High-res audio: any questions (for Sony)?

[Joe Cox]

Mr Andy Madden, our reviews ed, is off to a little Q&A with Sony around high-res audio this afternoon... Anyone got any questions you want answered? We can force him to ask some difficult questions.

(Our backgrounder is here: high-res audio)

 

[Deleted member 2457]

Mr Andy Madden, our reviews ed, is off to a little Q&A with Sony around high-res audio this afternoon... Anyone got any questions you want answered? We can force him to ask some difficult questions.

(Our backgrounder is here: high-res audio)

Yeah, when are they going to start releasing some hi res Blu-rays? If they have already which ones?

:cheers:

 

[John Duncan]

"Have you ever ABXed a 320k file downres'ed from a 24/96 master in Foobar?"

 

[John Duncan]

"Have you ever ABXed a 320k file downres'ed from a 24/96 master in Foobar?"

Too forward?

 

[ID.]

Will Sony be doing anything to increase the availability and range of of hi-resolution music, e.g. through Sony Music?

 

[altruistic.lemon]

What is the difference between hi-res and CD quality files? Is it possible to hear differences? Many on this forum claim they cannot.

 

[MakkaPakka]

What can we expect from Sony's future download service? Will there be any minimum standards of dynamic range for example?

 

[MakkaPakka]

Will Sony be doing anything to increase the availability and range of of hi-resolution music, e.g. through Sony Music?

You're meant to read the article before asking questions :shame:

And earlier this year Sony, Warner and Universal announced that they will make their extensive music catalogues available to hi-res download services – all of which will be a real shot in the arm for fans of high-resolution audio in this country.

 

[BigH]

Yes will they doing doing a range of Blu Ray Audio discs as well?

Will all these high res. downloads be remastered and not have the loudness problems of many recent cd releases?

Will albums like Miles Davis - Complete Live at the Plugged Nickel 1965 be released in this format?

Another point is there any point of high res. formats on low res. recordings?

 

[Petherick]

Do Sony see a future for SACD?

 

[alienmango]

Is there any point when most recordings are part of the loudness war. Will they do anything to reverse this trend?

 

[Tear Drop]

most recordings are part of the loudness war

Hardly.

 

[byakuya83]

What does hi-res offer over current resolutions? I read somewhere that CD more than covers frequencies we can hear so am slightly confused. To a layman like me reading 'hi-res' would make me assume it's to the ears what blu-ray was to the eyes when comparing with DVD.

 

[Deleted member 2457]

What does hi-res offer over current resolutions? I read somewhere that CD more than covers frequencies we can hear so am slightly confused. To a layman like me reading 'hi-res' would make me assume it's to the ears what blu-ray was to the eyes when comparing with DVD.

Based on my experience with the Freddie Mercury concert, it is like you are there live. I know you get that feeling with other Blu-rays but with this everything is louder and better. You can really feel the drums and the guitars making loud noise. Just sounds cool.

 

[Native_bon]

What does hi-res offer over current resolutions? I read somewhere that CD more than covers frequencies we can hear so am slightly confused. To a layman like me reading 'hi-res' would make me assume it's to the ears what blu-ray was to the eyes when comparing with DVD.

Oh really if you cnt see the difference between dvd & blueray you must have a really bad TV or player.. Bad bad comparison.. :shame:

 

[BenLaw]

What does hi-res offer over current resolutions? I read somewhere that CD more than covers frequencies we can hear so am slightly confused. To a layman like me reading 'hi-res' would make me assume it's to the ears what blu-ray was to the eyes when comparing with DVD.

Oh really if you cnt see the difference between dvd & blueray you must have a really bad TV or player.. Bad bad comparison.. :shame:

That's the exact opposite of what he was saying.

 

[fr0g]

What does hi-res offer over current resolutions? I read somewhere that CD more than covers frequencies we can hear so am slightly confused. To a layman like me reading 'hi-res' would make me assume it's to the ears what blu-ray was to the eyes when comparing with DVD.

Oh really if you cnt see the difference between dvd & blueray you must have a really bad TV or player.. Bad bad comparison.. :shame:

That's the exact opposite of what he was saying.

Indeed.

And it always irritates me when people compare.

High res audio v CD res audio is more like comparing a 40 megapixel image to a 20 megapixel image, on a laptop screen.

ie, there is no difference, unless the source of the image is different.

 

[altruistic.lemon]

Incorrect. Enlarge a part of the image and you'll see a big difference.

 

[altruistic.lemon]

Nonsense. You look at dome of the great Renaissance artists who painted huge murals if not ceilings. Their pixel count, if you like, is way above the average digital camera, yet we, as viewers, can zoom in and see "high resolution" then zoom out and see the same "high resolution". For a sensible bloke you're talking boll*cks.

 

[fr0g]

...and enlarge the range of human hearing and you would hear a difference...

zooming in in this analogy is the same as reducing the bit depth in the audio. ie yes, if you halved a 16 bit audio file to 8 bit you would possibly hear it, just like you might see the difference if you halved the pixel density

the point being, 16 bit and a peak of 22 kHz is enough. As is 300 dpi. At those levels, any increase won't able you to see or hear any more...hd music is a ruse to make people buy...yet again...and it is helped by the underhand tactic of using a better source. Just as if someone used a high end dSLR to show you the 40Mp image, and a point and shoot for the 20...

Reverse that, use a good cam for even a 5 Mp image, and a camphone for a high res image, look at it on a computer screen, the smaller image will be better...

Use a good recording for a 128 kbps mp3 and a compressed one for a 192 32 recording... the mp3 will sound better

 

[BigH]

You can really feel the drums and the guitars making loud noise. Just sounds cool.

You said it.

 

[fr0g]

Nonsense. You look at dome of the great Renaissance artists who painted huge murals if not ceilings. Their pixel count, if you like, is way above the average digital camera, yet we, as viewers, can zoom in and see "high resolution" then zoom out and see the same "high resolution". For a sensible bloke you're talking boll*cks.

you aren't thinking logically al.

our hearing is the computer screen in the analogy. you cant just zoom in. We have our limits, and cd exceeds them.

 

[BigH]

I have compared 24 bit v 16 bit, although I'm not sure the mastering is exactly the same but assuming that it is then the main difference is the high notes, like cymbals are clearer. For an example on WiMP website there is a demo where you can hear what sounds are missing from a 16 bit from the 24 bit format. The differences are not great, I can understand why some can't pick them out in blind tests.

As for being louder that is to do with the mastering nothing to do with 24 bit, if its louder than it will have less dynamic range. I think it will benefit some music more than others, if its well recorded then I don't think there will be much difference but on tissy sounding records it may improve them.

 

[altruistic.lemon]

I have compared 24 bit v 16 bit, although I'm not sure the mastering is exactly the same but assuming that it is then the main difference is the high notes, like cymbals are clearer. For an example on WiMP website there is a demo where you can hear what sounds are missing from a 16 bit from the 24 bit format. The differences are not great, I can understand why some can't pick them out in blind tests.

As for being louder that is to do with the mastering nothing to do with 24 bit, if its louder than it will have less dynamic range. I think it will benefit some music more than others, if its well recorded then I don't think there will be much difference but on tissy sounding records it may improve them.

that's very much what I thought. There's a touch more focus, resolution if you like.

 

[Craig M.]

The only way to make a valid comparison is to downsample the 24/whatever to 16/44.1 yourself. As we saw with the Linn debacle, you really can't assume the different formats are from the same master.