Defining High-Res Audio ...

[Purité Audio]

Almost certainly, I hadn't realised the Nagras were so heavy, they take 12 D cells, and you need to carry spare tape,microphone ...
Keith

 

[NorthSky]

Digital recording is great Tim, much easier too than on tape. Tape is great too, and tapes are still the original masters from some of the best and historical important music ever...The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, Black Sabbath...

Today they are opening more vinyl manufactures, and some hard-core musicians they go to studios with open-reel-tape recorders and record cutters.

I agree with you, with what you just said above.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Yes, there are still musicians, and even engineers, who believe tape, and even vinyl, is better. I honestly don't know how they get there. You can listen to a voice, or a simple acoustic instrument, from the mic feed and then from the recording, and...well I don't know how one concludes that analog is better.

Tim

 

[NorthSky]

It's a love affair. One girl looks much better than another one, with a gorgeous face and body, but the other one has that something special that the first one is missing. That's all.

 

[fas42]

Yes, there are still musicians, and even engineers, who believe tape, and even vinyl, is better. I honestly don't know how they get there. You can listen to a voice, or a simple acoustic instrument, from the mic feed and then from the recording, and...well I don't know how one concludes that analog is better.

Tim

And the answer has always been, and remains so to this day: digital playback by its nature is prone to introducing disturbing artifacts into system playback, and these distortion anomalies are more unpleasant the higher the playback level - this is not "correct playback" of the source, and will cause many listeners to lose interest in continued, extended listening - it sounds correct, but is flawed, in non-obvious but still audible ways.

And the answer by the other crowd is to go analogue - solves the digital issues, but introduces more obvious distortions, which fortunately are much easier to listen to over extended periods, for these people. The best alternative is to ensure no significant, audible distortion artifacts are produced, at all - but this is still far from being a trivial thing to do ...

 

[Cosmik]

And the answer has always been, and remains so to this day: digital playback by its nature is prone to introducing disturbing artifacts into system playback, and these distortion anomalies are more unpleasant the higher the playback level - this is not "correct playback" of the source, and will cause many listeners to lose interest in continued, extended listening - it sounds correct, but is flawed, in non-obvious but still audible ways.

Can you measure these distortions? I imagine that you'll say that they can't be measured or that any 'digital' noise of any kind (even at -110dB) is unnatural - and that will be the end of that conversation.

The only argument I can make, is that there are digital recordings from 1978 that people still listen to and rave about. If, in 2016, there are digital artefacts that make recordings unlistenable, then the ones from 1978 must be hundreds of times worse. But people who don't know about these abominable distortions listen to them and love them anyway.

 

[Thomas savage]

And the answer has always been, and remains so to this day: digital playback by its nature is prone to introducing disturbing artifacts into system playback, and these distortion anomalies are more unpleasant the higher the playback level - this is not "correct playback" of the source, and will cause many listeners to lose interest in continued, extended listening - it sounds correct, but is flawed, in non-obvious but still audible ways.

And the answer by the other crowd is to go analogue - solves the digital issues, but introduces more obvious distortions, which fortunately are much easier to listen to over extended periods, for these people. The best alternative is to ensure no significant, audible distortion artifacts are produced, at all - but this is still far from being a trivial thing to do ...

Frank ur injecting disturbing artefacts into this thread.. Ur musings are the clearest sign of distortion I have seen for some time

Try standing on sorbathane , might help

 

[NorthSky]

But Frank is right Thomas; that's the irony.

It's no big deal; we all make a choice in life...and some make more than one choice.
_________

Speaking of hi-res audio; Blu-ray @ 16-bit/48kHz (DTS-HD MA & Dolby TrueHD 5.1) is not High-Res audio...IMO.
It's on the edge, but not sufficient enough to experience much more superiority from the true High-Res Music recordings.
Sure, some sound pretty good, but pretty good is not excellence. For that, it needs to eat much more healthy food, unprocessed and chemical free...way of speech.

Too many Blu-rays are only 16-bit, and only 48kHz (they are all 48, the vast majority). And then, are they derived from the masters?
All those numbers...16, 20, 24, 32, 64, 128 bits, and 44, 48, 88, 96, 176, 192, 352, 384kHz, etc., they are just numbers without real specific given sources, without real value, but to the people making them and cashing from them, they look good to us...we have no choice and take what they feed us. Beats VHS and Beta tapes anyway. And Laser discs? Wow, the same size as LPs, but LPs have no pictures in them...only audio.
It's easy to fudge numbers, and even more so in the year 2016, when there are so many acronyms now.

To me, if to my ears, I cannot rely on them anymore, and if the measurements don't corroborate with them...it is a day when I can switch hobbies...attend to my garden and my butterfly collection. I don't mind the sounds of nature.
And it don't matter if it sounds "high-res" or not. The new young generations of sets of ears are the next foundation to high-res audio...higher level of fidelity, quality music, message of ultimate exaltation. ...In the footsteps of John Coltrane and Billie Holiday. ...Bach and Beethoven. ...All that blues.

 

[Blumlein 88]

And the answer has always been, and remains so to this day: digital playback by its nature is prone to introducing disturbing artifacts into system playback, and these distortion anomalies are more unpleasant the higher the playback level - this is not "correct playback" of the source, and will cause many listeners to lose interest in continued, extended listening - it sounds correct, but is flawed, in non-obvious but still audible ways.

And the answer by the other crowd is to go analogue - solves the digital issues, but introduces more obvious distortions, which fortunately are much easier to listen to over extended periods, for these people. The best alternative is to ensure no significant, audible distortion artifacts are produced, at all - but this is still far from being a trivial thing to do ...

This would be using analog as a filter. It filters out "disturbing artefacts". Digital recordings of such are also non-disturbing. The question is whether digital has disturbing artefacts inherent or simply that other aspects of recording practice are creating them which digital transmits cleanly. The evidence points elsewhere than digital being a problem.

Smooth sweet sounding violins are not real sounding. Real violins are rather raucous. Real violins recorded 8 inches from the instrument are far more raucous than when heard 20 feet away. I think the answer is to quit using band-aids and quit recording such an instrument up close. Just for one example.

 

[amirm]

Too many Blu-rays are only 16-bit, and only 48kHz (they are all 48, the vast majority). And then, are they derived from the masters?

There is so much processing/mixing in a movie soundtrack that I don't think there is useful information beyond 16 even if the production was done at much higher bit depths.

 

[NorthSky]

The music scores for the motion pictures...by world leading orchestras; that's the most highest emotional musical impact from our Blu-ray movies @ home.
Many are recorded @ 24/48 ... and that helps.

A good barometer to check audio quality.

The best sound quality from a Blu-ray movie is usually during the closing credits...the last tunes.
I don't know if it's because there are no more pictures to go with the sound, so that they can concentrate all the bits in the audio equation, or if the smooth scrolling texts influence the magnificence of the audio quality (nah, it's not that), but it sure sounds very high-res, plus they do often (most of the time) turn the volume level up. Yes for many BR flicks the rolling end credits contain the highest resolution real quality recorded music.

Blu-ray Audio only are usually high-res audio, and Blu-ray Video can sound as good. It's the motion picture music scores that transport us emotionally inside the movie's story lines. ...And the cinematography, of course.
Some of the recent Blu-ray flicks are subliminal in audio quality, others that are older didn't have the advantages and technologies we have today, and we can definitely hear the distortion, the restricted frequency response, the pumping and smearing from the inferior recording machines and mics. ...The low res from the mixing consoles.

But no doubt in my mind that some of the newer/intelligent/masterfully crafted films on Blu-ray are a delicious treat to the aura. ...To the ears and soul.
...Their music scores, the quality of the high-res audio soundtrack.

 

[NorthSky]

♪♫♪♫♪ High-Res Audio

"We now include audiophile vinyl reviews in our Hi-Res Section because at AUDIOPHILE AUDITION we feel that that analog format, when properly done, can equal or surpass the fidelity of the top digital hi-res formats. This is especially true of 45 rpm 12″ audiophile discs, which can approach the aural achievements of direct discs of the past."

 

[Blumlein 88]

♪♫♪♫♪ High-Res Audio?

"We now include audiophile vinyl reviews in our Hi-Res Section because at AUDIOPHILE AUDITION we feel that that analog format, when properly done, can equal or surpass the fidelity of the top digital hi-res formats. This is especially true of 45 rpm 12″ audiophile discs, which can approach the aural achievements of direct discs of the past."

Drivel. They may sound very good. They don't surpass fidelity of digital formats. Its okay to rave about how good something can be. Those are probably of enough fidelity a performance sounds great on them if the recording is good. Same can be said of CD.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

We all need to get a high-end resolution turntable and buy the best hi-res 45RPM albums.
Then we can walk the talk.
Without that we're just blowin' dust in the wind.

Nonsense. Running vinyl at 45rpm won't eliminate it's distortions. And it won't make it "hi-res."

Tim

 

[NorthSky]

I was simply humorous. Plus, many audiophiles enjoy quality music listening from 45 rpm LPs.
And, if audaud decided to include them in their high-res audio music selections/reviews, they must have a valid reason.

 

[fas42]

Can you measure these distortions? I imagine that you'll say that they can't be measured or that any 'digital' noise of any kind (even at -110dB) is unnatural - and that will be the end of that conversation.

The only argument I can make, is that there are digital recordings from 1978 that people still listen to and rave about. If, in 2016, there are digital artefacts that make recordings unlistenable, then the ones from 1978 must be hundreds of times worse. But people who don't know about these abominable distortions listen to them and love them anyway.

Of course they can be measured, but because they typically only result from the complete system being in operation they are more difficult to "nail" - a good example would be a DAC which measures "perfectly" in isolation, but once inserted into a system which has the speakers being driven strongly by the power amplifier, which then injects high levels of noise into the mains supply in the area, by virtue of the current spikes being required by its power supply, then ends up not working at spec levels. The system is the circuit, not the individual component working by itself - that's how I've always worked to optimise sound by approaching the exercise at a system level, never just by the single box of electronics, etc.

If someone paid me to do it, , I would work out some set of test signals to make this obvious to people who need numbers to make them happy - I can hear the anomalies in the music, and this has always been enough to point me to where there are problems.

 

[fas42]

This would be using analog as a filter. It filters out "disturbing artefacts". Digital recordings of such are also non-disturbing. The question is whether digital has disturbing artefacts inherent or simply that other aspects of recording practice are creating them which digital transmits cleanly. The evidence points elsewhere than digital being a problem.

Yes, at least partially. The analogue has stripped off the areas of the sound which are most prone to creating disturbing distortion, so digital reproduction will be less of a problem here. My viewpoint is that the recordings are always clean, and I repeat, always - but an extremely accurate recording, by digital recording chain, will have a content which will be 'harder' to reproduce satisfactorily - any distortion of this content will be harder to stomache, so, unfortunately, the playback chain needs to be on its best behaviour for these recordings.

Smooth sweet sounding violins are not real sounding. Real violins are rather raucous. Real violins recorded 8 inches from the instrument are far more raucous than when heard 20 feet away. I think the answer is to quit using band-aids and quit recording such an instrument up close. Just for one example.

It depends. Real violins can be played in such a way that the sound is obnoxious, in the flesh - but we are hopefully talking about recordings where the players have a modicum of skill. And when played with some level of expertise then violins have a very intense sound, which is simultaneously "sweet" - it drills a hole through your skull, but this is not an unpleasant experience! Unless, it's elderly Yehudi Menuhin - his later playing can be tough going ...

Personally, I revel in real intensity of sound coming from instruments - but when this is served with a helping of system generated distortion then it doesn't work, as an enjoyment - I have no desire to make listening to music a chore: it has to work on my pleasure centres , and it has to do so at realistic levels.

 

[Cosmik]

Smooth sweet sounding violins are not real sounding. Real violins are rather raucous. Real violins recorded 8 inches from the instrument are far more raucous than when heard 20 feet away.

Another example of where a listening trial using humans to indicate 'preference' would be in danger of falling prey to their preconceived ideas of how a violin should sound, rather than reality - or what was on the recording. Of course if the eminent audio scientist strings a few words together like "Over a sufficient number of trials with many types of listeners, music and recordings this anomaly would be ironed out", the problem just goes away.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I'm not sure what you mean by raucous, cosmik. A violin can be loud, intrusive, even harsh...on purpose. But it can also be as soft and sweet as a baby's breath. That's the player. If a violin sounds screechy, that's the player too, playing badly. I play with a violin player. I hear her playing, standing right next to me, all the time. She doesn't screech.

Tim

 

[Blumlein 88]

I'm not sure what you mean by raucous, cosmik. A violin can be loud, intrusive, even harsh...on purpose. But it can also be as soft and sweet as a baby's breath. That's the player. If a violin sounds screechy, that's the player too, playing badly. I play with a violin player. I hear her playing, standing right next to me, all the time. She doesn't screech.

Tim

Well I said raucous. I did mean that, but not screechy. Screechy is on the player. Maybe it is just those I have run into and how often I read about sweet violins. Many people seem to think or at least prefer a violin always sound smooth and sweet. Sometimes on some music they are supposed to have bite, and certainly some texture beyond glassy smoothness.