Audibility of "typical" Digital Filters in a Hi-Fi Playback
Reply #936 – 2014-12-04 00:53:45
Monty said, as I have, that he doesn't particularly care if you or anyone offers 'hi rez' releases. I've bought 'em, he probably has too. He doesn't think they make a difference in themselves, he thinks they're wasteful container formats, but he's not calling for a ban on them. Same here. What he *is* against is the following , AS I AM: As I mentioned Steven, your opinion doesn't matter. Neither does Monty's. But since you want to continue to appeal to authority with Monty (yeh baby! ), here are two out of three introductory paragraphs in his blog:"Unfortunately, there is no point to distributing music in 24-bit/192kHz format. Its playback fidelity is slightly inferior to 16/44.1 or 16/48, and it takes up 6 times the space. There are a few real problems with the audio quality and 'experience' of digitally distributed music today. 24/192 solves none of them. While everyone fixates on 24/192 as a magic bullet, we're not going to see any actual improvement. If you have been saying these things, then you are both dabbling in voodoo audio science/industry. Declaring 24/192 Khz to have slightly inferior playback fidelity? I suppose both of you have double blind tests that demonstrate that? Or do we run with that with a fictitious IM distortion caused by near clipping ultrasonic tones? Also incorrect is the implication that all high resolution releases are at 24/192 Khz. I believe Arny would call this "excluded middle." Or that anyone would care whatsoever how much more space it takes. The cost to store the bits in either case is a fraction of the cost of acquiring the content itself. As to his next paragraph, he is mistaken because he doesn't have any experience or knowledge of the business dynamics in music industry. He doesn't know that by having three paths to release of digital audio: MP3/AAC, CD and High-res, we get to have different treatments applied to them as far as mastering. No longer do recording engineers have to convince the labels/talent to not apply loudness compression to CD/MP3s. They can do that for them as much as they like. And opt to give the people who care about fidelity better quality music in the form of "high resolution" downloads. The people he is criticizing, the "Young Group," are proving exactly that. By having a distribution channel for 24/192 Khz for Pono, they can do whatever they want as far as mastering. How he can say he met with them and not appreciate this fact is unfathomable. 1) absurd hype about hi rez sound-- that is, the sonic differences *due necessarily to hi rez* -- all out of proportion to its actual benefits. The industry , and you, *are* engaging in this, -- you with your incessant claims that it's all about 'consumer choice', the industry with the sort of shenanigans that Monty noted in his anecdote about Neil Young's project. About which you maintained a notable silence. 2) diverting the conversation from the *sources of truly significant audible defects * , in either Redbook OR hi rez releases : poor mastering, and poor playback setups. Consumers should be alerted to how their 'choice' is being restricted THERE. We should not *have to * buy hi rez releases in order to get good mastering. And we aren't even guaranteed good mastering with hi rez releases!Hi rez is a sideshow . For which you are a shill . I hear you Steven. Here is the problem and there is no getting around it. You wouldn't accept my opinion of a hot topic in your professional field. Likewise as a person with no educational or professional experience in this topic, I can't accept your position because it is not an informed one. Monty knows a lot more than you but likewise is operating outside of his expertise. He has one meeting with the "Young Group" and thinks all of a sudden he is qualified to give us state of union for audio market? I don't think so. That is why he is making such obvious mistakes per above. Your arguments as his, are wrong. There is no reason to take any action against development of high resolution audio distribution. There is goodness to every aspect of it. No harm comes to any of you happy with MP3 or the CD. The CD may decline but that decline will come from MP3, not from high-resolution. This is why the market is moving forward over your and Monty's strenuous objections. The dynamics are not as you envision as a person standing outside of it Edit: typos again.