CD vs hi-res

[Everett T]

Recording exceeded the 16 bit capacity or the 8bit capacity ?
Shannon sampling theorem alternative?
Human ear limited new discovery?
How many mics used for recording are over 20 kHz?
The authority argument or the fact?

There are mics they have responses over 20khz. This is just one example

https://earthworksaudio.com/piano-microphones/pm40/

Maybe take a minute and read this regarding overtones/harmonics

https://earthworksaudio.com/support/technology/frequency-response/

 

[TulseLuper]

"Belief" is a noun, singular.

Are is a "first, second, third person plural present of be".

So this statement is inherently incoherent.

Frgirard is a poet, lay off.

 

[czt]

We could all still listen to 78s and 45s and LPs. Then we wouldn't need to worry about bandwidth and storage capacity.
It is not the grammar that is incoherent, it is the arguments.

Hate those, never had and never will have any crap (muddy, pig) analog sources, just my beloved red book 16/44.1.

 

[czt]

They are not crap. They are, what there was. Just as CD is, what there was. I have a lot of wonderful LPs that were never released on digital. The snap crackle and pop of vinyl requires record cleaning and ignoring, but the music is worth listening to. Just like CD audio and hi rez. I have not bought an LP since the early 1980s.

I would have thought that vinyl is too compromised format for you.

 

[Frgirard]

I never said the word compromise. Why do you want to put words in my mouth?

I merely asserted that Hi-Rez (ie. greater than cd bit depth and sample freq) is better in all the dimensions that matter than RBCD. (not in storage and bandwidth requirements which haven't mattered in two decades).

I didn't say that most people could hear the difference most of the time. (But in spite of Dr Mark's very good work on the subject the jury is still out on that one. One study does not a scientific consensus make. Although his study seems to be pretty good.)

RBCD does not allow for multichannel audio except for Matrix systems that are stereo compatible. Hi-Rez does.

Dr Mark is a label manager, seller of hires at hiprice.

 

[czt]

He teaches recording and studio techniques at a University, and is one of the few voices of conscience in an industry that is beset by snake oil.
He was one of the first to speak out against MQA, outrageously priced speaker cables, and much other fraudulent charlatanism.

The things, why we (really) like him.

 

[cany89]

I think there is a confusion about what material is just labeled as high-res and what is really high-res. And when there might be an improvement to the sound for real. On both camps there are false assumptions or sharp comments bc of past results…

SACD: There are people here saying they can hear difference and value the result to be better (what is better btw…) than CD, but I suspect 90% of the material they listen is just 16 bit song with different mastering (go to https://dr.loudness-war.info/ to see that unfortunately a lot of 00’ SACDs are compressed as hell). So I would check if the raw record might have any qualities that can’t be put in 16 bit media. And try not to compare a 96 CD issue with 04 remastered SACD… (lol)

Harsh / definitive comments: we get it, there is no difference in tape recorded 78’ Dire Straits album when it’s 24/192. (Don’t bother about better filters, etc.) You can’t add what is not there. But there are great new records. Recorded with 24/96 and got more than 2x distorted guitars. Just saying.

 

[Frgirard]

Dr. Mark has a PhD in Musicology and a long and distinguished career in the music and sound industry in California, where it matters.
He teaches recording and studio techniques at a University, and is one of the few voices of conscience in an industry that is beset by snake oil.
He was one of the first to speak out against MQA, outrageously priced speaker cables, and much other fraudulent charlatanism.

I wonder who you are, and what it is that you have done? Your dismissive statement is like your other arguments. Merely unpleasant, but without any actual merits worth arguing with.

I am a charlatan hunter.

 

[Wes]

who is this guy?

 

[Mnyb]

Yes if you really want to compare you basically have to downsample from the hirez versions yourself .

The "same" song sold on different media at different times can all be slightly different masters especially the token CD layer on some releases , not to mention downloads and streaming services. There are to many unknowns to make that a valid comparison imho.

I'm holding these beliefs nowadays ( i do have hundreds of DVDA discs and hirez downloads so it's not that i haven't tried )

* 99.99 % of important contents is not hirez anyway ( audiophile labels may offer real hirez , but of no significant market penetration ). No, DSTM or kind of blue will never be hirez

* The chosen master is so much more important than delivery format that i do take the mp3 if thats the better master than the DXD or 24/192

* the really cool unappreciated thing with SACD and DVDA was the lossles discrete multichannel content it can be absolutely stunning.

* In the current world i think the industries should just pick 24/48 and stick to that to be the end format until humans evolve better hearing, it gives enough slush margins for sloppy engineering along the way, good ol reedbook cuts it very close to technical and human marginals .

 

[Robin L]

Yes if you really want to compare you basically have to downsample from the hirez versions yourself .

Check

The "same" song sold on different media at different times can all be slightly different masters especially the token CD layer on some releases , not to mention downloads and streaming services. There are to many unknowns to make that a valid comparison imho.

Czech

I'm holding these beliefs nowadays ( i do have hundreds of DVDA discs and hirez downloads so it's not that i haven't tried )

Pole

* 99.99 % of important contents is not hirez anyway ( audiophile labels may offer real hirez , but of no significant market penetration ). No, DSTM or kind of blue will never be hirez

Wait: wasn't there was a surround SACD of DSTM for, like, 45 minutes, two decades ago?

On the other hand, if you are into new recordings of old [Classical and older] music, you might be in luck. Of course, if you really are, there's a very good chance that your upper limit of hearing doesn't even go as far as 15khz.

* The chosen master is so much more important than delivery format that i do take the mp3 if thats the better master than the DXD or 24/192

Amen

* the really cool unappreciated thing with SACD and DVDA was the lossles discrete multichannel content it can be absolutely stunning.

I used to have a 5.1 system with multiple woofers. On the other hand, it's worth noting that Dolby Surround does a remarkable job.

* In the current world i think the industries should just pick 24/48 and stick to that to be the end format until humans evolve better hearing, it gives enough slush margins for sloppy engineering along the way, good ol reedbook cuts it very close to technical and human marginals .

Yeah, 48 khz allows for less drastic anti-aliasing filters.

 

[MRC01]

...
* In the current world i think the industries should just pick 24/48 and stick to that to be the end format until humans evolve better hearing, it gives enough slush margins for sloppy engineering along the way, good ol reedbook cuts it very close to technical and human marginals .

...
Yeah, 48 khz allows for less drastic anti-aliasing filters.

I agree, and the relevance is demonstrated by the fact that at 44.1 kHz sampling, the "standard" filters in most DACs measured here don't fully attenuate until 24.1 kHz. A 48 kHz standard for audio obviates the need for that engineering kludge, facilitates a correct and transparent filter implementation, and is also the same as the DVD / BluRay / video audio standard, so it means 1 standard for everything.

 

[mhardy6647]

I saw "Dr. Mark" and thought someone was talkin' about me... oops.
Solipsism is a terrible condition. I should start a fund to help stamp it out in my lifetime, eh?

 

[Mnyb]

Well i just wanted to say that this topic get to much airtime , its not really that important for our enjouyment of music.

There may be or not be a difference , it won’t matter other than in some rare corner case .

The actual subjective sq seem to have dropped to the bottom in many cases with the help of our superior digital tech ?
Telling me that once a transparent “channel” to the consumer was achieved other factors took precedence in how the sausage is made

 

[Zensō]

Dr. Mark has a PhD in Musicology and a long and distinguished career in the music and sound industry in California, where it matters.
He teaches recording and studio techniques at a University, and is one of the few voices of conscience in an industry that is beset by snake oil.
He was one of the first to speak out against MQA, outrageously priced speaker cables, and much other fraudulent charlatanism.

A few quotes from the esteemed Dr.:

"Hi-Res Audio or HD-Audio provides no perceptible fidelity improvement over a standard-resolution CD or file. CD-spec and hi-res audio versions sound identical to vast majority of listeners through systems of all kinds."

and:

"So it’s time to face the hard facts IMHO. Hi-Res Audio or HD-Audio, the much touted next generation in music fidelity, should NOT be a major determining factor when selecting which music to enjoy. As I’ve often stated in these articles, it is the production path that establishes the fidelity of the final master."

and:

"If real world audiophiles cannot hear a difference then there is no audible difference."

Source: https://www.realhd-audio.com/?p=6993

 

[dualazmak]

Hello OP David Harper,

Even though this info would be a little bit out of the scope of the current discussion in this thread, you would please notice that some (many) of improperly processed HiRes music sources contains unnecessary, some times possibly harmful(?), high frequency (above ca. 25 kHz) noises.

As I posted here, if you would have enough relaxed occasion, you would please watch all of the four amirm's YouTube clips in his threads;

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...-high-res-music-antonio-forcione-video.23083/

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...-live-from-minster-from-the-lake-poets.23095/

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...pcm-vs-mqa-vs-cd-2l-sampler-comparison.23172/

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...son-linn-records-free-high-res-samples.23366/

Then, you would please read carefully my posts here to here.

The issue has been also discussed around 2015 in Japan, like in this page even though in Japanese;
https://sandalaudio.blogspot.com/2015/09/blog-post_17.html
I hope your web browser would properly translate it into English.
Where, "Niserezo (偽レゾ、ニセレゾ)" means "sham HiRes".
The article is really nice and delivers almost the same messages as amirm just gave to us.

Consequently, I configured low-pass (high-cut) 48 dB/Oct filters at 25 kHz, and now I usually play all of my music library and stream music in 96 kHz 24 bit as shared here. This means, in my stereo audio setup, I limit the Fq up to 48 kHz and intentionally cut off at 25 kHz, and hence 48 kHz 24 bit for up to 24 kHz should be also fine for me.

 

[Robin L]

I am a charlatan hunter.

I'm the Ice Cream Man:

 

[MaxBuck]

I'm the Ice Cream Man:

Couple scoops of salted caramel when you get a minute, please. TIA

 

[Newman]

There are mics they have responses over 20khz. This is just one example
https://earthworksaudio.com/piano-microphones/pm40/

If you leave the fringe dwellers like earthworks and go to the big end of town whose mics are used in almost every studio worldwide, Neumann, you will see that their mics are specified at 20-20kHz -- even the ones specifically for recording high notes or percussion.

Maybe take a minute and read this regarding overtones/harmonics
https://earthworksaudio.com/support/technology/frequency-response/

There is nothing there to suggest a benefit from recording above 20 kHz. Yes, instruments produce energy above 20kHz (you can't call it music, because we can't hear it: it is just waste energy). Yes, the paper correctly notes that, "...overtones above 20kHz contribute to the sound quality, or timbre, of sound that we hear or perceive." But the president of earthworks is mistaken if he thinks that a mic that cuts off at 20kHz won't pick up all the audible contribution of those overtones and their interactions. It will. And so will a 44khz sampling rate.

cheers

 

[SIY]

If you leave the fringe dwellers like earthworks and go to the big end of town whose mics are used in almost every studio worldwide, Neumann, you will see that their mics are specified at 20-20kHz -- even the ones specifically for recording high notes or percussion.

There is nothing there to suggest a benefit from recording above 20 kHz. Yes, instruments produce energy above 20kHz (you can't call it music, because we can't hear it: it is just waste energy). Yes, the paper correctly notes that, "...overtones above 20kHz contribute to the sound quality, or timbre, of sound that we hear or perceive." But the president of earthworks is mistaken if he thinks that a mic that cuts off at 20kHz won't pick up all the audible contribution of those overtones and their interactions. It will. And so will a 44khz sampling rate.

cheers

The characterization of Earthworks as "fringe dweller" is a curious one. Very solid instrumentation mics with really nice features for recording.