Do we need hi res files?

[Scroobius]

Hey Pedal,

2. The second solution is much easier: Take any well recorded hi-rez album in 24/192 and convert it to 16/44 with a suitable software. (This is what they do in the masterstudio anyway). Then listen and compare.

If you down sample in the way you suggest then you HAVE TO apply a brick wall filter so that images (per Nyquist) do not appear in the audible band in the 16/44 file. That is potentially a VERY VERY bad thing to do to the sound quality and means it would never be possible to do a meaningful comparison.

As an aside it is deeply sad that recording engineers do not appear to understand some of the basics and that if you upsample or downsample there are potentially big prices to be paid in terms of sound quality. Well in terms of upsampling Peter has shown it is possible to do a good job - but how many others do? none that I know of. But in the case of down sampling well it is the work of the devil and should never be done.

The original SQ of a mastertape is better preserved in 24/192 than in 16/44

Well technically for sure that may seem to be correct - but does it actually work in practice? - I do not know the answer to that question and at the end of the day there is only one way I am going to get an answer and that is to use my ears - I certainly would not take the word of anyone in the recording industry.

P

[Flecko]

If you down sample in the way you suggest then you HAVE TO apply a brick wall filter so that images (per Nyquist) do not appear in the audible band in the 16/44 file. That is potentially a VERY VERY bad thing to do to the sound quality and means it would never be possible to do a meaningful comparison.

It is maybe affecting the sound but it is by far not the worst thing that can happen. Using a bad sounding reverb, overdooing it with equalizers or compressors can realy destroy the sound. And that is what is done in the first place. We were lucky if we could realy complain about downsampling. Also there is an advantage of recording in an higher sample rate because of the headroom that is needed to mix the musik.

Well in terms of upsampling Peter has shown it is possible to do a good job - but how many others do?

I know this is some fundamental thing and it is likely that not much people agree but the best dacs I have heard are "normal" upsampling dacs. Not that I heard the best dacs in the world but at least they are not that bad even if upsampling is done in the "normal" way. So, what I want to say is, that upsampling or downsampling are not what we should argue about. The bad guys are the overmixing and overmastering tone engineers (and all the mechanisms that lead to their incompetence). This affects the sound WAY more. And to change that it "just" needs some education and no technical revolution. Every thing is there to create a good sound from pocket money recording equipment. It just has to be done in a right and sensible way.

[PeterSt]

The bad guys are the overmixing and overmastering tone engineers (and all the mechanisms that lead to their incompetence). This affects the sound WAY more.

This is true. And sadly, this is the very first thing what "is applied" when HiRes is created out of originally good stuff. And there it fails. Completely.

Really? All of the old stuff sucks? -I dont think so.

Pedal I did not say that, and certainly did not imply that. You know in what realm I judge and write about it.
HOLY sh*t (by Bill Evans).
So please read better (or otherwise I must write better haha).

I am talking about the larger gamma of available HiRes, and not today's handful of recordings. This more old stuff - or even today's remasters like Waltz for Debby ... they all totally s*ck.

This is what I said, and it plainly tells about the older HiRes (early 2000's with nothing in between then and a few years back), all s*ck. Proove me otherwise.

More in the next post.

[pedal]

This discussion is all Déjà vu. Let’s put the hi-rez controversy in perspective, and paraphrase the topic of this thread:

"DO WE NEED STEREO?"

-Many listeners were dissatisfied with the first generation of stereo recordings in the 60s.
The first records sounded very annoying, with the vocals pan potted to the extreme left and the instruments to the extreme right channel.

Listeners felt that the established technology (mono) sounded better.
Even the musicians preferred mono. The Beatles recorded all albums in mono up until Abbey Road in 1969. (Stereo mixes was an afterthought, post-produced in the studio, mainly for the US marked).     

Because the recording industry hadn’t adopted the new technology, the first examples of the art were not so successful. At least not for pop/rock. (Early jazz/classical fared better).

--------------

There is nothing “wrong” with hi-rez, technology wise.
What’s wrong is the implementation of the technology.

But it will improve. Hi-rez is the future!


PS: Peter, did you listen to the Miles Davis track #2 from 1956? It's in glorious mono! 

[PeterSt]

This more old stuff - or even today's remasters like Waltz for Debby ... they all totally s*ck.

Really? All of the old stuff sucks? -I dont think so.
The oldest hi-rez album I have is probably the 24/96 version of Miles Davis - Relaxin With The Miles Davis Q. Track 2: You're My Everything. It's a recording from 1956.

You have it too, I think. Give it a listen and tell me if it sucks 

What did I just say ? they all s*ck. This one too. Or especially, because of the poor distorted sound and all the anomalies in it;
It :

- Is no Hires at all (hard cut at 22.05);
- Is clipping in each track (not severely, but it does -> fine engineering);
- It does not contain any info under 100Hz, while there's a severe anomaly at 100HZ (should be some kind of hum);
- Sounds as flat as a pancake.

So, it fails all over, and this is what you put forward as an example-of ? I don't get it.

It doesn't matter with which one you come up, because here too, statistics proove that I will judge/write like this about any HiRes (older !) album anyone comes up with. So to be clear : not necessarily about today's.

I hear you say : yea, but this is 1956 ! So what ? read that Waltz for Debby topic I just pointed you at. Same story, although 5 years newer for that particular album, though remember I went back to 1958 I think, and all is just the best. Until, until it is remastered (which is different from a first transfer to CD), may it be just that remaster or a remaster for HiRes (which usually was for multichannel; this Miles Davis too if I see it right in the graphs). Really, I don't even need to look when it's 24/96 (24/192 is another story).

For this reason I want consumers to support hi-rez formats, so the music industry will be encouraged to increase their hi-rez output.

You sound like plugging something ?
It won't happen because it is too late. No digital sound engineers around to do it, and otherwise the tapes have worn out if they can be found at all.

Sooner or later you will get a flat hi-rez transfer of the NHOP mastertapes too.

... which will be the moment I don't play it.

Sadly I don't have the "original" CD album of this Miles Davis, but I can imagine I can dig it up somewhere. Otoh, it costs too much time to obtain the proper one. Like with Waltz for Debby; this example took me around a day to work out which version I have, which is a best one. All others are not at all (just the Redbook versions/remasters) and *still* I couldn't point you to this version. So, never mind.

The latter implies the danger of liking "HiRes" better than that Redbook version you coincidentally have, because it will just be another remaster. So, any remaster sounds completely different, and the one is worse than the other. This means that comparing already is a difficult task because you'd first have to *know* that you have the most original one. Like one which went to CD in the early 80's or so. When people didn't understand how to molest anyway.

I have quite some emails from people like you, who will never give up on their IDEAS of HiRes. It sounds better such and it is better so. A bit of a pitty if such an example isn't HiRes in the first place, don't you think ? This one, by accident, is in the open. Not really my fault, but it is a nice example.


My own example of good HiRes usually is about Beck's Sea Change (24/88). Technically good, but at the 4th track you will be sleeping. And then to think I never compared it with a Redbook version; it's just technically good which is audible in the absolute sense.
Also technically good are a few Alice Cooper albums in 24/192. Here though, it's the problem that it flaws for the recordings themselves (just poor sound, and not my music either). There isn't much more around.

Possibly the DSD originals bring something for the better. But this has its own problems, and the only confidence we can have is that it won't be manipulated (mind you, when original indeed, and which sure will exist).


Peter

[pedal]

What did I just say ? they all s*ck. This one too. Or especially, because of the poor distorted sound and all the anomalies in it;

It is interesting how we perceive sound quality in different ways.

I love the track You're My Everything - Miles Davis Quintet/Relaxin, album downloaded from HD Tracks at the modest price of $20 in 24/96. It was remastered by Rudy himself in 2005.

The song opens with studio chatter between Miles and Rudy Van Gelder, literally transporting the listener into the studio, witnessing Miles Davis in his prime. Poor Rudy only had a couple of microphones. The 2 horn blowers Miles/Coltrane shares one, and the piano and the rhythm section sharing the rest.
Of course there is lack of bass and treble. It is recorded in 1956, after all. But when I listen to “historical” recordings like this, I tend to filter out the anomalies. The muted trumpet is remarkable present and “in the room”, even more than on some modern recordings.

So, it fails all over, and this is what you put forward as an example-of ? I don't get it.

It was just an example of splendid preservation of a 55 year old 2-track mono recording.

Sadly I don't have the "original" CD album of this Miles Davis, but I can imagine I can dig it up somewhere. Otoh, it costs too much time to obtain the proper one.

It can probably be found here somewhere, 2nd hand as low as $5.-.

But according to Rudy Van Gelder, buying the original CD is a waste of time. Contrary to your believe, he disapproves about the first generation CD from this particular session, due to bad sound. You can read the interesting interview here: in-conversation-with-rudy-van-gelder

BTW: I brought the 24/96 download to a friend. (You know who). He has €50,000,- vinyl rig. The 24/96 was much better than his 180g audiophile reissue. The vinyl was muted and dull in comparison. Then he pulled out a second copy. -A very old pressing. Apart from lots of scratches and surface noise, it sounded much better than the reissue, and more or less equal to the download (through a Buffalo II). Through my NOS1 the 24/96 probably sounds even better than the old vinyl pressing.

It doesn't matter with which one you come up, because here too, statistics proove that I will judge/write like this about any HiRes (older !) album anyone comes up with.

Never say never! You should try ELP/Brain Salad Surgery, then. The last track #9 Lucky Man on the 24/96 DVD-A. It was originally recorded in 1970, included here as a bonus track. Sounds fresh like a daisy, 41 years later. 

The latter implies the danger of liking "HiRes" better than that Redbook version you coincidentally have, because it will just be another remaster. So, any remaster sounds completely different, and the one is worse than the other. This means that comparing already is a difficult task because you'd first have to *know* that you have the most original one. Like one which went to CD in the early 80's or so. When people didn't understand how to molest anyway.

Oh, I have experienced lot’s of bad hi-rez albums. After purchasing hundreds I have paid dearly for it. But in spite of some stinkers, I am very fond of the good ones. And I applaud the increasing number of new hi-rez titles arriving every month. Old and new music. This market is certainly growing.

[CoenP]

Imho the original post of this thread was all about the redbook capabilities of the NOS USB.

I can now testify that the discussion hires or redbook is rather academic in this perspective. Some of my better redbooks sound finer that any hires recording ever did on my set.

Furthermore, technically I am not convinced that more DR and more ultrasone information make any sense. This is not wrt our auditory system but rather the limitations of the recording and reproduction technologies. Potentially the increase in linearity (needed to catch a signal in >20 bits) is the most prominent reason that hires can sound better.

regards, Coen