The Myth of 'High Resolution' audio

[Macca]

There seems to be some misapprehension concerning 'hi-rez' audio which is surprising considering it is not a new thing, having been on the market well over a decade.

Firstly it is nothing like hi resolution video as some folk still seem to think. We all know that the more pixels you have the more detail you get and we have all experienced the clear difference that a hi-res video signal has to a standard definition one. But this is in no way comparative to audio which works completely differently.

I'm not a technical person but it is not that difficult to understand the basics.

We have bits - 16 bit, 48 bit and 96 bit.

We have sampling frequency - 44.1, 96, 192 KHz

Bits is amplitude and sampling frequency is wavelength. As we know any audio signal is a continuous emission of sound at continuously changing wavelengths and volumes

So the more bits you have the higher the dynamic range, the difference in volume between the quietest and the loudest signals on your recording.

The higher the sampling frequency, the higher the frequency of sound that can be re-produced. This is half the sampling frequency. So sampling at 96KHz we can reproduce sounds up to 48 KHz.

Lets take bits first. 16 bits gives a dynamic range of 110 dB. How much do we need? Well a good vinyl Lp might manage 45 dB of dynamic range. And no-one complained about lack of dynamic range on LP. So 110 is more than enough, well more than enough. So no need for more bits than 16

Now frequency - Even if you have really good hearing you will struggle to hear up to 20kHz, most people will not hear above 16Khz. Do we need to be able to reproduce sound above that level? Well it has ben argued that some few instruments do have overtones that go up higher than that even though we don't hear them we do hear their secondary effect at lower frequencies. That is the theory. In practice no-one can reliably tell the difference so if it is improving sound quality it is at best doing it at a tiny, infinitesimal amount.

So why do my hi rez files sound better than my red book CD copy of the same album?

Because when hi-res (SACD and DVD-A) were launched the record companies went back and painstakingly re-mastered a whole slew of titles from the original tapes, many dating back to the early 'Seventies. Needles to say they did a better job (more time, more money, better resources) than was done at the time, consequently they sound a lot better than the originals.

It isn't always that easy to find a 'hi-rez' and a red book version of the same master consequently a lot of the time people are comparing apples to oranges. The record companies are happy to keep that confusion going.

Now I agree that it is worth having some form of 'hi res' replay in order to hear those better masters when they are not also available in 16/44.1 - but can we please stop thinking/saying that there is 'more information' or 'more detail' or 'higher resolution' available because it just 'aint so.

[Marco]

Btw, I made a mistake. The discussion we had, which I referred to on the other thread, took place in the mod room, when I addressed, on the following page, this post of yours: http://theartofsound.net/forum/showt...918#post631918

Don't worry, only those with the relevant permissions will be able to see it!

Marco.

[Macca]

Btw, I made a mistake. The discussion we had, which I referred to on the other thread, took place in the mod room, when I addressed, on the following page, this post of yours: http://theartofsound.net/forum/showt...918#post631918

Don't worry, only those with the relevant permissions will be able to see it!

Marco.

This is what you said:


Quite simply, the proof of the pudding is in the listening, as I've got identical albums, both on CD, and high-res versions of such on my hard-drive. There are numerous examples where the latter significantly outperform the former, sonically, with no other variables in the equation. I'll demonstrate that to you when you next visit

Different masters. That's all there is to it.

[Marco]

In your opinion, not mine

Marco.

[Macca]

Opinion doesn't really come into it. How do you know they are the same mastering? Increasing the dynamic range above 110 dB and increasing the frequency response above 22KHz makes no difference to what you hear and that is all 'hi rez' audio does - but a better mastering job can make a hell of a difference in SQ.

[Marco]

Of course opinion comes into it; I intrinsically *know* what I can hear (and what I relate that to), and you disagree - and so no amount of words exchanged on a computer screen is liable to change our respective opinions on the matter.

Therefore, if you wish to debate the subject on purely a technical level, I'm afraid that I'm not your man, and will be too busy enjoying the musical benefits provided by the Pi/DAC combo, partly created, IMHO, as a by-product of the latter's high-resolution capabilities

Marco.

[NRG]

16 bit is 96db Macca...

[Macca]

Of course opinion comes into it; I intrinsically *know* what I can hear (and what I relate that to), and you disagree - and so no amount of words exchanged on a computer screen is liable to change our respective opinions on the matter.

Therefore, if you wish to debate the subject on purely a technical level, I'm afraid that I'm not your man, and will be too busy enjoying the musical benefits provided by the Pi/DAC combo, partly created, IMHO, as a by-product of the latter's high-resolution capabilities

Marco.

If they are the same master and sound different then I would really like to hear that. But as I said I strongly suspect you are listening to two different masterings and ascribing the improvement to 'high rez' when it is down to a better master.

[Macca]

16 bit is 96db Macca...

Thanks for that. I did say I wasn't technical Doesn't change the basic point of my post, though. 96dB is still a whole lot of dynamic range.

[Marco]

If they are the same master and sound different then I would really like to hear that.

Precisely; and you will next time you pop up for a sesh

Marco.