High resolution audio. The science, or lack of...?

[Clare Newsome]

. As long as the end sound is what we want and it pleases us that's what it's all about isn't it or am I missing something here?.

:clap:

 

[steve_1979]

Well, you're a silly billy for not saying you did exactly those tests, then! Then what was all that business about re-mastering of test tones, sampling down and all that stuff? Are you worried someone else might TRY THE SAME TESTS and find a difference?

P.S. There's also a hearing test on that site. Might be worth trying, too.

The comments about remastering of high bit rate files is to do with comparing music as much of the commercially available high rez music has been remastered to deliberatly make it sound different to the 16/44.1 versions.

As far as those test tones are concerned just remove any audio above 22.05kHz (which is the limit of 16/44.1 audio) before down sampling the high rez files to 16/44.1 yourself and they will sound identical.

p.s. I've had my hearing tested and it's pretty good. It goes up to 17kHz on a good day and 16kHz on a bad day.

 

[Richard Allen]

:clap:

Thanks Clare. :O

 

[manicm]

and here we go again, some really do need to get a life.

 

[hone_u2]

Actually personally I've had the same questions myself for a long time...

I'm not particularly a scientist, but I do listen to my music very closely and have tried Highresaudio, HD Tracks, Linn, Naim etc.. to get music

Now when I tried, with HDTracks these albums (I used more of pop/rock because of how varied the recording qualities are sometimes)-

Fleetwood Mac Rumours 96/24

Nirvana Nevermind (Remastered) 96/24

Green Day American Idiot 192/24

Phil Collins But seriously 192/24

The Dark Knight Rises OST 192/24

Helene Grimaud Bach 96/24

All these I tried comparing to their CD versions and iTunes versions (some of them were specifically "Mastered for iTunes" i think)... And the results were not at all uniformly in favour of HD Tracks nor iTunes

-Fleetwood Mac, the HDTracks version sounded dramatically better than the CD and iTunes.

-Nirvana the same, although it sounded slightly bright to me

-Green Day was most shocking! the iTunes and CD had a broader deeper soundstage, and felt had more intensity. The HDTracks version lacked the soundstage, was quite low in the volume but it was slightly more clear i thought.

-The Dark Knight Rises OST was better on HDTracks although the CD version was no slouch... What I'm saying is, the difference wasn't too great to justify the price I feel...

-Helene Grimaud, the CD I got from deutsche grammophon felt just the same as the High res download...

-So did Phil Collins... with maybe only a slight preference to HDTracks

in all cases I felt the subtle nuances though were brought out by the source (HDTracks) but whether it was better than CD is still a question

I then thought for myself a rather stupid analogy, I hope I explain it properly... please be nice

moderately dyed water occupying half a tinted glass, when poured into a completely transparent plastic bucket will make the bucket redundant, because it can hold a lot more than its being used for, and it'll show you exactly how much the water is coloured...

Water with a lot of colour when overflowing from a tinted glass, when poured into a bucket and utilizing half a bucket uses the transparent bucket better... And you get more water from the bucket than from the glass and a clearer view of the coloured water...

So if the recording (water) is rich in dynamic range enough (colour) to occupy the bits (bucket/container) and make 178 or 192 kHZ... It will sound much better, and it will justify the resolution and then the price.

But if the recording is poor (quarter a glass of water with just a few drops of colour), when put in the blatantly transparent bucket, will reveal that the water is very little and isn't rich in colour enough (the music having more static, hiss and poor clarity in the vocals and poor definition of instruments)

Therefore, what I feel is (like a lot of others on this post), the mastering is the most important process... If the mastering is really really good, a high res would justify it, because it would have a dynamic range rich enough to occupy the extra bits...

If the dynamic range is like 3dB or 5dB or something, the bits would be wasted...

In the end... I think It's all about what you can hear... And how much you can enjoy! If this gets us close to our music fine! if not, then it's pointless reading facts and figures because they won't make our music sound better always!

I hope I haven't made a mess of that explanation!

 

[spiny norman]

Nothing to do with opinion. It's scientific fact.

Convert the high rez audio files to 16/44.1 and they will sound identical.

So now all you've done is trade 'in my opinion' for 'in my experience'.

Neither makes for a 'scientific fact', but if you're happy that that's the case with your chosen system, then why not just enjoy its limitations and the money you're saving rather than endlesly banging on and picking fights?

It's all a bit tiresome.

 

[manicm]

Nothing to do with opinion. It's scientific fact.

Convert the high rez audio files to 16/44.1 and they will sound identical.

So now all you've done is trade 'in my opinion' for 'in my experience'.

Neither makes for a 'scientific fact', but if you're happy that that's the case with your chosen system, then why not just enjoy its limitations and the money you're saving rather than endlesly banging on and picking fights?

It's all a bit tiresome.

+1

 

[steve_1979]

Nothing to do with opinion. It's scientific fact.

Convert the high rez audio files to 16/44.1 and they will sound identical.

So now all you've done is trade 'in my opinion' for 'in my experience'.

Neither makes for a 'scientific fact', but if you're happy that that's the case with your chosen system, then why not just enjoy its limitations and the money you're saving rather than endlesly banging on and picking fights?

It's all a bit tiresome.

If you understood Nyquist-Shannon theory you will see that this is not an opinion but a scientific fact.

Based on your comment I can only assume that you obviously don't understand how Nyquist-Shannon theory works and why it means that any analogue wave upto 22.05kHz can be perfectly reproduced within the dynamic range limitations of human hearing using 16/44.1 digital audio.

 

[steve_1979]

You are totally right of course fr0g. But this has been done to death and I fear that you're banging your head against a brick wall trying to explain to someone who doesn't understand Nyquist-Shannon theory why CD quality 16/44 is already past the limit of what humans can can hear and anything higher than that doesn't make any difference to the sound.

:wall:

...and we're back to where we started on page one of this thread, :wall:

I'm off out to see some of the real world now. Have a nice weekend everyone. See 'you guys' later. :wave:

 

[spiny norman]

If you understood Nyquist-Shannon theory you will see that this is not an opinion but a scientific fact.

I do, but i fear you are putting the theoretical cart before the experiential horse, thanks to limited understanding.

Based on your comment I can only assume that you obviously don't understand how Nyquist-Shannon theory works

Yet again an assumption, based on imperfect evidence, becomes a scientific fact on which you make your judgement.

I'd give up while you're behind, if I were you...

 

[Alec]

If you understood Nyquist-Shannon theory you will see that this is not an opinion but a scientific fact.

I do, but i fear you are putting the theoretical cart before the experiential horse, thanks to limited understanding.

Based on your comment I can only assume that you obviously don't understand how Nyquist-Shannon theory works

Yet again an assumption, based on imperfect evidence, becomes a scientific fact on which you make your judgement.

I'd give up while you're behind, if I were you...

Of course, you've provided so much more than glib attacks. Oh, wait...

 

[andyjm]

If you understood Nyquist-Shannon theory you will see that this is not an opinion but a scientific fact.

I do, but i fear you are putting the theoretical cart before the experiential horse, thanks to limited understanding.

Based on your comment I can only assume that you obviously don't understand how Nyquist-Shannon theory works

Yet again an assumption, based on imperfect evidence, becomes a scientific fact on which you make your judgement.

I'd give up while you're behind, if I were you...

In science its actually very tough to 'prove' things, in many cases a theory is proposed that seems to stand up to experimental testing, but later as science develops it turns out that the theory was wrong, or perhaps incomplete.

Maths however is different. In maths (assuming you are up to it) you can absolutely prove something. This is the difference between a theory (that has stood up to emperical testing) and a theorem that had been mathematically or logically deduced.

Nyquisy Shannon is a theorem - it has been mathematically deduced. This is in contrast to saying 'I think that a sample frequency of 2x the maximum baseband frequency should do it, now lets test it'

So while you can postulate that the theorem is incorrect, unless you can show the error in the mathematical derivation, I am afraid that you are wasting your time.

 

[spiny norman]

Of course, you've provided so much more than glib attacks. Oh, wait...

Ah, tag-team wrestling on a Saturday afternoon – just like the old days.

 

[manicm]

You are totally right of course fr0g. But this has been done to death and I fear that you're banging your head against a brick wall trying to explain to someone who doesn't understand Nyquist-Shannon theory why CD quality 16/44 is already past the limit of what humans can can hear and anything higher than that doesn't make any difference to the sound.

:wall:

...and we're back to where we started on page one of this thread, :wall:

I'm off out to see some of the real world now. Have a nice weekend everyone. See 'you guys' later. :wave:

....yeah right, until next week or thereafter when either you and fr0g get bored and start a thread like this all over again. I can still see your wave...just a bit farther now...

 

[spiny norman]

In science its actually very tough to 'prove' things, in many cases a theory is proposed that seems to stand up to experimental testing, but later as science develops it turns out that the theory was wrong, or perhaps incomplete.

Maths however is different. In maths (assuming you are up to it) you can absolutely prove something. This is the difference between a theory (that has stood up to emperical testing) and a theorem that had been mathematically or logically deduced.

Nyquisy Shannon is a theorem - it has been mathematically deduced. This is in contrast to saying 'I think that a sample frequency of 2x the maximum baseband frequency should do it, now lets test it'

So while you can postulate that the theorem is incorrect, unless you can show the error in the mathematical derivation, I am afraid that you are wasting your time.

I'm not postulating anything, least of all that Nysyquisy Shatner theorem (as someone will be calling it in about five posts' time, the way we're going) is incorrect.

All I have said is that some are happy they can hear a difference with higher-resolution files, while others (for whatever reason) are sure they can't. And there's little point in one 'side' (for the want of a better word) trying to tell the other its is wrong/stupid/fooled, or vice versa. That get's us nowhere.

I know it's a radical suggestion, and in no way mathematically deduced, but wouldn't it be better if we all allowd each other to get on and enjoy music however we want to, whether it's on a massive system of dozens of boxes and huge speakers playing DSD or 24/192 files, little powered speakers of whatever kind connected to a computer playing data-reduced Spotify streams or music lovingly pirated onto YouTube, or blasting it out to everyone's annoyance through the built-in speaker on a smartphone.

FFS, this is supposed to be about enjoying music, isn't it? Or have we become a bunch of people more obsessed with dogma and w1lly-waving than we are with discovering new musical delights?

I despair sometimes...

 

[manicm]

'despair' being the operative keyword indeen spiny norman. This thread is pure torture to all that is good.

 

[davedotco]

In science its actually very tough to 'prove' things, in many cases a theory is proposed that seems to stand up to experimental testing, but later as science develops it turns out that the theory was wrong, or perhaps incomplete.

Maths however is different. In maths (assuming you are up to it) you can absolutely prove something. This is the difference between a theory (that has stood up to emperical testing) and a theorem that had been mathematically or logically deduced.

Nyquisy Shannon is a theorem - it has been mathematically deduced. This is in contrast to saying 'I think that a sample frequency of 2x the maximum baseband frequency should do it, now lets test it'

So while you can postulate that the theorem is incorrect, unless you can show the error in the mathematical derivation, I am afraid that you are wasting your time.

I'm not postulating anything, least of all that Nysyquisy Shatner theorem (as someone will be calling it in about five posts' time, the way we're going) is incorrect.

All I have said is that some are happy they can hear a difference with higher-resolution files, while others (for whatever reason) are sure they can't. And there's little point in one 'side' (for the want of a better word) trying to tell the other its is wrong/stupid/fooled, or vice versa. That get's us nowhere.

I know it's a radical suggestion, and in no way mathematically deduced, but wouldn't it be better if we all allowd each other to get on and enjoy music however we want to, whether it's on a massive system of dozens of boxes and huge speakers playing DSD or 24/192 files, little powered speakers of whatever kind connected to a computer playing data-reduced Spotify streams or music lovingly pirated onto YouTube, or blasting it out to everyone's annoyance through the built-in speaker on a smartphone.

FFS, this is supposed to be about enjoying music, isn't it? Or have we become a bunch of people more obsessed with dogma and w1lly-waving than we are with discovering new musical delights?

I despair sometimes...

Personally I have no issues with what people choose to believe they can hear, if it works for you.......... etc, etc.

What I do object to is people trying to convince me, often with pseudo-scientific b*ll**ks, that they are right and that, because I do not hear the difference, I am either deaf or the owner of sub-standard equipment.

 

[davedotco]

'despair' being the operative keyword indeen spiny norman. This thread is pure torture to all that is good.

I think it is a hoot....... :clap:

 

[spiny norman]

What I do object to is people trying to convince me, often with pseudo-scientific b*ll**ks, that they are right and that, because I do not hear the difference, I am either deaf or the owner of sub-standard equipment.

Or indeed that if one does hear a difference then one is delusional, suggestible, stupid or, in some extreme cases I have seen in some forums, mentally sub-normal.

 

[mr malarky]

'despair' being the operative keyword indeen spiny norman. This thread is pure torture to all that is good.

I think it is a hoot....... :clap:

Likewise, have had a good chuckle reading through the thread just now!

There is a serious side to this though; we're just coming out of a recession (with many people still feeling like their still in one), all this stuff costs money (sometimes a LOT of money), and yet time and again we see magazines and websites promoting various upgrades or formats that potentially offer no real benefit to the consumer, presumably with the sole aim of maintaining their advertising revenue.

How many reviews have we all read of £100 1m HDMI cables that apparently offer tangible improvements in picture and sound quality (really!?!)?

Or 4k TV's costing thousands of pounds, with next to no mention of the fact there's still nothing to watch on them and with no guarantee that they'll actually be fully compatible with future 4K BluRay players when they're eventually released (HDMI2?).

Its not just the higher cost of the Hi-Res tracks, there are now expensive hi-res audio players being marketed and reviewed, not least on WHF, so IF its true that the format actually offers no advantage compared to a well mastered CD equivalent file then that information should be made available to people (and I'd argue that WHF, as a consumer magazine, has a responsibility to do so).

I say 'IF' because I personally don't pretend to know the definitive answer, but while it's tempting to take the approach of "lets all just get along and respect each others choices", IF people are actually being ripped off by companies on these things then surely they/we have a right to know?

 

[davedotco]

What I do object to is people trying to convince me, often with pseudo-scientific b*ll**ks, that they are right and that, because I do not hear the difference, I am either deaf or the owner of sub-standard equipment.

Or indeed that if one does hear a difference then one is delusional, suggestible, stupid or, in some extreme cases I have seen in some forums, mentally sub-normal.

I have, on ocassion, described hearing differences that I am pretty sure I should not be hearing. Hi-fi can be difficult like that but there is such a thing as expectation or suggestion bias and this is the problem.

Once again it is a failure to understand the science, the reality of the situation. Any sighted tests bring these issues into the equation and while I am happy to read about the experience of listeners in such tests, particularly experienced ones, I am always aware that they are subjective and therefore opinions only.

Sure some such opinions are of the 'my hi-fi is better than yours' variety but some people do listen carefully and report what they hear. Unlike some people, I find such views interesting and worthwhile though I remain of the opinion that they do not 'prove' anything.

 

[fr0g]

and here we go again, some really do need to get a life.

Certainly people who join in and post dead end posts in a thread that doesn't interest them do...

 

[pauln]

"
Scholarly inquiry regarding scientific fact
Scholars and clinical researchers in both the social and natural sciences have forwarded numerous questions and theories in clarifying the fundamental nature of scientific fact.[22]Pertinent issues raised by this inquiry include:
the process by which "established fact" becomes recognized and accepted as such;[23]whether and to what extent "fact" and "theoretic explanation" can be considered truly independent and separable from one another;[24][25]to what extent are "facts" influenced by the mere act of observation;[25] andto what extent are factual conclusions influenced by history and consensus, rather than a strictly systematic methodology.[26][/list]
Consistent with the theory of confirmation holism, some scholars assert "fact" to be necessarily "theory-laden" to some degree. Thomas Kuhn points out that knowing what facts to measure, and how to measure them, requires the use of other theories. For example, the age of fossils is based on radiometric dating which is justified by reasoning that radioactive decay follows a Poisson process rather than a Bernoulli process. Similarly, Percy Williams Bridgman is credited with the methodological position known as operationalism, which asserts that all observations are not only influenced, but necessarily defined by the means and assumptions used to measure them.
Fact and the scientific method
Apart from the fundamental inquiry into the nature of scientific fact, there remain the practical and social considerations of how fact is investigated, established, and substantiated through the proper application of the scientific method.[27] Scientific facts are generally believed to be independent of the observer: no matter who performs a scientific experiment, all observers will agree on the outcome.[28] In addition to these considerations, there are the social and institutional measures, such as peer review and accreditation, that are intended to promote factual accuracy (among other interests) in scientific study.[29]"

So maybe not scientific fact, then?

A quick Google gives you this:

A theorem is a result that can be proven to be true from a set of axioms. The term is used especially in mathematics where the axioms are those of mathematical logic and the systems in question.

A theory is a set of ideas used to explain why something is true, or a set of rules on which a subject is based.

It's known as the Nyquist - Shannon Theorem. As far as I can see it's not in dispute by any scientists, only audiophiles who do not have any means of disproving the theorum. Unless you know better?

 

[the record spot]

No, you can't request that people understand something, in that sense.

True.

But what I fail to understand is why people try to debate a subject if they don't understand how it works?

And you're fully qualified to talk about this stuff then Steve, yes? From an audio engineering perspective, a relevant degree, etc...?

 

[fr0g]

Right. Wow, how this has grown while I have been out sledging with the family and meeting friends!

To answer Mr Lemon. The tests you link are irrelevant.

And I disagree with Steve on this. It is entirely possible that a higher res file will sound different. If you play back a file with 40 KHz and higher frequecies contained in it and one that has been limited to 22 KHz, they "may" sound different. It depends on how your speakers (which are likely unable to reproduce those frequencies, reacts to them.

Try it the other way around... Play a very bassy track on many bookshelf speakers. Play it loud. What do you hear? DISTORTION.

Personally I'd rather the file had such frequencies removed. That way my tweeters aren't being bombarded with frequencies that may indeed cause them to distort.

The whole point of this thread by the way was for any actual scientific debunking of Nyquist-Shannon to come forward, after a "discussion" I had on a thread the other day...

Apparently there isn't any...

And, to Clare...

I agree with your post about paying a premium... However I don't like the way they do it. I believe the public are being conned.

Personally I would rather they admit that the actual mastering was the reason why the music on SACD or HD downloads was why the quality is higher.

I would happily pay a bit more if they released 2 versions of a CD...One loud one for the Beats generation, and one high dynamic range, uncompressed one for "audiophiles".

I would well understand them charging extra for the "audiophile" version as it would almost certainly sell in far fewer quantities...

It's the lies and subterfuge I resent.