Here's my take:
http://www.whathifi.com/blog/high-resolution-audio-clarity-or-confusion
What do you think?
http://www.whathifi.com/blog/high-resolution-audio-clarity-or-confusion
What do you think?
Andy Clough said:Here's my take:
http://www.whathifi.com/blog/high-resolution-audio-clarity-or-confusion
What do you think?
Andy Clough said:Here's my take:
http://www.whathifi.com/blog/high-resolution-audio-clarity-or-confusion
What do you think?
davedotco said:Secondly there seems to be a move in the music undustry to 'limit' CD quality, so that they can sell 'better' hi-res versions to more discerning listeners.
Overdose said:The focus for any recording should be on quality, the bit rate and resolution of files anything above the CD standard are simply not needed for complete and accurate playback of the recorded music.
hifikrazy said:Overdose said:The focus for any recording should be on quality, the bit rate and resolution of files anything above the CD standard are simply not needed for complete and accurate playback of the recorded music.
On what basis did you come to the conclusion that CD standard resolution is the highest resolution that is needed or is audible?
Is this the same as saying we don't need bluray when we have DVD, or we don't need 4K when bluray is "good enough"?
Andy Clough said:Here's my take:
http://www.whathifi.com/blog/high-resolution-audio-clarity-or-confusion
What do you think?
Andy Clough said:Here's my take:
http://www.whathifi.com/blog/high-resolution-audio-clarity-or-confusion
What do you think?
hifikrazy said:Overdose said:The focus for any recording should be on quality, the bit rate and resolution of files anything above the CD standard are simply not needed for complete and accurate playback of the recorded music.
On what basis did you come to the conclusion that CD standard resolution is the highest resolution that is needed or is audible?
Is this the same as saying we don't need bluray when we have DVD, or we don't need 4K when bluray is "good enough"?
CJSF said:...occasionally I find a digital offering that has been well recorded according to natures analogue hearing mechanism called ears . . .
andyjm said:Andy,
At the risk of taking you to task again, on what basis was this comment made - blind testing of the same master sampled at two different resolutions?
"As my colleague, magazine edtor Simon Lucas says in the August edition of What Hi-Fi? Sound and Vision: "What's not to like about digital music files so much bigger, packed with so much more information than CD equivalents? One listen to well-mastered high-res audio, in my experience, can make an evangelist out of a pragmatist."
I agree, Simon, I agree."
If you could reliably tell the difference between a 24/96 track and the same track downsampled to 16/44.1 in a blind test, then I may take this whole HiRes thing seriously. Until then, it is just marketing.
Overdose said:davedotco said:Secondly there seems to be a move in the music undustry to 'limit' CD quality, so that they can sell 'better' hi-res versions to more discerning listeners.
This is a very cynical viewpoint, but probably not too far from the truth.
I think that high res files though, are unlikely to be anything other than niche and particular to the enthusiast market. The tech savvy 'Beats' generation by and large, will either be uninterested or not sucked in.
Overdose said:In all honesty, I believe high resolution files to be another cynical way to charge more money for something. It is the media equivalent of 'high-end', where the implication is for higher quality, but the reality somewhat different.
The focus for any recording should be on quality, the bit rate and resolution of files anything above the CD standard are simply not needed for complete and accurate playback of the recorded music.
What's more, a downmixed high res. file to CD standard, will not differ in sound quality. Likewise, a lossless compression of the same file will result in exactly the same sound on playback and this continues for some, for files compressed down to 128Kbps.
With high res files, I see only downsides:
Higher cost with no tangible improvement in sound quality
Larger file size requiring more expensive storage options
I reiterate that high res is seen as another cash cow, requiring no extra work, merely uploading studio masters (no downmixing to CD required) to online servers. Exactly the same files used to make CDs in fact.
The best way to improve sound quality is for production engineers to be a bit more careful with the products that they create, but this does take time and therefore money, without the extra revenue that a higher resolution file size could generate.
Glacialpath said:Overdose said:In all honesty, I believe high resolution files to be another cynical way to charge more money for something. It is the media equivalent of 'high-end', where the implication is for higher quality, but the reality somewhat different.
The focus for any recording should be on quality, the bit rate and resolution of files anything above the CD standard are simply not needed for complete and accurate playback of the recorded music.
What's more, a downmixed high res. file to CD standard, will not differ in sound quality. Likewise, a lossless compression of the same file will result in exactly the same sound on playback and this continues for some, for files compressed down to 128Kbps.
With high res files, I see only downsides:
Higher cost with no tangible improvement in sound quality
Larger file size requiring more expensive storage options
I reiterate that high res is seen as another cash cow, requiring no extra work, merely uploading studio masters (no downmixing to CD required) to online servers. Exactly the same files used to make CDs in fact.
The best way to improve sound quality is for production engineers to be a bit more careful with the products that they create, but this does take time and therefore money, without the extra revenue that a higher resolution file size could generate.
If sound engineers are using top quality micraphones and know what they are doing then the mix of the audio should be easy. The mastering process that applies Limiting to the audio thus squashing the full dynamics of the audio is redicing the quality of the audio.
If the music/audio has been recorded a 44.1kHz which is the CD standard if I'm not wrong then any upscaling is just fake. However if the master that would be used to create a CD is uploaded but doesn't have any limiting applied to it then this will have a better soundstage than the CD version as it will have it's original full dynamic range making it the same a Vinyl but without the stylus noise.
If the music/audio has been recorded at 96kHz which is Blu-ray and above then to put that on CD you would have re sample it at 44.1kHz thus reducing the quality. So if it has been recorded in a higher res yet they have still applied so limiting to fit it ona certain format it will be a better quality than CD and even better if they haven't applied any limiting.
I'm guessing the way the industry is marketing Hi-Res audio is all wrong. If it's uncompressed like the PCM, DTS-HD Master and Dolby TrueHD formats then they should call it Uncompressed. I'm guessing it's not. If it's just CD resolution audio that hasn't been limited then they can't really call it Hi-Res unless the sample rate is bigger than 128kbps in which case it will be better than CD.
If people can't really hear the difference then there is no point in the industry doing it. After all you can't rerecord these old albums as they would sound nothing like the original and basically be a new album. If they make a hi-res copy of the audio (a little like scanning film in 2k or 4k but not exactly) then with out aplying any limiting it might sound better as long the the information is there to be extracted from the original source that older digitising techniques couldn't manage then you will have a better version of the audio than ever before.
Having siad that most people still won't hear the difference but physically there will be more information being output.
Glacialpath said:If it's just CD resolution audio that hasn't been limited then they can't really call it Hi-Res unless the sample rate is bigger than 128kbps in which case it will be better than CD.
Glacialpath said:If people can't really hear the difference then there is no point in the industry doing it. After all you can't rerecord these old albums as they would sound nothing like the original and basically be a new album. If they make a hi-res copy of the audio (a little like scanning film in 2k or 4k but not exactly) then with out aplying any limiting it might sound better as long the the information is there to be extracted from the original source that older digitising techniques couldn't manage then you will have a better version of the audio than ever before.
Having siad that most people still won't hear the difference but physically there will be more information being output.
hifikrazy said:Overdose said:The focus for any recording should be on quality, the bit rate and resolution of files anything above the CD standard are simply not needed for complete and accurate playback of the recorded music.
On what basis did you come to the conclusion that CD standard resolution is the highest resolution that is needed or is audible?
Is this the same as saying we don't need bluray when we have DVD, or we don't need 4K when bluray is "good enough"?
Glacialpath said:If sound engineers are using top quality micraphones and know what they are doing then the mix of the audio should be easy. The mastering process that applies Limiting to the audio thus squashing the full dynamics of the audio is redicing the quality of the audio.
Glacialpath said:If the music/audio has been recorded a 44.1kHz which is the CD standard if I'm not wrong then any upscaling is just fake. However if the master that would be used to create a CD is uploaded but doesn't have any limiting applied to it then this will have a better soundstage than the CD version as it will have it's original full dynamic range making it the same a Vinyl but without the stylus noise.
Glacialpath said:If the music/audio has been recorded at 96kHz which is Blu-ray and above then to put that on CD you would have re sample it at 44.1kHz thus reducing the quality. So if it has been recorded in a higher res yet they have still applied so limiting to fit it ona certain format it will be a better quality than CD and even better if they haven't applied any limiting.
Glacialpath said:I'm guessing the way the industry is marketing Hi-Res audio is all wrong. If it's uncompressed like the PCM, DTS-HD Master and Dolby TrueHD formats then they should call it Uncompressed. I'm guessing it's not. If it's just CD resolution audio that hasn't been limited then they can't really call it Hi-Res unless the sample rate is bigger than 128kbps in which case it will be better than CD.
Glacialpath said:If people can't really hear the difference then there is no point in the industry doing it. After all you can't rerecord these old albums as they would sound nothing like the original and basically be a new album. If they make a hi-res copy of the audio (a little like scanning film in 2k or 4k but not exactly) then with out aplying any limiting it might sound better as long the the information is there to be extracted from the original source that older digitising techniques couldn't manage then you will have a better version of the audio than ever before.
Having siad that most people still won't hear the difference but physically there will be more information being output.