Hi-res Is Not the Point

Every few weeks, I come across the same discussion somewhere online.

Someone buys a hi-res release, compares it to a CD-quality version, and can't hear much difference.

Someone else insists the difference is obvious.

A third person concludes that hi-res audio is little more than a marketing gimmick.

The debate goes around in circles for a few days, people post screenshots, waveforms, listening tests, and eventually everyone moves on until the next time it appears.

The thing is, I think both sides are usually arguing about the wrong thing.

The discussion almost always starts with a question that sounds reasonable:

Can you hear the difference between lossless and hi-res audio?

But after years of comparing different releases, masterings, transfers, and digital editions, I've come to think that this is not the most useful question a serious listener can ask.

Not because the answer doesn't matter. But because there is a much bigger factor shaping what we actually hear, and it has very little to do with the number attached to the file.

In other words, the hi-res badge has become the centre of the conversation.

But it shouldn't be.

What people expect hi-res to do

Part of the confusion comes from what people expect hi-res audio to do in the first place.

When someone upgrades from a standard lossless release to a hi-res version, there is often an expectation that something dramatic should happen.

The music should suddenly open up.

Hidden details should appear.

Instruments that were previously buried should step forward.

The listening experience should feel transformed. And if none of that happens, the conclusion is often immediate:

"I can't hear the difference."

Or worse:

"Hi-res is a scam."

But that expectation was always setting the format up to fail. After all, we're still listening to the same recording.

The same musicians.

The same performance.

The same notes, same microphone placement, same artistic decisions...

Nothing new has been added to the music itself.

The hi-res version is not secretly hiding another trumpet part that was missing from the CD. It isn't going to reveal a forgotten cymbal hit in the back corner of the studio. Or some new lyrics not present on the first vinyl pressing.

The recording remains the recording.

Which is why I find it helpful to think about hi-res audio in a slightly different way

Imagine viewing the same photograph on two different phones.

One has a basic screen. The other has a far better display with greater colour accuracy, smoother gradients, and the ability to show finer detail.

The photograph itself hasn't changed.

The mountain is still the same mountain.

The sky is still the same sky, and the people standing in the foreground are still the same people.

The better screen may present the image more accurately, but it doesn't suddenly add a castle on the horizon that wasn't there before. It's still the same photograph.

Hi-res audio works in much the same way.

The recording itself does not change simply because it is stored in a higher-resolution format.

The performance does not change. The musicians do not play different notes. The recording does not suddenly acquire new details that never existed in the source.

What changes is the container carrying that information and the amount of information that container is capable of preserving and presenting.

That distinction matters because it helps explain why so many listeners walk away from hi-res comparisons disappointed.

They are often listening for new music.

What hi-res can potentially offer is a more refined presentation of the music that is already there.

And yes, sometimes that refinement is meaningful. But equally often, it is subtle. And sometimes it is practically impossible to notice.

But the thing is, as we'll see in a moment, it often isn't even the most important difference between two editions at all.

And this is where the discussion usually takes a wrong turn.

Because when people compare a CD-quality edition with a hi-res edition, they often assume they are comparing file formats.

In reality, they are frequently comparing entirely different editions of the same recording.

Different masterings. Sources. Transfers. Or different people making different choices about how that recording should sound.

This is why discussions about hi-res audio can become so confusing.

Someone listens to a hi-res release and says it sounds dramatically better than the CD.

Someone else compares another hi-res release and hears no difference at all.

A third listener actually prefers the CD.

And you know what, all three may be correct.

Because the format itself is often only one small part of the story. The larger difference may come from the mastering.

The hi-res edition may have been created from a new transfer.

The CD may use an older mastering.

The hi-res version may have different EQ choices.

The CD may preserve more of the original character of the recording.

So the listener thinks they are comparing 16/44 against 24/96. But what they are often hearing is the result of entirely different decisions made long before the file was ever exported.

In other words, they think they are evaluating the container. What they are actually hearing is the treatment of the music inside it.

And that's why some hi-res releases can sound worse than their CD counterparts

That statement tends to surprise people the first time they hear it. After all, if hi-res contains more information, shouldn't it always sound better?

No, not necessarily.

After all, hi-res audio can only work with the information that already exists in the source.

If a recording is limited, rough, noisy, poorly preserved, or simply not very well recorded in the first place, a higher-resolution format cannot magically fix those problems.

Sometimes it can make them even more obvious.

Going back to the screen analogy, imagine taking an old, blurry photograph and displaying it on an expensive modern display.

The better screen will show the photograph more accurately. But it won't make the photograph sharper. If anything, it may reveal the flaws more clearly.

The same thing can happen with recordings.

A higher-resolution release may expose tape noise more clearly. It may reveal limitations in the original recording. It may highlight rough edges that were previously smoothed over.

And if the mastering decisions are poor, the result can be even less enjoyable.

One example that comes to mind is Art Blakey's First Flight to Tokyo.

It's a fascinating historical release, but it was never an audiophile recording. It's it's not mono but the narrow soundstage makes it sound almost as if it were. The recording was never captured for commercial release, as a result, the source material itself has clear limitations.

And so, when I compare the CD and hi-res editions, I actually find the CD easier to enjoy. The hi-res edition not only doesn't bring out any hidden magic in the recording, it just makes the flaws more obvious.

But that's not a failure of hi-res audio.

It's simply a reminder that format alone cannot create qualities that were never present in the source to begin with.

The same can be true for two different hi-res editions.

Take the recording of Debussy's String Quartet in G Minor by the wonderful Quartetto Italiano.

My DSD128 copy from HighDefinitionTapeTransfers (HDTT) sounds far more superior than the Warner Classics edition.

The former is a new master of a high-quality original analog tape. But the Warners sounds as if the mastered frpm a copy of a copy of a copy of an old cassette tape. It's full of tape hiss, the sound is distant, and lacks any character at all.

The DSD128 of Miles Davis' "Kind of Blue" from HDTT sounds better than 24/96 by the same label, because the original master was in DSD. So, naturally, any lower format editions have been downgraded.

(You can read my comparison of all available digital editions of Kind of Blue here.)

Similarly, the DSD64 edition of Art Blakey's "Moanin'" from BlueNote sounds a million times better than the same bit depth and frequency edition by HDTT. It's the same format, but the source isn't.

BlueNote is based off the original master whereas HDTT is a tape transfer. Unfortunately, the tape used for that transfer has clearly seen better days, and you can hear it.

(Read my full comparison here.)

And finally, Michal Bryla's "Telemann: 12 Fantasies for Viola Solo" (recently reviewed on TrueResAudio) sounds better in 24/384 than in lower quality purely because it was recorded in that quality. So, again, any lower editions had to be downgraded sonically. These differences are subtle but they are there.

That's exactly why reducing the discussion to "CD versus hi-res" misses the bigger picture.

So if the hi-res versus lossless debate is asking the wrong question, what should listeners focus on instead?

For me, it comes down to something much simpler. It's not:

"Can I hear the difference between 16/44 and 24/96?"

The actual question to ask is:

"Do I actually enjoy how this edition sounds?"

That may seem like a small distinction, but I think it changes the entire conversation. Because the goal was never to hear a file format. The goal was always to enjoy the music. And the reality is that listeners often become so focused on the technical side of the discussion that they lose sight of that.

And I get it; the hi-res badge can feel reassuring. But it does not automatically confirm that we will enjoy the result.

What matters is how the music reaches us.

The mastering. What source has been used. The choices made by the engineers.

These qualities shape the character of a recording long before we start looking at sample rates and bit depths.

Some listeners prefer warmer masterings. Some prefer greater clarity and enjoy hearing every detail exposed. Others want a presentation that feels cohesive and natural.

None of those preferences are wrong.

And that is another reason the hi-res debate so often becomes unhelpful. It treats sound quality as though there is a single correct answer waiting to be discovered.

In reality, listening is far more personal than that.

So, the better question is not whether a release is hi-res. The better question is whether it gives you the listening experience you are looking for.

And once you start thinking about recordings that way, the format badge suddenly becomes much less important.

This is why I think the hi-res versus lossless debate often generates far more heat than insight

Not because file formats do not matter. And not because hi-res audio is meaningless. But because the discussion tends to focus on the container rather than the experience.

The question is rarely whether a recording is technically capable of carrying more information. The question is whether that information results in a listening experience you actually enjoy.

Sometimes the answer will be yes. Sometimes it won't.

Sometimes the CD will be the version you keep returning to. Sometimes the hi-res edition will reveal something genuinely worthwhile.

And sometimes the biggest difference between two releases will have nothing to do with format at all.

So, the next time you find yourself comparing a hi-res release to a CD-quality edition, try shifting the question slightly.

Instead of asking, can I hear the difference between these formats, ask:

"Do I enjoy how this edition sounds?"

For most listeners, that turns out to be the far more useful question. And once you start listening that way, the hi-res badge stops being the point.

The music takes that spot again.