Best Buy Guy... High Definition Sound...an honest reply.

[Valentino Molinar]

Let me first by stating that I'm a Best Buy Employee, specifically in the Home Theater Department.
I'm also one of those people who does there homework when buying new equipment...or so I thought. However, after I discovered Audioholics, I then realize, that the homework I did, beyond pricing, was really just superficial; fluff pieces about the latest whatever. I now know different.

Ok, now that that is out of the way, onto my first post.

High Definition Sound.

Recently, I just sat down with a friend of mine, to talk about Hi-Res audio, specifically how a Sony soundbar product I sell (HTST9) really sounded great playing a HD sound file. My friend took the stance that there is no such thing as HD sound, and that, what I really heard and was responding to was, dynamic range, and not the "HD file". This discussion went on for a couple of hours, and it basically boiled down to this. using a CD as the baseline (44KHz; 16bit); that would encompasses most of what an average human ear can hear, which means that there is not much more past that standard for an ear to hear. So if music is recorded in a higher KHz or with more bit rate, it really wouldn't matter because the ear either can't hear it or distinguish it as better.

Is this true, there really is no such thing as High Definition music files. And the more important question, how do I educate my customers honestly about a product that can play HD music?

~V

 

[shadyJ]

Yes, it's true the redbook CD standard mostly covers the audible range of human hearing. HD sound does your ears no favors, in fact, it could bring a type of distortion into the audible range which isn't normally heard and make the sound worse. How you educate your consumers? Hahaha. There is no educating them, they will come in and ask for HD sound devices, and when you tell them that it will not improve the sound, they will ask "Then why do these companies sell HD Audio stuff?" and they will think you don't know what you are talking about. They have their preconceptions, and they will not be budged on that. Just give them what they think they want, because anything else will not be doing yourself a favor, and stupid people deserve to be separated from their money. If you want to learn more, here is the science behind the argument, and here is that science distilled into an easier to read article.

 

[Valentino Molinar]

Ok... so my friend was correct, HD audio is a distinction without a difference.
Or, more data don't mean poop! (Thanks for the Data reference, I'm going to have to print for leisure read)

haha.... this site edited my taint to poop!

 

[KEW]

I just wanted to say that it is nice to see someone with BB who wants to have good information.
It is kind of perverse that sharing accurate knowledge with customers in counter productive, but there is no way to validate your statements in a conclusive fashion.
One of the guys here that runs (or ran) an audio shop sold (ridiculously overpriced) AudioQuest cables. He knew they are a terrible waste of money, but he also knew that if he told them that, they would decide he was not very "sophisticated" in audio knowledge, and he would lose their future business. Some people want to believe and feel special to have such expensive cables.
If someone asked his opinion on what they should buy, he would direct them to plain cables.

So, I think the best rule of thumb is don't offer info unless they ask you for info.

 

[herbu]

stupid people deserve to be separated from their money.

That's pretty cold. I think we should attempt to educate stupid people... assuming we're not them. But if they refuse, they don't "deserve" our perseverance.

 

[markw]

That's pretty cold. I think we should attempt to educate stupid people... assuming we're not them. But if they refuse, they don't "deserve" our perseverance.

Theoretically I agree but you need to note the difference between "Ignorant" and "stupid".

The former can be cured by presenting facts in a logical manner, assuming they are capable of being taught. The latter is forever and is incapable of being disabused of the facts.

On a more serious note, I, too, am glad that one of the blue shirts actually wants to do a service to this industry and the public by actually being knowledgeable about the product.

Some terms are relied upon by marketing in order to sell product. One ot this is "bi-wiring" which is another aublect but the biggest offender is "HD". That's the hot button, as you've found out.

Now, a few years ago there was a push for "HD radio" which has nothing to do with "high definition". It references a transmission medium called "Hybrid Diversity" but the marketing mavens did nothing to clarify that. You just heard the term "HD" thrown around. Why? Because it appeals to the mass market's hot buttons.

Again, welcome to AH. We look forward to help you keep it real and, I'm sure you've got a few tricks of the trade you can share with us.

 

[highfigh]

I just wanted to say that it is nice to see someone with BB who wants to have good information.
It is kind of perverse that sharing accurate knowledge with customers in counter productive, but there is no way to validate your statements in a conclusive fashion.
One of the guys here that runs (or ran) an audio shop sold (ridiculously overpriced) AudioQuest cables. He knew they are a terrible waste of money, but he also knew that if he told them that, they would decide he was not very "sophisticated" in audio knowledge, and he would lose their future business. Some people want to believe and feel special to have such expensive cables.
If someone asked his opinion on what they should buy, he would direct them to plain cables.

So, I think the best rule of thumb is don't offer info unless they ask you for info.

I suspect the guy may have told some people that he thought AQ was a waste of money, but he made sure the owner wasn't within range and couldn't hear it and he would deny saying it if his comments ever got back to the owner.

If someone in sales is observant, they can tell that someone is confused by what they have heard and/or read, so it's easier to just let them buy what they say they want. Since accessories aren't usually mentioned until the end of the presentation, contradicting what has been presented as fact for so long can make someone not trust the sales person.

When I worked at a stereo store, the owner would hire a lot of people who needed a break and sometimes, they were friends and relatives. One of his nephews used to just blather on about everything under the Sun after the people would have made their choice. We used to watch/listen and when we saw that the people were ready to bolt, we'd ask a question that would get him out of the room and tell him "Shut up and let them buy it!".

I don't think AQ cables will actually degrade the sound, but if the ones the person wants is at the lower end and aren't too overpriced, it's not quite as bad- at least it hasn't been presented as 'better'. Maybe someone should test them for degradation, rather than any improvement they may cause.

 

[WaynePflughaupt]

Like others here, I have my doubts about so-called hi def audio that claims to be better than CD. My take is that HD recordings sound better (if indeed they do) merely because they took more effort to make a better recording to begin with. Or for re-issues, paid more attention and time in re-mastering.

Personally I think that one of the main things that makes recordings sound bad is too much compression.

Case in point, many years ago I engineered a demo recording of a small band at a church, using whatever equipment was available. The only mics around were plain-vanilla Shure 57’s and 58’s. Everything was patched through a road-worn Sunn console, and dumped to my consumer-grade, stereo reel-to-reel deck running at 7 ips. I used only two mics for the drums, strategically located on either side of the kick drum, pointing upwards, and adjusted back and forth and up and down to get a reasonably-balanced mix for the kit.

Needless to say, this is about as bad a recording scenario as you can imagine, and I didn’t hold much hope for the results. But when I played back the recording, I was absolutely shocked at how good it sounded! The drums and cymbals, especially, sounded more real and life-like than any professional store-bought recording I had ever heard. The acoustic grand piano, mic’d with (IIR) a single 57, also sounded excellent. The only thing I can attribute the surprising sound quality to is the total lack of compression or subsequent processing that professional releases go through; I don’t know what else it could be.

That recording was eventually dumped from the reel-to-reel to a nice 3-head cassette deck, and a few years back that cassette was recorded to digital on my computer. Despite all these “downgrades,” that thing still sounds as good as the best CDs in my collection.

All else being equal, just doing a re-issue with minimal compression (assuming the original had a good amount of it) would be sufficient to make an “HD” version sound noticeably better.

Regards,
Wayne A. Pflughaupt

 

[3db]

Let me first by stating that I'm a Best Buy Employee, specifically in the Home Theater Department.
I'm also one of those people who does there homework when buying new equipment...or so I thought. However, after I discovered Audioholics, I then realize, that the homework I did, beyond pricing, was really just superficial; fluff pieces about the latest whatever. I now know different.

Ok, now that that is out of the way, onto my first post.

High Definition Sound.

Recently, I just sat down with a friend of mine, to talk about Hi-Res audio, specifically how a Sony soundbar product I sell (HTST9) really sounded great playing a HD sound file. My friend took the stance that there is no such thing as HD sound, and that, what I really heard and was responding to was, dynamic range, and not the "HD file". This discussion went on for a couple of hours, and it basically boiled down to this. using a CD as the baseline (44KHz; 16bit); that would encompasses most of what an average human ear can hear, which means that there is not much more past that standard for an ear to hear. So if music is recorded in a higher KHz or with more bit rate, it really wouldn't matter because the ear either can't hear it or distinguish it as better.

Is this true, there really is no such thing as High Definition music files. And the more important question, how do I educate my customers honestly about a product that can play HD music?

~V

Welcome to the fold. Its refreshing to see that you are doing your homework and getting into the science behind the sound and trying to explain it to people. Markw is correct in that there are two type of people.. the uneducated (uneducated in terms of audio) and the ignorant (who just refuse to listen to logically formed arguments based on science). You can teach the ignorant but you can teach the uneducated. Good luck!!

 

[Seth=L]

Maybe, JUST MAYBE, if we are lucky we will get HDR-Audio.

Why this is not a thing absolutely confounds me.

So, industry... ehem.... We are DONE with the term "High Definition". It no longer serves a purpose in audio or video products.

Respectfully,

Everyone

PS: the phrase "high definition" is now thrown around with the same lackadaisical frequency as "digital" was in the late 80's and 90's. That horse has been beaten to death and is now beginning to exude the putrid odor associated with it. Time to move on.

 

[highfigh]

Like others here, I have my doubts about so-called hi def audio that claims to be better than CD. My take is that HD recordings sound better (if indeed they do) merely because they took more effort to make a better recording to begin with. Or for re-issues, paid more attention and time in re-mastering.

Personally I think that one of the main things that makes recordings sound bad is too much compression.

Case in point, many years ago I engineered a demo recording of a small band at a church, using whatever equipment was available. The only mics around were plain-vanilla Shure 57’s and 58’s. Everything was patched through a road-worn Sunn console, and dumped to my consumer-grade, stereo reel-to-reel deck running at 7 ips. I used only two mics for the drums, strategically located on either side of the kick drum, pointing upwards, and adjusted back and forth and up and down to get a reasonably-balanced mix for the kit.

Needless to say, this is about as bad a recording scenario as you can imagine, and I didn’t hold much hope for the results. But when I played back the recording, I was absolutely shocked at how good it sounded! The drums and cymbals, especially, sounded more real and life-like than any professional store-bought recording I had ever heard. The acoustic grand piano, mic’d with (IIR) a single 57, also sounded excellent. The only thing I can attribute the surprising sound quality to is the total lack of compression or subsequent processing that professional releases go through; I don’t know what else it could be.

That recording was eventually dumped from the reel-to-reel to a nice 3-head cassette deck, and a few years back that cassette was recorded to digital on my computer. Despite all these “downgrades,” that thing still sounds as good as the best CDs in my collection.

All else being equal, just doing a re-issue with minimal compression (assuming the original had a good amount of it) would be sufficient to make an “HD” version sound noticeably better.

Regards,
Wayne A. Pflughaupt

I recorded a band demo for some friends and the basement had blanket hanging, but the acoustics still sounded bad. The tape wasn't terrible, though I used a TEAC 3300 and a pair of Audio Technica AT-811 mics, straight in. Good dynamics, frequency response and low noise level. I was able to EQ it so it sounded better for the cassette copies.

I later used the same mics to record a wedding, onto a Sony TC-D5M. The church was not particularly large and it had some bad reflections, including flutter echo so, rather that use any mic stands, I laid the mics in the carpeted area at the front. I used headphones to check my levels and the overall sound, finding that there was little difference between having the headphones and recording equipment between my ears and the sounds being created in the church- that was a bit disconcerting and a real eye-opener since I was using closed headphones.

I was playing acoustic guitar in some parts of the service, so I didn't see a reason to leave long cables taped to the floor and I was also in the wedding party, so I was kind of busy. Excellent sound- far better than the band demo, because a lot of the sound wasn't reaching the mics, mainly the direct.

Next, was a band playing at an old hall, again, with bad acoustics. Same mics but this time, I was using the brand new Sony PCM-F1 portable digital recording interface with the matching SL-2000 portable Beta recorder. The bad thing- it sounded live as hell and the good thing, it WAS live as hell- when I played it back, it was like being there. I went home that night and listened to it- never heard anything so real, although it was 2:30AM. Next morning, I listened to it again and had the same impression. Got the chance to dumped the cassette copies for the band and myself and then, someone decided that the Beta master was defective, so they put it in the box of tapes being returned for credit. I found that tape years later and when I rewound it to the beginning, I knew EXACTLY what was on it without being able to see the label, because of the sense of airiness and the crowd noises.

The less that goes between the sound and the tape, the better.

 

[highfigh]

Maybe, JUST MAYBE, if we are lucky we will get HDR-Audio.

Why this is not a thing absolutely confounds me.

So, industry... ehem.... We are DONE with the term "High Definition". It no longer serves a purpose in audio or video products.

Respectfully,

Everyone

PS: the phrase "high definition" is now thrown around with the same lackadaisical frequency as "digital" was in the late 80's and 90's. That horse has been beaten to death and is now beginning to exude the putrid odor associated with it. Time to move on.

I don't know your impression of HD Radio, but I think it's harsh and bright. Granted, it probably isn't EQ'd for non-FM frequency response, but I don't like it. I think they could put '(Compared to FM, this is) HD Radio' on it, but that might not sell.

I'm going back to music, played through my 'Digital' speakers and my 'For Digital' speaker wires.

 

[Seth=L]

I don't know your impression of HD Radio, but I think it's harsh and bright. Granted, it probably isn't EQ'd for non-FM frequency response, but I don't like it. I think they could put '(Compared to FM, this is) HD Radio' on it, but that might not sell.

I'm going back to music, played through my 'Digital' speakers and my 'For Digital' speaker wires.

Never tried HD Radio. By HDR-Audio I meant "High Dynamic Range Audio". I thought it would be a good idea since High Definition or HD by proxy became such a good buzz phrase that propelled video products forward a great deal. Now the High Dynamic Range is a new marketing buzz phrase that is applied to video it would be nice to see it applied to audio as well, as long as it does what it advertises.

Imagine new CDs and downloadable music being offered with "high dynamic range" I'm seeing dollar signs and a simplified way for audiophiles to find good quality music recordings without having prior knowledge or just getting lucky. How hard would it really be to add something like this? Currently there is no way of knowing if a particular album is going to sound good or not unless you have prior knowledge of it. Remember "digitally remastered" CDs? There's that buzzword again, "digital". It almost never translated to a CD being inherently superior to one that wasn't "digitally remastered" and often times it sounded worse!

HDR (High Dynamic Range) Audio. Industry, do it... OR PAY!

 

[lsiberian]

Never tried HD Radio. By HDR-Audio I meant "High Dynamic Range Audio". I thought it would be a good idea since High Definition or HD by proxy became such a good buzz phrase that propelled video products forward a great deal. Now the High Dynamic Range is a new marketing buzz phrase that is applied to video it would be nice to see it applied to audio as well, as long as it does what it advertises.

Imagine new CDs and downloadable music being offered with "high dynamic range" I'm seeing dollar signs and a simplified way for audiophiles to find good quality music recordings without having prior knowledge or just getting lucky. How hard would it really be to add something like this? Currently there is no way of knowing if a particular album is going to sound good or not unless you have prior knowledge of it. Remember "digitally remastered" CDs? There's that buzzword again, "digital". It almost never translated to a CD being inherently superior to one that wasn't "digitally remastered" and often times it sounded worse!

HDR (High Dynamic Range) Audio. Industry, do it... OR PAY!

What's interesting to me is how Vinyl is growing so strongly. I wouldn't be surprised if Vinyl eventually overtook CDs again.

 

[Locoweed]

Been there & done that. You can have my share of vinyl.

 

[fmw]

What's interesting to me is how Vinyl is growing so strongly. I wouldn't be surprised if Vinyl eventually overtook CDs again.

I agree. But digital downloads overtook CD's quite a while ago.

 

[Seth=L]

What's interesting to me is how Vinyl is growing so strongly. I wouldn't be surprised if Vinyl eventually overtook CDs again.

Sadly there's no GOOD reason for that to happen. CD is a far more capable format, but it's squandered.

 

[3db]

Sadly there's no GOOD reason for that to happen. CD is a far more capable format, but it's squandered.

That is the reason.... You can't do the loudness war with vinyl so the little dynamic range vinyl has is preserved. When I compare Tom Petty's "MOJO" on both vinyl and CD, they are equally dynamic...even though the CD could have had more dynamic range. I think they kept it the same across both formats. The producers of that album did a bang up job with both formats.

 

[Seth=L]

That is the reason.... You can't do the loudness war with vinyl so the little dynamic range vinyl has is preserved. When I compare Tom Petty's "MOJO" on both vinyl and CD, they are equally dynamic...even though the CD could have had more dynamic range. I think they kept it the same across both formats. The producers of that album did a bang up job with both formats.

I mean that there is no good reason for vinyl to overtake CD. CDs cost less to manufacture and are as good and better than vinyl.

 

[3db]

I mean that there is no good reason for vinyl to overtake CD. CDs cost less to manufacture and are as good and better than vinyl.

The recording industry did themselves in by the loudness wars. When it comes to new releases, I will choose vinyl over CD except for classical and jazz genres which I will stick with CD