|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
68.81.91.100
In Reply to: RE: I disagree but want to share. posted by bquisp on April 02, 2014 at 12:41:47
The article is superficial and ignores a number of things. True, engineering of the recording is critical. Poorly engineered hi Rez does not sound better than well engineered RBCD.I think it is also true that hi Rez provides better bit depth, and therefore, headroom in the recording process, which can lead to a better engineered and better sounding result with better capture of low level detail.
I think the added frequency extension of Hi Rez is wasted on humans. Except, both DSD and 96k or better PCM eliminate or shift into the inaudible ultrasonic range, most all artifacts from the reconstruction filter used for RBCD. One example of this is preringing, known to exist in all PCM recordings as a result of both PCM a-d and d-a. But, that is also player dependent. Better RBCD players might also have better filtering and or "voicing" to minimize the digital "nasties" resulting from the filter.
Of course, each of us can easily hear for ourselves in our own systems whether an SACD sounds better from the RBCD layer or the DSD stereo layer. If most did not find a positive difference, I do not think this thread would exist.
Edits: 04/03/14Follow Ups:
"I think the added frequency extension of Hi Rez is wasted on humans."
I'm not so sure about that. We may not hear the extended frequencies directly, but if the downstream electronics can pass them without hiccupping along the way what arrives at the speakers is likely to be a more accurate timbral representation of a given instrument or voice because the upper-upper harmonics haven't been brickwalled out of existence. That's one of the things I hear in hi-rez vs Redbook comparisons of well-engineered program and where, in my estimation, the range-of-human-hearing argument that's trotted out to pooh-pooh hi-rez in either its silver disc or download incarnations falls flat.
Jim
http://jimtranr.com
Jim - I think there is much pretty good science to back me up. There may be a small minority of "scientific" opinions to the contrary, as with global warming, but they are not widely accepted or credibly verified and peer reviewed.
Also, while audio electronics usually have an extended, ultrasonic frequency response, speakers typically do not in the home. Check out any Atkinson measurements in Stereophile. The same is true for the mikes typically used in recording.
With DSD, there is also the considerable noise shaping hump just above 20k or so, which would swamp many details up there with noise.
I do not doubt that hi Rez sounds better to you. But, I think that is likely because of the removal of the filter artifacts, like response ripple, pre-ringing, etc., within the audio band rather than because of ultrasonic signal you might think you hear up there. In most cases, it just is not there on the recording, nor is it likely to be reproduced by your speakers.
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: