Originally posted by richardfinegold
View Post
I don't feel compelled to persuade our OP otherwise. My own quests for better quality sound have often led me in certain directions, some of which have definitely seemed worthwhile at the time. I can remember the years when I chased after certain Shure cartridges, then some Ortofon cartridges, though never made it to the heights of moving coil models. Then there was the excitement of discovering CD, and perhaps some while later discovering that some vinyl decks could actually produce sounds which seemed to me at least equal to CD, but which I had never experienced in a domestic environment. Despite that I have not joined the "vinyl is better" movement - which in many ways is bonkers for modern recordings which have almost always been made using digital systems. On the other hand there are a few analogue recordings which were staggeringly good when they were released, and perhaps still are. One oddity was the early recording of (some musicians round here turn away ...) The Phantom of the Opera, which it appears was totally analogue through to the CD or LP mastering stages. That is a very good recording. Others that I like are some analogue recordings from the 1960s and 70s.
There are two technical aspects to so-called "hi-res" recordings. One is the sampling rate, and the other is the bit depth. Some have argued that both are adequate in CD recordings - i.e a 44.1 kHz sample rate with 16 bits per PCM sample is good enough. This is discussed in this page http://www.itwriting.com/blog/articl...r-than-than-cd
There is also a rather convincing video (can't find the link right now - I'll try to dig it out again ...) I think by a physicist, which "shows" that CD quality audio should be good enough for more or less all of us. This is based on Nyquist's sampling theorem.
Having mentioned that, I am not totally convinced. I think there can be merits in having high sampling rates, and also more bits/sample, but this may actually be because of engineering and production factors. In Tim Anderson's article, mention is made of the "fact" that hi-res recordings are bought by people with a keen interest in high quality sound, and also perhaps a keen interest in music. This could certainly result in better quality control, and better sounding recordings, but does not necessarily mean that technically "hi-res" recordings are any better.
Of course, if we do belong to that very niche market, and if as a result of our purchasing we do actually obtain audibly better quality recordings, then that is still good for us, even if the reasons for the quality have little to do with the recordings supposedly being made using 24 or 32 bits, or even 64 bits or floating point, and at high sampling frequencies.
Even in the days of analogue recording there were significant differences in the sounds of different pieces of kit, and also I believed (and still do) that some recordings sounded better on some kit than others. CBS recordings were often criticised by the techno/musical press, but I liked them, and I also liked some EMI recordings. I did not particularly like too many Decca recordings. One day I heard some Decca recordings played on some equipment much better than my own - it included a Decca arm and cartridge I remember - and that sounded much better than most other systems and recordings I had heard up to then. However, I also heard some CBS recordings under conditions which seemed to bring out the best in them too - though again much better than any "normal" domestic level of reproduction.
It's all very complex. I have different sets of loudspeakers - now some very old. One pair has 3 drive units, and voices tend to sound nasal. However they have several significant features I noticed years ago - 1. on the recording by Keilberth of the Flying Dutchman during the Sailors' Chorus, the jumping/bumping noises on the stage are very audible. Other speakers I've tried get nowhere near this - though probably some modern ones would do so. 2. On a recording of Rodrigo's Fantasia para un gentilhombre, one trumpet entry is audible - which is totally missed on smaller speakers with only two drive units. On the other hand 3. - the larger speakers sound nasal, and to some unpleasant, on speaker's voices. These difference are apparent on analogue recordings, and without any need to consider digital technology features
It is perfectly possible to make tonal changes to recordings which may make subjective improvements without going to the extent of worrying about supersonic sounds which most of us cannot hear. Coming back to digital sources, and equipment, it may also be the case that "hi-res" kit is made to better audio standards, and hence really does deliver - though even there there may be caveats. There are several reasons why CD has generally led to better sound quality, but in some cases their analogue circuitry has not actually matched up to the expected quality of the medium. That, presumably is a significant reason why some CD players do sound different. The best players tend to be good in both digital and analogue aspects. Some manufacturers may produce "hi-res" kit simply for marketing reasons, and may actually produce equipment which sounds less good than (for example) better CD players. There will certainly be manufacturers and distributors trying to make money by declaring that their kit is 192kHz/32 bits simply because they have chips in which process signals using that standard, but if the equipment is not made to a high standard, this can be a cynical marketing ploy.
)
Comment