Great Explanation of Hi-Res Digital benefits, Brickwalling, Compression, etc.

I seem to have a wry sense of humor. Yes. My comment was 280% (if not more) tongue in cheek.

 

It is impressive that he's managed to keep the studio going and even growing given the music industry market today. I completely understand why he needs to be able to do the things that need to be done to be able to do things like the American Idol iTunes releases (and yes, I had fun writing that mess of a sentence). American Idol is a necessary evil if it's able to help keep a studio like that in business. Just put that evil to good use by making some actual good sounding recordings, good emotionally, involving and sonically rewarding music to cancel out the evil side of the equation.

 

Ham Sandwich wrote: "good sounding recordings, good emotionally, involving and sonically rewarding music to cancel out the evil side of the equation."

I thought those were things you didn't care about?

 

Of course I care about those things. That's why I hang out here on the Hoffman forums. Searching out gear and music releases that deliver more of that emotion and involvement. The emotional connection that I can get from good music and good recordings played on good gear is why I pursue this hobby.

On the other hand, I also recently bought the Satriani box set of remasters. And I consider most every version in that box set to be better than the originals. Better tone, better layering, fuller sound, larger soundstage, more emotionally involving. Much more satisfying. Each album is generally better on the whole than the original releases. Even the old un-remastered releases. The remastered versions are still flawed and suffer from a little bit too much modern mastering. But on the whole they are each better than the originals. Perhaps it is my ability to enjoy remastered recordings that confuses you and makes you think that I don't care about sound quality and the emotion that can be conveyed by a recording.

On the other other hand, I also listen to classical, jazz, bluegrass, and other more pure recordings and find those recordings to be better in being able to convey emotion. Satriani is far from pure in recording and pure in sound. That sort of music and guitar sound is never intended to be pure as an audiophile would want. To make it audiophile pure would make it worse.

 

Ham Sandwich wrote: " The remastered versions are still flawed and suffer from a little bit too much modern mastering. But on the whole they are each better than the originals. Perhaps it is my ability to enjoy remastered recordings that confuses you and makes you think that I don't care about sound quality and the emotion that can be conveyed by a recording."

Then we will just have to respect each other's views on remastering, and even on what we think remastering should constitute.

I think remasters are a step *away* from the original sound. They(for the most part, not all!) get in the way of my enjoyment of the music. Especially if they compromise dynamics of the originals. But as my handle says: once that happens, it is no longer a remaster.

 

Check your in-app settings. If you're using a phone they default to 96 bits on data, 256 on wifi. If you were listening via data stream that could be the reason that the service sounded this way.

 

"Claim to hear" would be more apt.

Most subjects when blind tested are not able to tell which resolution is which. If there was such a pronounced difference, logic would dictate that it would be a very easy task.

 

Not characteristic of MP3 at all. I listen to MP3 Every day, and honestly the well recorded and mastered ones, are virtually the same as CD sound. Maybe not 100% identical, but so close it does not make any realistic difference.

 

The thing is with MP3 the codec is 'open-source' - there's no copyrights or other legal restrictions.

So how iTunes, Windows Media Player, EAC(Exact Audio Copy) and others rip or export to MP3 might all be different.

Rip the same song to MP3, same settings(IE 256, CBR, full stereo) in two or three of the above, load them into a DAW(Audacity, Pro Tools), and perform a null check - I guarantee you'll hear at least a slight difference between them.

And some codecs might be more prone to 'metallic' effects or percussion pre-echo than do others, all else being equal.

But keep the bitrate relatively high(192kbps & up), and such effect should be minimized.

 

I don't really care about "most subjects". I guess that's the point. "Most subjects" wouldn't hear a difference between one mastering and another let alone digital resolution differences.

 

That is exactly what they said also......( I was talking about audiophiles being blind tested, not just Joe six pack)

 

The best thing I've read recently on the topic of this thread is this good-natured rant by Tyll Hertsens:

http://www.innerfidelity.com/content/its-masters-damit

 

Excellent article! Been saying basically the same thing as Hertsens but catching more flack from fellow posters than a B-17 sortee over central Europe[Certified Non-Political Analogy!]

 

Really cool video. I enjoyed it! Thanks for sharing

 

If an audio system is unable to resolve well enough that there is no difference between lossy and CD (or SACD), then I'd recommend buying better gear.

 

My version of this axiom would be, if an audio system makes well-mastered recordings sound terrific, even 256 kbps AAC and 320 kbps MP3 lossy files, and is capable of making audiophile-quality Red Book CDs, vinyl, anf hi-rez files sound stunning, then I'd recommemd enjoying yourself (while you're still in the pink, ’cuz it's later than you think).

 

Of course it has always been the music/software first but to say fidelity doesn't matter is just plain silly to me. I used t dig AM on a clock radio when I was a kid but great playback fidelity gets me much more involved with the content. I can hear a voice from the next room on TV I haven't heard in thirty years and know instantly who it is but I don't want to listen to "Wish You Were Here" like that.

 

Who said that?

 

If I only had a highly resolving audio system.

 

If we only had great mastering and no brickwalling.

 

How long haven´t I lusted after that, but I never seem to get to that 'highly' part, only resolving.

 

Who are you quoting though? I do not remember anyone saying anything remotely like that.

I myself and others have said, they do not see any big difference in "Hi-Res", and consequently that good MP3 at high bit rates is very acceptable and High fidelity sounding. Others have not totally agreed with those comments, but no one has said fidelity does not matter.

I think many of us simply have varying opinions of the merits of different sound standards as to resolution, but I have seen a propensity to overly praise hi-res, and to bash MP3, when in reality, I think they are not worlds apart as many claim, but closer with small differences, as compared to redbook.

 

I still long for someone to explain, "How exactly do they determine" their system is "Highly" resolving, versus, just very resolving, or mildy resolving etc.

Is there a meter? A standard disc that has tones, that can only be heard on some systems? Seriously, or is it just conjecture and a claim?

I have heard stuff that a few friends had, that made that claim, but when I listened, I really was not sure I was hearing more actual resolution, but merely frequency boosts and so on.