Hi-Def... that's really helpful, isn't it?

Posted by: rjstaines on 18 June 2014

So now we know what Hi-Def is... High-resolution audio is defined as: "Lossless audio that is capable of reproducing the full range of sound from recordings that have been mastered from better-than-CD quality music sources."

 

So says The Digital Entertainment Group (DEG) which has been working with the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) and The Recording Academy to finalise the definition as the format grows in popularity.

 

'That's really helpful' I thought to myself as I read the article in What HiFi ...

 

http://www.whathifi.com/news/new-formal-definition-for-high-resolution-audio-agreed?utm_medium=EMAIL&utm_campaign=ENews%20Bulletins&utm_source=June%2018,%202014&utm_content=article_1_image

 

...and then I took another sip of my beer and thought to myself  'No it *** isn't !'

 

 

Posted on: 18 June 2014 by Aleg

Read also this reply by Mark Waldrep on the CEA statement: 

http://www.realhd-audio.com/?p=3073

 

 

Posted on: 18 June 2014 by rjstaines

Thanks Aleg, hadn't seen this from Mark Waldrep.

 

I note with interest Mark's comments: 

"Under the definition as written…everything can be considered high-resolution!" and "Something has gone terribly wrong when a few bureaucrats (an official who works by fixed routine without exercising intelligent judgment) can render a definition meaningless. His or her job is to keep everyone happy.... This is the first shot into the demise of high-resolution audio. I’m not happy."

 

If I hadn't worked in the music industry for so long, I would be worried by this, but as it is, I have the utmost faith in the music companies ultimately doing what the consumer (that's us) wants.

 

Only problem is, having worked in the music industry for so long, I know exactly how long 'ultimately' can take !  

Posted on: 18 June 2014 by Simon-in-Suffolk

Aleg, Rjstaines thanks for the posts... I think Mark's point is that high definition audio quality is not just defined by the data rate of the medium... In which case I totally agree.. But of course that would be harder for the cookie cutters and cataloguers to deal with... They might have to listen and judge for themselves.

Simon

 

Posted on: 18 June 2014 by Aleg
Originally Posted by Simon-in-Suffolk:

Aleg, Rjstaines thanks for the posts... I think Mark's point is that high definition audio quality is not just defined by the data rate of the medium... In which case I totally agree.. But of course that would be harder for the cookie cutters and cataloguers to deal with... They might have to listen and judge for themselves.

Simon

 

The point that Mark is really advocating is that only music recorded in high-resolution format (and that is a format capable of representing signals beyond the human hearing) should be called HiRes Audio when it then also is delivered inside a highres container.

 

So for Mark analogue masters donot qualify as highres because of their limited bandwidth that falls within the capabilities of Redbook CD.

 

What he sees as the demise of HighRes Audio even before it has taken off, is that marketing people are influencing definitions in order to be able to market to old non-highres stuff anew as highres just by changing the resolution of the container it is delivered in.

Posted on: 19 June 2014 by J.N.

It's a marketing exercise, plain and simple. Buy your fave music all over again. It's highly debatable whether the old stuff will sound 'better'. I doubt it.

 

New recordings from the major labels are pretty much all down the toilet. I've just received the latest John Hiatt CD. Fabulous music, but the recording is nothing short of a crime to an audiophile. I've ripped it in 'iTunes Plus' (256k) to get the best performance/sound/musical enjoyment from it. My CD555 mangles it into a dead, flat, forced mush with zero dynamic range.

 

Salvation recently came in the form of 'Build Me Up From Bones' by Sarah Jarosz on the indie Sugar Hill label. Lovely music and recording quality. It can still be done but 'the majors' are not interested. The mp3 player is king as far as they are concerned, and mastering is optimised for it.

 

John.

Posted on: 19 June 2014 by Bert Schurink

The concerning point is here that one pays good money and expects to get a high quality product but sometimes get's cheated. For new music i don't care so much as the price is very often the same or more or less similar to a cd. So if that every now and then leads to a stunning recording - I am fine being cheated in general.

Posted on: 19 June 2014 by Jota

http://xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

Posted on: 19 June 2014 by Aleg
Originally Posted by Jota:

http://xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

I wish they would remove that posting from the internet as it is a load of bull.... as has been discussed and shown before on this Naim forum. Do a search and you read why it is a flawed article.

Posted on: 19 June 2014 by Huge
Originally Posted by Aleg:
Originally Posted by Jota:

http://xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

I wish they would remove that posting from the internet as it is a load of bull.... as has been discussed and shown before on this Naim forum. Do a search and you read why it is a flawed article.

+1 It's flawed from both the technically and biological perspectives (I have experience in both areas).