High-resolution audio: everything you need to know

[What Hi-Fi?]

High-resolution audio is the pinnacle for digital music fans, but what is it, how can you get it, and what kit do you need to listen to it?

High-resolution audio: everything you need to know : Read more

 

[nexpose]

So I'm using Amazon music HD service and have a Sony 1080 receiver. What I want to do is make sure I get 24bit / 192khz. Do I need to hook one of the music streamers up to my 1080 receiver in order to make this happen? Since I know through my S9+ phone I can't achieve ultimate sound. I'm new to HD streaming or hoping to stream in Ultra HD as Amazon music HD calls it. Thank you and appreciate any help

 

[superhans]

So I'm using Amazon music HD service and have a Sony 1080 receiver. What I want to do is make sure I get 24bit / 192khz. Do I need to hook one of the music streamers up to my 1080 receiver in order to make this happen? Since I know through my S9+ phone I can't achieve ultimate sound. I'm new to HD streaming or hoping to stream in Ultra HD as Amazon music HD calls it. Thank you and appreciate any help

I have the same set-up. You could buy a bluesound 2i streamer to get the full 24bit / 192khz but I would suggest you first try out LDAC over bluetooth. Set the amp and your s9+ phone to prefer LDAC and you'll get 24bit / 96khz (990kbps)
Sounds fantastic and costs nothing! I doubt you'd hear any noticeable difference between the bluesound vs Sony LDAC
My Sony is hooked up to Dali Oberon 5 and I'm very happy with how it sounds using bluetooth/LDAC
Note: Most recent android phones support LDAC and can be configured via 'Developer Options'
Chromecast on the amp has not been updated by Sony and currently does not support HD streams from Amazon. If you don't want to use bluetooth, then you could (if you can find one) hook up an old 'Chromecast audio' This would also give you HD from Amazon

 

[yorkslad]

Presto Classical (prestomusic) is an excellent site and has a large library of classical and jazz flac downloads to purchase.

 

[stephenk]

For various reasons, including downsizing, I have just discovered high-res streaming and downloading. So I got what I thought was a pretty good set up but none of the elements featurin your review !
I'm using my old Arcam amplifier and I listen through my Lyn Keilidh speakers.
So.....
For audio I subscribe to Primephonic. (I found Tidal more difficult to navigate). I use a Firefly DAC to take sound from my laptop or my smartphone (Redmi Note9 PRO) to my ARCAM DELTA90 amplifier. I am not allowed to take downloads to my laptop but only to my phone or tablet., Which is very irritating because I travel, but I seem to have adequate storage on my phone at least for primephonic downloads.
For combined high quality video and sound (my preference) I have subscribed to Medici TV, and I take the sound from my new LG Smart TV out through an optical cable output through a CYP AUD3-192 DAC to my amp.
All this is very new to me. I'm disturbed that you haven't reviewed my streaming services or the firefly and I wonder if I made some big mistakes?

 

[DrAIX]

I was a member of the CEA High-End Audio Board for 8 years, operate a high-resolution download site (itrax.com), am a university professor teaching audio engineering, authored an 880-page book on high-end audio, and completed an AES presentation on high-resolution audio for last fall's convention. The amount of misinformation in this article is astounding! I'm not sure where to start. Amazon Music HD is not high-resolution audio according to the definition issued by the CEA in 2014. Amazon HD simply shifted CD - or standard resolution - to the HD category for marketing purposes. And it doesn't matter anyway because virtually every recording available in download or streaming format fail to meet the frequency response and dynamics of a standard compact disc. The statement "going 16bit to 24bit can deliver a noticeable leap in quality" is patently untrue. I survey over 500 audiophiles in my research and the results showed that people had as good a chance at picking a native HD file over a CD as a random coin toss. Hi-Res audio and MQA are simply attempts by those in the music and audio business to grab more money. It's a shame that the authors of this piece failed to do adequate research before writing a useless article.

 

[superhans]

I was a member of the CEA High-End Audio Board for 8 years, operate a high-resolution download site (itrax.com), am a university professor teaching audio engineering, authored an 880-page book on high-end audio, and completed an AES presentation on high-resolution audio for last fall's convention. The amount of misinformation in this article is astounding! I'm not sure where to start. Amazon Music HD is not high-resolution audio according to the definition issued by the CEA in 2014. Amazon HD simply shifted CD - or standard resolution - to the HD category for marketing purposes. And it doesn't matter anyway because virtually every recording available in download or streaming format fail to meet the frequency response and dynamics of a standard compact disc. The statement "going 16bit to 24bit can deliver a noticeable leap in quality" is patently untrue. I survey over 500 audiophiles in my research and the results showed that people had as good a chance at picking a native HD file over a CD as a random coin toss. Hi-Res audio and MQA are simply attempts by those in the music and audio business to grab more money. It's a shame that the authors of this piece failed to do adequate research before writing a useless article.

Fantastic post and I agree. Over last 6 months, I've listened extensively to Qobuz, Amazon HD, Tidal MQA and I think 'Hi-Res' is a snake oil cash grab. Most of the music that has blown my skirt up - were good old CD 16/44.1 quality.
The mastering is more important than the sample rate is my conclusion. Once Spotify give us the new 'CD' quality tier that will meet my needs. Don't care about anything above that.

 

[Dan J]

I am learning a lot about HiFi streaming in articles such as these, but difficulty figuring out how best to use my current equipment.

1) I have an amp (Denon DRA-800h) that lets me log in to Tidal HiFi- that streams natively at CD quality only...(16-bit/44.1kHz is indicated on the screen of the TV that the amp is hooked to).

2) I have a Chromecast Ultra hooked into the same amp that just indcates "HiFi" on the TV when I cast to it using the Tidal app on my phone (the app on the phone is a much better experience than on the Amplifier)...I suspect this is also 16-bit/44.1khz)

3) I have a Chromecast Audio that I am not using, but could hook up to the Amp either with aux or TOSLINK.

4) I could purchase a more specialized streamer that streams at MQA, but would still be putting it into the same amp/speakers via HDMI or TOSLINK.

I (subjectively) think #1 sounds better than #2
#2 is a lot easier and simpler to use
I suspect the best is option #4, but I am not ready for the cost.
I realize that all of the above probably do better than my middle age ears can resolve, but they also definitely sound better than my Youtube Music subscription did...

My Question:
Can someone advise me on the difference in audio quality between the Chromecast Ultra and the Chromecast Audio? I can never find the bit rate of the CC Ultra to be able to compare it to the CC Audio...and then I wonder the HDMI of the CC Ultra isn't better than the TOSLINK of the CC Audio...

Thanks!

 

[CHFels]

I am learning a lot about HiFi streaming in articles such as these, but difficulty figuring out how best to use my current equipment.

1) I have an amp (Denon DRA-800h) that lets me log in to Tidal HiFi- that streams natively at CD quality only...(16-bit/44.1kHz is indicated on the screen of the TV that the amp is hooked to).

2) I have a Chromecast Ultra hooked into the same amp that just indcates "HiFi" on the TV when I cast to it using the Tidal app on my phone (the app on the phone is a much better experience than on the Amplifier)...I suspect this is also 16-bit/44.1khz)

3) I have a Chromecast Audio that I am not using, but could hook up to the Amp either with aux or TOSLINK.

4) I could purchase a more specialized streamer that streams at MQA, but would still be putting it into the same amp/speakers via HDMI or TOSLINK.

I (subjectively) think #1 sounds better than #2
#2 is a lot easier and simpler to use
I suspect the best is option #4, but I am not ready for the cost.
I realize that all of the above probably do better than my middle age ears can resolve, but they also definitely sound better than my Youtube Music subscription did...

My Question:
Can someone advise me on the difference in audio quality between the Chromecast Ultra and the Chromecast Audio? I can never find the bit rate of the CC Ultra to be able to compare it to the CC Audio...and then I wonder the HDMI of the CC Ultra isn't better than the TOSLINK of the CC Audio...

Thanks!

Chromecast Ultra is limited to 48khz for audio, and I have seen it suggested that it might upsample all audio to that frequency. Not sure if it will pass on 24 bits, or only 16. Either way, it should be able to sound as good as the built-in Tidal app. If it doesn't, to your ears, that may be evidence that (badly done) re-sampling is done by the CCU, or that your Denon amp does not handle HDMI audio as well as it should. But another possibility to keep in mind is that you are not level-matching and you simply prefer #1 over #2 because it's a bit louder. (No offence meant, everybody is subject to this effect and it is hard to guard against).

The Chromecast Audio can pass on 24/96 audio to the Denon via Toslink, so in theory that should be your preferred option. Whether it will sound better, same, or worse than the CCU depends on how your Denon handles Toslink input data, compared to HDMI input data. (And once again, watch out for volume differences if you try to compare the two!)

 

[Dan J]

Thanks!
I'll give the Toslink on CCA a try.
You're right, by the way, I've caught myself enjoying the louder of two choices a few times so I turn up the Chromecast all the way when comparing...

 

[drw]

"Apple iTunes, for instance, doesn't support it, even if your MacBook does, so you'll need to buy and download separate music playing software."

Categorically not true. iTunes can store and play ALAC & WAV files just fine - upto 24bit/192khz. The xACT application will convert any other 24bit source files to ALAC (including FLAC and WAV).

The primary issue many don't realise is how Mac's are configured to play anything other than the standard 44.1khz/16bit output. To make this work, you must configure the output stream using the "Audio MIDI Setup" application found in the Utilities folder (from the Window menu, select "Show Audio Devices", pick the output and set the Format to your choice of output). The maximum frequency is entirely based on the hardware capabilities. My 12 year old Mac Mini is quite capable of outputing from iTunes at 96khz at 24bit through the headphone out (which doubles as a digital toslink output) to my Pioneer receiver that can process the toslink input at 96khz/24bit. Has worked just fine for this purpose for years (and yes I've verified that the Pioneer is indeed processing 96khz/24bit data). Newer Macs can natively handle 192khz, though the toslink out via headphone jack was depreciated in more recent years, likely because few knew it existed.

The same configuration can be used for 5.1 DTS music output too (though the output frequency must match the source, i.e. typically 44.1khz). And this isn't a one off, as I have a backup Mac Mini configured in exactly the same way, and both can be a host server to a home sharing network - where 24bit music will play on newer Mac's running Apple Music across a LAN (again the output must be configured to a hi-res output based on capabilities, or the audio will be downsampled locally. Works great through a Scarlett 2i2 at 192khz/24bit).

 

[mikemuch]

I think there's an error: whereas a 24-bit/192kHz file has a data rate of 9216kbps. Music CDs are 1411kbps. -- CDs are 16 bits at 44.1, so 24 bits at 192kHz should be more data, esp since that's Hi-Res, higher than CD.

I do find that 24-bit Hi-Res sounds more open and detailed compared with lower res formats. It's a very subtle difference, but the lower res sounds a bit like its coming form inside a tunnel or horn, while the Hi-Res sounds more present.

 

[ribena_hood]

I came here to rag on WhatHiFI for their misleading article, but thankfully DrAIX got here first, although not before the article had been published for almost a year.

To reiterate...

"...so going 16bit to 24bit can..." - NOT - "...deliver a noticeable leap in quality..."

A greater bit depth delivers the potential for a larger dynamic range.... louder loud parts and quiter quiet parts... Potentially!... if the track you're listening to hasn't already had the bejesus compressed out of it in the studio which, of course, it probably has.

The sample rate similarly will not improve the 'quality' of the recorded sound. A sample rate above ~40kHz creates a physically perfect copy -literally perfect- of any noise within the range of any human's hearing... any human. A sample rate of 48kHz and up, doesn't create a more perfect recording... it just increases the amount of data you have to store.

What higher sample rates might capture are the ultrasonic (/inaudible) frequencies created by the instrument and recording space's harmonic resonances...

Although inaudible, ultrasonic frequencies are an objective, physical reality... they can be felt even if they cannot be heard (and have infact been weaponised for that exact reason) and can have feedback effects, modifying audible frequencies, changing what you hear and even, perhaps, changing your perception of what you hear.

So why is this irrelevant? Because studio recording equipment and your home playback equipment cannot record or playback those ultrasonic/inaudible harmonic frequencies....

... take WhatHiFi's own #1 rated 'Best floorstanding speakers 2021'... the Wharfedale Diamond 12.3... they have a claimed frequency response of 40Hz-20kHz while the Shure SM7B microphone, has a 50Hz - 20kHz frequency response.

So sure, you can claim to hear a difference with a higher sample rate, but you cannot... it's literally impossible.

That said... you do get harmonic resonance from your home speakers (but not from your Beats by Dre headphones folks...) and the room they're in , so the 'loss' of "Recorded Live" harmonics isn't actually a loss. You still get the 'right' sound for your equipment and its location, regardless.

 

[silverXnoise]

I was a member of the CEA High-End Audio Board for 8 years, operate a high-resolution download site (itrax.com), am a university professor teaching audio engineering, authored an 880-page book on high-end audio, and completed an AES presentation on high-resolution audio for last fall's convention. The amount of misinformation in this article is astounding! I'm not sure where to start. Amazon Music HD is not high-resolution audio according to the definition issued by the CEA in 2014. Amazon HD simply shifted CD - or standard resolution - to the HD category for marketing purposes. And it doesn't matter anyway because virtually every recording available in download or streaming format fail to meet the frequency response and dynamics of a standard compact disc. The statement "going 16bit to 24bit can deliver a noticeable leap in quality" is patently untrue. I survey over 500 audiophiles in my research and the results showed that people had as good a chance at picking a native HD file over a CD as a random coin toss. Hi-Res audio and MQA are simply attempts by those in the music and audio business to grab more money. It's a shame that the authors of this piece failed to do adequate research before writing a useless article.

This is spot-on. I am an electronics engineer and recording musician, and this trend of "HD" or "high-res" audio for the purposes of listening is just the latest means for the hifi industry to further tarnish its own reputation, along with cryogenically-treated valves, magic capacitors, a whole array of needlessly expensive cables, etc.. It preys on consumers' inability to parse highly technical and esoteric specs and nuanced engineering concepts to inflate their profit margins far beyond the point of reason. I am a proponent of lossless digital audio codecs, and would never assert they aren't an objectively better choice for listening to digital audio files. That said, sampling rates above 96KHz or sampling depths above 16-bit are wholly unnecessary for playback. The reason these higher specifications are employed in studios during recording sessions is partly because of the particular limitations of working with digital audio that requires leaving significantly more headroom in track levels to avoid clipping, which reduces the usable portions of the sampling depth and necessitates additional amplitude processing later on. It is also necessary during the recording process to accommodate heavy applications of DSP effects like reverb, compression/limiting, spatial enhancements, and modulation that can make productive use out of the additional resolution.

Once the recording is completed, it is up to the mastering engineer to make the appropriate decisions for converting the digital masters to their final format. If the mastering engineer does their job right, a 44.1KHz/16-bit uncompressed [lossless] audio file is indistinguishable from 192KHz/24-bit.

This brings me to the subject of high-end DACs (digital-to-analog converters). I looked at datasheets, and to match the performance of many of the DACs listed for several thousand dollars, the actual chip doing the conversion costs roughly $15. Cirrus Logic's CS43130 has 32-bit/384KHz resolution, THD+N of -108dB at 0dB, 130dB of dynamic range, 0.5 nanosecond jitter (to accurately hit every sample of a 384kHz file anything lower than 1300 nanoseconds would suffice), 110 dB of interchannel isolation, and a wealth of dedicated stereo audio features and filtering options. So unless the Nagra HD DAC contains a £23450 preamp, then its £23600 asking price is frankly absurd. Optimistically speaking, a well-designed outboard DAC will have been designed with very specific filtering and preamp choices that can make even lower quality digital files sound as good as possible. But if you're buying lossless audio files that have been mastered properly, then the integrated DACs in your devices are almost certainly sufficient for providing an analog audio signal that's as good as it can be.

 

[progmatist]

My hypothesis why analog and Hi-Res actually do sound better:

I'll start with a bold statement: Hi-Res sound quality is *NOT* about frequency. The fact Hi-Res happens to be "capable" of ultrasonic frequencies is neither here nor there. Analog tape running at 15 or 30 inches per second is also "capable" of ultrasonic frequencies. But that never crossed anyone's mind. I myself balk at "Hi-Res" headphones as a marketing gimmick. To qualify as "Hi-Res," headphones must reproduce up to 30KHz, making them needlessly expensive.

The laser focus on frequency is based on one assumption: the shortest wavelength blips on the carrier audio waveform exclusively represent the highest frequencies. And humans are incapable of hearing anything above 20KHz, ergo it's humanly impossible to hear sound improvement in sampling rates above 44.1KHz. I beg to differ. I submit those blips also represent quick transitions from one instrument to the next, one effect to the next, from an instrument to an effect, or vice versa. Perhaps more so than the highest audio frequencies. Those lines of separation between instruments and effects are far more susceptible to digital truncation than actual audio frequencies. When those lines get blurred by digital truncation, the audible separation between them, and the completeness of their individual sound also get blurred. Notice I said "blurred" and not "obliterated." I'll concede "obliterated" would be a gross exaggeration.

I would compare it to the way the screen was drawn on old CRT TVs and computer monitors. The beam from the "electron gun" did not draw the blue sky in its entirety. Then clouds in their entirety. Then a tree on one side of the screen in its entirety. Then another tree on the other side of the screen in its entirety. The cathode ray scanned horizontal lines from top to bottom. On interlaced screens, it would scan every other line. Then on a second pass, fill in every other line skipped by the first pass. When the beam hit a portion of the screen where there was sky, the beam would turn blue. When it hit a tree, it would turn whatever shade of green was appropriate for the light and shadow of particular leaves. And so on.

Likewise, the carrier audio waveform doesn't sound the lead guitar in its entirety. Then the bass (guitar) in its entirety. Then the snare drum in its entirety, et cetera, et cetera. Through a complete cycle of the carrier waveform, it repeatedly cycles through every instrument and effect many times. Every time it does, there's a quick transition between them. That of course is a massive oversimplification, for illustrative purposes only. The audio waveform in reality is quite complex.

So what specifically makes analog and Hi-Res sound better? A more open, transparent and lively sound. Opening the mix in turn gives the sound of every instrument and effect more room to expand, making each and every one more individually audible. Reverb in particular sounds lighter, airier, and more free flowing throughout the mix. Because it has more space in which to flow. The background instruments and effects have less tendency to get lost in the clutter. If this sounds convoluted to you, try describing the beauty of the Grand Canyon to someone who's never seen it. Not objectively the various colors of the various layers of sedimentary rock. The "BEAUTY." I suspect your language would be equally convoluted.

What qualifies me identify what makes analog and Hi-Res sound better? I have a medical condition, which typically makes those afflicted more hypersensitive to sound than the average person. This combined with well above average technical knowledge uniquely enables to put my finger on precisely what makes them sound better. The vast majority of people who do in fact hear the more open, transparent, lively sound are unable to pin down exactly what they're hearing. Let alone articulate it. They use the old fallback description "dynamic range," or the even more vague "warmer" for lack of better words. Of course it's technically impossible to hear "more dynamic range" in a vinyl record. That's like seeing "more color" in an old SD CRT television.

No doubt many will ask, "What about those double blind studies?" Ultimately, the biggest hurdle those studies have to overcome is they're trying to prove a negative. That nobody really can hear any Hi-Res or analog sound improvement. That anyone who "thinks" they can are psychosomatic, and/or experiencing auditory hallucinations. Suppose a study compared the top consumer analog tape speed of 7.5IPS with the studio speeds of 15 and 30IPS. Apart from a possible absence of tape hiss, I suspect the results would be nearly, if not totally identical. I highly doubt any audio professional would be swayed by such a study to believe running tape faster than 7.5IPS was or is a waste of tape.

That being said, I specifically take issue with those studies on 2 main points:

1) Many, most, or perhaps all the people conducting those studies don't themselves know what makes analog and Hi-Res sound better. If any can hear it at all, they can't put their finger on what it is. If they themselves don't know what improves sound, how can they train participants to listen for it? And yes, some training is absolutely essential. In similar studies comparing MP3 and a CD, the ability to differentiate between them was much greater when participants were trained to listen for what specifically makes MP3s sound worse.

2) It's true most people simply cannot hear the more open, transparent, lively sound. In the same way, and for the same reason most people can't hear the individual notes in a chord. The way most young people could never qualify as a naval Sonar Technician, because they can't hear the subtle difference between the various tones. Before spending a single dollar training new Sonar Techs, the US Navy will thoroughly test candidates' hearing. To ensure they can in fact distinguish the various tones. One of my own "A School" classmates was originally slated to be a Sonar Tech, but failed the hearing test. He instead trained as an Avionics Tech. Incidentally, one of my uncles was a Sonar Tech in the Navy. I have a family history of hearing subtleties most people can't.

 

[Praefectus]

This article is WRONG about MQA file as this is LOSSY codec. Therefore TIDAL no longer offer lossless music.

MQA MASTER - LOSSY
LOSSLESS STREAM = IS A LIE AS THEY GIVING YOU FOLDED MQA because they no longer offer FLAC.

The only TRUE lossless platform for HiRes is Qobuz.

 

[djh1697]

I use Roon, using DSP to convert the streams to DSD512, You might ask why? To my ears, there is more music, plain and simple! However, I could easily enjoy the same on CD.

Watching a film on a black-and-white TV set is just as enjoyable as watching it on a colour TV set, it is about the content, not necessarily the delivery method.

 

[GPKen]

I was a member of the CEA High-End Audio Board for 8 years, operate a high-resolution download site (itrax.com), am a university professor teaching audio engineering, authored an 880-page book on high-end audio, and completed an AES presentation on high-resolution audio for last fall's convention. The amount of misinformation in this article is astounding! I'm not sure where to start. Amazon Music HD is not high-resolution audio according to the definition issued by the CEA in 2014. Amazon HD simply shifted CD - or standard resolution - to the HD category for marketing purposes. And it doesn't matter anyway because virtually every recording available in download or streaming format fail to meet the frequency response and dynamics of a standard compact disc. The statement "going 16bit to 24bit can deliver a noticeable leap in quality" is patently untrue. I survey over 500 audiophiles in my research and the results showed that people had as good a chance at picking a native HD file over a CD as a random coin toss. Hi-Res audio and MQA are simply attempts by those in the music and audio business to grab more money. It's a shame that the authors of this piece failed to do adequate research before writing a useless article.

I have probably been around the audio field longer than anyone alive today and must say that your article is spot on. After many years of designing, listening and evaluating various means and methods of recording, I find that today's ploy to market HI-RES is just that. In so far as I can determine, the sound is absolutely no better than that of a well produced CD. Hence, I equated Hi-Res with the "Emperor's New Clothes"

 

[manicm]

Becky is wrong. CDs are not encoded in WAV but PCM. WAV was developed by Microsoft as a way to rip CDs.

 

[Noodles]

Becky is wrong. CDs are not encoded in WAV but PCM. WAV was developed by Microsoft as a way to rip CDs.

WAV is basically used as a wrapper or container for LPCM formatted audio, so you could say CDs are both. If you open a CD in Windows, all the files be .WAV files.

This from this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WAV

"The WAV file is an instance of a Resource Interchange File Format (RIFF) defined by IBM and Microsoft.[3] The RIFF format acts as a wrapper for various audio coding formats.

Though a WAV file can contain compressed audio, the most common WAV audio format is uncompressed audio in the linear pulse-code modulation (LPCM) format. LPCM is also the standard audio coding format for audio CDs, which store two-channel LPCM audio sampled at 44.1 kHz with 16 bits per sample. Since LPCM is uncompressed and retains all of the samples of an audio track, professional users or audio experts may use the WAV format with LPCM audio for maximum audio quality.[9] WAV files can also be edited and manipulated with relative ease using software."

 

[manicm]

WAV is basically used as a wrapper or container for LPCM formatted audio, so you could say CDs are both. If you open a CD in Windows, all the files be .WAV files.

This from this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WAV

"The WAV file is an instance of a Resource Interchange File Format (RIFF) defined by IBM and Microsoft.[3] The RIFF format acts as a wrapper for various audio coding formats.

Though a WAV file can contain compressed audio, the most common WAV audio format is uncompressed audio in the linear pulse-code modulation (LPCM) format. LPCM is also the standard audio coding format for audio CDs, which store two-channel LPCM audio sampled at 44.1 kHz with 16 bits per sample. Since LPCM is uncompressed and retains all of the samples of an audio track, professional users or audio experts may use the WAV format with LPCM audio for maximum audio quality.[9] WAV files can also be edited and manipulated with relative ease using software."

Not quite - this is from the same link you gave:

'Audio compact discs (CDs) do not use the WAV file format, using instead Red Book audio. The commonality is that audio CDs are encoded as uncompressed pulse-code modulation (PCM), which is one of the formats supported by WAV. WAV is a file format for a computer to use that cannot be understood by most CD players directly. To record WAV files to an Audio CD the file headers must be stripped, the contents must be transcoded if not already stored as PCM, and the PCM data written directly to the disc as individual tracks with zero-padding added to match the CD's sector size.

In order for PCM audio to be able to be burned to a CD, it should be in the 44.1 kHz, 16-bit stereo format.'

 

[Noodles]

Not quite - this is from the same link you gave:

'Audio compact discs (CDs) do not use the WAV file format, using instead Red Book audio. The commonality is that audio CDs are encoded as uncompressed pulse-code modulation (PCM), which is one of the formats supported by WAV. WAV is a file format for a computer to use that cannot be understood by most CD players directly. To record WAV files to an Audio CD the file headers must be stripped, the contents must be transcoded if not already stored as PCM, and the PCM data written directly to the disc as individual tracks with zero-padding added to match the CD's sector size.

In order for PCM audio to be able to be burned to a CD, it should be in the 44.1 kHz, 16-bit stereo format.'

Was going to look to confirm exactly what the file information on a CD is but, today my old but, previously reliable optical disk drive, has decided to retire from active service... However, after looking at my library in Foobar2000, It seems to me there might be some confusion between codec i.e. PCM and file type i.e. WAV.

 

[manicm]

Was going to look to confirm exactly what the file information on a CD is but, today my old but, previously reliable optical disk drive, has decided to retire from active service... However, after looking at my library in Foobar2000, It seems to me there might be some confusion between codec i.e. PCM and file type i.e. WAV.

No need to worry, you can still get external USB disc drives

 

[sktn77a]

High-resolution audio is the pinnacle for digital music fans, but what is it, how can you get it, and what kit do you need to listen to it?

High-resolution audio: everything you need to know : Read more

I suggest the author of the aforementioned article read the following, well thought out discussion of why Hi Res files (24/96, 24/192) are no better that 16/44 files.

24/192 Music Downloads are Very Silly Indeed

people.xiph.org

Sure, pretty much anything is better than the referred 160/320mbps lossy MP3 file format but that's not the issue.

 

[luca05]

I suggest the author of the aforementioned article read the following, well thought out discussion of why Hi Res files (24/96, 24/192) are no better that 16/44 files.

24/192 Music Downloads are Very Silly Indeed

people.xiph.org

Sure, pretty much anything is better than the referred 160/320mbps lossy MP3 file format but that's not the issue.

Hi sktn77a,
I totally agree that the issue is not what is better than MP3 files, but if Hi-Res files 24/96 - 24/192 are really necessary to listen to the best sound.
To delve deeper into the topic, these are the thoughts of two well-known engineers:

https://lavryengineering.com/pdfs/lavry-sampling-theory.pdf

https://www.meridian-audio.info/public/coding2%5b2520%5d.pdf