Zp 24/96

It's absurd to suggest that the entire recording industry uses underhand tactics to create artificial differences in sound quality between CDs and higher resolution formats. This may apply to some studios and labels, but it certainly doesn't apply to every studio and label on the planet. There are still some people out there with integrity.

Apart from anything else, it's a very hard claim to prove without inside knowledge.

It's easy to prove in the case of CD vs. 24/96. Find a quality downres program, use it on the 24/96, then compare to the CD via software analysis or DB testing. Minor differences may be due to the conversion process, but any huge differences would be due to remastering of one or the other version.

Besides, most of the hires companies brag about the remastering that goes into their versions. It's a marketing point for them.

It's easy to prove in the case of CD vs. 24/96. Find a quality downres program, use it on the 24/96, then compare to the CD via software analysis or DB testing. Minor differences may be due to the conversion process, but any huge differences would be due to remastering of one or the other version.


Yes, but what can you conclude when there aren't any audible differences?

That the listener has poor hearing and/or poor equipment? That the original CD master wasn't substandard? Any or all of these could apply.

In my case, I can't hear the differences that some people perceive when comparing CD with theoretically higher quality formats. To be honest, after the way I've treated my ears over the years and with my mid-range equipment, I wouldn't expect to be able to (leaving aside the controversial question of whether anyone else can).

For me, the most compelling arguments for Sonos to support these formats are:

1. People want them, and it's important from a commercial standpoint to give people what they want.

2. Some music is sold only in higher resolution format and it's a pain in the arse to have to downsample in order to be able to listen to it on the Sonos.

It's absurd to suggest that the entire recording industry uses underhand tactics to create artificial differences in sound quality between CDs and higher resolution formats. This may apply to some studios and labels, but it certainly doesn't apply to every studio and label on the planet. There are still some people out there with integrity.


Firstly, a large part of the industry is controlled by a small number of very large giants who have a track record of stiffing their customers and the artists.

Remember CDs? When they were introduced the cost of manufacturing and distributing media dropped significantly, and yet the price to the end-user went UP. This actually went to court in the UK and the record industry won on the basis they were providing "a higher quality product" (something many audiophiles would dispute).

Fast forward a few years and we now have MP3 downloads. These are demonstrably degraded quality compared to CDs, the cost of manufacturing is close to zero, and the cost of media distribution has plummeted, and yet we are paying pretty much the same price as we pay for CDs, or maybe more. Also the competition at the point of sale has been eroded from thousands of retail shops, to a handful of online vendors who are supplied by an even smaller number of distributors. Cartel anyone?

Despite the reduction in the manufacturing and distribution costs and the resulting higher profits, the artists are generally being paid less.

The other thing to consider is how many studios are releasing material in hires? There aren't very many. The ones that do are those that those that seem to have a vested interest in the audiophile market and in promoting hires as a premium format.

Another thing is that a lot of music is very badly produced and mastered these days. Arguably some genres of music don't have audiophiles as their target market (a lot of mainstream music is targeted at portable use and radio play and is mastered accordingly). There's nothing fundamentally wrong with that. After all the primary thing that drives the enjoyment of music for most people is not the precision of it's reproduction. I doubt, for instance, we will be seeing hires remasters of the Sex Pistol's "Pretty Vacant" any time soon!

However, some of this practice has spilled over to genres and artists that deserve better treatment to the point where it is often difficult to get decently mastered versions. Maybe I have overstated the case in that these versions are not necessarily deliberately degraded, but simply that the studio did not want to put the effort into mastering them well, or felt that a "more commercial" mastering would sell more.

In that respect, the studios who have taken these original recordings and remastered them with care should be congratulated at least for exposing the potential of the original recordings. However, having gone through this process there is no reason in the world why the remastered version should not be distributed in standard res as well as hi res. This is, generally, not the case. In a lot of cases the remaster is simply not available in standard res. There have been cases where the hires version includes a standard res version which came from a different mastering. For instance, with the 24-bit Beatles reissues the hires version is reported to be 0.2dB louder than the standard res version. This is enough to make it sound "better" in blind tests. This seems very fishy to say the least.

Incidentally people who have downsampled the 24-bit to standard res so that they are come from the same source report that they cannot hear the difference between the two formats.

The objective of these practices seems to be very clear to me: to make the hires format sound better than it is. This helps develop a market for it as a premium product.

And people fall fall it. In the thread I referenced, there are people who insist on comparing hires remasters with standard res issues from a different master and then bragging about the superiority of the hires version. Part of the problem is these people are often "true believers". They have already decided that hires must be better, so any evidence they get which supports their belief system is welcomed without question. When others point out the flaws in their beliefs and challenge them they get defensive and reject any explanation which does not fit their beliefs. This isn't the only thread I have seen like this.

As I have pointed out, many questioning the benefits of hires are people who have systems capable of playing hires files. They have no vendor position to defend. These people are also sceptical of the motives of the studios who release this material.

Cheers,

Keith

Yes, but what can you conclude when there aren't any audible differences?


Conclude whatever you want. That was not part of my hypothesis.


That the listener has poor hearing and/or poor equipment? That the original CD master wasn't substandard? Any or all of these could apply.


Again, conclude what you wish.


In my case, I can't hear the differences that some
people perceive when comparing CD with
theoretically higher quality formats. To be honest,
after the way I've treated my ears over the years
and with my mid-range equipment, I wouldn't
expect to be able to (leaving aside the
controversial question of whether anyone else can).


You will never be able to hear hires benefits, yet you call for implementing it with the religious fervor shown here? Wow, and they call me a fanboy?


For me, the most compelling arguments for Sonos
to support these formats are:

1. People want them, and it's important from a commercial standpoint to give people what they
want.


A minority of a minority want them.


2. Some music is sold only in higher resolution
format and it's a pain in the arse to have to
downsample in order to be able to listen to it on
the Sonos.

You can't be serious. It takes less time to downsample than it does to download the files in the first place. I spend more time embedding artwork.

Yes, but what can you conclude when there aren't any audible differences?

Unfortunately, this is a real issue. None of the meaningful testing methodologies can actually prove definitively that hires is totally inaudible to humans. What they can do is show that in controlled conditions none of the test subjects has definitively shown the ability to detect the differences. It can also show that across a representative population of people that the majority of the test subjects cannot tell the difference.

That does not mean that there are not some people, somewhere, who can hear these differences.

To be honest, after the way I've treated my ears over the years and with my mid-range equipment, I wouldn't expect to be able to (leaving aside the controversial question of whether anyone else can).

Ditto. And, in reality, the same applies to most people as after the age of around 20 human hearing response drops off quite rapidly, especially in the upper frequency ranges.

For me, the most compelling arguments for Sonos to support these formats are:

1. People want them, and it's important from a commercial standpoint to give people what they want.

2. Some music is sold only in higher resolution format and it's a pain in the arse to have to downsample in order to be able to listen to it on the Sonos.

Yes, I agree with these too. My only concern is whether these are important enough for the majority of Sonos's target market. I did some brief research a while back (not very scientifically conducted, I should add), and I struggled to find anyone outside of forums like this which naturally attract audiophiles who had even heard of hires. I honestly think that if you look at the population in general, hires is a non-issue. I would be surprised if more than one or two people in every ten thousand of the population desire this.

Of course there is the argument that Sonos should support every format possible, but I don't think this is feasible. There's plenty of non-hires formats Sonos doesn't support.

Cheers,

Keith

Keith et al... You are being paranoid to the extreme

If studios have the original recording on analog tape, then redo the a->d step using a state of the art piece of gear like the metric halo, are you honestly trying to tell us that the 16 bit version will sound as good as the 24 bit version?

"remastering" In this instence refers to JUST this process. Retransfer from the original ANALOG tapes. Not rejigging the digital file.

Same goes for new recordings. Are you honestly telling us studios like Linn records, or even new acts that do their own, record in 16 bit, then rejig to 24Bit? Why would the do that? Why would they spend all the time and effort getting the tune right....just to record the 'final' take on inferior 16 bit.

There is another group of users you seem to have also forgotten. Those that are moving all their music from their OWN analog sources. Those that have vinyl. Why would those users go to all the trouble and time to do their own a->d transferring in 16 bit, when there are perfectly good a->d convertors out there for 24 bit?

You guys have to accept there are alot of users out there who have original a->d transfers done straight into 24 bit, who want to then play these files straight back at 24 bit. NOT waste time and effort down converting to 16 bit.

You stance, logic and now obstinence on this issue is now silly.....

The man who admits he will never hear a difference, yet is on an almost religious crusade for this implementation is calling us silly?

You offer vinyl to digital enthusiasts as a market driving force and call us silly?

Me dies! :rolleyes:

The man who admits he will never hear a difference, yet is on an almost religious crusade for this implementation is calling us silly?

You offer vinyl to digital enthusiasts as a market driving force and call us silly?

Me dies! :rolleyes:

And Sonos markets zoneplayers as capable of connection into the Dac of your choice...via digital out.....yet its nigh on impossible now to buy a DAC now WITHOUT 24 bit capability.

Go figure

In DAC world, 24 BIT has become the standard. Thats it. There is no turning back. You can go on denying it as long as you like, but that's the reality.

I'm done now trying to figure out this anti 24 Bit rhetoric....oh and go keep enjoying your 2 megapixel digital camera as well :)

...Lifes too short to drink cheap wine....

You will never be able to hear hires benefits, yet you call for implementing it with the religious fervor shown here? Wow, and they call me a fanboy?


Religious fervour? Where did I exhibit that?

I said:

For me, the most compelling arguments for Sonos to support these formats are:

1. People want them, and it's important from a commercial standpoint to give people what they want.

2. Some music is sold only in higher resolution format and it's a pain in the arse to have to downsample in order to be able to listen to it on the Sonos.

Trust me, if I really cared about this issue, I'd exhibit more fervour than is in evidence above.

I personally don't really care about reason #1, because I don't work for Sonos and don't own shares in the company. It's purely a commercial consideration for them. If people start to buy a competitor's hardware instead of buying Sonos, it doesn't matter whether the reason is valid or bogus, it's still a serious business issue. As someone who owns a lot of Sonos gear, I'd actually like to see them stay in business, for all the obvious reasons.

That leaves just the downsampling issue, about which you say:

You can't be serious. It takes less time to downsample than it does to download the files in the first place. I spend more time embedding artwork.

That it takes less time to downsample the files than it does to download them is utterly irrelevant and completely misses the point. The point is that it takes any time at all, because the whole step ought not to be necessary.

Time is a precious and finite commodity. The quicker chores are done, the better. Bad enough that I should have to spend time ripping CDs or downloading music -- necessary evils -- without having to then perform further maintenance.

If you went to a restaurant and were kept waiting for your starter, would you then be content to also be kept waiting for your main meal, as long as the second delay was shorter than the first?

Firstly, a large part of the industry is controlled by a small number of very large giants who have a track record of stiffing their customers and the artists.


Very true.

Remember CDs? When they were introduced the cost of manufacturing and distributing media dropped significantly, and yet the price to the end-user went UP. This actually went to court in the UK and the record industry won on the basis they were providing "a higher quality product" (something many audiophiles would dispute).

Yes, I'm old enough to remember that, but not so old that I'd forgotten about it again.

Fast forward a few years and we now have MP3 downloads. These are demonstrably degraded quality compared to CDs, the cost of manufacturing is close to zero, and the cost of media distribution has plummeted, and yet we are paying pretty much the same price as we pay for CDs, or maybe more.

That's why I won't buy MP3s unless it's the only way to purchase a given release. I still prefer CDs, followed by FLAC downloads. MP3 is an absolute last resort for me.

The other thing to consider is how many studios are releasing material in hires? There aren't very many. The ones that do are those that those that seem to have a vested interest in the audiophile market and in promoting hires as a premium format.

In my case, it's just one or two artists that I care about, who are self-releasing in higher resolution formats. 24/48 is probably the maximum I've purchased, but the Sonos can't handle that, never mind 24/96.

Another thing is that a lot of music is very badly produced and mastered these days.

I know. I've loaded a few of the loudest CDs from the last couple of years into a sound editor to look at the wave form. They're clipped to hell by the excessive amplification and dynamic compression.

That's just the way that many people like it to sound now. They need to be able to hear it through tinny, poorly isolating ear-buds in the middle of a traffic-congested city. The volume knob seems to have gone out of fashion.

Maybe I have overstated the case in that these versions are not necessarily deliberately degraded, but simply that the studio did not want to put the effort into mastering them well, or felt that a "more commercial" mastering would sell more.

Well, that's an entirely different kettle of fish and I agree that remasters, in particular, often don't get the loving treatment they deserve.

Of course, not every product is as commercially viable as the Beatles' back catalogue. The work done on those is absolutely stunning, and I'm not even what you'd call a fan of the band.

In that respect, the studios who have taken these original recordings and remastered them with care should be congratulated at least for exposing the potential of the original recordings. However, having gone through this process there is no reason in the world why the remastered version should not be distributed in standard res as well as hi res.

I agree. You'd think there was more money to be made by offering both, too.