KeithL
Administrator 
Posts: 10,273
|
Post by KeithL on Apr 4, 2016 11:43:40 GMT -5
The basic problem there is that you will not find ANYONE who has "no profit motive". Anyone you can possibly ask is either: 1) trying to sell you high res files (so they have a motive to prove that high res files are better) 2) trying to sell you NON high res files (so they have a motive to prove that high res files aren't better) 3) suffering from upgrade-itit (so they want to believe they're better) 4) trying to save money by NOT upgrading (and so trying to believe they're not better) 5) trying to make money selling advice or discussion (like blogs and magazines who profit more from the discussion than from the conclusions) 6) convinced that there is no difference (but it will make them feel better if you validate their conclusion rather than disagree with it) EVERYONE has some sort of agenda - even if it's simply impressing you by telling you something that will save you money. And anyone who has a large CD collection has a major profit motive - that being to convince themselves that they don't need to spend a lot of money updating their CDs. High res is mostly snake oil. Look at the biggest proponents of High res files and ask yourself what their motives are. I will listen to the objectivists who draw their conclusions from the scientific process and have no profit motive either way. Of course I have also learnt over the last quarter century that if you tell an 'audiophile' that there is any measurable difference in a signal, the audiohpile will immediately claim they can hear the difference. The power of human belief can induce the brain to manifest many perceptions. |
|
|
|
Post by drtrey3 on Apr 4, 2016 12:25:14 GMT -5
I think a lot of us have the agenda of being honest with our fellow enthusiasts. Most of us don't make a nickel through high fi.
But I agree with your point that none of us is un-biased. All of us are subjectivists, even those of us going to great pains to reduce our bias.
Trey
|
|
djreef
Sensei
Thoroughly enjoying my Schiit
Posts: 353
|
Post by djreef on Apr 5, 2016 11:44:45 GMT -5
High res is mostly snake oil. Look at the biggest proponents of High res files and ask yourself what their motives are. I will listen to the objectivists who draw their conclusions from the scientific process and have no profit motive either way. Of course I have also learnt over the last quarter century that if you tell an 'audiophile' that there is any measurable difference in a signal, the audiohpile will immediately claim they can hear the difference. The power of human belief can induce the brain to manifest many perceptions. Oddly, I have to agree and disagree. I believe the potential for hi-rez is very real. The problem is the industry, in most cases, has bastardized the masters to the point that makes hi-rez completely pointless. When you smash and limit the life/drama/emotion/depth/soul out of a work it really doesn't matter what bit rate you listen to that work through. To this point I see hi-rez as one of the greatest lost opportunities in the history of audio, maybe even art in general. DJ |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,273
|
Post by KeithL on Apr 5, 2016 13:11:29 GMT -5
I think you're quite right - and we also have to remember that the vast majority of available content is relatively old. In order to "drive the engine of high-res audio" we need to start recording current stuff in high quality, which means that we need a significant amount of new stuff to be recorded that appeals to an audience who notices such things. (For example, it doesn't help much if classical fans appreciate high-res music, but there isn't much classical music currently being recorded, while the customers for most of the music that's being produced and recorded today, and which currently sells well, don't notice the difference.) On one hand, I would like to think that the obvious market for high-res audio will encourage the production of content with higher quality to take advantage of it. But, on the other hand, the fact that so many people seem to not notice the details either way makes me worry that the WORDS "high-res audio" are very important in terms of sales, but the actual FACT of producing high-res content may not be. (And it is a little worrisome that, while people obsess over things like higher sample rates, and higher bit depths, there's a lot less discussion about using less compression, and improving dynamic range. It's almost as if people have the mistaken idea that simply using higher resolutions AUTOMATICALLY makes the overall quality better - and so, as long as we do that, they don't have to worry about the other aspects of production and recording. High res is mostly snake oil. Look at the biggest proponents of High res files and ask yourself what their motives are. I will listen to the objectivists who draw their conclusions from the scientific process and have no profit motive either way. Of course I have also learnt over the last quarter century that if you tell an 'audiophile' that there is any measurable difference in a signal, the audiohpile will immediately claim they can hear the difference. The power of human belief can induce the brain to manifest many perceptions. Oddly, I have to agree and disagree. I believe the potential for hi-rez is very real. The problem is the industry, in most cases, has bastardized the masters to the point that makes hi-rez completely pointless. When you smash and limit the life/drama/emotion/depth/soul out of a work it really doesn't matter what bit rate you listen to that work through. To this point I see hi-rez as one of the greatest lost opportunities in the history of audio, maybe even art in general. DJ |
|
djreef
Sensei
Thoroughly enjoying my Schiit
Posts: 353
|
Post by djreef on Apr 5, 2016 16:43:36 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by yves on Apr 6, 2016 10:45:52 GMT -5
Exactly. It is pointless to discuss Dynamic Range Compression because, even if you do have points, you already know beforehand that every single last one of the points you have is *still* going to get squished by them, so...  |
|
|
|
Post by cheddar on Apr 6, 2016 12:29:16 GMT -5
The more credible proponents of high res audio will concede that a properly done recording in 16/44 lossless will sound absolutely stunning and satisfy any listener. When I am honest and properly test myself, I can not reliably distinguish between lossy and lossless beginning at approximately 200 kbps on up. So wouldn't it make sense to actually produce decent recordings in the widely used formats before we explore the higher cost large file options that have (in the opinion of most with proper scientific credentials) dubious audible benefits?
My point is no matter what you believe re: high res audio, I think most reasonably informed people can agree file size is meaningless if the recordings are crap.
Of course the industry sees an opportunity to make a buck, so in march the marketers and their useful idiots in the audiophile press.
|
|
|
|
Post by yves on Apr 6, 2016 13:13:32 GMT -5
The more credible proponents of high res audio will concede that a properly done recording in 16/44 lossless will sound absolutely stunning and satisfy any listener. When I am honest and properly test myself, I can not reliably distinguish between lossy and lossless beginning at approximately 200 kbps on up. So wouldn't it make sense to actually produce decent recordings in the widely used formats before we explore the higher cost large file options that have (in the opinion of most with proper scientific credentials) dubious audible benefits? My point is no matter what you believe re: high res audio, I think most reasonably informed people can agree file size is meaningless if the recordings are crap. Of course the industry sees an opportunity to make a buck, so in march the marketers and their useful idiots in the audiophile press. So, to summarize what you are saying, you don't have any proper scientific credentials. |
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Apr 6, 2016 13:23:18 GMT -5
Well now that's a bit harsh eh?. Where did he say that?
|
|
|
|
Post by yves on Apr 7, 2016 4:52:52 GMT -5
Well now that's a bit harsh eh?. Where did he say that? In the category of "Perception", AES Convention Paper 9174 is the *only* paper that has been awarded "AES Best Peer-Reviewed Paper" — the *highest* award that the AES Organization can give to a paper. It debunks the old mantra that audible improvements of Hi Res vs. 16/44.1 digital audio are dubious. Filter responses tested [in a series of double-blind tests] were *representative* of anti-alias filters used in A/D (analog-to-digital) converters or mastering processes. So no, not a bit harsh. The truth always hurts. |
|
djreef
Sensei
Thoroughly enjoying my Schiit
Posts: 353
|
Post by djreef on Apr 7, 2016 8:04:31 GMT -5
Does recorded audio sound like a live event? No, not even close in most cases. We still have a long ways to go, and much of that has to do with accurately reproducing the dynamics and transient attack of the original event.
DJ
|
|
|
|
Post by yves on Apr 7, 2016 15:28:52 GMT -5
Does recorded audio sound like a live event? No, not even close in most cases. We still have a long ways to go, and much of that has to do with accurately reproducing the dynamics and transient attack of the original event. DJ IMO in some cases, the studio recorded version actually sounds better than the live performance. |
|
djreef
Sensei
Thoroughly enjoying my Schiit
Posts: 353
|
Post by djreef on Apr 7, 2016 18:10:39 GMT -5
Does recorded audio sound like a live event? No, not even close in most cases. We still have a long ways to go, and much of that has to do with accurately reproducing the dynamics and transient attack of the original event. DJ IMO in some cases, the studio recorded version actually sounds better than the live performance. That's not really the point I was making. Accuracy and realism of the event was more of what I was going for. DJ |
|
|
|
Post by Gary Cook on Apr 7, 2016 18:24:19 GMT -5
Does recorded audio sound like a live event? No, not even close in most cases. We still have a long ways to go, and much of that has to do with accurately reproducing the dynamics and transient attack of the original event.DJ Which "live event"? An example, I had the chance to catch up with Diana Krall when she was here in Sydney recently, 2 "performances", one full on with the Sydney Symphony Orchestra in the Sydney Opera House. It didn't sound anything like my DK SACDs. The second was pure acoustic in a warm up session, piano, bass and drums and that sounded just like some tracks. The fact is every live performance is different, the musicians, the room, the audience, the artist, the sound system, the acoustics, how they feel on the day etc. That's why I get to as many live performances as I can, but when I can't then I can still listen to the music. Cheers Gary |
|
djreef
Sensei
Thoroughly enjoying my Schiit
Posts: 353
|
Post by djreef on Apr 7, 2016 20:52:06 GMT -5
Does recorded audio sound like a live event? No, not even close in most cases. We still have a long ways to go, and much of that has to do with accurately reproducing the dynamics and transient attack of the original event.DJ Which "live event"? An example, I had the chance to catch up with Diana Krall when she was here in Sydney recently, 2 "performances", one full on with the Sydney Symphony Orchestra in the Sydney Opera House. It didn't sound anything like my DK SACDs. The second was pure acoustic in a warm up session, piano, bass and drums and that sounded just like some tracks. The fact is every live performance is different, the musicians, the room, the audience, the artist, the sound system, the acoustics, how they feel on the day etc. That's why I get to as many live performances as I can, but when I can't then I can still listen to the music. Cheers Gary Any live event. If I have my 7 yo niece play her toy xylophone, with today's tech the recording of that same event will sound very similar, but won't sound identical enough to fool you into believing she's right there in the room playing for you, That's what I mean. I think Hi-Rez has the capability to do that eventually when used properly and given the right technological breakthroughs in playback equipment. DJ |
|
|
|
Post by Gary Cook on Apr 7, 2016 21:31:46 GMT -5
In the 70's I helped a sound engineer friend set up a recording studio on his property and one of the tests was to have the band (guitar, base, drums and singer) play live while we listened in the booth. Then play it back from the 18 track tape, unedited and listen to differences. We then set about finding and eliminating what was causing those differences. The last step was getting an acoustic engineer to adjust the panels, floor walls, ceilings etc. What we ended up with was pretty much indistinguishable. Obviously we were using the same amplifiers and speakers to listen to the live performance as we were to the recording, sitting in the same seats, in the same room.
I'm pretty confident that using more up to date gear we could achieve an even better recording result, but there would still be variables in the whatever, wherever and whoever played it back. However the principal is still the same, eliminate as many contaminants to the original sound as possible.
Cheers
Gary
|
|
|
|
Post by yves on Apr 8, 2016 1:18:32 GMT -5
IMO in some cases, the studio recorded version actually sounds better than the live performance. That's not really the point I was making. Accuracy and realism of the event was more of what I was going for. DJ Well, IMO in some cases, the studio recorded version sounds better, exactly *because* it is the most accurate and realistic (IMO anyway).  |
|
djreef
Sensei
Thoroughly enjoying my Schiit
Posts: 353
|
Post by djreef on Apr 8, 2016 9:33:12 GMT -5
In the 70's I helped a sound engineer friend set up a recording studio on his property and one of the tests was to have the band (guitar, base, drums and singer) play live while we listened in the booth. Then play it back from the 18 track tape, unedited and listen to differences. We then set about finding and eliminating what was causing those differences. The last step was getting an acoustic engineer to adjust the panels, floor walls, ceilings etc. What we ended up with was pretty much indistinguishable. Obviously we were using the same amplifiers and speakers to listen to the live performance as we were to the recording, sitting in the same seats, in the same room. I'm pretty confident that using more up to date gear we could achieve an even better recording result, but there would still be variables in the whatever, wherever and whoever played it back. However the principal is still the same, eliminate as many contaminants to the original sound as possible. Cheers Gary Exactly. We now just need to get the industry to pull it's head out of it's ass and do the right thing. I'm thinking the new Patricia Barber SACD might be a step in the right direction. www.amazon.com/Cafe-Blue-Unmastered-Patricia-Barber/dp/B01B9RO8O6?ie=UTF8&psc=1&redirect=true&ref_=oh_aui_detailpage_o02_s00DJ |
|
|
|
Post by yves on Apr 8, 2016 11:06:22 GMT -5
In the 70's I helped a sound engineer friend set up a recording studio on his property and one of the tests was to have the band (guitar, base, drums and singer) play live while we listened in the booth. Then play it back from the 18 track tape, unedited and listen to differences. We then set about finding and eliminating what was causing those differences. The last step was getting an acoustic engineer to adjust the panels, floor walls, ceilings etc. What we ended up with was pretty much indistinguishable. Obviously we were using the same amplifiers and speakers to listen to the live performance as we were to the recording, sitting in the same seats, in the same room. I'm pretty confident that using more up to date gear we could achieve an even better recording result, but there would still be variables in the whatever, wherever and whoever played it back. However the principal is still the same, eliminate as many contaminants to the original sound as possible. Cheers Gary Exactly. We now just need to get the industry to pull it's head out of it's ass and do the right thing. I'm thinking the new Patricia Barber SACD might be a step in the right direction. www.amazon.com/Cafe-Blue-Unmastered-Patricia-Barber/dp/B01B9RO8O6?ie=UTF8&psc=1&redirect=true&ref_=oh_aui_detailpage_o02_s00DJ Unfortunately, the industry doesn't care about anything except making a profit, and besides, SACD never was a step in the right direction anyway in the first place because DSD64 isn't even truly Hi Res. |
|
djreef
Sensei
Thoroughly enjoying my Schiit
Posts: 353
|
Post by djreef on Apr 8, 2016 16:11:54 GMT -5
Unfortunately, the industry doesn't care about anything except making a profit, and besides, SACD never was a step in the right direction anyway in the first place because DSD64 isn't even truly Hi Res. I'm totally with you about "The Industry". This guy might be in disagreement with you about the Barber SACD, tho... www.hraudio.net/showmusic.php?title=11412&showall=1DJ |
|
High res is mostly snake oil. Look at the biggest proponents of High res files and ask yourself what their motives are. I will listen to the objectivists who draw their conclusions from the scientific process and have no profit motive either way.
