are obsessed by the idea of obtaining “perfect” sound. They go to great lengths, and great expense, to try and reproduce the sound that one hears in a concert hall. By focusing on sound quality alone, it can be easy to neglect the music. Such people may get frustrated if the music doesn’t sound good enough, and find it hard to become immersed in great music.

I’m a music fan. What I want most of all, is good music. Some of my best listening experiences have come on tinny record players or booming car stereos. If the music is good, then the sound quality is less important. This said, without getting obsessive, there are a number of ways you can make your music sound better without maxing out your credit card.

For portable listening, start by getting rid of those white earbuds in a bundled with your iPod or iPhone. Get better earbuds, or get proper headphones. With headphones, you get what you pay for, up to a few hundred dollars. After that price point, it gets a bit iffy.

If you listen to music on your computer, get rid of those little desktop speakers and hook up a real stereo. I strongly recommend getting a good DAC — a digital-analog converter — because the sound card in your computer is probably not great. (Though no DAC will help if your amplifier and speakers are poor.) I have a DAC between my Mac and my amplifier; I find that it does make a difference, providing a more detailed soundstage.

And if you’re listening to digital music — you’re reading this article, so I assume you are — make sure it is at sufficiently high bit rates. Apple’s iTunes Store sells music at 256 kbps, which, for nearly everyone, is indistinguishable from uncompressed music. If you use MP3 files, go for 320 kbps; it should sound just as good as CDs as well.

But unless you’re willing to spend as much money on your stereo system as you do on your car, and set up an acoustically-controlled room, there is simply no way that high-resolution files will make any difference to the music you listen to. Lots of people try and convince you that there is a difference, but most of these people simply want to take your money. And you have to ask yourself: of the ones who aren’t asking for your money, how many are desperately seeking validation for the very large sums of money they’ve spent on something modern science tells us they cannot hear.


  1. https://www.kirkville.com/whats-the-point-of-pono-and-why-are-ponos-numbers-bogus/  ↩

  2. I consider high bitrates to be at least 256 kpbs for AAC or 320 kpbs (or VBR V–0) for MP3 files. Check whether you can hear the difference: https://www.kirkville.com/can-you-really-tell-the-difference-between-music-at-different-bit-rates/  ↩

  3. The most common high-resolution music files are 24/48, 24/88.2, and 24/96. Pono will offer files up to 24/192, and some companies sell files up to 24/384.  ↩

  4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_Disc_Digital_Audio  ↩

  5. Linear pulse-code modulation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulse-code_modulation.  ↩

  6. One must not confuse bit depth and bit rate, which is used to describe how much data is in a music file per second. For example, 256 kbps means that there are 256,000 bits of data per second of music.  ↩

  7. See Is Bits Really Bits?. And, how about a test? Check whether you can hear the difference between music at 16 bits, and the same music downsampled to only 8 bits: The 16-bit v/s 8-bit Blind Listening Test. I got 7 out of 10 when I did the test; that’s better than random.  ↩

  8. Dynamic range is quite complicated. See this article for more detailed information than you probably want.  ↩

  9. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist_frequency  ↩

  10. There are also some other technical reasons why that specific sample rate was chosen. “Professional video recorders were originally used to prepare CD master tapes because they were the only recorders capable of handling the high bandwidth requirements of digital audio signals. Because 16-bit digital audio signals (and error correction) were encoded as a video signal, the sampling frequency had to relate to television standards’ line and field rate, storing a few samples per scan line. […] With three samples per line, 490 x 30 x 3 = 44.1 kHz, it is just right. […] Therefore, 44.1 kHz became the universal sampling frequency for CD master tapes. Because sampling-frequency conversion was difficult, and 44.1 kHz was appropriate, the same sampling frequency was used for finished disks.” Principles of Digital Audio, Sixth Edition, Ken C. Pohlmann. (Amazon.com, Amazon UK)  ↩

  11. https://people.xiph.org/xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html  ↩

  12. See, for example, The Emperor’s New Sample Rate.  ↩

  13. http://www.ponomusic.com/#faq Or Try for yourself.  ↩

  14. See The Future of Music and, for a more technical explanation, ‘Dynamic Range’ & The Loudness War. And The Dynamic Range Database is a list of more than 50,000 albums, showing their relative loudness.  ↩

63 thoughts on “Music, Not Sound: Why High-Resolution Music Is a Marketing Ploy

  1. Great article Kirk – I concur. One thing – would you like to comment on Mastered for iTunes – I was fascinated but unsure what to make of this – https://www.apple.com/uk/itunes/mastered-for-itunes/ I would love to compare the following on my HiFi – a CD converted to ALAC with the music I downloaded from the iTunes Store which is “Mastered for iTunes’. The music which as you say is the most important thing is – WomanChild https://itunes.apple.com/gb/album/womanchild/id618793978 – sounds awesome!

    Keep it coming!

    • Yes, that’s certainly something to look into. I’ll have to check with some music that I can compare. One of the risks is that if the MfiT files are even a slightly different volume, it’s very hard to do a valid comparison.

  2. I completely agree, Kirk. Thanks. I’ve never been able to distinguish between an AIFF file and an AAC file, except by file size or extension.

  3. Thanks for bringing up all these good points, especially the quality of the recording to start with, rather than the delivery output. As an example, I was looking for a copy of Quadrophenia to buy a few days ago, and in one of the ‘remastered deluxe’ editions on Amazon (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Quadrophenia-Who/dp/B005DMNS4A/) the first reviewer is disappointed and advises “Stick with an original vinyl copy or if you can find one the original german polydor cd which remains the best sounding digital version”, while the second reviewer can’t tell the versions apart at all…

    Now I just wonder if the 2013 ‘remastered for iTunes’ version might actually be superior to all previous CD versions (excepting maybe that mythical German recording) despite the ‘lower quality format’, just because the remastering has been taken seriously this time…

    • Part of the problem with music these days – at least for classic albums – is that there are multiple remasters, and it’s hard to know which sounds good. The Beatles are a good example: there have been a number of remasters over the years, and some fans like certain versions, others like different ones. The only thing to do is to do some research; or just pick any of them, since it’s the music that counts. :-)

      As for the Mastered for iTunes version, you’d need to know which source was used.

  4. The fallback position, lately, for folks who don’t like compressed files is that having the originals in at least 16/44.1 preserves their options; they can transcode without fear of losing quality, so if, say, there are no more iPods some day and all the other audio players in the world drop aac support they’re all set. Also, if the mysterious missing link that “proves” cd quality really is audibly different from a high bitrate compressed file emerges, they’re covered.

    I think it’s hard letting go of that, because once you do – for some people – it feels like the walls are going up, like your listening future isn’t unlimited, It’s the same impulse that leads people to over buy music or books or whatever-your-poison is because at some point down the road you may want to hear it or read it or see it, even though that point often doesn’t arrive.

    Personally, I’m not great at this part, but I try these days to enjoy what I have, and not fret about what I’m missing or will never hear. It’s why I mailed off the several disc King Crimson “Court Of The Crimson King” set this morning. It had the album, the album in 24/96, the album in alternate takes, a needle drop of the mono version (which was all I really liked) and a 5.1 mix. I don’t even like King Crimson very much, and never really listened to the set, but as I was getting ready to ship it, I thought “What if I want to hear the high-res version some day?” I finished the bubble wrap and headed to the post office.

    • I didn’t know that had been released in mono. I love that album; I’ve loved it since I first heard it in the mid-70s. I’ll have to look for that. I don’t care about the 5.1 either; I don’t have a surround system.

    • Such “mysterious link” is actually reference 12 in this article. They claim that in a well set up ABX test people recognized the higher sampling rate source at a rate close to 50%, the same as flipping a coin or as a deaf person. But one subgroup did “even worse” (according to them): women only preferred the higher sampling rate source at a rate of 37%. But as anybody minimally trained in statistics will tell you, the worst result in an ABX test is 50%. 37% is the same as 100-37 = 63%. In layman terms, women in that experiment (which may or may not represent the general population) can hear the difference between different sampling rate sources, all else being kept equal. It just happens they prefer the lower sampling rate, but as far as being able to tell the difference, they are to a great degree. No surprise the reviewers of the paper didn’t catch it, math literacy is as rare as flying pigs.

      • I agree that that is interesting. I wonder if it’s not some kind of bias that the researchers didn’t count on. Let’s be honest: most of the people who care about this issue are men. It’s possible that the women doing the test weren’t approaching it in the same way. But it is intriguing to see that kind of number, in either direction.

        • What if the women in question actually heard the drawbacks of high sample rate audio? Nonlinearities in the components creating intermodulation in the upper sonic regions? Since peaople hearing above 15 kHz also reported “worse”, maybe the studiy shows that audiophile high samplerate audio playback sounds less “clean” then properly filtered cd quality playback.

      • Correct me if I’m wrong, but if 63 percent represents the ability of women to distinguish one from the other, that isn’t much better than 6 of 10, and that’s not really much better than a guess. Obviously, if what it really means is that, say, 80 or 90 percent of women can distinguish the two and of that group, six in 10 have a preference, that’s different.

        s.

        • Of course what “much better” is is subjective. Would you say it’s much better and 70% or 80%? That’s a question of effect size and its practical impact. I am talking about the specific statement that there is no perceptual difference for different bit rates above the CD level. From a statistical standpoint, without the sample size it’s hard to make a calculation, but the number 63 suggests that there were 100 observations or it has been falsified (because 63 and 100 have no common factors). It’s extremely unlikely that such a result could be obtained if there were no perceivable difference between the two sounds. Try to throw a coin 100 times and get more than 63 or less than 37. That has a probability about 0.006. That doesn’t speak to the size of the effect, which could be very small and not worth $1 of your money. But the evidence shows that the sampling difference can be perceived by some people. Not very often and with the opposite preference than was expected, but if you accept the study was performed well, which I can’t because I haven’t read the original report, what the study shows is that sampling differences are perceivable. The article you cite draws, surprisingly, the opposite conclusion.

  5. Completely OT, but I have a cloudy relationship with the music of both KC and the Dead. There are things about both bands I like – “Red,” for instance, but both manage to annoy me too. Usually it has to do with vocals/lyrics.

    Anyway, I probably didn’t make my point well earlier. I’m trying to say that it seems to me that people who obsess about lossless and high res are sacrificing listening pleasure today, however imperfect, for some kind of ideal of listening that doesn’t really exist. I’ve never heard an extreme top end system, but I’d be willing to bet that no matter how much money you spend, no matter how glorious your speakers are, you couldn’t reliably tell the difference between a high bit rate lossy file and lossless/high res. I think the issue here is the limits of our ears and how we process sound – and those are hard limits.

  6. I can hear something when I play the 20.000 Hz file, but it’s very quiet. Don’t you hear *anything* when you play that?
    I’m 38 years old.

    • I’d be surprised if you actually hear a 20 kHz tone. You might be hearing harmonic distortion at a lower frequency. What are you listening through? Speakers or headphones? This said, it’s entirely possible that you can hear it; some people can.

  7. I remain to be convinced that music at bit depth/sample rates above that of CD is worth bothering with. There is undoubtedly a desire to tell yourself that it sounds better, but I don’t feel that I can actually distinguish between them.

    However, for me the main issue is that I’d like to be able to purchase online music at 16/44.1. I can certainly hear the difference between a low bit rate MP3 and the same track ripped from CD at 16/44.1 on at least some types of material. If Pono and high-bit rate music push us away from 256/320kbps tracks then I welcome them.

  8. Dear Kirk, it is a very complicated issue that you are addressing here, involving expertise in many domains such as acoustic, psycho-acoustic, music cognition, signal processing, sound engineering, neuro-physiology and more. When dealing with our perception of music in general and of the extreme high and low frequencies in particular as well as the making of devices to records and playback sounds, one needs to keep an open mind.
    You have a fair point when you’re stating that most people can’t hear above 20Khz (and under 20Hz) so we shouldn’t bother with high resolution files because they won’t sound better than cd, but it is a very simplistic answer to (again) a very complicated question.
    No one can argue, considering current research against the first point, but we can argue against the second (that high resolution files can’t sound better than cds). It is not because we cannot hear ultrasounds and infrasounds that they don’t have an effect on our perception. That has been shown with infrasounds, and recent research is also showing what is called an “hypersonic effect” with frequencies above 20Khz on the brain. That effect could explain why people, although they don’t hear a difference between high resolution files (but it should be said that many articles are conflicting on that matter, for example in the same journal that is mentioned in The Emperor’s new sample rates, the aes, an article by A. Pras (2010) concludes in opposition to the article by Meyer and Moran), like high resolution files better. This domain of research is in its infancy, so they might discover more things about our perception of ver high frequencies, or might not…but you can’t brush off the possibility of an effect based on one argument or because you consider this bogus.

    Audiophiles might be delusional, and so what, if people want to feed their delusion with big money why not? Others buy cars that can go to speeds they will never need. Also it is not illogical to think that with higher sample rates the resulting signal will be closer to the original signal (analogue master or newly recorded music), whether we can hear the difference or not is another matter.
    As for the marketing ploy, well yes it is all about marketing, selling music and audio equipment has always been about marketing since the first gramophone were introduced and the first music labels created to bring content and help selling more gramophones.
    I think it is up to the people to make their choice. You are advising to get a good DAC, well it’s half the way to being able to listen to high resolution files, since most of them can deal with 24bit/96Khz files. Then you need a good pair of cans, professional models such as AKG K701, or the more expensive k712, or Shure RH1840 can go up to between 30Khz and 39Khz. For exemple a DAC Magic XS and a AKG K701 would be around £250/300. No need to spend tens of thousands of pounds. And then people can see if they like high res files better or not.

    With sentences such as this one: “But unless you’re willing to spend as much money on your stereo system as you do on your car, and set up an acoustically-controlled room, there is simply no way that high-resolution files will make any difference to the music you listen to”, you sounds like an audiophile preaching for the opposite argument, because in reality we don’t know.

  9. I can’t agree with the author’s point that bit depth defines the dynamic range. The dynamic range is the same while the bit depth (as well as sampling frequency) define how precisely the analog sound wave is digitized. Needless to say that the higher precision – the better the quality.
    However I agree that all of this requires proper equipment to enjoy

  10. Your article is misleading on some points.

    This :

    Too broad a dynamic range can be harmful; if you set the volume to hear the quiet parts of the music, the loud sections could burst your speakers, and hurt your ears.

    Is absolute rubbish.

    The whole point of hi resolution is not to be able to represent the dynamic range between a rustling leaf and a rocket launch site but to represent the NATURAL dynamic range in MUSIC without having to resort to peak limiting.

    And the quotes about 96k being a waste of time because we can only hear up to 20k? Well of course that’s true but we are not using 96k to represent 48k as an audible frequency via the Nyquist theory. It is about accurately reconstructing the original sound with as little aliasing as possible. The higher the sample rate the more times per second we sample the original sound and therefore improve its resolution. It’s nothing to do with humans being able to hear above 20k it’s about the math involved in digital audio to properly represent an analogue signal.

    Whilst I agree completely with you that better speakers/DACs/headphones are far more important than higher resolution I will NEVER agree with you on advising people to listen to 256 or 320 kbps mp3s. Mp3’s REMOVE musical information – that is sounds that were in the original source are NOT represented in mp3s. A simple polarity cancellation confirms this. With the storage available today there is ZERO requirement for lossy music distribution.

    CDs are still an excellent platform for music if the music is recorded and mixed/mastered well – and by mixed/mastered well I mean retaining natural dynamics with large crest factors and average loudness levels of between -23 and -14 LUFS. With proper dithering a CDs dynamic range potential can rival that of hi res.

    • The dynamic range of a Mahler symphony can be quite high. If you set the volume of your stereo to hear the softest parts, the loudest parts could do damage. An orchestra of that size plays at over 100 dB.

      The aliasing is more of an issue during editing; once the music has been mastered, it’s less important.

    • That article is from 1997. I’d have expected more research into this since then, and I haven’t seen much; everyone tends to cite that article. As we know from all science, one study does not confirm anything.

  11. As someone who studies animals with ultrasonic hearing (mice, bats), I want to encourage audiophilic claims of ultrasonic effects upon human hearing. In doing so, they enable scientists like myself to obtain loudspeakers, amplifiers and microphones for our research at reasonable prices. Without a consumer market, a loudspeaker capable of reproducing 100 kHz signals at 90 dB SPL would be unaffordable (or even unavailable).

  12. What Neil (Pono) is trying to convey is the Sound of his period in time. If you have not lived in the 60’s, 70’s, you have not Heard the way music should sound. Analog vinyl, tubes, etc. Unbelievable sound. People today don’t even know what he is talking about. Get yourself some vinyl ( clean ) and listen. It’s music you feel. We are losing the sound. He simply doesn’t want to lose this as time goes by.

    John

    • My formative years were in the 70s. I had hundreds of LPs, most with pops and scratches after playing them for a while. The quality of the stereo system I had back then – not being a rich musician, like Neil – was 100 times inferior to a good off-the-shelf system today.

      Anyway, he can’t even hear what he’s talking about; he has severe hearing damage and tinnitus.

    • I believe it was in his authorized biography, Shaky, where Neil says listening to a CD is like jumping into a cold shower. I wonder, though, if he and others aren’t confusing the medium with the mastering. Vinyl and tubes both introduce distortion which warm the sound, and albums from the 60’s and 70’s were mastered to be played back on vinyl. If you take that same master, put it on a CD and play it, it will likely sound ‘colder’, but that isn’t the fault of the CD.

      The only times I’ve heard a difference in a decent mp3 and a high res track, even on a good system, were when the high res track also featured a different mix. I think audiophiles do the audio world a disservice by asking for larger files when they should be complaining about the mix. I find even bad songs that are well recorded can, at times, be more pleasurable than great songs with a poor mix.

      • The problem was that, in the early days of CDs, compact discs were incorrectly mastered. They were using LP mastering on CDs, which is simply wrong. It took a few years for recording engineers to figure this out. So if you listen to early CDs, they simply don’t sound good.

  13. I feel like I’ve found other wise audio souls in the universe after reading this piece and the comments. The long is too long, so I’ll do the short of it. Back in the day of hi-fi, the good stuff was way better than the other stuff when it came to hardware (amps, receivers, speakers). Now even the average stuff (brand names) is quite good, and, as always, speakers (and headphones, earphones) are the most critical part of the listening experience. But in all of this, the law of diminishing returns is in play. There is no linear relationship between money spent and audio quality past the value-for-money midpoint.

    True audiophiles have biases of all kinds when it comes to this topic, and for the all the noise they add to the topic they offer little meaningful insight. Listening to clicks, pops and surface noise from vinyl on $50K systems is a study in missing the point of music reproduction. Digital rocks it better unless, maybe, it’s virgin vinyl pressings that take several minutes each at least to press. Less compression (loudness wars), definitely, but not necessarily “better” sound.

    Most people listen to music in marginal environments (cars, subways, outside and so on), so audiophile concerns are esoteric at best. Hi-res music is a waste of money and digital memory. MP3s at 256 to 320 bps are so good that unless one has really fine hardware and is a critical listener, there’s nothing to miss. It’s the musical experience, not the bits and frequency, that determine the pleasure.

  14. From John Siau on a blog titled Audio Myth – “24-bit Audio Has More Resolution Than 16-bit Audio” on benchmarkmedia.com, a manufacturere of A/D and D/A converters:

    “24-bit word lengths provide a very efficient method of improving the noise performance of digital systems. When dither is properly applied, there is no advantage to long word lengths other than improving the noise performance. Quantization errors in a properly-dithered digital system produce nothing other than random noise. Properly-dithered digital systems have infinite amplitude resolution.

    Long word lengths do not improve the amplitude “resolution” of digital systems, they only improve the noise performance. But, noise can mask low-level musical details, so please do not underestimate the importance of a low-noise audio system.”

    As an engineer and a composer, I always want people to experience my sound mixes and compositions as close to how I heard the sound in my control room. I don’t actually know if my software (Pro Tools) dithers as well as it should, so I would prefer for end listeners to hear my work in 24 bit. If people are listening to 24 bit .wav masters, then I know that they are experiencing the experience I intended.

  15. Everyone seems to have an obsession with 96k vs 44.1. I have no idea why as the science is pretty firm on that score. However, bit depth is entirely different. 16 bit isn’t even close to the limit of perception ( I think it’s around 20 bits.). I know from my own experience that I have no trouble discerning the difference between 16 and 24 bit. If we can make an improvement (aside from making sure that our DACs and speakers are up to snuff) that is where I would place my money.

    • Depending on the music and the way it is mastered, yes, the bit depth has more of an effect. It’s harder to notice, unless the music you listen to has a very large dynamic range.

      Interestingly, there is a format called HDCD, which uses some sort of trickery to put 20-bit audio on CDs. It can only be played through special players, of which there are few. And Microsoft bought the format some years ago, guaranteeing that it would sink into oblivion. I’ve actually never seen an HDCD, other than the Grateful Dead’s recordings, which are all released in that format. While I do have a player that can decode HDCD, I’ve never really sat down to try and compare a disc in both 16- and 20-bit playback.

  16. Sorry for the late reply but this article twisted my stomach in knots so I had to add a comment. If you can’t hear the difference with high definition audio files you must either be using a $20,000 regular CD player or a crappy digital playback device. With my Oppo player both SACD’s and high definition digital files put me right in the center of the recording studio, concert hall, jazz club or whatever venue the original recording was made in. With regular CD’s or other non-HD sources the sound is much more flat and distant. Night and Day.

  17. I had the pleasure of visiting a friend who had a full-fledged high-end system. (Tetra speakers, etc.) and a lovely collection of hi-def recordings. It was very impressive and, yes, in that circumstance, there was no doubt as to difference in sound. And I didn’t really care. I don’t listen much in that kind of environment. It’s like a fine wine. Occasionally is nice but nothing I can use regularly.
    I much preferred the sound I heard as my band played a live concert that night. Acoustic instruments but much more lo-fi in real life.

  18. Dear Kirk McElhearn

    You are trying to confuse the readers.

    You need to understand the difference between

    1) the sampling frequency (how many samples are taken per second from the recording microphone signal – the higher the better up to limitation of the equipment used)

    2) and the audio output frequency of the DAC going to the amplifier then to speakers.

    If you do not understand, you are ignorant and dismissed as such.

    If you know the above, and still trying to deceive people, you are a fraud.
    You may be speaking on behalf of somebody who is paying you.

    Take two music files sampled from the same master tape at 44.1/16 and at 48/24.
    Play them in a half decent music system (say costing around $2000 total, DAC+amplifier+speakers) the difference is clear to nearly everyone.

    Ebenezer

    • He!He! Love the ‘Bah! Humbug!’ attitude.
      Yes, the DAC is the key and the better you can feed it, the better will be the results.

    • Explain how I am confusing the two. Because if you cannot, you are ignorant and should be dismissed as such. And didn’t your mother tell you that politeness is a virtue?

  19. Recently I discovered the HDTracks site, bought a couple, and acquired a new player with a really fine DAC. I may be being won over! 44.1/16 does seem to be more than fine (I’m mostly playing alac), all other things being excellent, but, even with my mediocre system, those HD tracks do seem to have ‘more’.

    • So what you need to know is whether those tracks you bought from HDTracks are remasters. Because many high-res files are remastered, which certainly improves the sound compared to existing versions. And, of course, you could convert them to CD quality, and try a blind test, and see which one sounds better…

      • I’m pretty sure I’m on safe ground. 1 Alan Parsons @176 which is the only album he has issued in HD. 1 Steven Wilson ( who claims not to ‘master’ at all)y and 1 ECM. Reputable sources, I believe.

        • I’m not saying that they are not reputable. But doing anything with the original masters involves some sort of remastering, even if it is not a thorough change of the music. So it’s very possible that any quality difference comes from this process, rather than from the actual resolution difference. I’m just saying, it is useful to rule out any spurious differences when comparing such things; that’s why I suggest creating 16/44.1 copies and blind testing. But if you’re happy, that’s what counts.

  20. I absolutely cannot agree that Mp3 is a listening format we should recommend to end users. I can hear the difference on an 8 dollar pair of Nady cans on an iPod between an Mp3 and a 44.1 .wav. I think as a middle ground we can encourage 24 bit .wav or flac flies sold to listeners no matter the sample rate. Honestly, what does it gain the recording industry and those of us who try to earn a living working in it if we have blogs that cut down efforts for widespread 24 bit, high sample rate delivery? I am so excited that Pono is now out in the world with it’s awesome and flexible Pono players. I’ll definitely be buying one for listening to the work of Morten Lindberg and 2L, who was nominated for 3 of the 4 best surround sound recordings for this years Grammys.

    • “I can hear the difference on an 8 dollar pair of Nady cans on an iPod between an Mp3 and a 44.1 .wav.”

      That is simply ridiculous. $8 headphones have a severely compromise dynamic range, and undoubtedly poor audio fidelity overall, so if you do hear such a difference, it can only be the result of confirmation bias.

    • I’ve heard a lot of good things about that device, and I’m tempted to try it out. Fiio is an interesting company. They make very good audio hardware at (generally) low prices.

    • There is no magic. If the original sound is not good it is impossible to turn it good. A bad drums recording never will be transformed in a good drums sound…

  21. Hi res is about sequence of time.
    It’s about space information not frequency…
    96/24 is still not much different than 44.1/16
    384/24 is the point where (if you have equipment and record on this level) you can’t recognise what is more real more natural than real sound environment…

  22. an mp3 thats been encoded from a song with dynamic range will sound way better then a flac file thats been encoded from a modern cd.

  23. Pick the Pixies album “Doolittle”. Has it a good recording? I think it is not. I have the LP, the CD and the 25th aniversay edition . I think the sound is weak in most of the tracks. The problem was in the studio recording? Or in the masterization? It is just an example.

  24. “Some websites sell high-resolution files under the moniker “studio masters.” And, in fact, these files are studio masters”

    They might be masters that have come from a studio, but the problem is they infer by “studio masters” that you’re getting the original stereo master from the studio and in many cases we have seen this to not be the case, the recent “studio masters” of Bob Marley albums have lost almost half their dynamic range and sound nowhere near as good as the original Barry Diament CD masterings or original vinyl from the 70s.

    One of the few things I think is technically incorrect in your article is that you’ve stated the bit-depth affects the dynamic range of the music, and this is 100% incorrect as I’m sure you know, what you mean is that the bit-depth represents the potential dynamic range, music will have the same dynamic range whether you record at 16, 20, 24 or 32 bit.

    Where high resolution is not a marketing ploy is when the 24-bit high resolution options contain fully dynamic masterings that have been slammed for CD and iTunes and other 16-bit download options. There are several examples of this, but a good one is the 2013 Dream Theater release. The CD’s dynamic range when measured by the DR Meter is DR6 whereas the 24/96 stereo mix available via both Pono and HD Tracks is DR12. It’s a huge difference, surprisingly the high resolution 24/96 track on the DVD-Audio disc is the same slammed mastering as the CD, whereas the excellent 5.1 mix is fully dynamic.

  25. Personally, a FLAC file with 16/44.1 satisfies my needs when it comes to hi-fi quality. Then I can pick those files and transcode to MP3 VBR V0 for on the go listening, and preserve the FLAC archivals. Maybe the idea of 24bit files for hd music can be a great add-on because you can really see diference in dynamics, but above 44.1 for me is a total waste of resource. The researchers at Sony / Philips couldn’t make a better choice for hi-fi digital music (well, the red book specifications for CD has become standard since 1979). And even Tidal, which seems to appeal to audiophiles, are not waving the flags of over-sized streams. Fourty four point one khz / sixteen bit sounds enough. Even their downloads at Tidal Store aren’t more than CD quality FLAC / ALAC files. And I sleep well with those tracks when I want hi-fi.

    Great article, and I want to give +1 for that xiph.org’s points about sticking with well dithered masterings at CD quality.

    • someone said audiophiles don’t listen to music with their equipment, they listen to their equipment with music.They’re so obsessed with sound quality that they’re no longer really enjoying music at all. Like a man making love to his beauty queen wife and all he can think about is how jealous other men would be if they could see him with her.

      • ? Just because they say it doesn’t make it true. As in many fields, the better the gear, the better the results. Well recorded music with Hi Def files on a fine system is an experience you want to have and repeat.

  26. I have to take issue on your conclusion, Kirk, while being grateful for your work for Take Control Books. It is my reference for iTunes and I’m very glad to have bought it.

    You write,
    ” … unless you’re willing to spend as much money on your stereo system as you do on your car, and set up an acoustically-controlled room, there is simply no way that high-resolution files will make any difference to the music you listen to.”

    The corollary to this is also true : if you’re willing to go to all that trouble, it will make a difference to the music you hear, even if you’re not listening to high-resolution files. That also is worth saying, I think.

    You write,
    “Lots of people try and convince you that there is a difference, but most of these people simply want to take your money.”

    That’s a pretty damning general statement. I have to ask, who exactly are you tarring with the one brush? If there were a contrary example, it would be Barry Diamant of Soundkeeper Recordings. I bought the high-res version of one of the five or so files he sells. (They’re all his own recordings.) With his permission I downsampled that file, using professional-grade software. Using pro gear, I could hear a difference between the two versions.

    Barry does sell the hi-res version of his music for more than the MP3 one. I suppose he wanted my money, and if so, he must have chuckled as he banked the extra $18.25 he got off me.

    He could be fooling me, if not fooling himself. But just perhaps, he sincerely believes that there is a worthwhile difference. Just perhaps, there is a difference to be heard.

    You write,
    “… you have to ask yourself: of the ones who aren’t asking for your money, how many are desperately seeking validation for the very large sums of money they’ve spent on something modern science tells us they cannot hear.”

    To ask the question is to answer it: of course some of the spenders are seeking validation. There would have to be at least one, just as there would have to be at least one case in which there really is a worthwhile difference.

    And you have to ask yourself too: why am I trying to convince the world that there is no point going after high-res digital audio? Who cares what the rest of the world listens to, if I’m happy with my own music? Why should it matter to me if others fool themselves in great numbers? The truth will out, eventually. If the Emperor really has no clothes, then when someone finally dares to say it, nobody will be able to go on denying reality for long.

    Meanwhile, if you do take a little trouble over your stereo system, you will hear a difference in your music. That’s a sure bet.

    • Great comments.

      I recently bought my first hi-res download (24/96) of Wadada Leo Smith’s “America’s National Parks” and compared it to a download of the same recording at 16/44. I had hoped to discern no difference in order to save money on future downloads.

      My listening room is a converted steel garage with no acoustic treatment and my two speakers only cost $3,000 (US) and DAC $2,500 (US). However both are used in professional recording studios.

      For this all-acoustic-instruments recording the 24/96 offered an improved listening experience. The separation between instruments was improved as was the resolution in general. In particular the trumpet sounded more like a real instrument with a sweetness of tone and a fuller more complex timbre that the 16/44 sound lacked. The piano also sounded more like a real piano, again with a richer timbre.

      I think the ultimate value of the higher resolution was that the music was more physically and emotionally thrilling and involving – many times I found myself deciding to listen to the end of a piece after originally deciding to switch back to the lower resolution mid-piece to compare a particular musical passage. Never the other way round.

  27. I find this article rather patronising, and, suprisingly for someone who claims to be into music for “the music” rather than just “sound”, it is rather boneheaded and simplistic.

    Yes, as far as most of the physics of sound goes, the writer is correct – except that he doesn’t seem to understand what bit depth really means.

    What he doesn’t understand is the magic that happens between the physical world and the psychological world that begins once physical vibrations pass into our brains.

    No one yet has the werewithal to conduct scientific experiments about the way music sounds once inside our minds, so please ignore the writer’s rather arrogant claims that “no one can hear the difference” or “no one can tell blah blah”.

    Other areas he has not considered are the fact that so-called “blind tests” are the worst possible conditions for a musical experience. How on earth someone is supposed to have a proper musical listening experience under “scientific” conditions is beyond me.

    We don’t ask scientists to verify their experiments by conducting them in a living room, so how come we can’t trust the opinions of people about their own listening experiences until they have been verified in a totally non-conducive space? Why does the writer privilege science over experiences of a psychological nature, which are really beyond the scope of empirical science anyway?

    Getting back into the realm of the physical and measurable, there is research to suggest that higher frequencies not only have a pitched sound to our ears, if we can hear them, but they also affect the presentation of the frequencies below them, and are involved with how we appreciate the shape and size of the acoustic spaces they were recorded in. Our bodies also are affected by sound, quite apart from the ears!

    Sorry I can’t provide a direct link to the research, but I think another person has mentioned it above, I will hunt it down after posting and come back here if I don’t fall asleep first!

    Suffice to say, we don’t even fully appreciate the physical, empirical side of sound yet, let alone the psychological, so don’t let someone pushy tell you that it’s all a done deal and that sellers are out to hoodwink you – it’s the self-appointed smartarses that are more of a danger, those too enchanted by physical science, too materialistic to appreciate fully the open-ended nature of a musical experience!

  28. I’ve read of some people pointing out details they could identify only at higher resolution; a specific example I recall was an odd sound they couldn’t identify at CD resolution, but at a higher resolution they could tell it was a squeaky hinge on a guitar effects pedal.

    Not a normal case, clearly. But I’ve also heard it said that one has a greater sense of “presence”, of being there, at resolutions that more accurately capture what we may not hear as a difference of sound as such, perhaps phase relationships.

    For another purpose, high def does have some uses. Any processing tends to degrade a signal, and while it’s different, that’s generally true with digital processing as well as analog processing – with just about any sort of effects processing, sample rate conversion, etc. For editing, remixing, and so on, a higher-than-final quality (some of which will be sacrificial) is presumably useful, esp. if the work version is at a sample rate that’s a low integer multiple of the desired end result. That’s not of interest to your average listener, but more people do attempt to do tweaks on existing tracks, so the market for that may not be limited to professionals.

Leave a Comment