|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Died By Bear
Joined: 13 Jul 2010
Location: On the big lake they call Gitche Gumee
|
 Posted: Sun Mar 22, 2015 3:21 pm Post subject: Reposted from Tech forum: "High Res Audio" Q&A |
 |
|
http://forums.eslcafe.com/korea/viewtopic.php?p=2984730#2984730
TLDR: What is High Res Audio and how do I learn more about it?
Me:
What do you know about it? Can you give us a rundown?
Where can HighRes audio files be downloaded?
Do you need a highres audio player to enjoy high quality music like highres?
Is highres different from FLAC and Lossless audio files?
Thanks in advance for your advice/help.
Below: Answers reposted from "Singerdude"
The only thing I have that can record and play DSD audio files is the sony PCM-D100, though I haven't tried to play or record in that format yet. I'm curious as to how it sounds, supposedly it is closer to analog records than other digital formats. Unfortunately, you need hardware that can specifically play that format, which isn't very popular yet, so I haven't tried using it. I think I will soon though, since this thread has started to make me more curious.
Sony has some home players that can play DSD, which was the format SACD uses, but that never has really taken off. They cost anywhere from $500 to $1000. When I looked on HDTracks however, I haven't seen that many DSD files you could download though. Though I have only looked in the classical section, since I am a classical musician. Maybe there would be more in other areas.
There are many you can download in FLAC or ALAC (apple) formats, which you can then use to play on your computer, but not on your phones as far as I know, at least not in 24/96. Those files vary in bitrates though, anywhere from CD quality 16bit/44kHz all the way to 24/192.
Sony does have a new walkman that can play hi-res audio though: $300
http://www.amazon.com/Sony-Walkman-NWZA17SLV-Hi-Res-Digital/dp/B00OCJRX8C
http://www.crutchfield.com/S-oBvFtBaiH7o/learn/high-resolution-audio-guide.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Underwaterbob
Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Location: In Cognito
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 22, 2015 3:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| So, now people are buying into a standard that is supposedly above lossless? Gah! What part of "lossless" don't they understand? Morons are already paying thousands of dollars to hear the "difference" between a 320k MP3 file and a FLAC file. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Died By Bear
Joined: 13 Jul 2010
Location: On the big lake they call Gitche Gumee
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 22, 2015 4:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Underwaterbob wrote: |
| So, now people are buying into a standard that is supposedly above lossless? Gah! What part of "lossless" don't they understand? Morons are already paying thousands of dollars to hear the "difference" between a 320k MP3 file and a FLAC file. |
Lighten up, Francis. Cosmic asked me to re-post this from the tech forum to see if anyone else knows more about it. Nothing wrong with keeping up with technology and learning new things. I'm sure people said the same as you when the cassette replaced the 8-track.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Cosmic Hum
Joined: 09 May 2003
Location: Sonic Space
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 22, 2015 7:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Died By Bear wrote: |
| Underwaterbob wrote: |
| So, now people are buying into a standard that is supposedly above lossless? Gah! What part of "lossless" don't they understand? Morons are already paying thousands of dollars to hear the "difference" between a 320k MP3 file and a FLAC file. |
Lighten up, Francis. Cosmic asked me to re-post this from the tech forum to see if anyone else knows more about it. Nothing wrong with keeping up with technology and learning new things. I'm sure people said the same as you when the cassette replaced the 8-track. |
Exactly why we need more info on this.
Bob...please let us know which direction to go with this new tech and home audio systems. (Not a jab...serious inquiry.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
singerdude
Joined: 18 Jul 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 22, 2015 8:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Underwaterbob wrote: |
| So, now people are buying into a standard that is supposedly above lossless? Gah! What part of "lossless" don't they understand? Morons are already paying thousands of dollars to hear the "difference" between a 320k MP3 file and a FLAC file. |
It depends on the quality of the original file that was compressed with FLAC. If it was just a regular CD, then not a big difference. If it was a 24bit/192kHz file, then yes, you will hear the difference. There is far more depth and clarity with 24 bit audio. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Underwaterbob
Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Location: In Cognito
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 22, 2015 8:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| singerdude wrote: |
| It depends on the quality of the original file that was compressed with FLAC. If it was just a regular CD, then not a big difference. If it was a 24bit/192kHz file, then yes, you will hear the difference. There is far more depth and clarity with 24 bit audio. |
FLAC is a lossless compression. Absolutely nothing is lost in the compression process. Given the same source audio, this DSD or whatever - provided it is also lossless - will sound exactly the same as a FLAC. You're comparing two essentially perfect copies of the same thing. This claim in the OP:
| Quote: |
| supposedly it is closer to analog records than other digital formats |
Is utter bullcrap because it's literally impossible for it to be an anymore accurate reproduction of the sound than any other lossless compression.
Also, if anyone says they can hear the difference between 24bit/96kHz audio and 24bit/192kHz they are completely yanking your chain.
There's this thing call a nyquist frequency which is the highest possibly frequency a certain sample rate can reproduce. It is half of the sample rate. So, a 96kHz sampled wav file can accurately reproduce frequencies up to 48kHz. The highest frequency a human ear can hear is maybe 20kHz, and that's only when you're young. By the time the average person is in their twenties, they're lucky to hear up to 16-18kHz.
Some people claim these higher frequencies interact with audible sounds in ways that are audible, but there's literally zero proof of this except for some person with more money than sense's word that his $6000 pair of headphones accurately reproduces these sounds.
Quality increase in audio vs how much you pay is exponential. Not the good exponential either. The difference between a $10 pair of headphones and a $100 pair is huge. Not so much between a hundred dollar pair and a thousand dollar pair. And pretty much negligible above that. The same goes for sample rates. There's a large difference between 22.05kHz and 44.1kHz, a small difference between 44.1kHz and 96kHz and virtually none between 96kHz and up. Literally none if you take into account the limitations of the human ear.
People say "Well, it doesn't sound as good as analog." This is actually because analog is full of flaws that people have come to regard as being good. Records have scratches and hums and tapes hiss. They sound "warm" because of the characteristics of the medium, not because of an objectively infinite sample rate.
Sort of back on topic.
MP3 players have been able to play FLAC files for years now. I know my 6+ year old Cowon D2 can, and it does it well. Whoever's pushing this new format that's supposedly "closer to analog" is just grabbing for money. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Underwaterbob
Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Location: In Cognito
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 22, 2015 9:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Well, I looked up DSD, and it's not what I thought it was. It's not a compression format like MP3 or FLAC that are used for taking higher quality audio and making the file size smaller. It's a different digital audio format entirely that is recorded at 2.8224MHz (64 times the rample rate of a CD) but it doesn't have the bit depth of traditional digital audio and instead modulates the signal with another signal. Audio must be recorded as DSD and that's generally expensive. Files are big too. I'm still not convinced it sounds any better than a 24bit/96kHz FLAC. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Cosmic Hum
Joined: 09 May 2003
Location: Sonic Space
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 23, 2015 7:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Underwaterbob wrote: |
| Well, I looked up DSD, and it's not what I thought it was. It's not a compression format like MP3 or FLAC that are used for taking higher quality audio and making the file size smaller. It's a different digital audio format entirely that is recorded at 2.8224MHz (64 times the rample rate of a CD) but it doesn't have the bit depth of traditional digital audio and instead modulates the signal with another signal. Audio must be recorded as DSD and that's generally expensive. Files are big too. I'm still not convinced it sounds any better than a 24bit/96kHz FLAC. |
Brilliant posts Bob...thanks for those.
I wonder about 'renewing' my music library to the new large files..which also requires new hardware to drive them...but I am of the mind that it would be nice to get a nice new sound system, and with that in mind, could use some perspective on where to look and what to look for.
Appreciate the information.
If you were to get a new system...what direction would you go?
Ex...integrated amp, cd,mp3, Flac, player, etc...
Lets put a $2000 approx range on it.
I know good systems can go for above that on each component....just a range to look at. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Underwaterbob
Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Location: In Cognito
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 23, 2015 8:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The things you want to spend the most money on are your speakers because they have the greatest range of quality. Like I said in that previous post though, return on your investment is exponentially against you. If you're looking to spend $2k, probably spend half (if not more) on your speakers, half of what's left on your receiver and the last bit on players.
I dunno brand names anymore. I've always been a budget-setup kind of guy. I did have a kick-ass Marantz amp once that I picked up at a university offloading its old studio gear for cheap. I ran it through some middlin' JVC speakers and it sounded amazing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FMPJ
Joined: 03 Jun 2008
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 24, 2015 12:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| MP3 players can play .flac or .wav or whatever, but they almost universally have terrible amplification and generally have schwaggy DAC. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
singerdude
Joined: 18 Jul 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 24, 2015 12:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
This thread is supposed to be about hi-res audio, and too much attention is being put on FLAC compression. People are not spending thousands just to play FLAC files. They want to spend the money to play hi-res audio, which is far better in my opinion than CD, and certainly better than any bitrate MP3. Just because the file is in FLAC and is lossless, does not give any indication as to the quality of the recording. I can compress any audio file using FLAC whether it is an ordinary CD, or a hi-res 24/96 recording. Even if your player can play FLAC, it doesn't necessarily mean that it will be able to play a hi-res FLAC.
If you have an iPhone, you are out of luck. But I've read that the Galaxy Note 3 and S5 (and I assume the Note 4 and S6) can play WAV and FLAC up to 24/192. So if your phone can play hi-res audio, all you have to do is buy some hi-res tracks, get a decent set of headphones and be amazed with the difference in quality. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Cosmic Hum
Joined: 09 May 2003
Location: Sonic Space
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 24, 2015 1:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Underwaterbob wrote: |
The things you want to spend the most money on are your speakers because they have the greatest range of quality. Like I said in that previous post though, return on your investment is exponentially against you. If you're looking to spend $2k, probably spend half (if not more) on your speakers, half of what's left on your receiver and the last bit on players.
I dunno brand names anymore. I've always been a budget-setup kind of guy. I did have a kick-ass Marantz amp once that I picked up at a university offloading its old studio gear for cheap. I ran it through some middlin' JVC speakers and it sounded amazing. |
Ok...I have been looking at the Marantz.... the PM5005 up to the PM8005. As the numbers go up, so does the price. But all of them require an additional player....and more money.
Now, I am looking at this.
http://hometheaterreview.com/sony-hap-s1-hi-res-music-player-reviewed/
Seems to have everything in one...which might be good.
I wonder if anyone has some feedback on it.
Suggestions welcomed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Died By Bear
Joined: 13 Jul 2010
Location: On the big lake they call Gitche Gumee
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 24, 2015 2:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| singerdude wrote: |
This thread is supposed to be about hi-res audio, and too much attention is being put on FLAC compression. People are not spending thousands just to play FLAC files. They want to spend the money to play hi-res audio, which is far better in my opinion than CD, and certainly better than any bitrate MP3. Just because the file is in FLAC and is lossless, does not give any indication as to the quality of the recording. I can compress any audio file using FLAC whether it is an ordinary CD, or a hi-res 24/96 recording. Even if your player can play FLAC, it doesn't necessarily mean that it will be able to play a hi-res FLAC.
If you have an iPhone, you are out of luck. But I've read that the Galaxy Note 3 and S5 (and I assume the Note 4 and S6) can play WAV and FLAC up to 24/192. So if your phone can play hi-res audio, all you have to do is buy some hi-res tracks, get a decent set of headphones and be amazed with the difference in quality. |
From the article I read in the WSJ that got me thinking about High Res, the quality all depends on which engineer did the recording in the first place. Some recordings sound great, and some sounds so-so. Has that been your experience?
I found the article I read in the paper while waiting for the Pacific Coastliner in San Diego a few weeks ago. It's worth a read...Here it is:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/hi-res-audio-hijinx-why-only-some-albums-truly-rock-1425675329 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
singerdude
Joined: 18 Jul 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 24, 2015 2:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The HAP-S1 looks good if you don't have any equipment and are looking for an all-in-one easier solution. Ideally, if you are looking for a dedicated audio system and don't need to integrate it with your home theater, then separate components are the way to go. Two mono amplifiers, a pre-amp, a hi-res audio player, and speakers. I would get decent components first, since you can upgrade your speakers later. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
singerdude
Joined: 18 Jul 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 24, 2015 3:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Died By Bear wrote: |
| singerdude wrote: |
This thread is supposed to be about hi-res audio, and too much attention is being put on FLAC compression. People are not spending thousands just to play FLAC files. They want to spend the money to play hi-res audio, which is far better in my opinion than CD, and certainly better than any bitrate MP3. Just because the file is in FLAC and is lossless, does not give any indication as to the quality of the recording. I can compress any audio file using FLAC whether it is an ordinary CD, or a hi-res 24/96 recording. Even if your player can play FLAC, it doesn't necessarily mean that it will be able to play a hi-res FLAC.
If you have an iPhone, you are out of luck. But I've read that the Galaxy Note 3 and S5 (and I assume the Note 4 and S6) can play WAV and FLAC up to 24/192. So if your phone can play hi-res audio, all you have to do is buy some hi-res tracks, get a decent set of headphones and be amazed with the difference in quality. |
From the article I read in the WSJ that got me thinking about High Res, the quality all depends on which engineer did the recording in the first place. Some recordings sound great, and some sounds so-so. Has that been your experience?
I found the article I read in the paper while waiting for the Pacific Coastliner in San Diego a few weeks ago. It's worth a read...Here it is:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/hi-res-audio-hijinx-why-only-some-albums-truly-rock-1425675329 |
Interesting article. I haven't listened to enough hi-res recordings to notice the differences to each one. Then again, I've only listened to recent recordings that were recorded in 24 bit. I'll have to listen to some old analog recordings that were remastered and compare them to my CD to see if there is a difference. I imagine there would be some differences there, depending on the source material used for the digital remastering. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
