Hi-res formats, impressions?

Posted by: goldfinch on 07 October 2008

Hi, there are a few sites where is possible to buy Hi-res recordings. This site offers free downloads in order to test different formats.

http://www.2l.no/hires/index.html

I am curious about whether this formats are really a substantial step ahead in audio quality. AFAIK resampling has bad reputation because it usually adds distortion to the music. Maybe that's the reason several Mac/Lavry users have reported poor results in 96/24 format. I also prefer standard 44.1/16 resolution in my M-audio sound card but I wonder how much good can sound a native 96/24 track. In theory these hi-res formats are beyond human perception capabilities so I don´t know exactly why they can sound better.

Have any HDX or external DAC user any opinion about these hi-res formats?
Posted on: 24 October 2008 by ferenc
Hi Steve,

I converted a short few minutes piece of one of tracks of a very well known progressive rock LP to all the different sampling rates as in case of the previously uploaded jazz track. It is recorded from a completely different LP chain.

I can upload it only when I am back in the office which will not be earlier than next Tuesday, Wednesday. My home internet is just crap unfortunately, so you have to wait a little bit Smile

According to my experiments, 88.2k/16 bit is a kind of sweetspot. This where the jump from 44.1k/16 bit is really obvious for all sorts of listeners and audio systems, we did have some tests with my pro and hifi friends and usually found 88.2/16 bit the most efficient sampling rate, where you can keep the storage capacity requirement on a relatively low level, but the quality of the music reproduction jumps qute a bit. Unfortunately it is not supported by a Mac and a Toslink connection, so you need to use 96k in this case.

You can use it for demo of course, I am thinking of to upload some examples of more live recordings as well, similarly in different sampling rates, we will see.
Posted on: 24 October 2008 by gary1 (US)
Steve as with most things the source used and the A2D converter will have a big effect on the final result. Just putting this down to point out that not all 24 bit vinyl A2D transfers will be equal.

24 bit A2D vinyl recordings are very impressive as I've listened to from Ken's recording both with the Nagra 6 and TC K8 as the converter. The Nagra recordings far surpass the K8-- again equipment matters. Also those done after the Superline was added are immensely better than without. Since my only chance to listen to vinyl is at the shop I don't get alot of opportunity, but suffice to say that the 24 bit A2D vinyl recordings (LP12/Superline/Nagra 6-HC2) played back through the Nagra or HDX were better than the straight vinyl played on the LP 12 before the superline and come close to vinyl replay with the superline. Very impressive indeed.
Posted on: 24 October 2008 by goldfinch
quote:
Originally posted by winkyincanada:
Goldfinch, I'm not sure I quite understand your logic regarding bit-depth, but it does raise an idea. You rightly state that higher bit-depth allows greater dynamic range, but that this is perhaps not necessary due to the system, environmental and biological limits already being well-served by a 96db range of 16-bit systems. Compressed recordings use even less of the full 96db, so higher bit-rates on these doesn't seem useful at first glance.

Nevertheless, a recording compressed, but still recorded in 24-bit to preserve the "resolution" could perhaps be de-compressed to provide increased dynamic range at a quality that is no worse than a 16-bit system. It's maybe a way of combating the "Loudness wars". It's kind of like mucking around in "levels" or "curves" in photoshop (or just using the contrast slider). If you first convert your image to 16-bit (rather than the default 8-bit of jpeg) you can compress and more importantly decompress the contrast (dynamic range) but create far fewer quality degrading artifacts like banding than if you were working at a lower bit depth.

Software (and even hardware) can be configured to decompress sound (make soft sounds softer and loud sounds louder). The trick is to do it without degrading the sound and without making it sound "fake". Starting with high bit-rate data presumably makes it easier.

The RIAA EQ standard on vinyl is actually sort of an analogue analogue of this idea.

Recording engineers might object to hi-fi manufacturers and users having this sort of control, but I suspect that many components don't have strictly linear gain curves anyway, so the horse may have already bolted one way or the other. In any case, if the quality of a lot of modern rock/pop recordings is anything to go by, they have no-one but themselves to blame!

It's all probably moot, as those who would release 24-bit music are not those who would compress the life out of it in the first place.


It would be nice to have a "de-compression" utility but I suppose such a processing tool couldn't match the original master recording dynamics, it would be an artificial way of increasing dynamic range which can result in something different from what musicians want to express.
Anyway, for studio purposes I think it is useful to make recordings with higher resolution because different post-production tasks can compromise dynamics.
Posted on: 28 October 2008 by ferenc
So I uploaded a prog rock sampler as well. As earlier, in 44k, 48k, 88k, 96k, 176k, 192k and in 16 and 24 bits plus the original DSD files. Digitized from a mid - level record player and cartridge and phono, using Korg - MR 1000 pro DSD hard disk recorder. Have fun!

rock sampler
Posted on: 29 October 2008 by SteveH
ferenc

Thanks again

Had a quick listen this morning and 88.2 again seemed to be the optimum in terms of performance gains.