Hi Res Music - It's for Real

[ciaonzo 5,000+ posts]

speakers dont have a resolution they are analog

If you think of resolution as clarity or speed (starting or stopping when signal is applied or removed) then speakers can have a "resolution" quality. One speaker can have a higher resolution than another, and this can be demonstrated with impulse response and cumulative spectral decay. Simply put, if a speaker can start quicker than another, (react with motion to the input current/voltage) and it can stop quicker than another (dissipate the energy from the signal and come to rest quicker), then it will have better resolution resulting in a more "see through" or transparent sound. This is higher resolution. This allows you to hear more "into" the recording. It's like body builders - they all have muscles, they all look great. But some of them have muscles on muscles, and muscle fibers on those muscles. They are so much more detailed and defined. The other body builders have the same stuff going on but it's not being revealed so they are lower resolution.
A higher resolution image yields better detail and color without so many jagged edges and lumped together details/colors that occur with the averaging from lower resolution images. This is the same thing that happens with music files. It's not about highest or lowest frequencies that can be played, it's about the details in between the details and this is where the life of any recording is, because this is where the ambient and spacial cues reside. The higher bit rates allow for much more refined processing of these fractal type bits of information (like the fractal nature of LP or other analog recordings) that would otherwise be cropped out by the algorithm of lower resolution files. This is why these newer high resolution files can finally sound so darn good compared to the original analog files.

It's not about the highest frequency that can be reproduced. But higher frequencies allow for higher sampling rates of these larger, higher resolution files that contain so much more of the information/bit content that was previously removed by the algorithm of compression format used.

These improvements can easily be masked out by shitty installs and equipment so keep that in mind.

 

[ciaonzo 5,000+ posts]

maybe in a external speaker situation where your really hearing different higher frequency vibrations, resonances, and rattles. but i would bet with unclipped headphones and a blind test you would have incredible difficulty differentiating tones to close together, maybe the little more than half an octave between 14 and 20hz as a direct comparison but semitones or tones you wouldn't be able to tell. i have serious doubts. it starts to sound like a drummer that low. fast snare players can pretty much roll that fast and without a counter its really hard to differentiate.

Rattles and extraneous vibrations would hinder your ability to make distinctions between pitch definition because they would be introducing harmonics. In that situation I would have a harder time, yes. I'm talking about tones being stepped down without any other distortions, driver or system limited. I can distinguish down to 14Hz. Not bragging, simply stating. Others can, too, they just may not even know it. Not many people are making clean sound down to 10Hz or so. I am, and in that I may be bragging just a bit.
And before anyone tries, there is plenty of life in music down to those frequencies and I value them, so I reproduce them. I enjoy very visceral presentations for the life it breathes into a recording. How else would you get a sense for the size of hall that a symphony orchestra is playing in, or how low the tones are in the latest DJ Droppin' digital file?

 

[staan]

If you think of resolution as clarity or speed (starting or stopping when signal is applied or removed) then speakers can have a "resolution" quality. One speaker can have a higher resolution that another, and this can be demonstrated with impulse response and cumulative spectral decay. Simply put, if a speaker can start quicker than another, (react with motion to the input current/voltage) and it can stop quicker than another (dissipate the energy from the signal and come to rest quicker), then it will have better resolution resulting in a more "see through" or transparent sound. This is higher resolution. This allows you to hear more "into" the recording. It's like body builders - they all have muscles, they look great. But some of them have muscles on muscles, and muscle fibers on those muscles. They are so much more detailed and defined. The other body builders have the same stuff going on but it's not being revealed so they are lower resolution.
A higher resolution image yields better detail and color without so many jagged edges and lumped together details/colors that occur with the averaging from lower resolution images. This is the same thing that happens with music files. It's not about highest or lowest frequencies that can be played, it's about the details in between the details and this is where the life of any recording is because this is where the ambient and spacial cues reside. The higher bit rates allow for much more refined processing of these fractal type bits of information (like the fractal nature of LP or other analog recordings) that would otherwise be cropped out by the algorithm of lower resolution files. This is why these newer high resolution files can finally sound so darn good compared to the original analog files.

It's not about the highest frequency that can be reproduced. But higher frequencies allow for higher sampling rates of these larger, higher resolution files that contain so much more of the information/bit content that was previously removed by the algorithm of compression format used.

These improvements can easily be masked out by shitty installs and equipment so keep that in mind.

i think the kool aid you drank might have turned you homosexual lmao

 

[ciaonzo 5,000+ posts]

i think the kool aid you drank might have turned you homosexual lmao

I see you have not come prepared to have a real discussion and that's cool. I'll go back to trolling, too.

 

[staan]

couldnt resist lol you went from spouting transparency keywords included in all placebo expensive audio snake oil products to talking about mostly **** men real quick

 

[staan]

i guarantee if you did a blind test in a professional studio you couldn't pick out a 24/192 uncompressed wave mix from the rendered 16/44 single unchanged mixdown.

 

[LosIsATool 5,000+ posts]

All BS aside. I just went from a Korean Class D full range to a high praised SQ amp with all the SQ fancy bits.

Not a **** bit of difference. I wasn’t expecting any but still.

The kool aid gets to people’s brains

 

[ciaonzo 5,000+ posts]

i guarantee if you did a blind test in a professional studio you couldn't pick out a 24/192 uncompressed wave mix from the rendered 16/44 single unchanged mixdown.

First, I typed some info to offer some insight or a different perspective, nothing more. Not sure why you are so specifically objectionable to that effort since I wasn't being rude to you.
And truthfully, I'm not sure I could hear the difference you stated because I haven't been that studio scenario? But I know I can hear differences between files regardless of whether it's bitrate compression or dynamic compression but that besides the point. I'm more interested in the sonic differences between the GE 5670, the WE396A and the GE RED FIVE STAR tubes than I am the differences in bitrates. Or the sonic differences between the BurrBrown OPA627 or the Burson V5 and V6 op-amps. Or whether the XMOS or Tennor chipset is better than the Cirrus chipset. Things that you can absolutely hear and that bring about enjoyment in experimentation. So if you are simply making an overgeneralized statement that there is not benefit to be had from higher resolution files, then I will simply disagree. And we'll call that a great conversation since you're more interested in simply disagreeing to denounce my abilities more than you are the benefits of bitrates and resolution.

 

[staan]

First, I typed some info to offer some insight or a different perspective, nothing more. Not sure why you are so specifically objectionable to that effort since I wasn't being rude to you.
And truthfully, I'm not sure I could hear the difference you stated because I haven't been that studio scenario? But I know I can hear differences between files regardless of whether it's bitrate compression or dynamic compression but that besides the point. I'm more interested in the sonic differences between the GE 5670, the WE396A and the GE RED FIVE STAR tubes than I am the differences in bitrates. Or the sonic differences between the BurrBrown OPA267 or the Burson V5 and V6 op-amps. Or whether the XMOS or Tennor chipset is better than the Cirrus chipset. Things that you can absolutely hear and that bring about enjoyment in experimentation. So if you are simply making an overgeneralized statement that there is not benefit to be had from higher resolution files, then I will simply disagree. And we'll call that a great conversation since you're more interested in simply disagreeing to denounce my abilities more than you are the benefits of bitrates and resolution.

maybe if your talking live sound, but those differences your hearing are representations of the microphones used to capture them. as far as extreme frequencies, almost every good studio tech, and engineer i know (i know alot of them from southern cali through ny all the way to germany) all straight up high pass 20hz on a steep slope, and low pass 20k on another steep slope. professionals of any non analog recorded music do this just to simply conserve disk space as a business necessity. so whatever your hearing aint there.

 

[ciaonzo 5,000+ posts]

maybe if your talking live sound, but those differences your hearing are representations of the microphones used to capture them. as far as extreme frequencies, almost every good studio tech, and engineer i know (i know alot of them from southern cali through ny all the way to germany) all straight up high pass 20hz on a steep slope, and low pass 20k on another steep slope. professionals of any non analog recorded music do this just to simply conserve disk space as a business necessity. so whatever your hearing aint there.

You have misunderstood what I typed concerning the sonic differences between the TUBES, op-amps, and chipsets that were referenced. How would the tubes or op-amps being swapped in my preamp have anything to do with the original microphone used in the musical recording? We're talking about playback of digital files, remember? Not recording of live instruments or the process & algorithms of how those analog recordings are made into digital files, regardless of bitrate.
My basic argument stands. Higher bitrates do have benefits to offer, and some folks may not be able understand them or be able to enjoy them due to their own biases or limitations of their current equipment or install. Some people obviously can but I don't see why so many people are so set on saying these people cannot or debunking some potential improvement before they've even really put in any real time and effort into it. I could see if I was in here pushing some product down everyone's throat and spamming up the place, but I'm not. I'm simply sharing my experience with files and preamps and tubes and op-amps and dropping keywords on topics that might lead to further reading on a far better site than this shithole. If they choose not to, I'm okay with that.

Again, at least I'm offering a "go for it" type vision rather than the shit you guys go around telling everyone. "Oh I can't hear it so there's nothing to be heard. Your experience should be the same as my experience and you should agree with me so don't even try anything, you're wasting your time and money".

 

[ThxOne Premium Member]

I use 32GB tiny little USB thumb-nail drives exclusively. I have used my HU's CD player 2 or three times since I have owned it. The USB drives are just much faster and never, ever skip. I have so many music files on my computer with so many different bit rates it's ridiculous. That being said, I have played everything from 128 mp3's and worse to 320 to variable bit rates to constants, FLAC's, WAV's, RAW... you name it. As far as blind listening, after a while of having so many different qualities of files on a drive, I forget which files are what quality. Occasionally I will have the same song from the same album on the same drive with different qualities... the difference between 128mp3's and 320mp3's is easily audible. Going from 320 mp3's to WAV files at 16bit 44.1 is very audible. The music gets more full, more defined and generally just better sounding. If I wasn't limited to 16bit 44.1 WAV files on my head unit, I would for sure not convert my files down so my HU will play them. All of my Hi Res music is 96/24 or 192/24 and are waiting for the right head unit.

On another note... with the 16bit 44.1 files from different artist, I don't have to adjust my remote gain knob on my sub amp very often or very much or my HU's volume. With 128 - 320 Mp3's I have to adjust the remote gain for almost every song and I have to adjust the volume often. I am used to it but I can't wait to be able to use even higher quality recordings. Amplifiers definitely add their own color to the sound so that all comes down to the end users ears and what sounds best to them. I think my Barbara Ann sounds better than my Alpine MRV-F545 because it is more full sounding in the midrange... it's not as loud but loud isn't everything. Here is a quick comparison of two different recording qualities... The song Technical Difficulties by Paul Gilbert at 320 in MP3 format sounds good on my stereo, but that same song at 16bit 44.1 in WAV format blew it away. I couldn't hear the pick hitting the strings of the guitar very often but the WAV file I could hear it as well as whatever weird picking style was going on with the bass guitar. Just my observations.

 

[staan]

You have misunderstood what I typed concerning the sonic differences between the TUBES

Some of those are popular tubes to trade out into certain guitar heads so i assumed you were talking hearing the difference in different setups from various artists.

Tubes in a playback situation colors the sound misrepresenting the recording.

 

[ciaonzo 5,000+ posts]

Occasionally I will have the same song from the same album on the same drive with different qualities... the difference between 128mp3's and 320mp3's is easily audible. Going from 320 mp3's to WAV files at 16bit 44.1 is very audible. The music gets more full, more defined and generally just better sounding.

This is the direction I was trying to go, I like how you didn't reference the highest frequency you thought you could hear between the files. That would be missing the point, entirely. The high frequencies are a side benefit and not for the obvious reason. Your words were that it sounded fuller and more defined. That is a sonic benefit that you heard and enjoyed. This is where I'm supposed to tell you that you can't hear those differences and I get you to drink some koolaid. But I won't because they are real and you heard them for yourself. We haven't even touched on the why of it. But it's simple, there are smaller squares and stairsteps in the better-sounding file because it's higher resolution. This will have an obvious impact on high frequencies, sure. Because they will be smoother and sweeter-sounding, not necessarily higher in frequency and not everyone would hear those higher frequencies anyway. But higher resolution files contain more information between the information between the information - approaching FRACTALS. This result is best demonstrated with a vinyl rip onto a (your favorite) very high bitrate file/format, not a CD rip, because it's already been subjectively and objectively established that vinyl sounds better than CD so that would also be missing the point. But again, not everyone will enjoy the benefits because they have other issues to resolve in their install before that will be possible. Everyone's mileage will vary.
This is a visual demonstration of higher resolution, and the one I was trying to make when using muscle definition as example. Hopefully this one won't trigger staan's ********** issue. They both look great but one is higher resolution. Both are acceptable but one is better. Most will be able to tell the difference, but maybe one or two people won't. That is what's going on with high resolution files. And just because you are listening to a 24/192kHz file doesn't mean that the content is worthy of that resolution, this is another factor at play. I believe that was said in a different way by someone else.

 

[ciaonzo 5,000+ posts]

Some of those are popular tubes to trade out into certain guitar heads so i assumed you were talking hearing the difference in different setups from various artists. Tubes in a playback situation colors the sound misrepresenting the recording.

Yes, I know. I like to color my music, no different than others do with their amplifier/speaker choices and final EQ curve and volume settings. But you can't add harmonics by applying EQ or turning up the volume, can you? No different than the way different DAC process bit information, yielding a different presentation of the same file. No different than an op-amp in your preamp/amplifier, or the op-amp in my preamp/amplifier being different coloring the sound in that simple comparison. No one is free of this.
You are not making a single valid point in contrast to the simple nature of my point. Just attempting to troll but having no impact on my musical enjoyment, whatsoever.

 

[LosIsATool 5,000+ posts]

Yes, I know. I like to color my music, no different than others do with their amplifier/speaker choices and final EQ curve and volume settings. But you can't add harmonics by applying EQ or turning up the volume, can you? No different than the way different DAC process bit information, yielding a different presentation of the same file. No different than an op-amp in your preamp/amplifier, or the op-amp in my preamp/amplifier being different coloring the sound in that simple comparison. No one is free of this.
You are not making a single valid point in contrast to the simple nature of my point. Just attempting to troll but having no impact on my musical enjoyment, whatsoever.

EQ is not meant to color.