Proving Hi-Res Music: What Then?
Let’s drift into one of those dream sequences that you see on old televisions shows and imagine a future when the perceptibility of “high-resolution music” is shown to be an in disputable fact. What then? Does it mean that the music industry and consumer electronics manufacturers are going to produce content and equipment better than they do now? Will consumers…casual fans and audiophiles alike…benefit from the new found discovery that humans can hear and appreciate sound beyond current standards? The answer to both of these fundamental questions is no. If the day comes when a properly researched study proves that CD resolution is not enough, it won’t change anything.
The imagined study will report that any “potential” sonic improvements offered by moving from 16 to 24-bits (like lower noise floor and greater dynamic range) is negated by the fact that no commercial recordings are produced that need the increased dynamics. Virtually all of the recordings being made in the commercial pop/rock studios around here are being done at 48 kHz/24-bits…not 96 kHz and certainly not 192 kHz. Those who write such things in blog posts and magazines are dreaming. The use of 24-bit systems to capture live sound is a tremendously important advance in the art of recording but the rest of the production process chips away at the source dynamics and by the time you get to hear the final mastered, artist approved, radio friendly, downloadable track, all of the fidelity has been stripped away. Forget about needing any more than 16-bits. Being given 24-bit files is a waste of space and bandwidth. It’s a feel good thing appropriated by marketing people to increase sales.
And in our fantasy, ultrasonic frequencies will be shown to enter the brain through mechanisms that we haven’t yet discovered. And when they are shown to exist, no one will care because once again the material being distributed on disc, through streams, and as files don’t use the full potential of the format. There are some reel-to-reel masters that will benefit from the extra octave but who’s got the speakers…the super tweeters…to put those frequencies back into the room. If the higher sampling rates make the filters smoother, then great.
Here’s where we see the wavy filter on the visuals and wake from our dream. Our new knowledge tells us not to care so much about higher fidelity audio and music. The rare recordings that actually do meet the high-res standards aren’t ever going to be hits…just move on. The equipment that most people have at home, in their cars, and in their back pockets can’t deliver the hi-res music to listeners. The whole “hi-res” initiative is nothing but smoke and mirrors. Really.
But for those individuals that want the best of the best in audio recordings and reproduction, it’s just too easy to provide recordings at 96 kHz/24-bits. I came to the decision some years ago that I don’t need the proof. If the ultrasonics are in the room where the band was performing, then I want to capture them and reproduce them…that means using 96 kHz. If the percussionist or drummer hits a rim shot or the finale to Mussorgsky’s “Great Gates of Kiev” reaches triple forte, I want 24-bits to provide me all of the dynamic range. It used to be difficult to successfully record at this level of fidelity. It’s not anymore. We’ve got the gear at the production end AND we have the consumer equipment (and it can be done affordably) to deliver it. Just do it because it’s easy.
What’s all the fuss about proving high-res audio using ABX testing?
Hello Mark
Where are all the Mark Waldrep graduates? Young people advocating for the best available practice. This could be a positive marketing push for a record label willing to spent a little more time in the studio. You stated the other day that pop/rock music may not benefit, but I can tell you that some of my cd’s sound good and some sound mediocre, so clearly there is a wide range of opinion on what is, “good”. I agree with you that just because I personally may not hear huge differences with hirez does not mean that one should not employ state of the art technology.
They want to work doing what the industry asks them to do…and I’m OK with that. At least they know what’s possible.
“But for those individuals that want the best of the best in audio recordings and reproduction, it’s just too easy to provide recordings at 96 kHz/24-bits.”
That’s the bottom line Mark, you hit the nail on the head. It’s more than time to leave behind 75 year old technology, quit wasting time, money and resources on mylar tape and start recording with the best processes we have at our disposal. Even if for garbage like Jay Z’s LOL
Thanks Sal.
Glad to hear you still agree with the 24 bit thing. Definitely a difference between 16 and 24 bit. Though the difference between 48, 96, 192 sampling rate is much harder to distinguish. Any commercial studios I’ve worked in all record at 24 bit. Sometimes not so much for the final listening result, but simply because the plug-ins and other mixing tools often operate at higher bit levels (some at 32 bit) and the results are much better than working with a source 16 bit file.
The bit depth is the parameter that makes the most difference…but the benefit is lost on most released material. Too bad.
CD-quality is enough just in terms of frequency response. But…
CD recording must be produced this way: record 16-bit at, say, 352.8 kHz with NO input filter, then simply decimate it down to 44.1 kHz.
At playback, the track will be oversampled [again, not upsampled!] N times [24 years past yet and standard WAVE file still has not got 64-bit header, alas] trying to fix the two issues: high frequencies decrease & output filter time dispersion.
24-bits is unnecessary for lower noise floor and greater dynamic range since there are such things as dither and noise shaping. The only case when 24-bits is better is when a sound engineer hasn’t enough skill to handle 16-bits.
One more question: have you ever met a studio monitor with at least 8-inch sound diaphragm ?
If download sites charged the same price for the high-resolution version and the standard resolution version – as you suggested in your 10 steps –, there might not be any fuss. Since consumers are being asked to spend more for high-resolution, there are some people who have taken it upon themselves to protect the buying public from these charlatans who are peddling snake oil that couldn’t possibly make an audible difference. Sound familiar? đŸ˜‰
I prefer to think I’m providing information that allows consumers to make informed decisions…ones that hopefully will allow the high-res business to succeed.
Have you ever met a FULL-RANGE studio monitor with at least 8-inch sound diaphragm ?
I believe any ABX testing needs to include several “null” tests – where either the A or B selection is played
both times (and the subject is not told about this) – let’s see how the “perfect” ears decide which one is the best. The more I read about this, the less I care. I’ll just listen and decide for myself. Overall my experience leads me to believe CD quality, if mastered correctly, is just fine.
I agree…this is a great idea.
Now we are getting to the crux of the matter.
I absolutely agree that just in case us listeners can by some means appreciate better than 44/16 sound, lets just do it in 96/24 anyway in as much of the body of the production process as possible and forget that bit. But do lets be realistic about both analogue ends.
Front end. Those large orchestras which actually have high dynamic ranges are typically multi mic’d (add multiple analogue noise sources even from the best U67is) in less than quiet venues (add venue noise) and we are at about 70-80db dynamics at best. So 19-20 bits should be fine. This leaves 4-5 bits extra for production “processing”. As for frequencies, yes, lets have all that we can into the ultrasonics.
Back end. Human hearing. Babies might hear above 20Khz, adolescents 18-20Khz (assuming they haven’t bashed their ears with too high SPL earphones over extended periods), and mature folks (the typical folks who have enough money and inclination to purchase high res gear and argue about its merits or otherwise for ever) say round 12-15Khz (assuming they also haven’t given themselves an ear-bashing at some stage). Most people do not have bats or dolphins living at home, so who actually needs much more than 20Khz?
In summary don’t lets get too fixated on the potential technical quality or otherwise of recorded sound. We now have the capability as Mark rightly says to create recordings of more than necessary quality at manageable cost. Most decent sound reproduction systems are capable of recreating almost anything that is actually likely to be thrown at them. Personally the quality of the musical performance and recording techniques used feature much higher in my book. I’ve heard some really stunning complex renditions with great emotional impact created using not so high (perhaps analogue?) quality, but far too many sterile contrived “little” emotionally flat recordings supposedly to set your heart on fire just because they are presented in high res. ‘Get a life’ folks.
Bruce.
Thanks Bruce…you’re right. There are realities in every situation that compromise the potential quality. But I don’t think we should lower the bar to the individual situation.
The world of photography is divided into “sufficers” and “pixel peepers”. We are seeing this replicated in audio. There won’t be a sudden shift from 16/44 to 24/96. Rather a gradual “drip, drip, drip” of audiophiles demanding better files will slowly enter the public conscience. Unless there is some disruptive technology that makes it simpler, cheaper and faster to acquire and listen to quality files but that’s really dreaming.
The key is it will really only happen for audiophiles.
I don’t know Mark. If the price of software drops down to that of SD, the hardware is just about there already, heck phones are doing 24/196 now, I see HDA just becoming the standard
Whether or not person can perceive, or his equipment reproduce an audible difference, should we not make the masters of any given performance as high fidelity as possible? For decades studio masters were recorded on analog tapes and then cut to vinyl. Did the vinyl capture the full capability (dynamic range, frequency, etc.) of the best analog tapes? Probably not, but no one complained. Analog tape has been surpassed by 96/24 digital. This should be what every recording studio uses to create their master recordings.
When the vinyl record reined supreme, no one demanded a consumer product which could deliver the same experience as listening to the master tapes. Well, at least not the majority. Cassette tapes were analogous to today’s MP3 format in the 70’s and early 80’s. Most people considered them worth having because, as with today’s MP3, they were convenient even if the sound was compromised. Since most people seemed satisfied with their cassette tapes, should we have, at that time, started using 4 track cassettes for the studio masters? If you say no to that, then why do you say no to hi-res music or at least mastering in true hi-res?
Maybe with your current playback system, you’re unable to perceive any appreciable improvement with bit rates higher than 16/44.1. Wouldn’t you like the idea that some day affordable mainstream music reproduction systems will be able to reproduce the full sonic spectrum of the source? And, when you upgrade to equipment with the hi-res audio logo, you needn’t repurchase your favorite music in hi-res because it is already hi-res because with the adoption of 96/24 as the standard, all reproductions are also 96/24. Simple!
Simple is not what the studios want. The studios want you to believe that hi-res is worth more even though most of what is sold as hi-res is nothing more than a CD rip thrown into a bit bucket with a bunch of added zeros. Pathetic.
I bought my first turntable in 1972. I used my parent’s before that. I was a vinyl junkie, dyed in the wool.I purchased my first CD in 1999. Yep, I hated digital. I, up until then, had never heard a CD that sounded as good or better than its vinyl counterpart. Then I heard a Mobile Fidelity Gold CD. Game over. I still keep vinyl alive because a great many remastered CDs are junk and MoFi hasn’t remastered all of my favorites (yet).
Exactly my point. Thanks.
Wow, great post and really informative comments. Industry needs to not sell hi-def, hi-res anything, they just need to use the best technology available and explain clearly to consumers what the new technology benefits are.
HDTV doesn’t really help a presidential debate, but a documentary on Hawaii benefits greatly from the higher resolution images.
Be honest and don’t charge more for something that does not cost you more to produce. Improve recordings for everyone at no additional cost. Then sell more recordings than before.
It seems that the only comments that appear here are those that agree with Mr Waldrep’s point of view….
Hello Ken…I read that you’re a fellow Detroiter. I can’t tell you why people generally write in support…they must like what I have to say, I guess. But I can tell you that I don’t exclude any negative comments that are submitted. Everyone is welcome to post their thoughts…as long as they are polite and respectful. If you have something to contribute, please feel free to post.
Thanks for that info Mark. Being a hardcore analog kinda guy not sure I have a dog in this fight, but I am enjoying the education.
Detroit, the true Naked City!
Ken, have you downloaded any of the demo tracks on my FTP site. It might be worth the effort.
I do not understand why so many out there feel the need to protect me from the snake oil of better than CD recordings.
There are always snide comments about playing music for my dog or my speakers will explode if I play 24 bit content.
It gives passionate audiophiles something to talk about.