• 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!

High Resolution Audio: Does It Matter?

j_j

Major Contributor
Audio Luminary
Technical Expert
Joined
Oct 10, 2017
Messages
2,282
Likes
4,788
Location
My kitchen or my listening room.
Ok. Let's start from the very beginning.

First, noise floor in terms of power/sqrt(hz) is what you need to know. You have to calculate that from the 16 bit floor. Now you know energy per sqrt(hz). Easiest to assume +-1 is maximum level when you do this, and keep units arbitrary and relative to +-1.

Then you need to calculate the energy (sum across frequency in Hz in energy) in an ERB. For simplicity, use 50Hz bandwidths at low frequencies and 1/4 Octave above the point where that's bigger than 50Hz. Now you know the ENERGY in that band, relative to the initial signal max of +-1.

Now you know the level IN THAT BAND. Since the noise is spread out, it will always be smaller than the total noise level.

THAT is the energy in a given ERB. That is the energy that reads on detectability of the noise by the ear, in that ERB.

Now, a sine wave will disappear, monophonic, at -5.5dB below that. At frequencies below 500Hz, a stereophonic signal with coherent sine wave, and incoherent noise in the two channels will get you down to almost -30dB below that level. This ability to detect the binary masking level difference will start to disappear above 500Hz, and be mostly gone by 2kHz. HOWEVER if your noise has a palpable envelope, i.e. it's not more or less constant level, then above 2kHz you can get unmasking from the noise envelope when listening binaurally, again maxing out either at absolute threshold (i.e. zero loudness level) or at about -30 dB relative to the noise. It is, however, rare for an input signal and noise generator to get there above 2kHz. You almost have to contrive it.

ALMOST.

Please refer to my talk on how the ear works to make sense of this. It's a 2 hour talk to technical people who are paying rapt attention. :D
 
Last edited:

j_j

Major Contributor
Audio Luminary
Technical Expert
Joined
Oct 10, 2017
Messages
2,282
Likes
4,788
Location
My kitchen or my listening room.

DonH56

Master Contributor
Technical Expert
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 15, 2016
Messages
7,891
Likes
16,696
Location
Monument, CO

DonH56

Master Contributor
Technical Expert
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 15, 2016
Messages
7,891
Likes
16,696
Location
Monument, CO
It's sorta back. It goes to the 'ls' of the page, instead of running the index. You can go from the link I gave to the right thing by clicking on "index". Which of course should default.

Ah, thanks... Computers... Can't live with them, uh, is there more to that saying?
 

j_j

Major Contributor
Audio Luminary
Technical Expert
Joined
Oct 10, 2017
Messages
2,282
Likes
4,788
Location
My kitchen or my listening room.
Not sure if anybody already mentioned the draw-backs of operating at higher sample rates. It's not just that it is unnecessary. It can actually be damaging.



While I'm not a fan of gigantic sample rates, I'm not worried about 64kHz, or even 88/96. Beyond that is mostly a waste.
 
D

Deleted member 16543

Guest
While I'm not a fan of gigantic sample rates, I'm not worried about 64kHz, or even 88/96. Beyond that is mostly a waste.

Yes, I too am much more worried about other links of the audio chain than a little extra IMD due to higher sample rates in the encoded signal. But my point is that there are definitely reasons why one should not expect higher sample rates to be simply a benign waste of resources, and start to worry about what that ultrasonic content does to the audio band.
When you consider what the extra ultrasonic content does to a speaker (or certain amps) that's not really optimized to handle it, that's a higher order distortion already than what happens at the electrical signal level.
But that too dwarfs in comparison of speaker IMD due to content in the audio band. And of course there's the room, which dwarfs anything else.
Unfortunately, usually that's also the most expensive thing to take care of.
There's so many things that can go wrong (and DO go wrong) in audio reproduction, that Hi-rez is to me a border line audiophool topic to stress over.
 

MKreroo

Active Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2020
Messages
144
Likes
67
Interesting read and well worth the time.
About the final part which talked about the loudness compression, I'm wondering about the effect of normalisation process such as ReplayGain (RG) on the recording, a high quality one presumably.

From my understanding of RG, it is quite the opposite of loudness compression in that it changes the entirety, which keeps the dynamic range unaffected, but I'm left thinking about whether this process have similar negative impact as a bad re-mastering described.

In addition, I also came across this article when reading about the recent Opus on their FAQ page, which seems to be in the "it's good enough" group.
 
Last edited:

krabapple

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Apr 15, 2016
Messages
3,194
Likes
3,760
'Bad' remastering refers to (among other things) the use of digital tools to reduce the dynamic range (and increase the perceived loudness) of audio. RG is simply like turning the volume knob up or down. It has no inherent* compression (dynamic range) effect.


(*Of course, with any audio signal, if you turn it up beyond your loudspeakers' capacity to play distortion-free, you get 'compression'. )
 
D

Deleted member 16543

Guest
... beyond your loudspeakers' capacity to play distortion-free, you get 'compression'.
I agree with what you say. I just wanted to point out that a loudspeaker's capacity to play distortion free is very limited (non-existent, as a matter of fact). Even for speakers that cost a stupid amount of money. Even for speakers where that price tag is indeed correlated to the care taken into designing and manufacturing it (that's not always the case).
So yes, we should limit the power of the signal a the speaker's input to avoid compression due to limited x-max, driver motor non-linearities and so on, but that limitation should also be applied to the range of frequencies we feed into a speaker. No need to add to distortion when we can't even hear those frequencies. That's why hi-rez is actually counterproductive.
CD quality (at least for listening. Recording is another conversation..) is the sweet spot. You get:
1. All you can hear
2. Nothing more that would add distortion
 

krabapple

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Apr 15, 2016
Messages
3,194
Likes
3,760
I agree with what you say. I just wanted to point out that a loudspeaker's capacity to play distortion free is very limited (non-existent, as a matter of fact). Even for speakers that cost a stupid amount of money. Even for speakers where that price tag is indeed correlated to the care taken into designing and manufacturing it (that's not always the case).

Amir does distortion measurements in his reviews.

So yes, we should limit the power of the signal a the speaker's input to avoid compression due to limited x-max, driver motor non-linearities and so on, but that limitation should also be applied to the range of frequencies we feed into a speaker. No need to add to distortion when we can't even hear those frequencies. That's why hi-rez is actually counterproductive.
CD quality (at least for listening. Recording is another conversation..) is the sweet spot. You get:
1. All you can hear
2. Nothing more that would add distortion
But can you hear it? It depends on what your speaker is actually receiving. And the level of that ultrasonic content

In my main rig for example, Audyssey is on, and it operates at 48kHz.

But even without it, is the level of ultrasonic hash in the average hi rez source high enough to drive a competent speaker into compression or other distortion at normal playback levels?
 
D

Deleted member 16543

Guest
But can you hear it?

The question shouldn't be "can you hear the damage it makes?"
It should be "why would you have it if you don't need it?". Best case scenario it's going to be inaudible.
Besides, so many people claim hi-rez makes such a big difference that it's important to mention it could be extra distortion that makes things sound different.
 

krabapple

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Apr 15, 2016
Messages
3,194
Likes
3,760
No, the question should be-- is it audible under normal listening conditions? We can measure far more than we can hear.

'Best case' might be the normal case. I'd say 'worst case, it's going to audible'

What people say in sighted comparisons of hi rez to standard rez , is no more credible than any other sighted comparison of audio. Such anecdotes means nothing to me.

In actual studies of the matter, the 'extra distortion' has been considered. The main problem found in those studies is the lack of any statistically significant audible difference at all, much less one that could be traced to a system's bad response to ultrasonic input.

You could test it yourself. Find or rip a hi rez audio file with 'visible' amounts of ultrasonic hash (hi rez SACD rips will show this). Highpass filter it so that ONLY the hash is left. Play that back at your normal listening level. Hear anything? Then also play back the original file, versus a *lowpassed* version (which omits the hash). Hear any difference? (compared blind, of course).
 
D

Deleted member 16543

Guest
We
No, the question should be-- is it audible under normal listening conditions? We can measure far more than we can hear.

'Best case' might be the normal case. I'd say 'worst case, it's going to audible'

What people say in sighted comparisons of hi rez to standard rez , is no more credible than any other sighted comparison of audio. Such anecdotes means nothing to me.

In actual studies of the matter, the 'extra distortion' has been considered. The main problem found in those studies is the lack of any statistically significant audible difference at all, much less one that could be traced to a system's bad response to ultrasonic input.

You could test it yourself. Find or rip a hi rez audio file with 'visible' amounts of ultrasonic hash (hi rez SACD rips will show this). Highpass filter it so that ONLY the hash is left. Play that back at your normal listening level. Hear anything? Then also play back the original file, versus a *lowpassed* version (which omits the hash). Hear any difference? (compared blind, of course).

Well, if this was a conversation just between the 2 of us I could see how asking my question instead of yours bears little benefit. Two considerations, though:

1. Unlike you, a LOT of people are convinced hi-rez does sound different (and acritically and automatically attribute the difference to something more that the hi-rez file must have).
The purpose of my post was to open their eyes, not yours.. They seem to be quite open already.

2. There's still a lot of tweeters out there that were designed and built in an age where ultrasonic (in the amount you can see in some modern hi-rez files) wasn't even a consideration. And even with modern speakers I would be careful assuming the tweeter is ok handling it. Unless the speaker comes with a super-tweeter (trust me, if the manufacturer knew for sure their tweeter could handle high amount of ultrasonic, they would advertise it! So if you don't see it plainly stated, at least in the indirect form of frequency response upper range, you can expect a roll of the dice result as far as ultrasonic handling).
 
Top Bottom