|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
24.251.171.108
In Reply to: RE: The problem is the obsolete CD format, not digital. posted by Tony Lauck on September 04, 2015 at 17:50:13
I really have a hard time believing this although wish it was true in that hi-res digital would offer finally a digital playback that was satisfying.
I have not admittedly done too much with hi-res, but I have noticed how some CDs (produced more recently in the last 10 years or so) are very satisfying while many or most leave me disgusted or at least "wanting". My conclusion was that the CD format itself is not a problem but that digital transfers and in some cases mixing is done poorly - plus then potentially the trend of dynamic range reduction in the interest of loudness
Would love to hear an example of a hi-res file clearly exceeding the quality of the same recording on CD - if one could confirm that the digital transfer was the same and the only variable distinguishing the two was resolution. I feel convinced that properly implemented the CD format is sufficient to equal analog playback if one is able to separate characteristics of the medium, or distortions, from the sound
In other words I think hi res is probably a scam in the sense of making a difference for reasons of resolution and that when it does make a big improvement it is for reasons of either complete remastering or at least a re-do of the digital transfer. On the other hand if these things are being redone and reissued then they might as well up the resolution if it doesnt depend on any "media". But, it would be nice if they didnt have to cost an arm and a leg
JaroTheWise
Follow Ups:
> "In other words I think hi res is probably a scam."
So you haven't done to much with hi-res, but you are willing to pronounce it a scam? That doesn't seem very "wise."
The differences in resolution between 44/16 and 44/24 are obvious to me, and it just goes up from there.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Big speakers and little amps blew my mind!
dont dis my wise moniker as that has a complicated history but is mainly meant to be sarcastic - LOL
You are right that I should spend more time evaluating obviously but took some of those blind tests where you try to distinguish between various MP3 resolution files and then compared to the same in CD resolution and while I succeeded in most cases the difference was much less obvious than I would have assumed. Then also, as I say the difference of CD quality of different offerings is so huge that it clearly isnt a result of the medium itself and that most of the reason that CDs are maligned is not because of resolution limitations. I have some more recent Pat Metheny CD releases that I would believe were SACD if I didnt know better - obviously an artist that pays attention to things being done right
I can also question my old ears and the level of my setup which neither are "state of the art" really.
I also find interesting the notion that hi-res might be better for reasons other than resolution directly - much as you see with digital cameras, the better ones are not better because of resolution really but for CCDs and other components that allow for more dynamic rendition of color and shadow. The same is true for scanning technology and I know this for it being my job for a time
JaroTheWise
Hi Jaro,
I'm not saying that RBCD can't sound very good. It does a lot of things right. In fact, to me, the only improvement with hi-res is the resolution. Everything else is pretty much the same. It's just the higher resolution seems to make such a profound difference to my ears. I understand the points you are making in your post though.
I would mention that the difference between MP3 and 44/16 is just several hundred kbps, whereas the difference between 44/16 and 192/24 is about 10,000 kbps.
----------------------------------------------------------
Big speakers and little amps blew my mind!
That is an interesting point about the resolution of hi res being more of a jump than those other ones but then again I thought the relative difference when you start with a file as spare as a 160 kbps or less then increase should be a profound difference. I am curious now to revisit the whole issue - and this is just when I got sort of used to the 320 subscription stream on Spotify...and I can portray myself as being so "modern" haha
I recall with CCDs the standard was 24 bit but then more advanced units did 30 and 36 and as high as 48 bit - and that was when color and shadow gradation took a leap forward - I mean as opposed to fixed bit depth with higher res - especially the quite useless software interpolation schemes. Course, I too have not experienced DAC upsampling units which would be the audio version of that. I don't recall any audiophile who raved about them - as opposed to some kid raving about the upsampling of his MP3s
But I think it was an article in TAS a few years ago that discussed how digital transfers were so wanting in so many cases - that inferior equipment was used and often the source material was not even from masters but rather copies of them - or copies of copies of copies - I mean in producing CDs
JaroTheWise
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: