High Resolution Gets Some Respect

[Melvin]

Check it out: High-Resolution Audio: You Can Hear Me Now | Electronics360

[alfe]

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f8-general-forum/audio-engineering-society-aes-world-wide-professional-society-devoted-audio-technology-high-resolution-audio-now-audible-29042/

[Melvin]

Thanks @alfe .. totally missed that thread.

[Pat Case]

Check it out: High-Resolution Audio: You Can Hear Me Now | Electronics360

 

 

I'm not saying that the research is not accurate but, I'd like to know who underwrote the research.

[Old Tech]

The paper below (which is what that article is based on) is over a year old actually, but presented to the AES a few months back. The metadata analysis has hardly set the audio engineering world on fire as the two links further below show. The main flaw in that study is it combined all tests on this subject, even those that over time have been accepted as either flawed or unable to be replicated. While the AES metadata analysis was funded by Meridian, a purveyor of hi res products, that in itself doesn't present a problem if conflicts of interests are managed. What is surprising is why fund a meta study on papers of dubious quality when they could have funded another year long, properly controlled study like the Myer and Moran which is still considered to be the gold standard study on the hi res vs 16/44 issue (the last link below).

 

AES Press Release » Research Finds Audible Differences with High-Resolution Audio »

 

A Meta-Analysis of High Resolution Audio Perceptual Evaluation (or How We Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Hi-Res) »

 

Evaluation of Sound Quality of High Resolution Audio »

 

http://drewdaniels.com/audible.pdf

[davide256]

The paper below (which is what that article is based on) is over a year old actually, but presented to the AES a few months back. The metadata analysis has hardly set the audio engineering world on fire as the two links further below show. The main flaw in that study is it combined all tests on this subject, even those that over time have been accepted as either flawed or unable to be replicated. While the AES metadata analysis was funded by Meridian, a purveyor of hi res products, that in itself doesn't present a problem if conflicts of interests are managed. What is surprising is why fund a meta study on papers of dubious quality when they could have funded another year long, properly controlled study like the Myer and Moran which is still considered to be the gold standard study on the hi res vs 16/44 issue (the last link below).

 

AES Press Release » Research Finds Audible Differences with High-Resolution Audio »

 

A Meta-Analysis of High Resolution Audio Perceptual Evaluation (or How We Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Hi-Res) »

 

Evaluation of Sound Quality of High Resolution Audio »

 

http://drewdaniels.com/audible.pdf

 

I'd call it "the monaural standard"... hopelessly outdated. The DAC technology of 2007 was not great, nor was the industry understanding of what causes timing corruption for digital playback. Now you can easily hear the difference with an inexpensive DAC like the iFi Nano

[Old Tech]

I'd call it "the monaural standard"... hopelessly outdated. The DAC technology of 2007 was not great, nor was the industry understanding of what causes timing corruption for digital playback. Now you can easily hear the difference with an inexpensive DAC like the iFi Nano

 

Easily hear the differences? I very much doubt it. If it was so then the industry would be all over it, no need to master hi res differently, no need to have a "hi res" indicator on the player to illicit confirmation bias etc. What you are probably hearing is different masters.

 

How about putting one of your hi res files through foobar (with the DBX plug in) and copy and paste the results?

 

I have nothing against hi res downloads, I have many that sound excellent, but I don't like the snake oil being used to justify high prices for a non-physical product.

[Pat Case]

The paper below (which is what that article is based on) is over a year old actually, but presented to the AES a few months back. The metadata analysis has hardly set the audio engineering world on fire as the two links further below show. The main flaw in that study is it combined all tests on this subject, even those that over time have been accepted as either flawed or unable to be replicated. While the AES metadata analysis was funded by Meridian, a purveyor of hi res products, that in itself doesn't present a problem if conflicts of interests are managed. What is surprising is why fund a meta study on papers of dubious quality when they could have funded another year long, properly controlled study like the Myer and Moran which is still considered to be the gold standard study on the hi res vs 16/44 issue (the last link below).

 

AES Press Release » Research Finds Audible Differences with High-Resolution Audio »

 

A Meta-Analysis of High Resolution Audio Perceptual Evaluation (or How We Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Hi-Res) »

 

Evaluation of Sound Quality of High Resolution Audio »

 

http://drewdaniels.com/audible.pdf

 

i don't mean to be sarcastic but, can you really see Meridian fronting a study that would come to the opposite conclusion? Regardless of the methodology, the study would be suspect.

[Old Tech]

i don't mean to be sarcastic but, can you really see Meridian fronting a study that would come to the opposite conclusion? Regardless of the methodology, the study would be suspect.

 

I think skeptical more than sarcastic, that is precisely the reason why Meridian, HD Tracks and so on would not get behind a study like the Myer and Moran because it will show that there is no difference if you control all variables (eg masterings, DAC competency at various sample rates etc) except the sampling rate and bit depths because there is no magic behind digital audio.

[davide256]

I think skeptical more than sarcastic, that is precisely the reason why Meridian, HD Tracks and so on would not get behind a study like the Myer and Moran because it will show that there is no difference if you control all variables (eg masterings, DAC competency at various sample rates etc) except the sampling rate and bit depths because there is no magic behind digital audio.

 

I repeat, the DAC technology of 2007 sucked. The DLink III was supposed to be a good DAC of the time, yet the digital artifacts it and other DACs produced made digital listening a short window before listening fatigue made you switch to vinyl. Newer DAC's have improved, as resolution goes up, digital artifacts/listening fatigue are reduced. This is independent of "how it was mastered"

[Old Tech]

I repeat, the DAC technology of 2007 sucked. The DLink III was supposed to be a good DAC of the time, yet the digital artifacts it and other DACs produced made digital listening a short window before listening fatigue made you switch to vinyl. Newer DAC's have improved, as resolution goes up, digital artifacts/listening fatigue are reduced. This is independent of "how it was mastered"

 

While you are entitled to your opinion the fact is that the majority of DACs surpassed human levels of transparency by the end of the 1980s, particularly after oversampling became common place in the early 80s. I still have somewhere a mid 80s Pioneer Elite CD player which sounds gorgeous. Some believe myths and marketing hype around high end DACs while others understand audio engineering technology. Perhaps explain how DAC technology was deficient in 2007? I'm all ears.

 

In any event, it doesn't invalidate the main point which is that the Myer and Moran study is still the gold standard study on 16/44 vs hi res. The reason is that it is a peer review paper which to date has not been succeeded by a better study providing a different result. You would think that if it wasn't the case then there are plenty of vested interests in hi res that would have provided this better study over the past 10 years. They haven't done so for obvious reasons. As you would expect with a peer review paper, there have been some criticisms over the years which have mostly been addressed but 2007 DACs sucked has never been one of them.

 

As for listening fatigue, what is that? Sure distorted and clipped music can be fatiguing, particularly the way a lot of modern CDs and hi res music is compressed and often clipped but high resolution playback (CD and up) in itself can be fatiguing to some people. Higher resolution music uses more of our brains and like all our senses, sight, smell, touch etc, the more intense the quicker fatigue sets in. It doesn't fatigue me though in the same way as doing a few hours in the studio where the fidelity is greater than recorded playback. Any engineer can tell you that studio work is fatiguing after a couple hours.

 

If you are one of those people who get listening fatigue on unclipped, high fidelity music that is a pity. There are people that also get fatigue with high resolution video, which is why some TVs have a "night" function which softens the picture and lowers the resolution for a less fatiguing late night viewing. It is no surprise that you find vinyl less fatiguing given it is a lower resolution format than 16/44 - I too sometimes find vinyl more relaxing late at night when tired.

[davide256]

While you are entitled to your opinion the fact is that the majority of DACs surpassed human levels of transparency by the end of the 1980s, particularly after oversampling became common place in the early 80s. I still have somewhere a mid 80s Pioneer Elite CD player which sounds gorgeous. Some believe myths and marketing hype around high end DACs while others understand audio engineering technology. Perhaps explain how DAC technology was deficient in 2007? I'm all ears.

 

In any event, it doesn't invalidate the main point which is that the Myer and Moran study is still the gold standard study on 16/44 vs hi res. The reason is that it is a peer review paper which to date has not been succeeded by a better study providing a different result. You would think that if it wasn't the case then there are plenty of vested interests in hi res that would have provided this better study over the past 10 years. They haven't done so for obvious reasons. As you would expect with a peer review paper, there have been some criticisms over the years which have mostly been addressed but 2007 DACs sucked has never been one of them.

 

As for listening fatigue, what is that? Sure distorted and clipped music can be fatiguing, particularly the way a lot of modern CDs and hi res music is compressed and often clipped but high resolution playback (CD and up) in itself can be fatiguing to some people. Higher resolution music uses more of our brains and like all our senses, sight, smell, touch etc, the more intense the quicker fatigue sets in. It doesn't fatigue me though in the same way as doing a few hours in the studio where the fidelity is greater than recorded playback. Any engineer can tell you that studio work is fatiguing after a couple hours.

 

If you are one of those people who get listening fatigue on unclipped, high fidelity music that is a pity. There are people that also get fatigue with high resolution video, which is why some TVs have a "night" function which softens the picture and lowers the resolution for a less fatiguing late night viewing. It is no surprise that you find vinyl less fatiguing given it is a lower resolution format than 16/44 - I too sometimes find vinyl more relaxing late at night when tired.

 

You are behind the times. I suggest you start reading current audio sites to catch up. Digital tech has changed so fast in the last decade that audiophile DAC's obsolesce every 2 years. The link below may help you to get more current information on whats happening in audio

 

Daily Audiophile

[scirica]

After all, his forum name is Old Tech. Do I sense some nostalgic bias here??

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Computer Audiophile

[Old Tech]

Good gawd, do you really get your technical/objective information from subjective, advertiser sponsored/conflicted mags like stereophile and the absolute sound catering to audiophools? Evidence please not opinions from cranks like mike fremer.

 

Looks like hook line and sinker to me, successful marketing if you really do believe DACs improve every two years when the majority have been transparent since the late 80s - can I sell you a $2,000 DAC that is less transparent than the one in an Ipod to achieve a "signature sound"?

 

But anyway believe what you want if that makes you happy. Others instead put the effort where it matters, ie finding better mastered material, better speakers and room treatment. The links below are far better sources for objective audio information.

 

We're still waiting for your foobar results and an explantion of how and why a 2016 DAC is more transparent than a 2007 DAC.

 

https://hydrogenaud.io/

Mono and Stereo High-End Audio Magazine: Interview with Roger Sanders

[scirica]

Appreciate the passion. Having spent my formative years working with bands such as Journey, Santana, Jefferson Starship and others, I think I come by my knowledge outside of the press. Chastise me as you will, I just think technology does move forward and we are richer for it.

 

I completely agree with you that the focus should be on the recording and mastering, not on the transcription to the digital domain. Can we just agree on that and move forward?

 

SC

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Computer Audiophile