BaL 22.04.23 - Schubert: Symphony no. 5 in B flat D. 485

[jayne lee wilson]

Post-production processing can indeed reduce the effective bit depth quite considerably.

HiFiNews Magazine analyses a selection of 24/96 Classical and other downloads each month and most are indeed what they claim to be in their resolutions; occasionally a few are revealed as upsampled from 16/44.1.

[jayne lee wilson]

While I agree with Jayne that lower bit rates can be noticeably less good than, say CD, I'm not sure that they would make a string sound 'scrawny'. I suspect that's a reaction to the actual sound but as this thread shows, much of this is in the response of the listener.

As to the de facto recording standard, I would suggest that the major reason for recording at higher resolutions is to allow for editing/mixing/processing losses before producing CDs at 16/44 rather than any great improvement in sound.

The point about production advantages is well-known. But if that were the "major reason", why would Qobuz, eclassical and other music suppliers offer the majority of new recordings in 24/96 to stream or to download?

[jayne lee wilson]

I’m glad for you. All I can say is that I spent 35 years working in TV and sometimes when I switch by mistake to SD it can take some time before I realise it’s not HD. And the difference between those is considerably bigger than the difference between 256 and hi res. As I think I might have said before the ear can even adjust to out of phase audio very rapidly. It’s amazing how quickly the brain compensates.

My brain certainly doesn't.....
Listening to such examples on the various test discs soon produces aural disorientation, a physical discomfort I could never get used to. As for the perception of SD and HD TV, I better offer no further comment....

[cloughie]

The point about production advantages is well-known. But if that were the "major reason", why would Qobuz, eclassical and other music suppliers offer the majority of new recordings in 24/96 to stream or to download?

Making money?

[Pianoman]

Making money?

Nail and head...

[Ein Heldenleben]

Nail and head...

I wonder whether it does make them money, if we are not convinced that hi res is audibly better than CD (arguable at least )or even 256 AAC (some people can tell the difference quite a few can’t ) than why am I shelling out £120 for Qobuz ?
.Much more to do with the comprehensive nature of the offer and the fact that it’s tailored to classical music . Amazon prime now shuffle all the tracks out of order and if it’s still 128k (on the basic version) than I can definitely hear the difference between that and CD ,
If anything offering 24 bit could lose Qobuz money because of the extra server capacity needed.

[Ein Heldenleben]

My brain certainly doesn't.....
Listening to such examples on the various test discs soon produces aural disorientation, a physical discomfort I could never get used to. As for the perception of SD and HD TV, I better offer no further comment....

I agree that an instantaneous switch an out of phase signal (on a correctly setup system) is obvious and discomforting. But if you stay with it eventually the brain adjusts to it . Rather like those upside down mirror spectacles that after a few hours with the world being inverted the brain turns it back the right way. There are Film clips of people cycling wearing them. Quite a few music balancers will leave the studio after they’ve done the balance leaving the faders open , go for a coffee and come back . It’s then that obvious problems become apparent - one’s that your ears have previously adjusted to. The problem with A/B tests on things like stream quality is that ears get tired and the brain gets confused . It’s hardly surprising that on all the test results I’ve seen very few people can tell the difference between 256AAC and hi res.The fact that the tests are usually highly engineered rock music doesn’t help. All this also applies to testing hifi gear in a shop. The only way really to test it is to try it out at home.

[RichardB]

I think it is good that Qobuz offers 24 bit depth, and for some years I've used it exclusively for projects that involve recording. As someone who is not always at home and/or in ideal listening circumstances, I don't demand such sound quality all the time, and it doesn't appreciably affect my opinion of a given recording, although if I listen to something in the car or on my laptop I might well make a mental note to listen again on my home system so as to enhance the listening experience. As for sampling rate, I can appreciate the technical reasons for using 96kHz rather than 48 (which I normally use for recording) or 44.1, but I'm not sure whether my no longer young ears can tell the difference. Maybe sometimes, in special circumstances. Not enough to make a fuss about. As Pianoman says, the music is the important thing. If one's appreciation of music really depends to a high degree on the equipment it's played on, maybe this has more to do with justifying the expenditure than one cares to admit. If the depth and impact of the sound are so crucial, no recording can compare with a live performance anyway.

[Bryn]

I think it is good that Qobuz offers 24 bit depth, and for some years I've used it exclusively for projects that involve recording. As someone who is not always at home and/or in ideal listening circumstances, I don't demand such sound quality all the time, and it doesn't appreciably affect my opinion of a given recording, although if I listen to something in the car or on my laptop I might well make a mental note to listen again on my home system so as to enhance the listening experience. As for sampling rate, I can appreciate the technical reasons for using 96kHz rather than 48 (which I normally use for recording) or 44.1, but I'm not sure whether my no longer young ears can tell the difference. Maybe sometimes, in special circumstances. Not enough to make a fuss about. As Pianoman says, the music is the important thing. If one's appreciation of music really depends to a high degree on the equipment it's played on, maybe this has more to do with justifying the expenditure than one cares to admit. If the depth and impact of the sound are so crucial, no recording can compare with a live performance anyway.

Nail struck firmly on its head. When QOBUZ sometimes offers a sample rate of 192kHz, I 'make do' with 96kHz. The higher sample rate may well help in maintaining audio quality in post-production, as you pointed out earlier, but a Nyquist frequency of 96kHz is so far beyond the upper limit of human hearing that what limited interaction between frequencies there is up in those regions just is not capable of being perceived by the human ear/brain system when it comes to the final audio signal sent through one's playback system however sophisticated that system might be.

[Master Jacques]

All of this seems to have wandered very far from the (formerly) interesting discussion of differing approaches on disc to Schubert's 5th. I for one will take great care in future, never to criticise contributors for not possessing the correct quantity of bits to judge this or that performance properly.

I listened again last night to Norrington/LCP, by the way, with a renewed sense of pleasure, so different from the indifference caused by Gaigg's perfunctory reading on cpo. Norrington may not have that patina of graceful elegance evoked by Abbado and the COE, but his alert ear for contrast keeps us engaged. It's not for every day, but I wouldn't want to be without it.

[Ein Heldenleben]

All of this seems to have wandered very far from the (formerly) interesting discussion of differing approaches on disc to Schubert's 5th. I for one will take great care in future, never to criticise contributors for not possessing the correct quantity of bits to judge this or that performance properly.

I listened again last night to Norrington/LCP, by the way, with a renewed sense of pleasure, so different from the indifference caused by Gaigg's perfunctory reading on cpo. Norrington may not have that patina of graceful elegance evoked by Abbado and the COE, but his alert ear for contrast keeps us engaged. It's not for every day, but I wouldn't want to be without it.

I listened to the Gaigg (recorded version CD quality). I just don’t believe that the thin- ish string sound you have correctly identified would have been that produced by some of the musicians of the Burgtheater orchestra at the ad hoc premiere all those years ago. A read of current thinking on string vibrato history suggests to me that vibrato would have been used perhaps sparingly but certainly in the manner recommended by Leopold Mozart - bridge to peg as it were rather than side to side.
For one thing the Burgtheater musicians would have had plenty of vibrato floating over their heads every night to emulate …too much perhaps.

[Pianoman]

If one's appreciation of music really depends to a high degree on the equipment it's played on, maybe this has more to do with justifying the expenditure than one cares to admit. If the depth and impact of the sound are so crucial, no recording can compare with a live performance anyway.

Agree on both counts. I don't like the discussion veering away from the work in question and off into this well-worn territory, but I equally don't like being told that the only way to appreciate a recorded performance is in the highest possible bit/ sample rate and that anything lower is....well, here we go again...

[richardfinegold]

I wonder whether it does make them money, if we are not convinced that hi res is audibly better than CD (arguable at least )or even 256 AAC (some people can tell the difference quite a few can’t ) than why am I shelling out £120 for Qobuz ?
.Much more to do with the comprehensive nature of the offer and the fact that it’s tailored to classical music . Amazon prime now shuffle all the tracks out of order and if it’s still 128k (on the basic version) than I can definitely hear the difference between that and CD ,
If anything offering 24 bit could lose Qobuz money because of the extra server capacity needed.

I suspect that offer higher resolution streaming must attract customers, if for no other reason that after the US launch of Qobuz both Apple and Amazon offered higher resolution offerings.
Going back to the main point here, not every period recording has that wiry metallic quality, but the ones that do can easily be distinguished from the smoother sound of a modern orchestra at less than full max playback resolution. My personal preference for the gorgeous Schubertian Melodies in this piece is a modern orchestra. Hearing the strings of the Dresden Staatkapelle or even the Concertgebouw under Harnoncourt, is one of life’s pleasures, and why deny it for the low caloric version?

[Ein Heldenleben]

I suspect that offer higher resolution streaming must attract customers, if for no other reason that after the US launch of Qobuz both Apple and Amazon offered higher resolution offerings

Well I got Qobuz partly because the sound quality was better than Amazon 128k .Whether I can hear the difference 320kps and CD/Hi res is another matter . The real problem with the Amazon offer is it’s all geared around “songs “: I think the Prime version also shuffles “songs” on an album at random.

[Barbirollians]

Going to listen to the Bohm again this morning - another charmer of a performance as I recall but also an excuse to listen to his legendary Pastoral again.