Interesting Article on Problems with High Resolution Audio

[Stormboy]

Hi

I have just found this interesting article about problems with high resolution audio.

http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

It suggests that inaudible high frequency sounds, captured by high resolution audio, can cause audible intermodulation distortion at lower frequencies. There are some sound files to download to demonstrate this. I tried them and could faintly here the distortion. It makes me wonder if hihg resolution audio is actually less good than 44.1/16 CD quality.

Any thoughts?

Stormboy

 

[The_Lhc]

We know, it's been linked to about a dozen times here.

 

[BigH]

Its not the high res that is the problem with cds but more the lack of dynamic range (loudness war).

 

[CnoEvil]

Thank you for the link - I must have been AWOL when it has been posted before.

I have seen many times links that have said the exact opposite - but that's hifi.

As with all these arguments, I ignore the squabbling, and listen for myself.....and my Hi-Res stuff sounds better. What I can't tell you, is if that's because it's Hi-Res, or because it's better mastered (due to Steve's stalwart research).

 

[The_Lhc]

Thank you for the link - I must have been AWOL when it has been posted before.

Odd, I'd have put money on you having posted in the main hi-res threads but I'm not going to bother looking them up to find out.

 

[CnoEvil]

Thank you for the link - I must have been AWOL when it has been posted before.

Odd, I'd have put money on you having posted in the main hi-res threads but I'm not going to bother looking them up to find out.

All my links were putting forward arguments why Hi-Res should make an improvement......which was the side of the debate I was on.

I have seen it said that it makes no difference, but never that it makes it worse.

 

[relocated]

Hi

I have just found this interesting article about problems with high resolution audio.

http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

It suggests that inaudible high frequency sounds, captured by high resolution audio, can cause audible intermodulation distortion at lower frequencies. There are some sound files to download to demonstrate this. I tried them and could faintly here the distortion. It makes me wonder if hihg resolution audio is actually less good than 44.1/16 CD quality.

Any thoughts?

Stormboy

Thank you for providing the link.

As you can see not everyone can reply with any degree of manners. Don't worry though it's probably not personal, it manages to show itself up on a regular basis [see post 4].

It would be nice to think that yet another way of getting us to buy the stuff we already have, on a number of formats, is actually worth the hype and inflated prices. But it isn't.

CD quality is all our ears need whether they are 'Golden', or just plain ordinary flesh. What we need is 16 bit music that has been decently mastered and with minimal loudness interference. Sadly it seems to be the case that anything beyond 16/44 is only "better" because it has come from a better mastered original. Which I suppose is ok, if you were not conned into thinking it is because of the format.

Save yourself some money, buy 16/44 and maybe spread the money around different artists and tunes???

 

[BigH]

Hi

I have just found this interesting article about problems with high resolution audio.

http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

It suggests that inaudible high frequency sounds, captured by high resolution audio, can cause audible intermodulation distortion at lower frequencies. There are some sound files to download to demonstrate this. I tried them and could faintly here the distortion. It makes me wonder if hihg resolution audio is actually less good than 44.1/16 CD quality.

Any thoughts?

Stormboy

Thank you for providing the link.

As you can see not everyone can reply with any degree of manners. Don't worry though it's probably not personal, it manages to show itself up on a regular basis [see post 4].

It would be nice to think that yet another way of getting us to buy the stuff we already have, on a number of formats, is actually worth the hype and inflated prices. But it isn't.

CD quality is all our ears need whether they are 'Golden', or just plain ordinary flesh. What we need is 16 bit music that has been decently mastered and with minimal loudness interference. Sadly it seems to be the case that anything beyond 16/44 is only "better" because it has come from a better mastered original. Which I suppose is ok, if you were not conned into thinking it is because of the format.

Save yourself some money, buy 16/44 and maybe spread the money around different artists and tunes???

+1. However I disagree about some 24bit cds esp. for loudness, if you look on the DR database you will often find sacds (24bit) are worse than the ordinary ones, for example Steely Dan worst album is Gaucho SACD.

 

[Singslinger]

Hi

I have just found this interesting article about problems with high resolution audio.

http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

It suggests that inaudible high frequency sounds, captured by high resolution audio, can cause audible intermodulation distortion at lower frequencies. There are some sound files to download to demonstrate this. I tried them and could faintly here the distortion. It makes me wonder if hihg resolution audio is actually less good than 44.1/16 CD quality.

Any thoughts?

Stormboy

Thank you for providing the link.

As you can see not everyone can reply with any degree of manners. Don't worry though it's probably not personal, it manages to show itself up on a regular basis [see post 4].

It would be nice to think that yet another way of getting us to buy the stuff we already have, on a number of formats, is actually worth the hype and inflated prices. But it isn't.

CD quality is all our ears need whether they are 'Golden', or just plain ordinary flesh. What we need is 16 bit music that has been decently mastered and with minimal loudness interference. Sadly it seems to be the case that anything beyond 16/44 is only "better" because it has come from a better mastered original. Which I suppose is ok, if you were not conned into thinking it is because of the format.

Save yourself some money, buy 16/44 and maybe spread the money around different artists and tunes???

Sounds like a sensible plan to me! :cheers: