Is High-Res that important? Sonos and Bose do not think so, nor do I! Will it fall by the wayside like SACD?
Edbo2 said:Is High-Res that important? Sonos and Bose do not think so, nor do I! Will it fall by the wayside like SACD?
BigH said:Edbo2 said:Is High-Res that important? Sonos and Bose do not think so, nor do I! Will it fall by the wayside like SACD?
I don't think its that important, if you convert a 24bit to 16bit I very much doubt you can hear any difference. Having said that some high res have been remastered to a better standard, so they maybe worth having. I don't think they will fall by the wayside as downloads are becoming more popular and for the record companies no doubt very cheap to produce and high profit margin as no middlemen or retailers costs.
Edbo2 said:Is High-Res that important? Sonos and Bose do not think so, nor do I! Will it fall by the wayside like SACD?
busb said:Edbo2 said:Is High-Res that important? Sonos and Bose do not think so, nor do I! Will it fall by the wayside like SACD?
I don't disbieve that so-called hi res often sounds better. However, I've seen lots of forum comments stating that they are from superior masters! If true, this is a very dishonest way of charging more. Why not make CDs (or equiv files) from these better masters & charge what it takes to produce bettert quality rather than hyping a possibly pointless medium with conseqent larger file sizes? I personally don't have enough experience to verify one way or another.
dAl ears said:And for your information SACD has fallen as much by the wayside as vinyl ;-)
busb said:Edbo2 said:Is High-Res that important? Sonos and Bose do not think so, nor do I! Will it fall by the wayside like SACD?
I don't disbieve that so-called hi res often sounds better. However, I've seen lots of forum comments stating that they are from superior masters! If true, this is a very dishonest way of charging more. Why not make CDs (or equiv files) from these better masters & charge what it takes to produce bettert quality rather than hyping a possibly pointless medium with conseqent larger file sizes? I personally don't have enough experience to verify one way or another.
blimey! Why don't they put a label on cd cover saying general use cd or something like that? So at least I know what not to buy? As I have decent hifi..abd have banged on a few times that well recorded cd is excellent!abacus said:For domestic Hi Fi use there is no reason to go above CD quality as there will be no improvement.
Studios use 24bit 96 kHz as it gives them headroom for mixing purposes, which Hi Fi users don’t do.
The mastering engineer has to make a CD compatible with all types of equipment, (Including the cheapo stuff which would have problems with high quality) so they can be dumbed down to suit.
Hi-res will only be used on high quality equipment and so can be left as is, hence Hi-res files can sometimes sound better as it uses the original master.
Hope this helps
Bill
Al ears said:busb said:Edbo2 said:Is High-Res that important? Sonos and Bose do not think so, nor do I! Will it fall by the wayside like SACD?
I don't disbieve that so-called hi res often sounds better. However, I've seen lots of forum comments stating that they are from superior masters! If true, this is a very dishonest way of charging more. Why not make CDs (or equiv files) from these better masters & charge what it takes to produce bettert quality rather than hyping a possibly pointless medium with conseqent larger file sizes? I personally don't have enough experience to verify one way or another.
Just how many takes do you think they make of a performance? Superior masters? , my behind. It's the usual cop-out of unbelievers.
Al ears said:Just how many takes do you think they make of a performance? Superior masters? , my behind. It's the usual cop-out of unbelievers.
andyjm said:Al ears said:Just how many takes do you think they make of a performance? Superior masters? , my behind. It's the usual cop-out of unbelievers.
The master will be mixed down from a multitrack - and multiple different mixes are possible without any further takes. Just some dude sitting down at a mixing desk. This is what happens when a 'remixed version' of a track becomes available, they don't exhume some long dead musician for another go at it.
The final mixed down master isn't the version that finds its way onto a CD however, and it certainly isn't the version that drives the cutting head on a vinyl lathe. The 'original master' will be further mixed (perhaps 'equalised' is a better term) to produce a CD master (have the life compressed out of it in the case of current CDs) or mangled to produce a 'cutting master' for vinyl.
So when different masters are discussed, it isn't that the track has been remixed to produce a different 'original master', it is just that the output of 'original master' has been mixed /equalised differently to produce 16/44.1 and 24/96 files. It is most likely that if there is a difference, 16/44.1 is generally mixed/equalised for an iDevice audience with greater compression, and 24/96 mixed/equalised for listening with dedicated equipment in a quieter environment.
So the best way to see if there really is an audible difference with HiRes is to start with a 24/96 file and then produce your own 16/44.1 file from it by downsampling using one of the many software packages available.
Comparing commercially available 24/96 tracks with the same track at 16/44.1 is meaningless unless you know for certain that it was produced by downsampling rather than fiddling with equalistaion / compression before being distributed.
spiny norman said:dAl ears said:And for your information SACD has fallen as much by the wayside as vinyl ;-)
Although DSD is making a comeback via sites such as Downloads NOW!
The_Lhc said:Al ears said:busb said:Edbo2 said:Is High-Res that important? Sonos and Bose do not think so, nor do I! Will it fall by the wayside like SACD?
I don't disbieve that so-called hi res often sounds better. However, I've seen lots of forum comments stating that they are from superior masters! If true, this is a very dishonest way of charging more. Why not make CDs (or equiv files) from these better masters & charge what it takes to produce bettert quality rather than hyping a possibly pointless medium with conseqent larger file sizes? I personally don't have enough experience to verify one way or another.
Just how many takes do you think they make of a performance? Superior masters? , my behind. It's the usual cop-out of unbelievers.
Jesus Al, wake up and Google the loudness war. Cds have massive dynamic compression added to make them sound louder. Many 24-bit audio files don't have this compression, so they sound different from the 16-bit version. This is known fact. Down sampling the 24-bit to 16-bit gives a file that sounds exactly the same.
The compression is done after the recording and production, they don't have to do multiple "takes".
Al ears said:I use them both along with Blue Coast music.
which Mahler recording were you listening to? I find Mahler especially good for critical listening..theres so much going on..and such beautiful music!Barbapapa said:Interesting and informative discussion, thanks for that.
Something which I thought of recently is why 24-bit might be useful. I agree that the difference between 16 and 24 bit with respect to dynamic range and detail would usually not be noticeable for normal (human) listeners. However, I do listen to quite a bit of classical music in which the dynamic range is quite large: Bruckner and Mahler for example have very quiet parts followed (sometimes immediately) by extremely loud moments. What I do is to turn down the volume during the fortissimo, and turn it up at the pianissimo. In some recordings the pianissimo has noticeable noise. I'd prefer a format that has sufficient headroom to allow zooming into quiet moments without drowning in noise, and also preserving the necessary details.
One might argue that I shouldn't listen in this way. However, I like to hear the detail in the pianissimo without going deaf during the fortissimo. A more compressed dynamic recording of course would not require this, but I find the dynamic range integral to the music: the build-up from soft to loud should have the steepness of the real performance.
To sum up: might the advantage of 24-bit not be found in being able to zoom in on the music? I find it a good thing that a recording allows one to do this.
Admittedly part of the noise-problem may simply be due to bad recordings; recent CD (16-bit) recordings tend to be 'cleaner' anyway. I should calculate what the effect of turning up the volume is with respect to perceivable bit-depth, but can't be bothered just now. *sorry2*
Barbapapa said:Interesting and informative discussion, thanks for that.
Something which I thought of recently is why 24-bit might be useful. I agree that the difference between 16 and 24 bit with respect to dynamic range and detail would usually not be noticeable for normal (human) listeners. However, I do listen to quite a bit of classical music in which the dynamic range is quite large: Bruckner and Mahler for example have very quiet parts followed (sometimes immediately) by extremely loud moments. What I do is to turn down the volume during the fortissimo, and turn it up at the pianissimo. In some recordings the pianissimo has noticeable noise. I'd prefer a format that has sufficient headroom to allow zooming into quiet moments without drowning in noise, and also preserving the necessary details.
One might argue that I shouldn't listen in this way. However, I like to hear the detail in the pianissimo without going deaf during the fortissimo. A more compressed dynamic recording of course would not require this, but I find the dynamic range integral to the music: the build-up from soft to loud should have the steepness of the real performance.
To sum up: might the advantage of 24-bit not be found in being able to zoom in on the music? I find it a good thing that a recording allows one to do this.
Admittedly part of the noise-problem may simply be due to bad recordings; recent CD (16-bit) recordings tend to be 'cleaner' anyway. I should calculate what the effect of turning up the volume is with respect to perceivable bit-depth, but can't be bothered just now. *sorry2*
Barbapapa said:Thanks for the clarification. Hence 16 bit should suffice for my needs as well. Good to know. Now how to find good recordings...
Try George szell Cleveland orchestra..mahler 4Barbapapa said:Thanks for the clarification. Hence 16 bit should suffice for my needs as well. Good to know. Now how to find good recordings...
keeper of the quays said:Try George szell Cleveland orchestra..mahler 4Barbapapa said:Thanks for the clarification. Hence 16 bit should suffice for my needs as well. Good to know. Now how to find good recordings...