The most poorly put poll question I've seen yet. I will not respond.
Rethink your issue and try again.
That's exactly why hi-res is perfect for recording. Playback is a bit more controversial.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).
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.....
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).
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?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).
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.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.
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.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.
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.
Try close miked drums for instance. Even stage grand piano may come close to 100dB.What are you recording that has more than 100dB of dynamic range?
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.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.