Zp 24/96

That is, IMO one of the big cons with hires: the hype over the format masks the real benefits to be had.

In turn, this gives the potential for people to be ripped off: at least one of the major hires music suppliers was caught red-handed selling full resolution material that had been simply reformatted into a hires format. These were then sold, at a premium, as "hires" (although most people didn't notice until someone did some measurements on the files).

Arguably, "hires" is just a storage format, and only a part of the format is usable for audio, with the rest containing noise. In this respect, these converted versions could be argued to be just as "hires" as tracks that were directly converted from 24/96 (or better) masters. However, customers were rightly expecting something better, and that was not delivered.

The "better" in this case was a better quality of source master. The unhealthy obsession (and ongoing misconceptions) with "hires" storage formats obfuscates this. It's a distraction, and quite a pernicious one.

A site which did reviews of the different versions that were on the market (irrespective of the storage format) would be a good thing.

I suspect getting full and accurate information on the provenance of the released recordings is probably a major barrier. Whilst the possibility exists for record companies and distributors to recycle and resell old versions of music at a premium price by sticking a shiny new "hires" label on the packet, they are unlikely to open their records to this sort of scrutiny.

Cheers,

Keith

If we truly want to recreate anything that might be present in the concert hall, we'll need to up the sample rate to 601KHz:

http://www.nature.com/news/moth-smashes-ultrasound-hearing-records-1.12941

96 is for lame old men. Not even a mouse or a bat would appreciate 96.

For more creature limits see this Wikipedia article.

For those who still think "hires" audio (especially higher sampling rates) provides audible benefits, the following might prove a little sobering:

http://youtu.be/VxcbppCX6Rk

Cheers,

Keith

See http://xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html for an evidence based (well ... presuming the sources are legit) view on the matter. Suggested conclusion: don't bother about hires .. it's all in the hands of the guys who do the final mix.

http://youtu.be/VxcbppCX6Rk

Surely the point of hi-res isn't just the higher frequencies, but rather the perceived overall increase in 'resolution' achieved by the higher sampling rates?

See http://xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html for an evidence based (well ... presuming the sources are legit) view on the matter. Suggested conclusion: don't bother about hires .. it's all in the hands of the guys who do the final mix.

Not saying for one minute that I support the 'hires' argument, but it disturbs me that every time this comes up, everyone points to this one article, as if one persons views should be taken as gospel over all others...

Surely the point of hi-res isn't just the higher frequencies, but rather the perceived overall increase in 'resolution' achieved by the higher sampling rates?

A 44.1kHz sample rate can fully capture all of the frequencies in 20kHz+ audio signal.

Fully!

It's not like there are any intermediate frequencies that aren't represented. Any frequency, from 0Hz to 20kHz (plus a bit) that you can name, is fully captured within a 44.1kHz sample rate. Within the frequency domain, and within those ranges, there is no additional "resolution" to be had. In fact the concept of "resolution" does not apply to frequency in digital audio.

The only thing a higher sample rate does is capture higher frequencies.

Cheers,

Keith

Not saying for one minute that I support the 'hires' argument, but it disturbs me that every time this comes up, everyone points to this one article, as if one persons views should be taken as gospel over all others...
It's not exactly any old person's view. Xiph.org are the custodians of codecs such as FLAC and Vorbis.

Not saying for one minute that I support the 'hires' argument, but it disturbs me that every time this comes up, everyone points to this one article, as if one persons views should be taken as gospel over all others...

One reason it's quoted is because the authors are renowned experts on digital audio. They are the brains behind a number of lossy and lossless audio codecs, including the one most commonly used for Hires formats.

The other reason is that they explain, very well, why most of the reasons given by supporters for hires are actually based on a misunderstanding of how digital audio works. He provides explanations and evidence to support these explanations.

I have also yet to see any meaningful counter-argument which points out any flaw in his article. To date it is the best, most accurate, description of the benefits (or lack of) of hires.

It bears repeating that these guys are some of the leading experts in the world on this subject. THAT is why we all should be reading this article and taking it's claims seriously.

Put it this way, if you were involved in a complex legal case, you wouldn't take the legal advice given by your mates down the pub over that given by one of the top lawyers in the country, would you?

Cheers,

Keith

I use a circle example when I try to explain this because most people have no clue about sinusoidal waves.

If I draw 2 points, and tell you to draw a circle that crosses those two points, you can only draw one circle. And adding a third point won't make the circle different.

As far as I know, it is the same thing with the define shape of a sinusoidale. I think most mistakes come from thos diagrams that shows the sinusoidale as steps, which is not the case.