For Those Naysayers...

[Johnny Vinyl]

my definition of hi-rez is anything 24/88.2kHz and up

Thanks Bruce

Whose definition are you looking for?

Meaning there is no standard? If not, what is it for you?

 

[TBone]

my definition of hi-rez is anything 24/88.2kHz and up

what if it still sounds like crap?

 

[mep]

Thanks Bruce



Meaning there is no standard? If not, what is it for you?

I just asked that question because someone who is very pretentious said you had to capture 130dB of dynamic range on your recording or else it was "standard" definition audio.

 

[mep]

what if it still sounds like crap?

Buy AIX recordings?

 

[TBone]

I don't agree one bit (no digital pun intended). If you are going to stick your nose up in the air and crap on everyone who claims to put out HD music that doesn't meet your specifications for how you have defined HD music and you can't meet your own specs either, what does that say about you??

Well, lets see, to me ... it says you're no different than so many other arrogant "people" in the industry, many within ear shot.

 

[mep]

Well, lets see, to me ... it says you're no different than so many other arrogant "people" in the industry, many within ear shot.

Really? How so? I didn't make any claims about how great my recordings are and crap on my competitors' recordings if they don't meet specifications I laid down and can't meet either. So how am I arrogant for pointing out someone playing fast and loose with the truth? Are you affiliated with AIX in some way?

 

[TBone]

Buy AIX recordings?

Not my particular cup of tea.

BTW, you thinking that SACD sounds more "analog", I ask you this, does that apply to only DSD originals? Because if not, would your "analog" description include flat lifeless bass, a highish truncated noise floor and screaming highs?

 

[TBone]

I didn't make any claims about how great my recordings are and crap on my competitors' recordings if they don't meet specifications

Please stop taking my text out of context, in this case, I didn't mean you ... unless the shoe fits ... of course.

Are you affiliated with AIX in some way?

(sigh)

tb1

 

[mep]

Not my particular cup of tea.

BTW, you thinking that SACD sounds more "analog", I ask you this, does that apply to only DSD originals? Because if not, would your "analog" description include flat lifeless bass, a highish truncated noise floor and screaming highs?

??? Please explain your questions a little better because I want to make sure I understand you before I respond.

 

[Bruce B]

what if it still sounds like crap?

being hi-rez has nothing to do with how it sounds. there are plenty of hi-rez titles that sound like crap.
the mastering and post production have more influence than what the final format will be.

 

[Johnny Vinyl]

So there is no standard? Perhaps anything other than RBCD is Hi-rez then or could be considered as such.

 

[mep]

Please stop taking my text out of context, in this case, I didn't mean you ... unless the shoe fits ... of course.



(sigh)

tb1

Since you quoted me, I assumed you were directing your comment back to me. Having reread it and your explanation, I get it.

 

[TBone]

??? Please explain your questions a little better because I want to make sure I understand you before I respond.

That's hilarious!

 

[mep]

That's hilarious!

Please laugh while you explain yourself.

 

[TBone]

Please laugh while you explain yourself.

Certainly!

You and Mr.Cantankerous consistently try and bait others using miss-quotes; fictional content, or condescending flaims. If silly assumptions and childish ridicule are considered valid debating "skills" around here ... well ... I can only conclude that whatever I, or anyone else with a differing opinion may claim ... won't really matter.

Therefore your "because I want to make sure I understand you before I respond." was hilariously ironic.

tb1

 

[TBone]

So there is no standard? Perhaps anything other than RBCD is Hi-rez then or could be considered as such.

IMO, true Hi-Rez reproduction cannot be related to an individual format because ALL formats are slaved to the quality of it's source. Therefore, "hi-rez" is a system inititive that's directly related to the quality of its source material first and foremost ... despite each formats (theoretical) respective sonic ceiling.

 

[Julf]

IMO, true Hi-Rez reproduction cannot be related to an individual format because ALL formats are slaved to the quality of it's source. Therefore, "hi-rez" is a system inititive that's directly related to the quality of its source material first and foremost ... despite each formats (theoretical) respective sonic ceiling.

You could take "hi-res" as a purely technical description - as in "having higher than normal resolution". By that definition any bit rate / word length beyond 44.1/16 would be *technically* hi-res, independent of the quality of the actual content, just like it is used in photography to signify the number of pixels, independent of the artistic quality of the photograph itself...

 

[TBone]

By that definition any bit rate / word length beyond 44.1/16 would be *technically* hi-res, independent of the quality of the actual content, just like it is used in photography to signify the number of pixels, independent of the artistic quality of the photograph itself...

Exactly, especially true considering that both audio/photography require proper focus in order to deliver true hi-rez ... despite pixel/bit counts.

tb1

 

[JackD201]

Exactly, especially true considering that both audio/photography require proper focus in order to deliver true hi-rez ... despite pixel/bit counts.

tb1

so it's all in the mastering then? The same guy who did a great 16/44.1 can't top himself with more bits and samples at his disposal from recording all the way down to mastering? It's already obvious how much less peak limiting he'll need for the latter, that is something you can't fix once it's there.

 

[TBone]

The same guy who did a great 16/44.1 can't top himself with more bits and samples at his disposal from recording all the way down to mastering?

Perhaps the more relevant question ... can he "top himself" simply by using more bits/samples?