Steven Wilson CD vs. High-Res: If SW can't tell the difference...

[humprof]

Saw this posted on a discussion thread I sometimes eavesdrop on. Clickbait, sort of, but I sympathize with SW's condition: 15 years ago, I took a test that NPR or somebody put online, with several sound samples available in different resolutions; then, in a blind test, I could tell the difference between 44.1/16 and 96/24 80% of the time. Now, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't hear it.

https://www.headphonesty.com/2024/09/atmos-producer-admits-difference-cds-high-res/

 

[LTW]

No one can tell. It's placebo or the 'concentration effect' (whatever it's called) where you expect a difference so you listen harder and hear 'new details'. There I said it. Keep it civil

I like how Steven is honest about this, especially when he's part of an industry that profits off snake-oil and rampant misinformation.

 

[Thonolan]

No one can tell. It's placebo or the 'concentration effect' (whatever it's called) where you expect a difference so you listen harder and hear 'new details'.

I agree wholeheartedly.

 

[ar surround]

Hearing, eyesight, etc, all goes to heck when we get old. So I’m not surprised by SW’s observations. Plus, he plays rock venues which are rough on the ears by their nature.

 

[minimumtumbleweed]

Makes me sad though; the day will come when we no longer have SW mixes to look forward to. Reviews of Alan Parsons' recent offerings were discussing how his mixing choices might be coloured by hearing loss. It happens to us all I guess.

 

[jimfisheye]

Too many variables!

The right dynamic recording might sound cleaner in 24 bit vs reduced to 16 if all other things are equal. An older DA converter with less than great anti aliasing filters might sound cleaner in HD than SD.

Other variables usually take over by a magnitude. Like bold compressor and eq moves! Most of these formats - even older tape and vinyl - are pretty robust. I can find an example of a vinyl picture disc with the cleanest sound and what sounds like the least generational loss vs a black vinyl copy, CD copy, and bluray 24/96 copy. Is vinyl better and picture disc vinyl even better than that? Nope! Worst of show. So other variables usually have greater effect.

The point is this isn't a shootout between two formats with a big divide live black and white vs color TV. But it's also not always zero and pure perception bias! Edge cases with generational loss from different formats adding together can come up sometimes too.

I think calling out CD as not being the lossy variable you thought it was is correct more than not too. But I also think 24 bit is pretty proven to eliminate even the weirdest edge cases and everything should just continue to move forward. Some of this is an attempt to give the benefit of doubt to the industry and blame a mastering mistake on a format instead of a human being with feelings too! But the unfortunate truth is there are botched masters released and it was never any shortcoming with any format. Someone just good old fashioned screwed up!

The overall sound of Wilson's mixes in general makes me think his hearing is still very on point, FWIW! He calls out the treble boosted stuff from the guys with apparent hearing loss.

 

[minimumtumbleweed]

The overall sound of Wilson's mixes in general makes me think his hearing is still very on point, FWIW! He calls out the treble boosted stuff from the guys with apparent hearing loss.

Something tells me that despite being a "rock star" he's probably very careful with hearing protection.

 

[Mr. Afternoon]

To me the benefit of hi-res is not necessarily listening but mixing/production. There are a lot of processing effects that behave very differently at higher sample rates, especially ones that distort, destroy, or transform the audio in some way.

 

[jimfisheye]

The perception bias range.

When you try to listen to a variation (eg. a tiny level change or tiny eq move) that's so subtle it falls into perception bias range. Where your perception can be tricked one way or the other.

Mute the lead vocal track in a mix.
We're all hearing an instrumental mix with no voice now, right? No one wants to argue that they aren't sure, right? Pretty obvious?
OK, good.

Now just make a 0.5db eq change in the voice at 273Hz. Now call that out in an A/B! Be quick! You think that's funny, right? Now what if I tell you I had the eq bypassed the whole time! We've all done this, right? Some of you are lying but the rest of us have all done this.

 

[jimfisheye]

To me the benefit of hi-res is not necessarily listening but mixing/production. There are a lot of processing effects that behave very differently at higher sample rates, especially ones that distort, destroy, or transform the audio in some way.

You have to really watch your levels recording with a 16 bit device! Sometimes erring on the side of a few clips or you end up with a mostly 8 bit recording. And you sure can hear quality loss in an 8 bit recording!

Meanwhile, record to 24 bit and you can screw up and have your peak level on an input at -48db and still have a 16 bit recording to show for it. That same level faux pas leaves you with an 8 bit recording with a 16 bit device.

So when we compress something to the moon and back with those kind of gain moves during the mix - as we sometimes do - it can similarly make a difference.