Yes the higher resolution versions should, in theory, offer superior dynamic range. That’s what we would hope/trust. But in reality, it depends on the mastering. You proved my point.
A high resolution system does not make a bad recording sound “worse” per se. That is subjective, and depends on whether or not you enjoy the music I guess. But with a high resolution system, you notice a bad recording - and conversely appreciate a really top notch recording. I love a lot of music that sadly isn’t particularly well recorded but which I still enjoy on my system, but I would enjoy it even more if it were well recorded. And whilst I appreciate some fabulous recordings, I don’t much enjoy the music (a lot of it played at HiFi shows). I’m greedy and want the best of both!
Hello @AndrewS,
Fully agreed.
This is where the catch is unfortunately.
Everybody expects the best sound quality from HiRes, whereas the first thing to look at should actually be the dynamic range which is never provided.
For a given record, I’ll personally always prefer a 16/44.1 Redbook CD with 10+dB dynamic range compared to a 24/192, DSD64 or even higher resolution file with a poor dynamic range of barely 6dB.
Unfortunately most of recent HiRes re-editions of famous Rock & Pop records are pure crap in terms of mastering (Iggy Pop, Rolling Stones, …)
Better to buy second hand CDs of the 80s and 90s here, to get the best possible DR, hence the best possible sound quality.
This is why I invited all of you guys to put the DR of the records you were listening to (when available) on the “What’s Spinning” threads initiated by @Bauer.
2 Likes
I enjoy bad recordings on a high resolution system much more than on a low resolution system.
1 Like
Well an opposite opinion would be that if you enjoy Glen Miller and Diana Karol you shouldn’t spend money on good gear because you are listening to music that only those in their last years purchase.
2 Likes
In my mid 60s I have no tolerance for bad recordings and sound. I can still hear to 15khz and digital grit is like nails on a chalk board. What I notice is a lot of 70s and 80s popular music seems to be mastered with reduced highs, knowing that the playback system of the time would put those highs back in the form of distortion. When listen on my Vivaldi/Boulder/Rockport the reduced highs make the music dull and lifeless. When I play the same music on my Boulder integrated streamer with KEF LS-50 speakers the sound is not as clean, but is more listenable. But the integrated system doesn’t do justice to good sounding music. So I play what sounds best on each system. I compare it to the vinyl guys who use different cartridges for different albums. As for modern pop music and modern country, I don’t listen to it except when my daughter wants to introduce me to a song, it almost always sounds bad - as if it recording on a Apple computer. Even albums from successful bands like One Republic sound bad. But they are optimizing their recordings for phones and ear buds, which is what their audience uses. Can’t blame them for that, I’d do the same thing.
Try a darTZeel amp. Dont know why but i found something special in the songs even the ones bad recorded. The sound is not as dynamic as the Dan Agostinho and i think the boulder is like Dan, more focus on dynamics, but darTZeel have a “polish” sound, more well put together, more musical no matter the recording.