High Definition Releases - Reviews
- Thread starter Bigerik
- Start date
I’d like to know if anybody has participated in a blind testing of any hi res recordings?
I personally can’t tell the difference between Redbook CD’s ie 16/44.1khz and the Apple hi res lossless 24/192khz recordings.
A side note here, most humans can only hear sound between 20hz and 20khz. The older you get the lower the frequency you can hear.
Me personally it’s about 14khz.
This being the case, what’s the point of this hi res recordings?
I understand when the song is recorded it’s wise to record in the higher bit rate and frequency to allow for final downsampling, but to the average joe that’s not a sound engineer or musician is there any point when CD quality recordings are at the sweet point of human hearing?
I personally can’t tell the difference between Redbook CD’s ie 16/44.1khz and the Apple hi res lossless 24/192khz recordings.
A side note here, most humans can only hear sound between 20hz and 20khz. The older you get the lower the frequency you can hear.
Me personally it’s about 14khz.
This being the case, what’s the point of this hi res recordings?
I understand when the song is recorded it’s wise to record in the higher bit rate and frequency to allow for final downsampling, but to the average joe that’s not a sound engineer or musician is there any point when CD quality recordings are at the sweet point of human hearing?
One problem in doing a comparison is if the two formats are from the same source. A lot of music re-released can be re-mastered which would or could be different so you are not comparing the same.
There are many possibilities as far as what was used to start with.
I have read some folks say the re-mastered digital was not as good as the original regardless of the resolution. Same goes for comparing digital to vinyl. Lots complain about compression so regardless of resolution that’s not going to fix the root problem. Traditionally compression was used to limit dynamic range so that you did not overload or clip the signal imposed on the medium but some have used compression to make the source sound louder. Aka “the loudness wars”
I myself can say the Led Zeppelin 4 CD box set I have is well done, but it was re-mastered. I have one SACD, what else Pink Floyd’s DSOTM, it sound really good too, also re-mastered. So many factors other than resolution make for a quality reproduction.
Imo it’s a bit of a crap shoot.
There are many possibilities as far as what was used to start with.
I have read some folks say the re-mastered digital was not as good as the original regardless of the resolution. Same goes for comparing digital to vinyl. Lots complain about compression so regardless of resolution that’s not going to fix the root problem. Traditionally compression was used to limit dynamic range so that you did not overload or clip the signal imposed on the medium but some have used compression to make the source sound louder. Aka “the loudness wars”
I myself can say the Led Zeppelin 4 CD box set I have is well done, but it was re-mastered. I have one SACD, what else Pink Floyd’s DSOTM, it sound really good too, also re-mastered. So many factors other than resolution make for a quality reproduction.
Imo it’s a bit of a crap shoot.
Last edited:
jayvis
Addicted Member
If you can't hear any difference, don't worry about it too much or debate whether or not anyone else can. Some are fortunate enough to have ears and a system that allows them to hear the difference, and some don't. I'm 65 and still have decent hearing, but I also notice a slow but progressive loss of hearing in the higher frequencies. As of today, I can still hear the difference between 16/44.1 and 24/192 recordings through my system. System changes can be made that help some people, but some will never hear the difference no matter what changes they make.
Exactly.
I've never. As in never ever seen the people, claiming to hear the differences, actually backing the claim with proof. I'm certain I will never experience it.
FauxHall
Super Member
That frequency range of 20 Hz to 20K Hz is something of a first cut estimate. It is based on conscious recognition of sine waves. Good as far as it goes, but just a first cut experimental model of how humans perceive sound.
Real sound, and especially music, is never pure sine waves. An exception might be low-tech synthetic electronic music which I find boring sonically. A violin, an oboe, or the human voice CAN NOT produce a sine wave! They can all do a middle C (I think) but you can recognize the difference even on an MP3.
There are small transients, overtones and phase shifts present in real sound. Those are not pure sine waves. Instrument makers have strived for hundreds of years to enhance those non-sine wave components of the music their instruments sound.
Back to your question, I can hear the differences in Redbook and DSD/96/24 sound reproduction for well captured and recorded music. The most easily recognized improvements are on stringed instruments like violins and pianos. The perceived improvement from going up to 196/24 from DSD or 96/24 is seldom there for me. That's why if I have the choice I'll take DSD or 96/24 over Redbook or 196/24 when I pay for media. The extra storage requirement differences don't mean much to me. I do like SACDs for their shiny discs and the security of ownership.
Then again, human appreciation of music varies widely. My late father-in-law just couldn't stand it in any form! I find good music a tonic for my soul.
Real sound, and especially music, is never pure sine waves. An exception might be low-tech synthetic electronic music which I find boring sonically. A violin, an oboe, or the human voice CAN NOT produce a sine wave! They can all do a middle C (I think) but you can recognize the difference even on an MP3.
There are small transients, overtones and phase shifts present in real sound. Those are not pure sine waves. Instrument makers have strived for hundreds of years to enhance those non-sine wave components of the music their instruments sound.
Back to your question, I can hear the differences in Redbook and DSD/96/24 sound reproduction for well captured and recorded music. The most easily recognized improvements are on stringed instruments like violins and pianos. The perceived improvement from going up to 196/24 from DSD or 96/24 is seldom there for me. That's why if I have the choice I'll take DSD or 96/24 over Redbook or 196/24 when I pay for media. The extra storage requirement differences don't mean much to me. I do like SACDs for their shiny discs and the security of ownership.
Then again, human appreciation of music varies widely. My late father-in-law just couldn't stand it in any form! I find good music a tonic for my soul.
You have a good point IR to real life sounds and transients. But as all sounds are waveforms they can all be re-or deconstructed as sinewaves by modulation and superpositioning of drivers. But real life sounds our HiFi systems will never produce.
FauxHall
Super Member
Fourier gave us an algorithm to do the math. We use computers to apply that. Our brain's aural processing seems to do it differently. Wet work is not digital.You have a good point IR to real life sounds and transients. But as all sounds are waveforms they can all be re-or deconstructed as sinewaves by modulation and superpositioning of drivers. But real life sounds our HiFi systems will never produce.
Agreed that no hifi is close enough. "The map is not the world."
And not only do we do the transformation. -We do it fast!
