Goldmund Whitepaper on High Resolution

Odyssey

Odyssey

Member
Joined
Feb 28, 2014
Messages
643
Location
Austin, TX & Suburban Chicago
Has anyone here seen this:

http://attachments.goldmund.com.s3....resolution_audio_sound_better_white_paper.pdf

I don't know enough about it to discuss it in scientific terms. If you don't feel like reading the entire piece here is the conclusion.

Conclusion:
While many music labels, audio equipment manufacturers and consumers have touted thebenefits of high-resolution audio, there is as yet no significant scientific evidence that it isbeneficial for use in consumer audio devices. There is, however, some evidence that high-resolution audio may in some circumstances result in reduced fidelity compared withstandard-resolution audio.
Expanding bit depth from 16 to 24 bits does no harm in consumer applications, but itwastes storage and transmission space without delivering any real benefit. Increasing samplerate from 44.1 to 96 kHz or higher also delivers no real benefit, and can actually reducefidelity.
Of course, there many audio enthusiasts and professionals dispute these contentions,but we know of no scientific evidence that supports their views.

Written by the Goldmund Acoustic Laboratory in collaboration with industry expert Mr. BrentButterworth.

I find it interesting the claim they make that playing high resolution can potentially damage your equipment. :skeptical:


"Potential Reduction in Equipment Lifespan: Typical tweeters start to reach their breakupmodes – the frequencies at which their physical components behave in a non-linear manner– at frequencies between 25 and 30 kHz. When breakup modes occur, the tweeterdiaphragm (dome) distorts out of its original shape, creating wave patterns in the formerlysmooth diaphragm. Constantly distorting the diaphragm by exciting these breakup modes canresult in physical fatigue of the diaphragm and other mechanical components of the driver,causing distortion and possible failure of the driver."


I'm not on one side of the issue or the other. Perhaps better informed minds can comment.
 
Le Roy, all i know is every time I am listening to digital & a hi-res file comes on I look straight at the front of the dac to confirm from the read-out & I can hear the difference before looking.
 
bzr said:
Le Roy, all i know is every time I am listening to digital & a hi-res file comes on I look straight at the front of the dac to confirm from the read-out & I can hear the difference before looking.
Click to expand...

Thanks Kev,

I value the opinion of audiophiles over "so called" scientists :)
 
I found the paper unconvincing. Sure there's a lot of science talk suggesting they really know what they're talking about. But when you follow closely, arguments are weird at best, and select different theories and assumptions depending on what particular point they want to make.

It starts with Intermodulation distortion (IMD), which they don't feel the need to explain; then we're told IMD is equipment dependent, at some point even that very high end material may be immune to it.

Then there is the forever discussion of ultrasonic frequencies and whether they can be perceived, with a notable lack of music listening, and the usual anatomic argument about hair length, which is a narrow view of how hearing works.

Then they criticize the argument about "microdynamics" with a response that is about macro-dynamics. When they say DSD has no upside over PCM (a point on which I don't disagree), they make the assumption that it's about non-audible frequencies, and therefore the conversion to PCM in the process would suppresss any advantage of DSD; but they totally ignore the upside of DSD in the conversion department.

I am not sure that hi-res formats have intrinsic musical upside indeed, but this papers comes out as partial and not very rigorous. It reminds me of the guys at Linn claiming network players are the way to go based largely in fact on their inability to make good CD-players.

Some hi-res recordings are better than their standard counterparts, some aren't, and we never know what mess goes on in the mixing. Some recordings are sold as hi-res and are nothing but upsamplings of the regular file. When you compare formats, you're also comparing different playback equipments (my DVD look terrible on my BluRay player, not on my old DVD player).

It's clear that whatever upside hi-res files may have is not overwhelming. I'm glad my QoBuz subscription lets me download hi-res for less than the CD. I often hear some value in their hires file, but I'm not sure I would pay the extra $. As the paper suggests, sometimes you can hear a difference, but is it for the better? How many audio systems actually have the extra definition the hi-res files supposedly bring?
 
If from what I think I read, Goldmund notes Hi-rez can reduce fidelity compared to standard resolution audio. So why in the world does Goldmund even make a DAC like the
Mimesis 20H - D/A Converter


Sounds to me they don't want to miss out on the $$ from customers.
 
Usually, I find these papers...are commissioned (or at least brought to light); by manufactures, who don't dabble in said technology. ;)
 
Any person or company who says they don't hear a marked difference in a real DSD recording vice PCM loses all credibility with me. And by real DSD I mean a DSD recording made from an original analog master tape or a digital file that was recorded in DSD and didn't undergo any type of PCM conversions along the way.

I don't know why, but I never would have expected this from Goldmund.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top