Zp 24/96

I am very satisfied with my 16-bits audio collection, and it's playback quality. Only following this thread because of the interesting arguments of the contributors.

I am pretty convinced that the dynamic range of 16/44 is pretty good, but there is also something with the frequencies a 44khz stereo system can reproduce; that is why vinyl listeners claim a record-player can produce better sound quality than a cd-player.

Allthough we cannot hear anything above frequencies 16/44 can reproduce, it is not impossible that the sound might sound more lively because of resonance and feeling.

(but nevertheless: still very satisfied with the current quality... 😉 )

So dynamic range is the only parameter that effects sound quality?


No, but I mentioned some other parameters as well. For every audio characteristic you can think of, CD specification exceeds analogue tape.

You deride redbook as being "old", but it was designed by audio Engineers to exceed the specification of all of the current formats of the time and, therefore, to resolve them. It was also designed to exceed the specification of the human ear to resolve audible differences.

Of course, not much was known about the practical aspects of digital audio production at the time, and it's only relatively recently we've come to appreciate the different requirements and techniques used in recording, mixing and mastering of digital audio. Certainly these days we have learned that some of those techniques involve careful mastering to ensure the eventual transfer to CD goes as well as possible, and that includes careful handling of compression, noise reduction and dither to ensure optimum transfer to redbook format. In the early days of CD, the need for these techniques wasn't appreciated and that resulted in a lot of poor recordings. Even today many CDs are poorly mastered.

Certainly there are problems inherent in mastering for CD, and characteristics of the format that have to be accommodated, but that's always been the case for shellac, tape, vinyl, radio... One of the key jobs of the mastering Engineer is to understand and accommodate those characteristics and to master accordingly, but that doesn't mean the format is poor or audibly limited in any way. Hires certainly reduces (or removes) the need for this stage of mastering, but doesn't necessarily mean you'll get something that sounds better.

As for that rather poor article, I can tell you that I was studying sampling technology in my teens and have a Bachelors degree in Electronics Engineering, during which I studied audio, sampling and signal analysis. Whilst it's not a subject I have addressed in mathematical detail for a number of years, I really don't need such Mickey Mouse articles to try to explain audio to me, especially when the author clearly knows so little about the subject. Quite frankly any article which tries to explain hires by showing waveforms with "jaggies" and concludes that "the object of the exercise being to retrieve the original curve" shows a deep ignorance of the subject and isn't worth the paper it's written on. If you use articles like this as a reference for digital audio technology then it's no surprise you're a fan of hires.

I will also mention that one of my friends (in fact I'm seeing him at the weekend) was one of the lead developers for the SADiE DAW (one of the primary tools used for digital mixing and mastering in modern studios) and spent a significant portion of his life understanding and solving the issues of working with digital media in conjunction with respected audio Engineers including Bob Katz. We talk about this sort of stuff a lot, and his view of the world (as a respected expert in his field) is completely different from yours.

The following thread is worth reading. Readers should note that this thread is from the Squeezebox forums and many of the people involved are audiophiles with high end setups including modded Transporters. At least one of the people is a respected studio audio engineer. http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=89733

Allthough we cannot hear anything above frequencies 16/44 can reproduce, it is not impossible that the sound might sound more lively because of resonance and feeling.

That's one of those ethereal "we can't know everything" sort of statements that Psychics and Homoeopaths use. Perceptual studies have been conducted with a range of sounds with and without high frequency components and concluded that no significant difference could be perceived by the test subjects.

If I want people to go away with a message then it's this: whatever the audible benefits of hires, the primary reason for hires tracks sounding better is better production, NOT the format.

Cheers,

Keith

I do agree with you, but there is one problem with:
the primary reason for hires tracks sounding better is better production, NOT the format.

Sonos should 'just work'. I do not care about the reproduction sampling frequency stuff, but being able to play as many types of files without having to convert them to a format is a nice feature. (But to me never a showstopper; whenever i buy cd's i do not mind ripping them, so converting them is not a major issue to me)

whenever i buy cd's i do not care about ripping them
I don't get it, how do you listen to them on Sonos then?

I do agree with you, but there is one problem with:

Sonos should 'just work'. I do not care about the reproduction sampling frequency stuff, but being able to play as many types of files without having to convert them to a format is a nice feature. (But to me never a showstopper; whenever i buy cd's i do not care about ripping them, so converting them is not a major issue to me)

There I don't disagree with you. I'm also not saying that there are no benefits to hires.

What I am saying is that 99% of the time hires is hyped up by people who seem to believe there is something inherently "magical" about these formats that automatically makes music sound better. Often this is fuelled by a grossly naive understanding of audio and audio perception, which is largely exacerbated by misleading articles like the one quoted above.

The trouble is this does their cause no good as they come across as ignorant, and it's easy to then dismiss all audiophiles as being similarly ignorant, which they are not (there are some very educated audiophiles in the thread I linked to in my last post).

Also, it shifts focus away from "better quality music", which I'm sure we all want, to a technical specification based "numbers-game" about formats, which actually does nothing to guarantee better quality music. A badly transferred/mastered master tape can easily sound worse in a hires format than a decent transfer done to CD.

I actually think a genuine problem with hires formats is the assumption they are automatically better. They may not be. Just because a track is published in a hires format, it doesn't mean it's been produced to the sort of high standards needed to warrant the hires format. I have heard of tracks being published in hires format which are really just reformatted versions of the standard CD track, or are just a straight transfer done from the vinyl master. Without knowing the providence of the track there's no easy way for consumers to know this. And people are buying blind unless the vendor gives a production history at point of sale, which they generally don't. The trouble is if people assume the hires version has to be better, they stand a good chance of being fleeced, and the hifi and record industry have a track record of being less then trustworthy in their marketing. We need to refocus the debate from being about formats to being about production quality.

There may well be good reasons for hires formats. The characteristics of anti-aliasing filters may be one. The very fact that such formats exist and people want to play them is another.

Cheers,

Keith

I must say all of your points are very well thought out and reasoned, very logical-very objective!

I only have one question, pretty simple one, one that really only requires a yes or no answer: Have you ever listened in your home, with your gear, with your ears, to any Hi Res 24/96 flac or Wav against their known 16/44 versions (as in exact same master, one sampled to 16/44, and same master at 24/96) And please I know you're bright and will most likely find a semantic problem with my question, but I think you understand my question.

I only have one question, pretty simple one, one that really only requires a yes or no answer: Have you ever listened in your home, with your gear, with your ears, to any Hi Res 24/96 flac or Wav against their known 16/44 versions (as in exact same master, one sampled to 16/44, and same master at 24/96) And please I know you're bright and will most likely find a semantic problem with my question, but I think you understand my question.

Yes.

I've also listened to very high quality 24/96 files compared to 16/48 in a professional listening room facility with almost certainly better acoustics than the listening environment of anyone on these forums.

But I fail to understand the relevance. By the way, I'm not out to trick. I hate semantic games as much as anyone.

Cheers,

Keith

If you've listened in your own home on good gear, where you could spend the time in a familiar and stress free environment and feel that 16 bit is as good as you need, and that the higher bit rate files weren't any better than I have no quarrel.

My beef is with people that have never really listened in their home with good gear, and then use other peoples opinions as the basis for deriding those of us (and there are many) who have listened extensively in familiar surroundings on good gear and feel that with well mastered material that the higher bit rate stuff does sound better.

This whole issue reminds me of the early days of compact disc.. All the "objective" press all the engineers claimed that it sounded perfect because it measured perfect.. I'm 100% confident that if one could compare an original Sony CDP101 to say a Oppo player ( pretty close in actual price ) that even a deaf man could hear the difference 🙂

Hires? Nah, I just feel being tricked into only supposedly better gear.
Everybody has a CDP now, so at least two industries are interested in making everybody buy something new.
I need to buy new players and new content, just like in the early days of CD.

So call it a conspiracy theory, but I think there is still much potential in 16/44, if "they" (well, what do I know... sound engineers?) just made an effort.

To my ears the main difference between vinyl and CD was: the crackles disappeared.

Hires? Nah, I just feel being tricked into only supposedly better gear.
Everybody has a CDP now, so at least two industries are interested in making everybody buy something new.
I need to buy new players and new content, just like in the early days of CD.

So call it a conspiracy theory, but I think there is still much potential in 16/44, if "they" (well, what do I know... sound engineers?) just made an effort.

To my ears the main difference between vinyl and CD was: the crackles disappeared.

I got nothing to add to this...