High resolution audio
Discussion
Just had an e-mail from Sony about their new range of "high resolution audio" stuff - basically the music is digitized at 96kHz/24-bit instead of 44kHz/16-bit that CD uses.
http://www.sony.co.uk/electronics/hi-res-audio?cid...
What got me interested was the range of "high resolution audio speakers" that they're selling. Now I'm struggling to understand what makes them different from "normal" speakers - after all, they're fed with an analogue signal from the amplifier so where's the "high definition" bit...or is this just a marketing ploy?
http://www.sony.co.uk/electronics/hi-res-audio?cid...
What got me interested was the range of "high resolution audio speakers" that they're selling. Now I'm struggling to understand what makes them different from "normal" speakers - after all, they're fed with an analogue signal from the amplifier so where's the "high definition" bit...or is this just a marketing ploy?
Monty Python said:
What got me interested was the range of "high resolution audio speakers" that they're selling. Now I'm struggling to understand what makes them different from "normal" speakers - after all, they're fed with an analogue signal from the amplifier so where's the "high definition" bit...or is this just a marketing ploy?
I'd guess they're designed with a super tweeter to handle the higher frequencies you can't hear (as seen on many in the pics).There's also the chance that these recordings do not actually contain any information that makes 96 kHz necessary. If the recording has been low pass filtered somewhere in the recording phase. Or there simply may not have been any recording whatsoever of frequencies up to 48 kHz, depending on the mics used for the recording.
On that Sony page you linked, it has a nice graphic illustrating analog versus 44.1/16 and 96/24. What it doesn't show you is, if that analog signal has no frequency content above 22.05 kHz (the Nyquist frequency when sampling at 44.1 kHz), the digital-to-analog converted 44.1 and 96 kHz waveforms will be identical given perfect reconstruction filters.
On that Sony page you linked, it has a nice graphic illustrating analog versus 44.1/16 and 96/24. What it doesn't show you is, if that analog signal has no frequency content above 22.05 kHz (the Nyquist frequency when sampling at 44.1 kHz), the digital-to-analog converted 44.1 and 96 kHz waveforms will be identical given perfect reconstruction filters.
The Khz in audio recordings has more relevance than just the frequency response - it's also the sample rate.
96/24 was the standard in recording studios for many years - that's what we recorded our album at in the mid 2000s. It's only recently (64 bit PCs mainly) that there's been enough memory to get a song (30 separate tracks of uncompressed audio at the same time, remember) into RAM at higher rates without bouncing things to disk all the time.
96/24 was the standard in recording studios for many years - that's what we recorded our album at in the mid 2000s. It's only recently (64 bit PCs mainly) that there's been enough memory to get a song (30 separate tracks of uncompressed audio at the same time, remember) into RAM at higher rates without bouncing things to disk all the time.
MQA looks like an interesting development. https://www.meridian-audio.com/sounds-too-good-but...
I've not heard a demo yet but I know some experienced people in the Hi-Fi industry who have and they've been extremely impressed.
I've not heard a demo yet but I know some experienced people in the Hi-Fi industry who have and they've been extremely impressed.
I used to think 'more is better' but after reading this: https://xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html and watching this: https://xiph.org/video/vid2.shtml I'm convinced that, for home use at least, 24/192 (in fact anything greater than 16/44.1) is a waste of time and money. I'm all for high quality audio but you'll get more improvement by upping the quality of the production and mastering than adding more samples to a mediocre recording.
I'm sure I'll get shot down for this post!
I'm sure I'll get shot down for this post!
www.qobuz.com
Good place for HiRes Digital audio downloads. I can't comment on the quality though as I don't stream music.
Good place for HiRes Digital audio downloads. I can't comment on the quality though as I don't stream music.
Funk said:
I used to think 'more is better' but after reading this: https://xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html and watching this: https://xiph.org/video/vid2.shtml I'm convinced that, for home use at least, 24/192 (in fact anything greater than 16/44.1) is a waste of time and money. I'm all for high quality audio but you'll get more improvement by upping the quality of the production and mastering than adding more samples to a mediocre recording.
I'm sure I'll get shot down for this post!
I for one, agree with you.I'm sure I'll get shot down for this post!
The quality of Red book CD has always been good enough - it was let down in the early days by poor transports and DACs in budget equipment.
These days, it's let down by poor mastering and the 'loudness war'.
People rave about 24bit recordings because these recordings are optimised for quality reproduction throughout the mastering process - that's the only reason.
But find a good quality 16 bit recording optimised for quality throughout the mastering process, and it's just as good.
TonyRPH said:
I for one, agree with you.
The quality of Red book CD has always been good enough - it was let down in the early days by poor transports and DACs in budget equipment.
These days, it's let down by poor mastering and the 'loudness war'.
People rave about 24bit recordings because these recordings are optimised for quality reproduction throughout the mastering process - that's the only reason.
But find a good quality 16 bit recording optimised for quality throughout the mastering process, and it's just as good.
Agreed, I have bought a number of high resolution recordings from Linn Records and think they stand out as exceptionally good recordings - but probably by virtue of the mastering process than the bitrate. If I could be bothered I'd resample one to redbook and conduct a blind test - but as it happens I just buy them in the highest available resolution and don't give it much further thought.The quality of Red book CD has always been good enough - it was let down in the early days by poor transports and DACs in budget equipment.
These days, it's let down by poor mastering and the 'loudness war'.
People rave about 24bit recordings because these recordings are optimised for quality reproduction throughout the mastering process - that's the only reason.
But find a good quality 16 bit recording optimised for quality throughout the mastering process, and it's just as good.
Crackie said:
MQA looks like an interesting development. https://www.meridian-audio.com/sounds-too-good-but...
I've not heard a demo yet but I know some experienced people in the Hi-Fi industry who have and they've been extremely impressed.
That's interesting because it is technically clever - offering high-res to those who want it, within the same file as the normal 16bit/48kHz version.I've not heard a demo yet but I know some experienced people in the Hi-Fi industry who have and they've been extremely impressed.
I have to say I'm a little cynical about the usual 'veil being lifted' cliche; one of the tracks used for the demo was Enter Sandman, which famously suffered from the loudness war mastering. Remastering for high-res would surely have removed the clipping, so of course it would sound better; if they remastered it properly for 16/44.1 then it would sound better too!
Gassing Station | Home Cinema & Hi-Fi | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff