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.
 
BlueFox said:
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.
Click to expand...

Which article are you referring to? Did you download the AES paper or read the Stereophile article about the AES paper?
 
Interesting to see that the original article cites several articles written by folks involved with MQA including Bob Stuart. Just an observation.
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
M

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

I go back and forth....
 
mep said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top