High resolution

Vincent Kars

WBF Technical Expert: Computer Audio
Jul 1, 2010
860
1
0
By design a CD contains 16 bit samples with a 44.1 kHz sample rate.
This allows theoretically for a dynamic range of 16*6= -96 dBFS and 44.1/2 = 22.05 kHz as the highest possible frequency.

Recordings are often made with a greater bit depth (24) and a higher sample rate.
One of the benefits of computer based audio is that you are not in need of recordings down sampled to CD format.
You can play the original recording at its original bit depth and sample rate (if your sound card allows for it).

A 24/96 recording allows for a dynamic range of 24*6= -144 dBFS
Sounds impressive but CD’s -96 dBFS is very soft and the noise floor of your gear e.g. -110 dBFS will be the limiting factor.
But probably listening to the decay of instruments might reveal a subtle difference.

96 kHz has a Nyquist frequency of 48 kHz.
Sounds impressive too but our hearing stops somewhere at 20 kHz (when we are young).
This sounds like buying recordings containing information above our upper threshold of hearing is like paying a premium for some emperor’s new clothes.

There are reasons why a hi-rez recording will sound different.
Down sampling might introduce artefacts
Our tweeters can sound different when modulated with signals < 20 kHz or when modulated with signals > 20 kHz.

Often no audible differences between CD audio and higher resolutions are reported on the internet. Just as no audible differences between CD audio and high bitrate MP3 is often reported. As 1+1=2 some conclude that there isn’t a difference between MP3 and Hi-rez audio!

You can also find reports like this one:

I am interested in everyone's experience with the quality of various HD Tracks labels in hi rez. I have had excellent results with Reference Recordings, Dorian, Chesky and 2L. But I was very disappointed with the BIS recording of Osmo Vanska's Beethoven symphonies 2 & 7. I had seen rave reviews of the SACD version, but when I downloaded it in 24/88.2 from HD Tracks, the sound quality was nothing special. My RBCD version by Gunther Wand on RCA has better SQ
http://www.audioasylum.com/cgi/t.mpl?f=pcaudio&m=72939

Somebody listening to hi-rez and is missing the hi-rez sound.
Others chime in; ask for a sample and it turns out that this recording doesn’t contain any signal above 22 kHz. One of those examples where you pay a premium for a hi-rez track and get up sampled CD audio in return.
Unfortunately this is not a single incident.

http://www.audioasylum.com/cgi/t.mpl?f=pcaudio&m=74993
http://www.audioasylum.com/cgi/t.mpl?f=pcaudio&m=72939
http://www.audioasylum.com/cgi/t.mpl?f=pcaudio&m=81291

As long as companies selling hi-res don’t tell you what the resolution is of the source used, you run the risk of being scammed.
These incidents also proof that some can hear the difference between CD and hi-rez.

There are a couple of trick to check if a recording is true hi-rez.
Read Bruce Brown’s Listening with your eyes.
 

untangle

New Member
Mar 11, 2011
61
0
0
Santa Clara, CA
baasnotes.com
The noise floor on playback alone is well above 24 bits. And it's easy to prove to yourself that signals above 20khz are inaudible.

Having said that, "high resolution" recording and playback holds significant technical promise. For example, the requirements for digital filtering are greatly eased at 88k and above. And having 24 bits really expands allowable error margins for level setting in the recording chain.

But, starting with SACD, the overall in-living-room results have been mixed at best IMO. For one thing, a poorly recorded, mixed, and/or mastered recording will sound just as bad - and sometimes worse - in high resolution. This is also easy to prove, as I'm sure that we all have at least one SACD where the CD layer sounds better than SACD.

But there are labels, like Reference Recordings or Lynn or Yarlung, that consistently get it all correct. And when that happens, magic ensues. Ahhh.

Bob
 

Phelonious Ponk

New Member
Jun 30, 2010
8,677
23
0
As long as companies selling hi-res don’t tell you what the resolution is of the source used, you run the risk of being scammed.
These incidents also proof that some can hear the difference between CD and hi-rez.

I would say these incidents offer anecdotal evidence that some can hear the difference between CD and hi-rez. There were also many people involved in those bogus hi-rez incidents, people who where big believers in hi-rez, who had absolutely no idea the "hi-rez" recordings they were enjoying contained no information above 22 khz until they read about it on the internet. But I wouldn't call that proof either. If these incidents prove anything, it's that the differences between hi-rez and redbook are pretty subtle.

Tim
 

Bruce B

WBF Founding Member, Pro Audio Production Member
Apr 25, 2010
7,006
512
1,740
Snohomish, WA
www.pugetsoundstudios.com
No wonder the fellow that downloaded the BIS title could tell the difference and was disappointed. All of the BIS titles we did for HDtracks were upsampled. We went back and checked the BIS catalogue and all they did was take redbook files and convert them to DSD for SACD.
 

untangle

New Member
Mar 11, 2011
61
0
0
Santa Clara, CA
baasnotes.com
While I'm not very impressed with the HDtracks Stones re-releases, I really like the Quadrophenia reissue - great music *and* sonics.

Note: I don't own the original to compare it to...

Bob

Edit: Ooops. I meant "Tommy" on HDT!
 
Last edited:

DonH50

Member Sponsor & WBF Technical Expert
Jun 22, 2010
3,947
306
1,670
Monument, CO
Terminology question: In the audiophile world, does "high-resolution" automatically imply "higher sampling rate"? I realize they are often coupled together by design but are two different things to an engineer (me). I realize they could be interpreted as higher amplitude resolution and higher time resolution, just not the way they are "normally" used.
 

amirm

Banned
Apr 2, 2010
15,813
37
0
Seattle, WA
I think it is used in the same way "HD video" is used. That is anything > standard definition video or in this case CD. As with video, slight improvements are probably dismissed (e.g. 16-bit/48 KHz).
 

About us

  • What’s Best Forum is THE forum for high end audio, product reviews, advice and sharing experiences on the best of everything else. This is THE place where audiophiles and audio companies discuss vintage, contemporary and new audio products, music servers, music streamers, computer audio, digital-to-analog converters, turntables, phono stages, cartridges, reel-to-reel tape machines, speakers, headphones and tube and solid-state amplification. Founded in 2010 What’s Best Forum invites intelligent and courteous people of all interests and backgrounds to describe and discuss the best of everything. From beginners to life-long hobbyists to industry professionals, we enjoy learning about new things and meeting new people, and participating in spirited debates.

Quick Navigation

User Menu

Steve Williams
Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator
Ron Resnick
Site Co-Owner | Administrator
Julian (The Fixer)
Website Build | Marketing Managersing