Sorry Hi-Res

[sterling shoote]

My Home Theatre's DAC permits 24/96 decoding and I've experimented with it, comparing recordings at 128k, 256k, 24/96, SACD, and 16/44.1. With anything over 16/44.1, I can not hear different much less a sense of better, in any manor that "better" could be discerned. And, I'm not sure CD is actually any better than 256. The only thing I know for sure is CD seems more engaging than 128k. At any rate, in spite of Sony and others attempting to make me believe better audio is now at hand, I'm skeptical. What are your experiences?

 

[BoredSysAdmin]

You'd need to get better speaker to hear difference between compressed 256k bitrate and uncompressed CD quality - but I will tell - it's there, but quite subtle. Anything above it - aka 24 bit are extremely hard to notice unless you in biz of music recording. as for modulation frequency - anything over 44/48khz is just silly

good reading on the subject matter:
https://xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

 

[j_garcia]

DEPENDS ON THE MATERIAL You can't single out formats without comparing the same thing in those formats. At about 256kbps most will have a problem telling the difference between that and CD, until you take it to a nice system IMO and then you'll hear it. At 320K, you'll be hard pressed to hear it.

The fact is, "high res" is sort of dead anyway. Blu-ray audio was to pick up where DVD-A and SACD left off and it isn't catching on. I can hear the difference with DVD-A and SACD vs CD, however those same recordings on CD still sound stellar. Are the benefits actually WORTH it? Perhaps not in every case.

My advice: just enjoy the music.

 

[KenM10759]

I tend to think those speakers are your primary limiting factor. Some "high res" recordings are simply re-recordings of files originally done in 16/44.1 or lower. As Grandma said, you can't make chicken soup from chicken sh*t.

 

[sterling shoote]

I got on board with SACD at it's introduction. I expected a better musical experience than what I was getting from CD. My expectations, so far, some 16 plus years after SACD's introduction, have not been realized. Now, Sony is repackaging SACD as DSD, making this so called hi-res format available to folks who are accustomed to buying their music on-line. No doubt, if folks have been downloading 96 or perhaps 128k material they should hear something clearly better; however, today, with iTunes delivering 256k, which, it appears, can not be distinguished from hi-res, what's the point of spending more for hi-res content and the equipment needed to reproduce it? And, if the slogan that Sony coined back in 1982 for CD, Perfect Sound Forever Perfect, as I recall, was true, how can any latter digital stereo format be more than perfect? Just does not seem that there's been much progress in the actual musical experience since the CD, just the convenience in which we enjoy our music.

 

[PENG]

Once you get pass 16/44.1, formats, bit rate, bit depth etc., don't matter any more. I do find 192/24 better more often but only because of the material as they have tend to have better recording quality/mastering quality. I have CDs that sound better than SACD for the same reasons.

 

[fmw]

Peng is right. The engineers designed red book CD to provide all the bandwidth necessary to capture sound accurately. The recording engineers use higher "res" not because it sounds better but to provide overhead for mixing and mastering. There is no advantage in going past 16/44 for playback.

If two recordings sound different from one another, it isn't because of the "res." It is because of the mastering done to produce the final product. So Sterling what you say is the way it is.

 

[mtrycrafts]

Peng is right. The engineers designed red book CD to provide all the bandwidth necessary to capture sound accurately. The recording engineers use higher "res" not because it sounds better but to provide overhead for mixing and mastering. There is no advantage in going past 16/44 for playback.

If two recordings sound different from one another, it isn't because of the "res." It is because of the mastering done to produce the final product. So Sterling what you say is the way it is.

And, talking about the recording engineers, I would question most of them about their hearing acuity in the first place.

 

[fmw]

And, talking about the recording engineers, I would question most of them about their hearing acuity in the first place.

They are human just like the rest of us.

 

[Rickster71]

They are human just like the rest of us.

Being human means rarely questioning one's hearing acuity.
Just blame the equipment, the room or the format.

 

[sterling shoote]

Being human means rarely questioning one's hearing acuity.
Just blame the equipment, the room or the format.

In my leisure-time, I teach marksmanship. Thing is, most folks think they know how to do it, just point and pull the trigger, right. They don't know that they don't know. These folks always blame the gun, the ammunition, or the scope for their dismal results. They never think that poor marksmanship is what they should be addressing.

 

[KenM10759]

In my leisure-time, I teach marksmanship. Thing is, most folks think they know how to do it, just point and pull the trigger, right. They don't know that they don't know. These folks always blame the gun, the ammunition, or the scope for their dismal results. They never think that poor marksmanship is what they should be addressing.

LOL...I'm a lousy shot and I *do* know it! I blame my eyes, my shaky hands, the omission of paying attention to my breathing, and my poor judgment/over-analysis of trajectory.

So I don't even bother trying anymore.

 

[mtrycrafts]

They are human just like the rest of us.

And, some of the rest of us claim "Golden Ear" status.

 

[Irvrobinson]

DEPENDS ON THE MATERIAL You can't single out formats without comparing the same thing in those formats. At about 256kbps most will have a problem telling the difference between that and CD, until you take it to a nice system IMO and then you'll hear it. At 320K, you'll be hard pressed to hear it.

Exactly, it does depend on the material. I haven't found any pop music I could hear the difference between 320K and CD, but for classical music I'm convinced I can. At least enough to stick with CDs. I've never heard a difference between SACDs and CDs on the same recording. I think hi-res is an expensive scam.

That said, I do like to record with 24bit word depths. No chance of overload, and then you just down-convert to 44.1/16.

 

[Irvrobinson]

And, some of the rest of us claim "Golden Ear" status.

Listening acuity is a skill you can learn. It's not about better hearing, it's about training the mind.

 

[Rickster71]

Listening acuity is a skill you can learn. It's not about better hearing, it's about training the mind.

This is true, as long as the person learning this skill starts off with perfect hearing.
Otherwise, we can't "Learn" to hear, nor can we "Learn" not to need glasses.

 

[Alex2507]

This is true, as long as the person learning this skill starts off with perfect hearing.
Otherwise, we can't "Learn" to hear, nor can we "Learn" not to need glasses.

You remember that 'How to Listen' software from Harman? My hearing isn't perfect at all but I learned something as evidenced by ascending to higher levels within the software. As you said, it's not learning to hear and I don't want to run with the listen/hear semantics but paying attention pays off. I feel like I've learned tons about what to listen for in speakers since I started but my hearing could only have gotten worse.

 

[j_garcia]

You remember that 'How to Listen' software from Harman? My hearing isn't perfect at all but I learned something as evidenced by ascending to higher levels within the software. As you said, it's not learning to hear and I don't want to run with the listen/hear semantics but paying attention pays off. I feel like I've learned tons about what to listen for in speakers since I started but my hearing could only have gotten worse.

I agree with that. I don't think "golden ear" means one person hears better than another, some just learn to analyze specific aspects and compare those aspects in more detail. Can you "train" for that sort of thing? Probably because you have recording engineers. To me it is sort of, if you don't know what to compare then how can you compare one thing to another?

We all listen for specific aspects of the music because we like them. When I compare one speaker to another, I am listening to specific portions of specific tracks and I will focus on one part almost exclusively, then re-listen and listen for a different detail. Then compare those same things on the other speaker. It is the same when comparing something like SACD to CD. The differences are usually VERY subtle, which is why I said is that small difference really a benefit? It improves the listening experience a little, but it doesn't necessarily make me enjoy the music any more.

 

[Rickster71]

You remember that 'How to Listen' software from Harman? My hearing isn't perfect at all but I learned something as evidenced by ascending to higher levels within the software. As you said, it's not learning to hear and I don't want to run with the listen/hear semantics but paying attention pays off. I feel like I've learned tons about what to listen for in speakers since I started but my hearing could only have gotten worse.

Yes, I remember that Harman video. Really interesting.

.... I'm thinking about how to explain my thoughts on this.
Picture an eye chart. A person can only see as far down on the chart as their ability allows.
They may see and learn incredible things... but they may never be able to read at the 20/20 line.
People don't know, what they don't know.... or see or hear.
A person can pay attention all they want. Doesn't mean they see at at 20/20 or hear perfectly.
It's all filtered by their perception, or lack of it.

 

[Alex2507]

A person can pay attention all they want. Doesn't mean they see at at 20/20 or hear perfectly.
It's all filtered by their perception, or lack of it.

True dat ... but that's not the point ... and we can discuss that when we take our Spring stroll through The Public Gardens.

I think my point might be summed up by looking at hearing in terms of potential. So given the part of the audio spectrum that I am able to hear fairly well, I had stuff to learn about what I was hearing. You're right that my hearing isn't going to be improved by paying attention. But without paying attention I'd still be clueless about things like decay time, crossover points, sound stage, bass integration, cone break up, power compression and cabinet resonance. Technically, Cheryl hears better than I do. I have learned to listen better.