How important is high-res audio really?

turkey · « **Reply #20 on:** 20 Dec 2010, 08:50 pm »

Quote from: Ronm1 on 20 Dec 2010, 08:43 pm

Your damn right I'm not polite, its not logical That's the whole point of hirez to master with better resolution not just playback. I understand the concept apples and apples cocept but here its flawed. I don't get this illogical thinking at all

You're the one that isn't being logical. There is no way to choose between hi-rez and Redbook unless you can compare the identical recording being played on both.

In my case, I have a few of those dual SACD/CD discs, and I couldn't hear any difference between versions.

Furthermore:

"Claims both published and anecdotal are regularly made for audibly superior sound quality for two-channel audio encoded with longer word lengths and/or at higher sampling rates than the 16-bit/44.1-kHz CD standard. The authors report on a series of double-blind tests comparing the analog output of high-resolution players playing high-resolution recordings with the same signal passed through a 16-bit/44.1-kHz “bottleneck.” The tests were conducted for over a year using different systems and a variety of subjects. The systems included expensive professional monitors and one high-end system with electrostatic loudspeakers and expensive components and cables. The subjects included professional recording engineers, students in a university recording program, and dedicated audiophiles. The test results show that the CD-quality A/D/A loop was undetectable at normal-to-loud listening levels, by any of the subjects, on any of the playback systems. The noise of the CD-quality loop was audible only at very elevated levels."

Ronm1 · « **Reply #21 on:** 20 Dec 2010, 08:57 pm »

Quote from: turkey on 20 Dec 2010, 08:50 pm

In my case, I have a few of those dual SACD/CD discs, and I couldn't hear any difference between versions.

I have some of those too, and some actually sound better on my redbook rig with the hybrid layer. Quite a few were the cookie cutter approach Sony used bypassing mastering that took advantage of the format, so there was little diff.

turkey · « **Reply #22 on:** 20 Dec 2010, 09:00 pm »

Quote from: Ronm1 on 20 Dec 2010, 08:57 pm

I have some of those too, and some actually sound better on my redbook rig with the hybrid layer. Quite a few were the cookie cutter approach Sony used bypassing mastering that took advantage of the format, so there was little diff.

Then that says you can't actually hear a difference between the formats.

joeriz · « **Reply #23 on:** 20 Dec 2010, 09:11 pm »

Quote from: Ronm1 on 20 Dec 2010, 08:49 pm

Your damn right I'm not polite, its not logical

Wow. Look, I'll just say this and be done with it as I'm not into having a war of words here. We are discussing audio here...that's all. I simply started a thread trying to have a friendly discussion. This is not life or death and I'm not terribly concerned with which new DAC I do or do not buy. I was simply curious to hear about others' experineces. This seemed like as a good a place as any to discuss this topic as: 1) I've always liked Frank's gear and approach to audio and, 2) I am interested in his DACs.

Could I have phrased my question better? I don't know...perhaps. But, again, we're simply discussing hi-fi here...nothing terribly important in the grand scheme of things. Might I suggest that there is a more appropriate way to express yout thoughts.

Joe

ted_b · « **Reply #24 on:** 20 Dec 2010, 09:13 pm »

Listen to the stereo 24/192 recording (HDAD or DVD-Audio) of Cannonball Adderly, Somethin' Else, then tell me it ain't better.

Or Art Pepper Meets The Rhythm Section....heck, even the mono Sonny Rollins Saxophone Colossus.

Ronm1 · « **Reply #25 on:** 20 Dec 2010, 09:14 pm »

Quote from: turkey on 20 Dec 2010, 09:00 pm

Then that says you can't actually hear a difference between the formats.

It appears english is a second language

I did say some, many do sound significantly better

A example I have used in this forum many times is
Saxophone Colossus, Way Out West - Sonny Rollins
Art Pepper meets the Rhythm Section
These three are 192/24 2ch only and are superbly remastered 60's sessions and IMHO upto now the
definitive releases of these sessions

Same with

The Doors box set is top shelf all the way Hires is great and the rebook disc is a great improvement over the original CD releases. Those turned me off in upgrading from vinyl for years.
If I could Remember my Name - David Crosby
Morph the Cat - Donald Fagen

If you need more I'll oblige....

ted_b · « **Reply #26 on:** 20 Dec 2010, 09:18 pm »

Nice tastes, Ronm1.

IICORMN by David Crosby is a classic example of how well that recording was made (an early ABsolute Sound's HP vinyl favorite back in the day) and how, up until hirez, it was buried in the redbook mix. Yes, extra care was taken once mastered over to DVD-Audio...thank God for that.

Ronm1 · « **Reply #27 on:** 20 Dec 2010, 09:18 pm »

Quote from: joeriz on 20 Dec 2010, 09:11 pm

Could I have phrased my question better? I don't know...perhaps. But, again, we're simply discussing hi-fi here...nothing terribly important in the grand scheme of things. Might I suggest that there is a more appropriate way to express yout thoughts.

Joe

Maybe, and I apologize to you for losing my cool

joeriz · « **Reply #28 on:** 20 Dec 2010, 09:35 pm »

Quote from: Ronm1 on 20 Dec 2010, 09:18 pm

Maybe, and I apologize to you for losing my cool

Thanks!

Wayner · « **Reply #29 on:** 20 Dec 2010, 09:36 pm »

As someone who has spent many, many hours behind both analog and digital recording gear, he is my point about the high resolution format. If your master was done in 44.1/16, it's not going to really get any better then that. We can reprocess the 44.1/16 to higher speed, and word length, but zeros and ones are going to be extrapolated (depending on software used) and while it could be a guess, the fill in the blanks are still a guess, even if they are probably correct. If the music is recorded in a higher digital resolution, like 192/24 to begin with and mastered down to the redbook 44.1/16 that is one story, and if it's downloaded to a computer in it's original, mastered state of 192/24, now we can compare 44.1/16 to the original 192/24. And the only thing that will be proved or not is if an actual hi res master sounds better then it's reduced redbook cousin. I think it also depends on the music, the recording engineer and the playback system. A remastering of a high quality analog recording to a high resolution is a different matter (and really makes sense).

At some point, I think we all can agree, the digital stream reaches that point of no return as any higher and higher resolutions will not bring any audible improvements from it's lower res cousins.

High resolution audio also offers other challenges, as they are really big files, and that leads to download time and actual hard disc drive space, tho a terabyte of drive now days is really cheap. In the end, the winner (and it already is) is the down loaded music format (at what ever resolution). CD sales are dropping like a led zeppelin, and down load sales are on the increase. Also, hi res files are not going to be exchanged at least by CD to CD down loads and in a way will stop music theft if (and when) more music is available in this format.

On a side line to this discussion is the failure of SACDs in general. Many comment that there really isn't any improvement, or at least not worth the increased cost. OH well.

Wayner

trebejo · « **Reply #30 on:** 20 Dec 2010, 09:46 pm »

Is anyone here suggesting that Shannon's theorem is wrong, or that it does not apply?

Wayner · « **Reply #31 on:** 20 Dec 2010, 09:51 pm »

You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

Wayner

ted_b · « **Reply #32 on:** 20 Dec 2010, 09:55 pm »

Quote from: Wayner on 20 Dec 2010, 09:51 pm

You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

Wayner

Wayner, we don't always begin with a sow's ear. Sometimes we have silk (wonderful analog recordings from master tapes, etc.).

Wayner · « **Reply #33 on:** 20 Dec 2010, 10:31 pm »

That's right Ted, I guess I was referencing the bad/low res recordings. At some point, there is an awful lot
of old analog recordings on nasty getting really old magnetic tape that needs to be preserved on some kind of high res format. These are the silk purses to begin with.

We are on the same page.

Wayner

turkey · « **Reply #34 on:** 20 Dec 2010, 10:38 pm »

Quote from: ted_b on 20 Dec 2010, 09:18 pm

Yes, extra care was taken once mastered over to DVD-Audio...thank God for that.

No argument here. Better mastering = better playback.

However, that doesn't mean that it's the hi-rez format that is "better." It just means the mastering is better.

turkey · « **Reply #35 on:** 20 Dec 2010, 10:40 pm »

Quote from: Wayner on 20 Dec 2010, 09:36 pm

And the only thing that will be proved or not is if an actual hi res master sounds better then it's reduced redbook cousin.

The study by Meyer and Moran shows that there's no difference.

turkey · « **Reply #36 on:** 20 Dec 2010, 10:42 pm »

Quote from: ted_b on 20 Dec 2010, 09:55 pm

Wayner, we don't always begin with a sow's ear. Sometimes we have silk (wonderful analog recordings from master tapes, etc.).

There's nothing on an analog master tape that can't be captured using plain old Redbook.

avahifi · « **Reply #37 on:** 20 Dec 2010, 11:26 pm »

I agree, that under controlled testing, one likely will not hear any difference between identical Red Book and Hi Rez recordings, which has been thoroughly evaluated as mentioned earlier in this thread.

One real advantage for us in going from the Philips chip set we previously used and our current Wolfson 8742 DAC is that the Wolfson chip set does not require the current to voltage amplifier section after the digital stuff, necessary with the Philips.

This allows us to design our analog filters and audio output circuits without needing voltage gain or, in the case of the new Vision Hybrid DAC, any solid state devices at all, except for one simple power mos-fet, used for current gain only. We feel this has allowed us to produce better sounding DACs and provide for those that want to play with high bit rate material too.

Regards,

Frank Van Alstine

Bigload · « **Reply #38 on:** 21 Dec 2010, 02:04 am »

Well technical, I ain't! But I do know how to listen. I just got my new Vision EC DAC and AVAStar pre. I am using a Marantz SA8003 as a transport. I have spent a week and a half going back and forth between CD via the new DAC and Sacd direct to the preamp. I see no further advantage to the SACD format unless I am looking for multichannel. I now have my Marantz set up to default to the CD layer and transmit the data digitally to the DAC. Sounds fantastic. Every now and then, I still like to pop in a multichannel SACD into my Oppo NuForce and enjoy that, ie Steely Dan is a great one. But other than that.... The Vision DAC is king daddy for me.

Art_Chicago · « **Reply #39 on:** 21 Dec 2010, 02:16 am »

well I did not want to chime in after the maestro (Frank)...
But just wanted to share my experience: a while ago I downloaded a hi-rez file from HDtracks on my MacBookPro: Plant and Krauss Raising Sand. Converted to a hi-rez AIFF file, and then synced it with AppleTV. Now, using the Beresford 7510 24/96 DAC with 4 inputs, I played the hi-rez file from macbook (audio output at hi-rez) and a redbook file from the ATV switching the inputs on the DAC. I could not hear any difference. Nothing. My kid pushed the buttons on the DAC so I did not know what was playing. Disappointing.