Has anyone compared the 16 BIT CD versions to the 24 BIT high res versions out there? I have Art Official, Piano and Mic and Originals. Only Originals sounds better...the others have no difference.

Can anyone comment on the 1999 Super Deluxe set?

Phase3 said:

Forgive me if I sound retarded but what is "High resolution audio"? I have never heard of it.I only know about vinyl,cd,and mp3

Hi Phase.

High resolution audio refers to digital files that contain more data than even a CD is capable of holding. You can buy them from stores such as hdtracks.com, or my personal favourite qobuz.com. A decent selection of Prince’s Warner Brothers catalogue used to be available in hi-res, however many of the older albums have now been withdrawn from sale, leaving just recent releases such as those mentioned by JoeyCococo.

JoeyCococo said:

Has anyone compared the 16 BIT CD versions to the 24 BIT high res versions out there? I have Art Official, Piano and Mic and Originals. Only Originals sounds better...the others have no difference.

Can anyone comment on the 1999 Super Deluxe set?

Unfortunately Joey, despite my audio set up consisting of studio quality monitors, I’m just not able to hear any difference between CD and high res quality audio. I like to buy HiRes where possible when it comes to my favourite artists to ensure I’m getting the best version available, but I doubt I’d ever pass a blind test.

JoeyCococo said:

Has anyone compared the 16 BIT CD versions to the 24 BIT high res versions out there? I have Art Official, Piano and Mic and Originals. Only Originals sounds better...the others have no difference.

Can anyone comment on the 1999 Super Deluxe set?

This is just my own personal opinion of course, but to me unless someone has super high quality gear and a properly treated room, the difference between lossless CD quality and high resolution is often times so subtle that it is barely discernable. Hell even a really good lossy encode like 320kps AAC is hard enough to pick out between that and a FLAC file of the same mastering


So I would say theoretically yes you are getting more information with high resolution which would sound better on equipment that can properly represent the full frequency spectrum of those files, but in practice 16 bit should suffice for the vast majority of folks

ForceofNature said:

JoeyCococo said:

Has anyone compared the 16 BIT CD versions to the 24 BIT high res versions out there? I have Art Official, Piano and Mic and Originals. Only Originals sounds better...the others have no difference.

Can anyone comment on the 1999 Super Deluxe set?

This is just my own personal opinion of course, but to me unless someone has super high quality gear and a properly treated room, the difference between lossless CD quality and high resolution is often times so subtle that it is barely discernable. Hell even a really good lossy encode like 320kps AAC is hard enough to pick out between that and a FLAC file of the same mastering


So I would say theoretically yes you are getting more information with high resolution which would sound better on equipment that can properly represent the full frequency spectrum of those files, but in practice 16 bit should suffice for the vast majority of folks

I agree. I have 5.1 KEF egg/Cambridge audio amp set up in my lounge, Sennheiser HD202 headphones in my study and a fully upgraded 13 speaker Bowers & Wilkins sound system in my Mercedes.

I can't hear any improvement with the 24bit versions, but I can tell the difference (improvement) when I play my own vinyl rips from 1996, which I did on a £100 USB turntable at 128, even when the silent moments pick up the TV sound is the next room.

Just a question to those that have done the A/B comparison, do you have audio equipment on your computer to process the bits/bitrate in the DA stage? Most stuff downsamples and converts that.. not saying yours does, just asking. Personally I use a behringer umc204hd with 24bits/96khz setting going to my studio monitors (well.. kinda, just a pair of m-audio av40's)

.

Just for reference, I don't notice significant differences with the HD audio. I might start using audio hi-jack to add some eq/compression/mastering tricks to the sound so it'll be bumping, not just jamming. (youtube clip to be listened to, not to be watched)

JoeyCococo said:

Has anyone compared the 16 BIT CD versions to the 24 BIT high res versions out there? I have Art Official, Piano and Mic and Originals. Only Originals sounds better...the others have no difference.

Can anyone comment on the 1999 Super Deluxe set?

.

I have the HDtracks 24/192 versions of the classic albums until ATWIAD.

The audio in these files sounds significantly better.

Even on cheap computer speakers. (yes, run your audio subsystem at 192 KHz so it won't downsample stuff)

Definition, imaging, reverb etc are clearer.

And no, I do not have audiophile ('golden') ears.

.

I cannot vouch for the titles you mentioned as I do not own those (yet).

JoeyCococo said:

Has anyone compared the 16 BIT CD versions to the 24 BIT high res versions out there? I have Art Official, Piano and Mic and Originals. Only Originals sounds better...the others have no difference.

Can anyone comment on the 1999 Super Deluxe set?

I got Around the World in a Day in 24bit from HDtracks a while back, and I'll tell you it is the lovliest version I own. I've compared it to The American version I bought as a kid, and a (German?) target pressing, and it sounds not just better fidelity, but different. Like, it has less compression or something. I wouldn't be surprised if they used the original master for it. Condition fo the heart is just wonderful on it. Lovely.

Edit: I don't have the latest and greatest stero equiptment either.

[Edited 7/17/20 11:03am]

I got Around the World in a Day in 24bit from HDtracks a while back, and I'll tell you it is the lovliest version I own. I've compared it to The American

Ok...I will try this one. I do agree with most...the format itself has typically brought forth much more detail. Tom Petty was a proponent of hi res but none of his albums sound any better on high res.

I stand by Originals sounding better however

It all depends on what kit you are using.

With mid-end (and lower) hifi speakers (and source player and amp) you will not really notice any difference between 16 and 24 bit versions, as the differences will be more from the kit than from the 24 vs 16 bit. and that includes the different sample rates therein.

On hi-end kit you may notice some slight differences. And it will depend primarily on what type of speakers you have. It will also depend on how badly the higher register of your hearing has deteriorated. This happens from about 30 years old onwards to a varying degree of loss.

With headphone / IEM listening you may notice a difference with mid-end kit onwards, due to the proximity of the sound to your ear and the lack of other auditory distractions.

I have some of the 24bit versions of the early WB albums and with the (high-endish) kit I have (IEMs and dedicated HiRes Player) there is a difference in sound and it is always around the bass register.

One of the best examples of this is I Wanna Be Your Lover - where the warmth of the bass is reduced, but the decay on it is extended - on the 24bit version. But the difference, even on the high end kit, is still very slight. I'm talking nuances here.

I don't have any of the albums from 1999 onwards (to Batman) though, as they had been removed from the various vendors, as has been stated earlier in this thread. And they are the ones that perhaps need the most attention when it comes to audiophile work.

To be honest I feel a bit ripped off in buying the albums that I did though.

There is a difference, yes.

But is it a £15 an album difference? No.

And going on the remastered 1999 and Purple Rain vs the original CDs, there is no real significant improvement in those either. The same problems still exist with sound separation, muddiness with the sound stage and clarity.

So in terms of audiophile content, I can't see the quality improving significantly anymore. It would be interesting to listen to some of Prince's engineers with regards to SQ on the masters, to see if they think anything significant could still be realised from them.

If you want your music to sound better, kit upgrades work wonders. I took the plunge in the High-end IEM market and it's really quite amazing how some of the new IEMs sound. The market-place is so diverse now, it's possible to find awesome IEMs that suit your preferred sound signatures too.

And if you have a 2000 CD+ music library then better kit works out cheaper than renewing your entire library.

ThePersian said:

I guess a higher samplerate is more easily to discern than the 24-bit.

Even on very simple computer speakers 192 Khz audio sounds better than CD-type stuff.

Even DIY recordings on €300 gear sound betterat 96 KHz than at 48 or 44.1 KHz.

my understanding is, most CD quality audio is 44,100 and 16bit. maybe as high as 24bit. for anything higher you need hi res equipment and players and speakers. maybe iphone and air pods you can hear it. but on regular audio equipment you can't.

The vast majority of people would not hear the difference between CD quality and HD quality. And by that I mean doing a blind comparison on high-quality equipment.

Once you make lossy versions - even at high bitrates - the difference is even more lost.

I myself have a hard time hearing the difference between CD quality and 256-320kbps AAC files. Sometimes I can, but not usually.

People can obsess over this stuff!

There have been some SACD/DSD releases that have really improved upon the original ...I think of

Cowboy Junkies' Trinity Sessions as an obvious one. However, who knows if it was tinkered with to bring forth more in the recording?

Se7en said:

The vast majority of people would not hear the difference between CD quality and HD quality. And by that I mean doing a blind comparison on high-quality equipment.

Once you make lossy versions - even at high bitrates - the difference is even more lost.

I myself have a hard time hearing the difference between CD quality and 256-320kbps AAC files. Sometimes I can, but not usually.

People can obsess over this stuff!

Yes definitely - when it comes to anything at and over 320kps AAC, I am always much more concerned over the mastering of the audio in question rather than bitrate. I would gladly take a dynamic mastering at 320kps AAC over a high resolution file that is compressed!

JudasLChrist said:

JoeyCococo said:

Has anyone compared the 16 BIT CD versions to the 24 BIT high res versions out there? I have Art Official, Piano and Mic and Originals. Only Originals sounds better...the others have no difference.

Can anyone comment on the 1999 Super Deluxe set?

I got Around the World in a Day in 24bit from HDtracks a while back, and I'll tell you it is the lovliest version I own. I've compared it to The American version I bought as a kid, and a (German?) target pressing, and it sounds not just better fidelity, but different. Like, it has less compression or something. I wouldn't be surprised if they used the original master for it. Condition fo the heart is just wonderful on it. Lovely.

Edit: I don't have the latest and greatest stero equiptment either.

[Edited 7/17/20 11:03am]

The HDTracks versions of the early 80s catalogue were I thought fresh remasters done by Bernie Grundman for Rhino record vinyl reissues in 2011?

Good sound quality makes the music even more enjoyable.

Romeoblu said:

I think good sound quality to a degree is important but I have found personally that the pursuit of getting the best possible sound can get in the way of enjoying the music. I have found myself listening more for the sound quality than actually just sitting back and listening to the music.

This is a very good way of putting this.

udo said:

Good sound quality makes the music even more enjoyable.

I've posted this before on the Org, but around 2008/2009 my coworker turned me on to the band Genesis. Of course I'd heard them a bit growing up, but I went out and started buying their remastered albums on CD (the Phil Collins era).

These are some of the best-sounding albums I have ever heard, period. And, from normal CDs. The format is good if the mastering is good.

It's been mentioned to death that Sign "O" The Times is one of Prince's worst-sounding CDs, which is to shame because it's (arguably) his best album!

When i plug my Audio-Technica headphones onto my Apogee Duet 2 audio interface and press play on a hi-res files, i can clearly hear a lot of details that are simply not there otherwise. The sound is fuller, a pure joy for the ears! Day and night really.

Oh, and the same file playing through iTunes or through Vox Music Player for example, not the same sound at all, even on a 256kbit/s music file.

WhisperingDandelions said:

JudasLChrist said:

I got Around the World in a Day in 24bit from HDtracks a while back, and I'll tell you it is the lovliest version I own. I've compared it to The American version I bought as a kid, and a (German?) target pressing, and it sounds not just better fidelity, but different. Like, it has less compression or something. I wouldn't be surprised if they used the original master for it. Condition fo the heart is just wonderful on it. Lovely.

Edit: I don't have the latest and greatest stero equiptment either.

[Edited 7/17/20 11:03am]

The HDTracks versions of the early 80s catalogue were I thought fresh remasters done by Bernie Grundman for Rhino record vinyl reissues in 2011?

I remember people saying that, but it wasn't confirmed anywhere that I found.

ForceofNature said:

Se7en said:

The vast majority of people would not hear the difference between CD quality and HD quality. And by that I mean doing a blind comparison on high-quality equipment.

Once you make lossy versions - even at high bitrates - the difference is even more lost.

I myself have a hard time hearing the difference between CD quality and 256-320kbps AAC files. Sometimes I can, but not usually.

People can obsess over this stuff!

Yes definitely - when it comes to anything at and over 320kps AAC, I am always much more concerned over the mastering of the audio in question rather than bitrate. I would gladly take a dynamic mastering at 320kps AAC over a high resolution file that is compressed!

WHole heartedly agreed.

Se7en said:

udo said:

Good sound quality makes the music even more enjoyable.

I've posted this before on the Org, but around 2008/2009 my coworker turned me on to the band Genesis. Of course I'd heard them a bit growing up, but I went out and started buying their remastered albums on CD (the Phil Collins era).

These are some of the best-sounding albums I have ever heard, period. And, from normal CDs. The format is good if the mastering is good.

It's been mentioned to death that Sign "O" The Times is one of Prince's worst-sounding CDs, which is to shame because it's (arguably) his best album!

which is why for some of us, this remaster has us VERY EXCITED>

obviously there is some interest in this topic (albeit mild) but I wanted to tell you all that I stumbled upon some digital copies of the SOTT and 1999 vinyls. This is before the 1999 remaster came out. The version of Lady Cab Driver (as one example) was so obviously better that I just deleted my copy off the CD rip I had made. The little guitar licks here and there were clear and it was then that I had hope that one day someone would put out a good remaster of that album. Obviously the recording was good. Now, 1999 (as was a lot of his stuff) was patchy. Little Red sounds like it was badly recorded with distortion everywhere. Having said that, the 2019 remaster did give that bottom end more growl. I could hear some guitar roaring throughout that just was not clear before. I really liked the 2019 remaster.

I have always found it odd that someone who was so detail oriented would allow for poor quality releases of his music. I know from talking to engineers that Prince would be bored by any technical talk (24 bit vs this or that). I always wondered why he would allow for his brilliant music to be released so brick walled and without DR. I really am encouraged by what I'm hearing thus far....that 1999 set and remaster was super. I hope this means that SOTT will also be killer.

Madhouse6 said:

When I used to buy hifi components I used to take a CD I’d burnt with my fave Prince tracks. Recently the guy used tidal to play a few tracks by other bands and I asked for a prince track and the difference in soundstage separation was some much better on no Prince tracks. It’s a shame given PP that he still didn’t find it interesting enough to fix issues Morris Hayes was asked by Prince once to go tell the DJ to turn up the bass on one of his songs being played in a club. Morris refuses and reminded Prince he needs to employ a good engineer to get that sound on the original 😃

So true...he used so many engineers, so many studios..so many less than ideal conditions to record that the sound of his 40 year career is inconsistent. HIs stuff does not nearly compare to the sound of many of his peers....he just did not care as much about the sound. I have spoken or cooresponded with a number of his engineers over the years and all say that, despite being hired, he called the shots and it as sometimes against their own expert judgment.

To me... he has a few albums that sound very good...these include the Rainbow Children, and One Nite Alone albums.

Is anyone interested in trading some music? Does anyone collect hi res files?

JoeyCococo said:

Is anyone interested in trading some music? Does anyone collect hi res files?

Yes, on both accounts!