When is hi-rez overkill?

[ssully]

kap'n krunch: I am not sure what you wanted to show with the graphics. That CD is brickwalled (which we all knew anyway)?

While that's true -- they all lack spectral content above 22kHz as per Redbook spec -- those CD tracks aren't necessarily 'brickwalled' in the sense of being so limited and compressed that the signal in waveforms view is smashed flat against the 0dBFS limit most of the time (as seen in some notorious 'loudness wars' examples) so that it looks like a 'brick'. Spectrograms aren't the tool for displaying that.

I'd say those CD spectrograms looks worse than they are 'sound' due to the frequency axis extending so high in the presentation that all CD content is confined to a narrow visual strip; with that plus the visual intensity being so high, nearly all visual detail is lost.

 

[ssully]

This is the crux, and has been an issue for audio since day 1. Can measurements tell us everything we need to know about sound quality? I say no, there are things that exist for which measurements do not, yet perhaps, exist.

One thing we do know with certainty: measurements can tell us MORE than we 'need' to know about sound quality, just as a display of ultraviolet content would be superfluous to judging visual quality. We can measure levels far below (and above) what is audible.

The benefits of hi-rez audio are not something you believe in or don't believe in.

The benefits of 24 bit recording/production are not in dispute (the benefits of 24bit delivery formats are another matter). For the rest: Prove it with a body of evidence that isn't anecdotal. Shouldn't be that hard, but no one's done it yet.

 

[wanners]

You are being clear, but there's not a whole lot that can be added to the discussion if (as you say) the reason for (most) differences is something other than the fact that it is hi-rez.

Someone will say, "I think hi-rez sounds better", and you will say, "well the hi-rez might sound better but not cuz it's hi-rez, but because of the mastering." There will probably never be a definitive answer as there are too many variables. I think this will come down to belief for quite some time into the future.

Like Mark Waldrep says in the AIX video--he believes that hi-rez itself makes a difference. I have a feeling that he would not find it beneficial to engage in back and forths, although I think this is interesting, and I appreciate your continuing willingness and patence in explaining you POV.

 

[Almen]

While that's true -- they all lack spectral content above 22kHz as per Redbook spec -- those CD tracks aren't necessarily 'brickwalled' in the sense of being so limited and compressed that the signal in waveforms view is smashed flat against the 0dBFS limit most of the time (as seen in some notorious 'loudness wars' examples) so that it looks like a 'brick'. Spectrograms aren't the tool for displaying that.

No, of course not - I only meant in the frequency domain.

 

[ssully]

Fun With Spectograms.


Here's three spectral views of the left channel of a direct 192/24 digital rip of 'There's a World' from Neil Young's HARVEST DVD-A (track 7, 2'59" long). The only difference between views are changes to the spectral range and the video gamma of the presentation. The 'Top' view is the default view in Audition. Function, Resolution, Window Width and Plot Style are the same in all three. The Y-axis values are frequency in Hz.

Top:
Windowing Function: Blackmann-Harris
Resolution: 256 bands
Window Width: 75%
Plot Style: Logarithmic
Range: 120dB
Gamma: 1.8

Middle:
Range: 150dB
Gamma: 1.8

Bottom:
Range: 150dB
Gamma: 1.2

 

[simonwagstaff]

One thing we do know with certainty: measurements can tell us MORE than we 'need' to know about sound quality, just as a display of ultraviolet content would be superfluous to judging visual quality. We can measure levels far below (and above) what is audible.

Certainly, the things that we know of we can measure beyond our ability to hear. Frequency response, signal to noise, IM distortion, harmonic distortion, lots of things. Some of these characteristics remain to be discovered, are undefined, others the significance is not totally understood. It would be like putting some purple paint in with some yellow. We could measure it's content, better than our ability to see it, but it would make a difference if it were all mixed in or a single blob in the middle of the bucket. the bucket of paint would still measure the same. Music is not a picture.

And I don't think it is mastering, though it could be dither. I have listened to the same recordings in 24 bit vs. 16 bit (mastered at 24 bit) and can hear the difference, defined by the characteristics in my previous post. Now, dithering to 44.1 from 96 might have an effect.

Objectivists vs. the subjectivists, as it ever was.

 

[ssully]

Certainly, the things that we know of we can measure beyond our ability to hear. Frequency response, signal to noise, IM distortion, harmonic distortion, lots of things. Some of these characteristics remain to be discovered, are undefined, others the significance is not totally understood.

How would you demonstrate the existence of a characteristic (or effect) that remains to be discovered, and particularly, how would you show that it is not imaginary?

It would be like putting some purple paint in with some yellow. We could measure it's content, better than our ability to see it, but it would make a difference if it were all mixed in or a single blob in the middle of the bucket. the bucket of paint would still measure the same. Music is not a picture.

That something can be perceived in isolation doesn't ordain that it can be perceived when part of a complex signal. In a mixture, it could be superfluous, i.e., masked. Masking is a very important and well known attribute of hearing -- and it's what makes lossy codec technology possible.

And I don't think it is mastering, though it could be dither. I have listened to the same recordings in 24 bit vs. 16 bit (mastered at 24 bit) and can hear the difference, defined by the characteristics in my previous post. Now, dithering to 44.1 from 96 might have an effect.

Dithering is employed for ameliorating the audible effects of reducing wordlengths, not sample rates. No dither is required for resampling (e.g., 96/24 to 44.1/24). The audible effects of downsampling are far more controversial than those of truncation (reducing wordlength without dither).

As for what you can hear, again, crucially, if you're going to compare any of these to find if they sound different, you have to control for psychological bias. Without that, the comparison results are GIGO (garbage in, garbage out). It also matters what level you are listening at. If you're comparing a dithered 24->16 bit track to the original 24 bit track, you may hear extra noise during the very quietest parts, IF you raise the listening level high enough. But at that level, you're also likely to endanger your hearing during the non-quiet parts.

 

[ssully]

Here's the frequency analysis scan of the Neil Young track, left channel shown above. FFT parameters are the same as for the spectral view (function: Blackmann-Harris, resolution: 256 bands). At 20kHz the average level is ~81dB below full scale.

 

[simonwagstaff]

How would you demonstrate the existence of a characteristic (or effect) that remains to be discovered, and particularly, how would you show that it is not imaginary?

Well, let's say you could hear it, but couldn't measure it. It is not yet defined. Just because there isn't a name for it nor a test for it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.


Certainly most amplifiers out there are manufactured to as good a specifications as possible, but at least some people can hear differences between them, even with similar or identical specifications. That was the issue when solid state amps started to become prominent in the marketplace in the 60's, replacing tube amps.

I am quite happy with the sound of my revamped Dynaco tube amp and prefer it to any other amp I have had. Of course that doesn't mean it is better, you need to define what better is.

Is there a specification for imaging? For image specificity?

 

[ssully]

How would you demonstrate the existence of a characteristic (or effect) that remains to be discovered, and particularly, how would you show that it is not imaginary?

Well, let's say you could hear it, but couldn't measure it. It is not yet defined. Just because there isn't a name for it nor a test for it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

And just because you 'say you could hear it', doesn't mean it's real. Do you see the problem? You are presuming what you have yet to prove. I alluded to this many posts ago...how easy it is for us to be imagine differences are there when they aren't. That's why researchers into hearing employ experimental controls to rule out 'imaginary' effects. If you mean 'let's say you could hear it , as demonstrated in a DBT' , *then* you can start to talk about whether it is also a measurable difference. (In every case I know of, it has been.)

Certainly most amplifiers out there are manufactured to as good a specifications as possible, but at least some people can hear differences between them, even with similar or identical specifications. That was the issue when solid state amps started to become prominent in the marketplace in the 60's, replacing tube amps.

I wouldn't put much stock in comparing solid state amps in the 60s vs SS amps of today.

And so far, whenever the measured differences were 'similar or identical' in modern SS amps, they have proven indistinguishable in blind comparisons, so long as neither of them is overdriven.

The crucial components there being 1) amps functioning within their 'comfort zone' and 2) comparison being blind. Of course not all amps and drive all loads to the same levels. Point being, when SS amps really do sound different, no new science or measurement is yet required to explain it. It can be traced to something measurable.

I am quite happy with the sound of my revamped Dynaco tube amp and prefer it to any other amp I have had. Of course that doesn't mean it is better, you need to define what better is.

Is there a specification for imaging? For image specificity?

"Imaging" ('image specificity' AFAIK means the same thing) at the listening position is an emergent property of other, measurable, factors, determined primary by the recording (miking) setup itself, mixing, loudspeaker performances, and loudspeaker interaction with the room...not the amplifier choice. I recommend Dr. Floyd Toole's recent book 'Sound Reproduction:The Acoustics and Psychoacoustics of Loudspeakers and Rooms" for a more in-depth treatment.

But we weren't talking about amps on this thread. We are talking about digital formats. In terms of measured accuracy, digital formats and converters make amplifiers look crude....but both are pristine compared to the massive distortion characteristics and losses at the loudspeakers/room interface.

 

[simonwagstaff]

. Point being, when SS amps really do sound different, no new science or measurement is yet required to explain it. It can be traced to something measurable.

O.K., we can add a cheap solid state amp to the Miller Lite, greasy hamburgers and limp french fries.
:banana:

I am glad everything can be so easily explained.

 

[ssully]

O.K., we can add a cheap solid state amp to the Miller Lite, greasy hamburgers and limp french fries.
:banana:

I am glad everything can be so easily explained.

Consider substituting research and understanding for sarcasm. Unless you think that's crazy talk too.

 

[Almen]

In terms of measured accuracy, digital formats and converters make amplifiers look crude....but both are pristine compared to the massive distortion characteristics and losses at the loudspeakers/room interface.

This is crucial, lest we strain at gnats and swallow camels. Formats* are insignificant compared to mixing and mastering, and electronics are of less importance than speakers+room.

*Not comparing 2-ch and m-ch stereo.

 

[Almen]

Objectivists vs. the subjectivists, as it ever was.

Luckily, many people are reasonable and listen to logical and scientifical arguments, and very few are easily put in one of two groups. It's sad that you feel you have to bury yourself in the trenches, but it is your loss.

 

[Almen]

Someone will say, "I think hi-rez sounds better", and you will say, "well the hi-rez might sound better but not cuz it's hi-rez, but because of the mastering." There will probably never be a definitive answer as there are too many variables. I think this will come down to belief for quite some time into the future.

Well, the point of the report was to investigate this. They also acknowledge this:

...virtually all of the SACD and DVD-A recordings sounded better than most CDs—sometimes much better. Had we not “degraded” the sound to CD quality and blind-tested for audible differences, we would have been tempted to ascribe this sonic superiority to the recording processes used to make them.
---
Partly because these recordings have not captured a large portion of the consumer market for music, engineers and producers are being given the freedom to produce recordings that sound as good as they can make them, without having to compress or equalize the signal to suit lesser systems and casual listening conditions. These recordings seem to have been made with great care and manifest affection, by engineers trying to please themselves and their peers. They sound like it, label after label. High-resolution audio discs do not have the overwhelming majority of the program material crammed into the top 20 (or even 10) dB of the available dynamic range, as so many CDs today do.

And to conclude where we are now:

...we have gathered enough data, using sufficiently varied and capable systems and listeners, to state that the burden of proof has now shifted. Further claims that careful 16/44.1 encoding audibly degrades high resolution signals must be supported by properly controlled double-blind tests.

It is very easy: just show without a doubt that it is possible to hear the claimed differences!

I think this is interesting, and I appreciate your continuing willingness and patence in explaining you POV.

Thanks!

 

[simonwagstaff]

Luckily, many people are reasonable and listen to logical and scientifical arguments, and very few are easily put in one of two groups. It's sad that you feel you have to bury yourself in the trenches, but it is your loss.

Don't really want to rise to the bait here but how is it my loss? I believe that there are things that are not currently measurable but make a difference in sound. I don't want to believe that different speaker cables sound different and some better than others but my own experience, which seems to not count for much, tells me otherwise.

I can sit down and listen to an SACD, Mozart's Great Mass, for example, on SACD and think "Wow, the chorus sounds really 3-D" Maybe it IS the mastering, but the format allows for that sort of mastering. My experience with live recordings tells me otherwise.

No need to feel sorry for me. I am not missing out on anything.

 

[ssully]

Luckily, many people are reasonable and listen to logical and scientifical arguments, and very few are easily put in one of two groups. It's sad that you feel you have to bury yourself in the trenches, but it is your loss.

Yes. The dichotomy is exaggerated. The "objective' camp isn't just about measuring gear. An audio DBT involves *subjective* responses that are analyzed objectively. One thing this shows is how often subjective response misinterprets the objective reality of the situation. As in, the subjective response was "I'm listening to A" when the reality was that "you were listening to B".

One can 'believe that there are things that are not currently measurable but make a difference in sound', but what's that belief based on? Usually, it's our own subjective responses, with no objective analysis. Understandably so, because usually that's all we've got to go on. But that doesn't make it *mistake proof*.

 

[Almen]

...how is it my loss?

First of all, because you place people in either of two groups, Objectivists and Subjectivists. In this black-or-white worldview you miss a lot of nuances.

Secondly, you believe that CD as a format is worse sounding than "hi-rez", and might be dissatisfied for no logical reason when listening to CD.

Thirdly, I am afraid you might be focusing on insignificant details instead of the important stuff, thus making bad priorities when it comes to investing time and money in music listening.

My 2 cents.

 

[daved64]

I can sit down and listen to an SACD, Mozart's Great Mass, for example, on SACD and think "Wow, the chorus sounds really 3-D"

.

I can sit down to an SACD of a few titles and think "this sounds like complete horse shit". I can sit down to a cd, LP or God forbid...MP3 of some titles and think it sounds fantastic.

I find it humourous how some people get an almost amorous attachment to certain formats. It's almost like being in love with a cake pan. If the cake inside it is crap, then what use is it?

And I apologize for using silly analogies rather than spouting scientfic formulas. It's not my bag.

 

[simonwagstaff]

First of all, because you place people in either of two groups, Objectivists and Subjectivists. In this black-or-white worldview you miss a lot of nuances.

Secondly, you believe that CD as a format is worse sounding than "hi-rez", and might be dissatisfied for no logical reason when listening to CD.

Thirdly, I am afraid you might be focusing on insignificant details instead of the important stuff, thus making bad priorities when it comes to investing time and money in music listening.

My 2 cents.

The world is never black and white. I know this.

Just as I can appreciate the sonic differences between hi-rez recordings and red book Cds I can also appreciate the differences between a well recorded CD and a not so well recorded one. Well recorded and mastered Cds can sound very good indeed. It does ultimately come down to that. HI-rez format have the potential to sound better than CD, midrange smoothness, imaging, bass definition but if the recording quality and mastering quality are not up to snuff a hi rez disc will not necessarily sound better than a red book Cd. I can assure you I don't listen to my system in a state of dis-satisfaction.

The details are what matter. My time is my own and time spent listening to music is not a waste of my time. If I didn't enjoy I wouldn't do it. How I spend my money is of no concern to you. I buy a few hi-rez discs when they come out, I download a lot of non-copyrighted 24 bit live recordings and my system is to the point where there is not much more to go. I did just spend 300 bucks on Audioquest Interconnects and speaker cable and didn't expect much but some nice looking cables. Instead I received one of the better returns on my investment in terms of improvement in sound quality though I am willing to bet that the system measured identically before and after their installation.

YOu make a lot of assumptions.

No need to feel sorry for me. I am not missing anything. I could say that I feel sorry for you. A higher quality format that you are not able to appreciate, but that would be condescending, no?



So, I won't do that.