The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Have the higher sampling rate and bit depths cured the digital monster? Virtual Instrument Plugins
Old 14th August 2014
  #271
Lives for gear
 
bogosort's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by PB+J View Post
I keep thinking about my own ABX test.

So I set up a project and recorded a brief hasty song at 96/24. Bounced one WAV file at 44.1/16, and a second at 96/24. Then I loaded them into ABX software. Could not tell the difference.

My converter and computer remained at 96/24 for the test. So here's the confusing part--the downsampled file should still show all the supposedly damaging effects of downsampling, even if played back at a sample, rate of 96--isn't that right? Downsampling would have removed information, and up sampling back at 96 would not have added that information back. So I'm thinking the abx test is still valid. Am I wrong here?
If your interface was set to 96 kHz, then your audio driver had to upsample the 44.1 kHz file in real time. Depending on the quality of the SRC this could have been a major disadvantage (differentiator) for the 44.1 kHz file. So if you still couldn't tell the difference (maybe your driver uses good SRC algorithm), there's no reason to blame the test setup. As you said, you can't add fidelity by upsampling -- you can only potentially remove fidelity.
Old 14th August 2014
  #272
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by bogosort View Post
If your interface was set to 96 kHz, then your audio driver had to upsample the 44.1 kHz file in real time. Depending on the quality of the SRC this could have been a major disadvantage (differentiator) for the 44.1 kHz file. So if you still couldn't tell the difference (maybe your driver uses good SRC algorithm), there's no reason to blame the test setup. As you said, you can't add fidelity by upsampling -- you can only potentially remove fidelity.
Ok, that's what I thought--if anything, upsampling should have made the 44.1 file sound worse.

Added: i just did it again, and while I think i hear a difference when i play the file I know to be the 96/24 file, I can't predictably find that file in the ABX test. I was right 60% once, then 40%, then 20%.

I'm again not a professional, and don't have a fully professional setup. And I'm 55, so I have considerable high frequency hearing loss. What seems most significant to me is that I THINK I hear a difference when i know which file is which, but I can't consistently find that difference in an ABX test. this is pretty much the essence of confirmation bias. Like everyone, I'm entirely subject to it.
Old 14th August 2014
  #273
Gear Maniac
 
Peakae's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post
I can't answer for everyone's setup but, yeah, there's no way on my Win 7, MOTU rig, using Foobar with its ABX add-in, that I can run an ABX.

If I set the MOTU to 44.1k, Windows sends it all 44.1. If I set it to 96, Windows upsamples to 96.

My DAW, Sonar 8.5, only allows one sample rate per project. If I import both files into a project set to either sample rate, the 'unlucky' file will get up- or down-sampled.


So, yeah, I can't think of a good software oriented way to do a direct SR ABX comparison here. I think you'd have to rig up a more formal hardware setup with multiple 'identical' converters and ABX hardware switching (and be careful to switch SR between the converters 'halfway' through your trial period to work around any possible differences in the hardware)... a BIG PITA.
In foobar2000 you can use ASIO drivers, but there is going to be a gab when your audio interface syncs to and from 44.1k and 96k.
And thanks for bringing this up, it had me take another look at foobar2000 to my horror i discovered that i had listened to 96k the last few month having its resampler plugin activated, listening to 44.1k
Kind of funny, me noticing that after reading thru this thread. ;-)
Old 15th August 2014
  #274
My MOTU 828mkII doesn't take instruction well. It won't switch between sample rates correctly unless you do it 'manually' through the driver's 'console' interface.

Using Foobar, it resamples to whatever the converter interface is set to -- the SR on the MOTU never changes.

In my DAW (Sonar 8.5), everything is jake as long as I manually set the SR through the ASIO panel before trying to do anything in a different rate -- otherwise, it gets super glitchy and slow; it will go through the motions but no playback comes out (or, if in record mode, no signal is recorded even though the red light is on and) even though it's rolling down the timeline.


PS... Looking ahead in time, let me just say that I couldn't do Ian's comparison because I don't have 192 capability with my 828mkII. = (
Old 15th August 2014
  #275
Lives for gear
 
IanBSC's Avatar
Has anybody listened to the 16/44 vs 24/192 files?
Old 15th August 2014
  #276
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by IanBSC View Post
Has anybody listened to the 16/44 vs 24/192 files?
Which files are you talking about Ian? I'll give it a try if you repost

Won't any listener have the same problem though--that is, they will be listening at a different sample rate, and their converter will either upsample or downsample on the fly?


I did my own test, and posted the files. Even when my converter was upsampling the 44.1 file to 96, I could not reliably tell them apart. I'm not a professional, but I am a semi professional, and I have better trained ears than the average Joe. If I can't hear the difference, is it worth worrying about? I'm concluding no.

Maybe someone with a better room, better monitors, with more high frequency hearing, would notice a difference. I doubt it: I think it's confirmation bias. And I think that because I tend to hear the 96/24 file as better, when I know it's the 96/24 file. But I can't identify it in blind tests.

I'd be happy to try your files.
Old 15th August 2014
  #277
Gear Guru
 
Brent Hahn's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by PB+J View Post
Won't any listener have the same problem though--that is, they will be listening at a different sample rate, and their converter will either upsample or downsample on the fly?
I don't know about "on the fly," but if I wanted to listen to them in PT I'd have to have them in two separate sessions. Can't exactly zip back and forth.
Old 15th August 2014
  #278
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brent Hahn View Post
I don't know about "on the fly," but if I wanted to listen to them in PT I'd have to have them in two separate sessions. Can't exactly zip back and forth.
right but then you can't do a blind test
Old 15th August 2014
  #279
Lives for gear
 
bogosort's Avatar
Unfortunately the only way to ABX two different sample rates without an enormously complicated physical setup, is to SRC one of the files to the rate of the other. In this case it would make sense to upsample the 44.1 file to 192. While this has the potential for spoiling the test with SRC artifacts, a high-quality SRC algorithm should be transparent.

This site lets you compare SRC algos: SRC Comparisons

The free Sox program with max quality, min phase is a good candidate.
Old 15th August 2014
  #280
As I mentioned elsewhere to PB+J, a potentially superior approach to allowing the downsampled version to be automatically upsampled on the fly by the OS's audio layer would be to do an offline upsample of the previously downsampled 96kHz file so they could be compared directly in ABX software running on 96 kHz files. This approach would remove the OS's realtime upsampling but substitute the (hopefully) higher quality offline upsampling.

So, like the on-the-fly approach, it would still put an extra burden on the 'low rez' test material, but it would presumably be a slightly lighter burden (assuming one's choice of SRC software provided superior up- and down- sampling performance to the OS's built in routines.

It wouldn't provide a truly 'fair' playing field -- the downsampled-to-44.1-then-upsampled file would always have the greater burden of the two sample rate conversions -- but without a proper ABX gear testing rig (with all the blinded physical switching, etc) it's hard to come up with any other adequate test strategies.

Unfortunately, while significant negative results (inability to differentiate) in such a test should be quite persuasive for the 44.1-is-sufficient argument, significant positive results would unavoidably still include the possibility that the audible 'damage' was done in the down- and then up- sampling -- or from a combination of the lower rez format and the SRC's.
Old 15th August 2014
  #281
Lives for gear
 
IanBSC's Avatar
I posted this dropbox link on page 8. The files were too big to attach directly.


Quote:
Originally Posted by IanBSC View Post
Here are a 16 bit and a 24/192 version of something I recorded for another thread. Both were recorded with a Prism Orpheus at 24/192, a couple DPA 4011s in XY through a Pacifica. No processing, so they are not loud.

This is not the complete picture as they both come from the same source file. I'm not able to record 16/44 and 24/192 in parallel with the same converters from the same sound source.

Ok, here we go:

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/eq13jcubd...P9g7Pg09SGLdRa
Old 15th August 2014
  #282
Lives for gear
 
IanBSC's Avatar
Any SRC is going to alter the sound. In the past I have used gear and software that upsampled 44.1 to 192, and it definitely changed the sound. I would say in some ways the audio is harmed (slightly) and in others it sounds a little better. Keep in mind, when you upsample or downsample you are getting a different filter response from your dac. To me upsampled 44.1 files do sound more like 96 or 192, and also sloppier.
Old 15th August 2014
  #283
Quote:
Originally Posted by IanBSC View Post
Any SRC is going to alter the sound. In the past I have used gear and software that upsampled 44.1 to 192, and it definitely changed the sound. I would say in some ways the audio is harmed (slightly) and in others it sounds a little better. Keep in mind, when you upsample or downsample you are getting a different filter response from your dac. To me upsampled 44.1 files do sound more like 96 or 192, and also sloppier.
But, of course, the 'burden' is on the doubly resampled file. So, IF (big if) test subjects can't differentiate with statistical significance between the original 96 kHz file and the same source file downsampled to 44.1 and then upsampled back up to 96, it would be quite reasonable to suggest that that test subject could hear no significant difference.

IF we performed that on enough test subjects from the general population across a carefully selected range of material we were sure contained actual 'better-than-CD' content, we might be able to begin to come to some conclusions about the general populations ability to discern such differences.

(Or, conversely, we could use only trained listeners in the hope that they would provide a test of the 'upper range of listeners' -- but there are some not necessarily verifiable assumptions implicit there, first, of course, no guarantee those trained listeners actually have better or more refined perceptual abilities than others from the general population.)

Which kind of gets us back to Meyer-Moran, a relatively formal, large set of tests of commercially available 'high rez' material in the form of SACD releases where, in hundreds of tests, both trained listeners (recording sector folks and audiophiles) as well as some lay listeners were, with high statistical significance, unable to differentiate the SACD releases straight from the player from the same signal passing through an ADC/DAC operating at 44.1/16.

As others have noted, it was not an ideal test in an experimental lab setting and may well have been compromised in the case of at least one test item (an SACD from Norah Jones, as reported by another poster in this thread) by the record industry's amusing tactic of releasing plain-old CD-quality material in an 'elevated' format.

But until there is at least an equal body of well-vetted experimental data arguing against its (very limited) conclusions, it appears Meyer-Moran stands as one of the better bodies of available information on the issue of audibility of 'improvement' between CD audio and 'high resolution' audio releases.
Old 15th August 2014
  #284
Lives for gear
 
IanBSC's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post
But, of course, the 'burden' is on the doubly resampled file. So, IF (big if) test subjects can't differentiate with statistical significance between the original 96 kHz file and the same source file downsampled to 44.1 and then upsampled back up to 96, it would be quite reasonable to suggest that that test subject could hear no significant difference.
I think what that result would establish that the conversion process is fairly transparent and perhaps that sample rate is as important for DAC performance as it is in ADC, but less so in storage. A 96-44-96 file would lose ultra hf content and perhaps gain artifacts, but would have benefited (to my mind) from both decimation and reconstruction stages using high bandwidth filters.

A personal anecdote was listening to some recent Pink Floyd CD remasters through an NOS (no digital filtering or oversampling) audiophile dac. The remasters were done on DSD without digital filtering and despite some loss of resolution had a very similar sound quality coming out of the NOS dac, despite the conversion to 44.1. When I switched in the standard filter the conversion became more noticable.
Old 15th August 2014
  #285
Motown legend
 
Bob Olhsson's Avatar
 

Your D to A converter is almost always doing an on the fly sample rate conversion up exactly like your A to D is doing one down. This always comes down to the quality of the conversion filters and how many conversions are performed. That's always different with different converters and different software.

Last edited by Bob Olhsson; 15th August 2014 at 07:37 PM.. Reason: added almost
Old 20th August 2014
  #286
Lives for gear
 
Ephi82's Avatar
 

If only to keep this thread going..........

I just acquired a Blu Ray audio only disc of the Who's Quadrophenia. Note that this recording obviously went to tape originally. I dont know if it was 16 or 24 track, but in 1973, perhaps 2" 16? I dont know.

What is really interesting is that they have set it up so that you can very quickly and easily compare a specific track in three modes: 1) The 1973 Stereo versions (as they call it) at 16/44.1, which I assume is what was used for CD release 2) A modern master PCM at 24/96khz and 3) a 5.1 mix with DTS Master or Dolby HD. 24/96khz

Here is what I hear, but obviously cannot "prove" from a statistical/technical point of view:

1) The 1973 version sounds very good, just as I remember it played on a friends very high end system with the source being vinyl on a turntable. This back in the mid 70's.

Powerful sounds, great mix, and ,after listening to the more modern versions, not unpleasantly, rounded top end.

2) The 24/96khz PCM version simply has much more detailed sound, without being harsh. I wont tell you its because of the sampling rate or bit depth, because I cant prove it is, but the difference is real and right there to my ears.

There is another level of detail/complexity in the "tone" of the sound of Townshend's guitar and amp here that is simply not there in the 16/44.1 master .

As a guitarist, I know when a recording "gets" the slightly honky sound in a clean guitar tone. There is very little of this in the 44.1 version, but it's like you are standing with Pete in front of the amp in the PCM version.

The cymbal crashes simply sound more like you are in the room.

These are just two examples.

Again, the differences I hear could be from causes other than bit depth and sampling rates
( modern boards, processing, AD/DA??????), but I suspect that the higher quality analog recordings of old, benefit the most from transfers from analog masters to hi res digital formats.

3) The 5.1 mixes, by Bob Pridden (The Who's longtime live FOH mixer) are very,very good. However, they are somewhat overshadowed by what Townshend did with the 5.1 mix for Tommy.
Old 20th August 2014
  #287
Lives for gear
 
tedtan's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ephi82 View Post
Again, the differences I hear could be from causes other than bit depth and sampling rates
( modern boards, processing, AD/DA??????)
Not to bust your chops, but a different mix and a different mastering job than the 16/44 track, perhaps?
Old 20th August 2014
  #288
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tedtan View Post
Not to bust your chops, but a different mix and a different mastering job than the 16/44 track, perhaps?
Yes. If it is being called a "modern" mastering, I would say the assumption would be "different mastering job" until proven otherwise. It is highly unlikely that their "goal" in doing a new master many years (decades?) after the first transfer was to provide US with a controlled 'comparison' of 96k vs 44.1 sample rates!

Even if their goal was NOT to improve on the sound, did they use the same converters as the original transfer? Same tape deck? Same alignment? Same outboard gear and settings? Were they running a test for us, or creating a commercial product to sell to Who fans who for the most part already have a copy of this same material?
Old 20th August 2014
  #289
Lives for gear
 
Ephi82's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tedtan View Post
Not to bust your chops, but a different mix and a different mastering job than the 16/44 track, perhaps?
Ahhhh Haaaa!

Finally, a retort to all the pedantic ****e about why a 24/96khz mix/master cant sound appreciably better to "the consumer" than a redbook CD.

My goal as a consumer is to get the best sounding version of whatever music I love!

I dont give a crap why it sounds better, I just care that it does!!!!!

As a sound engineer, wouldnt you love to take one of your favorite oldies and mix or master. enjoying the benefits on 24/96khz? (hell, I would if I had the source tapes/equipment)

How about NOT having to have your modern sessions subjected to a recorded output that has two goals: Maximum loudness and a good sound through $5.99 earbuds?

You know, I am an avid home recordist, but I would HATE having to be an audio engineer these days.

By what I read here, no one really gives a **** about any creativity and quality in the sounds you record. Seems like no one cares to get the quality better. Very sad.......
Old 21st August 2014
  #290
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ephi82 View Post

You know, I am an avid home recordist, but I would HATE having to be an audio engineer these days.

By what I read here, no one really gives a **** about any creativity and quality in the sounds you record. Seems like no one cares to get the quality better. Very sad.......
audio engineers do care about getting the quality better

that's why they get upset when people latch on to marketing hoo-hah that only claims to make the quality better when they know enough about the subject to say it's not a blindfold difference.

Of all the things you can do to get a better master - taking more care in the setup of the analog decks, using better converters, having better outboard in the chain, having a more competent ME twisting the knobs on that outboard, increasing the sampling rate surely has the smallest impact.
Old 21st August 2014
  #291
Lives for gear
 
Ephi82's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq View Post
audio engineers do care about getting the quality better

that's why they get upset when people latch on to marketing hoo-hah that only claims to make the quality better when they know enough about the subject to say it's not a blindfold difference.

Of all the things you can do to get a better master - taking more care in the setup of the analog decks, using better converters, having better outboard in the chain, having a more competent ME twisting the knobs on that outboard, increasing the sampling rate surely has the smallest impact.
That is my point.

I have hi res music that is vastly superior to redbook cd. I also have some that is not. It's probably not completely hi res that makes the difference.

No one cares about hi res recorded music because no one is making the argument that talented engineers and better equipment, working with great source material CAN put out out hi res recordings that sound better than your average mp3 or cd.

Why would pros like you say there's no difference between cd and 24/96 sampling rates when most of you work at 24/96 and archive at same?

Of course there is a difference, PROVIDED that the source material is created to take full advantage of the hi res format by the recordists.

What you don't seem to understand is that your passionate music loving audience, your consumers, only care that the music sounds better. Sampling rates and technical yada yada yada is meaningless.

Tickle my ears, spark my imagination, let me hear a little speaker break up in Townshends guitar tone.
Old 21st August 2014
  #292
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ephi82 View Post

Why would pros like you say there's no difference between cd and 24/96 sampling rates when most of you work at 24/96 and archive at same?
.
you keep saying people say that, but of course no one has

what people have said is that as a delivery format for mixed and mastered material, 16/44.1 is either "indistinguishable" from 96k, or at the very best, "difficult to distinguish". To the point where even experts who "can" do it, admit they are struggling, that they are listening for tiny little "tells" in reverb tails or whatever.

Of course people track and work at the higher rates. Some of them may actually hear a difference as well as derive comfort from it, I don't know. But the idea that your finished mix "collapses" when you downsample it is, at the very least, debatable to the point where the burden of proof is on the claimant.

my position is that the fact there IS "debate" about audibility, means the difference cannot be as great as the Digital Monster crowd says it is.

Quote:
No one cares about hi res recorded music because no one is making the argument that talented engineers and better equipment, working with great source material CAN put out out hi res recordings that sound better than your average mp3 or cd.
do not lump mp3 and CD together - they are much farther apart than 44.1 and 96.

talented engineers doing all those things will put out better regular-res recordings. Doing all those things at 96k is at best the thinnest of icing on the cake.

why did DVD-A and SACD flop? Because nobody was really impacted by a huge difference.
Old 21st August 2014
  #293
Lives for gear
 
IanBSC's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq View Post
To the point where even experts who "can" do it,
why did DVD-A and SACD flop? Because nobody was really impacted by a huge difference.
And just how many music consumers have you met that ever HEARD of either format? I mean, probably a majority of engineers I have encountered didn't know of them. Seriously, if you were in a music/record shop and asked random person if they knew what SACD or DVD-A were, and if they had heard either, how many people would be able to answer yes? I would say somewhere near zero.

The formats flopped because they were in competition with each other, had very little advertisement or promotion (unlike say, blu ray), required dedicated players, lacked popular releases, and because downloadable music was replacing discs. Perhaps the production aesthetic for mainstream music at the time did not favor fidelity either, making hi res pointless for much commercial music.

But let me say again, how can you claim that DVD-A and SACD failed because of sound quality when public awareness and exposure to them was almost nonexistent? I don't know what basis you have for making that claim. I for one, and many people I know, where hugely impacted by the sound quality of SACD. DVD-A, less so. Aside from Meyer-Moran, who is claiming the difference with DSD from a native or analog master is small? Where are the voices clambering after having heard a DSD recording that it was a hoax?

To my ears the DSD recorders we have used over the years have almost perfectly captured 2" mixes and direct stereo mic feeds where PCM conversion (Prism, Cranesong, Apogee, Burl) was always audible as a hardening and flattening of the soundstage. It's astounding really, to not be able to tell whether you are listening to a live signal or playback. It only happens for my ears with DSD. I digress...

And as far as CD vs MP3 to CD vs 24/96, I would say if your MP3 (or MP4) is above 256kb the difference between 24/96 is greater.
Old 21st August 2014
  #294
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ephi82 View Post
That is my point.

I have hi res music that is vastly superior to redbook cd. I also have some that is not. It's probably not completely hi res that makes the difference.
Indications are that when it comes to a delivery format, the difference is not the capabilities of hi res AT ALL, rather it is perceived expectations of the people who are viewed as the buyers of high res.

Quote:
4 A NOTE ON HIGH-RESOLUTION RECORDINGS
Though our tests failed to substantiate the claimed advantages of high-resolution encoding for two-channel audio, one trend became obvious very quickly and held up throughout our testing: virtually all of the SACD and DVD-A recordings sounded better than most CDs— sometimes much better. Had we not“degraded”the sound to CD quality and blind-tested for audible differences, we would have been tempted to ascribe this sonic superiority to the recording processes used to make them.
Plausible reasons for the remarkable sound quality of these recordings emerged in discussions with some of the engineers currently working on such projects. This portion of the business is a niche market in which the end users are preselected, both for their aural acuity and for their willingness to buy expensive equipment, set it up correctly, and listen carefully in a low-noise environment.
Partly because these recordings have not captured a large portion of the consumer market for music, engineers and producers are being given the freedom to produce recordings that sound as good as they can make them, without having to compress or equalize the signal to suit lesser systems and casual listening conditions. These recordings seem to have been made with great care and manifest affection, by engineers trying to please themselves and their peers. They sound like it, label after label. High-resolution audio discs do not have the overwhelming majority of the program material crammed into the top 20(or even 10) dB of the available dynamic range, as so many CDs today do.
Our test results indicate that all of these recordings could be released on conventional CDs with no audible difference. They would not, however, find such a reliable conduit to the homes of those with the systems and listening habits to appreciate them. The secret, for two-channel recordings at least, seems to lie not in the high-bit recording but in the high-bit market.
From http://www.drewdaniels.com/audible.pdf
Old 21st August 2014
  #295
Lives for gear
 
Ephi82's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Hodgson View Post
Indications are that when it comes to a delivery format, the difference is not the capabilities of hi res AT ALL, rather it is perceived expectations of the people who are viewed as the buyers of high res.



From http://www.drewdaniels.com/audible.pdf
Yes, now we are getting somewhere!

The Drew Daniels article seems to confirm what I have been saying.

There have been some really terrific sounding records that have been released in hi res formats that sound appreciably better than prior cd versions.

It makes sense that the majority of the the reason why they sound qualitatively better is the production and engineering behind the new releases.

"engineers and producers are being given the freedom to produce recordings that sound as good as they can make them, without having to compress or equalize the signal to suit lesser systems and casual listening conditions. These recordings seem to have been made with great care and manifest affection, by engineers trying to please themselves and their peers."

Based on all the available evidence, a higher sample rate end product probably makes a very small contribution to the perceived sound improvement.

As IanBSC points out, 99% of consumers never had the opportunity to hear music releases on SACD/DVD-A in a way that allowed the consumer to appreciate them.

Finally, very few people have had the opportunity to hear something that "Hi Res" formats deliver that CD's cant: Tasteful 5.1 mixes.
Old 21st August 2014
  #296
Lives for gear
 
archfrenemy's Avatar
 

I would say that improved conversion is what tames the digital monster. Today's lower cost interfaces are so far beyond those of 15 years ago that it has drastically improved the quality that modest digital studios are capable of. A mid-grade interface is perfectly capable of delivering professional results these days (especially if used in conjunction with a high quality D/A converter for monitoring). Yes, there are advantages in premium converters and clocks like openness, crispness, high frequency reproduction, low frequency tightness, less smear in the mids, stereo separation, etc... But those differences are much more evident to trained ears.

Today's mid-range converters are much less grainy, cold and harsh sounding. They provide more detail, harmonics, warmth and clarity. Better conversion also means better ITB plugin results, mixing and monitoring. If the music / performance / engineering are good, then the consumer won't care if your converter is "world class" like Lavry / Prism or just "great" like many of today's mid-priced units... It is only going to get better. I just hope that manufacturers shift some focus back toward quality analog stage components, and away from built in plugins / processing.
Old 21st August 2014
  #297
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ephi82 View Post
Yes, now we are getting somewhere!

The Drew Daniels article seems to confirm what I have been saying.

There have been some really terrific sounding records that have been released in hi res formats that sound appreciably better than prior cd versions.

It makes sense that the majority of the the reason why they sound qualitatively better is the production and engineering behind the new releases.

"engineers and producers are being given the freedom to produce recordings that sound as good as they can make them, without having to compress or equalize the signal to suit lesser systems and casual listening conditions. These recordings seem to have been made with great care and manifest affection, by engineers trying to please themselves and their peers."

Based on all the available evidence, a higher sample rate end product probably makes a very small contribution to the perceived sound improvement.
From the available evidence, it seems it probably makes NO contribution, NONE, ZERO, NADA, NIL

The difference, on both ends of the chain, is psychological.

"audiophiles" buy "Hi Res" because they believe it inherently sounds better.

audio creators (audio engineers, producers, the marketing guys telling them what to do etc) believe that the people who buy "Hi Res" WANT stuff with good dynamic range, great clarity etc, and will be listening to it on systems and in an environment where they will appreciate, so they mix and master with that in mind.
Quote:
Finally, very few people have had the opportunity to hear something that "Hi Res" formats deliver that CD's cant: Tasteful 5.1 mixes.
Which has nothing to do with being "Hi Res", it has to do with having more than 2 channels.
Old 21st August 2014
  #298
Motown legend
 
Bob Olhsson's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by IanBSC View Post
...The formats flopped because they were in competition with each other, had very little advertisement or promotion (unlike say, blu ray), required dedicated players, lacked popular releases, and because downloadable music was replacing discs...
I know you've read this myth that was created by the consumer electronics industry to explain the failure to their stockholders but the truth is that SACD won.

We have Napster to thank for the manufacturing plants never being completed because the major labels were watching the bottom fall out of CD sales in every community shortly after broadband became available in each. Music looting had massive consequences almost immediately that most people aren't aware of.
Old 21st August 2014
  #299
Lives for gear
 
Ephi82's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Hodgson View Post
From the available evidence, it seems it probably makes NO contribution, NONE, ZERO, NADA, NIL

The difference, on both ends of the chain, is psychological.

"audiophiles" buy "Hi Res" because they believe it inherently sounds better.

audio creators (audio engineers, producers, the marketing guys telling them what to do etc) believe that the people who buy "Hi Res" WANT stuff with good dynamic range, great clarity etc, and will be listening to it on systems and in an environment where they will appreciate, so they mix and master with that in mind.

Which has nothing to do with being "Hi Res", it has to do with having more than 2 channels.
Thanks for lecturing me! Just to know, you underestimate me.

What is "psychological" about audiophiles (I prefer "consumers of high quality audio") wanting "stuff with good dynamic range, great clarity etc," ?

Those are REAL things that can be perceived in great recordings, that unfortunately are more often delivered in Hi Res formats and not on CD's (particularly with non classical and non jazz music)

Most "audiophiles" dont buy Hi Res because it's Hi Res, they buy it because it sounds better! That's why I still buy selected hi res recordings.

As to 5.1, as far as I know, you cant buy a redbook CD that plays back that format.

One of my arguments "for" the value of an alternative, high quality format to cd IS precisely the availability of 5.1 presentations.
Old 21st August 2014
  #300
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ephi82 View Post
Thanks for lecturing me! Just to know, you underestimate me.
In what way?
Quote:
What is "psychological" about audiophiles (I prefer "consumers of high quality audio") wanting "stuff with good dynamic range, great clarity etc," ?
What is psychological about wanting?
Do I really need to answer that?
Quote:
Those are REAL things that can be perceived in great recordings, that unfortunately are more often delivered in Hi Res formats and not on CD's (particularly with non classical and non jazz music)
Yes, but evidence indicates that this has NOTHING to do with realities of the format, and EVERYTHING to do with the production.

I'm not arguing that the recordings aren't great, I'm saying that indications are that this has nothing to do with technical advantages of the format, neither the wider bandwidth nor the lower quantization noise, but is simply down to the perceived demographic of the customers and the effect this has on production decisions.

Take one of those great sounding DVD-A or Super Audio CD mixes and put it on a CD, and it will sound just as great.
Quote:
Most "audiophiles" dont buy Hi Res because it's Hi Res, they buy it because it sounds better! That's why I still buy selected hi res recordings.

As to 5.1, as far as I know, you cant buy a redbook CD that plays back that format.
Did I say otherwise? Once again though, the advantage (having six channels) has nothing to do with the other difference (more bits per channel), which is the "Hi Res" part

DVDA allows for multiple channels AND it also allows for "Hi Res", they are two seperate things, you appear to be collating them in order to not let go of your belief that "Hi Res" has some audio advantage in itself.
Quote:
One of my arguments "for" the value of an alternative, high quality format to cd IS precisely the availability of 5.1 presentations.
This thread is about sample rates and word lengths, not number of channels.

You could also argue that an advantage of DVDA is capacity, so you can have several hours of red book quality audio on it instead of just 70 minutes. This would be correct, and would have nothing to do with "Hi Res".
Topic:
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump