The Wall Street Journal endorses Hi-Res audio

[Irvrobinson]

Sometimes I wonder if most people have the slightest understanding of how digital audio works. I was reading the WSJ this morning, and I see that Michael Hsu writes:

As a test, I downloaded files from​

HDtracks.com

, an online retailer specializing in hi-res audio, plugged a device known as a digital-to-analog converter (DAC) into my computer and listened over earphones. My optimism did not lead me astray. To a few of my colleagues and me, the higher resolution made the sound more resonant, realistic and full. Unlike high-definition video, which can result in disconcerting detail (hello, pores), hi-res audio smooths more than it sharpens. The improvement is significant, yet subtle—easily masked by the rumble of mass transit or even the whoosh of a nearby dishwasher. The quality upgrade will be lost if you're not in a quiet space.​

I'd sure like to know how taking frequency response above 22KHz and increasing the granularity of the loudness levels of each tone makes music more resonant and full, but perhaps I'm just being difficult.

Here's the entire article:

Sonic Truth - WSJ.com

 

[Steve81]

Sometimes I wonder if most people have the slightest understanding of how digital audio works.

Let me answer that for you: no, they don't.

You're welcome

 

[Irvrobinson]

I will acknowledge that sometimes hi-res recordings are mastered better than the originals, and that can make for very audible differences. I've been a customer of Mobile Fidelity CDs for years for that reason, but I'll be damned if I can hear any differences with hi-res audio, including SACDs, DVD-As, and HD Tracks.

 

[Steve81]

I will acknowledge that sometimes hi-res recordings are mastered better than the originals, and that can make for very audible differences. I've been a customer of Mobile Fidelity CDs for years for that reason, but I'll be damned if I can hear any differences with hi-res audio, including SACDs, DVD-As, and HD Tracks.

Some thoughts on the matter: http://theaudiocritic.com/plog/index.php?op=ViewArticle&articleId=4&blogId=1

I'd mostly push for high res formats
A. Because disc space is cheap and because it's not hard to do. No need to stay stuck in the 1980s.
B. It gives some comfort that we're not at the bare minimum needed for high fidelity reproduction

 

[Irvrobinson]

Some thoughts on the matter: http://theaudiocritic.com/plog/index.php?op=ViewArticle&articleId=4&blogId=1

I'd mostly push for high res formats
A. Because disc space is cheap and because it's not hard to do. No need to stay stuck in the 1980s.
B. It gives some comfort that we're not at the bare minimum needed for high fidelity reproduction

Ah, yes, Peter Aczel. I'm almost always on the same technical page as Aczel, and then he goes and runs off at the mouth with self-aggrandizing assertions, and he loses me.

As for not needing to stay stuck in the '80s, I'm not sure that 24/192 is the answer. A 24bit word length is nice for recording, no doubt about that. Anyone can test it with a handheld audio recorder. Stick to 16bits and you're fighting with overload, switch to 24bits and only ham-fisted people have problems. But on playback, I think it takes a heck of a system to hear the difference between 14bits and 16bits. The difference between 14bit and 16bit eluded TLS Guy, for example.

 

[Steve81]

I'm not sure that 24/192 is the answer.

It certainly qualifies as overkill, but I won't complain.

The difference between 14bit and 16bit eluded TLS Guy, for example.

Perhaps he can listen to Michael Hsu's setup