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

[SiUK]

The same mastering could be done with the CD, but it isn't

It riles me even thinking about it, fr0g. What we could have had consistently vs the compressed c*** we have actually been given. 'Pound Shop Sound' is what it actually is a lot of the time. I detest the obsession by some to lower quality to 'what's good enough' for this reason. This is the inevitable outcome.

 

[davedotco]

There is absolutely no reason to bring science or mathematics into the process that brought your hi-fi and your enjoyment of it to it's present state.

It works for you, delivers what you want and there is absolutely no need to bring calculus into it.

Indeed

Absolutely indeed so long as you're also honest. Sadly lacking in the Hi-fi and music industry and surrounding media corps.

Why not a campaign against the loudness wars, instead of the pushing of unnecessary and misleading formats which bring nothing to the table; unless of course you're a shareholder of one of the aformentioned?

Yes, we're being honest... but thanks for checking!

It's clearly a subject of interest so we're talking about it. If we don't think something is good/better, then we say so, as we have always done with any product – that's what we do. And in our high-res audio guide we clearly say, if you can't hear a difference, then it's not for you. We'll keep reporting on developments as clearly many people are interested.

The "problem" for me is that 24/96 recordings ARE often better, but not because the format makes them so.

The same mastering could be done with the CD, but it isn't

That's where the dishonesty is.

Actually it is just marketing.

The music/record industry does not give a monkeys about the sound quality of it's output and, in the mainstream at least, never has. It sees a business opportunity and grabs it.

Mostly the 'audiophile' market is quite small and of little real interest to them, for years they are looking to sell more 'units' into the mass market and are looking for ways to 'add value', so they can charge more. Better SQ is not going to do it, 'extras' are, bonus tracks, video content, anything to generate interest in the mass market.

Now they have re-discovered the 'audiophile' market, producing 'better' quality at premium prices, they have no incentive to maximise the quality of their regular CD output, why bother when they can simply make a few small changes, rebadge as 24/96 and charge more money.

 

[fr0g]

There is absolutely no reason to bring science or mathematics into the process that brought your hi-fi and your enjoyment of it to it's present state.

It works for you, delivers what you want and there is absolutely no need to bring calculus into it.

Indeed

Absolutely indeed so long as you're also honest. Sadly lacking in the Hi-fi and music industry and surrounding media corps.

Why not a campaign against the loudness wars, instead of the pushing of unnecessary and misleading formats which bring nothing to the table; unless of course you're a shareholder of one of the aformentioned?

Yes, we're being honest... but thanks for checking!

It's clearly a subject of interest so we're talking about it. If we don't think something is good/better, then we say so, as we have always done with any product – that's what we do. And in our high-res audio guide we clearly say, if you can't hear a difference, then it's not for you. We'll keep reporting on developments as clearly many people are interested.

The "problem" for me is that 24/96 recordings ARE often better, but not because the format makes them so.

The same mastering could be done with the CD, but it isn't

That's where the dishonesty is.

Actually it is just marketing.

The music/record industry does not give a monkeys about the sound quality of it's output and, in the mainstream at least, never has. It sees a business opportunity and grabs it.

Mostly the 'audiophile' market is quite small and of little real interest to them, for years they are looking to sell more 'units' into the mass market and are looking for ways to 'add value', so they can charge more. Better SQ is not going to do it, 'extras' are, bonus tracks, video content, anything to generate interest in the mass market.

Now they have re-discovered the 'audiophile' market, producing 'better' quality at premium prices, they have no incentive to maximise the quality of their regular CD output, why bother when they can simply make a few small changes, rebadge as 24/96 and charge more money.

Totally agree.

Which is why I would rather one of my all-time most bought magazines concentrate on "outing" this shame, instead of fueling it.

We all want higher quality. It is already available, on CD. Yet I get a "If you can't hear the advantages of HD, don't use it"...totally and utterly missing the point

 

[altruistic.lemon]

Only audiophiles spend their money on foo - they know what they're getting into. Why be concerned how they spend their money?

Because it isn't only audiophiles. Most people in my situation have previously been led up the garden path by claims that certain things are better.

People trust advice from magazines such as this, and while (as stated above) they say "try for yourself"...People will often "not" hear a difference, but buy anyway because they feel shamed into it.

I challenge anyone to pass a blind test of a 24/96 recording compared to the same recording properly downsampled to 16/44.1. They won't.

And people are led up the garden path by claims from some minor speaker manufacturers that source doesn't matter. Yes, I'll take your challenge, but in a system of my choosing, Ok? Not that i don't trust your system of choice - but I don't.

 

[SiUK]

You are assuming that it will actually take off. It is more than possible that it could fall flat on its posterior orifice all by itself, without any extra help. That outcome wouldn't surprise me.

 

[steve_1979]

The "problem" for me is that 24/96 recordings ARE often better, but not because the format makes them so.

The same mastering could be done with the CD, but it isn't

That's where the dishonesty is.

Which is why I would rather one of my all-time most bought magazines concentrate on "outing" this shame, instead of fueling it.

We all want higher quality. It is already available, on CD. Yet I get a "If you can't hear the advantages of HD, don't use it"...totally and utterly missing the point

@ Joe Cox

Why doesn't WHF (or any of the other magazines) ever explain that the improved sound quality of 24 bit music is because it's been mastered to sound different which nothing to do with it being 24 bit?

 

[fr0g]

Only audiophiles spend their money on foo - they know what they're getting into. Why be concerned how they spend their money?

Because it isn't only audiophiles. Most people in my situation have previously been led up the garden path by claims that certain things are better.

People trust advice from magazines such as this, and while (as stated above) they say "try for yourself"...People will often "not" hear a difference, but buy anyway because they feel shamed into it.

I challenge anyone to pass a blind test of a 24/96 recording compared to the same recording properly downsampled to 16/44.1. They won't.

And people are led up the garden path by claims from some minor speaker manufacturers that source doesn't matter. Yes, I'll take your challenge, but in a system of my choosing, Ok? Not that i don't trust your system of choice - but I don't.

Don't look at me when you say that, I think source does matter. But if it"s a bit-perfect digital one into a competent dac with well made analogue outs, then it's pretty irrelevant.

Nor would I say use a particular system...nor would I say I couldn't improve on mine.

I trust few people in this industry, whether they try to sell me snake oil, or ineed over- simplify... but I do trust scientifically provable facts...

 

[alienmango]

Woo I remember doing Fourier Analysis back in kindergarten.... CD quality is enough...

Spend the money on speakers.