The Truth Behind High-Res Audio

Does truth in High-Res matter to you


  • Total voters
    81
  • Poll closed .

ossidian

Active Member

Watching the video will give more insight to the poll.
This video explains the difference between High-Res Audio and Hi-Res Music logo.
Should companies be more transparent with the true source of the Hi-Res download?
 
Last edited:
I don't pay for downloads so I don't care if they're "truly" hi-res or not. It's not much of a secret that lots of them are actually padded 16/44.1 files. Some people still claim to prefer them. Whatever.
 
Dr. Waldrep is a very opinionated man for sure, and I concur he has a dog in the fight. I do not care for Marks recordings but I agree the consumer should know what they are buying and if they are being misled. Misleading and deceitful marketing does not do this industry a service. That being said I do not listen to High-Res personally.
 
The business and audio shenanigans prevalent in the high-resolution world are a major reason I have only purchased three hi-res tracks so far, and have no plans to purchase more anytime soon.
 
The most poorly put poll question I've seen yet. I will not respond.

Rethink your issue and try again.
 
what if I gave you some known lineage high-res music files? Ones that you can directly compare to the rendered 16bit versions??

To me, as a live music recordist...
I absolutely love high-resolution. The sound is superb. But what is more, as a recordist, I have oodles of dynamic headroom to work with; meaning: I can record at a lower level, while maintaining superior resolution, have plenty of buffer for dynamically explosive music (I've seen dynamic swings of 45dBfs that increase in a musical beat); and I can edit in a realm less damaging to the music (I don't ever do anything to the music, but do edit things like audience ovations, etc. by adding discrete compression in places).
 
what if I gave you some known lineage high-res music files? Ones that you can directly compare to the rendered 16bit versions??

To me, as a live music recordist...
I absolutely love high-resolution. The sound is superb. But what is more, as a recordist, I have oodles of dynamic headroom to work with; meaning: I can record at a lower level, while maintaining superior resolution, have plenty of buffer for dynamically explosive music (I've seen dynamic swings of 45dBfs that increase in a musical beat); and I can edit in a realm less damaging to the music (I don't ever do anything to the music, but do edit things like audience ovations, etc. by adding discrete compression in places).
That's exactly why hi-res is perfect for recording. Playback is a bit more controversial.
 
I have and do listen to High Res as I have some DVD-A and some SACD's as well as high res files. It really depends on the source just like anything else.

At the last AXPONA, Dr. Waldrep was whining a little that people don't get his recordings. The problem is, his room was not setup well at all. The first AXPONA, his room was stellar but he had all Bryston and B&W speakers. Those recordings I got and they sounded excellent.

Everything depends on room and associated equipment.....

True. Mastering is also very crucial, you cannot polish a turd.
 
what if I gave you some known lineage high-res music files? Ones that you can directly compare to the rendered 16bit versions??

To me, as a live music recordist...
I absolutely love high-resolution. The sound is superb. But what is more, as a recordist, I have oodles of dynamic headroom to work with; meaning: I can record at a lower level, while maintaining superior resolution, have plenty of buffer for dynamically explosive music (I've seen dynamic swings of 45dBfs that increase in a musical beat); and I can edit in a realm less damaging to the music (I don't ever do anything to the music, but do edit things like audience ovations, etc. by adding discrete compression in places).

A friend on mine has quite a lot of actual High-Res recordings and I was very impressed by them, a few were outstanding and reminded me of vinyl. Whether or not one is analog or digital fan the wave form for High-Res is interesting.

From Sony: The graphs below start with the original analog sound waves and illustrate the low sample rate of CDs compared to the greater frequency used to record High-Resolution Audio.

1.png 2.png 3.png
 
Not really. People want to have the sound of a live recording but then vinyl, R2R, and even CD's don't have enough headroom and I have listed these based on the amount of compression needed to get the master right (from highest amount to lowest).

It is what it is - like it or don't like it as long as I don't have to go a listen to and buy MQA files (that adds another layer where you can't prove where the master is from).

Possibly to your point. Mark Waldrep has been highly critical of the ways in which the music industry has defined, characterized, and promoted hi-res audio. He's opposed to the industry practice of creating hi-res files from analog recordings, for example. If you look at a spectrograph—a visual representation of the spectrum of audio frequencies—in hi-res files featuring such bands as Led Zeppelin or the Beatles, Waldrep explains, “the frequency response and dynamic range above a certain point is all black or all zeros."

"In other words," he says, "you’re getting a big digital file that gives you nothing more than the analog tape. And why pay for all that?”

For most songs currently sold as hi-res, the industry is selling consumers a bill of goods, Waldrep claims. “It’s nonsense," he says.

For the record I have an interest in real High-Res as I am thinking about acquiring many downloads for listening, hence my interest in gathering as much data as possible before proceeding. I have friends who think I am nuts for spending the amount of money as I do on HiFi. It really hurts the cause when the industry is misleading the audiophile. Just another arrow in the quivers of my friends who think it's all nonsense. They pay $30 for a High-Res file that sounds no better than their CD.
 
Last edited:
Not really. People want to have the sound of a live recording but then vinyl, R2R, and even CD's don't have enough headroom and I have listed these based on the amount of compression needed to get the master right (from highest amount to lowest).

It is what it is - like it or don't like it as long as I don't have to go a listen to and buy MQA files (that adds another layer where you can't prove where the master is from).
What are you recording that has more than 100dB of dynamic range?
 
A friend on mine has quite a lot of actual High-Res recordings and I was very impressed by them, a few were outstanding and reminded me of vinyl. Whether or not one is analog or digital fan the wave form for High-Res is interesting.

From Sony: The graphs below start with the original analog sound waves and illustrate the low sample rate of CDs compared to the greater frequency used to record High-Resolution Audio.

View attachment 948302 View attachment 948304 View attachment 948305
The graphs are deceptive at best. The original analog waveform will be reproduced perfectly below the nyquist frequency. It is not in any way stepped.
 
i have a whole bunch
some sound great, some dont
multi channel? i have a few, but dont bother with them cause my 2 chan equip is, way better stuff than my surround stuff.
 
The graphs are deceptive at best. The original analog waveform will be reproduced perfectly below the nyquist frequency. It is not in any way stepped.

The only possible sine waveform AT the Nyquist frequency is a saw-tooth. An original sine wave at the Nyquist frequency simply cannot be reproduced perfectly.
 
The only possible sine waveform AT the Nyquist frequency is a saw-tooth. An original sine wave at the Nyquist frequency simply cannot be reproduced perfectly.
It must be pretty disappointing for you that CDs have to have HF filters for that since you've got perfect hearing out to 22kHz and you're a big fan of dog whistle symphonies.
 
The only possible sine waveform AT the Nyquist frequency is a saw-tooth. An original sine wave at the Nyquist frequency simply cannot be reproduced perfectly.
An original sine wave below the Nyquist frequency can be reproduced perfectly.

Square waves can't be reproduced perfectly by a digital system, but square waves can't be reproduced perfectly by an analog system, either.

See
and
 
Possibly to your point. Mark Waldrep has been highly critical of the ways in which the music industry has defined, characterized, and promoted hi-res audio. He's opposed to the industry practice of creating hi-res files from analog recordings, for example. If you look at a spectrograph—a visual representation of the spectrum of audio frequencies—in hi-res files featuring such bands as Led Zeppelin or the Beatles, Waldrep explains, “the frequency response and dynamic range above a certain point is all black or all zeros."

"In other words," he says, "you’re getting a big digital file that gives you nothing more than the analog tape. And why pay for all that?”

For most songs currently sold as hi-res, the industry is selling consumers a bill of goods, Waldrep claims. “It’s nonsense," he says.

For the record I have an interest in real High-Res as I am thinking about acquiring many downloads for listening, hence my interest in gathering as much data as possible before proceeding. I have friends who think I am nuts for spending the amount of money as I do on HiFi. It really hurts the cause when the industry is misleading the audiophile. Just another arrow in the quivers of my friends who think it's all nonsense. They pay $30 for a High-Res file that sounds no better than their CD.

I would say Mark Waldrep is missing out on some great music with that concern that a source in analog tape. Some of my best sounding material on high rez is sourced from tape! Part of the reason why may not be the fact it's on tape as much as the fact that they used to put up a couple mics and record. It wasn't a guy recording on the West Coast and another guy recording in NYC and the singer recording his part in Europe and then assembling it in Miami though scads of processing layers.

Sure Waldrep has some good stuff but I'd miss out on a lot of really great sounding material if I restricted my search for quality music to pure digital province.

EV3
 
The only possible sine waveform AT the Nyquist frequency is a saw-tooth. An original sine wave at the Nyquist frequency simply cannot be reproduced perfectly.
It can - if it is a steady sine wave. But anything other than that steady wave will have components ABOVE Nyquist frequency, which we assumed being all zeros.

Higher sampling rate simply makes it easier to implement filters both in ADC and DAC.
 
Back
Top Bottom