High resolution audio(not impressed)

[The_Lhc]

So the selling point of HD audio is that it can support a greater dynamic range but when given a greater dynamic range people complain about it? Extraordinary but somehow entirely unsurprising...

It's not relevant.

What isn't?

 

[The_Lhc]

When push comes to shove most people are used to the limited dynamic range of recorded music, so that is wuhat they prefer. Those that prefer the sound of LPs do anyway.

 

And yet most mainstream CDs are mastered with far less dynamic range than vinyl typically. Or do you deny the very existence of the loudness wars?

 

[Frank Harvey]

One of the reasons people are moving back to vinyl is because they prefer the sound over CD. This preference may be due to many reasons, and if it contributes to a more natural experience, dynamic range may well be one of those reasons.

 

[Al ears]

When push comes to shove most people are used to the limited dynamic range of recorded music, so that is wuhat they prefer. Those that prefer the sound of LPs do anyway.

And yet most mainstream CDs are mastered with far less dynamic range than vinyl typically. Or do you deny the very existence of the loudness wars?

Perhaps it's a good thing that I haven't heard any duff SACDs lately ;-)

 

[nopiano]

Hi,

Hifi News analyse the high resolution download spectrum and some files are resampled CD files, so you gain nothing. I think this is an invaluable service - allows you to gauge whether you are being ripped off.

Regards, Shadders.

I agree this is a very informative part of that mag. In fact, they seem to manage a high standard of measurement alongside some great reviewers, including the former WHF contributor, Andrew Everard.

I think some objective testing would enhance WHF.

 

[MajorFubar]

IMO, the whole music/radio/recording/Hi Fi industry made a big mistake in not offering adjustable amplitude compression in hardware, especially for cars where the background noise is even higher than at home.

IMO the 'mistake' they made was launching an audio format in 1983 which really was as good as most people will ever need. It was marketing suicide. Ok it took maybe 5-10 years to really get on-a-roll mating the mechanics of the technology with great-sounding ADCs [in the studio] and DACs [in domestic players] but having done so it was like "Right. What can we sell them now?". After various failed attempts to get us to buy into other technologies which didn't improve on CD, only MP3s ever took off in a very big way, because they sounded really good at high bitrates and were a million times better than lugging around a portable CD/MD player.

 

[ID.]

http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=18296

the conclusion of this is that differences can be heard, and one can learn how to listen for the differences, but the differences are pretty small.

considering how minor the differences are, I'd say that the quality of the recording/mastering still plays a bigger role in how good a recording will sound and just because something is high Rez is no signifier as to sound or recording quality. It becomes further muddled by the fact that there are multiple masters and it's not clear whether the hi Rez recording is from the best master around, and also the fact that some are just redbook recordings up sampled.

Personally ive come to the conclusion that it's not worth it for mere potential minor improvements that aren't guaranteed. Certainly not worth repurchasing things I already own. When given the option of a high resolution download for for new releases I have bought the high resolution version when it's not expensive.

 

[Jota180]

One of the reasons people are moving back to vinyl is because they prefer the sound over CD. This preference may be due to many reasons, and if it contributes to a more natural experience, dynamic range may well be one of those reasons.

But then that's not so much the media's fault but the decision to compress the music more.

 

[Jota180]

I agree with the Major. Even in long term tests very few people can tell the difference between cd and hi-res. then it's only sound engineers listening at high volumes. So Hi Res is a con. There have been complaints about some of the HD tracks remasters. If it has less volume then that means its less compressed which is generally a good thing (more dynamic range), to compare you need to set the volume at the same level.

Not according to this research:-

http://www.qmul.ac.uk/media/news/items/se/178407.html

2% above 50%. 50% is statistically random in guessing yes or no. It might be safe to assume a window of a few percent either side of 50% for randomness before making a claim that 52% proves something.

 

[Frank Harvey]

One of the reasons people are moving back to vinyl is because they prefer the sound over CD. This preference may be due to many reasons, and if it contributes to a more natural experience, dynamic range may well be one of those reasons.

But then that's not so much the media's fault but the decision to compress the music more.

But it is a fact though. There is no reason to bump up the level of recordings - everyone has a volume control!

 

[Blacksabbath25]

That's why I spend my money on a very good cdplayer come scad player I still think it's the way to go and I still get very good quality sound from CDs still and still like having a cd collection that I own .

 

[CnoEvil]

http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=18296

 

the conclusion of this is that differences can be heard, and one can learn how to listen for the differences, but the differences are pretty small. 

considering how minor the differences are, I'd say that the quality of the recording/mastering still plays a bigger role in how good a recording will sound and just because something is high Rez is no signifier as to sound or recording quality. It becomes further muddled by the fact that there are multiple masters and it's not clear whether the hi Rez recording is from the best master around, and also the fact that some are just redbook recordings up sampled. 

Personally ive come to the conclusion that it's not worth it for mere potential minor improvements that aren't guaranteed. Certainly not worth repurchasing things I already own. When given the option of a high resolution download for for new releases I have bought the high resolution version when it's not expensive. 

That is exactly the conclusion that I have arrived at. I have a good few 24 bit recordings that were given to me by Linn, when I bought my DS.

Give me good mastering any day of the week....a poorly mastered album doesn't magically improve in 24 bit.

 

[GustavAP]

http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=18296

the conclusion of this is that differences can be heard, and one can learn how to listen for the differences, but the differences are pretty small.

considering how minor the differences are, I'd say that the quality of the recording/mastering still plays a bigger role in how good a recording will sound and just because something is high Rez is no signifier as to sound or recording quality. It becomes further muddled by the fact that there are multiple masters and it's not clear whether the hi Rez recording is from the best master around, and also the fact that some are just redbook recordings up sampled.

Personally ive come to the conclusion that it's not worth it for mere potential minor improvements that aren't guaranteed. Certainly not worth repurchasing things I already own. When given the option of a high resolution download for for new releases I have bought the high resolution version when it's not expensive.

That is exactly the conclusion that I have arrived at. I have a good few 24 bit recordings that were given to me by Linn, when I bought my DS.

Give me good mastering any day of the week....a poorly mastered album doesn't magically improve in 24 bit.

Same here. Most of my 24 bit recordings are from a few purchases of new albums only available in either 320, or 24/48 and from a a free three month membership of B&W Society of Sounds, all other are ripped CD's. It doesn't disturb me to have Hi-Res recordings, altough I dobut I will engage in any comparison and go crazy.

 

[TomSawyer]

Sorry if you've already seen this.....

Hi-res is worse than CD

Digital show and tell

 

[andyjm]

Sorry if you've already seen this.....

Hi-res is worse than CD

Digital show and tell

I haven't seen these before (and I can't get the show and tell one to work) but the first link is excellent.

Thank you for posting.

 

[TomSawyer]

Sorry if you've already seen this.....

Hi-res is worse than CD

Digital show and tell

I haven't seen these before (and I can't get the show and tell one to work) but the first link is excellent.

Thank you for posting.

Hi Andy,

The show and tell one is very good in my opinion. It doesn't run in Internet Explorer but does in Chrome.

 

[TrevC]

When push comes to shove most people are used to the limited dynamic range of recorded music, so that is wuhat they prefer. Those that prefer the sound of LPs do anyway.

And yet most mainstream CDs are mastered with far less dynamic range than vinyl typically. Or do you deny the very existence of the loudness wars?

Vinyl is compressed because it has to be to avoid quiet sounds being lost in the noise and loud sounds overmodulating the groove, that is not the case with CD. The loudness war is nothing to do with any problem with the medium.

 

[mikkoV]

I agree that volume differences is the most annoying thing at hi-res music. I have playlist that has plenty of 16 bit and 24 bit tracks mixed. I scanned all tracks per-file in foobar2000 and added replay gain trying to make all tracks sound equally loud. Result was that hi-res files were still so quiet and other tracks much more louder. Really hope that someone has good tips to publish cause this is surely usual problem. Especially because it's almost impossible to get the whole playlist in hi-res unless you listen popular/commercial music. Does there always have to be hidden tracks that explodes volume?

 

[The_Lhc]

When push comes to shove most people are used to the limited dynamic range of recorded music, so that is wuhat they prefer. Those that prefer the sound of LPs do anyway.

 

And yet most mainstream CDs are mastered with far less dynamic range than vinyl typically. Or do you deny the very existence of the loudness wars?

 

Vinyl is compressed because it has to be to avoid quiet sounds being lost in the noise and loud sounds overmodulating the groove, that is not the case with CD. The loudness war is nothing to do with any problem with the medium.

I never said it did, you appear to have managed to take exactly the opposite meaning from my comments to that which I intended.

In fact my whole point is that CD is technically far superior to vinyl and yet CDs are frequently compressed to the point that the vinyl manages to offer a greater dynamic range than the CD version of the same album. You can't crush the DR up to 0db on vinyl, you can on CD and it happens more and more these days.

 

[The_Lhc]

I agree that volume differences is the most annoying thing at hi-res music. I have playlist that has plenty of 16 bit and 24 bit tracks mixed. I scanned all tracks per-file in foobar2000 and added replay gain trying to make all tracks sound equally loud. Result was that hi-res files were still so quiet and other tracks much more louder. Really hope that someone has good tips to publish cause this is surely usual problem. Especially because it's almost impossible to get the whole playlist in hi-res unless you listen popular/commercial music. Does there always have to be hidden tracks that explodes volume?

Volume difference is the whole (only) point of hi-res, despite it being a total red heron, if you don't like the fact that there's a bigger volume difference between the quiet bits and the loud bits in hi-res audio then stop buying it because that's the only "benefit" of hi-res.

 

[lindsayt]

When push comes to shove most people are used to the limited dynamic range of recorded music, so that is wuhat they prefer. Those that prefer the sound of LPs do anyway.

And yet most mainstream CDs are mastered with far less dynamic range than vinyl typically. Or do you deny the very existence of the loudness wars?

Vinyl is compressed because it has to be to avoid quiet sounds being lost in the noise and loud sounds overmodulating the groove, that is not the case with CD. The loudness war is nothing to do with any problem with the medium.

I never said it did, you appear to have managed to take exactly the opposite meaning from my comments to that which I intended.

In fact my whole point is that CD is technically far superior to vinyl and yet CDs are frequently compressed to the point that the vinyl manages to offer a greater dynamic range than the CD version of the same album. You can't crush the DR up to 0db on vinyl, you can on CD and it happens more and more these days.

It's impossible for me to say that CD is technically better than vinyl.

Simply because I have never heard a CD that has sounded better than the same album or single on vinyl.

I have however heard a few albums that have been worse on CD than vinyl.

My simple question to the CD format is: if you're better than vinyl, show me.

It's the same with High Res. If you're better than CD, show me.

 

[davedotco]

Agreed. If CD can be, and is so much better than vinyl, and if 16/44 is all our ears need, then why aren't we getting CDs with the same quality as The Doors' hi-res L.A. Woman on CD? I have a few hi-res albums that sound stunning (and more on par with vinyl), so why isn't this possible on CD, particularly if people are downsampling SACDs to CD quality and not able to tell the difference?

For info purposes, I'm progressing with the research I mentioned earlier, I just have a few more questions before I post anything up.

You really don't get it do you?

The record industry has no interest in producing top quality recordings at cd standard (even though it is perfectly capable of doing so) when it is part of their established business model to make dumb enthusiasts pay more for 'superior' or 'hi-res' versions of music that you have already paid good money to own.

It has been going on for ages, the industry will scam you anyway it can, 'remastered' albums made to sound louder by compressing the f**k out of them, hi-res downloads that have been upsampled from CD masters and whatever else they think they can get away with.

As far as the 'general public' is concerned the sound quality is irrelevant, few people actually 'listen' to the music anymore, it is simply part of a lifestyle. Contrast this situation with the generally outstanding quality of modern classical releases if you are unconvinced.

 

[The_Lhc]

Agreed. If CD can be, and is so much better than vinyl, and if 16/44 is all our ears need, then why aren't we getting CDs with the same quality as The Doors' hi-res L.A. Woman on CD? I have a few hi-res albums that sound stunning (and more on par with vinyl), so why isn't this possible on CD, particularly if people are downsampling SACDs to CD quality and not able to tell the difference?

For info purposes, I'm progressing with the research I mentioned earlier, I just have a few more questions before I post anything up.

You really don't get it do you?

The record industry has no interest in producing top quality recordings at cd standard (even though it is perfectly capable of doing so) when it is part of their established business model to make dumb enthusiasts pay more for 'superior' or 'hi-res' versions of music that you have already paid good money to own.

It has been going on for ages, the industry will scam you anyway it can, 'remastered' albums made to sound louder by compressing the f**k out of them, hi-res downloads that have been upsampled from CD masters and whatever else they think they can get away with.

As far as the 'general public' is concerned the sound quality is irrelevant, few people actually 'listen' to the music anymore, it is simply part of a lifestyle. Contrast this situation with the generally outstanding quality of modern classical releases if you are unconvinced.

Exactly, this comment:

It's impossible for me to say that CD is technically better than vinyl.

does not even address the same point as:

Simply because I have never heard a CD that has sounded better than the same album or single on vinyl.

this does.

 

[BigH]

Agreed. If CD can be, and is so much better than vinyl, and if 16/44 is all our ears need, then why aren't we getting CDs with the same quality as The Doors' hi-res L.A. Woman on CD? I have a few hi-res albums that sound stunning (and more on par with vinyl), so why isn't this possible on CD, particularly if people are downsampling SACDs to CD quality and not able to tell the difference?

For info purposes, I'm progressing with the research I mentioned earlier, I just have a few more questions before I post anything up.

Which version of LA Woman are you talking about?

 

[BigH]

Agreed. If CD can be, and is so much better than vinyl, and if 16/44 is all our ears need, then why aren't we getting CDs with the same quality as The Doors' hi-res L.A. Woman on CD? I have a few hi-res albums that sound stunning (and more on par with vinyl), so why isn't this possible on CD, particularly if people are downsampling SACDs to CD quality and not able to tell the difference?

For info purposes, I'm progressing with the research I mentioned earlier, I just have a few more questions before I post anything up.

Which version of LA Woman are you talking about?