Does HiRez really sound better?

I've been recording in high Rez for 11 years when I converted to 96/24. IMHO, and to these ears, it makes a difference. Now, whether that matters to you is another story but it matters to me.

The real problem concerning hi rez is really a matter of attitude, and probably poor marketing. In the article that was referenced, the tone was negative, and the author pulled info to back up the answer he was looking for. There's a missing, fundamental, element with people that write these pieces. They're not looking to get to the truth of the matter, they look to argue a case. If it were me, or someone else here, looking for answers, we would go after them. The real focus would be the truth, and we would do everything we could to come up with the right answer, and not the answer that we want because we just know better. So if you take a step back and look at the problem defined as getting the right answers, I think you'll see that it becomes very obvious that so much more needs to be done before any judgement is of any kind is passed.

For most consumers the difference is negligible. As Raymonda says whether or not that matters is up to the individual. There will never be a consensus on this issue because it will never be widely accepted as common knowledge to be superior such as 8 track vs CD's or VHS vs DVD.

Mark Waldrep ia the owner of AIX Records and a hi-resolution audio proponent and supplier. He is a professor at a California university where he teaches classes on audio recording and mixing. He also posts daily articles on his website that contain his thoughts on various audio subjects, typically concerning hi-resolution audio subjects.

A major theme that runs through Mark's articles is the critical importance he places on the 'provenance' of a recording in determining the ultimate playback fidelity of a hi-resolution recording. 'Provenance' basically means the history of the recording; at what fidelity was it recorded originally, what master was used in the transfer to a hi-resolution format and exactly what conversions were involved in the transfer.

The truth is that vinyl records, reel-to-reel tapes and redbook cds can all sound very good but none of these formats are hi-resolution formats.

If the same multi-track reel-to-reel master tape recording/mix of a performance is used as a source for a redbook cd as well as a PCM 24 bit/96 or 192khz hi-resolution recording then, theoretically, there should be no difference in fidelity even if played back through the highest quality audio system. Both the cd and hi-resolution formats are limited by the original multi-track reel-to-reel master tape's fidelity, which is not hi-resolution.

However, if the same performance was recorded conventionally on analog reel-to-reel and direct to digital at 24 bit/96 or 192 kHz simultaneously, I would suggest most Audiogon members would clearly notice that the hi-res format is superior, mainly in detail and dynamics.

Currently, the major content owners (record labels) are scrambling to transfer their music libraries to hi-res formats using the same analog multi-track reel-to-reel masters used for cds so they can market them as 're-mastered into 24/96, 24/192 and DSD hi-res formats'. Uninformed consumers, not aware of 'provenance', will be thinking they're buying improved versions of their favorite recordings. They'll be paying more for new recordings that they don't realize they already own.

There was a recent N.Y. Times article that claimed his self-recruited test subjects could not tell the difference between redbook cds and hi-res recordings of the same music. Little wonder since they were comparing identical things.

An obvious solution would be a requirement that all hi-res music providers fully disclose each recording's 'provennce'. Of course, all providers supplying content with inferior provenance (mainly but not exclusively record labels) will likely be resisting efforts at full disclosure. I'm thinking the best way to combat this dishonesty is by spreading the word on the importance of provenance until it becomes common knowledge.

To anyone unconvinced of the audible superiority of hi-res computer audio downloads, I would urge you to download an album by Jennifer Gomes called "A 1,000 Shades of Blue" from Liason Audio in the Netherlands for under $30. All songs were recorded directly using PCM 24/96 analog to digital equipment without mixing and in front of a live audience. The excellent detail, natural and unrestricted dynamics and beautiful tonal qualities all combine to present a superb 'in the room' sound stage illusion that is stunningly realistic and clearly demonstrates the extraordinary potential of hi-res audio that has a high quality provenance.

Personally, I'm grateful that this type of high quality download is available and have no problem paying $29 for it.

Hopefully, suppliers using lower quality methods on their recordings will not gain traction and performers begin realizing the benefits of recording direct to digital for new recording sessions. Ah, to be old, naive and not concerned with the size of FLAC files.

My 2 cents,
Tim

Noble100,

You just made my point better than I ever could. Why test anything when we already know better? I won't waste my day typing, but I can at least put 1 hole in all your theories.

"The truth is that vinyl records, reel-to-reel tapes and redbook cds can all sound very good but none of these formats are hi-resolution formats."

With regards to vinyl and reel to reel analog tapes, you can't put a level of resolution on them in any meaningful way, like you may be able to do with digital. Why? Because analog resolution will vary depending on the equipment used in the recording and the playback process. Not only that, there is no reliable way to measure the resolution of an analog source and equate it to any to a similar resolution in digital. So in the end, you guys are just guessing. You talk science and objectivity, but don't use a shred of it yourselves. And that makes you completely subjective. The funny part is that you don't even realize it. I mean, if you were trying to be objective and back your ideas up with good factual information, would you really want to use this as a source to build an argument on?

"There was a recent N.Y. Times article that claimed his self-recruited test subjects could not tell the difference between redbook cds and hi-res recordings of the same music. Little wonder since they were comparing identical things."

A recent NY Times article? Do you really think they're qualified to conduct such a test? You can do whatever you want, but if I was trying to make your point, I would be embarrassed to reference a source like that. And then expect someone to take me seriously.