High-Resolution Audio Demystified

The CEA, NARAS and AES have made High-Res Audio (HRA) an area of focus this year. Sony and other hardware/software vendors are entering the high-res audio marketplace and Neil Young and his Pono project raised awareness with their record breaking Kickstarter Campaign. Presented by HD-Audio producer, engineer, author and authority Dr. Mark Waldrep, this seminar will explain what HRA is AND what it isn’t! Avoid the spin and learn the reality behind HRA formats, how and where to get it and what hardware you’ll need.
Mark Waldrep, Ph.D., AIX Records & iTrax, President
Mark Waldrep, Ph.D., aka Dr. AIX, has been playing, engineering and producing music for over 40 years. He learned electronics as a teenager from his HAM radio father while studying music. Mark received the first doctorate given by UCLA in 1986 for an electronic music composition. Other advanced degrees include an MS in computer science, an MFA/MA in music, BM in music and a BA in art. As an audio engineer and producer, Mark has worked on projects for the Rolling Stones, 311, Tool, KISS, Blink 182, Blues Traveler, Britney Spears, the San Francisco Symphony, The Dover Quartet, Willie Nelson, Paul Williams, The Allman Brothers, Bad Company and hundreds more.Dr. AIX writes a daily blog at RealHD-Audio.com and runs HRAPlanet.com, information resources for those interested in high-resolution music.
Producer: Douglas Mechaber, LA/OC Audio Society
Doug Mechaber writes for Tom’s IT Pro, is a lifetime member of the LA/OC Audiophile Society, an IT industry veteran, plays violin, and is a long time audiophile.

[@mcnyregrus]

It's funny how many angry people are denigrating Mark Waldrep, when he is in fact a hi-res ADVOCATE! He's just one of the few hi-res advocates who's actually honest and scientific-minded about the issue, rather than lapping it all up. Although, as mentioned further down, I don't agree with him about everything, my deepest respects go to him!

[@clarkkent6026]

when someone presents FACTS backed by science and technical measurements that verifies those FACTS there will be many angry snake-oil sellers/reviewers/biased journalists that of course dont like the truth being exposed because, u know, they are then recognized as scammers; so kudos to Waldrep, Ethan Winer and every other audiophile engineer in their crusade on mythbusting!

[@gwapster13]

Finally an audiophile who makes sense when it comes to "High Res" audio. Tells it as it is, no BS. Kudos.

[@vdochev]

The problem with most audiophiles are that they become insane because of the obsession that they can always do something to improve the quality of their audio equipment. Once you get into "no compromise" territory, the next step is "snake oil" and then sheer lunacy. It's like a drug addiction, you are trying to improve something that can't be improved anymore. Sooner or later you hit the technological limit and you desperately try finding ways to overcome it, but the sad truth is that it just isn't possible. The line between what difference between 2 components you can actually hear and what your brain tells you you hear is very thin. Then the problems start appearing and soon you start hearing cables, then cable raisers that cost $2500 because your brain says that if someone sells it and claims that it works, it's gotta work, because you have no other option. So you sit in the dark and listen and listen and listen until you convince your poor soul that you are hearing the difference in those cables. It's insane.

[@gillesvaneeden3313]

This man is not an 'audiofool' - he is an experienced audio technician and producer, which is something else entirely.

[@billwhite9703]

@@gillesvaneeden3313 Yep, and it's recorded in low fidelity.

[@johnmorrison337]

That was excellent fun! Thank you Dr. Mark Waldrep.

[@justthebeginning1448]

I really enjoy listening to people who are willing help us understand the difference between reality and high powered marketing.

[@justthebeginning1448]

O, well thank you Satan!

[@AlainHubert]

From 3:38 to 3:48 he summed it up perfectly. Case closed.

[@Lasse3]

+AlainHubert Yeah the case is closed, the difference between 44.1khz sample rate and 96khz sample rate is so miniscule, that it's inaudible. at 44.1khz sample rate we go to a 20khz sine wave and see 2.2 sample per wave, at 96khz sample rate we go to a 20khz sine wave and see 4.8 samples per wave. postimg.org/image/v1ty48z4p/ postimg.org/image/m2v5j3wex/ If you want an audible difference try out a sample rate of 11.2mhz, and i promise you that is an audible difference.

[@raffiequler7510]

The 24/88 and 24/96 files sound way better than 16/44 files. Everyone can clearly hear the difference. Give it a try, compare. You will never go back to 16/44.

[@raffiequler7510]

Çerastes I am right. Studio master file sounds much better.

[@raffiequler7510]

Çerastes Your comments are so dumb. If you only knew how dumb they are, you would hide under a rock and stay there.

[@antigen4]

well i would agree - yes the key phrase is "If I PLAYED IT IN HERE" - quite probably true...

[@mac2309zzz]

What a fantastic speaker! It's great to listen to someone who really knows his stuff!

[@Raziel_SSJ]

And before everything else, an honest guy that don't try to scam masses but wants to make everyone enjoy music as it should be.

[@beachcaster56]

Thank you........fascinating presentation. Really enjoyed it .

[@luisgambao1255]

More people should listen to Mr. Mark Waldrep.

[@Bot_967]

Summary: He is making the argument that what is marketed as Hi-Res is generally false because it is dependent on the source recording and then defines and argues what we need to do to give correct accurate information and real Hi-Res audio to consumers. 1. First he defines and clarifies what sources constitute Hi-Res (what is and what is not). 2. From there he justifies the use and recording of Hi-Res (digital source 24bit/48kHz and higher) "If an instrument makes sound...i want to capture it...maybe it might make a difference". !!!! He never said that you won't hear the difference between Red Book (16bit/44.1kHz) and actual Hi-Res- 24bit/48kHz and up!!! 3. He says that most commercially available marketed Hi-Res recording aren't from a Hi-Res source and therefore not Hi-Res 4. He goes on to argue the different Hi-Res formats and if they are actual Hi-Res or not (Vinyl, CD, DSD, BluRay). Again, if it isn't from a Hi-Res source recording then it doesn't matter what format/bit bucket. 5. Finally he argues Hard Copy Downloads vs Streaming sources and the quality loss of streaming audio sources. Then also adds in that MQA is a superior format and why. 6. Questions Conclusions: If you want Y but what is going in is X and marketed as Y then it is not Y. When buying audio, you need to find what the source audio recording was on (digital vs analogue). From there you should analyze the file to verify if the sonics being produced are correct for that bitstream ie. 24bit/96kHz, upon analysis, should show sonics all the way up to 48kHz. If not, then your file is not accurately Hi-Res and can convert to whatever format necessary to capture the sonics actually produced. !Important! He never actually said that "what you think you hear with Hi-Res audio is placebo and only in your mind." He never discounted the fidelity of actual Hi-Res audio. He did said that what is marketed as Hi-Res, if not producing sonics in that frequency, is not Hi-Res. He did say, human range of hearing is up to 20kHz but he did not discount the possibility of hearing audible differences between audio that produces sonics up to 20kHz vs 48kHz and up. So, is Hi-Res audio worth it?...If you have an actual Hi-Res file (as defined in his argument) and your listening experience is better than Red Book or lower, then Yes, it is worth whatever you are willing to pay for it. Because ultimately, its YOUR experience.

[@dedskin1]

you told a lot ,but the guy is simply saying that there is no point in 192khz 32bit sound , when ANALOG TAPE IS 8-10bit , whats the point of 16bit,24bit ( that is impossible by the way but still sells ) when the song you are listening to is FLAT , because its compressed to a BRICK WALL LIMITER , dynamics being 2-3bits, its just ludicrous numbers , and they sell you that as HI RES, that is the point my friend , nothing complex , simle as that , they sell you 3bit of depth , as 24bit HI RES , and ppl are stupid to pay for it . no need to write books on it , if you understand what the guy is saying an he is telling the truth

[@FriedEgg101]

Great summary, thanks.

[@vdochev]

​@@dedskin1 If I heard right, he said that analogue tape was equivalent of 12 bit and with each transfer you loose about 3dB of dynamic range. 16 bit, 44.1kHz is the CD standard and it has about 90dB of dynamic range (higher than any previous recording medium). The fact that they abuse the format and compress the dynamic range, what you are talking about, doesn't make the CD standard a bad standard. If the recording is done properly, it'll be actually superior compared to the previous formats. But like you say - the occasions we can experience the full potential of this format are very rare.

[@SoundWaveTrax]

Engineers like this guy are doing god's work. This stuff needs some thorough debunking.

[@preparationhijklmnop]

I love that this guy said that the remasterd take five sounds "different" than "better". Any other questions?

[@zachansen8293]

super neat until the bit about MQA. That part didn't age well - we can just stream normal pcm and not pay the MQA tax.

[@sonicsaviouryouwillnotgetm6678]

Very nice presentation. The only thing that is questionable is, if we really need to go high rez if we don't here the difference anyway. (given, that the masters are recorded in an audiophile non-overcompressed way as described here). Sure, it leads to a physically and mathematically more exact representation of reallity, but if we don't hear the difference...

[@AlbertoDati]

Very interesting key note, I love this guy.

[@mcnyregrus]

What a great and honest presentation! I've been sick and tired of people saying "hi-res" is audibly better without having any kind of formal testing (blind-tests) to back up their claims. I have an expensive stereo system, but no system will enable you to hear something that's not audible. I've done blind tests and have failed, and I have yet to see anyone who claims that hi-res is audibly superior provide a blind test that they passed to a statistical significant degree - and especially an ability to do it more than once by pure chance. Although I find samples rates above CD quality pointless, then I think it's fair enough to say "if the content is there on the signal I want to preserve it for intellectual satisfaction even though it's inaudible". Better that than the constant unfounded claims. So although Mark Waldrep and I disagree there, I completely respect him for that :-). I'll just elaborate on two of Mark Waldrep's responses to questions: Sampling rate giving a "better sense of place in space" and (re) mastering. The thing about the sampling rate is this: The Nyquist sampling theorem, proven already in 1928, states that as long as the sampling frequency exceeds twice that of the bandwidth, a sampled signal will contain ALL the detail with NO loss and NO distortion. So therefore a higher samplerate can only add detail at the higher frequencies added, meaning if you go from a 44.1 kHz sampling rate to 96 kHz, you can only add detail from 22 kHz to 48 kHz. It will not be able to add any detail from 0 Hz to 22 kHz as per the sampling theorem. The thing about mastering: I've heard many different versions of many different albums. Some older versions sound better than the newer ones and vice versa. If it was recorded on analogue tape, a fresh transfer can sound better if the A/D conversion on the first transfer was less than stellar. And converters in the 80s were not great. Other times it was simply "better" mastered (more pleasant, more dynamic, better EQed, etc.). In the 80s, CDs were very bright, cold, thin and harsh sounding. And as for mastering: Nowadays many people think "mastering" means brickwalling the music, but it doesn't have to be like this. Many albums use no dynamic range compression at all. Besides all the different versions of albums mentioned, then I've also heard the song "Special" by Mew on the CD single, and then the album version, which was mastered by George Marino. Although he's not one of my favourite mastering engineers, and he uses too much dynamic range compression, he clearly EQed that song really well, and the un-mastered version sounds very boring and lifeless. And that's why mastering is important in many cases - maybe not in Mark Waldrep's case, as he's a producer and mastering engineer himself, but often a mastering engineer (or the producer) can EQ music to sound much better than it did before. A good example was a website, where the producer recorded everything digitally and on analogue tape simultaneously, and he put up a piano track both "raw" and heavily EQed, and the EQed version was a joy to listen to, while the other one wasn't.

[@raffiequler7510]

Yes, so why not reduce the file quality down to 8 bits and 32 kHz sampling rate? Idiot.

[@mcnyregrus]

???

[@raffiequler7510]

Çerastes Nobody can hear the difference, Cerastes. This is what you always say. The 8/32 resolution is enough.

[@raffiequler7510]

Çerastes I am always right. The 8/32 resolution is perfect sound for everybody. These are your words. I am just repeating what you said.

[@raffiequler7510]

Çerastes The 8/32 resolution is perfect sound forever. Maybe even the 4/16 resolution is enough. Ask the Monty guy.

[@squidcaps4308]

Wonderful to listen for the voice of reason. In the end, i'm 100% same, customers should gave the final say on how much they want to squeeze the dynamics. It fits to the purpose, more noisy surroundings, less dynamic range you want from the material. Unfortunately, dynamics is harder to grasp than frequency response, EQ is way easier to learn than a compressor/limiter chain, not to mention multiband or parallel.... but there could be couple of universal "presets" on a DSP chip that is designed with independent research team, used by all audio manufacturers.. yet another standard and acronym ;) Competition will not suffer. You can have "better than" DSPs slogans and finally; external DPSs, which would be great for audiophiles on sooo many reasons than dynamics alone (room correction for starters.. imagine thousands of systems, or tuned to fit the room, all having top notch software doing the final touches according to user wishes.. background noise analyzers setting the unit automatically to different dynamic range, time'of-day settings (i have one, i got very slow limiter/normalizer that sets in at 22:00, keeps me out of trouble, if i level up, i just get ducking, not more sound pressure in an apartment..).. there are lots of bucks to be made in legitimate audio business without snake-oil which would improve everything and general prupose, universal DSP at user end is pretty much at the heart of it..

[@claudiecotet7927]

so useful and healthy to listen to. I wished Mr W would one Day say something about the dac and headphoneamps "testers" on yt and about a real quality Device thats Worth buying thanks cc

[@napalmhardcore]

The last question asked at the end was the same question on my mind. I'm not expecting that you would see steps (as digital music is often depicted) if you were to analyse the waveform post DAC or through speakers. However, the information between those points is missing and must be filled in (presumably by filters/software and the digital to analogue conversion process). Surely, with more points of reference, the music will inherently be more true to the original source because there are less parts being artificially filled in by filtering algorithms. This part of the topic more accurately describes what I think of as resolution, but it seems to be the least discussed. If we hypothetically ignore the upper and lower frequency limitations. Where is the point when we have too few samples per second to convincingly convey audio due to lack of accuracy (rather than frequency restriction) and what is the upper limit of people's ability to discern the difference? Making a comparison for a second, with video 24 frames per second takes on the appearance of motion. 10-15 frames per second, things begin to look pretty choppy. The difference between 30 and 60 frames per second is incredibly obvious to some people (myself included), while other people struggle to differentiate the two. I also see a difference between 60 and 100 frames per second (with video games), however I have to look for particular things to identify it (like looking at a piece of distant scenery while panning the in-game camera). I've not spent time extensively testing, but I doubt I'd be able to reliably tell the difference between 120Hz and 144Hz or even 240Hz. Some people claim they can reliably tell the difference between 144Hz and 240Hz. I'm certainly not calling them liars, but I also wouldn't take their word for it. They would have to prove via blind testing (and no, I don't mean put a blindfold on them) that they could could tell the difference reliably. It's not a perfect comparison (and I've ignored things like frame interpolation as this comment is already too long, though frame interpolation is a good equivalent for the filtering between sample rate points), but it gets the point across. What I'm wondering is how many people are the audio equivalent of people that can't reliably tell the difference between 30-60/60-100 frames per second? When it comes to self proclaimed audiophiles, I hold the same position as I do with people that claim they can tell the difference between 144Hz and 240Hz. I'm not saying you can't hear minute differences between DACs, cables (some made from unicorn mane) or higher sample rates, but I'm not going to take your word for it.

[@dlarge6502]

@ReaktorLeak Excellent example!

[@Raziel_SSJ]

So interesting seminar. Thanks a lot Dr Waldrep. If I must resume: Remasters? Swarming HRA offers? 53:42 *Bang!* As in cinematographic industry, pay attention not to only the mastering but the all process, *starting by the captation,* before talking about HRA and going back to the cash register ;)

[@gayusschwulius8490]

In the end, everything boils down to mastering instead of hardware. Lol, who would've thought.

[@bobedgar6647]

And the real Source Material, of course 😎

[@gayusschwulius8490]

@@bobedgar6647 Obviously. Though that's mostly a matter of old music as modern music is always recorded into high-end and high-res DACs.

[@bobedgar6647]

@@gayusschwulius8490 I was actually referring to the musical content as Source Material in the spirit of your Lol. Technology and mastering and post production all matter but if it doesn’t start well it won’t ever end well.

[@gayusschwulius8490]

@@bobedgar6647 oh, yes, you're right :'D

[@BumbleBeeBeeRock]

can someone please explain this in 3mins or less

[@Bagman57]

1. Higher bit and sample rates really don't make any difference. You really can't hear that difference. 2. If you do think you hear a difference it's really all in your mind. Bigger numbers doesn't mean better sound. 3. It's all about the bottom line, $$$. You spend more money on something that is a bunch of bull. 4. You can't make an original studio master sound any better by adding more bits or raising the sample rate.

[@tinostarks]

all these higher number mean shit because the big labels aren't going back to rerecord in 24/96; modern mastering engineers are screwing up the dynamic range by making everything super loud because higher volumes gives the general public the placebo that "louder is better"

[@ohjoy40]

Gary T. And your basing your opinion on what ? If you think it's because of this Shannon Nyquist theorem it apparently is not correct since there is a difference that all the best engineers and even musicians can hear the difference. So if that is your reason you would be wrong. And if you can't hear it yourself ether your playback system is not of high enough quality for you to hear it OR your just deaf

[@FriedEgg101]

The Japanese definition of "hi res" is the most rigid. Any analogue master source has a maximum of 10-bit dynamic range, you can't add dynamic range after the fact, so any "hi res" audio from an analogue master source is a bit of a hoax, and wouldn't meet the Japanese definition of "hi res" anyway. But "hi res" audio is a possibility if you keep it digital from recording to master. This is how I understood it all.

[@Bot_967]

Summary: He is making the argument that what is marketed as Hi-Res is generally false because it is dependent on the source recording and then defines and argues what we need to do to give correct accurate information and real Hi-Res audio to consumers. 1. First he defines and clarifies what sources constitute Hi-Res (what is and what is not). 2. From there he justifies the use and recording of Hi-Res (digital source 24bit/48kHz and higher) "If an instrument makes sound...i want to capture it...maybe it might make a difference". !!!! He never said that you won't hear the difference between Red Book (16bit/44.1kHz)!!! 3. He says that most commercially available marketed Hi-Res recording aren't from a Hi-Res source and therefore not Hi-Res 4. He goes on to argue the different Hi-Res formats and if they are actual Hi-Res or not (Vinyl, CD, DSD, BluRay). Again, if it isn't from a Hi-Res source recording then it doesn't matter what format/bit bucket. 5. Finally he argues Hard Copy Downloads vs Streaming sources and the quality loss of streaming audio sources. Then also adds in that MQA is a superior format. 6. Questions Conclusions: If you want Y but what is going in is X and marketed as Y then it is not Y. When buying audio, you need to find what the source audio recording was on (digital vs analogue). From there you should analyze the file to verify if the sonics being produced are correct for that bitstream ie. 24bit/96kHz, upon analysis, should show sonics all the way up to 48kHz. If not, then your file is not accurately Hi-Res and can convert to whatever format necessary to capture the sonics actually produced. !Important! He never actually said that "what you think you hear with Hi-Res audio is placebo and only in your mind." He never discounted the fidelity of actual Hi-Res audio. He did said that what is marketed as Hi-Res, if not producing sonics in that frequency, is not Hi-Res.

[@yomkrzych]

Awesome session! Quite true probably!

[@Projacked1]

This is an eye-opener Mark !

[@Digiphex]

The truth is always refreshing to hear, especially in this industry. I can define "Hi-Res". I have seen Sony's diagrams on their site, for example for their headphones and others. The diagrams show clearly that the frequencies produced by sample rates over 44.1kHz are what they are selling. Those are frequencies humans cannot hear. So I would define it as any music which has inaudible material which may cause distortion in conventional equipment. I think we should spend our resources and effort on surround for more realism, not Hi Res.

[@Lasse3]

+Wavestrike Electronics why does people with no actual knowledge like yourself go around parading their ignorance willingly. When you listen to a DSD dac at sample rate 11.3 mhz, you can easily tell the difference between the digital filter being placed at 50khz and 150khz. why is this? let me explain, the filters themselves affects the sound in the audible spectrum, moving these filters as far away from the audible spectrum as possible is important. PCM requires analogue FIR filters to dampen the sampling frequency noise, the 44.1 khz sample frequency itself causes so much noise you wouldn't believe it. The reason you want sample rates above 44.1khz is simply because you can move the filter further away, since the sampling frequency is moved further away from the audible spectrum. you might not be able to tell the difference ( and i'm not assuming you've had the chance of listening to 11.3mhz DSD ) but let me tell you, it's very easy once you hear it. I'm not trying to sell you anything, i can't distinguish a DxD master file, from the 11.3 mhz DSD transfer. But i can easily distinguish a PCM 44.1khz file from a DXD 11.3mhz file. i prefer modern recorded DSD files, directly recorded with microphones unto analogue mixers and then immediately digitalized with DSD ADC's live. This is the most authentic sound you'll get. A cello or a violin has never sounded like that in PCM world, let me tell you ;) !

[@raffiequler7510]

The 24/88 files always sound better than the same files at 16/44. Much warmer, more dimensional, more dynamic. My nigga, you have to listen to those files first, then compare and then talk. Right now, you are talking out of your ass.

[@raffiequler7510]

Çerastes You are wrong, Cerastes. Higher sampling rates affect all frequencies below 20 kHz, not just those above 20 kHz. You don't understand sampling.

[@raffiequler7510]

Çerastes You have no clue, but you think you do. It does NOT say anywhere in the Nyquist Theorem that sampling rates higher than 44.1 kHz affect only frequencies over 20 kHz. That is a blatant lie and only a troll like you can make up such bullshit.

[@Digiphex]

Çerastes It is because a sine wave has a peak and a trough, thus the need for twice the number you want to reproduce. And the brilliant designer of the CD gave us a little extra for filtering and other concerns. The CD is perfect reproduction of 100 percent of the signal.

[@-dimar-]

Thanks, very educational. I always thought that high resolution Wave/FLAC files are the exact, or close enough, replicas of the master recordings, hopefully created using top of the line equipment.

[@Bellyflops2]

Anthony Cumias introduction was fantastic

[@therubbermemory2652]

Excellent speech.

[@henrikevertsson8702]

Why should we all demystify things? The most precious things in life are mysterious, such as love, meditation, yes even the existence itself is strange. I love hires material since it's mysterious. And it sounds good. Isn't that a mystery as well? How can anything "sound good". Who is this master who experiences a well sounding flute in this very moment between two eternities?

[@cillyede]

You are right!

[@antigen4]

'high resoltuion' audio ain't no myth ... though i think we're on a bit of a wild goose chase with this particular presenter

[@clarkkent6026]

pay attention to the presentation and you will see that many industry giants only want to sell you again and again same old quality stuff re-wrapped in fancy new format that by no means represent an OBJECTIVE superior audio quality at all

[@oxfordbambooshootify]

Somedays i wish i was an audiophile but most days i'm glad i'm not. Having average hearing is a blessing on my wallet

[@oxfordbambooshootify]

@@mikepawntee2425 you're probably right 😂

[@Jacksonabean]

The term audiophile refers more to the passion of the person or to their hobby rather than some special capability. If you have found yourself spending hours and hours listening to different music for the dynamic range, staging, Imaging and tonality, you are such a beast even if you’re 95 and can’t hear anything above 10K.

[@guitarsam7604]

if you run the cd line out to rca tape deck input to rca tape deck output to pc line in & live stream record the signal then compare the before & after from the same source cd & when the cd is processed through the analog tape deck with low/high pass filtering + wow & flutter + bias + no noise reduction with no tape in machine so the tape deck is just used to process the digital signal & you can forget about upsampling dsd dac players

[@aristoman007]

Thank you. This was very interesting and informative.

[@Zenwork]

Thank you for sharing,,,

[@dvamateur]

Isn't the higher bit rate advantageous so that we have more resolution for pianissimo parts? Talking about increasing whole dynamic range is misleading people...

[@melissamybubbles6139]

So, most of my music is wma and mp3. I'm new to audio stuff. Am I okay at 320?

[@chriss881000]

Ur okay at 320. But ofc spend ut money on tidal and such, only u can deside what u like, but u most likely can't hear any difference. I hear difference between spotify and tidal, but not any better sound, just some things are different. Some better and some worse.

[@clarkkent6026]

you are ok at 320 if your master (i.e. CD 16 bit 44Khz) has a good DR and it's from a nice mix (many CDs from 90s to 20x0s where horribly mastered); also be sure to rip CDs with some quality software (i.e. strong error detection, low speed 2x, etc)

[@UberPilot]

This guys pretty honest.................just sell it again...LOL..................the best sound at the RMAF goes to.......................a reel to reel player.........................

[@Bagman57]

I agree. It's the bottom line. A lot of hype and misinformation just to sell you something that doesn't make a bit (no pun intended) of difference.

being all equal, gear, DAC, speakers, levels In my high end? system, I cant gear differences between a WAV and a DSD/SACD, same master recording, but I can hear clearly the difference between the wav and an MP3 320kbps. No difference between a FLAC, WAV a DSD.

[@raymondleggs5508]

I cant hear uc difference between 320K Mp3 and CD/Lossless. plus the file sizes are stupidly big.

[@privatethoughts3798]

Unlike others, you can only be happy with an mp3 ....!

[@timeWaster76]

Why didn't you press the vinyl from the digital master ? Great presentation and very accurate.. But I would make a one statement.... Digital recording saves the vinyl market... here is how. All music is analog and at the ends there is A/D and D/A in between... with the advent of the digital recording and play back the process between mic and speaker has been made transparent. So my suggestion is you should have had the vinyl pressed from the digital signal. using tape was the mistake. And no not a substitute for vinyl in any way. Very few can tell An artfully done piece of vinyl from a 44kHz. X 12 bits digital file.. Making it worse is few can tell 96kHz. X 24 bits digital file... Unless you are doing post production work on the file. Listening to music is an experience.. from going to a great hall to hear acoustic music to out working in the garden with ear bugs listening to ear buds. In between those somewhere you have listing to vinyl trough a great stereo. In many ways the vinyl gets closer to the music hall . May be even better actually... the assumption being if you go to the hall you get the best seat in the house and no one talking over the music. The vinyl experience is hearing is as intended at the concert having a physical representation of the performance in you hand including art work and maybe some background information It is as much about taking time out of the day to sit and just listening in and of it's self as and activity, hearing music one finds meaningful.It is even about zoning out to the music holding the album cover. What I find fantastic is the digitally remasters on premium vinyl through my carefully acquired stereo with a real nice set of speakers moving all the air in the room just as it would be at a concert. So try pressing that vinyl from the digital file using a great D/A converter..

[@timeWaster76]

Çerastes Huh You are one of those purest #&$*^$.... I guess you like the hearing the analog noise through a 20,000 + dollar stereo. The audiophile world is full of people that think having a dynamic range of 60 to 70 dB filters out bad spirits or something. The snake oil salesmen have to have someone to sell their wares. The proof is i the hiss his client heard... that "vintage" sound how lovely. No I don't "know all" but I can read..... " In case of video recordings it is moot for one other reason; whether the format is analog or digital, digital signal processing is likely to have been used in some stages of its life, such as digital timebase correction on playback"

[@shaun9107]

Hi Fi GURU its true

[@antigen4]

sure well most people have garbage playback chains and under those circumstances the differences really do not exist - practically speaking

[@dvamateur]

I love DSD. It's quite interesting, it follows the analog signal rather closely, it goes 1-bit up or 1-bit down depending where the sampled analog curve goes. I think it's brilliant. And with sampling rate of 2.8MHz (yes, MHz, not KHz) the gaps between the samples are rather minute, in fact 64x smaller than on CD. What do you do with all the gaps on CD, you fill the up with dither (random or interpolated noise). That's like upscaling a standard definition video to HD. In other words, PCM is not perfect. It's getting better with higher sampling frequencies, like 192kHz, 384kHz, but still not even close to the DSD which for all practical purposes has no gaps. Sure, you shove up the noise over 50kHz and filter it out with rather smooth filter on DSD. In PCM, you invent noise and plug it in between the gaps. In fact, a lot of DAC's that process PCM behave exactly like DSD, they do 64x oversampling, that's all random bits. I'd rather have real bits of information in DSD than random bits in PCM. The choice is open. I am glad we're going back to DSD, and I am glad we're still pursuing high sample rates PCM. The conversation about 24-bit/96kHz audio has been well discussed in 1998 issue of Keyboard magazine. Yes, that's an old topic. The idea behind high resolution audio is that we increase number of bit resolution, not to gain higher dynamic range, but to be able to have more resolutions for the quiet (pianissimo) parts. And we increase sampling frequency to minimize gaps between the samples, so that we can do without dither, and apply smoother curve filter, as opposed to brick wall over 20kHz like on the CD. Why are we dwelling on dynamic range and ultra high frequency representation? It's not what Hi-Res audio is about.

[@MichelLinschoten]

Andrew Piatek it's all pseudo bullshit....you will never ever hear the differences. That's what it is always about, you're trying hard to talk a banana straight

[@sonicsaviouryouwillnotgetm6678]

You have an erroneous understanding of what a digital encoding is and you might find these xiph.org/video/vid2.shtml explanations helpful. An analog signal (containing only frequencies below Nynquist) gets exactly mathematically recovered the same way a straight line gets recovered from a pair of points. In the electronical world due to imperfections, some noise is added. If you really want to know the math behind it and are litterate enough to understand it, I recommend „Mathematical principles of Signal Processing“ by Pierre Brémaud.

[@julianmorrisco]

Andrew Piatek in 1998 we in the audio engineering community were exploring HSR, and many people believed they could hear the differences. Sometimes, due to the poor quality of AD/DA in those days, we could. But when, over the next 5-10 years, we did a lot of double blind ABX tests what we heard couldn’t be reproduced when we genuinely didn’t know, and the testers genuinely didn’t know, what track was being played. It turned out any real differences were due to phase problems with early converters and their filters, something that hasn’t been an issue for well over a decade. Between about 2000-2010 the emperor was shown to have no clothes. There’s no shame in this to most audio engineers who know how much of the hearing process is subjective and we’d rather know something is accurate and real than convince ourselves of something only we, or a few people, can really hear when the wind is blowing in a certain direction, in a particular room or on a sunny day. And frankly, even if the differences were real, the fact that it’s still in dispute after 20 years, that even those who claim to be able to tell the difference never offer 100% accuracy (I can easily tell the difference 100% of the time between 8, 12 and 16 bits as well as - 22kHz SR from a 44.1 - just no higher than that!) means it wouldn’t be worth half the expense and argument that goes on. If you want a (slightly) more updated take on what professionals who work with sound have pretty much agreed look for Paul Lehman’s articles in Mix Magazine from about 2006 on high sample rates. We use 24 bits for tracking to give us more leeway, but only if a client is an ‘audiophile’ who insists would we use bit rates higher than 48k. Sound quality is paramount but secondary is processing power for track numbers and processing. Given that there are no human perceivable differences between regular and high sample rates, we choose to use the CPU cycles on arrangements. Of course, you can find the odd engineer who buys into the HSR stuff and you might as well use HSR if you’re going straight to master, it’s a differentiator in the market, but the engineers who believe in HSR as a human perceivable difference are a tiny minority and usually considered eccentric. This in an industry notoriously eccentric about things such as mix-bus summing, various flavours of analogue mic-pre distortion and the benefits of particular models of one brand of mixing desk from the 70s and 80s. But all this stuff we obsess about is to knowingly screw with the sound (in a good way). When it comes to transparent reproduction, 99% are on board with the science, once experience has proved to us the truth of the numbers, that is :-)

[@jimbobbank]

So many people having conversations in the audience. If I was this guy I would just walk out😡 the room should be quiet.

[@shrodingersman]

I just wish the industry would agree on a new hi-res format and stick to it, something like 4K audio (using the same amount of data on the new 4K UHD video discs) would be a dream. Yes, I know it's overkill, but that way it's really future proof. Although people will ague that we can't hear beyond a certain point etc, if we had done that for HD DVD's we would have stopped perhaps at 1080p. Now look, each time we upgrade we do actually notice a difference, could it be that as the quality increases that the public gets to see or hear, we also increase our perceptual abilities some time after the actual release of the format, and don't appreciate the quality until we have time to familiarise ourselves with it. Can you imagine how low the quality of images would be for say virtual reality would be if we just stuck to 1080p? The point is, we often don't understand the practical applications of continuing to increase quality and the naysayers point out that human perception cannot go beyond a certain point, but later like with VR and 360 video it becomes apparent the quality improvements are worth it as the paradigms change (multi channel audio needing higher resolution for each channel, instead of the current limit of hearing divided between lots of channels, paralleling VR, 360 video & augmented reality). Lot's of people are unhappy with CD's, it's time to move on to something a lot better!

[@Bagman57]

Video probably so, but audio not so.

[@astralbraintentacles1212]

But what about Shannon-Nyquist theory. CD should be enough (mastered correctly).

[@timramich]

shrodingersman Audio doesn't need anything more than 16/44.1. Video technology has been lacking. You can move closer to a screen, or make it bigger, which actually does require more resolution. You can't "zoom in" on audio while listening to it. Even if you played a CD in some anechoic chamber, that 16/44.1 would be good enough. No music ever produced has taken the full advantage of the 96 undithered dB that CD has to offer. Dither the master to 24 bits with noise shaping, and you have a 120 dB range to play with. People who say we need a higher sample rate refuse to believe that what comes out of a DAC is anything but what they see in their zoomed-in waveform in an audio editor. Audio programs really should stop drawing those waveforms like that and either just put dots where the samples are or actually trace a smooth line like a DAC would do.

[@raffiequler7510]

Tim, studio masters always sound clearer and better in every way. You are deceiving yourself.

[@timramich]

First off, my post wasn't even directed to you, so STFU. Secondly, prove your BS with blind tests, or once again, STFU.

[@jukumariiramuri1557]

I just got the new sony NW ZX2 and it is awesome no complains so far.I think this gentleman is entitle to his opinion or hi just want a piece of the pie.

[@Ecidemon]

+jukumari iramuri it's not just opinion though, cd audio quality covers our hearing range with room to spare both in frequency response and dynamic range. The standard wasn't selected at random you know.

[@Digiphex]

+jukumari iramuri Lol. It is not his opinion. It is the physics of digital signal processing. It is impossible for a human to hear frequencies higher than 20kHz and the gold sticker saying "Hi-Res" is true, they are giving you those higher frequencies, much higher than 20kHz. However, you cannot hear them and they are useless as end consumer media.

[@raffiequler7510]

+Digiphex Electronics All those frequencies above 20 kHz have a lot of influence on frequencies below 20 kHz. You obviously never heard a high-res file. Maybe you should. Being ignorant is easy. It requires no brains, no knowledge and no experience.

[@Ecidemon]

***** True, however. Ultrasonic audio content contributes to intermodulation distortion in the audible range, designing components to account for ultrasonic content requires compromises that decreases noise and distortion performance in the audible spectrum. There's no net gain of quality to be had, only loss. Another way to conceptualize what you just said is to claim that colors in movies would look so much better if they were filmed to include light 400% above the visual range way up in the ultra violet. because that's what 192kHz is to 44.1kHz in audio terms. If you ever heard a difference between a song on a audio cd and a high def audio rendition of same song the only difference you heard was due to mastering. More often then not high def audio is sourced from recordings made on standard def equipment anyways and then there is no physical difference at all.

[@Digiphex]

+Ecidemon So right. Our eyes and ears are both bandwidth limited. If the visible light was affected by UV, that "effect" came through on the film. It was not necessary to watch the UV radiation at the theater. Same thing here. If audible frequencies were somehow affected (which I do not agree with at the end consumer level), we audibly hear that effect on the bandwidth limited CD. It is not necessary to reproduce supersonic waves so dolphins will also enjoy it.

[@radornkeldam]

The only (theoretical) way I can see HD audio making any sense would be in the hypotetical scenario that there was some audio transmission technology that directly interfaced with the auditory nerves so that 20kHz and higher could reach the brain. Relying on the cochlea just won't cut it for HD audio. Now, assuming such a thing can be done, there's just no telling what it would be to "hear" that kind of signal. It probably would be short of unbearable and who knows the health implications of feeding the brain with "out-of-spec" signals. Ever seen these deaf-born children they put these cochlear implants on, the faces they make when the first connect the devices. And that's just interfacing with the actual cochlea, which already imposes a limit on the frequency band. Imagine taping the nerves directly...

[@Jacksonabean]

How much radiation are you getting right now? Don’t know do you? Nope.... no receptors for that. So the cochlea doesn’t resonate at 40K but what does that mean? Why can a trained person tell the difference in high res audio?

[@JesemanuelRamirez]

Having honest descriptions would be awesome... but they won't sell as well to the masses. People would believe anything unfortunately.

[@googoo-gjoob]

never would i presume to tell you what you can not hear...

[@alexanderakenzie3711]

Sony - the masters of mumbo jumbo introduced hi-res audio to the market. In fact the FLAC standard (CD quality) is perfect for stereo. There's nothing to improve for the human ear. If hi-res audio sounds different it's because it's sampled or even recorded different, but you would hear the exact same result if presented in FLAC. Hi-res audio is totally nonsense but could in theory sound better for some animals...

[@Romany1111]

Exactly. However, "tweaks" will want to spend all their money on more equipment that exists only to promote a false standard. Let 'em. I put my money into well-recorded FLAC/CD releases. My hi-fi equipment works just fine.

[@UberPilot]

............................................and yet my best recording is Dean Martin on 45rpm vinyl..........................DOUGH

[@bbarrera86]

i am not sure i would agree with 'tampering the dynamics is a bad thing' referring to mastering. Why can't you record high res audio and modulate stuff that should be heard through the system and that benefits the way it all converges, i see mastering as a refinement in how everything converges, i heard some high res audio stuff from AIX and it just sounds so amateurish, specially some vocalists, like it sounds good yeah, but i am sure with some mastering it should be able to mesh together better, doesnt mean that you should kill everything you recorded, it should be a fine polish only. Or if the vocalist and the band can't find the sweetspot for everyone to sound balanced and right then it could be time to change what they are doing or all of them depending how harsh you want to be. I am sure if AIX recorded some pro bands that high res producto/result should be more interesting, not sure why they are not doing it more often just rehashing material that will not sound better because the recording is limited to lower bit depths and sampling.

[@lizichell2]

of coarse this guy would say this because he masters and sells mainstream music which is likely to end up on mp3 and CD. Britney and blink 182 etc...i rest my case

[@igorstrav]

+lizichell2 Actually, I record and distribute tracks that audiophiles love because they aren't processed and have amazing fidelity. Check out Real HD-Audio dot com for additional information...including some links to free high-res files.

[@chriss881000]

Watched this video prob 20 times. Rly enjoy it. Tidal is full of bullshit. 50% of their master tracks is not high res at all. So many old tracks from the 50's etc says master. It impossible, they did not have that tec in that time. Its more likely if it says master on lets say a rianna track, bec they can record hi res today.

[@carltaylor1497]

The problem is the streaming companies are basically selling "Lossless" and calling it "Hi-Res". A lossless CD quality or lower recording is not "Hi-Res". And I don't care what this guy says Masters that are put onto vinyl are put onto Viny at a higher resolution than they are onto CDs. Music has to be compressed in order to fit an average album onto a CD. Not as badly as when it is converted to MP3 but it is still compressed and does lose some of it's fidelity in the Sample Rates.

[@japhethpereira2155]

B

[@Bagman57]

Yup he's right. It's all about hype, mind games and the bottom line, $$$. That is "You can't get a silk purse from a sows ear". I watched a video and read that mainly what they (music studios/audio engineers) especially on todays pop music is to record everything loud to sound better on less than high quality devices. That said you end up with almost no dynamic range. To me listening to most of todays pop music it sounds like a bunch of noise after a very short time. It ends up being a bunch of loud noise and that's all. Even some of the remastered classic pop and rock music sounds like garbage especially when the volume in a song goes up, it just gets noisy.

[@jfolz]

Gotta love people like last-question-guy. Even if you are a bit of a dum-dum and actually believe that sound has to coincide with the sampling interval, at 44.1 kHz you're taking a sample every 22 MICROSECONDS. Does anyone actually believe they can hear timing differences in the low microsecond range? Honestly people, it does help to actually use your brain occasionally. How can you live in a society that is entirely built on the universality of mathematical truth, yet somehow believe it's all bullshit and you know better.

[@jfolz]

@ReaktorLeak the sampling theorem only cares about the frequency. As long as there are at least two samples per half-period the signal can be reproduced perfectly with infinite resolution regarding amplitude and phase.

[@lizichell2]

just sell us a copy of the uncompressed 24 track master and allow us to master it ourselves lol

[@raffiequler7510]

Mastering done by a clueless teen with no equipment or experience to do it properly? Wow, you are an idiot.

[@qing9367]

@raffie quler wow judging someone without even knowing literally anything about him, not even his real name. wow you are an idiot

[@raffiequler7510]

akash majumdar Go fuck yourself. You got mad because you also belong among those same teenage idiots. Fucktard!

[@qing9367]

awww butthurt much ? maybe you should go back to your mom's basement where you live hahaha

[@robertofortuni6886]

well Chesky Records does that; they sell practically direct-recordings from the musicians (he doesnt even use any studio and dubbing, just an old church with great natural acoustics) and puts that into 24 bit-96Khz FLACs

[@dickballs2936]

The quality and fluctuation in volume of the audio in this video speaks for itself. How are we supposed to trust an "audio society" who can't capture a clean mic signal. Were you guys using an omnidirectional microphone so you could add the mumbling of the audience, for who the hell knows why?

[@lizichell2]

you want good sound for less money just go to the vinyl record bargain bins

[@JonnyInfinite]

or get CDs for pence

[@robertofortuni6886]

better yet get SACDs for a few dollars

[@bujoun76]

HRA is pretty useless for me. It completely turned me away from even trying anymore.

[@preparationhijklmnop]

Of course people will spring for a logo. I've downloaded things from HDtracks that doesn't sound as good as CD. Who cares about the science. Lets just listen to what sounds better than the rest. Also fuck logos.

[@latourhighendaudio]

When are people going understand audio and in this case digital audio. There is more to resolution and detail than bandwidth and that if it goes beyond our hearing limits (which is also not true) that it will make no difference in what we hear. This is narrow minded thinking and staged by those that truly don't understand audio and digital audio. So cerrestes or whatever your name is, we've have this debate between us before, so I do have a very extensive knowledge on the subject contrary to your belief. Simply because I disagree with you and this article do not insult my knowledge and intelligence. Let's then just agree to disagree.

[@antigen4]

reminds me of people who argue that anything beyond 44.1khz isn't audible anyway because nobody can hear beyond 20khz. facile argument.

[@mcnyregrus]

The Nyquist sampling theorem, which was proven already in 1928, states that as long as the sampling frequency exceeds twice that of the bandwidth, the sampled signal will contain ALL the information with NO loss and NO distortion. This has been proven by several others since then. So therefore, a higher sample rate will not give more detail or resolution to what you had before - it will only add information from higher frequencies. This means going from 44.1 kHz to 96 kHz will ONLY add information from 22 kHz to 48 kHz - NOTHING ELSE. If you would like to read more, here are a couple of sources: www.head-fi.org/t/571259/hi-rez-another-myth-exploded www.head-fi.org/t/415361/24bit-vs-16bit-the-myth-exploded wiki.hydrogenaud.io/index.php?title=Myths_(Vinyl)#Myth:_Vinyl_is_better_than_digital_because_the_analog_signal_on_the_vinyl_tracks_the_analog_signal_exactly.2C_while_digital_is_quantized_into_steps

[@antigen4]

mcnyregrus 'all other things being equal' perhaps! but they only very rarely are.

[@mcnyregrus]

???

[@antigen4]

? sure i have a clue... 'BRO'. i have a degree in physics and studied psychoacoustics too. YOU'RE missing the point perhaps. it's NOT a matter of frequency range. There's more to sound than just frequency and bels.

[@granddolph]

ZZZZZZZzzzzzzz.......

[@granddolph]

They should play this monologue to the meth heads in hospital wards to help them calm down and go to sleep

[@rikirex2162]

wow...friken broken record

[@Raziel_SSJ]

Records sellers you want to say

[@shrodingersman]

Surely if we did include all the frequencies above 20KHz this could be an issue to animal welfare that can hear them?

[@morfx9911]

Naa, it would be just like, playing a guitar in front of them.

[@dlarge6502]

They won't hear them, your speakers won't be good enough. Instead the speakers will try to reproduce the ultrasonic frequencies, and fail, adding distortion to what you can hear.

[@rick4electric]

I'm sorry. If you represent 20k with a dot, THAT IS A SQUARE WAVE, NOT MUSIC!

[@magicscreengames4353]

Full of lies

[@latourhighendaudio]

I'm sorry Mr Waldrep I do not agree with your philosophy and in my opinion are doing a disservice to those wanting to achieve the best sound. There is a difference in the sound quality of higher resolution recordings. You have the same philosophy of many average consumers who have a narrow vision of the technical aspects of recorded music.

[@mcnyregrus]

I hope this doesn't sound harsh, but take your favourite hi-res recording, downsample it to 16/44.1 and download the free player Foobar and its ABX plugin. Then do a blind test (preferably 16 to 20 trials) and see what result you get. 50-60 % is no better than flipping a coin. I've done it and got that result. This is the only way to figure if you can REALLY hear a difference, or if you're just imagining it. If you're just imagining it, then you're far from the first (you're probably number 200,000) :-).

[@latourhighendaudio]

If you cant hear a difference then something in the chain is not allowing you to hear the differences. The only way to really know there is or isn't a difference is being able to do evaluations on a reference system. If then you don't hear a difference fine, but I have found just about everything makes a difference. The key is determining if its truly an improvement or just different. But typically anyone can hear a difference from Mp3 to cd quality, but yes it gets harder as it goes up in resolution if you don't have a decent playback system and you don't know what to listen for. but to say there is no difference is just plain not true.

[@mcnyregrus]

LaTour High End Audio Then do a blind test on that system and tell us your result :-). Such a thing as finding a difference between mp3 vs. CD quality can easily be proven with a null-test (and there's a guy who did this on KZbin). So there IS a difference, but for most people it's not audible if it's properly encoded 320 kpbs mp3. But some people can hear a difference and can demonstrate it in a blind test. Most can't. Also, it should also be possible to demonstrate the difference between a hi-res vs. CD quality file with a null-test. In some cases it will show there's a difference, although it should be inaudible, as the difference would only be in frequencies from around 22 kHz and up, but the meters would show if there's any difference.

[@latourhighendaudio]

I am a expert in my field ahhh so I am highly educated. What makes YOU such an expert ? talk about troll

[@MichelLinschoten]

Expert? In what? Horrible grammar and being ignorant? With today's available mp3 de-encoders you will NOT i repeat NOT hear a difference. Do a blind test, you would like anyone would (been there done that and conducted them PLENTY on demo meetings) FAIL. I went from a 35000usd setup to a normal awesome vintage setup. I am openly admitting that i FAILED just as my Audioquest bullshit cables, my MIT interlinks, my PUCKS the works (but you're an expert right) The amount of equipment i back then bought and tested is staggering.... I had people that had well over 100 plus K into their setups, they all FAILED just like me imagine that. But unlike me they blame the room they were in, or they were tired , or X X X X excuses as long as it did not reflected to them as being flawed.

[@dickballs2936]

This dude's ears must be shot. Does he really think that digital stereo recording technology was already perfect when the CD first came out almost 40 years? I remember reading that nobody could tell the difference between 720p and 1080p. Now 4K TVs are flying off the shelves. Resolution doesn't matter in audio either, right?

[@darinbrunet4600]

Dick Balls You are conflating video resolution with audio resolution. They are not equivalent. You eyes, if perfect, can see billions of colors and high dynamic range (black to white,) while the perfect ear can only hear ~20k frequencies. A huge difference.

[@MichelLinschoten]

Dick Balls comparing apples with oranges. Video signal has tons more information to send than audio. Challenge yourself with samples of various quality and then choose what you think is the highest quality. They all fail... miserable, it's pure bullshit. If you understand the proprietary technology behind it.

[@morfx9911]

Dick Balls What a troll, comparing different things in an ignorant way xd

[@robertofortuni6886]

the comparison is a good one IF u stay on the video field; when tv started resolution was less than 640x480 (in 4:3 ratio); then u got HDTV 1024x768, then Full HD 1920x1080 (16;9 ratio) and the quality kept improving up to 4K; but of course, to get that kind of hi-def picture you need : a) to invest tons of money i n your video chain b) get REAL hi-def sources (really scarce); the only difference is that in the video world there seems to be FAR LESS snake oil

[@dlarge6502]

Yes, CD is perfect. Anything that causes issues is surrounding the CD device itself, the source or the output. Obviously you could also have a bad player reading the CD badly but as designed all those years ago, CD was designed to give perfect audio, forever. That however does not resell the same stuff, so we need to be convinced to buy it again, and again. They won't stop with Hi-res, that will be replaced, with the same arguments by "ultra Hi-res" and many people who bought Hi-res will see it as crappy as a cassette recorded on a mono recorder. They will "remember" it as being that crappy, they will laugh at Hi-res players like many laugh at CD. There will be all sorts of gumpf about how you need ultra Hi-res, that Hi-res can't do this or that due to phasing and God knows what. You will be the old fogie, the granddad, squinting through glasses while the youth laugh at you trying to convince them that what they see as a 78 record is in fact all the Hi-res ever needed.

[@hasekdom]

Bitter old man. Vinyl sounds so much better than all other formats and that is a fact.

[@hasekdom]

ofcourse I am not wrong. I have been doing this for 30 years. Vinyl only in my house these days after years of setting it up vs digital. The x-factor of vinyl is so much more engaging than anything digital.

[@mcnyregrus]

It's not a fact but an opinion, which you're welcome to have, but it's not a fact. I was vinyl only for 15 years, but then I upgraded my stereo and compared 750 albums. Now I like both, but I'm mostly pro-digital. The worst digital was in the 80s though as well as many reissues from the 60s and 70s, and certain newer albums also sound poor digitally for various reasons.

[@hasekdom]

Ofcourse you Waste Your precious time. You wrote this ridiculous comment.

[@vinylcity1599]

hasekdom YES! YES! YES!

[@MichelLinschoten]

When people are deaf like you, sure you're right