Help me stream High Res audio - Am I hearing High res?

[Nick425]

Hey guys,

I just signed up for Amazon Music HD and just want to make sure I'm streaming and getting the content to my speakers. Im most likely overthinking this, but I feel like my equipment isn't capable or I am using a chord/connection and not getting full HD music. It sounds good but Ive never listened to High res and I feel like Im missing something or my setup isn't perfected.

My setup:
- Denon AVR-790 in Stereo Mode
- Wharfedale Diamond 225 bookshelf speakers
- Iphone playing Amazon HD music connected through Apple dongle, then to 3.5aux to RCA (white/red) hookups into the Analog/Cd RCA input on the back of my receiver.


Will this setup actually play High Res music (16bit and 24bit) to my speakers or is there an element in my setup not allowing full resolution playback i.e. iPhone dongle, receiver dac, analog input etc??

Would I get better sound by hooking up my laptop through USB (current receiver doesn't support this) and playing this route? Or would I benefit from better wire connections or external DAC?



I will be upgrading the receiver this year (Rxa2a or Pioneer Elite) but want the 2.1hdmi situation to get sorted out first. I eventually want wireless High res streaming audio and xbox series x compatibility.

Thanks!!

 

[Paul DS]

For what it's worth, 16 bit is full CD quality. Anything above that is, in my opinion, wasted bandwidth. (you won't hear it). In short, CD quality is as good as it gets.

 

[Old Onkyo]

For what it's worth, 16 bit is full CD quality. Anything above that is, in my opinion, wasted bandwidth. (you won't hear it). In short, CD quality is as good as it gets.

Hello Paul, is there any simple way to test this?

I am curious because I think I can hear a difference in Amazon HD and Apple Airplay 2. I am open to the idea of bias on my part. If Airplay is on it sounds good but somewhat muted. The Amazon HD plays a more open sound, I hear better highs and more detail.

 

[Irvrobinson]

Hello Paul, is there any simple way to test this?

I am curious because I think I can hear a difference in Amazon HD and Apple Airplay 2. I am open to the idea of bias on my part. If Airplay is on it sounds good but somewhat muted. The Amazon HD plays a more open sound, I hear better highs and more detail.

Apple Airplay 2, to my knowledge, is still limited to a 16/44.1 transmission format. (Amazon Music HD can stream at up to 24/192, and the lowest resolution format is 16/44.1.)

I find it difficult to believe that there is an audible difference between 24/192 and the stream down-sampled to 16/44.1, but I suppose that could depend on the algorithm in the chipset implementation in the Airplay 2 device. Still it seems very unlikely you could hear the difference with music. I've tried hearing the difference between hi-res and CD quality with dual-layer SACDs (which supposedly use the same master), but I could never hear a difference.

That said, there's a difference between an academic discussion and a purchase decision. If you are convinced you hear a difference often enough to affect your listening enjoyment, and you can afford to indulge yourself, it might be worth it to have true hi-res streaming. I've been known to make amplifier buying choices that way in the past. If you want true hi-res reproduction you're going to have to get Airplay out of the streaming path, as far as I can tell.

 

[Old Onkyo]

Apple Airplay 2, to my knowledge, is still limited to a 16/44.1 transmission format. (Amazon Music HD can stream at up to 24/192, and the lowest resolution format is 16/44.1.)

I find it difficult to believe that there is an audible difference between 24/192 and the stream down-sampled to 16/44.1, but I suppose that could depend on the algorithm in the chipset implementation in the Airplay 2 device. Still it seems very unlikely you could hear the difference with music. I've tried hearing the difference between hi-res and CD quality with dual-layer SACDs (which supposedly use the same master), but I could never hear a difference.

That said, there's a difference between an academic discussion and a purchase decision. If you are convinced you hear a difference often enough to affect your listening enjoyment, and you can afford to indulge yourself, it might be worth it to have true hi-res streaming. I've been known to make amplifier buying choices that way in the past. If you want true hi-res reproduction you're going to have to get Airplay out of the streaming path, as far as I can tell.

In my mind the difference is like comparing televisions in a store. Side by side I might notice a subtle difference, but standing alone I see two great televisions with two great pictures.

 

[Nick425]

You guys have me researching CD vs high res now.

I want to eventually own all my favorite music and am wondering if CDs or high resolution files are the way to go.

It seems like the problem with High resolution streaming is the equipment and the actual streaming vs playing a physical disc. It seems like equipment can handle and has perfected playing CD's with just as good of sound quality as some high res streaming (all speculation with my limited knowledge)

Sure wish I had a cd player to directly compare to Amazon HD streamed on my phone.

 

[Paul DS]

Hello Paul, is there any simple way to test this?

I am curious because I think I can hear a difference in Amazon HD and Apple Airplay 2. I am open to the idea of bias on my part. If Airplay is on it sounds good but somewhat muted. The Amazon HD plays a more open sound, I hear better highs and more detail.

Sorry, I know of no simple way to test this.

 

[PENG]

Hey guys,

I just signed up for Amazon Music HD and just want to make sure I'm streaming and getting the content to my speakers. Im most likely overthinking this, but I feel like my equipment isn't capable or I am using a chord/connection and not getting full HD music. It sounds good but Ive never listened to High res and I feel like Im missing something or my setup isn't perfected.

My setup:
- Denon AVR-790 in Stereo Mode
- Wharfedale Diamond 225 bookshelf speakers
- Iphone playing Amazon HD music connected through Apple dongle, then to 3.5aux to RCA (white/red) hookups into the Analog/Cd RCA input on the back of my receiver.


Will this setup actually play High Res music (16bit and 24bit) to my speakers or is there an element in my setup not allowing full resolution playback i.e. iPhone dongle, receiver dac, analog input etc??

Would I get better sound by hooking up my laptop through USB (current receiver doesn't support this) and playing this route? Or would I benefit from better wire connections or external DAC?



I will be upgrading the receiver this year (Rxa2a or Pioneer Elite) but want the 2.1hdmi situation to get sorted out first. I eventually want wireless High res streaming audio and xbox series x compatibility.

Thanks!!

I bet if you go by ears only (that is, if you don't know which one is playing), there is no difference. However, assuming you have excellent hearing and can in fact tell a difference, then you should use direct mode. Or better still, since you have the AVR790 that is probably the last Denon below their top models, that have the multichannel analog inputs (based on the pic I saw, they called it Ext. input). If you use those, then you will be bypassing the internal ADC/DAC blocks.

If you use the regular analog input, example: CD and use stereo mode, you ext. DAC output signal will be routed to the Denon's ADC/DAC that are of low quality (relatively speaking) and you end up with double conversion and that block will for sure be limited to 96 kHz sampling rate.

 

[sterling shoote]

OP, let's keep this test simple. 1. Download iTunes, Apple Music or Foobar 2000 player. 2. Go to HDtracks and download a 24/192 FLAC or ALAC file of something dynamic. 3. Download a 256k file of same material. 4. Compare and contrast files. This will give you a very, very clear understanding for the value of a streaming service which delivers hi-res vs one which delivers 256k. In my case, extensive experiments suggested I was wasting my money on hi-res and now I subscribe to Apple Music which satisfies in all manner for stereo presentations. I recently downloaded Classic Hauser from Apple Music and compared it to 24/96 FLAC, CD, and LP of same via every means I have to play the music, i.e. various DACS, and analog gear, concluding the Apple Music download was on par to the CD and LP; yet, it was so much more convenient that I prefer it over the other media. SACD is still preferred for multi-channel, since downloading multi-channel and storing it to play gaplessly is a task I do not enjoy undertaking.

 

[Eppie]

Trying to find a great Youtube video that I saw but it's a few years old now. I remember that the guy drew with a pencil on a large note pad for the explanation and it was very easy to understand. He explained how in order to copy a waveform you only have to sample at 2x the max frequency (Nyquist's Theorem). It's pure math and showed that sampling at more than 2x does nothing to improve your ability to reproduce the original waveform. That it was why it was so clever that the original CD spec chose 44.1. The human ear goes up to around 20kHz, so 44.1 allows for reproducing up to 22.05kHz. Anything beyond that is pointless and just marketing hype (IMHO). You might hear some silly arguments about harmonics and such above the hearing range but I don't know of any studies that back up those claims.

Interesting analysis on the ProTools web site:
https://www.protoolsproduction.com/44-1khz-vs-48khz-audio-which-is-better/
They mentioned improved "headroom" at 48kHz but I don't understand how that applies. Headroom typically refers to the ability to exceed nominal levels and is measured in decibels not hertz, unless they are referring to max frequency headroom. The discussion about aliasing would make sense when converting to different sampling rates. If you convert from 96 to 48 it divides evenly but if say you convert from 96 to 44.1 to create an audio CD, you'll potentially have rounding errors that can introduce aliasing. Whether the amount of aliasing is audible is another matter. They also claim that sampling at 24 bits provides greater dynamic range than at 16 bits (and that 24 bit audio is the standard for DVDs). I'd be interested to see the math on that claim.

The whole issue of sampling rates for streamed music only makes sense to me in one instance, and that is if you have a lossy internet connection. If streaming at 16/44.1 and your connection is dropping packets, that will be audible. If streamed at 24/196, dropping packets would likely not be noticeable since you have 4x the amount of information you need to reproduce the music accurately. There is so much error correction built into modern infrastructure though that lost packets are pretty rare these days accept for very poor internet connections.

 

[lovinthehd]

Trying to find a great Youtube video that I saw but it's a few years old now. I remember that the guy drew with a pencil on a large note pad for the explanation and it was very easy to understand. He explained how in order to copy a waveform you only have to sample at 2x the max frequency (Nyquist's Theorem). It's pure math and showed that sampling at more than 2x does nothing to improve your ability to reproduce the original waveform. That it was why it was so clever that the original CD spec chose 44.1. The human ear goes up to around 20kHz, so 44.1 allows for reproducing up to 22.05kHz. Anything beyond that is pointless and just marketing hype (IMHO). You might hear some silly arguments about harmonics and such above the hearing range but I don't know of any studies that back up those claims.

Interesting analysis on the ProTools web site:
https://www.protoolsproduction.com/44-1khz-vs-48khz-audio-which-is-better/
They mentioned improved "headroom" at 48kHz but I don't understand how that applies. Headroom typically refers to the ability to exceed nominal levels and is measured in decibels not hertz, unless they are referring to max frequency headroom. The discussion about aliasing would make sense when converting to different sampling rates. If you convert from 96 to 48 it divides evenly but if say you convert from 96 to 44.1 to create an audio CD, you'll potentially have rounding errors that can introduce aliasing. Whether the amount of aliasing is audible is another matter. They also claim that sampling at 24 bits provides greater dynamic range than at 16 bits (and that 24 bit audio is the standard for DVDs). I'd be interest to see the math on that claim.

The whole issue of sampling rates for streamed music only makes sense to me in one instance, and that is if you have a lossy internet connection. If streaming at 16/44.1 and your connection is dropping packets, that will be audible. If streamed at 24/196, dropping packets would likely not be noticeable since you have 4x the amount of information you need to reproduce the music accurately. There is so much error correction built into modern infrastructure though that lost packets are pretty rare these days accept for very poor internet connections.

You thinking of Monty's video?

@Nick425 As to Amazon, if you're using the HD level that's just cd equivalent, isn't it? Don't you need some other marketing term level (HD isn't really an audio term, it's from video .....Ultra, isn't it? You might look in the avr's menu for an information function for the audio stream to tell you what it is....

 

[Eppie]

You thinking of Monty's video?

No, this video had the camera pointing down at a paper note pad and the creator writing on the note pad. There are so many videos on sampling rates now that I'm having trouble finding it. Nyquist's theorem is common knowledge though.

 

[lovinthehd]

No, this video had the camera pointing down at a paper note pad and the creator writing on the note pad. There are so many videos on sampling rates now that I'm having trouble finding it. Nyquist's theorem is common knowledge though.

Yeah I think I've seen that one too, this one from Monty is often recommended, tho.

 

[Nick425]

I bet if you go by ears only (that is, if you don't know which one is playing), there is no difference. However, assuming you have excellent hearing and can in fact tell a difference, then you should use direct mode. Or better still, since you have the AVR790 that is probably the last Denon below their top models, that have the multichannel analog inputs (based on the pic I saw, they called it Ext. input). If you use those, then you will be bypassing the internal ADC/DAC blocks.

If you use the regular analog input, example: CD and use stereo mode, you ext. DAC output signal will be routed to the Denon's ADC/DAC that are of low quality (relatively speaking) and you end up with double conversion and that block will for sure be limited to 96 kHz sampling rate.

Thank you for this!! I switched over to Direct listening mode from Stereo and High res music sounds so much better in this mode. Much much better in direct mode.

Are you saying I should try to bypass DAC for analog music files and use the DAC inputs for digital music?

 

[lovinthehd]

So which level of Amazon Music did you subscribe to? HD or Ultra?

ps I see you answered that below.

 

[Nick425]

You thinking of Monty's video?

@Nick425 As to Amazon, if you're using the HD level that's just cd equivalent, isn't it? Don't you need some other marketing term level (HD isn't really an audio term, it's from video .....Ultra, isn't it? You might look in the avr's menu for an information function for the audio stream to tell you what it is....

Haha yeah probably. Ive spent so many hours researching this stuff and Im still confused. Just trying to totally under

Apple Airplay 2, to my knowledge, is still limited to a 16/44.1 transmission format. (Amazon Music HD can stream at up to 24/192, and the lowest resolution format is 16/44.1.)

I find it difficult to believe that there is an audible difference between 24/192 and the stream down-sampled to 16/44.1, but I suppose that could depend on the algorithm in the chipset implementation in the Airplay 2 device. Still it seems very unlikely you could hear the difference with music. I've tried hearing the difference between hi-res and CD quality with dual-layer SACDs (which supposedly use the same master), but I could never hear a difference.

That said, there's a difference between an academic discussion and a purchase decision. If you are convinced you hear a difference often enough to affect your listening enjoyment, and you can afford to indulge yourself, it might be worth it to have true hi-res streaming. I've been known to make amplifier buying choices that way in the past. If you want true hi-res reproduction you're going to have to get Airplay out of the streaming path, as far as I can tell.

I would agree with this and so far listening to 24bit songs (ultra HD as amazon calls it) vs 16 bit songs while streaming, I personally cannot hear the difference yet but I've only listened to a few albums. Going to go back and test in different settings.

And yes I definately have to indulge and test to see what this high resolution sounds like. Pretty cheap way to test it out. So far this has made me want to buy Cd's like I used to 10 years ago.

The way I am hooked up, Im not using Airplay its all hard wired through phone connector

 

[Nick425]

So which level of Amazon Music did you subscribe to? HD or Ultra?

I didn't know there was a difference. Mine has Ultra HD when they are available but most artists just have HD albums with maybe on Ultra HD album. It will tell you on the phone if its actually playing 24bit vs 16bit

 

[lovinthehd]

I didn't know there was a difference. Mine has Ultra HD when they are available but most artists just have HD albums with maybe on Ultra HD album. It will tell you on the phone if its actually playing 24bit vs 16bit

HD is just cd quality (16/44.1), Ultra is the tier that brings hi-res. Personally I use Spotify....SQ is just fine and they're going "HD" soon too apparently....

 

[Irvrobinson]

Thank you for this!! I switched over to Direct listening mode from Stereo and High res music sounds so much better in this mode. Much much better in direct mode.

I think that's weird, if it's "much much better in direct mode". I'm wondering if you have some equalization engaged that isn't flattering that is disabled in direct mode.

 

[Nick425]

I think that's weird, if it's "much much better in direct mode". I'm wondering if you have some equalization engaged that isn't flattering that is disabled in direct mode.

Could be. Ive gone through the menu multiple times and thought I had the settings right but its a possibility.

It honestly sounds like a different receiver and gave more depth and clarity just going to direct mode from stereo. Not all sources do this, for streaming roku it doesn't sound that great in direct, or atleast I didn't notice. Sure woke up my speakers streaming from my phone though, coming from Stereo.