• Welcome to ASR. 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!

HiRes FOMO - Am I really missing anything?

Very nice list, thanks for that, looks great for exploring.

Just to put things in perspective, I do not plan to involve a PC in the signal chain.

Budget wise, my most expensive amp so far is under $300, same with my most expensive speaker.

I may easily get up to over 20 output channels, and on multichannel format converters - USB & ADAT - so far looking at $15-30 per port, Firewire even less.

RME Digiface USB is Crazy Expensive relative to my budget, just as an example
 
Last edited:
welwynnick said:
Trinnov use $100 CPUs for digital room correction at up to 192kHz, so it can't be that difficult. Granted, Trinnov are expensive, but an ordinary PC can do DRC.
There are lots of software tools, some of them filter designers, and some of them convolvers, and some of them both, but they're all capable and fair value:
  • Acourate - AudioVero
  • Audiolense Convolver Download – juicehifi.com
  • Cavern
  • Comparison of convolution engines | Audio Science Review (ASR) Forum
  • Dirac - Digital sound improvement that transforms your HiFi experience
  • DRC: Digital Room Correction
  • Focus Fidelity - Digital Room Correction
  • Hang Loose Convolver (HLC) - Accurate Sound
  • HQPlayer Desktop – Signalyst
  • JRiver Media Center software
  • juicehifi.com
  • LinFIR Software - Dem Audio
  • PGGB - Offline remastering
  • rePhase - Official Site - Free FIR filtering tool
  • REW - Room EQ Wizard Room Acoustics Software
  • Umami Audio - Perfect Soup MIMO Speaker Calibration
Click to expand...
As an Hobby probably not that Difficult but i can say from own Experience to you it is Timeconsuming ;) and still cost Money depend's on what you try to reach!

For Stereo Only not an big Deal at all, so many Hardware DSP out there (MiniDSP as example with DIRAC) I used Najda DSP with 8 Channel Out IIR only, for some Time using his PEQ's for Roomcorection manualy with REW Autoeq and Targetcurve limited to 15 Peq's per Chanel if i remeber me right.

Than switched to 2 MOTU UL Mk5's on an RPI5 to get into Surround Side off Audio Life with CamillaDSP (FIR Filtering). That's cost already a lot more DSP wise because off 2 MOTU'S needed for Analogue 16 Channel Outs! RPI5 around 200€ at that time now also much more expensive depends on Memmory needed.

But for Stereo only one MOTU (800€) do his Job very well on Linux with own Volumecontrol (10 Channel) aktive Speaker Setup FIR Filtered, Roomcorected with REW and Rephase used.

And on the last Journey i go into the Future with an RME HDSPe AES Card (900€) capabel to expand it up to 32 Channels (16 need so far) on an PC but you could go also the DANTE Route with an RME HDSPE AoX-D (1800€) with shitload off channels ;) Not sure how it will wen't on Linux but with Windows or MAC possible for now.

Also for Multi Room aktive Setupes usefull ;) not only Surround.

It's an Pitty that HYPEX don't has Plate AMP's without DSP only with 2 or 3 XLR in that would make Speaker building a lot easier. For now i need to use his Modules and build up my own Enclosure or Plate CNC Machined. But anyway.

So with new Digital Processors ariving this and next Year with DANTE or AES Multichannels Digital Outs you can go far now or soon in any Direction with full aktive Speaker Setups using FIR Filter.

Cheepest Surroundprocessors so far Nuprime H16-AES 48kHz only AES Out (1300€)

Most Expensive i guess Trynov CL 16 Channel (14000-16000€) The Dark Side off the FORCE ;)

Future:

HX16-AES (???)
Hyperion DPR-16 (5000€)

But Still not something you could Buy switch on and thats it for End Consumer.

It's for Hobbyists or Private Cinema Builder but not for the mainstream User for sure.

Also more Channels more Money needed ! Think about all the AMP's needed. Even if you use HYPEX PWM Amps it's not cheep.
 
Last edited:
Whatever the STORAGE format no big deal, these hires releases may well have better mixing / mastering

and multichannel without upmixing, for content you love at reasonable pricing may well be its whole other joy.

My question was just about signal transport resolution...
 
john61ct said:
Whatever the STORAGE format no big deal, these hires releases may well have better mixing / mastering
and multichannel without upmixing, for content you love at reasonable pricing may well be its whole other joy.
My question was just about signal transport resolution...
Click to expand...
If you use spdif, toslink or ADAT then there are limitations.
But there are lots of good digital audio connections with higher capacity, like MADI, HDX, Ravenna, Dante, AES67, AES/EBU, AVB, TB2, TB3 and USB .
 
john61ct said:
Interestingly, in the few instances when a statistically significant sample of the AES experts WERE able to distinguish between high-rate excerpts and low

some of them were consistently wrong about which was which!

a video from Christopher "Monty" Montgomery at xiph.org unfortunately above my paygrade, but interesting and informative nonetheless

Click to expand...
I first read this years ago and have just reread it <https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html>. Has anything really changed since then? Our hearing ability hasn't undergone some miraculous change, has it?
 
AudioSceptic said:
Has anything really changed since then? Our hearing ability hasn't undergone some miraculous change, has it?
Click to expand...
Probably not, but our ability to reproduce audio very accurately has improved.
I suspect that CD was considered "perfect sound" in the '80s because the medium was better than the electronics.
Now it's the other way round.
 
Last edited:
welwynnick said:
Probably not, but our ability to reproduce audio very accurately has improved.
I suspect that CD was considered "perfect sound" in the '80s because the medium was better than the electronics.
Now it's the other way round.
Click to expand...
Yes, but that doesn't mean that anything more than 16 bit & 44.1/48 is audible, or even desirable, as a consumer format.
 
AudioSceptic said:
Yes, but that doesn't mean that anything more than 16 bit & 44.1/48 is audible, or even desirable, as a consumer format.
Click to expand...
I see the reasoning, but there might be another way to look at it.
CD was probably lowest digital audio format that could be demonstrated to be transparent given the electronics available in the '80s.
If the electronics had been better at that time (like they are now) then the very slight shortcomings of 16/44.1 audio could have been detected, and Sony & Philips may have continued to develop a better format, so they could call that "perfect sound".
Therefore CD quality might simply be a reflection of the quality of contemporary electronics.
 
Last edited:
I am entirely confident that I can downsample any material, designed for normal listening at normal levels*, to 16/44 that remains sonically indistinguishable from its high resolution parent.

*to be a bit more specific, in order to be able to ‘fail’ this test myself I need to artificially reduce the modulation by about 30-40dB and apply a corresponding amount of gain on playback.
 
welwynnick said:
I see the reasoning, but there might be another way to look at it.
CD was probably lowest digital audio format that could be demonstrated to be transparent given the electronics available in the '80s.
If the electronics had been better at that time (like they are now) then the very slight shortcomings of 16/44.1 audio could have been detected, and Sony & Philips may have continued to develop a better format, so they could call that "perfect sound".
Therefore CD quality might simply be a reflection of the quality of contemporary electronics.
Click to expand...
Did you read Monty's article? Written about 30 years after the launch of CD, it explains why the Redbook standard was adopted in the first place, and any limitations in electronics then or since don't alter those reasons. In any case, whatever transducers we use to actually listen still have distortions far, far higher than any produced by the electronics in the chain.
 
welwynnick said:
Probably not, but our ability to reproduce audio very accurately has improved.
I suspect that CD was considered "perfect sound" in the '80s because the medium was better than the electronics.
Now it's the other way round.
Click to expand...
Thing is that article dates from around 2013 - not the 80's. And is just as valid now as then. And whatever "slight shortcomings" of 16/44.1 there might be, are not audible in real world listening. No matter how good the surrounding electronics.
 
Regarding the benefit of sample rates above Redbook I think evidence is iffy. And it would depend greatly on the quality of the recording, your hearing, and your system. I have some 24/96 that sounds brilliant and I think may be more resolving, but I may just be thinking that, as it is brilliantly recorded.

I would save yourself some hi-fi money and go get a thorough hearing test by a certified audiologist. You may be surprised. I am soon 70 and things fall off after 4k Hz. It is 99% likely you hearing is not flat.

Also, my ears tell me that EQ via my WiiM Ultra provides far more presonal listening benefit than higher sample rates ever would.

Everything in the process is transparant until it hits the speakers. There you have the component with the most distortion, as well as issues created by the room and listening environment. I would spend time and money to address those before worrying about sample rate.
 
antcollinet said:
Thing is that article dates from around 2013 - not the 80's. And is just as valid now as then. And whatever "slight shortcomings" of 16/44.1 there might be, are not audible in real world listening. No matter how good the surrounding electronics.
Click to expand...
I hesitate to call hi-res snake-oil or a scam, but it often looks like just a means to get people to buy again music they already own and also spend more again on equipment to process all the extra bits. Of course, so much is remastered and *that* is the reason it sounds better, *not* all the extra theoretical bandwidth and bit-depth, and hearing the remaster in Redbook standard sounds just as good (occasionally a remaster sounds worse than the original, but that's another matter!). There's also the matter of attempting to amplify and transduce the extra bandwidth will often *worsen* SQ because IMD is likely to be introduced, as Monty said.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

G
I designed a digital filter myself, for converting WAV files
Replies
10
Views
848
Gary136185925
G
J
The Rolling Stones – Foreign Tongues Reviewed: Are the Vinyl and Blu-ray the Definitive Editions?
Replies
2
Views
317
Redacted
R
R
Wiim Ultra & amp not playing well together
Replies
4
Views
911
SKNG
SKNG
M
SMSL DO100 Pro Advertises DSD512 and 384 kHz — But No ASIO Driver Exists
2
Replies
31
Views
1K
Ruediger
R
klettermann
Wired copper ethernet vs optical ethernet - worth doing?
2
Replies
26
Views
2K
ErVikingo
ErVikingo
Back
Top Bottom