• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

hi res

Daverz

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 17, 2019
Messages
1,294
Likes
1,451
compression and streaming carry their own set of flaws that degrade audio, with high quality kit it’s very easy for CD to output far better quality audio than the mainstream streamers,

It is known, Khaleesi.
 

Bamyasi

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2019
Messages
487
Likes
354
In practice, actual SQ differences are often caused by artifacts of digital transfer, especially if it was carried out decades ago on a poor quality equipment (state of the art by then standards) and with varying level of expertise. It's typical for early days of CD, when original 16/48 digital masters were transferred to 16/44.1 for pressing CDs without dithering and with noticeable imaging artifacts. Today, those dubious quality old transfer files quite likely end up in the streaming providers database and get streamed to consumers, simply because nobody cares. In such case, a proper 24/48 (or higher) transfer can actually improve SQ significantly, ironically, by reducing (spurious) audio content above 22 kHz.
 

JJB70

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 17, 2018
Messages
2,905
Likes
6,148
Location
Singapore
I genuinely don’t understand posts like this, 25% of people asked didn’t care, the “vast majority of listeners through systems of all kinds”. I can see the place for “research“ like this in Hello or Grazia Magazine but not on a forum that’s dedicated to Audio and critical assessment of high fidelity reproduction.

the majority of the population couldn’t give a toss if music came out of a bean can. Fact. In fact that’s the only conclusion that appears to come to.

That might be true if the study had been done in Hello magazine, but Mark Waldrep has a wealth of audio knowledge and has produced beautifully recorded high-res music for his own label. I suspect he has a far better understanding of the subject than the overwhelming majority of ASR posters and that those who read his articles and browse his website have a heightened awareness of, and interest in, audio and music. So his results cannot just be dismissed as the work of clueless individuals who have no idea and are clog eared. It took a lot of integrity for Mark Waldrep to accept the conclusions as he was a cheer leader for high-res music.
Weirdly though, I think it is true that ultimately audio gear, bit depth, sampling rate, compression etc don't really matter. If it is music I love I can listen to it and enjoy it on just about anything.
 

Mart68

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 22, 2021
Messages
2,610
Likes
4,862
Location
England
In practice, actual SQ differences are often caused by artifacts of digital transfer, especially if it was carried out decades ago on a poor quality equipment (state of the art by then standards) and with varying level of expertise. It's typical for early days of CD, when original 16/48 digital masters were transferred to 16/44.1 for pressing CDs without dithering and with noticeable imaging artifacts. .

I see this claimed often but where is the evidence? In the early days of CD (1982/83) there were hardly any digital recordings so hardly any digital masters. Almost all early CD releases were 1970s analogue recordings by big name artists - Clapton, Eagles, Fleetwood Mac etc.

I buy a lot of early CD releases and have yet to find one with any issues. That's not to say there are none, but I've asked before for chapter and verse i.e name some specific albums that suffer from this so I can see for myself. To date, nothing.
 

Headchef

Active Member
Joined
May 1, 2021
Messages
152
Likes
42
Location
In a jar, by the door
That might be true if the study had been done in Hello magazine, but Mark Waldrep has a wealth of audio knowledge and has produced beautifully recorded high-res music for his own label. I suspect he has a far better understanding of the subject than the overwhelming majority of ASR posters and that those who read his articles and browse his website have a heightened awareness of, and interest in, audio and music. So his results cannot just be dismissed as the work of clueless individuals who have no idea and are clog eared. It took a lot of integrity for Mark Waldrep to accept the conclusions as he was a cheer leader for high-res music.
Weirdly though, I think it is true that ultimately audio gear, bit depth, sampling rate, compression etc don't really matter. If it is music I love I can listen to it and enjoy it on just about anything.

my point is that his findings are just that a broad sample base couldn’t be fussed, hardly revolutionary findings.

Also I’m very skeptical of people that loosely reference their own study without actually offering the data. It’s just a summary conclusion that says little more than “people aren’t that fussed about something that only has a known limited appeal“.
 

Jimbob54

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Oct 25, 2019
Messages
11,066
Likes
14,700
NB: Amazon vs Amazon HD is different. The HD version is CD quality or better. The non-HD is a questionable sounding lossy compressed data version.

What's confusing is that HD in this context means "no lossy compression" rather than "higher bitrate and bit depth than CD." The former is significant, the latter is dubious at best.
And it does look like Amazon are doing away with the non HD offer. I recently subscribed and was given a no cost but optional upgrade to the HD service. Assuming that's a permanent offer, I suspect they are moving to a model where lossy is selectable by the user subject to bandwidth /data saving reasons but "hi res" is available to all.
 

Geert

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 20, 2020
Messages
1,938
Likes
3,526
my point is that his findings are just that a broad sample base couldn’t be fussed, hardly revolutionary findings.

Also I’m very skeptical of people that loosely reference their own study without actually offering the data. It’s just a summary conclusion that says little more than “people aren’t that fussed about something that only has a known limited appeal“.
I think you're underestimating the depth of this study. There's more than just a summary conclusion, all the data is available on the website but it's spread over different articles. The study was also presented at a recent AES conference, don't know if you can download a paper over there.

There's also a lot of details shared in this podcast
.
 

Frgirard

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 2, 2021
Messages
1,737
Likes
1,040
I think you're underestimating the depth of this study. There's more than just a summary conclusion, all the data is available on the website but it's spread over different articles. The study was also presented at a recent AES conference, don't know if you can download a paper over there.

There's also a lot of details shared in this podcast
.
Have you recording with 100 dB of dynamic?
Are you able to hear over 20KHz?
 

czt

Active Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2021
Messages
140
Likes
89
I see this claimed often but where is the evidence? In the early days of CD (1982/83) there were hardly any digital recordings so hardly any digital masters. Almost all early CD releases were 1970s analogue recordings by big name artists - Clapton, Eagles, Fleetwood Mac etc.

I buy a lot of early CD releases and have yet to find one with any issues. That's not to say there are none, but I've asked before for chapter and verse i.e name some specific albums that suffer from this so I can see for myself. To date, nothing.

All of my simply PCM-1610 converted, first (red) Polydor CD's (eg. 800 015-2 02, 800 025-2 01, 800 024-2 01) flawless. Not so the "modern" digital remasters with excessive EQ and DRC.
 
OP
D

David Harper

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2019
Messages
359
Likes
434
That might be true if the study had been done in Hello magazine, but Mark Waldrep has a wealth of audio knowledge and has produced beautifully recorded high-res music for his own label. I suspect he has a far better understanding of the subject than the overwhelming majority of ASR posters and that those who read his articles and browse his website have a heightened awareness of, and interest in, audio and music. So his results cannot just be dismissed as the work of clueless individuals who have no idea and are clog eared. It took a lot of integrity for Mark Waldrep to accept the conclusions as he was a cheer leader for high-res music.
Weirdly though, I think it is true that ultimately audio gear, bit depth, sampling rate, compression etc don't really matter. If it is music I love I can listen to it and enjoy it on just about anything.
very true. There have been occasions when listening in my car that I was enjoying the music more than in my house and my car system is nothing much; just a standard original equipment car stereo and one of the rear speakers doesn't work. I put a few hundred songs onto an IPOD from CD to WAV. Can't do it anymore my new laptop doesn't have a CD drawer. Cd's are slowly going away I guess. My 2016 civic doesn't have a CD player either.
 

Mart68

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 22, 2021
Messages
2,610
Likes
4,862
Location
England
All of my simply PCM-1610 converted, first (red) Polydor CD's (eg. 800 015-2 02, 800 025-2 01, 800 024-2 01) flawless. Not so the "modern" digital remasters with excessive EQ and DRC.

Exactly. Even if there was a transfer issue it must have been far from universal and I'll still remain sceptical of claims that there was any issue at all until someone presents some evidence to back up the claim.

fact is a lot of people were disappointed with the sound of CD when it came out, no-one disputes that. It's just a question of why.

Besides the 'engineers didn't know what they were doing when they made the transfers' excuse, other common excuses are that the early players were rubbish (demonstrably not true) or that digital playback is intrinsically flawed (again, nonsense).

Now the same people do use digital, the usual reasons given are that 'digital players have improved massively' (demonstrably not true), or the advent of so-called high resolution playback and recording has made it listenable (again nonsense especially when they reference 'hi rez' transfers of recordings made in the 1970s...).

I think the reality was that their systems might have been balanced to sound fine with whatever Heath-Robinson turntable contraption they were using back then, but presented with master-tape quality programme they fell apart. No-one wants to admit they spent a fortune on over-hyped tat, even if it was years ago now, so the straw-clutching continues to this day.
 

Geert

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 20, 2020
Messages
1,938
Likes
3,526
Fact is a lot of people were disappointed with the sound of CD when it came out, no-one disputes that. It's just a question of why.
For the same reason a lot of audiophiles today believe DRC sounds crap. They prefer to listen to a system with 15dB resonant peaks in the low end.
 

sergeauckland

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 16, 2016
Messages
3,440
Likes
9,100
Location
Suffolk UK
exactly. Even if there was a transfer issue it must have been far from universal and I'll still remain sceptical of claims that there was any issue at all until someone presents some evidence to back up the claim.

fact is a lot of people were disappointed with the sound of CD when it came out, no-one disputes that. It's just a question of why.

Besides the 'engineers didn't know what they were doing when they made the transfers' excuse, other common excuses are that the early players were rubbish (demonstrably not true) or that digital playback is intrinsically flawed (again, nonsense).

Now the same people do use digital, the usual reasons given are that 'digital players have improved massively' (demonstrably not true), or the advent of so-called high resolution playback and recording has made it listenable (again nonsense especially when they reference 'hi rez' transfers of recordings made in the 1970s...).

I think the reality was that their systems might have been balanced to sound fine with whatever Heath-Robinson turntable contraption they were using back then, but presented with master-tape quality programme they fell apart. No-one wants to admit they spent a fortune on over-hyped tat even if it was years ago now, so the straw-clutching continues to this day.

There was some anecdotal evidence at the time (1983-4) that by mistake/ignorance, disc-cutting masters were used for CD production rather than the flat master that should have been used. At the time, when an LP was cut, the mastering decisions taken in terms of EQ and HF limiting, mono bass and limiting the stereo separation to avoid excessive stylus vertical movement were all recorded on tape in parallel with the cutting lathe. This tape could then be used to distribute to overseas cutting plants such that LPs produced in, say, Australia, would nominally sound the same as ones cut in the USA or Europe. Playing the disc-cutting master on a flat system would sound 'odd' compared with the original master. When a CD was produced from such a master, it too would therefore sound 'odd.' My understanding at the time is that a few CDs were made that way, and were quickly redone using the correct tape, but by then the damage had been done to that CD's reputation.
As I said, this was reported at the time in the music industry, but I've never seen any 'proper' evidence for it, not least which CDs were affected. Knowing something of the way in which record companies worked and their production schedules, it's perfectly plausible, but that's not the same as real evidence.

S.
 

Mart68

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 22, 2021
Messages
2,610
Likes
4,862
Location
England
There was some anecdotal evidence at the time (1983-4) that by mistake/ignorance, disc-cutting masters were used for CD production rather than the flat master that should have been used. At the time, when an LP was cut, the mastering decisions taken in terms of EQ and HF limiting, mono bass and limiting the stereo separation to avoid excessive stylus vertical movement were all recorded on tape in parallel with the cutting lathe. This tape could then be used to distribute to overseas cutting plants such that LPs produced in, say, Australia, would nominally sound the same as ones cut in the USA or Europe. Playing the disc-cutting master on a flat system would sound 'odd' compared with the original master. When a CD was produced from such a master, it too would therefore sound 'odd.' My understanding at the time is that a few CDs were made that way, and were quickly redone using the correct tape, but by then the damage had been done to that CD's reputation.
As I said, this was reported at the time in the music industry, but I've never seen any 'proper' evidence for it, not least which CDs were affected. Knowing something of the way in which record companies worked and their production schedules, it's perfectly plausible, but that's not the same as real evidence.

S.

I agree it's plausible but as you say it seems that there's nothing but anecdote or people repeating what they read somewhere as though it were established fact. Like I said even if it did happen it cannot have affected more than a comparative handful of releases,

Likewise there might have been the odd early CD player that was truly a duffer but I can testify that early CDs on my 1980s vintage players, run through a properly sorted system, can sound exquisite, Studio-playback quality. There's certainly none of the reported 'wallpaper stripping treble', 'lack of dynamics', 'hard, sterile sound' etc.

The only reason I use a modern transport and DAC is reliability issues with the vintage players due to their age and thousands of hours of use.
 

eas

Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2021
Messages
51
Likes
49
my point is that his findings are just that a broad sample base couldn’t be fussed, hardly revolutionary findings.

Also I’m very skeptical of people that loosely reference their own study without actually offering the data. It’s just a summary conclusion that says little more than “people aren’t that fussed about something that only has a known limited appeal“.

The people who aren't that fussed would seem to be be those who knew about the study and didn't participate, or went so far as to obtain the samples, but never submitted a result. There were ~450 people who made it past both those bars.

Of them, there are the 25%, who you seem focused on, who (presumably) listened to the samples and replied that they couldn't identify which were which.

It would be good to see a more detailed description of the study methods and the results. The paper/poster/presentation is available to AES members. I am not one of them.
 
Top Bottom