Not because I disagree with @keiserrg but because I don’t think it’s as clear cut as that in all cases. Some of the high res (re)releases on the streaming services either:
aren’t the ones I remember as a kid. (Some don’t even have the picks/pocks/drop-outs I remember from the ones I thrashed on vinyl, tape, damaged CDs, reel to reel! Such an outrage.)
are so much more compressed in dynamic range that they’re no fun to listen to.
Sorting through Discogs/$2 bins isn’t always enormously enjoyable — and I have ended up with lots of double-ups because I wasn’t paying attention, cough — but I do sometimes get lucky. A local fair had a stash of Japanese discs recently. Well, they did before I arrived…
I disagree Richard, and feel your “random” datapoint is insufficient to support your claim.
Iron and Wine’s album releases span 2002-2024 so all their recordings have been made in the “modern” digital era and all the original masters are native hi res digital. Moreover the majority of their releases have come in the streaming era (Qobuz 2007, Spotify 2008, Tidal 2014) and were released simultaneously on physical media (LP and CD) and streaming services.
So even those albums originally released on CD have been relatively easy to rerelease in hi res. Older recordings, both “early” digital (those mastered in 16/44.1 and 16/48) and analog require remastering as well as some degree of restoration to justify a hi res rerelease. The cost of this requires a level of demand which only makes it a viable proposition for fairly mainstream material (Beatles, Stones, Stevie Wonder etc.)
Juxtaopse this onto the world of classical, where much of the same repertoire has been recorded and released, rerecorded and rereleased by different artists for most of the last century. The “100 Greatest Classical” thread has been a great opportunity for me to test the “state of the nation” in streamed classical. Although I have made my selections based on quality (performance, then recording) rather than resolution per se, having made my choices I have always tried to list the highest resolution of mastering currently available on Qobuz. These recordings span from a couple dating back to the 30s, through the heyday of the stereo LP from the late 50s to the early 80s up until the present day, conforming to, and I am guessing here, probably something resembling a normal distribution.
In week 50, the final instalment, 7/9 recordings (excluding two only available on Youtube) are available in hi res, but this was an extreme outlier. In week 1 it was only 1/6 and this turned out to be far more typical. Across 20 weeks, although I have not kept count, I would say that somewhere less than a quarter, and remember many of these are some of the greatest classical recordings ever, are available in hi res.
For virtually any title except older SACDs, which Sony does not (yet) authorize for online distribution, one can either download the file at 44.1 or, in the case of newer releases, find a higher resolution version, both options now significantly faster than rummaging, with only upside on SQ.
But hey, if you like to rummage that is fine too. I used to find it quite enjoyable : )
We may be at cross purposes. My point only concerned the availability of hi res vs std res material on the streaming sites, not your broader point about the convenience of streaming that I agree with wholeheartedly.
You used the word ‘random’ to describe your choice of Iron and Wine to support your point that hi res recordings are widely available on the streaming sites. My point was simply that viewed in the broader context of all music from all eras, while it is a good example of the minority of recordings that are available in hi res it does not prove that the majority are which is what your post implied.
I enjoy rummaging too, but my preference is for vinyl rather than polycarbonate.
Agreed. I simply meant that a lot of new releases are available in higher res now. You are correct, I have no data to indicate what percentage of new titles this is, or if it is the majority, which viewed in the broader context of All new music, is highly unlikely.
Well, I counted up (I had to) and of course my gut feel was off by a ways. Of 182 recommendations covering 100 different works 64 (35%) were hi res and 118 (65%) were std res.
So it’s a fair bit better than the 25% that my gut was telling me, but still far from everything. Maybe surprising was the number of modern digital recordings released since the streaming era (e.g. the Pavel Haas Quartet’s fabulous Schubert disc) which have only been supplied to the streaming sites in decimated (std res) form. Clearly we have a ways to go!
i do recommend the editorial in the current edition of Stereophile ( August) by Ton Fine and Jim Austin. It predicts the end of CD ( except as a limited niche product in certain genres)soon. They use RIAA statistics so this is accordingly USA centric but even so … The editorial indicates that CD sales have fallen off the cliff in the last year. I guess there will be some delay before this is posted online ( in sterophile " As We See It" ).
I particularly trust TF, he being a professional in the recording industry ( his heritage and his day job - his parents started Mercury Records if you don’t know ).
The piece also touches on a topic familiar to me , the apparently fragile commercial context of the streaming services and the advantages of CDs in terms of correct metadata and supporting text.
As for high-res per se I wonder if this has more than a limited appeal? Spotify undertook test marketing of lossless streaming of standard resolution in California in 2018. There was a surcharge. Nothing further heard of it despite odd noises since. Was there simply insufficient interest from the masses?
I am also concerned as to the label “high-res” being applied to standard resolution sample rates but using 24 bit word lengths. This mainly seems to apply to hundreds of rock/op titles ( viz. Qobuz). Why would one remaster only word length without the sample rate being changed? Most professional equipment these days can at least cope with mastering 24/96. So what is the provenance of these titles? Are the 24/44.1 albums simply the old digital masters digitally padded to 24 bit? NB: the process adds digital zeros, there is no additional real information. Am I too sceptical?
Apparently ’Spotify Hifi’ is still planned for release although specs (std res or hi res), timescales and prices are still the subject of much speculation.
Plenty has been said by various execs at various times, as well as deduced from snippets of source code etc. However the info is fragmented and often contradictory. For a quite comprehensive (and long winded) compendium of all the various leaks and rumours see here:
Another thought. I just did a quick analysis of my (pretty arbitrary) recommendations in the 100 Greatest Classical Music Works thread. Of a total of 182 recommendations 64 were hi res (35%). Of those 31 (48%) were 24/96 (the most common resolution) and 13 (20%) were 24/44.1 (the second most common). I went through and looked at the 24/44.1 albums to see if I could spot any common denominators such as era, original mastering technology (analog, early digital, modern digital), record label or anything else that might point to some conspiracy theory and could find none. The albums span recordings made from 1955-2014, three mastering eras, and niche independents like ECM, HM, BIS & SDG to majors like DG & Decca (UMG) and Sony. If there is a common denominator I couldn’t spot it!
So while it doesn’t explain this choice of resolution it does offer some evidence that it is not part of some coordinated scam. Just maybe you are being too sceptical this time?
One of the issues that i have with this type of data is that it looks at “ new”. Cds sold. As we all know, most of the music purchased new if likely pop music and by consumers who dont care about fidelity. The price of cds in the used market seems to be strong for music that isnt top 100 oriented and lets also exclude classic rock whatever that is. Cars arent being built with cd players so these listeners have to find another source. Wont be vinyl. So were really talking about adult serious listeners who primarily listen at home. My consumption hasnt gone down for example.
The other issue at least for me is not everything i listen to is/ was mainstream. Never be on qobuz. That leaves paid download from artist sites or bandcamp or whatever. Im just old school. Purchased 2 lps this week. Limited run of 300 each.
Only very occasionally. I have bought the recent Joni Mitchell box sets which have been remastered and sound absolutely fabulous. But I rip them to my Melco as I don’t have a CD player. Only issue with this is having to mess about sorting out the metadata (using SongKong) because it rarely gets it right or consistent across box sets.
Thanks that is very interesting. It is, though, only one market ( but very important). It would be nice to see the world sales figures but the industry body that produces them ( IFPI) conflates everything as "Physical Product ", at least in the publicly released data. To see more details you need to buy the annual report. Anyone have access to it?
I think that report is extremely misleading. They’re talking about “Digital Permanent Downloads” compared to CD Sales, while totally ignoring the Streaming Services.
The full RIAA report has a clearer picture of what’s going on;
If I was HDTracks, I’d look to launch a Streaming service (but partnering with Lenbrook/MQA seems like a totally bonehead move )
)