High Def Video BIG success.......HiRes Audio Not so much...How come?

[wdw]

I'm a programmer with a passion for the sciences, especially physics and biology.

I like to see claims backed up with reproduce-able tests.

It's just the way I'm wired I suppose.

 

I have not seen reproduce-able tests that show > 44.1kHz sampling can be ABX'd against 44.1kHz.

It should be easy to generate such a test using computer generated tones if it is real.

I haven't seen them though.

 

Your joking, right?

Is music a salami sandwich to be put on a scale... The problem is your scale in my opinion.

[sdolezalek]

In "Confessions of a Part-Time Audiophile" (The Great Cable Debate | Confessions of a Part-Time Audiophile), there is a really excellent example of why we find differences in visual experiences easier to discuss than those in audio experiences. To quote from a smaller piece of the article (which is about differences in cables):

 

"So, here’s some of the less-obvious things I’ve heard cables “do” to a system. The first is change tone or timbre. This is almost always really subtle. At a gross level, the system may sound “richer”. Or “fuller”. Of course, I might have been imagining all that, but if so, it was a pleasant hallucination I was unable to replicate with some other cables, much less some randomly placed rocks, prisms, or weights, pretty though they may be. When changes are subtle, though, pulling the granularity out into words that are meaningful is rather hard to capture in words. So, pardon the synethesia, but I see an analogy in these Samuel Silva pics:

 

"

 

Which is better?

 

Just so we’re clear, the pic on the left is a line drawing. The pic on the right is a photograph. Many of us, based on that knowledge, would say that the pic on the right is better — because it’s real. But that said, just about everyone would then marvel at the reproduction on the left. It’s breathtaking, really.

 

The pic on the left has more detail. The pic on the right has more depth and better tonal gradation. Both are awesome. Neither are real. Both images are reproductions, and imperfect ones at that — neither are the real, live, girl.

 

This is the kind of thing that audio reviewers are trying to capture in their reviews."

 

Looking at those two pictures really nailed it for me -- to use the old adage "a picture is worth a thousand words" maybe a word is worth a thousand notes, describing reality in the form of music just seem so much harder to capture. I think it is also why preferring high def video is easier than high def audio -- we share a far greater sense of what we are talking about.

[sandyk]

After seeing some of the late night U.S.A HDTV shows like David Letterman etc. via Internet DLs in HD, with some great performances by guest artists in good Surround Sound , it annoys the hell out of me that our local Aussie DTV stations retransmit then in normal resolution.Our TV stations are quite slack in using HD channels for anything other than special events, despite many people now having large HD capable TVs. As for the audio part of those transmissions, it usually sounds way better than typical CD, even when via stereo speakers due to less horrendous compression, and the video part is clearly much better than a normal DTV transmission.

Alex

[esldude]

So you stoop to pictures of a young woman, and the implied question of which is most likely to have sex with me? Obviously the women in higher definition and close to me with the big eyes. Admittedly, only once have I gotten sex because of the quality of my audio system. Then again, never have I gotten sex based upon my extraordinary video quality. So sometimes aural at least equals oral or better in fact, or at least in my personal facts. And for those questioning this, I was using Quad ESL-63's and driven by VTL modified tube triode amps. Not the technically most transparent, but somehow most organic and most convincing to the opposite sex. Maybe that is the blind test we all should use. The one that gets the most sexual results. What else could trump that? In my case, the Quads were playing Mozart and caused a volunteer going door to door to uninvited enter my domicile and question what might get this in her own home. I answered as best I could naturally. SCORE!

[Kiwi2]

far more and more expensive electronics, which aren't coming down in price the way TVs do...

...As to some of this we legitimately can ask why not, i.e. the prices of speakers and electronics.

 

 

An a impossibility as the definition of "good quality sound" for an audiophile is that it is expensive and exclusive. The moment something becomes affordable and popular with Joe sixpack average... it then automatically becomes "common mass-produced rubbish" - so the situation you describe could never happen in the eyes of audiophiles.

 

If fact affordable common hi-fi equipment today is already capable of delivering the benefits of HD music. The fact that you think it hasn't happened yet kind of proves my point. By definition it will never happen.

 

For example you feel the need for a Lexicon CDP. Was a more cheaper common brand CDP not expensive and exclusive enough for you and thus the Lexicon is "better"?

[sdolezalek]

Fair question - as a matter of fact, I'm thinking of replacing that Lexicon with the newly announced Oppo-BDP105 which represents the latest in consumer level high def at "more" reasonable prices. My own personal test has always been "if I can't hear/see/feel the difference in a meaningful way, then don't buy the more expensive product.' It is also why I often buy audio equipment used - once i have figured out what I like.

[Alice Wonder]

From 24/192 Music Downloads are Very Silly Indeed

 

He references AES E-Library » Audibility of a CD-Standard A/DA/A Loop Inserted into High-Resolution Audio Playback

 

and points out:

This paper presented listeners with a choice between high-rate DVD-A/SACD content, chosen by high-definition audio advocates to show off high-def's superiority, and that same content resampled on the spot down to 16-bit / 44.1kHz Compact Disc rate. The listeners were challenged to identify any difference whatsoever between the two using an ABX methodology. BAS conducted the test using high-end professional equipment in noise-isolated studio listening environments with both amateur and trained professional listeners.

In 554 trials, listeners chose correctly 49.8% of the time. In other words, they were guessing. Not one listener throughout the entire test was able to identify which was 16/44.1 and which was high rate [15], and the 16-bit signal wasn't even dithered!

 

I just can't ignore the scientific method.

 

Furthermore -

 

It's important not to cherry-pick individual papers or 'expert commentary' out of context or from self-interested sources. Not all papers agree completely with these results (and a few disagree in large part), so it's easy to find minority opinions that appear to vindicate every imaginable conclusion. Regardless, the papers and links above are representative of the vast weight and breadth of the experimental record. No peer-reviewed paper that has stood the test of time disagrees substantially with these results. Controversy exists only within the consumer and enthusiast audiophile communities.

[Paul R]

Are you sure you put on a high def program?

 

Try an animated movie, the difference is often very "in your face" with those.

 

I can't tell the difference between standard and hi def TV.

[wgscott]

Are you sure you put on a high def program?

 

Try an animated movie, the difference is often very "in your face" with those.

 

That's what I thought too. I downloaded "Up" from iTunes. It downloads both the regular and high-res version. Because of some glitch, I wound up watching the regular def version, commenting to everyone how great it looked in high definition, until I found out what had happened. I've since compared the two versions, and I cannot tell the difference, except for the file size. We have a 52" Samsung 1080p LCD TV, FWIW.

[sdolezalek]

We have a 52" Samsung 1080p LCD TV, FWIW.

 

First, direct quote from Apple on the iTunes site: "Video purchases from the iTunes Store are delivered in Standard Definition (SD), which can be played on your computer, iPhone, iPad, iPod, or Apple TV. Some videos are also offered in High Definition (HD). When you purchase an HD video on a supported device or computer, only HD video will be downloaded. To download the SD version, you need to download the video again from your Purchased page. Conversely, if you purchase an HD video on an unsupported device, the SD version will be downloaded." I am assuming you have done all of that correctly?

 

My own test (on two 50" LCD TV's) was to put it in front of my wife and her two sisters (who claimed, like you, that they couldn't tell the difference). But I used a normal resolution DVD and a Blu-Ray copy of the same movie and played them side by side. It wasn't even close, but I can tell you that the same comparison done on a 20 inch computer screen would have come out a tie - so size does matter.

[Alice Wonder]

One possible argument for HD audio is that the mastering may be better.

 

Take the recent Grateful Dead HD offering. I have no idea whether it is quality or not, but for CD release I believe there has been two digital masters - one in the 90s when digital mastering was still somewhat new and then a remaster in 2003 I believe when digital mastering had matured.

 

The current HD mastering may be better because the market is not general consumer but the audiophile community. So the mastering may be better simply because they took that into consideration when making it.

 

While it may not be possible to ABX the HD audio from the HD audio downsampled to red book, the mastering itself may be better than previous digital mastering and the only way to get it is to purchase the HD content. They may not offer the same mastering in redbook because that would compete with the higher prices they charge for HD.

[Julf]

I just can't ignore the scientific method.

 

As you might have seen, you are not alone, but it takes a thick skin...

[Julf]

Where do you get off insulting someone because they are expressing a view that is different than yours?

 

I guess, in CA terminology, that makes wdw a "propellerhead gasbag objectivist", because, as we know, it is the propellerhead gasbag objectivists who keep insulting people just because they disagree with their views.

[Audio_ELF]

Some observations...

 

RE: HD vs standard def transmissions...

Interestingly (in the UK) some people feel that quality dropped when HD became "standard" for transmissions. That's because (unlike HD audio) we're talking about lossy (MPEG2 / MPEG4) transmissions. To enable the same number of channels to be transmitted in not much more bandwidth, the broadcasters compress the image more lowering the quality...

 

RE: HD (LCD and Plasma) TV vs CRT...

While its certainly true that a modern 1080p LCD or Plasma is superior to older standard def Plasmas, it's less certain if the best analogue CRT would not be better if receiving a good signal. Sadly (at least in the UK) almost all of the analogue TV signals have been switched off so it's impossible to compare.

 

The reason people want plasmas and LCDs is (generally) nothing to do with the picture quality - it's that they can hang them on the wall out the way.

 

RE: the two pictures (post 27)...

I think there are two questions that are being confused here. One is which is the "better" picture - that is which is closer to real life. The second is which picture people prefer - that question is analogous to the digital vs vinyl debate.

 

RE: why HD audio hasn't taken off...

At the end of the day it's about lifestyle. People's music listening habits tend to revolve around background listening. Most people these days don't even have a "stereo system", let alone one that would allow them to differentiate between CD quality and HD. Most people use an iPod dock at the most.

 

Eloise

[chg]

Some observations...

 

RE: HD vs standard def transmissions...

Interestingly (in the UK) some people feel that quality dropped when HD became "standard" for transmissions. That's because (unlike HD audio) we're talking about lossy (MPEG2 / MPEG4) transmissions. To enable the same number of channels to be transmitted in not much more bandwidth, the broadcasters compress the image more lowering the quality...

 

RE: HD (LCD and Plasma) TV vs CRT...

While its certainly true that a modern 1080p LCD or Plasma is superior to older standard def Plasmas, it's less certain if the best analogue CRT would not be better if receiving a good signal. Sadly (at least in the UK) almost all of the analogue TV signals have been switched off so it's impossible to compare.

 

The reason people want plasmas and LCDs is (generally) nothing to do with the picture quality - it's that they can hang them on the wall out the way.

 

RE: the two pictures (post 27)...

I think there are two questions that are being confused here. One is which is the "better" picture - that is which is closer to real life. The second is which picture people prefer - that question is analogous to the digital vs vinyl debate.

 

RE: why HD audio hasn't taken off...

At the end of the day it's about lifestyle. People's music listening habits tend to revolve around background listening. Most people these days don't even have a "stereo system", let alone one that would allow them to differentiate between CD quality and HD. Most people use an iPod dock at the most.

 

Eloise

 

Take this as a compliment: Your audio knowledge > than your video knowledge.

[Audio_ELF]

Take this as a compliment: Your audio knowledge > than your video knowledge.

Please say where you think I have got this wrong...

 

And no, I see it as a rude comment!!

[Julf]

I have to agree - I just can't see how it could have been meant as a compliment, and if the implication is that there is something factually wrong in what Eloise wrote, I think it would have been appropriate to point out what supposedly is wrong.

[chg]

Please say where you think I have got this wrong...

 

Oh no! O.K., I take it back. I'll be typing all day here. You're just looking for someone to go back and forth with.

 

And no, I see it as a rude comment!!

 

Why, what if you were 100% audio knowledge and 95% video knowledge, is that not a compliment?

[Audio_ELF]

Some observations...

 

RE: HD vs standard def transmissions...

Interestingly (in the UK) some people feel that quality dropped when HD became "standard" for transmissions. That's because (unlike HD audio) we're talking about lossy (MPEG2 / MPEG4) transmissions. To enable the same number of channels to be transmitted in not much more bandwidth, the broadcasters compress the image more lowering the quality...

 

RE: HD (LCD and Plasma) TV vs CRT...

While its certainly true that a modern 1080p LCD or Plasma is superior to older standard def Plasmas, it's less certain if the best analogue CRT would not be better if receiving a good signal. Sadly (at least in the UK) almost all of the analogue TV signals have been switched off so it's impossible to compare.

 

The reason people want plasmas and LCDs is (generally) nothing to do with the picture quality - it's that they can hang them on the wall out the way.

 

RE: the two pictures (post 27)...

I think there are two questions that are being confused here. One is which is the "better" picture - that is which is closer to real life. The second is which picture people prefer - that question is analogous to the digital vs vinyl debate.

 

RE: why HD audio hasn't taken off...

At the end of the day it's about lifestyle. People's music listening habits tend to revolve around background listening. Most people these days don't even have a "stereo system", let alone one that would allow them to differentiate between CD quality and HD. Most people use an iPod dock at the most.

 

Eloise

I should make it clear that all (at least most of) these thoughts are subjective and that I have not done any double blind testing nor scientific measurements...

[chg]

I have to agree - I just can't see how it could have been meant as a compliment, and if the implication is that there is something factually wrong in what Eloise wrote, I think it would have been appropriate to point out what supposedly is wrong.

 

Obvoiusly Julf is just fishing for something.

 

First it was an opinion. Second, I've got other things to do today other than argue and "point out what is supposedly wrong". So, I will save myself the trouble and just take it back.

[Audio_ELF]

Oh no! O.K., I take it back. I'll be typing all day here. You're just looking for someone to go back and forth with.

So you accept I'm right... Then I'm happy :-)

 

Why, what if you were 100% audio knowledge and 95% video knowledge, is that not a compliment?

Yes, but then that would mean your audio knowledge is close to 0% as you never agree with me - I don't really see that as something you would be saying!!

 

Anyway - as I say those views were subjective for the most part and are based on UK television / broadcasting so may be different for other people and other parts of the world...

 

Eloise

[Julf]

Obvoiusly Julf is just fishing for something.

 

Obviously.

[chg]

Obviously.

 

Yeah, tryin' to get me in trouble with Eloise. You don't want trouble with a female.

[accwai]

[...]My own test (on two 50" LCD TV's) was to put it in front of my wife and her two sisters (who claimed, like you, that they couldn't tell the difference). But I used a normal resolution DVD and a Blu-Ray copy of the same movie and played them side by side. It wasn't even close, [...]

I think how much difference you see depends to a large degree on the source material also. Using a 51" plasma for comparison, movies with excellent Blu-ray and DVD copies tends to be close. I'm always surprised how good the best DVD can be. But excellent Blu-ray is always subtly but definitely more detailed, more delicate and all round better. And animated movies do tend to make the difference more apparent. A good example is Appleseed Ex Machina. Good as the DVD is, the Blu-ray is just jaw dropping. Another interesting comparison is the DVD vs Blu-ray versions of Baraka. The DVD is rather original mainstream quality while Blu-ray version is a total remaster with 8k scans. The difference is like night and day. On the other hand, with the quality of most mainstream movies these days, DVDs are perfectly adequate...

 

Andy

[Julf]

You don't want trouble with a female.

 

Uh, keep digging...