I've spent most of my life recording and listening to music. I started out recording from LP to cassette tape, then from CDs to MDs. Then from CDs to MP3s. Then downloading CD-quality files. And then, hi-res downloads. And then, streaming hi-res music. I've searched high and low for the best recordings, and the best way to hear them. I've listened to all the formats, on all kinds of equipment, on all kinds of speakers, in all kinds of environments. From portable players, to very nice car stereos, to very high-end gear in controlled listening rooms. My conclusion: The mastering/mixing is everything. Sure, a poor quality cassette tape, in a poor quality cassette player - is going to sound terrible. But a poorly mastered/mixed song is going to sound terrible - no matter what format, sampling rate, or bit depth, one is using to store it. To better illustrate what I'm talking about, consider this: I have a new CD by Melody Gardot called "Sunset In The Blue". Just a plain-old Redbook CD, nothing special about the audio format: 2-channel stereo, 44.1 KHz sample rate, 16 bit word depth. And it sounds freaking amazing. (Sony CDP-X77ES player, McIntosh MA6900, rendered on the original B&W 703 speakers, with premium interconnects and speaker cables.) It's like Ms. Gardot is in the room, singing to me, personally. The music is alive. I hear no noise, no artifacts, nothing thin, weak, muffled, or fuzzy. Just great sound. That is what the standard 44.1 16 bit format is capable of - with an expert recording, that is mixed properly. Having gone down the high-end, hi-res road for decades, and discovering what I know now, I would say most people will be better rewarded by searching for those tracks that are expertly mastered/mixed - and spending less time trying to find the hi-res holy grail. And perhaps, with the money saved by not purchasing hi-res files, more funds are available to purchase additional music, and/or to make equipment improvements. This has been my experience.

@user-qx2me1os5l

2 жыл бұрын

👍💯

@neotrue

2 жыл бұрын

Yes, this is the right direction to get a better sound of audio. We all known 'garbage in, garbage out'.

@davidsagarra9841

2 жыл бұрын

I agree 100%👍

@anthonylee7263

2 жыл бұрын

Cannot agree more, the original recording is everything

@EskWIRED

2 жыл бұрын

You are completely correct. But you should go further. HD remasters of those great albums, carefully made from the original tapes can be incredible.

People don't realise how high quality music the CD format can offer. Most times when CDs sound bad it's the mastering and not the format.

@AudioFixation

Жыл бұрын

Quite right

@thiscorrosion900

Жыл бұрын

A lot of people maintain that CD was always bound to sound harsher or less warm than any analog medium, but that wasn't always the case even in the mid or late 80s. If that were the case, why did so many classical nuts adopt the CD right away, basically? I'm sure many of them were people with super high end systems as well. Still though, I used to sometimes compare things like the later CD of say, Pink Floyd's Animals to my original 77 vinyl LP, and the latter won out every time, the vinyl on a good table and system sounded warmer and more dynamic, without a doubt. The CD sounded fine, but the vinyl (drums and bass in particular) sounded better and warmer. But yes, a lot of it is also due to the source, mastering, etc. Later DDD all digital recording and mastering was a whole other animal as well. It's also crucial as to what system you're pushing it through, amp, DAC, etc.

@JnL_SSBM

Жыл бұрын

@@AudioFixation CD quality is NOT enough for loudness war recordings. This is why Hi-Res exists...! UNLESS you have an early ol' "well-mastered" CD like Pink Floyd as mentioned above so, no problem.

@MikeleKonstantyFiedorowiczIV

Жыл бұрын

if its properly recorded without loudness wars

@kartoffelbrei8090

Жыл бұрын

@@JnL_SSBM Not a reasoning i have heard before. Pls elaborate.

Wow. This video has finally helped me find peace in my soul lol. I've been collecting CDs for a long time but I always thought i needed to spend some serious money in upgrading to Hi-Res if I really wanted to get the best audio possible. Now I realize the collection have been spending so much time and dedication putting together is more than enough for me and instead of changing to the high-res format I need to spend that money on equipment that will unlock all of the potential and squeeze every drop of quality from those CDs. Thank you Audio Fixation!

Honestly appreciated this video. Now I don't feel guilty that some of my albums are "only" 16 bit FLAC files, and will stress myself out less trying to find places with 24 bit audio

@TStephens21274

2 жыл бұрын

@E. O. Yes they are lol. Name an album I’ll bet I can find the 24bit version easy.

@gyjoci95

2 жыл бұрын

@@TStephens21274 I name a few: any album from the rapper called Tech N9ne? I dont know he have any 24 bit album in the internet. I only know 2 or 4 song which are 24 bit these are only songs were he was featured.

@TStephens21274

2 жыл бұрын

@@gyjoci95 damn, only 24bit album I found by him was strangeulation vol 2

@gyjoci95

2 жыл бұрын

@@TStephens21274 I found it too thanks for your hint and I am already listening it. :D

@TStephens21274

2 жыл бұрын

@@gyjoci95 No problem! Enjoy!

This is so refreshing to watch. As someone who's just gotten into the hi-res world, it's easy to get overwhelmed by audiophiles talking about how you need this $100 DAC or this $300+ dedicated music player or how this $150 IEM is SO affordable for it's quality. They talk about it like you can't enjoy the music without shelling out $500 minimum. I'm probably going on a tangent here but my point is that, like the 24 bit files, so many of the hi-res audiophile stuff are unnecessary and overkill.

@AudioFixation

2 жыл бұрын

Exactly right, and I think people often lose sight of just enjoying the music!!!

@locutiss100

Ай бұрын

Snake oil is a term that often comes up when talking about hi cost audio gear and speaker cables. If enough "experts" say it's better then it is 😡

Some people say that CD is just fine or good enough. CD quality is actually the very best. It has sound quality beyond human hearing. The rise of high samples add and means nothing because it is undetectable to the human ear. All this hi res marketing is another way of squeezing money out of consumers. No human can pass blind tests, so we have reached the highest quality of high fidelity audio.

Simple and easy explanation, saved me a lot of head scratching and reading useless articles in the internet. Earned my sub.

@AudioFixation

3 жыл бұрын

Glad it helped!

@NEOREV_MUSIC

2 жыл бұрын

Go read the study on the hypersonic effect.

Aahhhh, sweeping generalisations. There are so very few absolutes in medicine, let alone in the audio sphere. The rationale for high sampling rates lies not in the human auditory chain, but in the development of suitable electronic filters used to accurately reconstruct the digital signal. High sampling rates make the development and quality of such filters much simpler. A highly resolving system will readily reveal differences, although I would have to agree that mastering and mixing have a greater influence.

@DrHWO

2 жыл бұрын

@ReaktorLeak Thank you. I agree, however my argument was to clarify the aetiology of high sampling rates and to divorce it from the often stated arguments that the frequencies involved are well above the human threshold. Subjectively, to me, hi res still sounds better. We are where we are!

@DrHWO

2 жыл бұрын

@ReaktorLeak Thank you. I did. Not only that but A/B testing with the wife (no interest in the hardware, but is a concert pianist) to see what she preferred. I guess all we can say here is that we all have different auditory chains + preferences and making sweeping generalisations should be taken with more than a grain of salt.

@kartoffelbrei8090

2 жыл бұрын

There are different sides of this story: the listening side and the recording side.

2 жыл бұрын

Higher resolution makes sense during the recording/mastering stage to minimize rounding errors when doing multiple passes of processing/summing of signals, etc. But when the final mix is done, and it's ready for distribution, there's no point in sampling it higher than CD PCM, and it still has headroom over the absolute hearing requirements of our auditory system. Back in the 80s when CD was invented lowpass filters where nowhere near as sophisticated and the extra 2.05kHz was useful to avoid aliasing issues when lowpassing to 20kHz. But those days are long gone. Also, even though 16bit gives -96dB range, using dithering you can easily bring up CD to -120dB preceived dynamic range. However very few recordings use it, since -96dB is already a magnitude better than what even the best multitrack tape decks could achieve used for recording studio masters in the analog era. Also good luck finding any modern mastering which uses even 30db of dynamic range dr.loudness-war.info/

@FullAttach

2 жыл бұрын

Thank you!

a lot of audiophiles are into numbers. actually listening to the music is secondary. and they do not like blind testing! my god if you want to make some heads pop show how $2000 cables are only for the well off and gullible...

@kurtsanches8819

2 жыл бұрын

I think it's wrong that you generalize people, not all audiophiles don't do blind testing, it's not placebo. Although I agree that a lot of audiophile products are extremely overpriced, but we already got a lot of chinese hifi now, and several startups focusing on hifi audio, which offers a lot of good stuff without breaking a bank. It's really easy to say that if you are not really into it, I was exactly the same skeptical as you are before, see how the world are being dominated by technology now, but how can a lot of audio companies survive for so many decades and even century even without expanding their territory to other products? they spent so much time and money on R&D, and they mastered it really well. I grew up listening on my favorite bands on basic entry level audio equipment, I'm not really into hi-fi until I was able to tests out high-end equipment from a demo, I listen to music I used to listen to growing up, and I was blown away by so much details I was missing, those music are already burned into my brain and I know them all already but I didn't know that it's gonna be more alive, more realistic, which brings so much joy on me personally. The thing is, we shouldn't talk like we used to understand everything in this world. I used to laugh at people before who's spending so much of an audio equipment but a dirt cheap ones also offer the same functions. The society has been fed up with crappy audio products, radio signals are compressed, but we listen to FM anyway, regardless of signal interferences, cassettes tapes can't even match the quality of CDs they sound really awful, but we consumed it anyway, CDs took way too long to be widely available, a lot of albums that you want aren't available on the store near you, people used to pirate them, pirated music are being compressed to save storage space. audio components used to be on high demand so everyone created something just to fill up the supply, ipods used to be on the hyped and everyone used to create mp3 players so others who can't afford them will have a cheap alternative option, and we get used to it. We are into something that can do the work, something that is okay quality, something that can play sound, we focused on the functionally and priced, and not the quality of the output. I didn't understand and didn't get the needs for a better audio equipment until I was able to experienced it myself. I'm a budget audiophile, and for me it's still ridiculous to spent so much on something that will only play sound, but the hobby gets super exciting since we got a lot of new players now offering top notch quality for so cheap. And yes, I can't tell the difference between a 320kbps mp3, a 16bit flac, and a 24bit flac if i play them on my cheap headphones, earphones, cheap bluetooth speaker. But I can hardly tell the difference in quality, separation of instruments, sound stage on 16bit and 42bit flac if I used my VE monk plus earphones which costs me 5USD.

@maka8551

2 жыл бұрын

wrong

@maka8551

2 жыл бұрын

@Oh FiddleSticks wrong

Every time I get the urge to purchase hi-res audio equipment, I come back and rewatch this video to remind me of the limits of human hearing. Thank you for saving me a bunch of money.

@fatheroflights887

Жыл бұрын

That seems rather self limiting, doesn't it? Denying yourself to make a decision with your own ears because of the limited opinion of some random person on the internet? If I were you, I wouldn't be proud of making the comment you made.

@sebasosorio9084

Жыл бұрын

@@fatheroflights887 LOL, let us be hahaha

@godekchen9658

Жыл бұрын

You forget the vibration...your entire body feel it,,😎😎😎😎

@wildfirexd

Жыл бұрын

@@godekchen9658 True af bro

@mickyj8412

8 ай бұрын

I'm currently on this boat myself. I'm digging and researching introduction to DAP's and DAC'S just because I purchased new IEM's.

This is a topic I've struggled for years to understand and now I finally get it. Thank you so much for your brilliant and simple explanation!!!

@AudioFixation

3 жыл бұрын

Thanks for watching, glad you found it comprehensible!

@FunkMonster98

Жыл бұрын

@@maka8551 Nice, we have an innocuous troll about.

Great video and very thorough! I have only one addition regarding the higher sampling rate recordings: One reason about why the 44.1kHz sampling rate was considered “low” and why the first CD players that were ever created sounded a bit “metallic” is this: While the highest frequency that can be sampled is 22.1kHz, the whole spectrum of frequencies that can “pass” from the same sampled points is mirrored above that frequency. Even though these are clearly higher frequencies and we normally can’t hear them, their differences between the actual captured ones below the 22.1kHz and those mirrored above that fall into the hearing spectrum and these are the actual ones which can be heard. So there is a need for a filter to block anything above 22.1kHz in order to counter that effect. The first CD players had 6th to 8th degree filters (1st degree = 3db/octave 2nd degree = 6db/octave etc) because their filtering curve needed to be flat from 20Hz to 20kHz and then drop dramatically between 20kHz and 22.1kHz. Those filters have a dramatic effect in phase distortion which is something that you can clearly hear as a metallic sound in the high frequencies since this is where our hearing is more sensitive in phase differences for detecting sound direction. Later on, the oversampling was introduced, by interpolating samples using math in-between the actual recorded samples, resulting in a much higher “spectrum mirroring” frequency which now needed a simple 1st degree filter to have a flat response between 20Hz-20kHz. The actual question now is whether you can possibly hear with your equipment in a blind test, the mathematically interpolated samples of a 44.1kHz or 48kHz recording created by a DSP and the actually recorded samples of a higher sampling rate recording at 96kHz-384kHz or even 768kHz, and tell any difference in a blind test. As you mentioned in your video, anyone most likely can’t.

@AudioFixation

2 жыл бұрын

Thanks for watching and for the brilliantly detailed description of the filtering. I learnt something new!

@skesinis

2 жыл бұрын

@ReaktorLeak The filtering phase distortion was only one aspect of that harsh or metallic sound. The low accuracy of the sampling clocks in many early digital recordings was also another reason. Most recordings were firstly recorded in a multichannel tape in order to have room for correcting individual instrument mistakes by replaying the tape of the other instruments for example and having only the musician which made the mistake to listen the rest of the song and play their part again, or obviously for better recording quality, since each instrument was recorded with their respective microphone, made specifically for that instrument. After that, there was the down-mix stage to stereo, from which the master for an LP or a CD would be created. The RIAA curve EQ would be applied only at that stage in order to create the LP, so that wouldn’t affect the CD master. Each stage could be recorded either in an analog or digital format. There are always exceptions, like direct to disk recordings for example where the band would play for an entire LP side in one go and any mistake would cost an entire one side vinyl master but this whole process would be done to eliminate one stage of analog recording. I digress though as we’re talking about analog here and not about the oversampling using a DSP for the filtering vs the actual high frequency sampling for the same reason. At the end of the day though, a blind test is always the best way to judge between the two.

Hi-res is not useless, it gives you more head-room to do more real-time DSP processing without destroying quality. This means if we listen to hi-res music on a highly processed speaker box like (Homepod mini), it’s going to sound better. It’s the same analogy as why you KZreadr shoot in 4K even if the video is streamed at 1080. because it simply gives you more room for post-processing. IMO, hi-res will have more benefits for the mass consumers rather than the audiophiles.

@AudioFixation

3 жыл бұрын

I think that last point is a very good one David

@simonjgriffiths

2 жыл бұрын

That’s not a valid comparison. The KZreadr is post processing the master copy, as the consumer you still get the same download copy. Your argument might be valid for recording the master in higher res. BTW, you can’t stream hires to a HomePod (or any other air play device), so I’m afraid the benefit you’re looking for is impossible.

@StringerNews1

2 жыл бұрын

It's not a valid concept. A DSP can and will add bits while crunching numbers, and the number of bits in the recording plays no role in that. Unless you listen to music while wearing hearing protection, the threshold of pain will keep you from raising the loudest level. The quietest level will be limited by room noise, and ultimately by electrical thermal noise in the electronics, called Johnson noise. Bearing this in mind, 20 bits is the most that the physical world can deal with. And for those who don't own an anechoic chamber, 16 bits does cover the dynamic range and then some. None of that has anything to do with post-processing. Needless to say, if you don't even know the fundamentals of digital recording, you will not make anything better by trying that. OTOH shooting in 4K or UHD will yield benefits when streaming at 1080P if you're using a cheap camera with a Bayer sensor, because it needs a lower Nyquist frequency to properly deal with the inherent chroma subsampling. This is why non-professional gear (and so-called "cinema" cameras) need to be displayed with less resolution than used to shoot.

@dc99yt

2 жыл бұрын

@@StringerNews1 If Hi-res is a waste of time, and nobody can tell the difference, why then aren’t recording studios storing master files in 44.1kHz 16-bit format to save time and money?

@StringerNews1

2 жыл бұрын

@@dc99yt do you have any evidence that's not the case? You seem to have your cart before the horse here!

"and if you do, you are Batman" hahahaha

@user-qx2me1os5l

2 жыл бұрын

👍👋👋👋😁

@namedkenn

2 жыл бұрын

I cracked up real good 🤣

I’m just starting to get into audiophilia (is that a word?) and this cleared a lot of things up. Found this channel an hour ago and already love it

@AudioFixation

3 жыл бұрын

Thanks for watching, and good to have you on board.

@JnL_SSBM

2 жыл бұрын

@@AudioFixation It seems like people didn't knew Metallica's Death Magnetic incident, best version of Metallica music was on Hi-Res audio and Apple Digital Master (even from Apple it's famous lossy codec) over the CD. CDs technically is good enough for the human on a old-school point of view, but with the volume standards of today and the ubitiquous and inevitable loudness war, CDs are dying. Only Hi-fi streaming and few Hi-Res streaming is left on the board.

@gx1tar1er

Жыл бұрын

@@JnL_SSBM No CD is not dying, it's thriving again (look at last year CD sell rose for the first time since 2004) & hi res audio will always stay niche & obscure (not because of loudness war). Also great mastering sounds fantastic on high bitrate lossy or CD (16bit, 44.1kHz) lossless.

@JnL_SSBM

Жыл бұрын

@@gx1tar1er well mastered jazz cds from early to mid 80s are proof cd lossless or lossy mp3 sound good...!

Really loved hearing about all this stuff again. I took a course on Nyquist-Shannon, sampling, etc. in college and you did a great job summarizing it quickly (from what I remember). The major takeaway is that the people recording your music have already thought all this stuff through, way back in the eighties when this stuff was being invented by people with PhDs. We've understood the science of sound for quite a while, and while audio equipment has gotten way better for way cheaper, CD-quality audio is still just fine.

@AudioFixation

3 жыл бұрын

Well said my friend!

@SuperSohaizai

2 жыл бұрын

Isn't CD quality already considered lossless? I don't think I can hear the difference between 16bit and 24bit (be it lacking of capable gear or not sensitive enough ear). Going from mp3 to FLAC is quite something, but going further is just excessive to me. Is there even higher quality file that has that kind of big jump?

@TStephens21274

2 жыл бұрын

@@SuperSohaizai Yes, it’s called DSD and DXD.

@SuperSohaizai

2 жыл бұрын

@@TStephens21274 I just looked it up, and I don't think I understand everything. What I do understand is those formats are too "professional" for me, and probably don't care enough to get my hands on it. Maybe I'll try it when I come across in future (with good gears too)

@TStephens21274

2 жыл бұрын

@@SuperSohaizai I hear ya! It’s worth a listen when you have gear to play it.

It’s a common mistake that the big advantage of Hi-Res audio is the higher frequencies but it’s a better time resolution and less problematic digital reconstruction filters (noise shaping), so you don’t need to be Batman to profit from real Hi-Res. And actually we had a similar discussion when moving from standard TV to HDTV. People claimed that they won’t see the better resolution or the more colors. And now the same again with UHD TV. Just because you can’t see or hear the advantage of Hi-Res doesn’t mean others cannot as well. It’s individual, not absolute.

@Digiphex

2 жыл бұрын

You don't understand it. I was involved in early DSP and we did have problems initially and I keep seeing people bringing it up. But we fixed those problems in the first few years. With modern processor speeds of all digital equipment, there is no need for anything over 44.1K. The funny thing is that there in no extra information beyond the 44.1K file in 98% of the digital files sold. The recording equipment of the artist was not designed to capture it.

@denizenofclownworld4853

2 жыл бұрын

"digital reconstruction filters" hahaha, stop larping like you know something, kid.

@JB19504

Жыл бұрын

Well, I can definitely see the difference between HD and UHD, but you have to have a large enough screen, and be sitting relatively close to the screen. If I watch a 4K Fox football game, and the switch to the regular HD broadcast of the same game, the way I can tell the difference is seeing the individual blades of grass on the field.

"congratulations, you are Batman" haha laughed out loud at that one. Being a cheapskate I was always feeling like my desire for high quality audio was somehow impeded by listening to lossless files ripped from my CD collection. Then I did exactly what you suggested and actually did some back to back testing with some hi res music a friend had. Couldn't hear any difference at all. Full credit to the developers of the CD standards - they achieved a fantastic result way back in the early 80s.

@AudioFixation

10 ай бұрын

Yeah, hats off to the redbook brigade!

That cleared up some of the technical aspects of Dankpods’ flac player reviews. Appreciate the physics/tech lesson!

@AudioFixation

3 жыл бұрын

Thanks! The science puts people off but it’s actually interesting and makes sense!

When CD Washington introduced in the eighties it was marketed AND engineered as perfect sound. And I think they got it about right. The 16 bit 44 kHz dithered will cover the requirements for perfect transmission of a Mahler symphony without compression. I think rather than focusing on lossless transfer of ever higher resolution the industry should upgrade the resolution on wireless transmission (like Bluetooth). Nowadays when data storage and transmission has become it cheaper than it was, it’s interesting to speculate on what would the data format have been if it was introduced now. For absolute perfection my pick would be 18 bit 48 kHz. 18 bit will give a dynamic range and noise floor of 108 dB before dithering and 48 kHz will give a bit mor space for high frequency filtering. Not that I believe this format would improve the sound, but it would be technically sweet and keep some reserve . Thanks for sharing your thoughts 😃

I found your channel and binged all your videos, loving the content!

@AudioFixation

3 жыл бұрын

Thanks Ant! Great to have you on board.

When MP3 became popular in the mid-late 90's, I was able to hear a difference between a high quality MP3 encoding of a CD track and the CD itself, using your standard consumer (Sony) headphones. And today, after getting some decent midrange hifi gear, I can hear a difference between, say an Apple mastered AAC and a CD recording of the same track, but it takes really dedicated listening and lots of repeat listening to hear the subtle differences. This is good news though, because it means your large playlists on Spotify, Apple Music (or preferred streaming service/download service), or your large compressed library of CD rips are enjoyable as is and you're not going to miss much unless you have the equipment to reveal the differences. And even then those differences are subtle, unless you spend the money where those differences can be magnified. This also means games can still be enjoyed even if they might compress sounds and music a bit more for space/memory savings. What does matter, though is how it's mastered. Sometimes a hi-res track might use new mastering that makes it sound better than the original CD recording. But say that a streaming service offers different mastered versions of the same song, that can have an appreciable difference in how the music sounds and how enjoyable it is. One example is Pearl Jam's debut album Ten. I've never really enjoyed the overall sound of Ten because of the mastering, and it took a lot of listening to really appreciate the music (and band) because it didn't have the "kick" or "vibe" of the "grunge" era artists of the period, but when they issued a new mix of it 10 years later, I enjoyed it more. In the remastered version of "Ten" you can hear Eddie Vedder's voice clearly when he mumbles or speaks softly during some parts of the song, and it has more of a hard rock feeling and vibe. It totally fits the sound of the period and it's more enjoyable.

@AudioFixation

2 жыл бұрын

Yes, I prefer the 10 remaster as well - much more depth and nuance than the original mix. Thanks for your insightful comments and for watching!

@0852657luis

2 жыл бұрын

I knew I wasn't the only one who didn't like ten (or pearl jam for that matter) the mixing in the original ten was just so unenjoyable to me and I've listened to the Melvins early stuff (a mix of lofi and HiFi) which sound quality is not the best but the mixing is honestly what holds it together raw and aggressive.

I just subscribed to your channel, and I love that you give little music recommendations throughout these videos. I've found more than a few great new albums already!

A lot people have the misconception that digital music are reconstructed in a zig-zag fashion. Meaning instead a smooth wave, the reconstructed wave has shapes like staircases. And that is completely not true at all! According to Nyquist-Shannon theorem, sampling at double the highest frequency of the input would contain enough information to reconstruct the smooth original signal. What's needed after the "staircase signal" is simply a low-pass filter.

Great video and as mentioned by alot of other watchers here, the mastering and mix are the key elements to get the greatest sound quality. Yes, a half decent set-up will help, but you put a bad recording in and out get a bad sound out. Would love to hear your take on the loudness wars as well

Respectfully disagree. A lot of simplification here. First. when you talk about perception limits you consider only frequency domain, not time domain. Second. All Digital Analog Converters have filters for high frequencies caused by analog recreation from sampling, it is known that when you apply a filter you get less digital aliasing as high is your sample rates. Old low sample rate synths for example, produced aliasing in high frequency even SR being double or more of perception limit. This aliasing effect when filtering is clearly detected by most people in blind test. Modern digital synths use oversampling to unrequired levels by our limits of perception for avoiding perceptible aliasing when filtering in high frequencies reproduction. Three. When you consider bit depth you say music never goes from 0 to 100. First, Decibels are not like grams, it is not absolute measure, it is relative to a level. In case of DAC or preamp equipment we are talking db relative to line level, but then there is your amplifier. Decibels here is not absolute value, it is relative to amplification level (Pre amp, line level db). 24 bit means the different amplitudes the sample may have 24^2 and it corelates completely with the concept of HDR in video (levels of light from white to black). With all the respect, i disagree, digital 44.1-16 can be cold, metallic, in certain types of music. And there is a lot of difference from some DACs to others regarding how to manage aliasing in high frequency digital oscillation. Only complete argument (not oversimplifies) its blind test one. But if i can hear aliasing in a digital synth oscillator compared to the analogue counterpart, i can hear aliasing made by filters of my DAC, in certain high frequencies. Some DACs oversample internally 44.1-16 , being the source at this read, to avoid filter aliasing. Also there is an important argument when you are resampling an analogue tape (Especially in Jazz and Classical Music) you capture a thing that when converted to analogue the line level after DAC is much more close to the output to line level of the original historical recording tape. And as you know, all tapes are going to die eventually. Including Miles Davies tapes ;-)

@AudioFixation

3 жыл бұрын

Thanks for taking the time to make such interesting and thorough points. Very interesting technical details.

@afrancois1968

3 жыл бұрын

Nicely explained. The reason however that some cd’s sound metallic is due to the poor quality of the ADC used in the beginning of digital audio. As I mentioned above this is due to poor quality clocks used. This is also why AAD recordings that are recently made can sound sound so good. One of the major reasons why digital audio has only very recently become extremely good is because of the wide availability of femto clocks.

Thank you. You saved me a lot of struggle and money, streaming 16/44.1 via Airplay on my system will do just fine, i was literally melting my brain figuring out on how to stream in "Hi-Res", but this explains it all.

Really REALLY Appreciate that break down. 🙏🏽 Clear and concise and without brow beating anyone.

Good video as always, well worth the wait. I've very rarely come across this sort of explanations throughout my time in this hobby, helps you put into perspective where you want to put your money as your journey goes on. Keep up the awesome content man! Maybe a little talk about lossy formats vs lossless would be beneficial as well.

@AudioFixation

3 жыл бұрын

Great to hear from you Julio thanks for the kind comments.

@elmasjules

3 жыл бұрын

@@AudioFixation Sure thing man, and congrats on the 1,000 subs!

I’m really not much of an audiophile, but I just bought the kz zsn pro x’s and im loving them. I absolutely love how you pace your other reviews, and I thought this was incredibly informative. You have a great thing going on here, and i hope you grow way more! you deserve it!

@AudioFixation

3 жыл бұрын

That’s so kind of you Jay. Many thanks!

@kurtsanches8819

2 жыл бұрын

A lot of people actually hate audiophiles and see them as stupid for spending a lot of cash on something that used to play sound while cheap alternatives offer the same function. People are focused on the functions-to-price decisions, and not the quality of functions to price, this clearly explains why a lot of audio companies are still surviving for decades and even century without expanding their market products. They spent so much time and money on R&D and the quality of the results paid off. However those who cant really afford the high end brands just like me now has a lot cheap but super high quality alternatives. KZ, Venture Electronics, to name a few that gives so much value to your money while still offering a really good sound. Everyone even not audiophile should at least try this ones.

@MrPhunka21

2 жыл бұрын

I have the zsn pros as well , I really like them. I just got the zs10 pros and they are in my opinion even better definitely my 2 favorite kz iems though ,I have 6 different models now

@lunascomments3024

Жыл бұрын

do not buy KZ. buy tangzu wan'er

@thiscorrosion900

Жыл бұрын

I have them and the KZS10s or whatever, with the silver metal fronts, they are both excellent IEMs. It's all dependent though on what you're running them out of: amp, DAC, system, sound card, whatever. And what the quality of the source file is. And EQ.

Immediate subscribed. Every audiophile should watch this video. Well explained--and I learned so much. ty

Excellent vid and you’ve educated us well. Always on the hunt for CDs and thanks for saving me money👍👍

@AudioFixation

Жыл бұрын

Glad to help

HiRes or die for me lol. I can absolutely hear the difference in sound quality. Especially with DSD128 and up! Not to mention DXD!!!

@Arko_gfx

2 жыл бұрын

Congratulations,you are Batman! :)))

@jsmacks11

3 ай бұрын

I hear a difference too but I suspect it the mastering as the high resolution files tend to have lighter mastering and sounds almost like a vinyl record but better with basically no artifacts. Alot of mp3s or newer CDs are overmastered. Many times some remastered CDs can sound pretty bad. Alot of older CDs from the 80s and early 90s can sound great as those CDs were less likely to be squashed.

once you get to CD grade (44.1 Khz @ 16 bits), The Mastering itself makes much more difference than additional resolution or sample rate.

Congratulations on 1k subs, appreciate the content.

As a musician, starting your video with that sentence, has dropped me out already, but I still have to see the full vid. But for us and for those to love to take out the full juice, hi res audio is a must have. I can really understand your points, I agree to them, i still will love those 1.234.5678.9.10.111 kbps music files but the real hi res is live music in the studio, acoustic session, or a concert even. Where you can here that texture, that crispy sound of the instruments, the natural reverb, and those broken sounds of the human nature. Go to an acoustic session and whenever you hear that kickdrum make your heart beat, you'll find in love with your ears

Completely agree with the assement, a good lossless 16bit Flac is all you need. I like browsing for used CDs and digitizing them in FLAC. I did an A -B-X Test once with 32bit vs 16bit (Sennheiser HD600 and ifi DAC Zen), i couldn't tell the difference.

@MelonParfait.

3 жыл бұрын

Just use Stereo Expand then you could tell the difference..

@kartoffelbrei8090

2 жыл бұрын

Do you even know what you would have to do to have a chance to hear 32 bit?

@lukasegeling5205

5 ай бұрын

I just recently started collecting secondhand CDs when I bought an external disc drive. Digging through all the CDs in thrift stores is such a fun activity, which I engage in monthly now. Just last week, I stumbled across two Crazy Frog albums to spice up my music collection. I also rip the CDs to FLAC to put on the SD card in my phone.

@eric_eagle

16 күн бұрын

I do the same, just with ALAC as I’m mostly invested in the Apple ecosystem. Though I agree with those who emphasize mastering. Some CDs sound like trash because of poor mastering/production, and getting a HD version isn’t going to fix that.

Amazing video. Would love to see Qobuz offer a CD quality plan for let's say 9.99 instead of the minimum 14.99 that is hi res. For some reason all their recordings sounds better than the competition.

I'll add one thing to this gentleman's excellent discussion. He's talking about the software, the CD. The other side is the hardware, the player. Make sure your CD player has a high quality DAC chip. Most people use their DVD player to play their CD's, that's fine provided that the DAC inside the player is good. I would recommend using a blu - ray player by a well known company (Sony and Samsung come to mind). And please, don't by fooled by all the hype of the streaming services : the only way to get true lossless format is to listen to the source, that is, the CD.. Thank you and happy listening!

Some (Such as Paul from PS Audio) say that increasing the sample rate is actually good as it helps further minimizes the effects of aliasing due to gentler frequency cut-off filters at the higher frequencies.

Am I bad if I say FM sounds good to me ? Interestingly, Photographers have the same 'discussions' about image quality and resolution.

I think it makes sense in a studio where you want to preserve as much as possible so you can make more edits. Apple also uses these Hi-Res masters for it’s Apple Digital Masters, using the highest quality source, Apple is able to provide the highest quality AAC. Like a few others have said though, the most important thing is a good quality recording and master. A good quality master will sound good on lossy, lossless or hi-res. Similarly, a bad master will sound bad on all formats as well. As an Apple Music user, I was excited about lossless coming at no extra cost, but the 256kbps AAC, especially the Apple Digital Masters already sound excellent, so I may as well save storage, bandwidth and keep the convenience of wireless Bluetooth headphones. I heard Eddy Cue, who heads Apple Music say in an interview that 99% of people can’t tell the difference. I think that was mainly a response to Spotify announcing Hi-Fi. They seem to be pushing Dolby Atmos more which differentiates them from Spotify, even though Atmos and spatial is a bit hit and miss right now.

Thank you for the information. This was very helpful!

Thanks. Nice to see someone explain the engineering clearly and directly. I suspect you are right about the blind tests of the hi-res vs normal "lossless" encodings. And of course you are right about playing good recordings on good audio gear. All around -- well done.

Yeah, in my experience the major deciding factor is how the music was recorded and processed. If an album sounds like it was recorded through a thin wall no amount of money you throw at it will make it sound good. But if it's got nice and clear sound a good pair of headphones and a device that can drive them will really make it shine. Even decent mp3s should be indistinguishable from anything uncompressed, the codecs are optimised to cut out information where human hearing is least likely to notice the difference. I've seen some people claim that their really nice high-end audio setup can make it audible, but this would still mean that for 99.9% of listeners the equipment is the bottleneck.

Songs are important. How the songs get into your ears are about 1/10th of the importance.

@AudioFixation

Жыл бұрын

Well said Todd!

That's a great, clear explanation of the numbers, thank you :) It's also just one person's opinion. I've done ABX tests and can hear the difference between CD quality and good Hi Res (ie: not just upsampled). It's not night and day, though. CD is definitely 'good enough' for most people and for me if I'm out and about, but I prefer Hi Res if I'm sat in a quiet room, actively listening. Have you tried Hi Res on some different kit? Maybe the Fiio isn't up to the task? (IDK - never used one.)

Good thing someone on KZread finally explaining these things. The brutal truth is that most people in a blind test can't even hear any difference in the sound of (encoded with good codec) mp3 320 kbps and 16/44.1 audio. Years ago when the mp3s were the new thing I spend a lot of time making tests to see which encoder works best, I tried several - Lame, Fraunhofer and even Blade - and doing blind tests I realized that everything encoded with Lame with more than 192 kbps was sounding to my years virtually the same as CD audio. I did the same blind tests with many of my friends on their wide range of different equipment and the results were the same - they could "hear" the difference between 320 mp3 and CD audio/ Lossless when they knew what they are listening to. But in a blind test they couldn't tell the difference. So it was all a placebo effect. Same thing going on with hi-res audio - most of the audiophiles "hear" the difference between 16/44.1 and hi-res when they know that they are listening to their hi-res lossless files, but I'm not sure if the result will be the same in a blind test.

With higher sampling rate your filters don't need to be very steep. These high order filters used to avoid aliasing cause frequency rotation that can be heard or perceived. With a greater difference between the 20KHz and 192KHz (assuming a 384KHz sampling rate) you don't need a filter. And if you have a greater bit depth, the digital signal is "analog" enough to avoid any type of filter at the output. That said, probably the effect of higher bit depth or sampling frequency are difficult to be heard in normal listening conditions with a normal sound gear.

@kurtsanches8819

2 жыл бұрын

Totally agree, I can't even tell the difference with 320kbps mp3, 16bit flac, and 24bit flac on cheap generic earphones/headphones. But can easily tell the difference, even on a blind test using my also cheap but super good sound quality VE monk plus which only cost me 5USD.

@denizenofclownworld4853

2 жыл бұрын

"the digital signal is "analog" enough to avoid any type of filter at the output." hahaha. Whatever, genius.

Great vid! And could you please do a walkthrough on DSD files in the future? They look even fancier than FLACs

@AudioFixation

3 жыл бұрын

Yep

@goodsound4756

2 жыл бұрын

FLAC is only a container. What you meant is a comparison of PCM to DSD.

This is the best explanation by far ,keep coming back to this to understand ,im happy with cds.

Thanks for this video. It has explained the only noticeable difference I perceived in them Vs. CD's.

When Hi-Def audio matters... if they do a better mastering job on the content than they do on the CD version. When you have brick walled 44.1, sometimes you can find non brick walled higher resolution audio, which is a good reason to buy the HiRes... IF there is a difference.

@AudioFixation

3 жыл бұрын

Good point Stephen but I’m sure you will agree that most hi res releases come from the same masters as the CD version.

@slerched

3 жыл бұрын

@@AudioFixation yeah, I'll agree. But there are instances where you can get lucky. Rarely. If I listen to releases like Jethro Tull's Aqualung, where I invested in the super expensive version with Blu-ray, the CD master is indistinguishable to my aging ears from the Blu-ray version because that was remastered with love. Then things like Metallica's Death Magnetic I go for the LP because even though it's from the brick walled master, it didn't have the same level of distortion because of a different level of headroom. And then it's sad the best version is ripped from the Guitar Hero version and in MP3 equivalent...

@AudioFixation

3 жыл бұрын

@@slerched Death Magnetic - maybe an unpopular opinion, but I like that album!

@slerched

3 жыл бұрын

@@AudioFixation I like the album! Not a bad track on it for me. The CD is hard to listen to, for me (an important caveat!), because of the brick walling. If you enjoyed it from CD, lucky you. Compare it to the MarkIII version and it's easy to see what it could have been. That's my preference but everyone is allowed their own tastes certainly.

@AudioFixation

3 жыл бұрын

@@slerched would be very interested to hear the better version

Agree on all of that, but the industry seems to be mastering for MP3 and then sticking it on a CD as a secondary thought with the same mix so you get this 16/44 super compressed version. With Hi-Res files as well as vinyl, the mix and mastering seems to targeted to a more demanding audience and even though you don't need a 24/48, you get a better mixed and mastered file with more fidelity (not because of bit depth or rate).

@Harald_Reindl

Жыл бұрын

In the worst case your holy hires file just gone to another round of resampling

@matthewshields2841

Жыл бұрын

Mix compressed with HiRes too: happy still to knowingly pay overs from time to time. The demanding audience may be one in ten music customers. Can't speak to vinyl: I have a budget, too.

I believe the high definition anything utility is for production purpose. When we are mixing, composing or designing some audio, we push and stretch the waves so much that a little more of definition is very welcome. Like a sound designer doing sound fx for a movie. If he captures the noise of a engine to lower its frequency, if he records with inappropriate equipment, he will have no frequency to manipulate. I myself do not see a big difference between FullHD and 4K, especially on smartphones. But if I'm editing a billboard to put on the face of a building, it's a good idea to have larger images. As about your question, if I can hear more than 20kHz? Perhaps! But only when I'm working. And probably not without the help of some audio filters.

Game , set and match. You convinced me! However the streaming services, many previously pegged at 320 are offering lossless and better at no extra cost. Moreover an inexpensive external DAC makes everything sound better including 320 files! Anyhow, you have a new subscriber!

Interesting. I learned a lot, and you likely saved me a lot of money. Although I just did an ABX test and scored 90%. So I was able to tell the difference (and I did a large sample). But if I'm being honest, I did not have conviction when I was making my answer, it was more like best guess. Not an easy test, but I just went with my gut (or ears as it were).

It’s probably worth mentioning that it’s harder to make a good sounding DAC at 44kHz than it is at 96kHz due to the steep filter needed by the 44k DAC. So in a lot of cases audio through the same DAC will sound better at higher sampling rates. Audible differences just mean the DAC is not so good at lower rates.

I never understood people who think they can hear a difference between 16-bit 44.1khz and anything higher, you simply cannot biologically. It's a total waste of bandwidth for no quality change. I grew up on LP's then cassettes, and since CD's came I haven't heard anything better.

The best video on this topic. Explains everything clearly thank you.

Shhhh......keep CDs cheap. Encourage folks to stay away from CD.

@AudioFixation

3 жыл бұрын

🤣 good point tim

@Sarge_72

2 жыл бұрын

Yea CDs are ‘horrible’ Vinyl stores by me giving them away for $1-$3…. I have found a new hobby in looking for original masterings on CD from the 80s….. before the loudness wars….before the empire! 😂

@kartoffelbrei8090

2 жыл бұрын

I like you

I’ve spent my life listening to music to, and again owned high-end hi-fi equipment et cetera. However I made a huge mistake over the last two years or so. I’ve been paying for the Hi-Rez stream from tidal, not knowing that listening to headphones via Bluetooth I was losing any benefit possible. The placebo effect worked here! So now I’ve learned that I’m going to buy a duck and use my old SennheiserHD 650s, and plug those into my phone to listen to music whilst I am sedentary. I’ll need a more portable solution for when I’m out and about. However no more Hi-Rez for me, got my fingers Brenda I think. It just shows there’s no full like an old one! 40 years listening to hi-fi and I still am a mug!

@thiscorrosion900

Жыл бұрын

Yeah you're not going to get the full quality off Tidal unless you're avoiding BT and running it through a good amp and good phones or IEMs. BT is just not where it needs to be yet for hearing super HD audio. It's good for portable usage, and it's very convenient, that's about it. What I recommend is getting a good headphone amp of some kind, and use your wired whatever with those for Tidal or any listening via a phone, in particular. I don't even bother with Tidal etc., I just put all my hi res files on my portable Fiio player X1 and use a Fiio or Fosi Audio headphone amp with my best headphones or IEMs, and it's 16 bit but sounds phenomenal.

“Congratulations- you are Batman” 🦇😂

Beyond fabulous. Thank you for the explanation.

I agree. We don't need high res audio - we need mixing and mastering engineers to do their jobs better and stop the heavy compression/loudness wars. There's already too much dynamic range going to waste at standard cd quality. Not to mention the unnecessary clipping and digital distortion that plagues modern releases...

@tapeomatic

Жыл бұрын

I think you hit the nail on the head. If you start out with a good recording, you don't need all this sound processing/compression. A lot of dynamic range going to waste because of poor mastering indeed.

The most sensible, objective and scientific explanation I have heard in years from the Internet. We are surrounded by hoaxes and commercial fantasies regarding Audio and Fidelity, to the point that vinyl has won over CD and most still think it is because of its "superiority" in Sound. I worked for years in a professional audio studio in my country and I can assure each of your words, with theory and with facts. Guys, don't be fooled anymore. Congratulations on this educational and well explained video. You already have a new subscriber here ;) Cheers!

@AudioFixation

2 жыл бұрын

Thanks Sonido, I’ll take that as high praise coming from an audio engineer!

There's a youtuber that I watched probably last week that talks about his daughter that went to a school (Degree in music or something). So he did tied to experiment with that through listening to samples (WAV, 128 and 320). His daughter gets 4/6, I did try it and got 3/6. I mostly choose 128... What I'm trying to say is that as an average listener, I do quite tell the difference but it's just a minimal detail. Not much big of a deal. With this kind of video I started to atleast understand what's happening. Thank you so much!

Great explanation, thank you (as much as my gadget nerd part is not happy). Is there really absolutety not the tiniest advantage or benefit from using high resolution files?

mastering/production is everything, file format is overrated

@StringerNews1

2 жыл бұрын

Mastering only applies to spinning disks though. CD mastering literally has no effect on the final sound. It either plays or it doesn't. So only _record_ mastering makes any difference at all in the final sound. Needless to say, anyone trying to tell you that soundfiles need to be "mastered" is a con artist!

@StringerNews1

2 жыл бұрын

@@frankcoffey you don't have your own personal CD pressing plant, do you?

@StringerNews1

2 жыл бұрын

@@frankcoffey well, if you have no CD production facility, then you have no CD mastering, do you? I think that you're using "mastering" as a euphemism for sound effects, and that's wrong.

@StringerNews1

2 жыл бұрын

@@frankcoffey you did claim to be "remastering" CDs, and that implies that you're producing a stamping master. Like I said, sound effects is not mastering. Whatever you're doing in a .WAV editor has nothing at all to do with mass-producing CD discs. Part of the reason why we have re-releases of once-good music that sounds like trash is because of people like you who think that altering a perfectly good recording is somehow a necessary step in mass-production when it just isn't.

@StringerNews1

2 жыл бұрын

@@frankcoffey why would I call a deliberate and totally unnecessary post production step that is turned over to tone-deaf amateurs a "restoration" when it's anything but? I know what mastering is for records, and I know what mastering is for CD. Do you? If you're using googling as your only source of "knowledge" I think that's a big part of the problem.

I have quite a good hearing. I still can hear sounds at 21kHz, when only played at this frequency. But I don’t think I could tell it when listening to music. I always thought with High Res Audio we were talking about CD Quality, or 24bit/48kHz at max. I can tell the difference between a 256 kb/s AAC and CD-Quality on the right Setup (Especially in my Cars High End System). But I was never able to hear a difference for „Higher Quality Sound“. IMO streaming Lossless up to 24bit/48kHz like the new Apple Music is Fantastic. I can’t tell the difference between 16bit/44.1kHz and 24bit/48kHz. But if the File was recorded that way, hey why not. Lossless on Apple Music is the way for me to go. Not High Res Lossless. But I was never „that Audiophile“ that I had the urge to buy High Res Quality stuff. A CD is IMO perfect. If I want better Quality, I can watch the musicians live.

@SteveMallett

2 жыл бұрын

Interesting! I just spent the morning A B testing Apple Music Lossless files with Tidal Hi-Res through my hi-fi and try as I might I could hear no discernible difference. I cancelled my Tidal subscription.....

@glenrodriguez9240

2 жыл бұрын

Apple Music Lossless is actually superior than Tidal, such a shame Apple can't play Lossless with Bluetooth and the aux output is not relevant to them.

Thankyou for explaining this in easy to understand terms .

Also the recording qualities is uncertain. Even if we could hear above 30+ kHz there is no telling if the guitar was recorded on a Audio Interface that was set to anything higher than 41kHz. The final mixdown might be distributed in 82 kHz but will probably not contain any content past 19kHz because the original recording was done on much lesser standard. It is kinda similar to transferring a VHS into a 4K Container format. Doesn't mean the picture is better - Only would guarrantee that it is absolutely as terrible as the original transfer.

"auto" video quality on youtube had me watching at 144p. Crazy to talk about hi-res audio on a land line quality connection...

Nothing to add to it. This video explains it rather well. The only difference i hear is smoothness and less sharp sounds. However I only hear this when using my music rooms headphone rig with my HD 600's and audeze lcd-2. Via my portable equipment it is barely noticible might even be the placebo that makes me think it is noticable at all.

Regarding bit depth: one sample point may be just left of a peak and another sample point may be just right of the next peak. These “sampled” peaks would represent a slightly different frequency because the time between them would not align with the actual time of the analog recording. If one sample is slightly below the peak and another is on the peak, then the volume is slightly changing. Regardless of dynamic range or SN ratio, I would think higher bit rates would reduce the variations of frequency timing and volume. Maybe it’s just subtle enough for some to hear on certain gear.

Standard Definition is whatever's KZreads standard is nowadays Sad but true.

you are "Batman"... lol... loved the content

Well the thing with 24bits is that it’s a must in recording nowadays, because the SNR is so high, you can get rid of any hiss and noise artefact. Now, although there CAN be an advantage in mixing and mastering at higher sample rates for computation issues (it can mess it up too), it’s much more important to filter out any ultrasonic noise which you can’t hear, but that can fry your tweeter and dry wash your dishes. Some claim the slope of the low-pass filter can be of no consequence at higher frequency, but I have not seen any firm evidence of pushing the slope Into the ultrasonic so as to leave your 22kHz bandwidth pristine. Thing is, 24bit/48kHz should be the logical standard for files, and therefore for no added premium price over CD (48kHz is used for DVD/Video files), coz you couldn’t tell the difference. One last thing in your signal chain : assuming you get actual 93/96dB SNR out of your CD or network player, if your amp isn’t as good (then headphones/speakers) there is no point in even playing CD quality 16bit audio, let alone 24. I got an RME DAC, but I’m only listening to it with headphones, because my amp would spoil it. Only ultra-low distortion as Hypex or Eigentakt Purifi modules make for a coherent system for Hifi...

@StringerNews1

2 жыл бұрын

Actually, stories of alleged phase shift of brick wall filters have been apocryphal. They're repeated often on audiophool forums, but just aren't factual. If you're using a delta-sigma DAC, none of those technological naval-gazing exercises apply to you, so why even bother?

It would be my guess that it has more to do with the "Detail" of notes be it vocals or that of the instruments being played. Instead of hearing only 2-3 stand out instruments and tones, with Hi-Quality (Hi.Res/FLAC) audio you're getting a much richer, full bodied and detailed musical experience when coupled with a quality audio player and speaker system.

Thank you, you saved my money. I recently bought a DAC that 'change colour' & then understood on android phone there is no way to play it above 48 KHz using apple music. (I know about USB audio player pro app, but it uses services like Tidal which is not available in my country) Was now seriously considering buying an iPhone to replace my Galaxy s20. You saved me a lot of money.

In most cases you are absolutely right no questions there. In my case scenario of course I’m not batman with super sonic ears, but if I bought a CD and ship them to my location from time to time pay taxes and custom duties it is much cheaper for me to buy a high resolution audio file format than and have it available immediately after purchasing it than waiting for a couple of weeks before the CD arrives by that time I paid more the cost of an actual CD. Hope this helps.

Most older listeners can’t hear 12k and by age 60 you might be at 8-10k

@AudioFixation

3 жыл бұрын

Yikes, something to look forward to then!

@swikle

2 жыл бұрын

Yes I went from having "golden ears" in college to, now being over the 60 year mark by a few, being able to hear maybe 10K in my good ear :( I wear hearing aids which take me back to the point where I can hear SOME of the stuff I lost in recent years, but hearing aids don' t correct beyond mediocre hearing. Probably attended too many rock concerts in my youth. I remember walking out of the auditorium after a Yes concert while I was in university and I couldn't hear a thing :) A lot of it came back ... for a while.

If you’re old enough, you realize this revision 5 of the audiofool racket.

Very well explained thank you for the science and thank you for the humour. My favourite bit “… congratulation you are batman.”

Angry audiophiles assemble 😂 But honestly, couldn't agree more.

@AudioFixation

3 жыл бұрын

Hehehe. Just wait until I do a video on MQA 🤣

@vext01

3 жыл бұрын

@@AudioFixation There was a great video on MQA circulating recently. Total nonsense by the look of it. I'm also skeptical of DSD too to be honest. Bring back minidisc!

@AudioFixation

3 жыл бұрын

I used to love minidisc. Still got a few units and about 500 mds! Was wondering to do a retro video on it but I don’t think many people would be interested!

@vext01

3 жыл бұрын

@@AudioFixation You might be surprised. A few years ago I posted some minidisc related vids on my channel and they got more attention than I expected.

@whollymindless

3 жыл бұрын

Works for Techmoan...

Weirdly zooropa is actually my fav U2 album

@AudioFixation

3 жыл бұрын

Still Achtung Baby for me although I love Zooropa.

As an electrical engineer I can say you are 100 percent correct. I knew all of this over 50 years ago. Even the widest dynamic range classical music uncompressed fits within the 96 dB range of RBCD. It is difficult to perform a fair test. If you compare CD and HD files using different DACs you might hear a difference due to the differences in the analog frequency responses. Dr. Mark Waldrep conducted a fair test by dowconverting his true HD files he made himself to RBCD standards and with over 600 subjects no difference. I'd told him before he did this test but he didn't believe me until he tried it. I examined the process used in MQA called audio origami. It violates Shannon Nywuest by 400 percent. It can't possibly work as claimed. It tries to stuff 96 kbs into a 24 kb bag.

@markfischer3626

6 ай бұрын

As a senior electrical engineering student I had a required course in information theory. It was much more than that though. Among the topics were various equations describing rf modulation theory. I'd like to point out the similarities between digital signals and AM modulation radio. In AM modulation, the amplitude of the rf carrier frequency is modulated by the instantaneous amplitude of the audio signal. Only the peaks of the signal are used to create the modulation envelope that is detected. The signal for a particular station is captured by a ganged two section variable capacitor. One selects the RF frequency of the station you want, the other alters a local oscillator, mixed with the RF signal so that the difference is always 455 khz. This is called superheterodyning. It is then amplified by the IF (intermediate frequency) amplifier and detected by a simple diode. A capacitor in an RC circuit of just the right tuning frequency connects the peaks because the voltage across a capacitor cannot change instantaneously. The result is a smooth continuous signal generated from just the peaks of the RF signal. In much the same way digital amplitudes are connected together to form continuous waves that are NOT DIGITIZED. How's that after more than 50 years since I learned it. I'm sorry to say this, but not only are audiophiles just plain ignorant, so are most if not all of the engineers who build their crap for them. If there's one thing critical that they don't know anything about, it's sound. Sound and acoustics are in the area of fluid dynamics, a branch of mechanical engineering. The working fluid is air. Sound fields are time varying air pressure gradients. Analyzed this way they can be completely understood, mathematically modeled, analyzed, measured, and duplicates engineered. That's what I did 50 years ago. This lack of knowledge is why the designs of even the most expensive home music reproduction sound systems are an utter failure IMO. It's not an easy problem but when you solve it, WOW, concert hall realism from a recording in a home.

Amazing video! Thx very much. Can you pls make another one on how the bit speeds in streaming services (as measured in kbit/s) relate to audio quality and, if any, the parameters you have explained in this video? Another video on how Bluetooth (and various Bluetooth specifications such as 4.x and 5.x) vs cable connection to a headphone or speakers affect the quality of the audio and how this difference may relate to streaming service bit speeds and the parameters in this video would also be highly appreciated. Thank you!

Thank you very much!! I am sure you explained this stuff so well that even I understood it for the first time in my life. But, as a weak creature, I will still try to impress friends and visitors with the display "192" on my DAC. I will remain to set up my all-wise face! Hope to read even more and more from you.

@AudioFixation

3 жыл бұрын

Thanks! ! And resist the pretty 192Khz lights! 😃

Mixing and mastering truly matters above most other things. The truth is that at times even a 320kbps mp3 or stream can sound surprisingly good (but personally my new lowest standard is CD quality, unless I have no other option). But I also like that we have choices. You can go buy caviar in a tube for $2 and put it on your breakfast sandwich, or you can buy it for $2000 and enjoy it as a luxury. Music shouldn't be any different. We shouldn't sacrifice quality for convenience, but we also shouldn't sacrifice convenience for quality. ("But we can't even hear all that information, yada yada" - yeah, and people buy fancy bottled water and fancy speaker cables and fancy toilet paper too, not because they're "proven superior", but because they like the feeling of buying something special, something that holds up, that is guaranteed to be experienced to the utmost - maybe you're just buying the "idea" of luxury or quality but if that makes people feel good, I say let them, as long as it isn't hurting the other options). People swear by vinyl, others argue that digital sounds superior by definition - I'm one of the latter but I would never want vinyl to be taken away as an option for people.

@kevinwong_2016

Ай бұрын

It sounds the same as 128k💀

Brilliant video on this important topic. Watching this and subscribing to its reality is a cost venture. Thank you for your presentation. Questions: as I am considering to purchase a subscription to a high resolution stream service, it would seem that I will not hear the difference between that and standard audio (i.e Apples AAC vs ALAC). On a related note, could a similar come be said regarding wireless speakers? I am in the market for a portable speaker I can use in home and outside on the patio deck & camping with trailer. It must have some IP rating and such, but related to your topic is about Bluetooth transfer rates available or unavailable from different speakers. Would it make sense to ensure I get a speaker with a higher bit rate (LDAC or some aptX version) than that of a lower bit transfer rate (SBC)? Wouldn’t the speaker, if it had the ability to decode the better higher bit rate, produce more detail? Setting that aside, the speakers that I’ve narrowed it down to don’t support anything than the base SBC transfer rate, and they are the Sonos Move product, the Unlimited Ears Hyperboom and the JBL Boombox 3. This is assuming that my music source is recorded at a high rate to begin with, as close to CD quality.

Good explication, spot on… what program do you use on the iPad?

200 people dont like science.

Very informative video. Some ppls also claim that they can hear the difference between RCA cables and tell how RCA sounds... 100$ RCA vs 500 vs $1000 RCA sound difference. I never trust them... But in their video they talk like they mean it.

Short answer for me, if you have a good DAC, you don't need better than CD quality. Most people don't even know what a dac is, let a lone have a really good one. That's not even touching the issue of quality concerning the rest of the audio chain. Basically better than CD quality in the digital world, is in realistic application just hype.

I do hear a difference when listening to hi quality music in 24bit and 16bit, and this was the dynamic range which you greatly explained to me. What I do have a hard time in hearing is the quality of the song which sucks and I’m sure it has something to do with my hearing range because my 14 year old sister could definitely tell.

@asystole_

Жыл бұрын

Have you or your sister done any sort of ABX testing? Placebo is a hell of a thing.

Blind tests are the best, they also hurt ego's a lot 🙃

@AudioFixation

3 жыл бұрын

Well said

@kartoffelbrei8090

2 жыл бұрын

"ABX Tests are biased to no difference..... 😢 and what about people that dont have a trained ear?😥😪😭😭" 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

@markjacobs1086

2 жыл бұрын

@@kartoffelbrei8090 that's what someone that claims there's this huge difference in audio (the thing your supposed to use your ears with to enjoy)says, but can't reliably tell which is which by using their ears. 🤔

@kartoffelbrei8090

2 жыл бұрын

@@markjacobs1086 Yes thats what im trying to say. This means that the test works for people that say shit like this.

@markjacobs1086

2 жыл бұрын

@@kartoffelbrei8090 oh, I processed your comment completely wrong 😬 my bad.

I was ready to be in disagreement, but yeah, lossless CD quality is absolutely fine. I'm barely past the intro and I doubt you'll bring up anything controversial from here

@AudioFixation

3 жыл бұрын

Just treading carefully, the audiophile community can be prickly! 😃

@dapperbrick7516

3 жыл бұрын

@@AudioFixation I ended up forwarding your video to one of my picker friends, and they replied with "If his argument is that cd quality is good enough...I can live with that". Seems about right to me.

@AudioFixation

3 жыл бұрын

Sensible chap, your friend!

NOT USELESS if you are a sound designer. Anything you record for effects needs to be at the highest possible sampling rate. Just like 8K video, with over 96K audio you can "zoom in" and have still high quality sound slowed way down. You can also make music that way as in sampling instruments. A doubling of sampling rate is equivalent to an octave of range for that sound. And so on with the math. Go figure! It may be overkill for podcasters - and certainly the file sizes are "impressive" but having it available to use is great for experimentation. It could make a career. And the cost for the recording and editing gear (audio) these days is (almost) negligible. However it does mean old-school wired setups to a USB interface with old-school condenser mics. About $350 for top-quality in stereo.

ABX tests can be tricky because you need to do it in a way where you don't know which file is playing. Also I might fit a blue light on the wall with a label next to it "High Def" or "24/192". A little switch nearby can turn it on or off depending on whether I'm feeling hi-def the day. Thanks for the video.

@Peter-ii4xq

8 ай бұрын

The track that is play backed a little louder, sounds the best.