The Good & The Bad of High-Resolution Audio

In this video we take a look at the issues and positives aspects of Hi-Res audio, the definition, the file types, certification issues and much more. Does HRA make any sense?
N.B. Again I got mixed up! MQA is a lossy foramt, even when the origami is fully unfolded. Sorry!
_________
Sideways Samba di Audionautix è un brano autorizzato da Creative Commons Attribution (creativecommons.org/licenses/...)
Artista: audionautix.com/
#HighResAudio #HiRes #HRA

[@anadialog]

N.B. Again I got mixed up because Meridian keeps modifying their info! MQA is a lossy format, even when the origami is fully unfolded. Sorry!

[@larydixon4824]

Please, don't worry about it, it's a confusing format.. MQA is an interesting way of rearranging digital information, but not everyone thinks that it sounds better... Lary

[@jaydy71]

Well, vinyl and tape are lossy formats too ;) Maybe sometimes the question is "which kind of lossy sounds best"? :)

[@anadialog]

@@jaydy71 in that sense all formats are lossy...

[@artkulak9802]

Everything is lossy as soon as the "sound" leaves the "source" and begins traveling through the air. It's already lossy before it even hits the microphone!

[@pracheerdeka6737]

@@artkulak9802 TO KEEP SOUND GOING ONLY TO MICROFONE WE NEED A HELMET MADE FROM SOUND ISOLATION PARTICLES TO ALLOW AIR PRESSURE ONLY TO MICROFONE MADE UP OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE TO CONTROL THE SOUND..

[@wpienaar999]

I agree with you on your comments and point of view. Especially your last comments on CD and vinyl that can sound much better than a so claimed Hi Res file. A digital Hi Res file has to be firstly recorded in Hi Res then encoded and decoded correctly to make it audibly / sound better.

[@anadialog]

Indeed!

[@scottyo64]

Perfectly put

[@analoguecity3454]

Ah.....yes! Dont forget the compression that comes from digital! If you were going on strictly information recorded, than vinyl has the most ( studio analog master being #1 )! Its just expensive to try and find a cartridge good enough to extract it!

[@joewhip9303]

Compression is used in analog too. Compression does not have to be used in digital. It is grossly overused to make everything louder. Digital is capable of incredible dynamic range. Whether a particular recording sounds good or not depends on the quality of the original engineering and hopefully a very light hand from the mastering engineer, not the format. Frankly, the only time I use vinyl is for needle drops at 24/96. It captures the sound of the vinyl perfectly.

[@diegocanale1124]

You nailed it!

[@ThePajdzik]

Wonderful, very informative video, as always.

[@cesarjlisboa7586]

Good explanation for Hii-RESS. Congratulations!

[@hansbogaert4582]

Now let's see if the music industry is going to follow these guidelines ! ( I hope so)

[@shaunpaulwallace]

Emphatically agree with everything you said. Thanks. I'm not alone.

[@jcbc2004]

Your best video so far.

[@DKBoerner]

Very good channel. It is even better than professional TV. Very well done!!

[@DKBoerner]

Please answer me a short question: What is your favorite amplifier? :)

[@saricubra2867]

On the audio reproduction side: HD audio gives more headroom for DACs to work better on the audible frequency range reducing aliasing, but, at this point, a lot of DACs have very good quality filters that on 44.1KHz, people will not notice the difference (minus the 24 bit depth, 144DB of dynamic range, can help with massive speakers and amps). So, you hear music at 44.1Khz, good filters can remove frequencies above Nyquist therefore aliasing is basically removed. In real life, it's very difficult for DACs to produce an analog wave that is close to that 144DB theoretical dynamic range. 32 bit float is extremely overkill and ridiculous (over 1000DB of signal to noise ratio). On the music or audio processing side: Higher the sample rate, less aliasing. A huge difference for distortion and other things, but, oversampling is more practical, basically no aliasing and more efficient than HD audio for storage and less of a CPU load. It's embarrasing that there are a lot of "analog emulations" in music production without oversampling and the aliasing produced is awful ruining very high frequencies.

[@allenholdway8683]

So I’m a newbie at 60 years old. I started watching your videos and you have great information to learn from. I had my first stereo equipment from the late seventies refurbished turntables and kenwood receiver quality gear. Replace the speakers with Klipsch floor speakers . I’m going through around 400 albums and half of them are not good,or I’m not interested in. I’m not trying to be a hard core record collector. You have showed me how to clean and make sure how you get the best sound out of my record and my stereo receiver and my two turntables. Thanks for your time and your help on your videos. I have a lot more of them to watch.

[@anadialog]

Allen, what a nice and sincere comment. It gives me the strength to ho ahead! Thank you for your words. Very much appreciated.

[@fabiocampos9954]

Really good explanation.

[@gig73]

Ghanés Bro, great explanation...

[@birgerolofsson2347]

Really good video of you! *Thumbs Up*

[@kamertonaudiophileplayer847]

Yes, just recently added support of hi res audio and it really makes sense.

[@aldo9887]

Salve, ANA DIA LOG , Complimenti rinnovati per l’ultima tua fatica.- Infatti sei una miniera di preziose informazioni ed ottime tue considerazioni, che vanno talvolta aldilà di ogni umana comprensione, ed è questa una ulteriore tua virtù, poiché ci prendi per mano conducendoci verso mete sempre più ardite.- Aldo, : tuo amico ed estimatore.- 21/2/2020, anno Domini.- h.: 16:54.-

[@anadialog]

Non esageriamo! Troppo buono!

[@ronaldjanmaat6191]

For new old stock it is interesting to compare different media and issues to find the best sounding version. Many recordings just sound bad, in any version on any medium. Hi-RES makes the most sense for new recordings.

[@Ivanophilia]

'Hi-RES makes the most sense for new recordings.' AGREED !

[@rolandrohde]

HiRes makes the most sense for new and GOOD quality recordings. Even new recordings are sadly very badly done...

[@TimeGrowing]

you killed it bro

[@ilidiosantos5457]

Very interesting topic! Thank you for this video. I'm intrigued because you only mention JAS. Is the Japanese industry trying to define the "standard" again? What about other international associations in the US and Europe? Were they involved in some way in this discussion and have the same definition? As there are also technical issues involved (gear specifications), may be there is another war in the industry about standard definition, like we had in the past...

[@anadialog]

Thanks! Yes, as I mentioned RIAA tried to launch some parameters for High-res Music in 2014. The standard was and is set by JAS because they introduced this concept as we know it and the main manufacturers are Japanese, like Sony, who was one of the first to adopt it.

[@bd7190]

Great video, thank you. Though I am a bit confused with MQA. How does it compare to a lossless format? or how close is it?

[@anadialog]

When it is fully unfolded, not compressed, then it is lossless. During the precedent unfolding/compressing phases, whic are lossy, it is very good! I prefer FLAC, but when it is fully unfolded it is very good!

[@bd7190]

@@anadialog thank you

[@bd7190]

@@anadialog i'm not sure that I understand when you say "when it is fully unfolded". How does that happen? Do you mean software and hardware that can actually play MQA? is it when it actually gets fully unfolded?

[@anadialog]

@@bd7190 yes, you need a full decoder to have the maximum quality. They are expensive and the few existing cheaper ones like the Meridian Explorer 2 are not that good. Otherwise you will have a good quality playback through the other steps. Mqa is complex and a lot of people hate it also for this reason. Normal high-res, even though much more heavier is straightforward.

[@bd7190]

@@anadialog Thank you. My thought was to use TIDAL in combination with DragonFly cobalt. I guess I can get the best out of MQA this way or at least for that price...

[@TEST-rt1ui]

Thanks for your video. I did not know the standard of JAS before. If possible would you please compare DSD audio files with PCM? Many people told me DSD is very close to vinyl

[@anadialog]

I did a extremely detailed video on DSD with a test exactly as you suggested. Check it out! kzbin.info/www/bejne/m6aYemCwbMtpn9U

[@floshi6519]

Grazie Anadialog. Hai spiegato molto bene la situazione! Con quale sistema ascolti solitamente?

[@anadialog]

Qui puoi farti un'idea, anche se ora molte cose sono diverse. Presto farò un altro tour: kzbin.info/www/bejne/bHXKnHyajKuHZ7c

[@ruip72]

Hi buddy , outstanding explications , not that's important but just wondering when you are listening to "HR files" on tidal or qobuz , makes sense you listening those music on HR headphones ?

[@anadialog]

It does to squeeze every once of frequencies including distortion. All high quality cans are capable of dealing with high-rez music.

[@brendanliddell240]

Thanks and I agree, it's mostly about the proper recording, mixing and mastering process rather than the end output codec/ frequency. I have a question for you - I see a lot of vinyl to DSD128 conversations going on. Do you consider this Hi-Res, if processed properly?

[@anadialog]

It depends if you consider vinyl high-res! If the record is an original copy and well recorded, mastered and cut, a DSD conversion will be a great high-res digital version...of that record. The vinyl will always contain more information than a digital rip. I would also add that you need a very good DSD recorder.

[@moniquebolle2266]

Hi, very interesting video. But, Can my speakers or headphone reaches 40khz frequencies? Do i need extra câble between ampli and speakers ? Must i take care of the orientation of the speaker?

[@gantchogantchev6554]

I greatly enjoy this channel and the host strikes me as a great audio and analogue expert/enthusiast. He always gives great advice and makes great reviews of our favourite equipment. And I am totally inspired with awe looking at his gear :) However, there is one area where I totally disagree: the topic of this video, hi-res digital. The human hearing range is a given that does not expand (though it does shrink with age). If it does not make your eardrum vibrate, you cannot hear it. If you cannot hear it, it cannot affect your perception because it is infrasound or ultrasound. Period. This is solid physics and biology. Everything else is para-psychology and self-delusion - I suspect because some people like the flattering idea of having a more discerning ear than the rest :) Incidentally, for those that have not come acrss this, here is part of what Wikipedia says on the subject: "" Despite what I have just said, I remain your fan and will keep watching your great channel. :)

[@anadialog]

Thanks for your comment. Hopefully I will be able to explain why that is a common misconception. First of all subaonics and ultrasonics greatly influence the audible spectrum also by creating new harmonics and making that part they way we hear it in reality. This is science not an opinion. Already this aspect is enough to make high-res and the use of high-res mics worthy. Finally, in was able to demonstrate with aid of scientific peer-reviewed papers that we can actually perseve audio beyond 20khz and that musical instruments act in that range: kzbin.info/www/bejne/eKXRZmpoj652bs0

[@MAXLAND7]

Hello. I'm using an Arcam IrdacII (not mqa) with Audirvana which is doing the first Mqa unfolding. Do you think I miss a lot, not having the second unfolding of MQA?

[@anadialog]

Yes, because the MQA origami has multiple unfoldings. Only the full unfolding brings you close to a full high resolution file. In contrast with what I said in the video, I always get mixed up, MQA fully unfold is not lossless. I must admit that it does sound good but you are not getting the full package.

[@nikosgeorgiou1877]

Hi, you are doing good job with your videos, could you pls recommend me a good but not so expensive hifi system(i mean speakers, cd player , and amplifier ofcourse) Thank you.

[@anadialog]

Check out this video: kzbin.info/www/bejne/gXOWmWeGbpqNl80

[@lorenzodeiana3032]

Non sono riuscito a capire tutto, ma comunque grazie per questa sua spiegazione!

[@anadialog]

Di nulla grazie a te Lorenzo!

[@TheJaimzz]

Lars Ulrich explaining music - GREAT!

[@anadialog]

😂

[@ShellstaTube]

My observation is that streaming service and digital download sites typically regard >= 24bit 44.1kHz as Hi-Res with no statement/proof of source. Much of it is good and in honest search of Hi-Res ... but unfortunately some isn't. Oh - and I'll add ... I think streaming/download sites merely echo the 'tag' attached by the label/distribution entity.

[@lorenzodeiana3032]

Buonasera e nuovamente grazie per il suo lavoro! Chiedo scusa se le scrivo in italiano ma, nonostante io capisca cosa dice e cosa scrive, mi renderei ridicolo se provassi a scriverle in inglese. Mi confermi se ho capito bene: 1) è inutile acquistare file in hires, se poi non si hanno amplificatori e diffusori con una risposta in frequenza di almeno 40 kHz; 2) è inutile rimasterizzare in hires incisioni che verosimilmente non sono state fatte in hires ( stavo per comprare Kind of Blue, ma dopo il suo video non l'ho più fatto!) . A questo proposito c'è modo di sapere da che anno in poi si usano in sala di incisione tali microfoni? Di nuovo grazie, Lorenzo Deiana

[@anadialog]

Caro Lorenzo, non volevo dare questa impressione così talebana dell'alta risoluzione. Sicuramente se non si hanno attrezzature con notevole estensione di frequenza si perde una parte del suono, ma questo, proprio per il problema microfoni, riguarda principalmente la musica contemporanea. Per quanto riguarda le riedizioni, talvolta sovracampionate e non propriamente ri-digitalizzate, il discorso dei microfoni è vero però dobbiamo ricordarci che un file high-resolution reale dovrebbe fornirci maggiore dettaglio e qualità generale a tutte le frequenze, quindi i 40Khz, soprattutto per il materiale del secolo scorso non ha senso ma, ripeto anche io resto dello spettro migliora se le cose sono fatte bene. Dunque non voglio assolutamente affossare le edizioni high-resolution, anzi ci sono ottime cose, ma è necessario tener presente anche questi aspetti di cui go accennato sopra. Tengo a precisare che il povero Kind of Blue non ha più i master originali ma solo copie di copie di copie e dunque non noterà grandi miglioramenti rispetto ad altre riedizioni dove abbiamo i master e/o i session tapes originali.

[@lorenzodeiana3032]

@@anadialog Grazie, per la risposta e, soprattutto, per l'onestà intellettuale dei suoi video 👍

The issue? Is in the facts. If 40KHZ per channel is the new definition -than that means MOST music material produced in the last 60 years does NOT have the frequency information in the recording to begin with to fall within that category. Typically high end reaches to maybe 36,000 cycles on some recordings. Most pop recordings? Vocal might hit 30,000 and some cymbals. That's the trap for consumers which they bank on all day... post a cute logo on something and charge more for it, regardless of what's really on the recording. It's beyond being disengenous about 'up sampling' - it's even more deceptive due to lack of clarity in the terminology and confounding consumers endlessly. Understanding the LIMITATIONS of recording equipment, vocals, musical instrument true ranges is a good path to basic understanding. You can't make apple juice out of rocks. Great topic and excellent break down.

[@anadialog]

Yes, of course, but we must remember not to confuse high-res recordings with high-res tape transfers. With all the last century recordings you will have a high resolution transfer and mastering that in most cases is much better than the normal CD versions available up till a few years ago. Who went and still goes analog never had any problem, just need to get the quality releases on vinyl or tape.

[@glorytogodhk]

Since the Meyer-Moran study in 2007, approximately 80 studies have been published on high-resolution audio, about half of which included blind tests. Dr. Joshua Reiss, of the Queen Mary University of London, and a member of the Audio Engineering Society (AES) Board of Governors, performed a meta-analysis on 20 of the published tests that included sufficient experimental detail and data. In a paper published in the July 2016 issue of the AES Journal, Dr. Reiss says that, although the individual tests had mixed results, and that the effect was "perhaps small and difficult to detect," the overall result was that trained listeners could distinguish between hi-resolution recordings and their CD equivalents under blind conditions: "Overall, there was a small but statistically significant ability to discriminate between standard quality audio (44.1 or 48 kHz, 16 bit) and high resolution audio (beyond standard quality). When subjects were trained, the ability to discriminate was far more significant." (From wiki)

[@isettech]

Many people forget that the analog side of audio has a signal to noise ratio. This is your hum and hiss. Yes there is some fantastic gear with extremely low noise for a high signal to noise ratio, but, what is the resolution in digital that will match the signal to noise ratio of the analog side? For example, one of the best studio recording microphones at over 3 grand in price has this signal to noise ratio. Signal to Noise Ratio: 82dB (cardioid), 79dB (omni), 80dB (figure-8) This is for The Neumann U 87 Ai. Just what do you propose using to record an analog piano that would be worthy of 32 or more bits? Is there any microphone that meets the High Resolution JIS standard? On the reverse, side, is there any amplifier capable of reproducing the levels from the signal that are more than 24 bits down, and what amplifier can reproduce that signal higher than the self noise of the amp? Some of the "Audiophiles" are throwing money at resolution that the hardware can not ever reproduce. This level of resolution is is dynamic range with a great recording of the rock band on stage and during the concert, recording the crunch of a popcorn kernel in the audience in the seat 10 rows back from the stage. Tell me golden ears, did you really hear the popcorn? On stage the performer waling is much louder into the system as the shirt moves. I know, you hear that too. Sorry the pedal board footswitch is much louder than the crushed popcorn. You still heard and know right when the popcorn kernel was stepped on, right? Yes, I am laughing at the standard. The THX standard for sound recording and playback is quite good. Is it worth the money to upgrade beyond THX?

[@johne5543]

Very good, informative video that provides much food-for-thought about the digital domain. I'm of the thought however, that it's the mastering more than the medium that makes for the best overall listening experience. So, for example, a well mastered CD will give an overall better sound than a poorly mastered Hi-res source. The Hi-res source, in this case, only makes you hear 'bad audio better'; it's kind of like having a better AM radio, you're just hearing a poor quality signal a little better. To be sure in the analogue realm as well, there are plenty of poor sounding new remasterings of classic albums which should have been left alone, and putting it on 180g vinyl doesn't improve anything. Just because something is newer, doesn't automatically mean it's better.

[@anadialog]

Well of course that is rather obvious. I agree. :-) I will add that a good recording is even more important than a good mastering.

[@stratologies]

The most important point, that got somewhat lost, is in the first third of the video. Microphones specced over 22k are almost unheard of (heh) in recording studios. If you look at sites like Thomann, their most expensive mic, a Telefunken U-47 for €10,000, is specced 20-22,000 Hz. The frequency response of a Neumann U-47 FET is 20 - 16,000 Hz. Great vocal mic, no engineer would argue that it sounds bad because it cannot pick up 40k.

[@anadialog]

That is because I have already claimed this is several videos. For example here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/kF6rm3t9rKx7jK8 In any case I did underline this fact. Moreover, high-res mics are starting to become more and more available for example Sony released a whole line and also Sennheiser...thinks are changing slowly but I agree, and again I was one of the first to underline this, the mics are thi first step and they must be high-res!

[@stratologies]

​@@anadialog But that makes no sense. If you forget about digital for a second - almost all of the analog recordings in the past have used mics that are specced at 22k at best. So if you have a fantastic sounding analog recording, it can't be because of content above 22k.

[@monochromios]

A famous streaming platform that I won't name keeps on labelling as HiRes music 24bits/44.1Khz music. I stay with my service giving me standard CD quality FLAC with no tricks and fakes. Too many confusion and space for unfair behaviour.

[@finnbogimarinosson3463]

hi - thank you for good video. few super important side to this argument. CD can be improved in few different ways to sound better than out of the box new. Files can not. Vinyl the same album on vinyl can sound as different as from possible from one pressing to another or early, mid or late pressing from a same mother. But what you are saying in the video is super important, what needs to be recorded may not be what we hear but affects the "playback" ..... aka overtones ? Love and respect to all

[@theovonskeletor3709]

The tracks on CD are files

[@sainath8710]

Which type of audio format, bit rate and sampling rates is good for audio listening ?

[@anadialog]

Big question! IMHO at least CD quality even though modern mastering does not use the full potential of this format. The higher bit depth and sampling rate, the better for PCM, in DSD higher sampling rates are also beneficial: here is a video I made on the topic: kzbin.info/www/bejne/m6aYemCwbMtpn9U In any case, uncompressed PCM like WAV files are the best, also lossless formats like FLAC are great.

[@sainath8710]

ANA[DIA]LOG Thanks for your valuable reply.

[@sainath8710]

Hai, if we convert MP3 or other formats to FLAC with converting software it's really convert to FLAC ?

[@curljam4373]

not really, any sound lost from the master recording can not be replaced, it would basically be an mp3 that takes up more disk space. If its from a CD you can rip it again in FLAC. If it was always in mp3 just leave it be. If you do decide to upgrade your favorite albums you could keep the mp3 and compare it with FLAC to see what the difference is for your hearing. I know this is an old comment but I thought I'd answer in case you were still wondering.

[@radiozelaza]

What kind of microphones pick up sounds in >22kHz register? What recording engineer does not cut those frequencies anyway? What tweeters can reproduce these frequencies even if they somehow get past the mixing stage and find themselves on the final master? It seems in order to get any advantage of hi-res audio, the record must be produced already with >22kHz frequencies in mind. Huge costs for questionable benefits, really

[@anadialog]

There are several, on the engineer side your right....very few...

[@nonsuch]

SACD , DVD-Audio, and Blu-Ray audio are all High-Resolution formats. Anything I can buy, I will buy in true hi-res.

[@anadialog]

Indeed!

[@analoguecity3454]

Also "well mastered/pressed LPs! They are truly 100% lossless, yes its problematic, and has noise, but its can out perform anything digital! If done right! ALL digital has some form of loss, because its processed! I met mastering engineer "Chris bellman " last year, and gave me this information!

[@NEOREV_MUSIC]

@@analoguecity3454 My problem with vinyl is the added noise, and especially the time restrictions with the format. When I put on an album, I want to sit back and listen to it uninterrupted from front to back. I don't want to have to flip a record over every 10-20 minutes, especially when many albums are spread across multiple records. I wish the music industry found a physical hi-res medium, such as Blu-ray, and stuck with it. Sites love to say that vinyl is surging in sales, which it is, vinyl sales have gone up and CDs have declined, but they fail to mention that CDs are still outselling vinyl. A hi-res disc type format could've been viable. Now, if there was a new type of vinyl that completely erases the noise aspect and can hold an entire album, I'm in.

[@MrWkendwarrior]

Rob Cosentino agreed!....but w SACD....the quality of the recording varies wildly.....I have a few SACDs....stereo or multichannel playback sometimes disappoints....these days, before I buy any SACDs, i try to research/read reviews if they are better than CD, and/or worth buying. Good SACD example: Dire Straits Brothers in Arms.

[@nonsuch]

@@MrWkendwarrior Totally! But at the other end of the spectrum, SACD has the highest quality. Here's the MediaInfo output from just 1 song off of Peter Gabriel's So. Format : PCM Commercial name : DXD Format settings : Little Codec ID : 1 Duration : 4 min 27 s Bit rate mode : Constant Bit rate : 16.9 Mb/s Channel(s) : 2 channels Sampling rate : 352.8 kHz Bit depth : 24 bits Stream size : 540 MiB (100%)

[@edgarp66]

For the people saying it all sounds the same obviously dont know what goes into the system of a hi-res audio player. Qobuz is a good way to test. You can’t tell me you dont hear the difference between 24 bit 192khz and 16 bit 44khz. I mean you can start feeling the music at 24 bit 48 khz.

[@vinylcity1599]

Just give me a well mastered , well pressed LP, a well made SACD and I'm happy! My ears will be satisfied!

[@birgerolofsson2347]

True Vinyl City! Just listen to "Roger Waters - Pros And Cons of Hitchhiking" CD from 1984 and from the USA Master. Kicks the shit sonically out of most of todays CDs. Hi Res is just......well, pointless imo. The concernment lays elsewhere if you want as good sound quality as possible.

[@philipcooper8297]

Old vinyl was great, with very wide dynamic range. Modern vinyl is dead as the manufacturers nowadays press vinyls from digital recordings that get molested by volume equalisation, making the recording louder and very narrow dynamic range. You might as well listen to CD's. CD's also suffered from the ''volume wars'' in the late 90's, though.

[@bat2137]

Quobuz are offering a big discount on there hi res streaming service at the moment, agree though not all hi res files 24 bit on quobuz are 96 kHz Or higher. Thanks for all the info I'm just getting into streaming and recently ripped all my cds to flac after buying a innous zen mini mk3, my ripped early 90s 2k cds sound great by the way.

[@NEOREV_MUSIC]

Love Qobuz. Purchase most of my music from them as I only buy lossless and/or hi-res, Bandcamp comes in second.

[@linandy1]

Hi-res means I can hear when a track (CD) is mastered poorly... then i listen to the same song streamed and its got no clarity ! what should I do?

[@anadialog]

Go analog! ;-)

[@ranbymonkeys2384]

You have to spend $5000 to beat low latency lossless streaming now days, I have the setup to prove it. Where are you streaming from and what are you listening (decoding) through.

[@DenianArcoleo]

Hi-which microphones have a response performance of 40kHz?

[@anadialog]

There are mics that can reach even 100Khz for wildlife recordings. In any case fortunately we are slowly starting to implement high resolution mics like for example Sony has a new lineup as well as Sennheiser etc.. Before these were lacking and in fact it did not make any easy to talk about high-tes. I did a few videos on this topic. Only tape transfers could have been high res in the past.

[@DenianArcoleo]

@@anadialog Great information, thank you for that. I love your channel btw, fascinating material and your enthusiasm for the topic is a joy.

[@ontherun8]

Some years ago visiting a italian HiFi show I witnessed a discussion between two famous music producer /engineers of two just as famous audiophile labels (maybe you've already guessed who they were 😊)... at a certain point they began talking about mikes mentioning some ribbon ones, among them some vintage ones too claiming to respond to frequencies up to almost 100 kHz... if I well remember, maybe Decca ? BTW, another excellent and very informative video 👏👏 ps: just seen the video footage you did in Japan... it was like being transported there for a few hours, THX a lot 😉 ps2: just say less 'obviously' 😜... sometimes you could switch to 'of course' maybe

[@analoguecity3454]

Benefits of hi definition/resolution music faaarrrr out weigh the bad!

[@noth606]

@Joe Al I have found FLAC 24/96 of Japanese bands and doing A/B listening I have concluded its better, primarily through my Sony NW-A45 firmware hacked to NW-ZX300 sound signature. But it doesn't come through clearly on every song, it has to be something with a lot of subtle detail in it, it can be very obvious like in some songs of Wagakki band - Otonoe album where 8 musicians play almost over each other at vastly different volume for example. In CD quality you can barely hear some instruments, in mp3 you don't hear them at all and it sounds like a muddled mess.

[@zbatevp-vlogs610]

I was almost about to ask if you forgot about LDAC.

[@Terribleguitarist89]

It's totally at the mercy of the original recording. I've encountered the occasional track that is a hot mess in the Hi-Res format because you can clearly hear the mistakes made in the studio vs the low quality files "Smearing" some of those details a bit.

[@NickP333]

Absolutely excellent video. You certainly cleared up a few things for me, and I appreciate it very much. That being said, I will always will be a fan of vinyl and sometimes CD’s. I just prefer the sound of vinyl in most cases, to be truthful, because I’m also so invested in it, and still enjoy the ritual and large physical medium. Again though, many thanks for making this vid.

[@anadialog]

Me too...and tape! Thanks Nick!

[@peepers4763]

I was caught up in the hype, claims and the reality of it. There appears to be a bottleneck or two along the way. Guess I’d need more new equipment. My DVD player “claims” xyz but thrown in a high res CD, 16/44.1 is all that it shows being read. So I added a DAC, using coax digital in. The DAC has the HiRes specs but no display. Is it decoding or simply reproducing as I assume. I also have DTS CD claiming high res. The DVD player does decode DTS but 16/44.1 is all I see. Bottom line is your 8 points make sense and helped put HiRes in perspective. 👍

[@anadialog]

I am not sure I understood correctly, but a CD cannot be upgraded to high-res in any way. Yes, it could be upsampled, but that is another story, in any case not a high-res story...but maybe you were saying something different....

[@peepers4763]

I get it, the Japanese CD is written in Japanese language so I’m not sure what it is. Amazon sold it as “Classic: Hi-Res CD Sampler”... reviewers said MQA - possibly on my computer I may find and decode MQA...

[@doctorbo5810]

I'm over 45 and definitely can't hear anymore tones above 17 kHz. To what extent does the high frequency bandwidth affect the sound in my living room?

[@anadialog]

The high frequencies, if present, it depends from the type of music and as we have seen from the recording-mixing-mastering chain, will have an effect on your general perception, influencing also the audible frequencies. That is during the recording but also during playback in your environment, so I would some yes, but I don't know to which degree.

[@doctorbo5810]

@@anadialog Thank you for your Answer

[@ranbymonkeys2384]

The sample rate for the "Japan standard" is anything above 40,000 sample rate. Sample rate goes from 32000 to 41000 then 88200 then 96000 and then of course 192000

[@thomasandersen1784]

The bad thing about high res is, that you need to spend enough money to really hear a difference? The good thing about High Res is, that you don't really need it ;-) (imo). A good CD/HDCD/SACD can deliver up too 99% (or something) of what's audible for us humans, were it seems that those into high res, need it to perform 110% (just throwing some numbers here) ;-) Not saying that Hz beyond hearing capability can't be heard, but to point out that if you already have a good CD player/system, i really cannot see why anyone should buy crazy expensive streaming devices, out board DAC's and so forth.? But if your using the many audiophile streaming services for playback, i wouldn't say it's not necessary to spend some money on a DAC, but if not....i wouldn't boggling my head about it. My old LINN Ikemi HDCD player does a better job, than any outboard DAC/Combo iv'e tried? Therefor i haven't got myself down that road, yet? Why? I need my music to be physical, so i can touch, see, smell, look, read and the whole thing about categories and storing (i love it). Can't imagine have any music for audiophile playback on a computer or phone? It's just too meaningless for me? BTW, i still had not heard a HIGH Res set-up that blew me away, and i heard set-up's way over the 50K where there were invested crazy money on High. Res. Don't get me wrong.....i love good and clean sound, but it seems that the goal for streaming is beyond our hearing capability, and tha's why it doesen't make much sense to me, and of course the fact that i still haven't heard it to be any better than CD playback? (not for my ears at least). I will keep my 2500 CD's 4-ever, and could never imagine copy those, just to be able to put it through another device, just to get it too sound a tiny bit "better"? Nope, not for me ;-) But as always, interesting topic (once again), so thx for that. As always, beautiful explained. Cheers from Denmark

[@anadialog]

I perfectly understand your point of view and I do think that these high-res streaming subscriptions aren't truly high-res. True high-res is not only a matter of frequency range but also of resolution, of sound quality in all its aspects. In several cases, but not all cases, a CD version of a past album (recorded on tape) is inferior to the high-res version like DVD-AUDIO. Apart from this, don't stop at the common mistake that humans cannot hear beyond 20khz. Check this video I made and it will give a different perspective: kzbin.info/www/bejne/eKXRZmpoj652bs0

[@thomasandersen1784]

@@anadialog Thank you very much. I will defiantly not give up on high res, because at the end of the day....i'm an Audiophile and just love spending all my free time discovering new things (or re discovering older things) ;-)

[@GusdeHbg]

Seems like the 24/96Khz might be the requirement for recording in the dig domain, like you have the analog with mics at 40Khz, to reproduce the dig files, you can get the 24/48 or even 16/44. Reproducing 24/96 at home will be difficult for the mass market due the cost of the equipment and the size of the files being streamed.

[@anadialog]

Actually we are surrounded by high-res software and hardware. Practically all smartphones, DACs and streamers are capable of handling this quality. Tidal and Qobuz are easily streaming this quality thanks to tye FLAC lossless compression and the 4G and 5g bandwidth. Perhaps, high-res headphones and speakers are a little more expensive and aiming at a higher market segment.

[@GusdeHbg]

@@anadialog yes but still you need to record in 24/96 and streaming those files takes a lot of data bandwith. That is why MQA was brought in, to save bandwith. Not all have 1GB or even 500MB data subscriptions at home. Of course I can use a rasperry PI for that matter. But is not mass market like a CD format. Sonos and apple music, I think, will not play higher than 16/44. But all depends on how good the sound was recorded at 1st place , if then you listen at 16/44 (from DAC, sonos connect, apple music or whatever), LP or CD will sound great anyways :-) There are plenty of old records that will blow away moder recordings. Great channel by the way!

[@jesselam5867]

I find with lossless Bluetooth codecs, they don't sound the same when you compare them to native playback. It almost sounds like its compressed? I have BTR3 which is a portable Hi-Res DAC and Bluetooth receiver which supports all the codecs on the market. So when I did an A B comparison on DAC mode (Direct USB plugin) and LDAC on Bluetooth, the DAC mode sounded better, like less compressed. Just thought it was an interesting observation to share.

[@anadialog]

Indeed. I think you are right. The amount of information and the quality of the converters is just not at the level of a quality DAC IMO.

[@jesselam5867]

@@anadialog Random question but I thought this would be a good place to ask. With studio monitors right, how do professionals mix tracks on them if the frequency range is so narrow. Most studio monitors bottom out at around 50Hz. I understand why because it's just basic physics, you need a larger speaker size to produce those low frequencies and a speaker that size would make the monitors way to large. But do professionals usually pair it with a sub or something? (I never hear the term studio sub thrown around 😂) Or do they just stick with headphones. Surely most tracks have frequencies below 50Hz?

[@anadialog]

Well, first of all real studios use medium/large speaker monitors and in most cases these are powered. When powered in most cases they can go very low. Yes, quality earphones are also used and those can easily have the whole spectrum. In any case, pros are not that interested in obtaining/preserving the whole spectrum. They are just looking for a correct presentation and to emphasize specific aspects, NOT high-fidelity. Classical and jazz productions are different and also audiophile productions are different but also uncommon.

[@jesselam5867]

@@anadialog Right I see then, thanks!

[@Yiannis2112]

Now we should force Mesa Boogie and Marshall to make 40kHz tube amps...

[@christophschuermann6512]

Absolutly! I develop a lot of audiogear and the most pruducts have a 1MHz bandwith exept some special fx like a booster for guitar, were 800kHz is more enough for that instrument.

[@joseg4984]

Where I can order your turntable mat?

[@anadialog]

Can't, I had it made for the channel but nothing special.

[@joseg4984]

@@anadialog Looks very cool. Thanks for the reply.

[@RenarLostsolo]

More is always better. That is simple. If I can have music in 24/192 rather then 16/44 - I will. Just because it’s more information. Will I be able to hear it or not - I don’t care. If I will - fine. If not - OK. But I have this possibility to hear. For me it is more then enough.

[@anadialog]

I agree!

[@VinylRescue]

Some Qobuz releases are showing Hi-Res at 44.1/24bit and some 48/24bit. From what you just read they're really not Hi-Res. It still sounds good though. Lot of good points concerning remastering old recordings.

[@anadialog]

Exactly!

[@johnholmes912]

those ultrasonic frequencies combine to produce audible frquencies

[@anadialog]

Exactly!!

[@Historia.Magistra.Vitae.]

@John Holmes : Nope. That's not how audio works, unless you are referring to intermodulation distortion, which is a bad thing and should be filtered out.

[@miroslavkelekovic2507]

By specification MQA it is NOT LOSSLESS codec nor format. It has to small bandwidth to process raw audio bandwlth on hires data. Conceptually similar are Bluetooth codecs broadcasting "cd quality data stream" due to BT protocol bandwidth limitations (bt 5 is below 1Mbs)

[@anadialog]

Yes, I made a bad statement (rectified in the description and comments) because as we all know they declared it was lossless in the beginning and only AFTER admitted it was lossy.

[@faludabutt8253]

How could I transfer my vinyls to high res? FLAC

[@ru55ells]

Rca to 3.5mm lead and a PC

[@gantchogantchev6554]

The Wiki quote: Human hearing: Dynamic range: 120 dB;[32] frequency range: 20 Hz-20 kHz (young person); 20 Hz-8-15 kHz (middle-aged adult)[32] In September 2007, the Audio Engineering Society published the results of a year-long trial, in which a range of subjects including professional recording engineers were asked to discern the difference between high-resolution audio sources (including SACD and DVD-Audio) and a compact disc audio (44.1 kHz/16 bit) conversion of the same source material under double-blind test conditions. Out of 554 trials, there were 276 correct answers, a 49.8% success rate corresponding almost exactly to the 50% that would have been expected by chance guessing alone.

[@anadialog]

Again I see a lot of prejudice. Certainly those are the numbers, of single sine waves. We don't hear that way, we listen with full spectrum. Watch the video I linked in the other comment and try reading the papers in the respective video description. Testing is good but we must make sure we use good recordings, rich in details and frequencies. If I could select a specific CD and it's version on DVD-Audio I am sure that over 80% would prefer the dvd-audio BUT this is valid in a certain number of cases, not all cases. The same reason why people don't believe in cables, first because they don't even try and second because sometimes they simply have no or very little impact on sound...it depends! I hope you tried dvd-audio or quality high-res with proper gear before throwing in data and numbers like that. SACD? Forget about. Native DSD is the way to go.

[@NEOREV_MUSIC]

Blu-ray can hold 24/96 audio. I would like a physical hi-res medium, not vinyl. The industry should've moved to Blu-ray for music.

[@anadialog]

Bluray can hold 192Khz/24bit. I did a video on the music format: kzbin.info/www/bejne/jWndl5drZ7enhs0

[@Albee213]

It doesnt becuase 99% of music listeners do not want to play music through there Bluray players and fiddle with a remote to select different versions. SACD was the only media that might have worked but we all know where its at now.

[@NEOREV_MUSIC]

@@Albee213 SACD would have been the same exact thing, but it required a whole other player in order to play it. Even some computers, such as mine, has a Blu-ray drive. Hell, PS3s had Blu-ray players. The foundation was there. It's not that difficult to play Blu-rays... at all. Meanwhile Blu-ray players were in most people's homes at the time. Would've been smart to go with a disc format that most people already had the device to play them. You say people are going to be bothered by fiddling with their remotes, but I can tell you one thing that'll piss them off more... having to drop money on ANOTHER device for another disc format. I can play DVDs, Blu-ray, CDs all with one player. "Wanna experience the level of high quality audio playback with format whose audio is superior to CDs? Well, you most likely already have the device to play this new music format in your homes. Experience it yourself now." Boom. There's your marketing. Push the fact that most people already have the ability to play it. Or else the laymen is going to think they're going to have to drop more money to play it.

[@Albee213]

@@NEOREV_MUSIC That is all true, but most people want to put a disc in and have music come out. SACD was a CD with SACD as well. If you had an SACD player you just needed to have that option on. My mother is never going to want to listen to Patsy Cline on a DVD and flip thru menus to choose 5.1 or stereo and so on. If Blu-ray/DVD audio worked like a CD did, put in, push play music comes out, no menus to complicate things then these formats might have worked. People also dont have Bluray and DVD players in the car like they did with CDs. I wish one of these formats would have become the standard, but even myself I have a lot of DVD-A and Blu-ray audio and its not convenient as the CD or mp3.

[@jasonk8311]

It would be great to hear your analysis on the current state of Spotify, Qobuz, Tidal, Amazon HD using spectral analysis much like you did for the Pink Floyd Money format comparison. Thanks!

[@Ale-kc9pq]

What about IA?, that fix some audio problems

[@KLiNoTweet]

I find the 100k hz microphone tec from the other video plausible. The question is, can one buy music recorded that way and can our current tec play that. This would be true highfi. 🙂 What is the status of that today in 2024?

[@anadialog]

More high-res but always the same recording gear unfortunately

[@KLiNoTweet]

@@anadialog This is sad, it would be a huge market for sure. Greetings to Italy 🙂

[@ranbymonkeys2384]

I've got the 1200-MK2 and Grado cartridge with a Pro-Ject Tube S pre-amp and the High Res sounds better with the ASUS STX sound card. Even though the human ear can't hear those frequency's, it makes the ones you can hear better. Just going by my ears that's all.

[@ranbymonkeys2384]

@Joe Al your kidding right?

[@HDaudioEnhance]

Nice video. Funny how they use stereo microphones & not Binaural ones. Humans hear sounds in a Binaural way. Alot of headsets are Binaural (especially gaming headsets). Music needs to be heard in the 'live' sense, as it was played & intended by the artists. With the use of compression the mastering 'engineers' are crushing the characteristics of the instruments in the recordings (reason why vinyl has made a comeback).

[@normm7764]

I can only agree. I regard much of the compressed music as “two dimensional” (no loud / soft). Why bother?

[@joewhip9303]

I am sorry, but MQA is NOT lossless. It is lossy. Once you are lossy you cannot then become lossless. The authentication is also nonsense, given all the batch processing going on.

[@anadialog]

Yes, you are correct and I got mixed up, again! Sorry about that.

[@Albee213]

There is no benifit for up sampling. But please explain how it is then a crap signal.

[@anadialog]

Done the way I mentioned in the video, absolutely know, it's just saving the file with a higher bit depth and sampling rate. That is crap-res. Then we have true playback upsampling, where the signal is truly upsampled by interpolation. A lot of sound engineers do think this helps. I am more for the pure signal.

[@Andersljungberg]

The problem can be some record companies. For what do you do if you want an album but the highest quality of that album is 24 bit and 44.1 khz. such as Lauren Daigle record label Centricity Music

[@marcbegine]

What about DSD?

[@marcbegine]

Thx for the

[@darkenedlight4818]

The same goes for movies. I’ve seen DVDs that are better quality than a Blu-ray, but then the digital 4K version was better than both. If you want to know what’s better, you have to experience it. I really just wish Apple would offer ALAC through iTunes and Apple Music. I’d be happy with that, because I know they wouldn’t publish something that isn’t actually to that spec vs these random companies.

[@robertgarscadden]

Hi sesolution audio is primarily Digital by nature. On analugue output tech might appear to sound initially better, but CD,DVD,and blue rays have the capacity to sound infinitely better.not vynyl regardless of output tech.check PS Audio out please.thanks for the video.

[@masterazlan6999]

Correct!.. Recorded doesnt means its the finest. So emphasising an original recorded Is just fakes! Lossless is other things.. Quality of the original recorded is a Must just to makes lossless wonderfull. Hmm we talk mo in futures.. peace!

[@todoreldub]

The headphone is imposible Hi Res?

[@anadialog]

No...what do you mean?

[@dextrodemon]

I think people focus on resolution because it's a number that can get bigger. and that differences in file formats and equipment make it sort of meaningless. for example i think dsd files sound really good, but they're only high res because they push all the noise up there, it's just junk, and it'd be bad if i could hear any of it. there's probably some small effect of a completely hi-res chain, hi-res mics, hi-res mixing, hi-res amp, hi-res speakers, but so much less important compared to noise and distortion, but it's too hard to measure those, and often (always) they're also important part of the music, no telling good from bad. so i think hi-res is a decoy, and if there were some kind of certifications they should be about more important things, and not about 'quality' but about content, hi-res doesn't get a gold emblem and mp3 gets a bronze for example, it should just tell you how things were made and the chain of conversions/pressings etc.

[@shaun9107]

I herd Hi Res is analog open real , now its synthetic digital ?

[@anadialog]

Surely more digital!

[@analoguecity3454]

Analog is true 100% lossless! Digital, even hi res digital , has some" 'loss!

[@shaun9107]

@@anadialog A guy on stage a good one that is , said : records are not high rez as the bass is mono , so, I thought , so what. It did not matter as we love that sound . He is right ! All those internet pages . There are enough ass holes out there saying stuff and doing spec sheets . Digital is an arrogant Agenda . They are re-righting the truth as I see it . Analog is the sound , the Wattage . Digital ads th contrast nothing more . Same with picture , it all looks & souns the same when Digitized , no Soul there , no soul at all . Like listening or looking at layers of GLASS !

[@shaun9107]

@@analoguecity3454 Are you sur about that ?

[@analoguecity3454]

@@shaun9107 Bernie grundman said it, so, yeah, I'm positive!

[@theklipschcave5593]

Interesting video. Does this mean that buying av Townshend Supertweeter is a waste of money when you use streaming devices and CDs? Since it is a cut off at 20 000 mhz. the supertweeter won't produce any highs over the limit?

[@anadialog]

Yes, everything CD quality has a inherent 22Khz cutoff.

[@SpiralMind6869]

Off topic. Don’t know exactly where you live. Please stay safe and healthy. Best wishes for you and everyone in Italy.

[@anadialog]

Florence, yes, thanks! Its a little crazy here...

[@KR1275]

No way you hear any difference between a 16bit/44.1kHz and a 24bit/196kHz recording if the recording is from the same mix. The data on both formats is exactly the same. The only benefit of hi-res audio is the better efforts made to make a better sounding mix. The rest is nonsens. High bitrates are interesting in studios to have some change rates in the volume. Higher sampling rates just add higher frequencies. Apparently only 'audiophiles' can hear those... CD was already a good idea and still is. Vinyl is not better, but many people like the ambiance of distortion etc. With good digital recording equipment you can make a 100% identical copy of the vinyl source. Again: the only benefit of hi res audio is that the recording are mostly from a better source/mix. By the way in studios the dynamic range mostly is cut off around 60dB, because more is not good for your health. So 16 bit is already more than needed. The sound above 20kHz on most recordings (SACD and hi res PCM) are just noise. 99% of the people who pretend to be audiophile can't hear anything above 15.000 Hz. We enjoy the good quality of the midrange in the audio. Don't believe the commercial explanation of hi res audio. Even good MP3 files sound perfect (the just convert PCM into a more efficient file with the same audio data, depending on chose rate). Many people just pretend to hear any difference. But our ears are not calibrated and are well known as big cheaters.

[@MrGorpm]

I beg to differ. I have listened to the same recordings on many different formats and can discern the difference in all of them. No two people hear music in exactly the same way, nor do they even listen in the same way. I am not saying that your perception is wrong, just incomplete.

[@dimitri.l.clark.6109]

Everyone hears differently. You have a general point. I tell you a funny but, true story, On a cellphone, when you hit the volume button on the side you see a brief drop down of media, system, ring, etc. I used all these features to adjust my bluetooth speakers. Example: if I move the system bar forward the bass is broader. if I move the notification bar forward the lower or midranges expand. For vocals or sharp horns I move the ring bar forward for louder vocals or clearer vocals. For more overall volume and punch I move the media bar forward. I can clearly hear the difference in even subtle moves of these bars. I use them like an equalizer. Seriously I am not joking. My friends can't hear the difference. Try it.

[@seanmackay6739]

Do you have any proof that MQA is lossless on its final unfold?

[@anadialog]

It's not losses. It's lossy as I wrote in the comments and video description. They perpetrated a scam now widely known.

[@scotthullinger4684]

It's always good if you can truly hear a difference which you enjoy, and if the recording doesn't cost twice as much as you're used to paying. That is ... unless you don't mind paying two or three or four times as much money as you typically pay. Sometimes spending too much money is truly spending too much money. It's damn funny how people often give themselves a superiority complex by making outrageous & unverifiable claims. "This is the way things are, just because I say so." HA! Your next task is to convince me you can actually hear a difference. Convince me via PROOF, not via claims nor mere suppositions. Buzzwords don't help much, just in case you wonder. Too many of us get warm fuzzies every time we sniff a vinyl disc jacket, and read the liner notes.

[@ronaldjanmaat6191]

If I remember correctly, humans can hear dynamic differences corresponding to 20 bits. And humans can detect very smalll time differences, which need 96khz sample rate. So 24 bit and 96khz sounds like a good definition. And during processing perhaps 32bit and 384khz.

[@hannesd5432]

No, you definitely cannot percieve small time differences about 1/100000 = 10 microseconds as a human. The threshold is rather in the milliseconds region. Your ear can in fact detect sonic waves which have a smaller period than this, but it does, because the cochlea performs something similar to a fourier analysis on the basillaric membrane. So, you don‘t remember correctly, I‘m afraid.🤭

[@iowaudioreviews]

There isn't a DAC in existence that can put out more than 20 or 21bit or roughly 120db of dynamic range. Just cause the DAC chip can process 24bit or 32bit audio doesn't mean the analog output stage can. Most people dont have the amplifer or speakers to fully reproduce audio above 16bit 44.1khz any way. Most of the time hi res audio sounds better because its mixed and mastered better than the CD or radio version not because of the sample rate. Music thats been recorded mixed and mastered very well can sound amazing on CD.

[@iowaudioreviews]

The time difference you speak of is Auditory Time Resolution. Some humans may be able to notice this in hi res music but you would still need very good equipment to resolve it. Most people don't realize that buying a $100 24 bit dac or switching their Windows audio to 24/192 IS NOT going to magically make all there music 24bit....lol.

[@kevreynolds6650]

I tried many Hi-Rez sources; from DVD-A, SACD, BluSpecCD2, to hdtracks.com, Qobuz, etc... and i found that all this Hi-Rez thing is just a marketing gimmicks from companies to milk as much cache as possible from their artists' productions. Believe me that all Hi-Rez in our digital world is just a placebo effect, and just sound like CD audio, and in fact, sometimes Audio CDs has much better sound if the original studio mastering is done using quality analogue devices like the good old days of the 80's. Nowadays, all the music productions from all the recording companies is made by digital devices and Software, and by result, you will find a lot of music to be lacking the Dynamic range, and brickwalled, and you can find this for all the music from the begining of 00's and up to this day!!

[@edgarp66]

Kev Reynolds no. Lol.

[@Crimsonphilosophy]

So basically if it wasn't recorded at 24/96 you mine as well get the red book of it, thats how I take it.

[@anadialog]

Indeed!! Unless we are talking about analog recordings.

[@Hammboss4life]

So Mqa lies about hi res even if you do all the unfolding I have a dac with the renderer so I’m assuming that also isn’t lossless

[@anadialog]

MQA is lossless. They tried to hide it in a very shady way.

[@DLR1976]

I'm on QoBuz and not everything there is at 96khz/24bits...

[@anadialog]

That is what I mean! And Qobuz is a French company, so the old RIAA standard shouldn't apply there...

[@hannesd5432]

This video misses pointing out that in theory, sample rates over twice the upper human ear frequency limit (20 kHz) plus a bit of a buffer for the anti-aliasing filter applied are not necessary for reproducing frequencies in the hearing spectrum. At least the video misses an explanation, why it should be better to use sampling rates above 48 kHz as a final format. I don‘t see or hear a reason and all proper blind tests showed this. 96 kHz might make sense for remixing (if you wanna pitch down dramatically) but for most, it‘t marketing. People, please read about fourier theory and the Shannon-Nyquist Theorem!

[@yziib3578]

What almost everyone that quotes Nyquist Theorem misses is that it's theoretical. They assume that it can be done in practise. This is not so. With the CD sample rate of 44.1kHz an output signal of 22kHz is not the same as 22kHz that is inputed into the system, the output has large attenuation and a phase shift but the theorem says it will be the same. The main reason and problem is the use of analogue low pass filters. For Nyquist Theorem to work in practise there has to be a perfect brick wall anti-aliasing low pass filter and this does not exist. Originally the CD format used a close to brick wall filter but this type of filter is far from perfect, these type of filter have nonlinearities in the pass band (audio frequencies). For high quality audio it is very important that the pass band be linear. For filter design and sample rate, what is sample rate that is needed fo a linear pass band? It is about 10 times the cutoff frequency which make the use of the 192kHz sample rate used in modern recording studios correct. The main reason modern recording are done at 192 kHz or higher sample rates is for the use of a more audio friendly anti-aliasing filter. So the modern record playback system is recorded and mixed at a high sample rate, then down sample for the file storage (CD) and when played back the modern DAC restores the high sample rate (oversampling) before the actual digital to analogue conversion. I would argue that for audio quality that debate about 44.1kHz being good enough was lost decades ago because modern ADC and DAC use lot higher sample rates.

[@anadialog]

I did talk about this, indicating a specific video I recently made. There you will find all your answers. Check it out: kzbin.info/www/bejne/eKXRZmpoj652bs0

[@Andersljungberg]

High resolution can also be interpreted as that you hear something in the music that you did not hear before, that you hear a car driving outside the studio or that you hear a phone ringing outside the studio. but it might require electrostatic headphones for that? or other headphones that cost just as much. otherwise you will probably need the speaker for at least $ 600 to hear really small details in the sound

[@thomasponnan]

format war..

[@elsamariasorforger5788]

the highest resolution you can get is when you turn on your turntable and play a record,,^^

[@chrisvinicombe9947]

In my limited experience hi-res only benifits highly dynamic, high bandwidth recordings. So orchestral and some jazz. Other stuff doesn't really benifit. And this is only if the recording, production and upload are good which is very rare anyway.

[@anadialog]

In most cases I might agree with you. It depends also what your system is and what you are looking for.

[@edgarp66]

I can agree here. I think slipknot is in some hi res options. It sounds... weird.

[@kuenoliverchen2055]

Please do not forget Human ear hearing has 5% distortion. So, i do not care what is " Hi- Res " version. I just want good music and nice sound.

[@artkulak9802]

Actually, music is not "born analog". Current physics is pointing the way to the notion that time itself may be (probably is) "digital". In other words, time is composed of "bits". It does not "flow" (like a river) as supposed in classical Newtonian physics. Just food for thought. So, if this is true, then yes, to be really thorough "digitally" speaking, we need much better digital resolution to "equal" whatever the smallest "bit" of time is, and we're obviously not there yet. Whether or not we actually need that kind of resolution for "believable" sound reproduction is another debate in and of itself. However, regardless of the recording format, or the playback format, the recording engineer is king. He/she alone is most responsible for what we hear. After that it's the room we listen in. It's no coincidence that we spend enormous amounts of time and money building great concert halls and studios.

[@heifetz14]

i did not realise that you are a soprano at 22.11.watch out freddie mercury.

[@saricubra2867]

I listen music at 16 bit or 24bit at 44.1KHz. *Audio processing like compression, limiting or distortion is a must with oversampling or above 24 bit and 96KHz* (less aliasing) . Try using a spectrum analyser, generate a 18KHz sine wave or anything close to Nyquist for CD audio specs, add distortion and you will notice the difference (sounds awful). Higher the sample rate, closer to real life analog distortion and no artificial harmonics.

[@saricubra2867]

@ReaktorLeakIf you have a pure sine wave that fits inside the sample rate, nothing happens, the sine wave's frequency is still intact since it doesn't go above Nyquist, therefore no aliasing. Now, if you generate a 18KHz sine wave in a 32KHz sample rate audio file, in theory, it should have aliasing or audible sound because it goes above Nyquist.