[zybar]

I was just having a hallway discussion with a co-worker about Rush's 30th Anniversary re-master and multichannel DVD-A of Moving Pictures when I casually mentioned that I was disappointed with the Hi-Rez version.  The person had a quizzical look on his face and asked what is "Hi-Rez"?  Now I had the quizzical look...

I tried to explained that Hi-Rez uses a higher bit depth (16 vs 24) and frequency resolution (44k vs 96k) and realized that this was the wrong approach.  So I tried using the standard def vs. high def analogy to make my point and he started to get it, but then he thought about it some more and said how do you get a higher bit depth or resolution?  Isn't a cd equal to the source material?  I tried to explain that the source material can have specs higher than a cd, but didn't get very far.

So back to the subject of my post...what's the elevator pitch that most people should be able to understand for Hi-Rez music?

George     

[Phil A]

I usually keep it simple and explain what can be better in the listening experience and that is a result of things like higher sampling.  Obviously if someone has a HT in a box system they may want to know what the point is as well so I usually mention the better the system usually mean you can hear more of the improved sound

[wywires]

The masses don't care. Maybe when Apple makes a big deal about it and offers it on iTunes then Hi Rez might become mainstream. I have a friend who is a producer at a medium sized jazz label. I asked about high rez. and her reply was it takes 4 times as much work and the demand is zero because people don't care about sound quality.

[Pez]

Just tell them it's like what they have on their iPod, but takes up more space. When they ask if it will sound better look at the white ear buds dangling around their neck and say 'no'.

[Big Red Machine]

I thought you were pretty close with the DVD reference.  If they can understand the gb's in a standard DVD and the quadruple amount of data on a BluRay and the result is stunning then perhaps that is as far as you have to go.  ??

[srb]

Just tell them it's like what they have on their iPod, but takes up more space. When they ask if it will sound better look at the white ear buds dangling around their neck and say 'no'.

Then tell them their iPod won't actually play Hi-Rez files in Hi-Rez and that they will need something like the $800 HiFiMAN HM-801 to play 24/96 files.  And better pony up another $75 - $500 for some real "In-Ear-Monitors" in lieu of the "buds".
 
Steve

[brj]

Standard definition TV vs. High Definition TV vs reality

fewer pixel count approximation of "live" vs. higher pixel count approximation of "live" vs. "live" (resolution limited by the human eye)

[Russtafarian]

I use the analogy of comparing a newspaper front page color photo to the original photo.  The mass delivery medium limits the resolution of what most people see.  But when comparing the two side by side the difference is obvious.

Whether that difference is meaningful to a person is another issue.

Russ

[thunderbrick]

Standard definition TV vs. High Definition TV vs reality
fewer pixel count approximation of "live" vs. higher pixel count approximation of "live" vs. "live" (resolution limited by the human eye)

Well said!

Not to sidetrack things too much, but here's a slightly tongue-in-cheek story about analog quality vs CDs:  http://experiencethis.mst.edu/2011/04/human_powered_vehicle_team_pra.html

[vhiner]

Standard definition TV vs. High Definition TV vs reality

fewer pixel count approximation of "live" vs. higher pixel count approximation of "live" vs. "live" (resolution limited by the human eye)

I have to differ here. My non- videophile wife was floored by high def TV. So is anyone who sees it when it's properly set up and compared to standad def. The same cannot be said of most hi Rez Versions of older music currently being released. She just shrugs her shoulders and says,"So what!"  I also expected to be blown away because of all the high Rez over hype, but the fact is that there are some well mastered 44.1 CD's that sound every bit as good when played on  a good digital rig. In fact, some high Rez releases sound lousy in comparison to well mastered redbook.

[Phil A]

The masses don't care. Maybe when Apple makes a big deal about it and offers it on iTunes then Hi Rez might become mainstream. I have a friend who is a producer at a medium sized jazz label. I asked about high rez. and her reply was it takes 4 times as much work and the demand is zero because people don't care about sound quality.

That's so true.  The masses want convenience. 

[ted_b]

I have to differ here. My non- videophile wife was floored by high def TV. So is anyone who sees it when it's properly set up and compared to standad def. The same cannot be said of most hi Rez Versions of older music currently being released. She just shrugs her shoulders and says,"So what!"  I also expected to be blown away because of all the high Rez over hype, but the fact is that there are some well mastered 44.1 CD's that sound every bit as good when played on  a good digital rig. In fact, some high Rez releases sound lousy in comparison to well mastered redbook.

Vhiner, no offense but George (zybar) is not asking whether all hirez music is worth it, or if some good redbook outshines some poor or upconverted hirez offerings!  He is asking how one explains the concept of hirez music to the interested bystander (reducing this discussion to "the masses are idiots" is not what George meant). 

As moderator and creator of this Circle i have pointed out many times the analogy between hirez music and hidef televison, and have claimed that the hirez industry missed the mark when they didn't call it HiDef music (like Mark Waldrep calls it).    But like the move to HDTV, the improvements in hidef music are simply to try and recreate, better, the dynamic range and overall resolution of the live event.  Just as DVD was a great improvement over VHS (and even S-VHS) it was still only 240 unique lines at a time (480 interlaced of course), way below what is required to produce realistic depth of field and background resolution.  Same is true for redbook/cd; it's tough to draw a great sine wave with only 44k points, let alone try and create a dynamic event with less than 96 db.

George, I use the live music event as the benchmark, and say we're trying to achieve those dynamics and those energies.  And like the video analogy, it takes ALL the signal path equipment to make this happen.  If you have a bluray player but your tv is 480p only, then you can't experience all the depth of color, the resolution, the palette, etc.  Same goes for hirez music; if your signal path is not up to the task of trying to reproduce 120+ db of dynamics (not loudness, dynamics...soft to loud in a heartbeat) then hirez music often can't be fully appreciated.  And like the video analogy, although older 35mm films look good on BluRay, the real "you are there" take your breath away experience is when you see a true high def video shot in native 1080p with HD cameras, etc.  It looks as if you are viewing it through a clear glass window.  Same for hirez music; listen to natively recorded 24/192 or DSD and be prepared to be blown away by the effortlessness and range, the subtle textures and timbres.

[dlaloum]

This is a sisifian task...

Your biggest problem is not that HD-Audio is no good, but that CD is potentially very good, and the majority of recordings don't event take advantage of that!

If the average recording was mastered in a way that could take advantage of whatever medium it is then stored on (wide dynamic range, uncompressed sound, etc...) then people might start by downloading higher bit rate mp3's - wow it does sound better.... then go the next step - 16/44 - that shows an incremental improvement - then they might go to HD.

But when the music people want to hear is compressed to hell, with all the dynamics squeezed out of it - they try out higher bit rates and hear no difference - how then can you convince them to go the next step?

Even basic decent ear buds will show an audible improvement as resolution rises - but only with appropriately mastered software.

The video analogy is weak - how do you make the analogy of highly dynamically compressed music in a video context? (crank the contrast up to max? - but it mostly doesn't happen in HD video...)

Much as I would like to give suggestions for how to explain this in an elevator conversation context... I'm not sure it is possible...

bye for now

David

[stereocilia]

Maybe you could go with cell phone vs. land line, to keep the analogy in the auditory realm.  You can have a conversation either way, but with a cell phone some of the sound gets truncated to save bandwidth.  On a cell phone, for instance, it's more difficult to hear the inward rush of air before somebody speaks so you can anticipate it and listen.  I dunno, maybe that's not exactly right either.

Anyway, regarding the Rush recording, I heard it playing at a local audio shop in two-channel mode recently and it wasn't sounding well.  I didn't A/B with the original and it was an unfamiliar (but nice) system.   I'm not surprised by your disappointment.

[Quiet Earth]

   CD is potentially very good, and the majority of recordings don't event take advantage of that!

I also think that the majority of CD players don't take advantage of what's on the disc. (Computers too.)

[werd]

tell em its like higher octane supreme 92 fuel. Tonight at the gas pump i asked the jockey for some hi rez fuel and he didn't get it....lol

[Johnny2Bad]

You don't (with words). You have to realize that a huge majority of mp3 lovers came from a CD player that was essentially a "ghetto blaster" ... or maybe they jumped into the 21st century and think Sat Radio sounds great ...  that's the Gold Standard for them, so it's no wonder they're happier cramming the most into the least, since in the grand scheme of things it doesn't sound worse than what they're used to. You could give them a demonstration, which works with people who can actually hear. Don't bang your head against the wall by trying to be "fair" ... no point in using a CD vs HiRez when they think mp3s are awesome ... do an mp3 vs HiRez on 'em instead. If that doesn't work, give up. They won't get it.

[brj]

tell em its like higher octane supreme 92 fuel. Tonight at the gas pump i asked the jockey for some hi rez fuel and he didn't get it....lol

I'm not sure this is the best analogy...

A higher octane content actually decreases a fuel's burn rate, thus allowing the fuel to withstand greater compression before detonating.  This is needed in engines operating at higher compression ratios to ensure the fuel doesn't detonate before the sparkplug fires, and therefore "knock" or "ping".  If your engine doesn't operate at those higher compression ratios, paying the price premium for higher octane gasoline serves little purpose.  Save it for audio gear!

[Johnny2Bad]

I'm not sure this is the best analogy...

A higher octane content actually decreases a fuel's burn rate, thus allowing the fuel to withstand greater compression before detonating.  This is needed in engines operating at higher compression ratios to ensure the fuel doesn't detonate before the sparkplug fires, and therefore "knock" or "ping".  If your engine doesn't operate at those higher compression ratios, paying the price premium for higher octane gasoline serves little purpose.  Save it for audio gear!

Premium fuels tend to have higher concentrations of detergents that can help keep injectors clean. Additives in general are a relatively high cost component of gasoline so you don't get much with run-of-the-mill gas. You're right, though, that over-octaneing your engine has zero performance advantage. A tank every now and then might help with lower maintenance costs but don't buy it for "performance" ... engines run best with the minimal adequate octane and no more. You may find a mid-grade or higher helps when towing or other high load/low RPM conditions but there's no real need for a daily driver with low loads. Alternately, you can just buy the occaisonal can of injector cleaner and add it to regular gas. They tend to be outrageously expensive considering what's in the can, but might have higher concentrations of cleaners compared to premium gas, so it's six of one and a half dozen of the other.

[werd]

Premium fuels tend to have higher concentrations of detergents that can help keep injectors clean. You're right, though, that over-octaneing your engine has zero performance advantage. A tank every now and then might help with lower maintenance costs but don't buy it for "performance" ... engines run best with the minimal adequate octane and no more. You may find a mid-grade or higher helps when towing or other high load/low RPM conditions but there's no real need for a daily driver with low loads. Alternately, you can just buy the occaisonal can of injector cleaner and add it to regular gas. They tend to be outrageously expensive considering what's in the can, but might have higher concentrations of cleaners compared to premium gas, so it's six of one and a half dozen of the other.

How about for cold starts? Better hi rez fuel for cold starts?