CD Quality Is Not High-Res Audio

[NorthStar]

* CD Quality (16/44.1) Equals Not High Resolution Audio

 

[TBone]

"HRA" ... what a crock.

 

[FrantzM]

Poorly written to say the least ... vacuous comes to mind

 

[NorthStar]

Well, Mark (Fleischmann) is simply a freelance writer; certainly not a scientific pro audio reviewer. ...He works for public home theater mags, and live in a very modest apartment in New York city.

This is just a tag line, nothing else.

 

[TBone]

Well, Mark (Fleischmann) is simply a freelance writer; certainly not a scientific pro audio reviewer.

Scientific?

LOL ...

The mans a hack!

some of his more "special" quotes ...

"If MP3 is low-res, and CD is mid-res, what is high-res? I define high-res audio as having at least 24 bits and anything greater than the CD's 44.1 kHz sampling rate. So there. I prefer 24/192 downloads when I can get them but I'm still happy to collect in 24/96 and I'm willing to at least try other sampling rates—as long as they offer something better than CD quality.

...

"But if a true high-resolution digital recording (say, 24/96) is delivered in its original form, that's high-res. Analog recording technology at its best is also high-res, so if analog is mastered at 24/96, that is also HRA.

...

"Most asynchronous USB DACs, those magic boxes that turn PCs and Macs into high-res songbirds, go up to 192 kHz and a few go higher. The next wave of USB DACs adds Sony's DSD format, which some believe to be the best-sounding of all.

...

"Uncompressed formats, such as Microsoft's WAV and Apple's AIFF, are the least efficient kind because they make no attempt to economize on bits. They are just dumb bit buckets that hold every drop of data, discarding nothing.

 

[Groucho]

It's a fascinating idea that audiophiles are committing themselves to a catalogue of inconveniences and expense without proving to themselves that they can hear the difference with a simple unsighted test (as opposed to confirming what they think they already know, with a sighted test).

By committing yourself to 'hi res' you commit to:

- more expensive downloads, purchases
- reduced range of available music and more difficulty tracking it down to buy
- DRM (potentially..?)
- reduced range of compatible equipment
- more expensive equipment
- inconvenience or prevention of file copying, backups
- extra storage requirements
- dissatisfaction with 'inferior' formats (real or imagined)

For true obsessives, these are probably not too onerous in themselves, but the killer, I suspect, is the dissatisfaction with 'inferior' formats which will gnaw away at you until you have replaced all your music with the superior format - again.

 

[NorthStar]

The mans a hack!

Well, he's not the only audio/video writer who's a 'hack'!

You said it, and well too, truthfully. Me, I was staying on the sideline and waiting for comments.

 

[NorthStar]

It's a fascinating idea that audiophiles are committing themselves to a catalogue of inconveniences and expense without proving to themselves that they can hear the difference with a simple unsighted test (as opposed to confirming what they think they already know, with a sighted test).

By committing yourself to 'hi res' you commit to:

- more expensive downloads, purchases
- reduced range of available music and more difficulty tracking it down to buy
- DRM (potentially..?)
- reduced range of compatible equipment
- more expensive equipment
- inconvenience or prevention of file copying, backups
- extra storage requirements
- dissatisfaction with 'inferior' formats (real or imagined)

For true obsessives, these are probably not too onerous in themselves, but the killer, I suspect, is the dissatisfaction with 'inferior' formats which will gnaw away at you until you have replaced all your music with the superior format - again.

After reading your post it reminded me some of the discussions between analog vinyl and digital CD.

 

[dallasjustice]

Reviewers will invent officious definitions from the armchairs in their crappy listening space containing their free gear they barely know how to turn on.

Reviewers generally are broke. They can't afford to buy the gear they review at normal prices. In fact, a reviewer confessed this fact to me at RMAF last year. He said that he's a reviewer simply to gain access to the gear he otherwise wouldn't be able to acquire.

My point: There is no accommodation price for hiring a contractor to build a dedicated listening space. Ive never heard of an acoustician trading their services for a positive review. Ive never heard of RPG trading Modex Plates for a positive review. Do people ever see the 1/6 smoothed octave frequency response of Atkinson or Fremer's rooms? And these are some of the well compensated reviewers. Think how bad it is in the rest of the looters' rooms.

This guy has never heard of Keith Johnson.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

It's a fascinating idea that audiophiles are committing themselves to a catalogue of inconveniences and expense without proving to themselves that they can hear the difference with a simple unsighted test (as opposed to confirming what they think they already know, with a sighted test).

Facinating? Predictable.

Tim

 

[FrantzM]

Reviewers will invent officious definitions from the armchairs in their crappy listening space containing their free gear they barely know how to turn on.

Reviewers generally are broke. They can't afford to buy the gear they review at normal prices. In fact, a reviewer confessed this fact to me at RMAF last year. He said that he's a reviewer simply to gain access to the gear he otherwise wouldn't be able to acquire.

My point: There is no accommodation price for hiring a contractor to build a dedicated listening space. Ive never heard of an acoustician trading their services for a positive review. Ive never heard of RPG trading Modex Plates for a positive review. Do people ever see the 1/6 smoothed octave frequency response of Atkinson or Fremer's rooms? And these are some of the well compensated reviewers. Think how bad it is in the rest of the looters' rooms.

This guy has never heard of Keith Johnson.

Ouch!

 

[Bruce B]

Reviewers will invent officious definitions from the armchairs in their crappy listening space containing their free gear they barely know how to turn on.

Reviewers generally are broke. They can't afford to buy the gear they review at normal prices. In fact, a reviewer confessed this fact to me at RMAF last year. He said that he's a reviewer simply to gain access to the gear he otherwise wouldn't be able to acquire.

My point: There is no accommodation price for hiring a contractor to build a dedicated listening space. Ive never heard of an acoustician trading their services for a positive review. Ive never heard of RPG trading Modex Plates for a positive review. Do people ever see the 1/6 smoothed octave frequency response of Atkinson or Fremer's rooms? And these are some of the well compensated reviewers. Think how bad it is in the rest of the looters' rooms.

This guy has never heard of Keith Johnson.

Amen Brother..... you're preaching to the choir!!

 

[NorthStar]

Now we're on the right path! :b

 

[TBone]

Reviewers will invent officious definitions from the armchairs in their crappy listening space containing their free gear they barely know how to turn on.

Is this why some hi-end gear comes without a switch now?

 

[TBone]

By committing yourself to 'hi res' you commit to:

- dissatisfaction with 'inferior' formats (real or imagined)

For true obsessives, these are probably not too onerous in themselves, but the killer, I suspect, is the dissatisfaction with 'inferior' formats which will gnaw away at you until you have replaced all your music with the superior format - again.

yep ... therefore, consider but one more example ... the critically acclaimed Cafe Blue. Sold in original CD, remastered CD, LP(s) 24 bit PCM/DSD and even R2R now, I believe. Because you know ... Hi-Rez = "HIGHER-Resolution"... right ... ? ... even if ... in this case, the orig.master was "only" 16 bit.

tb1

 

[TBone]

At TAVES two years ago, the stewards were handing out a demo CD from one of the shows sponsors. I inadvertently gave it away without listening, no biggie considering so many of these freebees turn out to be duds. Well, damn ... this demo CD turned out to be one of the best sounding digital recordings I've heard regardless of format. Supposedly it was recorded in house with great care, using fine tube based gear.

If DSD sounded this good, well ...

At the same show, I encountered the gracious James Tanner with pad in hand, sitting in front of a Bryston system playing hi-rez downloads. The system sounded nice & smooth, not at all irritable (trust me, a compliment consider the number of screaming rooms at these shows). I asked him what digital resolution was he using for demo ... he replied purposely 16/44.

tb1

 

[mep]

Reviewers will invent officious definitions from the armchairs in their crappy listening space containing their free gear they barely know how to turn on.

Reviewers generally are broke. They can't afford to buy the gear they review at normal prices. In fact, a reviewer confessed this fact to me at RMAF last year. He said that he's a reviewer simply to gain access to the gear he otherwise wouldn't be able to acquire.

My point: There is no accommodation price for hiring a contractor to build a dedicated listening space. Ive never heard of an acoustician trading their services for a positive review. Ive never heard of RPG trading Modex Plates for a positive review. Do people ever see the 1/6 smoothed octave frequency response of Atkinson or Fremer's rooms? And these are some of the well compensated reviewers. Think how bad it is in the rest of the looters' rooms.

This guy has never heard of Keith Johnson.

A little harsh don't you think? Are there really reviewers that barely know how to turn their gear on? How would you know that? As for reviewers being generally broke, can you define what "broke" means? What would be the average income of a "broke" reviewer? Reviewers are now classified as "looters?"

 

[TBone]

Are there really reviewers that barely know how to turn their gear on?

Yes, so to speak ... I've met 'em ...

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Is this why some hi-end gear comes without a switch now?

No, it's because the switch degrades the audio quality of the power cord.

Tim

 

[Johnny Vinyl]

At TAVES two years ago, the stewards were handing out a demo CD from one of the shows sponsors. I inadvertently gave it away without listening, no biggie considering so many of these freebees turn out to be duds. Well, damn ... this demo CD turned out to be one of the best sounding digital recordings I've heard regardless of format. Supposedly it was recorded in house with great care, using fine tube based gear.

This was a disc done by MA recordings and it is stunning, even on my simple digital playback source. I still have it (somewhere). Ever hear of Dropbox?