E-Mail 'HD-Audio Survey Update' To A Friend

Email a copy of 'HD-Audio Survey Update' to a friend

* Required Field






Separate multiple entries with a comma. Maximum 5 entries.



Separate multiple entries with a comma. Maximum 5 entries.


E-Mail Image Verification

Loading ... Loading ...

11 thoughts on “HD-Audio Survey Update

  • July 23, 2020 at 6:47 am
    Permalink

    Why is there no such audio format as 64 bits 48 kHz mono or stereo considering the sample rate is anyway to be oversampled or upsampled by the DAC itself ?

    • July 23, 2020 at 7:50 am
      Permalink

      Because adding bits beyond those that can perfectly capture real world dynamic range and then some is a waste of data. All we need it 24-bits to capture 140ish dB of dynamic range…much more than even the loudest metal band.

      • July 23, 2020 at 2:09 pm
        Permalink

        Quite possibly, 64-bit FP will provide the current minimum of quantization noise.

        • July 23, 2020 at 3:00 pm
          Permalink

          Quantization noise associated with 24-bits is already below the noise floor of the recordings.

          • July 25, 2020 at 9:04 am
            Permalink

            64-bit FP has enough headroom for any kind of editing without negative consequences and also no downconversion should be devised. The proposed format is as straight as AVI Uncompressed in video and will be the ultimate in audio realm.

          • July 25, 2020 at 9:18 am
            Permalink

            24-bits also has more than enough headroom – more than the loudest acoustic sounds. And there is no need to downconvert to any other bit size. There is not increase in fidelity by moving to 64-bit or 352.8 sample rate. Real world audio fidelity is completely captured at 96/24.

  • July 23, 2020 at 11:35 pm
    Permalink

    did aforementioned member refer to some specific publication such as Joshua Reiss meta-analysis or something else?

    • July 24, 2020 at 6:58 am
      Permalink

      I’m aware of the Reiss meta-analysis. However, it was not mentioned in the rebuke I received from the AES member.

  • July 26, 2020 at 11:44 am
    Permalink

    One more thing Mark…

    To use an analogy from the pharmaceutical / medical world, what you’re doing is like “Phase IV” research.

    You’re engaging in “post-marketing” research here since Hi-Res has been sold as a remedy of sorts for years. Looking for effectiveness among “patients” as it were with your verifiably “pure” drug from a bona fide hi-res studio – as opposed to the questionable products from certain dirty labs ;-).

    • July 28, 2020 at 12:38 pm
      Permalink

      Thanks…I like this notion a lot. It’s exactly right. They can do research on twenty-year olds in sound proof chamber, play loud noise bursts at 44.1 and 192 kHz, and claim that Hi-Res Audio is audible. But in the real world — for those of us over 50 with compromised hearing and no anechoic chamber — listening to music is different. There is no audible difference between a CD and a high-res file in spite of the fact that you did very well on the HD-Audio Challenge II. Thanks!

Comments are closed.