Because happily it’s not all about something’s utility. From another perspective, the fact that human beings can’t hear something is inconsequential. It’s also about technological innovation, about being able to reproduce reality as faithfully as possible, about the state of the art, about leaving behind human artifacts that are as perfect as possible. Amir played a high-res file that looked absolutely gorgeous up past the threshold of human hearing (until the vocal track kicked in, which was not as pristine as the instrumental one), and I just think it’s great that something like that exists. Maybe one day human hearing will be able to make full use of it.
-
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!
Inside High res Music (Antonio Forcione) (Video)
- Thread starter amirm
- Start date
Nah the actual recording is a completely different kind of historical document--for instance, a performance of a Beethoven 9th by a great conductor or a recording of a major composer conducting his own work the way Stravinsky, Hindemith, and many others have done. Given the technology is available, you might as well use it and produce the best master possible for posterity.
1) I'm not an audiophile.
2) I believe people will have better hearing in the future thanks to scientific advancements.
3) Even if nobody ever gets to hear anything above 20kHz, people will continue to make high-resolution recordings because it's also about the quest to capture reality as objectively and perfectly as possible.
5) Given that high-res recordings are being made, what's the solution on the distribution side? Sure 16/44.1 is enough. Sure people should be aware of the science. Sure people should not fall for unsubstantiated marketing claims. The educating that Amir and others are doing is all to the good. Beyond that, however, shouldn't customers have the *option* to buy an exact copy of the high-res file (a 24/96 file of a 24/96 recording and so on) even if you think it's a stupid purchase?
dvcpro100
Member
The url link is not working, can you post the title and the authors?
danadam
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2017
- Messages
- 1,171
- Likes
- 1,822
Probably this: https://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=20455
"High-Resolution Audio: A History and Perspective" - Melchior, Vicki R.
Katji
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2017
- Messages
- 2,989
- Likes
- 2,290
/tmpFiles/ no wonder.
aes.org is a PITA, I regretted registering there, although it doesn't generate spam emails like academia.edu
Katji
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2017
- Messages
- 2,989
- Likes
- 2,290
It will be bionic add-ons. If bionic ears then presumably the neurology would quickly adapt. And the technology for audio production/reproduction.
That paper is highly contented, as are some of the referenced papers.
Ignorance is bliss!
Or a Freudian slipeditcontentious
That looks like iphone auto-suggest.
dvcpro100
Member
A credible paper helped me to understand the technical development of the last two decades, even though the analysis heavily relied on B. Stuart’s paper on MQA.
While searching the references, found this link has useful reading resources.
Tks
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2019
- Messages
- 3,224
- Likes
- 5,523
Just wanted to say something really quickly.
Let's assume somewhere either a few decades from now, we're able to hear higher frequencies by augmentation of some sort. What makes you think that this is something anyone would actually desire? Maybe hearing the content in those frequencies is terrible (in fact, I'd argue it straight-up is, judging by how nasty content in high frequencies already is).
Btw I subscribe to your position you make at your 5th point (you skipped 4 as a typo I think).
Similar threads
