wishihadtubes
Active Member
Interesting article on the new audio standard - High Resolution Audio - and what constitutes HRA.CD Quality Is Not High-Res Audio | Home Theater
What is High Resolution Audio?
- Thread starter wishihadtubes
- Start date
Nice, simply written article although I do feel it is far from becoming any sort of standard as yet. There are plenty of free hirez downloads available to try and some have the same music coded at different bit depths and sampling rates in its native state (for the highly curious) to make comparisons. Links to these have been periodically posted on this forum.
There are also some excellent hirez vinyl rips.
There are also some excellent hirez vinyl rips.
Thad E Ginathom
Well-Known Member
What is High Resolution Audio?
Something the marketing departments dreamed up. They know how audiophiles love the words resolution and resolving, and it is their job to use that sort of knowledge to the utmost. Why else would they come up with a new name for it? Isn't it already high[er]-sample-rate?
To sell the same thing, over and over, it is necessary not only to make the mouths of the buyers water ---High-Resolution rolls around the mouth like a single malt, or a fine brandy. Say it now! Isn't your mouth watering? but also to make them spit out the old, with which they can no longer be satisfied. CD-Quality might have been flavour of the day once, but now people need to be encouraged to spit it out.
This High-res stuff might be better (or it actually might not) but we can believe one thing for sure: the marketing departments are twisting us around their little fingers.
Cynical? What? Me?
I'd hate to think that recording technology had reached the ultimate, of course. Let there be improvements. Let new music be recorded and played better than old music. As far as the old music is concerned, I paid for vinyl, I paid for CD, and I am not paying yet again, however much the music industry makes my mouth water with fancy words and fancy new machines.
Something the marketing departments dreamed up. They know how audiophiles love the words resolution and resolving, and it is their job to use that sort of knowledge to the utmost. Why else would they come up with a new name for it? Isn't it already high[er]-sample-rate?
To sell the same thing, over and over, it is necessary not only to make the mouths of the buyers water ---High-Resolution rolls around the mouth like a single malt, or a fine brandy. Say it now! Isn't your mouth watering? but also to make them spit out the old, with which they can no longer be satisfied. CD-Quality might have been flavour of the day once, but now people need to be encouraged to spit it out.
This High-res stuff might be better (or it actually might not) but we can believe one thing for sure: the marketing departments are twisting us around their little fingers.
Cynical? What? Me?
I'd hate to think that recording technology had reached the ultimate, of course. Let there be improvements. Let new music be recorded and played better than old music. As far as the old music is concerned, I paid for vinyl, I paid for CD, and I am not paying yet again, however much the music industry makes my mouth water with fancy words and fancy new machines.
Meanwhile I just found this article over the weekend ...
24/192 Music Downloads are Very Silly Indeed
24/192 Music Downloads are Very Silly Indeed
square_wave
Well-Known Member
In many ways I agree with the marketing hype accusation. In practical terms due to many factors, you do not get what you pay for. I have heard the cd version sounding better than a HD track download a few times.
But to be fair to technology with a very capable system, if you compare a "recorded to spec" 24/192 and its redbook ( 16 /44 ) variant, the difference in all things important is significant.
The problem is not with the technology.
But to be fair to technology with a very capable system, if you compare a "recorded to spec" 24/192 and its redbook ( 16 /44 ) variant, the difference in all things important is significant.
The problem is not with the technology.
Thad E Ginathom
Well-Known Member
Yes, that article has been mentioned a few times. People have found it easy to argue with, even saying that the authors don't know anything about digital music. I think it is hard to believe that the organisation which gave the world FLAC and OGG doesn't know anything about digital media!
But I am strictly a novice at this stuff. I have no absolute opinion, because I am not far enough up that learning curve. True, I am approaching it with a large dose of cynicism, but I think that is healthy.
After the article, xiph.org made a couple of videos. Some here may think them oversimplified, but for those of us who are novices (whether we admit it or not) I'd say they make essential viewing. The biggest thing in this particular context is this...
All of us, since this sampling business began, have "grown up" with those diagrams that show a wave form, and then how it is sampled, leading to a wave form that looks like steps up and down. We have taken that for granted as what sampling is all about, and we have accepted (oh yes, me too) that more steps must mean a smoother curve with smaller steps, and that, in turn, must mean better music, regardless of the beyond-human-hearing frequency-range thing, because more samples must surely leave less out. Right? Watch the video. It doesn't happen!
Sine wave in, digitised, converted back to analogue, equals sine wave out.
No steps!
No steps!
It really was a revelation to me :licklips:
Last edited:
Thad E Ginathom
Well-Known Member
Sorry, I didn't see your post previously...
Currently, my only testing has been with equipment that goes up to 96K. I digitised vinyl, and then spent some time comparing 44.1 and 96. Every time I thought I had found a difference, I went back to the other sample and found that I had not. In the end, I screamed in frustration, decided to record at 96 anyway, because hey, it only costs disk space, my ears are sadly far from perfect, and maybe somebody, sometime, might hear a difference where I failed to.
When it comes to commercial releases, there can be mixing or mastering differences: I have heard a vinyl/CD comparison that didn't even sound like the same recording. We may find the same thing happening again with CD/standard-/high-res recordings. We can know that we are comparing our apples with apples if we do our own digitising with decent sound card.
e-classical offers free test tracks*. I hope we can assume that these are of identical mixes, and differing only in the format/sample-rate. It is on my get-around-to-it list --- but the comparison is hard work! I believe that it needs to be done in two ways: A/B testing by extended listening reveals over-all sense of enjoyment, presence or absence of fatigue, etc, whilst A/B testing of back-to-back small samples reveals difference in detail. On top of that, the whole thing should be blind. A/B testing of small samples is fatiguing in itself!
*Oh... up to 96, but 24 -bit, it seems. By the way, this company has a pricing model based on data and duration, which seems fair enough to me. A kilo of sugar is still a kilo of sugar when bought by an audiophile!
Last edited:
Shivam
Well-Known Member
For me an 'audiophile' recording is one that is recorded and mastered well. It doesn't matter if it is high resolution or not.
In my opinion, the biggest advantage of high resolution audio is that the recording/mastering engineers know that the recording is meant for the select few who appreciate good quality and so they do their work wonderfully. This translates to that most of the high resolution recordings end up having good music performance, recording and mastering.
In my opinion, the biggest advantage of high resolution audio is that the recording/mastering engineers know that the recording is meant for the select few who appreciate good quality and so they do their work wonderfully. This translates to that most of the high resolution recordings end up having good music performance, recording and mastering.
Thad E Ginathom
Well-Known Member
Spot on, Shivam. Nail hit on head. Surely this is the single most important thing.
Would be nice, though, if all recordings were made with the best possible efforts, and minus the compression that, probably, nobody really wants any longer.
If you were to ask me the difference with hi res files is in the dynamic range. If you don't have the chance to play them alongside each other you might never even notice. Even with mp3s - I really would find it hard to tell a 320 kbps file from the real thing.
Check out our special offers on Stereo Package & Bundles for all budget types.
Similar threads
