[Freo-1]

Dr. Mark Waldrep has just completed his initial results of the HD Audio challenge.


The bottom line: HD audio or Hi Res provides no improvement over standard resolution CD or file.




The files used were all recorded as hi-res, and were provided as both hi-res and CD quality. 


http://www.realhd-audio.com/?p=6993


Let the debate begin!

[Freo-1]

When I first came across this study, had a feeling this would wind up being the conclusion.  Did a number of listening comparisons between SACD and CD layers of recent classical releases, and was very hard pressed to hear any real differences.  Funny thing is, as the equipment got better over time, the differences between SACD and CD became much harder to sort out.


It appears that the source material is what really makes the difference with quality playback.  Obvious, but makes sense. 

[Jon L]

Most experienced audiophiles already know that the main factor in great SQ is recording/mastering quality by people who care, in which case 16/44.1kHz can sound simply fabulous, wanting for nothing.   

I'd pick that over same music recorded/mastered haphazardly in "hi res," which in and of itself does not have any guarantee of good sound quality. 

On the other hand, take that same music, record/master with great care in hi-res, play it on a resolving system, there will be times differences can be heard vs. redbook version, but this will depend on how experienced the listener is, what genre/type of music, and how resolving/familiar the system is IMO. 

[Freo-1]

Most experienced audiophiles already know that the main factor in great SQ is recording/mastering quality by people who care, in which case 16/44.1kHz can sound simply fabulous, wanting for nothing.   

I'd pick that over same music recorded/mastered haphazardly in "hi res," which in and of itself does not have any guarantee of good sound quality. 

On the other hand, take that same music, record/master with great care in hi-res, play it on a resolving system, there will be times differences can be heard vs. redbook version, but this will depend on how experienced the listener is, what genre/type of music, and how resolving/familiar the system is IMO.

Well stated.  There's a lot of misinformation regarding high resolution recordings in general. 


Here's a few examples:


http://www.realhd-audio.com/?p=6972

[AJinFLA]

On the other hand, take that same music, record/master with great care in hi-res, play it on a resolving system, there will be times differences can be heard vs. redbook version, but this will depend on how experienced the listener is, what genre/type of music, and how resolving/familiar the system is IMO.

Jon did you read the link??
That's exactly what was done by "HD" man Waldrep. With 500 listeners. No differences.
Of course the tests were controlled, not ad-hoc, uncontrolled. Key condition.

cheers,

AJ

[dB Cooper]

I am a reader of Mark Waldrep's blog and have met him at Capital Audiofest (which is canceled for 2020 btw).

I think his conclusions are probably largely correct but there may still be flaws. For instance, I have a Schiit Modi Multibit DAC. It will play 24/96 files. However, I looked up the data sheet for the DAC chip used, and saw that the resolution is specified as 16 bit. If I had participated, because the MM does not have true 24-bit resolution, I either would have submitted results reporting no difference even if there was one, or my results would have been tainted by guessing or bias.I don't know if his controls accounted for a setup that doesn't truly deliver 24 bit resolution (even though it would play the files) or not.

My feeling is that anything originating in the analog domain can be transparently captured  at 16/44 and that no real world listening space supports that much dynamic range anyway (unless going deaf is your goal), let alone the ~130 dB you can get from 24 bits. Only reason to go higher on clock speed is to give the filters a little more elbow room. But the filters have improved dramatically since the early days so maybe not even that.

I wish the file sellers like HDTracks would make Redbook spec downloads more available. Miles Davis' 'Kind of Blue', for example, was recorded on a deck that was lucky to make it to 60 dB SNR and 15kHz. 24/96 adds nothing. The best metaphor I have heard is that putting a steak on a bigger plate does not make the steak bigger.

[AJinFLA]

My feeling is that anything originating in the analog domain can be transparently captured  at 16/44

I would disagree. Playback at 16/44 by consumers, fine, capture, no.
That leaves no "headroom" or any room for error, post processing, etc.
That's why Waldrep et al might agree that 24/96 is plenty sufficient for capture...and has been for decades. His tests involved downsampling from 24 bit originals vs originals.

cheers,

AJ

[Freo-1]

Interesting points made. I think the resolution of any analog recording has no resolution higher than 16/44, and most likely less.


Certainly, using 24/192 to master does no harm, and provides maximum benefits to ensure the recording is optimized.


The master then can be down sampled to 16/44 successfully.