Audiophile Music Formats - Going Overboard?

HamDog

AudioGuy
Not sure of the exact order, but first there was SACD and DVD-A. Yay for hi-rez music! Then came the individual files that could be downloaded - you know, 24 bit 192khz, or 24/96, or whatever else of anything higher than the redbook 16/44. Then we have the DSD format and it's "containers" such as DSF, DFF, DST, etc. Let's not forget the 2xDSD and higher that are becoming more popular.

And for the physical discs, we now have specialty HQCD and XRCD - both of which are 16/44 (I think?), but (allegedly) sound better than redbook.

And then there are the special SACDs: The "Japan" versions, the "SHM" versions (some type of specially coated disc?), the Mobile Fidelity Sound Labs, and etc.

There must be 20 different hi-rez versions of Fleetwood Mac's Rumors album! I love hi-rez music because of it's multi-channel capabilites. But it's getting ridiculous to keep up with all this stuff.

Am I just getting old? Anyone else getting tired of keeping up with this stuff?
 
Tired? not I, quite the contrary.

I now convert all my digital files to DSD128 (2xDSD) with HQPlayer and play them through a DSD128 capable DAC - digital has never sounded so good. DSD source material can sound spectacular but the real surprise is how good other formats like 16/44.1 can sound using this method.

Exciting times for digital and a listen to some of these new formats on a good system can be a real eye-opener - and this from an old die-hard vinyl guy. :)
 
Hi Billfort, thanks for the reply. I have some material that was recorded in DSD and it sounds fantastic. But a bit confused about why a 16/44 CD upsampled to DSD can sound better than the original. Were you using the same DAC for the 16/44 and the DSD?

Some of my frustration is when I look for an SACD and find so many versions, such as the original, remaster, Japan, SHM, Fidelity Mobile Lab, etc.!
 
Yes and no on the DAC; I play 16/44 on an AudioNote DAC (that doesn't play DSD) but lately, on a DSD capable DAC (Concero HD) that can play 16/44 bit-perfect, as upsampled PCM or as DSD (using external conversion software).

The real difference seems to be using HQPlayer software which does a fantastic job 'upscaling' 16/44 to DSD128, which I think the Concero sounds great decoding. The Concero might do both formats but it's my understanding that DSD goes through a different - simpler - conversion process than PCM that might just be this affordable dac's 'sweetspot'.

I went on about my experiments with all this in this thread.
 
I also thought about giving up on trying to understand the digital formats, differences in pressings and versions after spending quite a bit of time trying to understand it all.

I took a break from it, decided to rip all my CD's to 16 bit / 44.1 Hz FLAC files, downloaded some 24/96 & 24/192 files and just enjoyed the music for a while. I must say the difference in quality was outstanding having come from run-of-the-mill CD players, iPods and mp3's.

I've been kicking around the idea of going to a DSD capable DAC and converting my FLAC but was not really sure how to go about it. I did a bit more reading and I'm beginning to understand it all.

Thanks, Billfort, for the link!
 
Actually there is a limited number of formats: PCM and DSD. Then goes resolution 16 or 24 bits for PCM. And finally sampling rate 44.1/48/88/96/192/384 for PCM and 64/128 for DSD. Everything else are just containers or delivery media. SACD can be only of TWO types - stereo of multichannel - everything else is just marketing label. The same with CD - only one and the only type.
 
The real difference seems to be using HQPlayer software which does a fantastic job 'upscaling' 16/44 to DSD128, which I think the Concero sounds great decoding. The Concero might do both formats but it's my understanding that DSD goes through a different - simpler - conversion process than PCM that might just be this affordable dac's 'sweetspot'.

Thanks for the link. Looks like you found the right combo - but mainly a very nice DSD DAC. At the last audio show that I attended (Newport Beach), it certainly appears that stand alone DAC's are becoming much more prevalent. My problem is that they are all 2-channel (with a couple of exceptions). I enjoy multi-channel music and the DAC selection is extremely limited. Currently using my Oppo as a DAC (via HDMI), but that is filled with "if's", "and's", and "buts".


Actually there is a limited number of formats: PCM and DSD. Then goes resolution 16 or 24 bits for PCM. And finally sampling rate 44.1/48/88/96/192/384 for PCM and 64/128 for DSD. Everything else are just containers or delivery media. SACD can be only of TWO types - stereo of multichannel - everything else is just marketing label. The same with CD - only one and the only type.

There are lots of issues with containers that adds to the confusion. Some are taggable, some are compressed, etc., and then figure which ones are compatible with your DAC. And then what about ISO's? And then which way to transmit to DAC - UPNP? HDMI? USB?

For example, with the Oppo, the asynchronous USB input is only 2-channel and can handle DSD. The HDMI input is multichannel, but can't do DSD. And when it can do DSD, it can only do a specific container type.

I've decided to just allow Foobar to do all the DSD to PCM conversions and pass it on to my Oppo via HDMI. Maybe this is not optimal, but it's the simplest way. I've looked into exaSound DAC's which are multi-channel, but I just don't want to spend that kind of money on something that will probably drop in value significantly.
 
Tired of it? Not at all. Digital has finally come alive and the sound quality improvement s are incredible. It's a great time to be a fan of audio.
 
Bigerik, I guess I'm getting tired of it all due to some frustrations. On top of the confusion/competition between all of the formats (not just digital files, but actual discs as well), the industry doesn't make things clear. A couple of examples:

Many Blu-Ray concert films and audio only discs just don't give enough info about the formats. A concert disc cover may state Dolby Tru-HD, but it could be in 16/48 or 24/96 - you just don't know (and yes, depending on the engineers, the 16/48 on one disc may sound better than 24/96 on another). And just because it says Dolby-Tru HD or DTS MA - we don't know if it's stereo only or multichannel.

I recently purchased Bob Marley's Legend on Blu-Ray (audio only). The disc stated DTS-MA, so I presumed it was multi-channel. After getting it, I found it's in stereo only. And to make matters worse, a couple of months later they release the multi-channel Bob Marley Legend on Blu-Ray. So now I have to pay and buy it again.

Then I bought a CD that had DSD stamped all over it. Only to open it and discover it's 16/44 PCM - not an SACD as I had presumed. They meant it was mastered in DSD and converted to PCM. Urgh!

Then I buy an SACD (from an audio show) that is the "Japan" version, only later to find out there is also an SHM-Japan version which is supposed to be better. Never even knew about SHM. Also, at the show, I see lots of HQCD, XRCD, and I think a few other variants.

I guess frustration leads to "getting tired of it!" :yes:
 
Or you could listen and decide for yourself - enjoying the music IS all that matters.
Every study I have read agrees with Chicks, whether it is based on science or on listening tests. (I am not saying those tests don't have their critics, but I haven't seen a critic put out their own tests showing that people can hear a difference.)

That being said, people who want the best sounding audio usually need to deal with these formats whether they like to or not. CDs are often mastered for loudness and SACDs are often mastered for dynamic range/sound quality. Also, I am not aware of anyone selling 16/44.1 lossless CD quality downloads on the web (let me know if you do know of one). You either get lossy formats or Hi Rez.

In other words, I am not in love with having tons of formats. However, I am happy to have audio mixed for sound quality, so I live with the hi rez formats. Also, as was mentioned, I like a good multichannel mix on occasion.:thmbsp:
 
Also, I am not aware of anyone selling 16/44.1 lossless CD quality downloads on the web (let me know if you do know of one).

It can be hard to find, but it's definitely out there. I listen to a lot of independent music, and often the labels will offer downloads in 5 formats, even concurrently. I generally see MP3, FLAC, AAC, ALAC, and OGG. Aside from the indie labels themselves, I also buy off of Bandcamp. They offer many albums in both lossless and lossy formats. More mainstream music can be difficult to impossible to find in lossless form from an online retailer.
 
Last edited:
Folks, I'm not a person who claims I can hear a rat piss on a piece of cotton from 30 feet away. Personally, I've taken a 24/192 file and down sampled it to 16/44 and I couldn't tell the difference. Maybe some people can, but I couldn't.

HOWEVER, many high resolution files sound much better than their lower resolution formats because the album was re-engineered. An album that is released over and over again in different formats can sound different because it was engineered/produced differently, not solely because it's in another format.

Maybe I should have stated in my original post that I'm getting tired of all the different types of re-releases! And it doesn't help when they're all in different formats. And to make things more complex, we have the container wars. And how some players recognize one container and not the other.

I just keep all my SACD's in ISO format playing through Foobar. I've debated making DSF, DST, DFF, etc. out of the ISO, but haven't taken the plunge yet.
 
Maybe I should have stated in my original post that I'm getting tired of all the different types of re-releases! And it doesn't help when they're all in different formats. And to make things more complex, we have the container wars. And how some players recognize one container and not the other.

I think the biggest issue is standards. There is a standard for lossy music (MP3), but not for lossless. Even though most who consume lossless music gravitate towards FLAC, it's still not a standard format that will be played by all media players as MP3 can be. If a standard was adopted for lossless music files, things probably wouldn't be so confusing.
 
I think the biggest issue is standards. There is a standard for lossy music (MP3), but not for lossless. Even though most who consume lossless music gravitate towards FLAC, it's still not a standard format that will be played by all media players as MP3 can be. If a standard was adopted for lossless music files, things probably wouldn't be so confusing.

MP3 is one of the standards for lossy, but not the ONLY one. There's APE, OGG Vorbis, WMA, AAC, M4A, RM, etc. MP3 just happened to be the one that people gravitated towards (I'll assume the influence came from the Asian mfgrs. of the first portable players. I wonder if Winamp gave it a push too, with the software being free to download?).
 
MP3 is one of the standards for lossy, but not the ONLY one.

Indeed, but it's pretty safe to say that all media players currently on the market will play MP3. However, they may not support some of the other lossy formats.
 
I think the biggest issue is standards. There is a standard for lossy music (MP3), but not for lossless. Even though most who consume lossless music gravitate towards FLAC, it's still not a standard format that will be played by all media players as MP3 can be. If a standard was adopted for lossless music files, things probably wouldn't be so confusing.
I think wav was considered the standard that pretty much every player handled. Of course, it was far from ideal and wasn't compressed, but every audio and media player I have owned supported it.

I also think FLAC has seen its user base shrink because of iTunes/iPhones/iPads/iPods only supporting ALAC (especially when it went open source). I had to transcode all of my FLAC files a while back to get them to play on the iPod Classic 160GB and I rarely have reason to touch the FLAC files anymore (just holding on to them in case something new and interesting comes along and I don't want to have to go through the process again).
 
Back
Top Bottom