The comedy of some Hi res recordings

[Frank Dernie]

There are few reasonable ideas as to why one might wish to record at 88 or 96 khz rates. There might, maybe, could be, in some circumstances an audible benefit. Even the meta-analysis mentioned above indicates only a mild audibility if any.

I found it easy enough to set levels at 16-bit, having been used to recording onto tape, but 24-bit makes it idiot-proof.
My first digital recorder was 48/16 and I found, on the music I was recording at the time, the recorder output was indistinguishable from the microphone feed. I am aware now that it may have just been w-a-y better than a tape recorder so my expectations may not have been high enough, but still, if there is/was a difference I would still consider it to be so tiny to be of no consequence to musical enjoyment.
Lets face it if it takes very, very careful level matched comparison to perhaps hear a difference 60% of the time nobody buying a recording will ever be bothered by it. Just turn it up a bit and it'll sound better...

 

[sergeauckland]

One has to ask the question, if it takes a huge amount of effort to hear whether there may just be a minute difference then why not forget about it and get on with enjoying music?
Unless one is more interested in the technology than listening to music, that is (and I know a few people who are) .

This to me is the most significant part of the whole HD question.

Since Edison cylinders, every new medium has been a clear and obvious improvement in audio quality over its predecessor, obvious to all, not just trained listeners. Wax cylinders to shellac disks to LPs to Stereo to CD. As such, they have been enthusiastically accepted by the General Public.

Since then, if there has been any improvement, and I have not ever head one, they have been minimal, if any, involving carefully level-matched blind listening tests with large numbers of people to get any statistical significance. Doesn't this tell you that it's all Baloney? HD, MQA, etc etc are a technical nonsense, and the Great Unwashed have been seriously unimpressed. Sales of physical media of all sorts have pretty much collapsed, streaming is where it's at, and the technical quality of the streams isn't. It's even difficult to find out what the streaming methods are.

The public just don't care, and for the very good reason that it doesn't sound any different to them, or even to most 'trained' listeners.

S.

 

[Sukie]

The public just don't care, and for the very good reason that it doesn't sound any different to them, or even to most 'trained' listeners.

Spot on. I see no evidence of a large scale migration to Hi-res (Or HD/UHD to use Amazon terminology). All of the streaming sites are commercial ventures and will follow demand/money etc.

 

[andreasmaaan]

it’s not just me. Others on this thread have also enquired. We asked open questions about how it is 96/24 sounds better than 44/16 Some of us wondered (didn’t assert, wondered) if an analogue complex wave was sampled more frequently, perhaps the sound would be nicer to listen to.

We were told, sometimes aggressively, sometimes patronisingly, that we were the hapless victims of marketing scams and should apologise (“And it would be nice in such discussions if folks who make the initial claim you did - that a higher sampling rate brings the result "closer" to the original - would a least acknowledge that your claim, while a common-sense view, is actually mistaken.”).

I’m sorry if people here treated you aggressively. Do you feel that I did so?

So having read more than I ever have before - and I really am grateful when it was done objectively, patiently, thoroughly, and respectfully - I get the physics now I think.

What are the physics in your view? Given that, within the band of frequencies that you are capable of hearing, there is no difference between 44.1kHz and higher sampling rates, what are the physical mechanisms that you believe allow you to distinguish between the two?

Nobody has yet explained to me why my 50 year old ears, my son’s expert ears, using my very carefully built system, enjoys well-produced music more at higher resolutions than at standard ones.

if those folks here who can’t accept what many listeners do report, then having had your say your contribution is done - thanks. But I am much more interested in what others have to suggest as to why some listeners do get more enjoyment from higher resolutions. Until then, I still only have “the common sense view” available to me.

The reason for my scepticism is that you report hearing an obvious difference between the two.

This raises a couple of red flags for me, for the following reasons:

• Even in those studies in which trained listeners (which you and your son are not) were able to discern a difference (and all such studies I’ve read have had methodological issues - although I’m open to the possibility there are other studies out there I’ve missed), listeners struggled to hear differences, could not hear differences most of the time, and certainly did not report hearing obvious differences.
• The majority of “high-res” files provided by streaming services does not in fact contain any high-frequency content (other than noise) that is not present in the standard resolution versions. So if you are capable of discerning differences, I would not expect you to be able to do so with the majority of recordings (on the basis of the higher sampling rate alone).
• Many high-res re-releases are also remasters, which obviously results in pronounced changes to the sound. That you have not investigated whether this applies to the content you hear differences in shows, in my opinion, that your claims are to be viewed circumspectly.

Can I suggest a way forward? Perhaps you could send me a high-res file of a high-quality recording that you’re very familiar with? I’ll downsample it to 44.1kHz and reduce and it to 16 bits with quality dithering, then place both versions back inside identical high-res “shells”.

This will ensure that:

• the original high-res file actually contains high-res content (I will check this)
• the standard-res file is properly dithered and filtered
• differences between masters are eliminated as a confounding variable
• you and your son will listen double-blind

You and your son can then attempt to discern a difference between the two versions using (I’d suggest) an ABX procedure. It should take no more than 15 minutes to run enough trials to achieve a statistically significant result.

What do you think?

 

[mhardy6647]

More hi-rez comedy. Below is a photo of an album 'remastered in hi-rez'. Homemade recordings from the early '60s, some using a portable open reel deck. Can you say tape hiss and wow and flutter? How in the heck are 'hi-rez' remasters of living room recordings going to be 'an audiophiles dream' (it says in the advertisement)? Outside of Neil 'I want to sell you a Pono' Young, can anyone take it seriously? Hi-Rez--the ridiculousness of marketing.

View attachment 90316

Worse than that -- it appears to be a Wollensak T-1500 family member. Not exactly on par with, say, a ReVox G36, home-recorder-wise

https://www.smecc.org/wollensak_tape_recorders.htm

I actually had one of these for a while.

 

[anmpr1]

Worse than that -- it appears to be a Wollensak T-1500 family member.

That's it. Definitely Hi-Rez capable:

• Freq Response 40 - 15 kHz
• Signal to Noise 48 db
• Speed 3.75 & 7.5 ips
• Motors 1​
• Reels up to 7"
• Timing accuracy 0.3%
• Weight 35 lbs
• Price $199

 

[mhardy6647]

I swear, as I skimmed through those specs, I thought it said "Motors: up to 1"

 

[sergeauckland]

I swear, as I skimmed through those specs, I thought it said "Motors: up to 1"

Reminds me of a label on a shoe-box..."average contents 2"

S.

 

[Bluemootwo]

I’m sorry if people here treated you aggressively. Do you feel that I did so?


What are the physics in your view? Given that, within the band of frequencies that you are capable of hearing, there is no difference between 44.1kHz and higher sampling rates, what are the physical mechanisms that you believe allow you to distinguish between the two?


The reason for my scepticism is that you report hearing an obvious difference between the two.

This raises a couple of red flags for me, for the following reasons:

• Even in those studies in which trained listeners (which you and your son are not) were able to discern a difference (and all such studies I’ve read have had methodological issues - although I’m open to the possibility there are other studies out there I’ve missed), listeners struggled to hear differences, could not hear differences most of the time, and certainly did not report hearing obvious differences.
• The majority of “high-res” files provided by streaming services does not in fact contain any high-frequency content (other than noise) that is not present in the standard resolution versions. So if you are capable of discerning differences, I would not expect you to be able to do so with the majority of recordings (on the basis of the higher sampling rate alone).
• Many high-res re-releases are also remasters, which obviously results in pronounced changes to the sound. That you have not investigated whether this applies to the content you hear differences in shows, in my opinion, that your claims are to be viewed circumspectly.

Can I suggest a way forward? Perhaps you could send me a high-res file of a high-quality recording that you’re very familiar with? I’ll downsample it to 44.1kHz and reduce and it to 16 bits with quality dithering, then place both versions back inside identical high-res “shells”.

This will ensure that:

• the original high-res file actually contains high-res content (I will check this)
• the standard-res file is properly dithered and filtered
• differences between masters are eliminated as a confounding variable
• you and your son will listen double-blind

You and your son can then attempt to discern a difference between the two versions using (I’d suggest) an ABX procedure. It should take no more than 15 minutes to run enough trials to achieve a statistically significant result.

What do you think?

Good idea. Couple of comments:

I have no problem with the fun and games and joshing you always find on forums, but this was one of my very first posts and the tone was very much “here comes another wally”.

I’ve completed a course ‘Critical Listening For Studio Engineers’ because in support of my son I want to help him where I can with the design and build of our (grandly described) home studio. (A custom built shed in the garden, with as much DIY equipment in it as possible. Building streamers, amps, speakers - even the desk and seats - ourselves is very rewarding). So whilst we are not professionals, our ears have done a heap of critical listening over the last 5 years or so since this passion took root.

The reasoning seems to have shifted from “there can be no difference in sound you wally and apologise for suggesting so” to “there are hard-to-discern differences which trained ears can sometimes hear”. Well, either something is impossible or its not. I didn’t say the differences are obvious to me (although I did say the seem obvious to my son); I just thought there was discernible differences which, for me, are not about measurement but are about pleasure. I often (not always, but often) find a hi res streamed piece of music more satisfying and pleasant to listen to than a CD quality piece.

And I’m clearly not alone, because whilst some people can be fooled some of the time by marketing, it does seem to me that before very long there will be:

- vinyl. There will always be vinyl!
- MP3 and other compressed formats where large amounts of music data must be stored and/or streamed, at least during the short period of our history when storage space and slow WiFi was an issue.
- 96/24 ‘hi res’
- DSD for some enthusiasts.

But no CDs, and no 44/16. Why should there be? Nobody seemed to like them much once the 90s novelty wore off.

 

[andreasmaaan]

Good idea.

Glad to hear. PM me your high-res file when you’ve decided on it

The reasoning seems to have shifted from “there can be no difference in sound you wally and apologise for suggesting so” to “there are hard-to-discern differences which trained ears can sometimes hear”. Well, either something is impossible or its not.

I understand that other members of a forum who all tend to agree with each other might seem like a unified group, but I know the others here no better than I know you.

Has my tune changed? I entered the discussion to say that there is no additional audible content on high-res recordings. I stand by that.

I next interjected to say your test with your son didn’t produce a statistically significant result. I stand by that, too.

I’ve completed a course ‘Critical Listening For Studio Engineers’ because in support of my son I want to help him where I can with the design and build of our (grandly described) home studio. (A custom built shed in the garden, with as much DIY equipment in it as possible. Building streamers, amps, speakers - even the desk and seats - ourselves is very rewarding). So whilst we are not professionals, our ears have done a heap of critical listening over the last 5 years or so since this passion took root.

I respect that, and don’t doubt that you’re a discerning listener.

Anyway, looking forward to receiving your high-res selection.

 

[andreasmaaan]

Also @Bluemootwo, would be curious to know what playback system you’re actually using there?

 

[Killingbeans]

We were told, sometimes aggressively, sometimes patronisingly, that we were the hapless victims of marketing scams and should apologise (“And it would be nice in such discussions if folks who make the initial claim you did - that a higher sampling rate brings the result "closer" to the original - would a least acknowledge that your claim, while a common-sense view, is actually mistaken.”).

This forum gets a lot of new users who assertively spew nonsense in an attempt to "set this place straight". The result is that often what should be healthy caution instead tilts towards suspicion, frustration and even mild aggression/patronization. I think it's unavoidable. As long as the messengers don't mind taking a few bullets, and things don't turn into a mud fight, it's all good.

But no CDs, and no 44/16. Why should there be?

Because:

- CDs. There will always be CDs!

 

[Frank Dernie]

But no CDs, and no 44/16. Why should there be? Nobody seemed to like them much once the 90s novelty wore off.

I play mainly CDs and am still buying them. I have my legacy LPs too and some music files on computer disc but don't play them often.

 

[andreasmaaan]

And I don't actually play physical CDs, but a lot of my library is ripped from my old CD collection, so that's all 16/44.

 

[CDMC]

What DOES make a vast difference is recording quality.
I have fabulous sounding LPs and CDs but equally some awful ones.
If a recording is fatiguing it is far more likley to be the recording quality at fault than the medium on which it is distributed.

One has to ask the question, if it takes a huge amount of effort to hear whether there may just be a minute difference then why not forgedabout it and get on with enjoying music?
Unless one is more interested in the technology than listening to music, that is (and I know a few people who are) .

Amen. I have been saying for a few years, I would gladly trade my existing 44.1/16 and higher resolution recordings for all well mastered 320kbps MP3 or 256kbps AAC. I think Apple has actually done the correct thing with their Apple Digital Masters program, focusing on the mastering end instead of just taking garbage and pushing it out at high resolution.

 

[andreasmaaan]

(snipped)

You might have missed in Post #209 that @Bluemootwo is interested in doing a controlled test comparing material that has verified high-frequency content with the same material downsampled to standard res.

I think we should acknowledge their willingness to engage ASR on its own terms here.

 

[CDMC]

That's it. Definitely Hi-Rez capable:

• Freq Response 40 - 15 kHz
• Signal to Noise 48 db
• Speed 3.75 & 7.5 ips
• Motors 1​
• Reels up to 7"
• Timing accuracy 0.3%
• Weight 35 lbs
• Price $199

Ouch. In digital terms, 8 bit / 30khz.

 

[CDMC]

You might have missed in Post #209 that @Bluemootwo is interested in doing a controlled test comparing material that has verified high-frequency content with the same material downsampled to standard res.

I think we should acknowledge their willingness to engage ASR on its own terms here.

Deleted. Hadn’t made it that far.

 

[andreasmaaan]

Deleted. Hadn’t made it that far.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

Worse than that -- it appears to be a Wollensak T-1500 family member. Not exactly on par with, say, a ReVox G36, home-recorder-wise
.................................................................
I actually had one of these for a while.

I do not know when you had one of these but I remember when the original in the series came out in the late 1950s and it was quite a revelation at the time. Sure, fascination with it faded although it provided much enjoyment for a while.