CD Quality Is Not High-Res Audio
- Thread starter NorthStar
- Start date
For me,
Hi-res audio = 24/88.2 or 24/96 or 24/176.4 or 24/192 or DSD.
And done by the best engineers in the business, and from the best artists as well (musicians, singers and all).
As for CD; it is just fine, even at 16/44.1 (the best ones). ...Channel Classics, Reference Recordings (HDCD), ECM, Analog Production Originals, DMP, Chesky, AudioQuest, Concord Jazz, DG, Philips, RCA Red Seal, Living Stereo, Mercury Living Presence, Analekta, Telarc, Dorian, ....
Hi-res audio = 24/88.2 or 24/96 or 24/176.4 or 24/192 or DSD.
And done by the best engineers in the business, and from the best artists as well (musicians, singers and all).
As for CD; it is just fine, even at 16/44.1 (the best ones). ...Channel Classics, Reference Recordings (HDCD), ECM, Analog Production Originals, DMP, Chesky, AudioQuest, Concord Jazz, DG, Philips, RCA Red Seal, Living Stereo, Mercury Living Presence, Analekta, Telarc, Dorian, ....
garylkoh
WBF Technical Expert (Speakers & Audio Equipment)
I agree (from my limited experience as well). I'm listening to the CD of Brenda Lee's Bewitching-Lee! and it's outstanding. Wonderful width and depth, a lovely sense of space. It doesn't have that digital feel of harshness of the sound that is often associated with the format.
And that is exactly why I also said: "And done by the best engineers in the business, as well including the best artists (musicians, singers and all);
the music itself."
Right. So get a piece of music that has a long, slow fade. if 16 bits is not enough, then as you reach the end of that fade, you should hear the music "stepping" down instead of fading smoothly. Hear that?
Tim
Hi
While I don't mind more "steps" since processing and storage are plentiful; I have to wonder what is the difference in dB between the steps, keeping in mind we can't hear the differences in loudness if it is 0.1 dB.
I will burn both samples and listen to them. I will dutifully report back to the collective.
While I don't mind more "steps" since processing and storage are plentiful; I have to wonder what is the difference in dB between the steps, keeping in mind we can't hear the differences in loudness if it is 0.1 dB.
I will burn both samples and listen to them. I will dutifully report back to the collective.
Correct me if i am wrong: >>> 0.00002267573 second <<<
CORRECT ME IF I AM WRONG:
16 bit audio >>>> 65,536 possible levels.
24 bit >>>>> 16,777,216 possible levels.
And if the sample rate is 44.1, then you have 44,100 slices per second. Therefore, in 0.00002267573 second the music reproduction has @ 16 bit a choice of 65,536 possible levels of depth.
That appears to me to be some Extremely Tiny Steps.
zz.
CORRECT ME IF I AM WRONG:
16 bit audio >>>> 65,536 possible levels.
24 bit >>>>> 16,777,216 possible levels.
And if the sample rate is 44.1, then you have 44,100 slices per second. Therefore, in 0.00002267573 second the music reproduction has @ 16 bit a choice of 65,536 possible levels of depth.
That appears to me to be some Extremely Tiny Steps.
zz.
Hi
I am as anal as the next audiophile. I have tried the past few years to keep things in perspective. I have witnesses needle-drop that were entirely indistinguishable from their original LP on TT once the listeners , some of them analog die-hard, had the knowledge of what's playing removed. Those needle-drop were on 44.1/16. I am making my own needle-drop (not an endeavor for th faint of heart) and am in the process of acquiring a serious ADC. They will be made in 24/192 not because I consistently hear a difference ... Simply because in my mind higher sampling rate and bit-depth provide better mathematical results.
In reference to the title. For most people who care a bit about sound reproduction, it is somewhat understood and widely admitted that Hi-Res refers to higher than CD sampling rates and bit-depth. in that context CD wouldn't be Hi-Res, whether we can hear a difference or not between same mastering of Hi-Res vs CD is the debate at hand, at least I think is the one at hand
So if that's correct, and your track is slowly fading, it's not fading nice and smooth, man, every 0.00002267573 of a second is stumbling down just 65,536 steps. You can't hear that?
Anybody listened to the samples yet? I'm embarrassed to say I can't find the adapter required to get optical out of my MacBook. Haven't used it since the last time I tried to hear hi-res with these tin ears and I don't know where I've put it.
Tim
On the face of it that sounds right. What I am not so sure of however is if the equivalent voltage increments is the same or not. My plebe mind tells me that if the increments are the same, you are throwing away headroom (for listening) if they are smaller then you really are getting more resolution/information density.
Sort of analogous to pixel size. Did you make the pixels smaller for the same sized display or did you just make the screen larger?
Nobody has been able to clarify this wherever I looked. Only the coders know. Amir, you lurking somewhere?
Similar threads
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |