When is Hi-Res not really Hi-Res?

RBFC

WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
5,158
46
1,225
Albuquerque, NM
www.fightingconcepts.com
I was hoping that you'd place all the points of debate clearly together so that sasully would have easy access, and that he will do the same. I don't have sufficient knowledge of digital filters, etc. to add anything technical to the discussion.

Lee
 

boh10

New Member
Jan 30, 2013
8
0
0
I have posted and been quiet on this thread but I think I will have a final say; I don’t believe in 24 bit 192/96/88 KHz material. Why? because we can’t hear/appreciate it. Even if Bruce says that a filter in the high frequency digital domain is going to affect the frequencies in the “audible” range, that is not true (this is the same person who told me that he made a 88 KHz and a 192 KHz version of old material because he was asked to, not because the source would have even close to that information - we are talking old tape from the 60's).

A CD with correctly applied dither have more than enough bit depth and frequency response for any human being on this earth, i.e. if you are going to buy from HDtracks (as I still do), don't’ believe that the latest music in going to be nothing but super compressed and have a bandwidth you can probably fit on an 8-track, e.g. Eric Clapton – Old Sock (Dynamic Range 7-9: seriously you need 24 bits for that???! Pathetic Eric!)

If you like buying interconnects and speaker cables for the thousands you probably will buy into all of the 24/192 bs. If you like music and understand basic math and physics, you will understand that a carefully mastered CD will sound so much better than the over-compressed crap that is being re-sold as the emperor's new cloths.

Here is an article for you (that Bruce has read twice): http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

Cheers!
 
Last edited:

michael123

Well-Known Member
Nov 17, 2011
75
0
246
It is pathetic to think that master files quality is merely about dynamic range
[ I would say, "trust your ears", yet.. not sure if you're into that ]
 

boh10

New Member
Jan 30, 2013
8
0
0
You are missing the point. I do trust my ears, but why charge extra and call it an audiophile recording when standard CD red book would have been more than sufficient? As I said, I still buy music from HDtracks, but what I have learnt is that the older "standard" 16/44.1 recordings are usually a lot higher quality than the 192/24 bs, especially when it comes to newer recordings which have been super compressed for all the known reasons. If you believe in "master quality" be my guest, it's the same old tape that has been used for many releases over the years...
 

dallasjustice

Member Sponsor
Apr 12, 2011
2,067
8
0
Dallas, Texas
How do you define high resolution? Would live acoustic musical performances meet your definition of high resolution? I understand that the extra bits might be lost on your room because it may not be very accurate. But other folks do have dynamic rooms.

It is pathetic to think that master files quality is merely about dynamic range
[ I would say, "trust your ears", yet.. not sure if you're into that ]
 

audioarcher

Well-Known Member
May 6, 2012
1,396
51
970
Seattle area
I have posted and been quiet on this thread but I think I will have a final say; I don’t believe in 24 bit 192/96/88 KHz material. Why? because we can’t hear/appreciate it. Even if Bruce says that a filter in the high frequency digital domain is going to affect the frequencies in the “audible” range, that is not true (this is the same person who told me that he made a 88 KHz and a 192 KHz version of old material because he was asked to, not because the source would have even close to that information - we are talking old tape from the 60's).

A CD with correctly applied dither have more than enough bit depth and frequency response for any human being on this earth, i.e. if you are going to buy from HDtracks (as I still do), don't’ believe that the latest music in going to be nothing but super compressed and have a bandwidth you can probably fit on an 8-track, e.g. Eric Clapton – Old Sock (Dynamic Range 7-9: seriously you need 24 bits for that???! Pathetic Eric!)

If you like buying interconnects and speaker cables for the thousands you probably will buy into all of the 24/192 bs. If you like music and understand basic math and physics, you will understand that a carefully mastered CD will sound so much better than the over-compressed crap that is being re-sold as the emperor's new cloths.

Here is an article for you (that Bruce has read twice): http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

Cheers!

If you could hear that old tape from the 60's straight into your stereo vs your CD you would more understand where Bruce is coming from. The tape would massacre the CD.

In many cases you are correct that the high res files will not be better than the CD. It really depends on the material, how it was processed, and the quality of your playback system. Etc. If it was not sourced from the original tape or digital file then it will be compromised. The biggest problem is they usually will not disclose the provenance of the source and how it has been processed. The material that has been compress to death is obviously beyond repair. Unless they have files of the material before compression was applied and are willing to remaster the material. Highly unlikely.
 

Julf

New Member
Nov 27, 2011
613
0
0
Amsterdam, The Netherlands
And from what do you think the CD was sourced from? It still has the same hiss and distortion along with additional digital distortions.

Sure - a CD sourced from analog tape will have the hiss and distortion from the tape. That's one of the reasons (but of course not the only one) the recording industry switched to digital recording. The digital "distortions" (I assume you are talking about quantisation noise) of a CD is much lower than the distortion of analog tape.
 

Groucho

New Member
Aug 18, 2012
680
3
0
UK
If you had a choice of having a particular precious vintage recording in the form of an analogue copy of the original master tape (whatever form you wish to stipulate: 1" x 30 ips if you like, even vinyl!?) or a high res digital copy, which would you choose?

Personally, I would choose the digital copy every time, for a multitude of reasons.
 

audioarcher

Well-Known Member
May 6, 2012
1,396
51
970
Seattle area
If you had a choice of having a particular precious vintage recording in the form of an analogue copy of the original master tape (whatever form you wish to stipulate: 1" x 30 ips if you like, even vinyl!?) or a high res digital copy, which would you choose?

Personally, I would choose the digital copy every time, for a multitude of reasons.

I would choose the master tape copy even though I don't have a RTR machine yet. I would then have a digital file made from it. There is no substitute for being as close to the master as possible and at least with the digital copy I would be in control of how it was done.
 

Groucho

New Member
Aug 18, 2012
680
3
0
UK
I would choose the master tape copy even though I don't have a RTR machine yet. I would then have a digital file made from it. There is no substitute for being as close to the master as possible and at least with the digital copy I would be in control of how it was done.

I don't mean actually having the choice of owning the master tape: the choice is either an analogue copy of the master tape, or a digital copy of the master tape. You can control how it is done in both cases. To me, the analogue copy of a copy is a much less enticing prospect than a direct digital copy.
 

audioarcher

Well-Known Member
May 6, 2012
1,396
51
970
Seattle area
I don't mean actually having the choice of owning the master tape: the choice is either an analogue copy of the master tape, or a digital copy of the master tape. You can control how it is done in both cases.

I understand what you mean but it makes no sense to limit yourself to one or the other in real life.
 

Groucho

New Member
Aug 18, 2012
680
3
0
UK
I understand what you mean but it makes no sense to limit yourself to one or the other in real life.

OK, I see. But to my way of thinking, the analogue copy of the master tape is already damaged irretrievably in that the extra noise and distortion are way higher than for the digital copy; I would already feel much further from the master tape in this case as opposed to the direct digital copy. And if there's a dropout, say, in the analogue copy, then it's gone forever even before I take the digital copies.

(Obviously in real life, given a playable-only-once scenario, I'd take many copies in different formats including analogue.)
 

Groucho

New Member
Aug 18, 2012
680
3
0
UK
I understand what you mean but it makes no sense to limit yourself to one or the other in real life.

Just out of interest, would your choice be the same in the case of a precious photograph, or movie? i.e. would you think an analogue copy (and subsequent digital safety copies) gets you closer to the original than a direct digital scan?
 

audioarcher

Well-Known Member
May 6, 2012
1,396
51
970
Seattle area
Just out of interest, would your choice be the same in the case of a precious photograph, or movie? i.e. would you think an analogue copy (and subsequent digital safety copies) gets you closer to the original than a direct digital scan?

That would depend on how well the analog copy was done and if it is superior to the digital copy. It all depends on a number of variables. I just want the best result. It's not about the technology itself.
 

audioarcher

Well-Known Member
May 6, 2012
1,396
51
970
Seattle area
OK, I see. But to my way of thinking, the analogue copy of the master tape is already damaged irretrievably in that the extra noise and distortion are way higher than for the digital copy; I would already feel much further from the master tape in this case as opposed to the direct digital copy. And if there's a dropout, say, in the analogue copy, then it's gone forever even before I take the digital copies.

(Obviously in real life, given a playable-only-once scenario, I'd take many copies in different formats including analogue.)

From my understanding tape formulations are much better than in the past. This allows much better performance. I don't have a lot of experience with master tape copies but of the ones I have heard I was very impressed. If I could afford I good machine right now I would have one. Have you heard any master dubs that where done on a good machine with new tape?
 

Julf

New Member
Nov 27, 2011
613
0
0
Amsterdam, The Netherlands
From my understanding tape formulations are much better than in the past. This allows much better performance. I don't have a lot of experience with master tape copies but of the ones I have heard I was very impressed. If I could afford I good machine right now I would have one. Have you heard any master dubs that where done on a good machine with new tape?

I love tape machines, and own several, but even the best tape machines don't quite get to the level of CD/Red book.
 

Groucho

New Member
Aug 18, 2012
680
3
0
UK
That would depend on how well the analog copy was done and if it is superior to the digital copy. It all depends on a number of variables. I just want the best result. It's not about the technology itself.
As I say, you can choose state-of-the-art in either case, but can only take one copy.

It appears to be only a hypothetical question for audio because you can fan the analogue signal out to any number of recording/digitising machines but there could be a real issue that analogue purists want the copy of a supremely precious music recording that can be played once only to take place without any RFI from digital machinery connected (not a completely silly notion). It might also apply in the case of a movie where the analogue copying machine (onto traditional film presumably) is different from the digital scanner, and the original is very fragile or the owner will only permit a single play. You have to choose whether to make it an analogue copy or a digital scan.

Digital every time for me, however.
 

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