• 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?

M00ndancer

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 4, 2019
Messages
719
Likes
728
Location
Sweden
Good mastering is the end goal regardless of the samplerate/bit depth. For storage at the record company use 24/96 or so that you might be able to use other mastering tools in the future to improve the sound. But I agree with @amirm , to have a business model you might have to have mass market versions present as well.
 

MRC01

Major Contributor
Joined
Feb 5, 2019
Messages
3,424
Likes
4,030
Location
Pacific Northwest
I think the record labels need to offer two levels of fidelity:
1. Loudness compressed or whatever they are doing that for mass market
2. Carefully mastered, full dynamic range music in whatever sample rate/bit depth (but might as well at least pick 24/48 kHz). They should perform blind listening tests to guarantee that this version is superior to #2. Then they should price these at 20% premium over #1.
...
Hear! Hear!

If they must process the music to death to make it sound as loud as possible on the radio and streaming, the least they can do is to not apply that processing on formats used by people who care about fidelity, like CD or high-res downloads.

I have some CDs that disprove the notion that high-res makes any audible improvement in sound quality. Other factors: the mics used, setup, etc. make all the difference. Yet, high-res might sound better overall even if the improvement is not due to high res itself. Engineers recording specifically for high-res might take extra care or avoid applying the excessive processing (compression & EQ) that they otherwise would. This reminds me of debates among musicians about what kind of materials affect the tone of an instrument. For example, making a flute headjoint from platinum versus silver. The platinum certainly sounds different, and some would say better. But is that because of the metal? Certainly the company gives the platinum to their best craftsman who spends more time & care on it, being sold for thousands of dollars, than they do on the silver.
 
Last edited:

nightfishing

Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2019
Messages
32
Likes
25
I think the record labels need to offer two levels of fidelity:

1. Loudness compressed or whatever they are doing that for mass market

2. Carefully mastered, full dynamic range music in whatever sample rate/bit depth (but might as well at least pick 24/48 kHz). They should perform blind listening tests to guarantee that this version is superior to #2. Then they should price these at 20% premium over #1.

They/industry is mistakenly picking higher specs as the improved version, not realizing that if it doesn't have better subjective fidelity, it is not a real market/business.

The whole audiophile LP business is another version of #2 by the way. Instead of releasing on vinyl, they should also have a target for digital.

Or they could just end the loudness wars. There were very "good" reasons to start them, but I.m not sure those reasons still exist. (really, I'm not sure lol)

The mass market equipment of the time made the compressed music "pop", but does that really hold true today? With streaming the go to source for most folks, if the compression went away across the board would the masses care (or notice)
 

Blumlein 88

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 23, 2016
Messages
20,524
Likes
37,057
Hear! Hear!

If they must process the music to death to make it sound as loud as possible on the radio and streaming, the least they can do is to not apply that processing on formats used by people who care about fidelity, like CD or high-res downloads.

I have some CDs that disprove the notion that high-res makes any audible improvement in sound quality. Other factors: the mics used, setup, etc. make all the difference. Yet, high-res might sound better overall even if the improvement is not due to high res itself. Engineers recording specifically for high-res might take extra care or avoid applying the excessive processing (compression & EQ) that they otherwise would. This reminds me of debates among musicians about what kind of materials affect the tone of an instrument. For example, making a flute headjoint from platinum versus silver. The platinum certainly sounds different, and some would say better. But is that because of the metal? Certainly the company gives the platinum to their best craftsman who spends more time & care on it, being sold for thousands of dollars, than they do on the silver.

Not going to happen. Have had this conversation with some people in the business. Louder is better. End of the story.

They'll contend their special skills to slam it, squash it, put the kick in kick ass of it, make it better than if they didn't. It sounds superior this way. They wouldn't want to do less processing (that just means you lack skill to slam it a little harder). Might not be true of everyone, might not be true in several genre's of music. Of all mainstream stuff it seems to be. You have to grab these guys by the throat and choke them nearly to death to get them not to slam everything they touch (basically threaten not to pay them).

Californication originally had a DR of 10 for the album. There is later released hi res audio version in 24 bit which is an average of DR 4. So much better that way. o_O
 

MRC01

Major Contributor
Joined
Feb 5, 2019
Messages
3,424
Likes
4,030
Location
Pacific Northwest
It's ridiculous. I'll bet they could release that in 8-bit without losing any information.
It really turns me off from pop/rock music. I'm not too much of a music snob; some pop/rock has artistic merit, but the sound quality is so bad it's just too annoying and frustrating to listen to. As Prue says on the baking shows, "it's not worth the calories".
 

Daverz

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 17, 2019
Messages
1,294
Likes
1,451
I don't listen to pop music much these days, but sometimes I'll listen to the Radio Paradise FLAC stream, which sounds pretty damn good to me. Perhaps they are good at choosing good sounding recordings.
 

AndrovichIV

Active Member
Forum Donor
Joined
May 25, 2019
Messages
158
Likes
218
I was going to do this test but have forgotten. :) Will put it on my todo list when I get a chance.

Someone also asked a related question of whether they actually stream identical copies to CD or have some other master.

One can use Audascious and copy the bits that Tidal sends on transit. Save the file to the hard drive. Compute the checksum of said file and compare to the checksum of the same FLAC
 

TLEDDY

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 4, 2019
Messages
631
Likes
858
Location
Central Florida
“However as with all software, its only as good as the original material that was put there, I have some 32/384kHz that sound like a gleaming turd and some really well manufactured red book that sounds quite simply REAL.“

David- thank you for cheering my day!!!

Tillman
 
  • Like
Reactions: j_j

A Surfer

Major Contributor
Joined
Jul 1, 2019
Messages
1,125
Likes
1,230
Yes, and the notion that training your hearing to be able to detect incredibly tiny differences is simply ludicrous. Who the hell listens to music like that? Simply ridiculous to even use that argument as support for why high resolution is a better way forward. Sorry, but anybody who wants to train their hearing detection/processing brain in this way will never enjoy listening to music again. Beyond that, as they age this training will be less and less beneficial anyway due to naturally declining hearing acuity. If they want to waste their youth and musical enjoyment time dissecting music like a forensic detective, by all means, I wish them well. I am willing to bet that 99.8% of the worlds population could never be bothered meaning in practical terms, it is irrelevant whether or not one can train themselves to hear the differences. Rant over.
 

sergeauckland

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 16, 2016
Messages
3,440
Likes
9,100
Location
Suffolk UK
Yes, and the notion that training your hearing to be able to detect incredibly tiny differences is simply ludicrous. Who the hell listens to music like that? Simply ridiculous to even use that argument as support for why high resolution is a better way forward. Sorry, but anybody who wants to train their hearing detection/processing brain in this way will never enjoy listening to music again. Beyond that, as they age this training will be less and less beneficial anyway due to naturally declining hearing acuity. If they want to waste their youth and musical enjoyment time dissecting music like a forensic detective, by all means, I wish them well. I am willing to bet that 99.8% of the worlds population could never be bothered meaning in practical terms, it is irrelevant whether or not one can train themselves to hear the differences. Rant over.
One of the blessings of having been in the audio business a very long time is that I was trained to hear all sorts of things like Wow and Flutter, HF crushing, IMD, all the stuff which afflicted analogue recording and reproduction. By the time that digital recording and especially data compression like MP2 and MP3 came along, I was no longer doing design engineering so never got trained in hearing the artefacts which beset those formats.

It means that I can listen to 128kbps MP3s perfectly happily without being constantly aware of the limitations. This is especially so as I don't have an immediate AB comparison with the uncompressed audio. I hope I never get to hear the limitations of MP3 as there are many internet radio stations, like Venice Classic or France Musique that I like to listen to, all at 128k MP3.

S.
 

A Surfer

Major Contributor
Joined
Jul 1, 2019
Messages
1,125
Likes
1,230
Great example. If somebody like yourself is perfectly able to enjoy such a low bitrate as that, it does make sense in the context that the differences between Redbook and high resolution is practically nil without dedicated training which again my point, why would any music lover bother?
 

MRC01

Major Contributor
Joined
Feb 5, 2019
Messages
3,424
Likes
4,030
Location
Pacific Northwest
Yes, and the notion that training your hearing to be able to detect incredibly tiny differences is simply ludicrous. Who the hell listens to music like that? Simply ridiculous to even use that argument as support for why high resolution is a better way forward. Sorry, but anybody who wants to train their hearing detection/processing brain in this way will never enjoy listening to music again. Beyond that, as they age this training will be less and less beneficial anyway due to naturally declining hearing acuity. ...
OK I'll play devil's advocate here.
Musicians train their hearing to detect the most tiny subtle differences in tone quality and intonation. Tone quality is all about the timbre of the instrument, which depends on the harmonic structure, which correlates to detecting harmonic distortion. Training for increased perception acuity does not diminish listening enjoyment at all; in fact, it can increase one's appreciation of the music, being able to hear more subtleties of musical expression. Age related hearing loss doesn't impair this as much as one might expect because it typically impacts only the top half octave, which doesn't have much musical energy or overtones. Sure, it has some impact, but most of what we don't hear is due to our brains ignoring parts of the "raw data" that our hearing apparatus is providing. Indeed, if that weren't the case, training would not be as effective as it is in improving hearing acuity test results.

Richard Feynman expressed this better than I can: https://www.brainpickings.org/2013/01/01/ode-to-a-flower-richard-feynman/
 
Last edited:

sergeauckland

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 16, 2016
Messages
3,440
Likes
9,100
Location
Suffolk UK
OK I'll play devil's advocate here.
Musicians train their hearing to detect the most tiny subtle differences in tone quality and intonation. Tone quality is all about the timbre of the instrument, which depends on the harmonic structure, which correlates to detecting harmonic distortion. Training for increased perception acuity does not diminish listening enjoyment at all; in fact, it can increase one's appreciation of the music, being able to hear more subtleties of musical expression. Age related hearing loss doesn't impair this as much as one might expect because it typically impacts only the top half octave, which doesn't have much musical energy or overtones. Sure, it has some impact, but most of what we don't hear is due to our brains ignoring parts of the "raw data" that our hearing apparatus is providing. Indeed, if that weren't the case, training would not be as effective as it is in improving hearing acuity test results.

Richard Feynman expressed this better than I can: https://www.brainpickings.org/2013/01/01/ode-to-a-flower-richard-feynman/
If I were listening to music (or audio generally) for quality monitoring purposes as part of my job, then indeed, I would need and appreciate the training necessary to be aware of all the shortcomings of digital bit-compressed audio.

However, I'm retired, I don't do any design work except as a hobby, so am glad I don't have the training, and don't hear the artefacts of low(ish) bitrate MP3s. It would not increase my enjoyment of music if I were able to hear these, much as I can hear wow and flutter or IMD etc. Fortunately, even those now have become less audible given that I hardly ever listen critically for quality, but only for the pleasure of the music.

Listening for what's wrong in the reproduction is far too much like work, not pleasure.

S.
 

earlevel

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Nov 18, 2020
Messages
545
Likes
776
Since in any such “forced choice” test the listener can simply guess, a protocol is used to differentiate between that and actual fidelity difference. The statistical method calls for determining the probability of chance being lower than 5% that the person was guessing randomly. Or put inversely that there is 95% confidence in the person hearing an audible difference between A and B.

The headline from the report was that out of all the trials, the number of correct guesses was only 49.82% (why anyone would report such numbers with two decimal places where the margin of error is quite a bit bigger than this is beyond me). The good enough camp happily runs with this summary by declaring that the difference between DVD-A/SACD and its “CD” version was no better than chance, ergo there is no audible difference.

Lost in that is one tester who managed to get 8 out of 10 right meaning there was 94.5% probability that he was identifying the proper source and not guessing. This is so close to 95% threshold that it should have been noted as significant and countering the larger conclusion but was not. Two other testers managed 7 out of 10 correct selections. These were all dismissed as exceptions and the total number of trials/listeners incorrectly relied upon.
I think this is a common misunderstanding of what 95% confidence interval means. If we want to know whether a coin has a preference as to which side it lands on, and give a thousand people a shot at 20 coin flips, if one person gets 19 of out 20 heads, if does not mean we're 95% sure the coin had a preference for heads for that one person. The 95% confidence interval is to allow assumptions to be made for broader populations, as to where the mean lies. You can't really pick out one person from the group. If you do, you'll have to test them multiple times to have confidence it's repeatable.

An easy way to understand why 95% doesn't mean 95% confidence, note it's true is you can get 100% purely by chance—rare, but it happens; if someone got 100% of their coin tosses while "willing" heads, would you say that you're 100% confident they could will the outcome?

As for "7 out of 10", note that chance distribution is a bell curve, so 7 of 10 is uninteresting, it's buried in the meat of the curve. I just tossed a penny, 5 sets of 10: 6/4, 6/4, 5/5, 2/8, 3/7. 80% and 70% in there, totally by chance and with few attempts. The total result, 56% tails on 50 tosses, and we know this would tend towards 50% with more tosses, yet I already have 80% on an individual trial, and there is a possibility I'd get 100%. But the only thing that can matter is the long-term outcome.

But to your greater point, I think, I agree that simply doing test like ABX with arbitrary people doesn't always answer the question we have in mind. For instance, if the question is, "can a person discern trumpet notes in a piece of music with many instruments?", and we use subjects from the general population to hear two clips of music and choose A or B as the clip with trumpet, everyone here is probably going to get 100%, but a typical person might have to guess at all of them. They'd get 50% as a whole, but some would be lucky and get 80%, some unlucky and get 20%—some lucky guy might totally guess 100%. There are certain things you can and can't answer with this hypothetical study. If you have enough of "us", you might be able to answer "can some people hear...", with some confidence, but you couldn't answer "can all people hear...". You can't even be certain the individuals who score 95% and up could hear it, but if enough did you'd probably have a good idea. At that point, you'd probably want to take the ones that got high scores and repeat testing—some would fall out as lucky, other as being highly likely to hear it.

And that's the problem I have with a lot of "can people hear the difference between 24-bit and 16-bit" kinds of tests. There is a huge difference between asking if people in general can hear, and whether some people can consistently hear it and prefer one over the other.
 

krabapple

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Apr 15, 2016
Messages
3,169
Likes
3,717
And again: in the real world the people making these claims are people who *already claim to be in the class of 'some people' who can consistently hear it*.

They are not a nebulous abstraction: they are the typical inhabitants of audio forums, and Stereophile subscription lists.

And yes, they fail ABX tests too. Or refuse to credit them with any power...often (mis)using arguments like the above.
 

earlevel

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Nov 18, 2020
Messages
545
Likes
776
And yes, they fail ABX tests too. Or refuse to credit them with any power...often (mis)using arguments like the above.
Well-known mastering and recording engineers, some industry icons, have told me they can hear the difference whether 24-bit audio has been dithered or truncated from a higher bit depth. (And of course "truncated" sounds bad.) My position is that they can't—assuming the audio level is such that they wouldn't be deafening or destructive to their gear when playing typical audio. The last couple of bits are deep into thermal noise of any audio system, and would be too low for their ears to detect anyway.

I've offered a simple test, to people on such discussion threads (primarily gearsl**z), where I've provided a 24-bit file with an easy-to-identify digital sweep of amplitude of ±1 bit. I've asked only, take a listen, decide if you hear it. I don't do this is a challenging or pushy way, just provide links to 16- and 24-bit versions to the forum and say the files may be helpful in understanding the levels involved with dither. I've never asked for them to tell me the results, much less provide proof. Not only has no one tried, as far as I know, but I've been soundly chastised for having the nerve to even suggest it.

The people that believe this stuff absolutely don't want to know the truth.
 

pozz

Слава Україні
Forum Donor
Editor
Joined
May 21, 2019
Messages
4,036
Likes
6,827
Age related hearing loss doesn't impair this as much as one might expect because it typically impacts only the top half octave
Hearing loss is not just a loss in sensitivity. It also shows up as a loss in the ability to discriminate between sounds.

To the topic, listening training is immensely rewarding. A person might think they are doing this abstract set of exercises and lament the uselessness but, later on, after some proficiency is acquired, music itself becomes more interesting and involving because of that training.
 

Blumlein 88

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 23, 2016
Messages
20,524
Likes
37,057
Any of you do something like the following. Take a high quality high rez recording done with excellent gear. Dump the file in an editor. Brickwall out everything below 20 khz. Slow the speed by 600%. This puts the 20-40 khz octave down in the most sensitive range of our own hearing roughly 3-6.5 khz. Amplify it, you often can get away with 40 db of gain here. Listen to it. There just isn't much there. This is supposed to be an eargasm of an improvement over redbook? Please don't embarrass yourselves.
 

earlevel

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Nov 18, 2020
Messages
545
Likes
776
Any of you do something like the following. Take a high quality high rez recording done with excellent gear. Dump the file in an editor. Brickwall out everything below 20 khz. Slow the speed by 600%. This puts the 20-40 khz octave down in the most sensitive range of our own hearing roughly 3-6.5 khz. Amplify it, you often can get away with 40 db of gain here. Listen to it. There just isn't much there. This is supposed to be an eargasm of an improvement over redbook? Please don't embarrass yourselves.
Nice idea!

People have interesting reasons for 96k and up. Somebody argued, we don't know if advances will allow us to hear up there someday (guess he's thinking direct connect to the brain), therefore we should archive all music at 96k, at least. Never mind there is no effort to mix up there, and instrument harmonics fall off quickly anyway as you noted, and anything that survived would be at extremely low level and completely masked by the louder lower harmonics. And likely if much is there, it's unintended electronic noise. But, it was a creative idea.

Since you posted a nice test, I'll give mine. 16- and 24-bit versions, plus a 5-bit version so the listener is primed for what to listed for. Not the quietest possible signal at those levels, twice that, because they were originally intended to simulate dither levels for those sample sizes (plus and minus the least significant bit level).

For familiarity, identical signal to the others:

5-bit digital sweep (at ±1 lsb, -24.1 dB p-p)

What you'd expect—if you set volume of your system to play loud music, you'll hear this by itself (but probably not with music playing):

16-bit digital sweep (at ±1 lsb, -90.3 dB p-p)

You won't hear this. Don't do anything stupid like trying dangerous gain levels, something could go wrong and it's a meaningless test anyway:

24-bit digital sweep (at ±1 lsb, -138.5 dB p-p)

I won't shame anyone who says they can hear it. I'm just putting this out there for private, self-testing.
 
Top Bottom