Bad news for high bit rate fans.

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. Read 51529 times.

Marius

Re: Bad news for high bit rate fans.
« Reply #20 on: 7 Mar 2012, 11:14 am »
in another AC circle I added this industry-input (Naim) to the discussion,

http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=104300.new#new

Marius

lokie

Re: Bad news for high bit rate fans.
« Reply #21 on: 7 Mar 2012, 12:47 pm »
Quote
I like the part about stuff being recorded at 24/192 sounding WORSE than 16/44.1

Peter Qvortup (of Audio Note) has been saying this for years.

firedog

Re: Bad news for high bit rate fans.
« Reply #22 on: 7 Mar 2012, 12:55 pm »
The test at the Boston Audio Society is considered flawed by many. Criticism of it can be found on the Net.

In any case, as even the testers at the Boston Audio Society pointed out, SACD (hi-res) often sounds better b/c it has different/better mastering than Redbook.

So while it may be that "hi-res" doesn't sound better, "hi-res recordings" may indeed sound better.

rbbert

Re: Bad news for high bit rate fans.
« Reply #23 on: 7 Mar 2012, 01:51 pm »
I don't see any refutations here that are as strong as the article itself. I'm holding out that it may be true. Some of you are the $1000 cable lot, so grains of salt all around. Anyway, next dac, I'll try out a track or two from my laptop.

really?  what about this quote from the article itself (already mentioned)?

"It's true enough that a properly encoded Ogg file (or MP3, or AAC file) will be indistinguishable from the original at a moderate bitrate."

For me at least, that alone disqualifies the author's findings and opinions.

mfsoa

Re: Bad news for high bit rate fans.
« Reply #24 on: 7 Mar 2012, 02:00 pm »
I though it was pretty well known that SACD suffers from some technical issues that severely limit the final sound quality. I'm sure a quick google will find references. I remember the Altmann DAC guy being very critical but I read that years ago.  Something about the high frequencies being messed up.

So I don't think it's fair to compare SACD to redbook and therefore denounce all high-rez.

I don't have very much high-rez but some of what I have certainly does good things in a way I have never heard from redbook CD.

-Mike

martyo

Re: Bad news for high bit rate fans.
« Reply #25 on: 7 Mar 2012, 02:56 pm »
So I have a friend that was saving for a used DAC from Frank. He loves his movies and music. He has an A/V system. Real nice video, 50+ inch Samsung and top of the line Sony A/V receiver with Canton speakers. Real "big box store" audio. He went out to buy an Oppo BD-93 and they talked him into the 95 with the ESS Sabre 32bit chip in the internal DAC. I brought over the original David Crosby "If I Could Only Remember My Name" CD, and the Redbook CD of the new remaster from when they made the DVD-A, and the DVD-A. The new remastered Redbook CD was superior to the original and the DVD-A was superior by an even bigger margin over the newly remastered CD. It didn't take any trained ears to hear significant differences on a very average audio system.

BTW, the Oppo really trashed the video of the LG and Samsung top of the line Blue-Ray players he had. 

Letitroll98

  • Volunteer
  • Posts: 5693
  • Too loud is just right
Re: Bad news for high bit rate fans.
« Reply #26 on: 7 Mar 2012, 03:46 pm »
Another "perfect sound forever" hogwash article not worth wasting the time to read.

werd

Re: Bad news for high bit rate fans.
« Reply #27 on: 7 Mar 2012, 03:58 pm »
Screw that!!!

I am really splurging and going for the latest in 8 bit dacs.

saisunil

Re: Bad news for high bit rate fans.
« Reply #28 on: 7 Mar 2012, 04:33 pm »
Nicely done ... it makes a nice argument ... not a full research paper ... there are other perspectives ...

But it reduces my itch to get into hi-rez digital ... I think digital in onto something ... next few years are going to be interesting ... in terms of new developments / products ... trickle down technology examples that are affordable and loads of fun ...

Just enjoy the tunes :-)

oldmp3

Re: Bad news for high bit rate fans.
« Reply #29 on: 7 Mar 2012, 04:36 pm »
Take the whole complex signal chain, from vocal chords and guitar or piano strings, all the way through DSP, pits and valleys on the CD or binary bits, D/A, A/D, flying amplified electrons, to the cochlear hair cells and the fantastic gray jelly between our ears...

There are only a few really relevant questions:

1. Can I consistently identify a difference between a signal processed using method A vs. method B?

2. Do I prefer a signal processed using method A vs. method B?

Objectivists say you are being silly if you prefer a particular processed signal (#2) but are unable to consistently identify a difference (#1).

Subjectivists say (1) so what, I prefer it, or (2) it is way more complicated than that, or (3) this is not a quantifiable phenomena, or (4) methods for identifying differences are flawed or not applicable. They probably say a lot more.

Anyway, I haven't tried a higher resolution recording, but I want to. If I prefer it I will be happy, and probably won't worry too much about identifying differences.

Can you believe what hair cells look like?  :o









woodsyi

  • Volunteer
  • Posts: 6513
  • Always Look on the Bright Side of Life!
Re: Bad news for high bit rate fans.
« Reply #30 on: 7 Mar 2012, 04:54 pm »
People defended Ptolemy's geocentric system for centuries after the emergence of Heliocentric model.  Paradigmatic shift needs a generational change.  When the old guard fades into the sunset, the new paradigm becomes the normalcy but the old guard won't go quietly into the sunset.  The truth will prevail. 8) 

oldmp3

Re: Bad news for high bit rate fans.
« Reply #31 on: 7 Mar 2012, 05:03 pm »
[...] The truth will prevail. 8)

What is the truth?

newzooreview

Re: Bad news for high bit rate fans.
« Reply #32 on: 7 Mar 2012, 05:06 pm »
It's not too difficult to test for yourself. No need to prognosticate about some engineer's hypothesis based on a partial analysis of theory.

I have a Dacport USB DAC that's quite nicely resolving (about $300). It handles 16/44.1 up through 24/96, and outputs directly to my headphones (Beyerdynamic 880s in my case).

I get a song that I have both in 16/44.1 and 24/96 from the same mastering. Randomly place the two tracks into a playlist (maybe do that with a few tracks). I use Audirvana Plus--it will pass through the song at it's sampling rate. Come back a couple of days later, so you don't have a chance to remember the particular order of the tracks and give listen. I hear the change in sound readily (about 80% of the time I hear a difference between the sampling rates.) The higher sampling rates sound better to me when I hear the difference.

If you don't then you're good to stick with 16/44.1 it seems. Nothing wrong with that. All those crazy looking hairs in our ears, our ear canals themselves, and our brain's processing of the input have some variability from person to person, so if you do or do not hear what I hear it's not too surprising.

woodsyi

  • Volunteer
  • Posts: 6513
  • Always Look on the Bright Side of Life!
Re: Bad news for high bit rate fans.
« Reply #33 on: 7 Mar 2012, 05:33 pm »
What is the truth?

I have a CD, vinyl and 24/96 FLAC file of Chesky's Rebecca Pidgeon Retrospective.  Playing through the same DAC at different bit rates, I can really tell the difference.  24/96 is fuller, more extended and clearer than the CD.  Some of the remastered older recording into higher bits don't sound better (just different) but good original recordings (whether in analog or high rez digital) (re)mastered in higher rez format can indeed sound better than the CD version.  This is what I hear.

woodsyi

  • Volunteer
  • Posts: 6513
  • Always Look on the Bright Side of Life!
Re: Bad news for high bit rate fans.
« Reply #34 on: 7 Mar 2012, 05:43 pm »
But like anything else high rez is just a tool: much better than Red Book but still a tool.  The final product is what the user makes with the given tool.  Not everyone can use high rez to its full potential.   A Maserati driven by my mom will still hog the right lane going at speed limit or less.    :duh:

So let's not confuse incidental findings of the lack of quality with a systemic failure.  High rez gives the recording engineer a bigger palette to work with.

wilsynet

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 1228
Re: Bad news for high bit rate fans.
« Reply #35 on: 7 Mar 2012, 05:58 pm »
Yah yah yah, I know its all "science" nasty old science, thus does not apply to you.

The problem is that "science" sometimes gets things wrong.  Despite being peer reviewed.  You know, like eggs are good for you, then they're bad for you, then they're good for you again.

Or the case of Dan Schechtman who won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for his discovery of quasicrystals.

http://news.yahoo.com/vindicated-ridiculed-israeli-scientist-wins-nobel-183256852.html

He was ridiculed by the community, and asked to leave his research group for bringing shame and dishonor for his implausible discovery.  Laughed at, ridiculed, ostracized.  No less than Nobel Prize winner and giant of the field Linus Pauling was particularly spiteful, turning the entire scientific community against Schechtman, saying that "there is no such thing as quasicrystals, only quasi-scientists."  But Schechtman was ultimately vindicated, although it took more than 20 years to get there.  A lesson for those who think they always have the answers.

I don't know if the "science" has it right in the case of high resolution music files -- they very well may have it right.  In fact, I'll even go so far as to say they probably do have it right.  The creeping doubt by audiophiles likely comes from there not being quite enough research, because, well, it isn't exactly an area of intense and broad interest characterized by large amounts of research dollars.

But if better mastered versions are available in high resolution formats, then there's really no harm in buying high resolution music if only to get the better mastered recordings.

For what it's worth, I'm a believer in science.  I just think there are opportunities to have the consensus scientific community be wrong.

Devil Doc

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 2191
  • On the road to Perdition
Re: Bad news for high bit rate fans.
« Reply #36 on: 7 Mar 2012, 06:28 pm »
I just find it interesting that the people who hear wire and other "stuff" are either the ones who spent money on it, making money writing about it, or making it.

Doc.

Sonny

Re: Bad news for high bit rate fans.
« Reply #37 on: 7 Mar 2012, 06:51 pm »
I just find it interesting that the people who hear wire and other "stuff" are either the ones who spent money on it, making money writing about it, or making it.

Doc.

Doc, wires do make a difference..."DIFFERENCE" Being the key word!
It's all subjective!

Art_Chicago

Re: Bad news for high bit rate fans.
« Reply #38 on: 7 Mar 2012, 07:30 pm »
I have a CD, vinyl and 24/96 FLAC file of Chesky's Rebecca Pidgeon Retrospective.  Playing through the same DAC at different bit rates, I can really tell the difference.  24/96 is fuller, more extended and clearer than the CD.  Some of the remastered older recording into higher bits don't sound better (just different) but good original recordings (whether in analog or high rez digital) (re)mastered in higher rez format can indeed sound better than the CD version.  This is what I hear.

So, is the hi-rez file 'remastered' using 24/96 bitrate? The higher quality is due to better remasterring, perhaps?

My example:  a FLAC hi-res file from HDtracks (Plant/Krauss) going through Beresford DAC 24/96. It has 4 inputs. So, one input is connected to MacBookPro (set at highest resoloution 24/96), second input is connected to Apple TV ( max resolution 16/44) The same file is converted by the dac from two sources: one hi-rez, one redbook. I started both files at the same time and was switching the inputs on the dac. no difference to report!

rbbert

Re: Bad news for high bit rate fans.
« Reply #39 on: 7 Mar 2012, 07:40 pm »
... I brought over the original David Crosby "If I Could Only Remember My Name" CD, and the Redbook CD of the new remaster from when they made the DVD-A, and the DVD-A. The new remastered Redbook CD was superior to the original and the DVD-A was superior by an even bigger margin over the newly remastered CD. It didn't take any trained ears to hear significant differences on a very average audio system...

This is a bizarre example, because the DVD-A and remastered CD have very squashed dynamics and "brickwall" limiting.