Forums - High-Rez Audio?

Lonely Raven Seasoned Member Jack of all Trades, Master of None Posts: 3567	High-Rez Audio? 02/05/15 at 23:00:53 This makes me grumble, but I see his points. http://audiophilereview.com/audiophile/time-to-reassess-high-res-audio.html
Back to top	IP Logged

Dave1210

Seasoned Member

Posts: 959

Re: High-Rez Audio?
Reply #1 - 02/06/15 at 00:29:05

Thanks for sharing this LR. A few thoughts...

1) Streaming is definitely the future. Did I read that Jay Z purchased Tidal/WIMP? I think Apple purchased Beats for the streaming platform, not necessarily for headphones, but maybe that's a stretch. I would think iTunes streaming would be a reasonable starting point, but what do I know. And I bet that Apple has a lot of high resolution material they are already sitting on...

2) I think it's interesting that it wasn't stated explicitly in the article that Redbook material is High Rez for the majority of the Pono target. Most of these consumers are coming from compressed formats. Baseline is important to understand.

3) We may be slightly crazy to pay the prices HD Tracks, etc are charging for High Rez files, and it is only for a specialty audience. The average consumer has been conditioned to a $7.99-$9.99 price point for an album (AAC, MP3 or Redbook). And no, the average consumer is not going to pay $25 for an album.

That said, I think it is possible that a subscription service could reset the value equation. $25 vs $10/month for unlimited access to High Rez, might be more enticing to consumers compared to $25 vs. $10 for a single album. And that is likely a worse case pricing scenario. Netflix upgrade from DVD to Blu-Ray wasn't nearly as extreme.

4) Part of the reason I haven't gotten into computer audio to any significant degree is because I am waiting for streaming to be done right. The idea of purchasing physical media and ripping files to a computer just doesn't appeal to me. The convenience of control from my listening position via iPad, etc (which is only 8 ft. from my transport btw), isn't benefit enough for me to go through the process. If there were significant sound improvements vs. my transport (maybe), but I haven't drank the Rainbow Kool Aid. My computer sounds the equal of my transport on a good day.

Back to top

IP Logged

Lonely Raven

Seasoned Member

Jack of all Trades,
Master of None

Posts: 3567

Re: High-Rez Audio?
Reply #2 - 02/06/15 at 14:24:54

Well, I think as long as we keep purchasing HD albums, and we let the producers and artists know we want their music in HD, it will still be out there.

What hurts me, is when I find an up-and-coming band I really like, and the only way I can buy their music is MP3 via iTunes or some other 3rd party site.

I've E-mailed these artists and said flat out to them I don't do MP3, can I purchase a CD off you - and most of the time they E-mail me back directly with a Pay Pal address, or some obscure CD site that has a dozen copies in stock.

So the artists are listening - and I think with the small studio/home studio movement, they are understanding High Def better, because that's what they themselves are working with in the studio.

Meanwhile - Cookie at Blue Coast Records has started releasing DSD128 files of their more popular albums. I've been writing Opus 3 and asking for them to do more of the same. Let them know, and the music will come.

However, those of us who like albums that were recorded in the early digital studio age...we're screwed, because their source files suck. LOL

Back to top

IP Logged

Palomino Seasoned Member Posts: 2474	Re: High-Rez Audio? Reply #3 - 02/06/15 at 23:04:32 I think I am going to do a test myself. I have Stevie Ray Vaughn Tin Pan Alley in MP3, 16/44 and DSD. I will blindfold myself twice (double blind test) and see if I can tell the difference.
Back to top	i7 Mac Mini with LPSU/SSD running Audirvana 3.5, Uptone Audio Regen on LPSU, Mytek Brooklyn DAC+, Ven Haus DIY Silver ICs, 25th Ann. Zen, PS Audio P5 Power Supply, PS Audio Power Cords, GR Research Speaker Wire, DIY Big Betsy and Crystal 10 Open Baffle Speakers IP Logged

Lon Seasoned Member "Love without guts is worthless!" Philip K. Dick Posts: 23460	Re: High-Rez Audio? Reply #4 - 02/06/15 at 23:11:55 My money is on you telling the difference. Easy peasy.
Back to top	HR-1,ZTPRE,ZBIT,ZROCK2,SEWE300B,CSP3-25mod,Taboo MkIV;Rega RP3 all GrooveTracer mods;PSAudio:PST+DSD,P15,NPC,PowerBases,AC-12 pwr cbls,Reference spkrcbls;Mapleshade SamsonV3;VooDoo:Cremona+Amati interconnects, IsoPods; headphones:Sennheiser HD800S,ZMF Ori,Oppo PM1 IP Logged

Palomino Seasoned Member Posts: 2474	Re: High-Rez Audio? Reply #5 - 02/06/15 at 23:45:39 I haven't run them back to back to back, but DSD, I think I will be able to tell. I've noticed the difference whenever I venture into DSDland. The others? I dunno. Wish I have a 24/96 version of that song.
Back to top	i7 Mac Mini with LPSU/SSD running Audirvana 3.5, Uptone Audio Regen on LPSU, Mytek Brooklyn DAC+, Ven Haus DIY Silver ICs, 25th Ann. Zen, PS Audio P5 Power Supply, PS Audio Power Cords, GR Research Speaker Wire, DIY Big Betsy and Crystal 10 Open Baffle Speakers IP Logged

vyokyong

Seasoned Member

Posts: 169

Re: High-Rez Audio?
Reply #6 - 02/07/15 at 02:31:40

As I understand from my reading of many articles.

Sony introduced DSD or SACD format in year 1999 in order to replace CD or PCM format. Because CD patent is expire in year 1999. But music industry does not want to pay DSD patent then continuing to promote PCM format by offering hi-resolution PCM format to fight with DSD format (DVD Audio versus SACD war) or (Hi-res PCM versus DSD war).

As my test of my sound system, DSD sound quality is significant different from PCM sound quality. DSD provides much better details, dynamics and lower noise floor but thin sound (little lack in body and weight) compared to PCM format. However I prefer PCM sound quality than DSD format. I think that PCM is more organic and involving while DSD for me is dry and analytically sound but more accurate.

The sound different between CD (44.1 Mhz/16 bits) and other Hi-res file (96 Mhz/24 bits, 192 Mhz/24 bits) is not significant different. It is subtle and not worth to pay more for Hi-res file. I prefer 96/24 rather than 192/24. And the 44.1/16 file is still happy enough for me. So that I pay same money to download more 96/24 Hi-res music files than 192/24 music files.

The other significant sound different is DA converter chip type inside your DAC player. There are NOS DAC type chip and Delta Sigma DAC type chip. The Delta Sigma DAC chip provides more accurate sound than NOS DAC type chip. But I prefer NOS DAC chip because it is more organic and involving sound for my taste.

Lasting is that original recorded master source file is most important to sound quality of album than any format of Hi-res file. I must listen to the music file sample first to consider the sound quality of original recorded master file of that album before purchasing. I always find 44.1/16 music file of some albums have better sound quality than 192/24 music file of some other albums (not the same music album).

Just my two cent of experience.

Back to top

Audio Note DAC3.1 Custom modded to 4.1, DIY Duelund wire RCA IC, Offramp 5 USB SPDIF converter, Mac Mini, Amarra Symphony player,
Zen Mystery Amp. MIT Oracle speaker wire, Avalon Eidolon Diamond speakers. Coincident Statement preamp, Martin Logan Depth subwoofer

IP Logged

Dave1210

Seasoned Member

Posts: 959

Re: High-Rez Audio?
Reply #7 - 02/07/15 at 03:07:40

Vyokyong...I think you make an excellent point about the master file. With a lot of these Hi Rez tracks, it seems as if the better sounding tracks were remastered specifically for Hi Rez (e.g. Kind of Blue). They may or may not have applied the same mastering to the lower resolution files and it makes the comparison difficult (Hi Rez vs. Redbok). It really is buyer beware if you ask me (and I have bought my share of high rez).

LR...distributing non-compressed digital files for most artists these days (even indie artists, which I listen to a lot of as well) should be a non-issue. I think most artists are recording to digital (vs. analog tape because they can't afford it), so a high res master should exist (most are probably recording 24/96 or higher).

It should be easier than ever for artists to have digital downloads of their music in at least Redbook quality. That said, there are too many formats (MP3, AAC, FLAC, WAV, AIFF, DSD) and I suspect it is confusing to most consumers (maybe even the artists) so they probably offer what most people are buying (on iTunes), and that is compressed. I don't think most people want to read a dissertation on what file (or bit depth or sampling rate) they need or that sounds best. They really just want to listen to music.

Also, my initial thought about Pono was that it would be a terrible idea if they held to the same pricing structure that High Rez music currently demands. High Rez files are expensive, period, and most probably don’t have a system resolving enough to tell the difference. That said, if Pono gets people to move away from MP3, then that is certainly a step in the right direction. In addition, who really wants to carry around multiple devices...that's why the iPhone (or equivalent) is so brilliant.

Back to top

IP Logged