Hi-Res Audio: Don't waste your money!

[@mxbishop]

I've spent most of my life recording and listening to music. I started out recording from LP to cassette tape, then from CDs to MDs. Then from CDs to MP3s. Then downloading CD-quality files. And then, hi-res downloads. And then, streaming hi-res music. I've searched high and low for the best recordings, and the best way to hear them. I've listened to all the formats, on all kinds of equipment, on all kinds of speakers, in all kinds of environments. From portable players, to very nice car stereos, to very high-end gear in controlled listening rooms. My conclusion: The mastering/mixing is everything. Sure, a poor quality cassette tape, in a poor quality cassette player - is going to sound terrible. But a poorly mastered/mixed song is going to sound terrible - no matter what format, sampling rate, or bit depth, one is using to store it. To better illustrate what I'm talking about, consider this: I have a new CD by Melody Gardot called "Sunset In The Blue". Just a plain-old Redbook CD, nothing special about the audio format: 2-channel stereo, 44.1 KHz sample rate, 16 bit word depth. And it sounds freaking amazing. (Sony CDP-X77ES player, McIntosh MA6900, rendered on the original B&W 703 speakers, with premium interconnects and speaker cables.) It's like Ms. Gardot is in the room, singing to me, personally. The music is alive. I hear no noise, no artifacts, nothing thin, weak, muffled, or fuzzy. Just great sound. That is what the standard 44.1 16 bit format is capable of - with an expert recording, that is mixed properly. Having gone down the high-end, hi-res road for decades, and discovering what I know now, I would say most people will be better rewarded by searching for those tracks that are expertly mastered/mixed - and spending less time trying to find the hi-res holy grail. And perhaps, with the money saved by not purchasing hi-res files, more funds are available to purchase additional music, and/or to make equipment improvements. This has been my experience.

[@ВадимРогашев]

👍💯

[@neotrue]

Yes, this is the right direction to get a better sound of audio. We all known 'garbage in, garbage out'.

[@davidsagarra9841]

I agree 100%👍

[@anthonylee7263]

Cannot agree more, the original recording is everything

[@EskWIRED]

You are completely correct. But you should go further. HD remasters of those great albums, carefully made from the original tapes can be incredible.

[@robertlakay88]

People don't realise how high quality music the CD format can offer. Most times when CDs sound bad it's the mastering and not the format.

[@AudioFixation]

Quite right

[@thiscorrosion900]

A lot of people maintain that CD was always bound to sound harsher or less warm than any analog medium, but that wasn't always the case even in the mid or late 80s. If that were the case, why did so many classical nuts adopt the CD right away, basically? I'm sure many of them were people with super high end systems as well. Still though, I used to sometimes compare things like the later CD of say, Pink Floyd's Animals to my original 77 vinyl LP, and the latter won out every time, the vinyl on a good table and system sounded warmer and more dynamic, without a doubt. The CD sounded fine, but the vinyl (drums and bass in particular) sounded better and warmer. But yes, a lot of it is also due to the source, mastering, etc. Later DDD all digital recording and mastering was a whole other animal as well. It's also crucial as to what system you're pushing it through, amp, DAC, etc.

[@JnL_SSBM]

@@AudioFixation CD quality is NOT enough for loudness war recordings. This is why Hi-Res exists...! UNLESS you have an early ol' "well-mastered" CD like Pink Floyd as mentioned above so, no problem.

[@MikeleKonstantyFiedorowiczIV]

if its properly recorded without loudness wars

[@kartoffelbrei8090]

@@JnL_SSBM Not a reasoning i have heard before. Pls elaborate.

[@meaninthemirror]

16bit 44.1kHz is already a hi-res format.

[@aanihood1]

epic reply

[@milan425]

He said in intro DON'T GET TRIGGERED!

[@gg.6967]

Technically 24/48 kHz, but you are theoretically and emotionally supported here. And you earn a thumbs up 👍.

[@D1N02]

​@@milan425too late, the click bait title send me over here in a foaming rage

[@D1N02]

It is moot. They will call anything with a a higher bitrate or depth than CD high res. I only notice it from 88.2 KHz

[@lighteningwawa]

A lot people have the misconception that digital music are reconstructed in a zig-zag fashion. Meaning instead a smooth wave, the reconstructed wave has shapes like staircases. And that is completely not true at all! According to Nyquist-Shannon theorem, sampling at double the highest frequency of the input would contain enough information to reconstruct the smooth original signal. What's needed after the "staircase signal" is simply a low-pass filter.

[@zekiz774]

Well not the original, but yes, it's smooth. It interpolates the points

[@BleakVision]

CD- Audio is one of the most future-proof technologies in history. The engineers did everything right, and then some.

[@thomasalexand]

Production is crucial. I have a number of cds that sound awful.

[@emotown1]

CD production is pretty reliable - unless it’s a bootleg bought in some flea-market of a live recording of “band X”.! I’ve been listening to all varieties of stuff …. VanGelis to Joe Satriani … for thirty odd years, on CDs. Never came across a ‘poorly produced’ one. And if it was, then the vinyl version would likewise have been ‘poorly produced’, badly mixed , etc.

[@carljung9230]

a lot of audiophiles are into numbers. actually listening to the music is secondary. and they do not like blind testing! my god if you want to make some heads pop show how $2000 cables are only for the well off and gullible...

[@kurtsanches8819]

I think it's wrong that you generalize people, not all audiophiles don't do blind testing, it's not placebo. Although I agree that a lot of audiophile products are extremely overpriced, but we already got a lot of chinese hifi now, and several startups focusing on hifi audio, which offers a lot of good stuff without breaking a bank. It's really easy to say that if you are not really into it, I was exactly the same skeptical as you are before, see how the world are being dominated by technology now, but how can a lot of audio companies survive for so many decades and even century even without expanding their territory to other products? they spent so much time and money on R&D, and they mastered it really well. I grew up listening on my favorite bands on basic entry level audio equipment, I'm not really into hi-fi until I was able to tests out high-end equipment from a demo, I listen to music I used to listen to growing up, and I was blown away by so much details I was missing, those music are already burned into my brain and I know them all already but I didn't know that it's gonna be more alive, more realistic, which brings so much joy on me personally. The thing is, we shouldn't talk like we used to understand everything in this world. I used to laugh at people before who's spending so much of an audio equipment but a dirt cheap ones also offer the same functions. The society has been fed up with crappy audio products, radio signals are compressed, but we listen to FM anyway, regardless of signal interferences, cassettes tapes can't even match the quality of CDs they sound really awful, but we consumed it anyway, CDs took way too long to be widely available, a lot of albums that you want aren't available on the store near you, people used to pirate them, pirated music are being compressed to save storage space. audio components used to be on high demand so everyone created something just to fill up the supply, ipods used to be on the hyped and everyone used to create mp3 players so others who can't afford them will have a cheap alternative option, and we get used to it. We are into something that can do the work, something that is okay quality, something that can play sound, we focused on the functionally and priced, and not the quality of the output. I didn't understand and didn't get the needs for a better audio equipment until I was able to experienced it myself. I'm a budget audiophile, and for me it's still ridiculous to spent so much on something that will only play sound, but the hobby gets super exciting since we got a lot of new players now offering top notch quality for so cheap. And yes, I can't tell the difference between a 320kbps mp3, a 16bit flac, and a 24bit flac if i play them on my cheap headphones, earphones, cheap bluetooth speaker. But I can hardly tell the difference in quality, separation of instruments, sound stage on 16bit and 42bit flac if I used my VE monk plus earphones which costs me 5USD.

[@maka8551]

wrong

[@maka8551]

@Oh FiddleSticks wrong

[@skesinis]

Great video and very thorough! I have only one addition regarding the higher sampling rate recordings: One reason about why the 44.1kHz sampling rate was considered “low” and why the first CD players that were ever created sounded a bit “metallic” is this: While the highest frequency that can be sampled is 22.1kHz, the whole spectrum of frequencies that can “pass” from the same sampled points is mirrored above that frequency. Even though these are clearly higher frequencies and we normally can’t hear them, their differences between the actual captured ones below the 22.1kHz and those mirrored above that fall into the hearing spectrum and these are the actual ones which can be heard. So there is a need for a filter to block anything above 22.1kHz in order to counter that effect. The first CD players had 6th to 8th degree filters (1st degree = 3db/octave 2nd degree = 6db/octave etc) because their filtering curve needed to be flat from 20Hz to 20kHz and then drop dramatically between 20kHz and 22.1kHz. Those filters have a dramatic effect in phase distortion which is something that you can clearly hear as a metallic sound in the high frequencies since this is where our hearing is more sensitive in phase differences for detecting sound direction. Later on, the oversampling was introduced, by interpolating samples using math in-between the actual recorded samples, resulting in a much higher “spectrum mirroring” frequency which now needed a simple 1st degree filter to have a flat response between 20Hz-20kHz. The actual question now is whether you can possibly hear with your equipment in a blind test, the mathematically interpolated samples of a 44.1kHz or 48kHz recording created by a DSP and the actually recorded samples of a higher sampling rate recording at 96kHz-384kHz or even 768kHz, and tell any difference in a blind test. As you mentioned in your video, anyone most likely can’t.

[@AudioFixation]

Thanks for watching and for the brilliantly detailed description of the filtering. I learnt something new!

[@skesinis]

@ReaktorLeak The filtering phase distortion was only one aspect of that harsh or metallic sound. The low accuracy of the sampling clocks in many early digital recordings was also another reason. Most recordings were firstly recorded in a multichannel tape in order to have room for correcting individual instrument mistakes by replaying the tape of the other instruments for example and having only the musician which made the mistake to listen the rest of the song and play their part again, or obviously for better recording quality, since each instrument was recorded with their respective microphone, made specifically for that instrument. After that, there was the down-mix stage to stereo, from which the master for an LP or a CD would be created. The RIAA curve EQ would be applied only at that stage in order to create the LP, so that wouldn’t affect the CD master. Each stage could be recorded either in an analog or digital format. There are always exceptions, like direct to disk recordings for example where the band would play for an entire LP side in one go and any mistake would cost an entire one side vinyl master but this whole process would be done to eliminate one stage of analog recording. I digress though as we’re talking about analog here and not about the oversampling using a DSP for the filtering vs the actual high frequency sampling for the same reason. At the end of the day though, a blind test is always the best way to judge between the two.

[@briannacluck5494]

Honestly appreciated this video. Now I don't feel guilty that some of my albums are "only" 16 bit FLAC files, and will stress myself out less trying to find places with 24 bit audio

[@TStephens21274]

@E. O. Yes they are lol. Name an album I’ll bet I can find the 24bit version easy.

[@gyjoci95]

@@TStephens21274 I name a few: any album from the rapper called Tech N9ne? I dont know he have any 24 bit album in the internet. I only know 2 or 4 song which are 24 bit these are only songs were he was featured.

[@TStephens21274]

@@gyjoci95 damn, only 24bit album I found by him was strangeulation vol 2

[@gyjoci95]

@@TStephens21274 I found it too thanks for your hint and I am already listening it. :D

[@TStephens21274]

@@gyjoci95 No problem! Enjoy!

[@davebing11]

once you get to CD grade (44.1 Khz @ 16 bits), The Mastering itself makes much more difference than additional resolution or sample rate.

[@goodsound4756]

It’s a common mistake that the big advantage of Hi-Res audio is the higher frequencies but it’s a better time resolution and less problematic digital reconstruction filters (noise shaping), so you don’t need to be Batman to profit from real Hi-Res. And actually we had a similar discussion when moving from standard TV to HDTV. People claimed that they won’t see the better resolution or the more colors. And now the same again with UHD TV. Just because you can’t see or hear the advantage of Hi-Res doesn’t mean others cannot as well. It’s individual, not absolute.

[@Digiphex]

You don't understand it. I was involved in early DSP and we did have problems initially and I keep seeing people bringing it up. But we fixed those problems in the first few years. With modern processor speeds of all digital equipment, there is no need for anything over 44.1K. The funny thing is that there in no extra information beyond the 44.1K file in 98% of the digital files sold. The recording equipment of the artist was not designed to capture it.

[@denizenofclownworld4853]

"digital reconstruction filters" hahaha, stop larping like you know something, kid.

[@JB19504]

Well, I can definitely see the difference between HD and UHD, but you have to have a large enough screen, and be sitting relatively close to the screen. If I watch a 4K Fox football game, and the switch to the regular HD broadcast of the same game, the way I can tell the difference is seeing the individual blades of grass on the field.

[@chipsnmydip]

This is true, and not super hard to hear. Though, noise shaping and decimation/reconstruction filters are separate things. What is more nebulous is why 24 bit (or 20-21 bit if you want to be reductive) sounds a bit smoother and more detailed than 16 bit on audio with equivalent dynamic range. Even on TAPE transfers. Tape transfers, and modern converters. Plain as day, neither 16 or 24 bit get all the detail of studio quality analog, in spite of low noise and distortion. Likewise, the steep and low DSP filters seem to flatten and make things stiff by dispersing transient energy sloppily through the frequency spectrum and creating timing uncertainty. It gets better with more bandwidth/sample rate, and filters designs also get better. The most accurate PCM A/D capture I've gotten was with a newer ADC with AKM chip, femto clock, and 192khz sample rate. It's not perfect, but that was about where I start to feel comfortable with PCM. It feels a bit silly that people think that recording quality negates the capture/playback medium. Is it more important? Definitely. But the best audio quality available will be well engineered recordings on high res PCM or DSD, intended to make the most of the format. I have no idea why anyone would rationalize lower audio standards on either the production side, or the capture medium.

[@timharbert7145]

Shhhh......keep CDs cheap. Encourage folks to stay away from CD.

[@AudioFixation]

🤣 good point tim

[@Sarge_72]

Yea CDs are ‘horrible’ Vinyl stores by me giving them away for $1-$3…. I have found a new hobby in looking for original masterings on CD from the 80s….. before the loudness wars….before the empire! 😂

[@kartoffelbrei8090]

I like you

[@dudexyt]

When MP3 became popular in the mid-late 90's, I was able to hear a difference between a high quality MP3 encoding of a CD track and the CD itself, using your standard consumer (Sony) headphones. And today, after getting some decent midrange hifi gear, I can hear a difference between, say an Apple mastered AAC and a CD recording of the same track, but it takes really dedicated listening and lots of repeat listening to hear the subtle differences. This is good news though, because it means your large playlists on Spotify, Apple Music (or preferred streaming service/download service), or your large compressed library of CD rips are enjoyable as is and you're not going to miss much unless you have the equipment to reveal the differences. And even then those differences are subtle, unless you spend the money where those differences can be magnified. This also means games can still be enjoyed even if they might compress sounds and music a bit more for space/memory savings. What does matter, though is how it's mastered. Sometimes a hi-res track might use new mastering that makes it sound better than the original CD recording. But say that a streaming service offers different mastered versions of the same song, that can have an appreciable difference in how the music sounds and how enjoyable it is. One example is Pearl Jam's debut album Ten. I've never really enjoyed the overall sound of Ten because of the mastering, and it took a lot of listening to really appreciate the music (and band) because it didn't have the "kick" or "vibe" of the "grunge" era artists of the period, but when they issued a new mix of it 10 years later, I enjoyed it more. In the remastered version of "Ten" you can hear Eddie Vedder's voice clearly when he mumbles or speaks softly during some parts of the song, and it has more of a hard rock feeling and vibe. It totally fits the sound of the period and it's more enjoyable.

[@AudioFixation]

Yes, I prefer the 10 remaster as well - much more depth and nuance than the original mix. Thanks for your insightful comments and for watching!

[@0852657luis]

I knew I wasn't the only one who didn't like ten (or pearl jam for that matter) the mixing in the original ten was just so unenjoyable to me and I've listened to the Melvins early stuff (a mix of lofi and HiFi) which sound quality is not the best but the mixing is honestly what holds it together raw and aggressive.

[@evtyler]

This is a topic I've struggled for years to understand and now I finally get it. Thank you so much for your brilliant and simple explanation!!!

[@AudioFixation]

Thanks for watching, glad you found it comprehensible!

[@FunkMonster98]

@@maka8551 Nice, we have an innocuous troll about.

[@dc99yt]

Hi-res is not useless, it gives you more head-room to do more real-time DSP processing without destroying quality. This means if we listen to hi-res music on a highly processed speaker box like (Homepod mini), it’s going to sound better. It’s the same analogy as why you KZbinr shoot in 4K even if the video is streamed at 1080. because it simply gives you more room for post-processing. IMO, hi-res will have more benefits for the mass consumers rather than the audiophiles.

[@AudioFixation]

I think that last point is a very good one David

[@simonjgriffiths]

That’s not a valid comparison. The KZbinr is post processing the master copy, as the consumer you still get the same download copy. Your argument might be valid for recording the master in higher res. BTW, you can’t stream hires to a HomePod (or any other air play device), so I’m afraid the benefit you’re looking for is impossible.

[@dc99yt]

@StringerNews1 If Hi-res is a waste of time, and nobody can tell the difference, why then aren’t recording studios storing master files in 44.1kHz 16-bit format to save time and money?

[@ArmidaMusic]

@@dc99yt Actually, I worked for many small but serious electronic music labels. Most of the master recordings we got were in 16bit 44.1 kHz. Even most samples in electronic music production are in this resolution.

[@maka8551]

@@simonjgriffiths wrong

[@shayhan6227]

Some (Such as Paul from PS Audio) say that increasing the sample rate is actually good as it helps further minimizes the effects of aliasing due to gentler frequency cut-off filters at the higher frequencies.

[@lemao7688]

Amazing video. Would love to see Qobuz offer a CD quality plan for let's say 9.99 instead of the minimum 14.99 that is hi res. For some reason all their recordings sounds better than the competition.

[@outisaudio5838]

Really loved hearing about all this stuff again. I took a course on Nyquist-Shannon, sampling, etc. in college and you did a great job summarizing it quickly (from what I remember). The major takeaway is that the people recording your music have already thought all this stuff through, way back in the eighties when this stuff was being invented by people with PhDs. We've understood the science of sound for quite a while, and while audio equipment has gotten way better for way cheaper, CD-quality audio is still just fine.

[@AudioFixation]

Well said my friend!

[@SuperSohaizai]

Isn't CD quality already considered lossless? I don't think I can hear the difference between 16bit and 24bit (be it lacking of capable gear or not sensitive enough ear). Going from mp3 to FLAC is quite something, but going further is just excessive to me. Is there even higher quality file that has that kind of big jump?

[@TStephens21274]

@@SuperSohaizai Yes, it’s called DSD and DXD.

[@SuperSohaizai]

@@TStephens21274 I just looked it up, and I don't think I understand everything. What I do understand is those formats are too "professional" for me, and probably don't care enough to get my hands on it. Maybe I'll try it when I come across in future (with good gears too)

[@TStephens21274]

@@SuperSohaizai I hear ya! It’s worth a listen when you have gear to play it.

[@tabloidannouncer1096]

Every time I get the urge to purchase hi-res audio equipment, I come back and rewatch this video to remind me of the limits of human hearing. Thank you for saving me a bunch of money.

[@fatheroflights887]

That seems rather self limiting, doesn't it? Denying yourself to make a decision with your own ears because of the limited opinion of some random person on the internet? If I were you, I wouldn't be proud of making the comment you made.

[@sebasosorio9084]

@@fatheroflights887 LOL, let us be hahaha

[@godekchen9658]

You forget the vibration...your entire body feel it,,😎😎😎😎

[@DhitishmanDas]

@@godekchen9658 True af bro

[@mickyj8412]

I'm currently on this boat myself. I'm digging and researching introduction to DAP's and DAC'S just because I purchased new IEM's.

[@CFL0]

Wow. This video has finally helped me find peace in my soul lol. I've been collecting CDs for a long time but I always thought i needed to spend some serious money in upgrading to Hi-Res if I really wanted to get the best audio possible. Now I realize the collection have been spending so much time and dedication putting together is more than enough for me and instead of changing to the high-res format I need to spend that money on equipment that will unlock all of the potential and squeeze every drop of quality from those CDs. Thank you Audio Fixation!

[@xinsanoix6449]

I’m just starting to get into audiophilia (is that a word?) and this cleared a lot of things up. Found this channel an hour ago and already love it

[@AudioFixation]

Thanks for watching, and good to have you on board.

[@JnL_SSBM]

@@AudioFixation It seems like people didn't knew Metallica's Death Magnetic incident, best version of Metallica music was on Hi-Res audio and Apple Digital Master (even from Apple it's famous lossy codec) over the CD. CDs technically is good enough for the human on a old-school point of view, but with the volume standards of today and the ubitiquous and inevitable loudness war, CDs are dying. Only Hi-fi streaming and few Hi-Res streaming is left on the board.

[@gx1tar1er]

@@JnL_SSBM No CD is not dying, it's thriving again (look at last year CD sell rose for the first time since 2004) & hi res audio will always stay niche & obscure (not because of loudness war). Also great mastering sounds fantastic on high bitrate lossy or CD (16bit, 44.1kHz) lossless.

[@JnL_SSBM]

@@gx1tar1er well mastered jazz cds from early to mid 80s are proof cd lossless or lossy mp3 sound good...!

[@klaushaunstrupchristensen7252]

When CD Washington introduced in the eighties it was marketed AND engineered as perfect sound. And I think they got it about right. The 16 bit 44 kHz dithered will cover the requirements for perfect transmission of a Mahler symphony without compression. I think rather than focusing on lossless transfer of ever higher resolution the industry should upgrade the resolution on wireless transmission (like Bluetooth). Nowadays when data storage and transmission has become it cheaper than it was, it’s interesting to speculate on what would the data format have been if it was introduced now. For absolute perfection my pick would be 18 bit 48 kHz. 18 bit will give a dynamic range and noise floor of 108 dB before dithering and 48 kHz will give a bit mor space for high frequency filtering. Not that I believe this format would improve the sound, but it would be technically sweet and keep some reserve . Thanks for sharing your thoughts 😃

[@juanjogarcia2956]

Respectfully disagree. A lot of simplification here. First. when you talk about perception limits you consider only frequency domain, not time domain. Second. All Digital Analog Converters have filters for high frequencies caused by analog recreation from sampling, it is known that when you apply a filter you get less digital aliasing as high is your sample rates. Old low sample rate synths for example, produced aliasing in high frequency even SR being double or more of perception limit. This aliasing effect when filtering is clearly detected by most people in blind test. Modern digital synths use oversampling to unrequired levels by our limits of perception for avoiding perceptible aliasing when filtering in high frequencies reproduction. Three. When you consider bit depth you say music never goes from 0 to 100. First, Decibels are not like grams, it is not absolute measure, it is relative to a level. In case of DAC or preamp equipment we are talking db relative to line level, but then there is your amplifier. Decibels here is not absolute value, it is relative to amplification level (Pre amp, line level db). 24 bit means the different amplitudes the sample may have 24^2 and it corelates completely with the concept of HDR in video (levels of light from white to black). With all the respect, i disagree, digital 44.1-16 can be cold, metallic, in certain types of music. And there is a lot of difference from some DACs to others regarding how to manage aliasing in high frequency digital oscillation. Only complete argument (not oversimplifies) its blind test one. But if i can hear aliasing in a digital synth oscillator compared to the analogue counterpart, i can hear aliasing made by filters of my DAC, in certain high frequencies. Some DACs oversample internally 44.1-16 , being the source at this read, to avoid filter aliasing. Also there is an important argument when you are resampling an analogue tape (Especially in Jazz and Classical Music) you capture a thing that when converted to analogue the line level after DAC is much more close to the output to line level of the original historical recording tape. And as you know, all tapes are going to die eventually. Including Miles Davies tapes ;-)

[@AudioFixation]

Thanks for taking the time to make such interesting and thorough points. Very interesting technical details.

[@afrancois1968]

Nicely explained. The reason however that some cd’s sound metallic is due to the poor quality of the ADC used in the beginning of digital audio. As I mentioned above this is due to poor quality clocks used. This is also why AAD recordings that are recently made can sound sound so good. One of the major reasons why digital audio has only very recently become extremely good is because of the wide availability of femto clocks.

[@JapanSun118]

Completely agree with the assement, a good lossless 16bit Flac is all you need. I like browsing for used CDs and digitizing them in FLAC. I did an A -B-X Test once with 32bit vs 16bit (Sennheiser HD600 and ifi DAC Zen), i couldn't tell the difference.

[@MelonParfait.]

Just use Stereo Expand then you could tell the difference..

[@kartoffelbrei8090]

Do you even know what you would have to do to have a chance to hear 32 bit?

[@lukasegeling5205]

I just recently started collecting secondhand CDs when I bought an external disc drive. Digging through all the CDs in thrift stores is such a fun activity, which I engage in monthly now. Just last week, I stumbled across two Crazy Frog albums to spice up my music collection. I also rip the CDs to FLAC to put on the SD card in my phone.

[@eric_eagle]

I do the same, just with ALAC as I’m mostly invested in the Apple ecosystem. Though I agree with those who emphasize mastering. Some CDs sound like trash because of poor mastering/production, and getting a HD version isn’t going to fix that.

[@DrHWO]

Aahhhh, sweeping generalisations. There are so very few absolutes in medicine, let alone in the audio sphere. The rationale for high sampling rates lies not in the human auditory chain, but in the development of suitable electronic filters used to accurately reconstruct the digital signal. High sampling rates make the development and quality of such filters much simpler. A highly resolving system will readily reveal differences, although I would have to agree that mastering and mixing have a greater influence.

[@DrHWO]

@ReaktorLeak Thank you. I agree, however my argument was to clarify the aetiology of high sampling rates and to divorce it from the often stated arguments that the frequencies involved are well above the human threshold. Subjectively, to me, hi res still sounds better. We are where we are!

[@DrHWO]

@ReaktorLeak Thank you. I did. Not only that but A/B testing with the wife (no interest in the hardware, but is a concert pianist) to see what she preferred. I guess all we can say here is that we all have different auditory chains + preferences and making sweeping generalisations should be taken with more than a grain of salt.

[@kartoffelbrei8090]

There are different sides of this story: the listening side and the recording side.

Higher resolution makes sense during the recording/mastering stage to minimize rounding errors when doing multiple passes of processing/summing of signals, etc. But when the final mix is done, and it's ready for distribution, there's no point in sampling it higher than CD PCM, and it still has headroom over the absolute hearing requirements of our auditory system. Back in the 80s when CD was invented lowpass filters where nowhere near as sophisticated and the extra 2.05kHz was useful to avoid aliasing issues when lowpassing to 20kHz. But those days are long gone. Also, even though 16bit gives -96dB range, using dithering you can easily bring up CD to -120dB preceived dynamic range. However very few recordings use it, since -96dB is already a magnitude better than what even the best multitrack tape decks could achieve used for recording studio masters in the analog era. Also good luck finding any modern mastering which uses even 30db of dynamic range dr.loudness-war.info/

[@FullAttach]

Thank you!

[@ropane]

With higher sampling rate your filters don't need to be very steep. These high order filters used to avoid aliasing cause frequency rotation that can be heard or perceived. With a greater difference between the 20KHz and 192KHz (assuming a 384KHz sampling rate) you don't need a filter. And if you have a greater bit depth, the digital signal is "analog" enough to avoid any type of filter at the output. That said, probably the effect of higher bit depth or sampling frequency are difficult to be heard in normal listening conditions with a normal sound gear.

[@kurtsanches8819]

Totally agree, I can't even tell the difference with 320kbps mp3, 16bit flac, and 24bit flac on cheap generic earphones/headphones. But can easily tell the difference, even on a blind test using my also cheap but super good sound quality VE monk plus which only cost me 5USD.

[@denizenofclownworld4853]

"the digital signal is "analog" enough to avoid any type of filter at the output." hahaha. Whatever, genius.

[@thornev]

It's worth it if you get a 48k/192 file and have the equipment to play it without resampling. The clarity is startling.

[@glasshouse1004]

Great video and as mentioned by alot of other watchers here, the mastering and mix are the key elements to get the greatest sound quality. Yes, a half decent set-up will help, but you put a bad recording in and out get a bad sound out. Would love to hear your take on the loudness wars as well

[@mistymu8154]

I think it makes sense in a studio where you want to preserve as much as possible so you can make more edits. Apple also uses these Hi-Res masters for it’s Apple Digital Masters, using the highest quality source, Apple is able to provide the highest quality AAC. Like a few others have said though, the most important thing is a good quality recording and master. A good quality master will sound good on lossy, lossless or hi-res. Similarly, a bad master will sound bad on all formats as well. As an Apple Music user, I was excited about lossless coming at no extra cost, but the 256kbps AAC, especially the Apple Digital Masters already sound excellent, so I may as well save storage, bandwidth and keep the convenience of wireless Bluetooth headphones. I heard Eddy Cue, who heads Apple Music say in an interview that 99% of people can’t tell the difference. I think that was mainly a response to Spotify announcing Hi-Fi. They seem to be pushing Dolby Atmos more which differentiates them from Spotify, even though Atmos and spatial is a bit hit and miss right now.

[@ryugatsuchiya9018]

Simple and easy explanation, saved me a lot of head scratching and reading useless articles in the internet. Earned my sub.

[@AudioFixation]

Glad it helped!

[@NEOREV_MUSIC]

Go read the study on the hypersonic effect.

[@bottomendbliss]

Man seriously, think for yourself. Explore, try out, everyones perception is unique.

[@patrickjclarke]

Agree on all of that, but the industry seems to be mastering for MP3 and then sticking it on a CD as a secondary thought with the same mix so you get this 16/44 super compressed version. With Hi-Res files as well as vinyl, the mix and mastering seems to targeted to a more demanding audience and even though you don't need a 24/48, you get a better mixed and mastered file with more fidelity (not because of bit depth or rate).

[@Harald_Reindl]

In the worst case your holy hires file just gone to another round of resampling

[@matthewshields2841]

Mix compressed with HiRes too: happy still to knowingly pay overs from time to time. The demanding audience may be one in ten music customers. Can't speak to vinyl: I have a budget, too.

[@hokiemonproductions9558]

That cleared up some of the technical aspects of Dankpods’ flac player reviews. Appreciate the physics/tech lesson!

[@AudioFixation]

Thanks! The science puts people off but it’s actually interesting and makes sense!

[@stevenholt5484]

I'll add one thing to this gentleman's excellent discussion. He's talking about the software, the CD. The other side is the hardware, the player. Make sure your CD player has a high quality DAC chip. Most people use their DVD player to play their CD's, that's fine provided that the DAC inside the player is good. I would recommend using a blu - ray player by a well known company (Sony and Samsung come to mind). And please, don't by fooled by all the hype of the streaming services : the only way to get true lossless format is to listen to the source, that is, the CD.. Thank you and happy listening!

[@goodnightmoon]

mastering/production is everything, file format is overrated

[@maka8551]

wrong

[@maka8551]

@StringerNews1 wrong

[@MaestroBogs]

I believe the high definition anything utility is for production purpose. When we are mixing, composing or designing some audio, we push and stretch the waves so much that a little more of definition is very welcome. Like a sound designer doing sound fx for a movie. If he captures the noise of a engine to lower its frequency, if he records with inappropriate equipment, he will have no frequency to manipulate. I myself do not see a big difference between FullHD and 4K, especially on smartphones. But if I'm editing a billboard to put on the face of a building, it's a good idea to have larger images. As about your question, if I can hear more than 20kHz? Perhaps! But only when I'm working. And probably not without the help of some audio filters.

[@little-alien]

It’s probably worth mentioning that it’s harder to make a good sounding DAC at 44kHz than it is at 96kHz due to the steep filter needed by the 44k DAC. So in a lot of cases audio through the same DAC will sound better at higher sampling rates. Audible differences just mean the DAC is not so good at lower rates.

[@thxaudio6691]

That's exactly how it is. No one can tell the difference between a high-quality Mp3 and a CD-quality one, because human hearing is simply not enough. These people do not know anything about human hearing. An adult aged 26-45 can only hear frequencies up to 17Khz (-3db) and CD 22Khz which exceeds human hearing! Another thing is that no human has such a good hearing to distinguish the difference. Better to invest in high-quality speakers and amplifiers..

[@TStephens21274]

HiRes or die for me lol. I can absolutely hear the difference in sound quality. Especially with DSD128 and up! Not to mention DXD!!!

[@Arko_gfx]

Congratulations,you are Batman! :)))

[@jsmacks11]

I hear a difference too but I suspect it the mastering as the high resolution files tend to have lighter mastering and sounds almost like a vinyl record but better with basically no artifacts. Alot of mp3s or newer CDs are overmastered. Many times some remastered CDs can sound pretty bad. Alot of older CDs from the 80s and early 90s can sound great as those CDs were less likely to be squashed.

[@chrisbullock6477]

It would be my guess that it has more to do with the "Detail" of notes be it vocals or that of the instruments being played. Instead of hearing only 2-3 stand out instruments and tones, with Hi-Quality (Hi.Res/FLAC) audio you're getting a much richer, full bodied and detailed musical experience when coupled with a quality audio player and speaker system.

[@davidca96]

I never understood people who think they can hear a difference between 16-bit 44.1khz and anything higher, you simply cannot biologically. It's a total waste of bandwidth for no quality change. I grew up on LP's then cassettes, and since CD's came I haven't heard anything better.

[@Jay-sx1vv]

I’m really not much of an audiophile, but I just bought the kz zsn pro x’s and im loving them. I absolutely love how you pace your other reviews, and I thought this was incredibly informative. You have a great thing going on here, and i hope you grow way more! you deserve it!

[@AudioFixation]

That’s so kind of you Jay. Many thanks!

[@kurtsanches8819]

A lot of people actually hate audiophiles and see them as stupid for spending a lot of cash on something that used to play sound while cheap alternatives offer the same function. People are focused on the functions-to-price decisions, and not the quality of functions to price, this clearly explains why a lot of audio companies are still surviving for decades and even century without expanding their market products. They spent so much time and money on R&D and the quality of the results paid off. However those who cant really afford the high end brands just like me now has a lot cheap but super high quality alternatives. KZ, Venture Electronics, to name a few that gives so much value to your money while still offering a really good sound. Everyone even not audiophile should at least try this ones.

[@MrPhunka21]

I have the zsn pros as well , I really like them. I just got the zs10 pros and they are in my opinion even better definitely my 2 favorite kz iems though ,I have 6 different models now

[@lunascomments3024]

do not buy KZ. buy tangzu wan'er

[@thiscorrosion900]

I have them and the KZS10s or whatever, with the silver metal fronts, they are both excellent IEMs. It's all dependent though on what you're running them out of: amp, DAC, system, sound card, whatever. And what the quality of the source file is. And EQ.

[@TheDavo10001]

"congratulations, you are Batman" haha laughed out loud at that one. Being a cheapskate I was always feeling like my desire for high quality audio was somehow impeded by listening to lossless files ripped from my CD collection. Then I did exactly what you suggested and actually did some back to back testing with some hi res music a friend had. Couldn't hear any difference at all. Full credit to the developers of the CD standards - they achieved a fantastic result way back in the early 80s.

[@AudioFixation]

Yeah, hats off to the redbook brigade!

[@user-pj5ju9sm5r]

maybe for most people. but i can hear the difference up to 96khz. its subtle. i wouldnt say its a sound but more like it adds texture to the song like that gargle on that guitar string.

[@stevetakle3614]

That's a great, clear explanation of the numbers, thank you :) It's also just one person's opinion. I've done ABX tests and can hear the difference between CD quality and good Hi Res (ie: not just upsampled). It's not night and day, though. CD is definitely 'good enough' for most people and for me if I'm out and about, but I prefer Hi Res if I'm sat in a quiet room, actively listening. Have you tried Hi Res on some different kit? Maybe the Fiio isn't up to the task? (IDK - never used one.)

[@FilJR99]

I once payed for hi-res audio. My dog loved it! As for me, I’m still trying to spot the difference.😅

[@AudioFixation]

Haha brilliant

[@FilJR99]

@ 😄

[@SaHaRaSquad]

Yeah, in my experience the major deciding factor is how the music was recorded and processed. If an album sounds like it was recorded through a thin wall no amount of money you throw at it will make it sound good. But if it's got nice and clear sound a good pair of headphones and a device that can drive them will really make it shine. Even decent mp3s should be indistinguishable from anything uncompressed, the codecs are optimised to cut out information where human hearing is least likely to notice the difference. I've seen some people claim that their really nice high-end audio setup can make it audible, but this would still mean that for 99.9% of listeners the equipment is the bottleneck.

[@honspeter6208]

Standard Definition is whatever's KZbins standard is nowadays Sad but true.

[@navarrmh8773]

"and if you do, you are Batman" hahahaha

[@ВадимРогашев]

👍👋👋👋😁

[@namedkenn]

I cracked up real good 🤣

[@kuanwang9107]

Great vid! And could you please do a walkthrough on DSD files in the future? They look even fancier than FLACs

[@AudioFixation]

Yep

[@goodsound4756]

FLAC is only a container. What you meant is a comparison of PCM to DSD.

[@slerched]

When Hi-Def audio matters... if they do a better mastering job on the content than they do on the CD version. When you have brick walled 44.1, sometimes you can find non brick walled higher resolution audio, which is a good reason to buy the HiRes... IF there is a difference.

[@AudioFixation]

Good point Stephen but I’m sure you will agree that most hi res releases come from the same masters as the CD version.

[@slerched]

@@AudioFixation yeah, I'll agree. But there are instances where you can get lucky. Rarely. If I listen to releases like Jethro Tull's Aqualung, where I invested in the super expensive version with Blu-ray, the CD master is indistinguishable to my aging ears from the Blu-ray version because that was remastered with love. Then things like Metallica's Death Magnetic I go for the LP because even though it's from the brick walled master, it didn't have the same level of distortion because of a different level of headroom. And then it's sad the best version is ripped from the Guitar Hero version and in MP3 equivalent...

[@AudioFixation]

@@slerched Death Magnetic - maybe an unpopular opinion, but I like that album!

[@slerched]

@@AudioFixation I like the album! Not a bad track on it for me. The CD is hard to listen to, for me (an important caveat!), because of the brick walling. If you enjoyed it from CD, lucky you. Compare it to the MarkIII version and it's easy to see what it could have been. That's my preference but everyone is allowed their own tastes certainly.

[@AudioFixation]

@@slerched would be very interested to hear the better version

[@coisasnatv]

The problem I see either with Hi-Res Audio or CDs is loudness compression. I have some early 80's Michael Jackson albums(CDs) and they sound great, if there is some compression, is minimal to none. If you try the exact same albums today, Hi-Res, streaming, CD, etc; all of them comes with compression. So, Hi-Res is made to fool people.

[@theanorakchannel2496]

I’ve spent my life listening to music to, and again owned high-end hi-fi equipment et cetera. However I made a huge mistake over the last two years or so. I’ve been paying for the Hi-Rez stream from tidal, not knowing that listening to headphones via Bluetooth I was losing any benefit possible. The placebo effect worked here! So now I’ve learned that I’m going to buy a duck and use my old SennheiserHD 650s, and plug those into my phone to listen to music whilst I am sedentary. I’ll need a more portable solution for when I’m out and about. However no more Hi-Rez for me, got my fingers Brenda I think. It just shows there’s no full like an old one! 40 years listening to hi-fi and I still am a mug!

[@thiscorrosion900]

Yeah you're not going to get the full quality off Tidal unless you're avoiding BT and running it through a good amp and good phones or IEMs. BT is just not where it needs to be yet for hearing super HD audio. It's good for portable usage, and it's very convenient, that's about it. What I recommend is getting a good headphone amp of some kind, and use your wired whatever with those for Tidal or any listening via a phone, in particular. I don't even bother with Tidal etc., I just put all my hi res files on my portable Fiio player X1 and use a Fiio or Fosi Audio headphone amp with my best headphones or IEMs, and it's 16 bit but sounds phenomenal.

[@West91pt]

Thank you. You saved me a lot of struggle and money, streaming 16/44.1 via Airplay on my system will do just fine, i was literally melting my brain figuring out on how to stream in "Hi-Res", but this explains it all.

[@elmasjules]

Good video as always, well worth the wait. I've very rarely come across this sort of explanations throughout my time in this hobby, helps you put into perspective where you want to put your money as your journey goes on. Keep up the awesome content man! Maybe a little talk about lossy formats vs lossless would be beneficial as well.

[@AudioFixation]

Great to hear from you Julio thanks for the kind comments.

[@elmasjules]

@@AudioFixation Sure thing man, and congrats on the 1,000 subs!

[@juanmillaruelo7647]

16/44.1 is ok, but it leaves little leeway to errors. It's a tight fit. 24/48 is more forgiving. And the extra bit depth lowers the noise floor.

[@matasaina2011]

Am I bad if I say FM sounds good to me ? Interestingly, Photographers have the same 'discussions' about image quality and resolution.

[@evil_twit]

Do they talk about colors one cannot see?! Like "My lens and sensor can capture ir uv omg all the pictures are clearer with that extension.... No. FM is great.

[@Veterankoi]

I agree that the production/mastering of the music is the most important element for audiophiles. I have listened to poorly produced hi-res music that seems no different to a very well produced CD. Overall however, and on a personal basis I do hear a difference in quality. Particularly with recordings from the 60's and 70's that have been remastered effectively to seperate the instruments and voice etc. Similarly, I find (depending) on the remaster, that the music sounds a little more 'creamier' or warm. Regarding today's music, hi-res productions are off the scale compared to music produced just 20 years or more ago. To get the best out of music in todays terms, you need a decent DAC to listen to music via headphones via a smartphone. Not forgetting a decent set of headphones or 'In ear monitors' I play most of my music through a Yamaha AV outputting to Monitor Audio Apex speakers (7.1). I listen to standard CD quality and Hi-res. Hi-res wins everytime. Thats just my point of view from my personal experience. As I write, I am listening to the Doobie brothers via Cambridge Melomania P100 headphones. I tried the headphones via bluetooth direct from an Iphone (compressed). The headphones did an impressive job. I then played the identical track/music through a Fii0 BTR Dac - still bluetooth, but the difference is immence. By the way, the headphones via the DAC still compress the music by conversion to aptX 24bit hi-res. However, I stand by my listening experience. Utter quality from a perspective of instrument seperation and creamy warm thundering bass, to treble bliss.

[@berkut6313]

Well the thing with 24bits is that it’s a must in recording nowadays, because the SNR is so high, you can get rid of any hiss and noise artefact. Now, although there CAN be an advantage in mixing and mastering at higher sample rates for computation issues (it can mess it up too), it’s much more important to filter out any ultrasonic noise which you can’t hear, but that can fry your tweeter and dry wash your dishes. Some claim the slope of the low-pass filter can be of no consequence at higher frequency, but I have not seen any firm evidence of pushing the slope Into the ultrasonic so as to leave your 22kHz bandwidth pristine. Thing is, 24bit/48kHz should be the logical standard for files, and therefore for no added premium price over CD (48kHz is used for DVD/Video files), coz you couldn’t tell the difference. One last thing in your signal chain : assuming you get actual 93/96dB SNR out of your CD or network player, if your amp isn’t as good (then headphones/speakers) there is no point in even playing CD quality 16bit audio, let alone 24. I got an RME DAC, but I’m only listening to it with headphones, because my amp would spoil it. Only ultra-low distortion as Hypex or Eigentakt Purifi modules make for a coherent system for Hifi...

[@johnviera3884]

If you’re old enough, you realize this revision 5 of the audiofool racket.

[@jessielees]

I agree. We don't need high res audio - we need mixing and mastering engineers to do their jobs better and stop the heavy compression/loudness wars. There's already too much dynamic range going to waste at standard cd quality. Not to mention the unnecessary clipping and digital distortion that plagues modern releases...

[@tapeomatic]

I think you hit the nail on the head. If you start out with a good recording, you don't need all this sound processing/compression. A lot of dynamic range going to waste because of poor mastering indeed.

[@sundeepbhatia9974]

Game , set and match. You convinced me! However the streaming services, many previously pegged at 320 are offering lossless and better at no extra cost. Moreover an inexpensive external DAC makes everything sound better including 320 files! Anyhow, you have a new subscriber!

[@bobsmoot8454]

Most older listeners can’t hear 12k and by age 60 you might be at 8-10k

[@AudioFixation]

Yikes, something to look forward to then!

[@swikle]

Yes I went from having "golden ears" in college to, now being over the 60 year mark by a few, being able to hear maybe 10K in my good ear :( I wear hearing aids which take me back to the point where I can hear SOME of the stuff I lost in recent years, but hearing aids don' t correct beyond mediocre hearing. Probably attended too many rock concerts in my youth. I remember walking out of the auditorium after a Yes concert while I was in university and I couldn't hear a thing :) A lot of it came back ... for a while.

[@akiraakimoto326]

You forgot about the Square Waves. A 7kHz square wave is composed by sine waves of 7kHz, 21kHz, 35kHz, 49kHz etc.. Yes we human being cannot hear those above 20kHz, but a 7kHz square wave still sounds differently than a 7kHz sine wave (at least to my ears). Also in theory, ≥2x the highest wanted frequency works; but in real world engineering, it is recommeded to use ≥2.56x the highest wanted frequency. One of the reasons is you will got dropped amplitude and shifted phases near the sampling limit. 2.56 * 20kHz = 51.2kHz So we can say, at least, sampling rates of 44.1kHz and 48kHz are not enough for audio use.

[@HumdrumAnt]

I found your channel and binged all your videos, loving the content!

[@AudioFixation]

Thanks Ant! Great to have you on board.

[@DivineMisterAdVentures]

NOT USELESS if you are a sound designer. Anything you record for effects needs to be at the highest possible sampling rate. Just like 8K video, with over 96K audio you can "zoom in" and have still high quality sound slowed way down. You can also make music that way as in sampling instruments. A doubling of sampling rate is equivalent to an octave of range for that sound. And so on with the math. Go figure! It may be overkill for podcasters - and certainly the file sizes are "impressive" but having it available to use is great for experimentation. It could make a career. And the cost for the recording and editing gear (audio) these days is (almost) negligible. However it does mean old-school wired setups to a USB interface with old-school condenser mics. About $350 for top-quality in stereo.

[@Farmeraap]

Congratulations on 1k subs, appreciate the content.

[@looneyburgmusic]

My 2-cents, as an audio engineer who started out in the mid-1980's - record and listen at 48/24. Regardless the claims to the contrary, (about not being able to "hear" the difference, versus 44.1/16, for example), a 48khz sampling rate, at 24bit, gives the most accurate representation of any given audio signal, versus the storage requirements.

[@Nanomaroni]

I have quite a good hearing. I still can hear sounds at 21kHz, when only played at this frequency. But I don’t think I could tell it when listening to music. I always thought with High Res Audio we were talking about CD Quality, or 24bit/48kHz at max. I can tell the difference between a 256 kb/s AAC and CD-Quality on the right Setup (Especially in my Cars High End System). But I was never able to hear a difference for „Higher Quality Sound“. IMO streaming Lossless up to 24bit/48kHz like the new Apple Music is Fantastic. I can’t tell the difference between 16bit/44.1kHz and 24bit/48kHz. But if the File was recorded that way, hey why not. Lossless on Apple Music is the way for me to go. Not High Res Lossless. But I was never „that Audiophile“ that I had the urge to buy High Res Quality stuff. A CD is IMO perfect. If I want better Quality, I can watch the musicians live.

[@SteveMallett]

Interesting! I just spent the morning A B testing Apple Music Lossless files with Tidal Hi-Res through my hi-fi and try as I might I could hear no discernible difference. I cancelled my Tidal subscription.....

[@glenrodriguez9240]

Apple Music Lossless is actually superior than Tidal, such a shame Apple can't play Lossless with Bluetooth and the aux output is not relevant to them.

[@josephhoffmayer5180]

Regarding bit depth: one sample point may be just left of a peak and another sample point may be just right of the next peak. These “sampled” peaks would represent a slightly different frequency because the time between them would not align with the actual time of the analog recording. If one sample is slightly below the peak and another is on the peak, then the volume is slightly changing. Regardless of dynamic range or SN ratio, I would think higher bit rates would reduce the variations of frequency timing and volume. Maybe it’s just subtle enough for some to hear on certain gear.

[@maxnuman]

Nothing to add to it. This video explains it rather well. The only difference i hear is smoothness and less sharp sounds. However I only hear this when using my music rooms headphone rig with my HD 600's and audeze lcd-2. Via my portable equipment it is barely noticible might even be the placebo that makes me think it is noticable at all.

[@sarahnewman8960]

Very true, but *some* of the hi res recordings also have a wider dynamic range, etc, because they have the audiophile market in mind rather than general listeners who seem to like compressed recordings, In other words, some hi res recordings sound better, but not because of hi res per se, but because of other tweaks that are done,

[@whollymindless]

"auto" video quality on youtube had me watching at 144p. Crazy to talk about hi-res audio on a land line quality connection...

[@danfred99]

Interesting. I learned a lot, and you likely saved me a lot of money. Although I just did an ABX test and scored 90%. So I was able to tell the difference (and I did a large sample). But if I'm being honest, I did not have conviction when I was making my answer, it was more like best guess. Not an easy test, but I just went with my gut (or ears as it were).

[@davebing11]

sure, why not just stick with 8 track tapes. they dont stretch THAT much..

[@sonidosanto]

The most sensible, objective and scientific explanation I have heard in years from the Internet. We are surrounded by hoaxes and commercial fantasies regarding Audio and Fidelity, to the point that vinyl has won over CD and most still think it is because of its "superiority" in Sound. I worked for years in a professional audio studio in my country and I can assure each of your words, with theory and with facts. Guys, don't be fooled anymore. Congratulations on this educational and well explained video. You already have a new subscriber here ;) Cheers!

[@AudioFixation]

Thanks Sonido, I’ll take that as high praise coming from an audio engineer!

[@BermyNick]

I do hear a difference when listening to hi quality music in 24bit and 16bit, and this was the dynamic range which you greatly explained to me. What I do have a hard time in hearing is the quality of the song which sucks and I’m sure it has something to do with my hearing range because my 14 year old sister could definitely tell.

[@asystole_]

Have you or your sister done any sort of ABX testing? Placebo is a hell of a thing.

[@rsolsjo]

Mixing and mastering truly matters above most other things. The truth is that at times even a 320kbps mp3 or stream can sound surprisingly good (but personally my new lowest standard is CD quality, unless I have no other option). But I also like that we have choices. You can go buy caviar in a tube for $2 and put it on your breakfast sandwich, or you can buy it for $2000 and enjoy it as a luxury. Music shouldn't be any different. We shouldn't sacrifice quality for convenience, but we also shouldn't sacrifice convenience for quality. ("But we can't even hear all that information, yada yada" - yeah, and people buy fancy bottled water and fancy speaker cables and fancy toilet paper too, not because they're "proven superior", but because they like the feeling of buying something special, something that holds up, that is guaranteed to be experienced to the utmost - maybe you're just buying the "idea" of luxury or quality but if that makes people feel good, I say let them, as long as it isn't hurting the other options). People swear by vinyl, others argue that digital sounds superior by definition - I'm one of the latter but I would never want vinyl to be taken away as an option for people.

[@kevinwong_2016]

It sounds the same as 128k💀

[@markfischer3626]

As an electrical engineer I can say you are 100 percent correct. I knew all of this over 50 years ago. Even the widest dynamic range classical music uncompressed fits within the 96 dB range of RBCD. It is difficult to perform a fair test. If you compare CD and HD files using different DACs you might hear a difference due to the differences in the analog frequency responses. Dr. Mark Waldrep conducted a fair test by dowconverting his true HD files he made himself to RBCD standards and with over 600 subjects no difference. I'd told him before he did this test but he didn't believe me until he tried it. I examined the process used in MQA called audio origami. It violates Shannon Nywuest by 400 percent. It can't possibly work as claimed. It tries to stuff 96 kbs into a 24 kb bag.

[@markfischer3626]

As a senior electrical engineering student I had a required course in information theory. It was much more than that though. Among the topics were various equations describing rf modulation theory. I'd like to point out the similarities between digital signals and AM modulation radio. In AM modulation, the amplitude of the rf carrier frequency is modulated by the instantaneous amplitude of the audio signal. Only the peaks of the signal are used to create the modulation envelope that is detected. The signal for a particular station is captured by a ganged two section variable capacitor. One selects the RF frequency of the station you want, the other alters a local oscillator, mixed with the RF signal so that the difference is always 455 khz. This is called superheterodyning. It is then amplified by the IF (intermediate frequency) amplifier and detected by a simple diode. A capacitor in an RC circuit of just the right tuning frequency connects the peaks because the voltage across a capacitor cannot change instantaneously. The result is a smooth continuous signal generated from just the peaks of the RF signal. In much the same way digital amplitudes are connected together to form continuous waves that are NOT DIGITIZED. How's that after more than 50 years since I learned it. I'm sorry to say this, but not only are audiophiles just plain ignorant, so are most if not all of the engineers who build their crap for them. If there's one thing critical that they don't know anything about, it's sound. Sound and acoustics are in the area of fluid dynamics, a branch of mechanical engineering. The working fluid is air. Sound fields are time varying air pressure gradients. Analyzed this way they can be completely understood, mathematically modeled, analyzed, measured, and duplicates engineered. That's what I did 50 years ago. This lack of knowledge is why the designs of even the most expensive home music reproduction sound systems are an utter failure IMO. It's not an easy problem but when you solve it, WOW, concert hall realism from a recording in a home.

[@vext01]

Angry audiophiles assemble 😂 But honestly, couldn't agree more.

[@AudioFixation]

Hehehe. Just wait until I do a video on MQA 🤣

[@vext01]

@@AudioFixation There was a great video on MQA circulating recently. Total nonsense by the look of it. I'm also skeptical of DSD too to be honest. Bring back minidisc!

[@AudioFixation]

I used to love minidisc. Still got a few units and about 500 mds! Was wondering to do a retro video on it but I don’t think many people would be interested!

[@vext01]

@@AudioFixation You might be surprised. A few years ago I posted some minidisc related vids on my channel and they got more attention than I expected.

[@whollymindless]

Works for Techmoan...

[@takeiteasy6154]

Instruments produce sounds above 20khz, which effects the sounds below 20khz, so you need to record those frequencies to get accurate playback, of course you will need suitable gear to record and playback say upto 50khz.

[@MTB-channel]

Nope

[@peterselie1779]

It's not true, but lets say it is true that frequencies above 20kHz affect the sound below 20 kHz. Then that sound < 20kHz would already be affected at recording. Also recording the sound above 20 kHz would effectively add that distorsion a second time at playback. Would that be a good thing? But then again, it's not true.

[@DrHouse-zs9eb]

200 people dont like science.

[@dewarprovider7030]

It is the almost non-existing mastering that plays a vital role here. Every track has been normalized, dynamic is killed and a final nail in the coffin is a loudness of track to the point of distortion. Some times ago, I tried to decompress and de-loudness some average in popularity tracks and the result was completely different experience. There is so many excellent tracks that never became hits because of bad mastering and dull sounding. As for the Hi-Res audio - I totally agree. What is the point of bying tracks in 24bit/48kHz that was originally recorded in 16bit/44,1kHz ? Practically the same as if you upscale one mp3 128kbps to 320kbps.

[@kuanwang9107]

Weirdly zooropa is actually my fav U2 album

[@AudioFixation]

Still Achtung Baby for me although I love Zooropa.

[@imefamilia-vs1gs]

Good thing someone on KZbin finally explaining these things. The brutal truth is that most people in a blind test can't even hear any difference in the sound of (encoded with good codec) mp3 320 kbps and 16/44.1 audio. Years ago when the mp3s were the new thing I spend a lot of time making tests to see which encoder works best, I tried several - Lame, Fraunhofer and even Blade - and doing blind tests I realized that everything encoded with Lame with more than 192 kbps was sounding to my years virtually the same as CD audio. I did the same blind tests with many of my friends on their wide range of different equipment and the results were the same - they could "hear" the difference between 320 mp3 and CD audio/ Lossless when they knew what they are listening to. But in a blind test they couldn't tell the difference. So it was all a placebo effect. Same thing going on with hi-res audio - most of the audiophiles "hear" the difference between 16/44.1 and hi-res when they know that they are listening to their hi-res lossless files, but I'm not sure if the result will be the same in a blind test.

[@andidandi8225]

This is so refreshing to watch. As someone who's just gotten into the hi-res world, it's easy to get overwhelmed by audiophiles talking about how you need this $100 DAC or this $300+ dedicated music player or how this $150 IEM is SO affordable for it's quality. They talk about it like you can't enjoy the music without shelling out $500 minimum. I'm probably going on a tangent here but my point is that, like the 24 bit files, so many of the hi-res audiophile stuff are unnecessary and overkill.

[@AudioFixation]

Exactly right, and I think people often lose sight of just enjoying the music!!!

[@locutiss100]

Snake oil is a term that often comes up when talking about hi cost audio gear and speaker cables. If enough "experts" say it's better then it is 😡

[@theevilwitchtheband]

Dynamic range is measured in dB (power of 10 logarithmic scale) which measure the differences in intensity of the weakest signal and the full signal... to put that in simpler words sampling rate would be the horizontal resolution, and dynamic range the vertical one. dB SPL is the way you measure the sound pressure level which happens to use a log10 based scale. But certainly dB (used on measuring a signal intensity) and DB SPL measure different things

[@alvinzantua3829]

In most cases you are absolutely right no questions there. In my case scenario of course I’m not batman with super sonic ears, but if I bought a CD and ship them to my location from time to time pay taxes and custom duties it is much cheaper for me to buy a high resolution audio file format than and have it available immediately after purchasing it than waiting for a couple of weeks before the CD arrives by that time I paid more the cost of an actual CD. Hope this helps.

[@mikekershaw2433]

Just a couple points. The mix and master are far more important than sampling and fit depth. With that said recording engineers know poor mixing will show up more in a high res recording so they typically do a better job knowing this. Secondly, from my experience, higher end equipment makes most everything sound good. Built in DACs are better, connections are better, they typically have higher current, etc. Hi res is less important as you buy better gear.

[@mauricegold9377]

Higher end equipment will more clearly enable you to hear bad quality recordings. It will be even more merciless than poor quality gear.

[@toddmoore9138]

Songs are important. How the songs get into your ears are about 1/10th of the importance.

[@AudioFixation]

Well said Todd!

[@chrisstroud60]

We should concentrate on what makes a good recording sound worse. Bad mastering, quality lower than cd.

[@MLWJ1993]

Blind tests are the best, they also hurt ego's a lot 🙃

[@AudioFixation]

Well said

[@kartoffelbrei8090]

"ABX Tests are biased to no difference..... 😢 and what about people that dont have a trained ear?😥😪😭😭" 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@MLWJ1993]

@@kartoffelbrei8090 that's what someone that claims there's this huge difference in audio (the thing your supposed to use your ears with to enjoy)says, but can't reliably tell which is which by using their ears. 🤔

[@kartoffelbrei8090]

@@MLWJ1993 Yes thats what im trying to say. This means that the test works for people that say shit like this.

[@MLWJ1993]

@@kartoffelbrei8090 oh, I processed your comment completely wrong 😬 my bad.

[@VintageStereoCollectorChannel]

Excellent vid and you’ve educated us well. Always on the hunt for CDs and thanks for saving me money👍👍

[@AudioFixation]

Glad to help

[@OldClassic1951]

Thank you very much!! I am sure you explained this stuff so well that even I understood it for the first time in my life. But, as a weak creature, I will still try to impress friends and visitors with the display "192" on my DAC. I will remain to set up my all-wise face! Hope to read even more and more from you.

[@AudioFixation]

Thanks! ! And resist the pretty 192Khz lights! 😃

[@Ks-rei]

Most like other platforms streaming, also youtube like Spotify or something with free version, the quality audio just 128Kbps, even for HD video (720p-1080p) just improve 196kbps, and i see a lot of hi-res music in youtube, Then I asked myself, why so many people have to upload hi-res audio on KZbin when it is played on KZbin it will be cut into ossy audio?

[@ShivaSivz127]

you are "Batman"... lol... loved the content

[@zahriatan1946]

There's a difference believe me. I am listening to Rory Gallagher quite a lot these days. I found two songs that I found rather rough with flaky treble. I thought it was just bad recording. However I realized later that the files were not marked HiFi. I checked the details, one was 320 kbs mp3 and one was Flac but only 35mb in size when usual flac is 60-70mb. I re downloaded those two songs and converted them to flac using cloudconvert my favourite converter. They both now more than 60mb in size. Needless to say they now sound smoother and not rough. I'm only using my LG V30 phone and Anker Soundcore Motion Boom which is not even HiRes Bluetooth speaker.

[@Somesh-Ji]

Very informative video. Some ppls also claim that they can hear the difference between RCA cables and tell how RCA sounds... 100$ RCA vs 500 vs $1000 RCA sound difference. I never trust them... But in their video they talk like they mean it.

[@mxbishop]

I agree with the conclusions in this video. And here's another point to consider: It's what I call the "lingua franca" argument. If you stay with tracks expertly mastered/mixed in the 44.1 Khz, 16 bit CD file format, then every playback device you have, almost without exception, will play those files - and they will sound great. One format for your car, home, portables, etc. It eliminates having to remember which tracks go with which playback devices - which, I think, is a significant convenience. Create one music database, that plays on every device you have. That is what I do.

[@AudioFixation]

Very well put. That’s why I too archive in 16/44.1; universally playable and sounds fantastic

[@dapperbrick7516]

I was ready to be in disagreement, but yeah, lossless CD quality is absolutely fine. I'm barely past the intro and I doubt you'll bring up anything controversial from here

[@AudioFixation]

Just treading carefully, the audiophile community can be prickly! 😃

[@dapperbrick7516]

@@AudioFixation I ended up forwarding your video to one of my picker friends, and they replied with "If his argument is that cd quality is good enough...I can live with that". Seems about right to me.

[@AudioFixation]

Sensible chap, your friend!

[@EllasPOSEiDON]

Very strange someone still feel that need to make a video like this. If a fella is into hi-res, he definitely knows what about it, if another fella isn't really into hi-res... he just doesn't care, and nothing bad will happen.:) Nicely mastered records with good sample rates (even red book) sounds significantly better than bad mastering, that is no question to anyone. So, good mastering need higher sample rates and bit depth (in case of PCM) to have far superior than CD, and you'll get. Simple.

[@steven2809]

Well the point of the video is to reassure people that they are not ‘missing out’ by choosing not to believe the marketing hype from the recording industry! No need to re-buy music you already own in CD quality!

[@Uncle_Herman]

Some people say that CD is just fine or good enough. CD quality is actually the very best. It has sound quality beyond human hearing. The rise of high samples add and means nothing because it is undetectable to the human ear. All this hi res marketing is another way of squeezing money out of consumers. No human can pass blind tests, so we have reached the highest quality of high fidelity audio.

[@paulf.5261]

Thanks for the info.... much appreciated 🌝🙏