High Resolution Audio Primer
Welcome to the AudioShark Forums.
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 11
  1. #1
    Audioshark
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Sarasota, FL
    Posts
    25,300
    Post Thanks / Like

    High Resolution Audio Primer

    https://www.stereophile.com/content/...n-audio-primer


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    My Systems: http://www.audioshark.org/showthread...481#post158481

    "We can hear everything we measure, but we can't measure everything we hear. Let your ears be your guide."

    Dealer for: Aqua Hi-Fi, Audio Research, Aurender, AudioQuest Cables & Power Products, Avantgarde Acoustics, Avid HiFi, Ayre Acoustics, Berkeley Audio Design, Boulder Amplifiers, Bowers & Wilkins (B&W), Bryston, Chord, EMM Labs, FirstWatt, Focal Headphones, Furutech, Fyne Audio Loudspeakers, GigaFoil, Gryphon Audio, Harbeth Loudspeakers, Hegel, HiFi Man, ISO Acoustics, Keces Power Supplies, Lumin, Luxman, Magico Loudspeakers, MBL Speakers & Electronics, MSB Technologies, MySonicLabs Phono Cartridges, Naim Audio, Ortofon, Pass Labs, Quadraspire, Roon Labs, Shunyata Research, SimAudio, Stein Music Products, Stenheim Loudspeakers, Stillpoints, T+A Electronics, VAC, Vicoustics, Viva Audio, VPI Industries, WireWorld Cables.

    https://suncoastaudio.com/
    Phone: 941-932-0282
    Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Suncoast-Au...1105178279194/

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Silicon Valley
    Posts
    2,291
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: High Resolution Audio Primer

    Good article. I always was suspect of the claims that CD quality sound is the best that can be achieved. As people, we rarely get anything right the first time, but tweak and modify things for years to improve it. Same thing applies to CD quality sound.
    Bud

    Lumin X1
    Sony XA-5400ES SACD
    Pass XP-22 pre, X600.5 amps
    Magico S5 MKII Mcast Rose speakers, SPOD spikes

    Shunyata Triton v3/Typhon QR for preamp, Denali 2000 (2) for amps
    Shunyata Sigma XLR analog ICs, Sigma speaker cables
    Shunyata Sigma HC (2), Sigma Analog, Sigma Digital, Z Anaconda (3) power cables

    Mapleshade Samson V.3 four shelf solid maple rack, Micropoint brass footers
    Three 20 amp circuits.

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    3,809
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: High Resolution Audio Primer

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueFox View Post
    Good article. I always was suspect of the claims that CD quality sound is the best that can be achieved. As people, we rarely get anything right the first time, but tweak and modify things for years to improve it. Same thing applies to CD quality sound.
    Which article are you referring to? Did you download the AES paper or read the Stereophile article about the AES paper?
    Micro Seiki SX-8000 air bearing table, SME 312s arm, SME 3012R arn, Dynavector XV-1s cartridge, Lyra Etna SL cartridge, ARC Ref 3 phono stage, Otari MX-55 2 track R2R, Ampex 350 tape repros, Roon Nucleus Plus music server, PS Audio DSJ DAC, ARC Ref 6, ARC Ref 75 with KT-150s, JBL 4345 speakers, Viero Equilibro Level 3 speaker cables, and Definitive Technology Ref subs.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    930
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: High Resolution Audio Primer

    Interesting to see that the original article cites several articles written by folks involved with MQA including Bob Stuart. Just an observation.

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Tampa
    Posts
    1,465
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: High Resolution Audio Primer

    Wow. That's incredible. The results of controlled blind testing are now gospel.
    Hmm.....

  6. #6
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2019
    Location
    London Canada
    Posts
    9
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: High Resolution Audio Primer

    I didn’t read the article linked in the stereophile article however there was one small blurb at the end of the aforementioned about “first generation data”....
    I will have to mine down on that statement meaning as my gut is telling me that most of us are not getting (what I assume is) first generation data.

    That and the fact the noise floor at testing is unavailable to us at home adds to the conversation.

    I’m a believer in hi res generally but still feel that the original recording still seems to have the most impact on what ends up coming out of my speakers .

    I may edit this post when I get a chance to read the further linked article .

    At any rate , this certainly seems to close some of the gaps in the debate

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    3,809
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: High Resolution Audio Primer

    What confuses the entire debate on whether Hi-Rez truly sounds better than the 16/44.1 version of recordings is we have no idea of the provenance of the Hi-Rez recordings. You simply don't know if companies that are releasing Hi-Rez recordings actually had access to the original master tape and remastered them anywhere from 24/88.2, 24/96, 24/172, 24/176.4 to 24/192. Or, are they simply upsampled 16/44.1 recordings? It's a digital jungle out there I tell ya.
    Micro Seiki SX-8000 air bearing table, SME 312s arm, SME 3012R arn, Dynavector XV-1s cartridge, Lyra Etna SL cartridge, ARC Ref 3 phono stage, Otari MX-55 2 track R2R, Ampex 350 tape repros, Roon Nucleus Plus music server, PS Audio DSJ DAC, ARC Ref 6, ARC Ref 75 with KT-150s, JBL 4345 speakers, Viero Equilibro Level 3 speaker cables, and Definitive Technology Ref subs.

  8. Likes kiwi_1282001, Alpinist, Kingsrule liked this post
  9. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    east of Seattle
    Posts
    507
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: High Resolution Audio Primer

    this is similar to analog verses digital. really the same type thing.

    digital has improved a great deal and is a great way to listen to music. but analog has a higher upside. which does not in any way diminish digital.

    redbook/cd has really improved. it's awesome. but so has hirez. it is so simple to compare digital copies of analog sources and hear the difference for yourself. but also to easily hear how the native digital frequency and bit depth is always at least as good as any up-sampled version (assuming you use a bit-perfect dac). and typically better.

    so easy to access the best digital version if you dig a little. and mostly it's the master native file.

    this is nothing new, just that the tin foil hat wearers are catching on now. peer review and all that stuff. pity that typically those guys don't have the best tools for the listening part. but the base line of dac tech has increased a bunch so ordinary is now sufficiently good. digital tech has also made storing and accessing files easy, along with streaming hi-rez too.

  10. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    510
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: High Resolution Audio Primer

    M

    Do u listen to DSD in Native or Enhanced mode on the Select II ?

    I go back and forth....

  11. #10
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2019
    Location
    London Canada
    Posts
    9
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: High Resolution Audio Primer

    Quote Originally Posted by mep View Post
    What confuses the entire debate on whether Hi-Rez truly sounds better than the 16/44.1 version of recordings is we have no idea of the provenance of the Hi-Rez recordings. You simply don't know if companies that are releasing Hi-Rez recordings actually had access to the original master tape and remastered them anywhere from 24/88.2, 24/96, 24/172, 24/176.4 to 24/192. Or, are they simply upsampled 16/44.1 recordings? It's a digital jungle out there I tell ya.
    I feel like this is my take on it all for the most part...

    keeping to the digital mindset I have a few albums , as I’m sure most do, that get played first and foremost when critical listening is the chore of the day. On my favourite dac, it plays red book through a NOS Phillips chip and hi-Rez through a different chip , it’s an interesting digital scheme and used to great effect. When I use the same album from locally stored files in both Redbook and 24/192... the redbook is much to my preference. It begs the question of where or how that 24/192 file was captured from.

    Ultimately I’m not sure any of this is relevant because I will default to whatever “version” sounds best with little angst over file type.

    I guess whats encouraging in general is that as time passes some of the discussion as to audibility of file types is becoming moot. At least in the context of the aforementioned article anyway.

 

 
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast