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.

[Oldpinkman]

In your opinion, not mine

Marco.

It's a simple test really. Take the high-res sample and have it down-sampled to red book using good software, and then compare the hi-res original with the down-sampled copy. Both will be the same master, and so Macca's objection will not be valid. I am still playing with this (well was before I got distracted by France) and the jury is out

I think it is absolutely true to say that there is a great deal of potential variability of quality due to mastering techniques and so it is quite likely that a lot of high-res sounds better due to better mastering than due to the medium itself. I'm not yet sure that means high-res is the same as red book when they're both done properly. And I expect to see later on in this thread others challenging Macca's sums

[Marco]

Sure, I'd be up for carrying out any tests, as long as they involve using your ears, and not graphs or measurement equipment...

Like I said, at the moment, I'm pretty confident I can differentiate between 'bonafide high-res' recordings and those that have simply been mastered better, although I couldn't say for sure what the mechanism responsible for causing that difference is.

Marco.

[awkwardbydesign]

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.

I just watched all 1hr 19min of this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXbH-yzGNfg From an engineer who cares, and there is a LOT more going on than just the mastering.
Recommended.

[amigarobbo]

I just watched all 1hr 19min of this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXbH-yzGNfg From an engineer who cares, and there is a LOT more going on than just the mastering.
Recommended.

Hang on, isn't he the man responsible for Metallica's Death Magnetic, apparently one of the worst sounding albums eva?

[Stratmangler]

Hang on, isn't he the man responsible for Metallica's Death Magnetic, apparently one of the worst sounding albums eva?

And your point is?
It doesn't matter how good the recording and production is because the final production mastering has final say as to how good something sounds.
And if the brief coming through from the client (in this case the record company) demands that it's mastered so that everything sound louder than everything else then that's the way it's done.

Metallica are just as culpable for the shit mastering as the record company - they've been around for long enough to know that the only way to get a job done properly is to take control of it themselves.
They didn't, and left it to the record company.

Engineers in the recording industry try to produce the best work they can, but if the client doesn't give a flying f**k about the quality then they're in a quandry - do I make the very best job of this that I can and possibly not get paid or do I do what the client demands and put food on the table?
I know which one I'd pick, and it's not the suffering for my art route

[Gazjam]

Hang on, isn't he the man responsible for Metallica's Death Magnetic, apparently one of the worst sounding albums eva?

An album that goes up to 11.