[borism]

Hi,
I have owned the original Tranquility then upgraded to the Tranquility SE DAC about 2 years ago. Overall, it has been a great and very musical experience. HiRez files have remained a source of uncertainty, however. To be more specific, can a HiRez file have any benefit in terms of sound quality when played through a DAC limited to 44.1/48 kHz sampling rates?

I tried one experiment and obtained Paul Simon's 'Graceland' from HDTracks (96/24) in Flac, then converted it to AIFF (for my Mac Mini, iTunes, Pure Music system) and compared it to my standard 'Graceland' file obtained from ripping the original CD. Now, that is not completely fair since the HDTracks download is a remastered version (25th Anniversary edition).

In summary, the HiRez file had a much bigger soundstage, seemed more dynamic, the listener perspective was closer to the performers and I think there was more separation/air I could detect. Of note, PM indicated downsampling during playback.

I am interested in any thoughts regarding possible benefits of using HiRez files in this circumstance.
Boris

[ted_b]

Boris,
Well you already hit upon one aspect of hirez fiules that may be beneficial, even when downsampled:  they tend to be better recordings or masterings to begin with.  Whether that is due to the kidd glove treatment of the hirez intent of the recording, or due to any inherent hirez sonic advantages...the fact remains that poor recordings are not often chosen to be remastered or remixed to hirez.  Second, downsampling as some theoretical advantages in that the original file has more musical information than its rebook counterpart (assuming a good hirez example) and therefore noise is either higher up and/or out of the frequency spectrum to begin with.  Third, some "non hirez" DACs actually do play at 24 bit, and therefore 24 bit files (Beatles Apple USB for example), even though 44.1k sample rate, wille xhibit better dynamic range, etc.  This last example is a stretch though, as most non hiorez DACs are limited to 16 bit.

[borism]

Ted,
Thanks for your thoughts. I also believe that greater care has to go into making good hirez files, so that they may be better regardless of DAC.
Boris

[roscoeiii]

I think the more appropriate comparison is between a 16/44.1 file and a 24/96 file of the same mastering.

Perhaps compare the HDTracks version to a rip of the 25th Anniversary CD?

[borism]

R.,
I agree with the idea of ripping the 25th Anniversary CD. Just could not get myself to pay for both the CD and the HDTracks download on top of already having the original CD. But maybe that's the cost of good research.
Boris

[Tyson]

I've done all 3 - have the original standard 16/44 rez file, a DSD hirez SACD file, and that same DSD hirez file downsampled to 16/44. 

Obviously the pure DSD hirez sounds the best of the 3.  The downsampled DSD hirez is in the middle, and the original 16/44 is last.  This has been my experience consistently, over a number of recordings and different music genres. 

[ted_b]

I've done all 3 - have the original standard 16/44 rez file, a DSD hirez SACD file, and that same DSD hirez file downsampled to 16/44. 

Obviously the pure DSD hirez sounds the best of the 3.  The downsampled DSD hirez is in the middle, and the original 16/44 is last.  This has been my experience consistently, over a number of recordings and different music genres.

We are aware of the superiority of hirez, of course (or i wouldn't have started the Circle  ) but did you hear this superiority even when playing all three, as per the OP, on a redbook-only DAC?

[borism]

Ted,
In Tyson's experiment you only need to compare the original low-rez and the down-sampled DSD files on a redbook dac and see if there was a difference. The third option of DSD and hi-rez DAC should hopefully always be better.

[ted_b]

Ted,
In Tyson's experiment you only need to compare the original low-rez and the down-sampled DSD files on a redbook dac and see if there was a difference. The third option of DSD and hi-rez DAC should hopefully always be better.

Yes, that was my point in asking him.  We all know a hirez DAC will play hirez (especially a DSD dac playing DSD) better at its native rate.  This thread is about whether there is any worth in "investing" in hirez files if all you own is a 16 bit redbook DAC.

[Tyson]

I think the answer is YES, it's worth it because the mastering of hirez stuff is almost always better than the original redbook, and often substantially better.  This improvement comes through on any DAC you use.

[ted_b]

I think the answer is YES, it's worth it because the mastering of hirez stuff is almost always better than the original redbook, and often substantially better.  This improvement comes through on any DAC you use.

Yes, I made that point earlier.  I continue, though, to ask the question:  Did you compare your three files on a rebook DAC?  Comparing them on a hirez DAC is a moot point for this discussion, but comparing them (yes, all three) on a redbook dac isn't.  One file (the 16/44 one) would have gone through no user-based SRC but would have been the lowest initial quality.  The DSD-to-redbook file would have been of better initial quality but have been SRC'd prior to playing (audiogate, etc), and the DSD file would have had on-the-fly SRC being done.   

[highfilter]

I think the more appropriate comparison is between a 16/44.1 file and a 24/96 file of the same mastering.

A good source for such a comparison: http://www.soundkeeperrecordings.com/format.htm

[ted_b]

A good source for such a comparison: http://www.soundkeeperrecordings.com/format.htm

Yes, but we seem to be continuing to get away from the subject!  It is not about how much better Barry's 24/192 files are than his 16/44 ones (we've discussed that ad nauseum,...the answer is yes, Barry's recordings at 24/192 are absolutely sublime!!  I recommed buying all of them if your DAC can handle them), it's about whether a person with a redbook dac ought to buy Barry's 24/192 files!

[wisnon]

I see your point...its whether hirez files (down sampled) give ANY improvement to a 16bit RBCD only Dac over the normal RBCD rip of the same mastering heritage

I would suspect the answer is NO!

On another note, DSD played back via Audirvana+ /Direct/Integer mode on a NOS Lampi G4L4 at 24/176.4 is ....SUBLIME....

Now I only have memory to compare the same tracks at native DSD via the Mytek, but  I am not sure the Lampi loses.
More investigation needed.

[borism]

So it seems that the consensus is that a redbook cd from the same master as a hi-rez file should be indistinguishable through a redbook dac. The only benefits may be future proofing (for a hi-rez dac in the future) or no RBCD from same master being available.

[highfilter]

Yes, but we seem to be continuing to get away from the subject!  It is not about how much better Barry's 24/192 files are than his 16/44 ones (we've discussed that ad nauseum,...the answer is yes, Barry's recordings at 24/192 are absolutely sublime!!  I recommed buying all of them if your DAC can handle them), it's about whether a person with a redbook dac ought to buy Barry's 24/192 files!

It just makes it really easy for the OP to do so. Download all the samples and run them through his redbook DAC and he can find out for himself if it's worth it to grab hi-res material for his current gear.

I used to have a Tranquility SE DAC myself and while I enjoyed playing all kinds of formats through it, I found the biggest differences came from the actual master, not what specific bit/sample rate it was released under. I didn't know about Barry's format comparison page when I had the DAC, so I didn't have a good and easy way to compare the different bit/sample rates cause most of the stuff I listen to has tons of different releases and often times the newer hi-res remasters were more compressed and clipped than the original releases at redbook resolution.

[ted_b]

It just makes it really easy for the OP to do so. Download all the samples and run them through his redbook DAC and he can find out for himself if it's worth it to grab hi-res material for his current gear.

I used to have a Tranquility SE DAC myself and while I enjoyed playing all kinds of formats through it, I found the biggest differences came from the actual master, not what specific bit/sample rate it was released under. I didn't know about Barry's format comparison page when I had the DAC, so I didn't have a good and easy way to compare the different bit/sample rates cause most of the stuff I listen to has tons of different releases and often times the newer hi-res remasters were more compressed and clipped than the original releases at redbook resolution.

Excellent point.  Thanks!

[borism]

Thanks for all the input.