It has an effect on your wallet.

@lachlanlikesathing

8 жыл бұрын

+Bob Fergisoon the Hyperspending Effect

@maciex794

8 жыл бұрын

Nailed it.

@manuelthegreatman

8 жыл бұрын

+lachlanlikesathing lol

@harveytrevino2257

8 жыл бұрын

+lachlanlikesathing lol..

I learned the outcome of an Australian coin toss: 42.6% head, 39.7% tail, the rest is "where did that go?"

@newsynthetic

8 жыл бұрын

Coin standing on it's side.

@27klickslegend

6 жыл бұрын

a place down under

@Eleventhearlofmars

5 жыл бұрын

woofinu trap 2

Can't wait till Hollywood makes 'Akira' live action with all white characters starring Zac Efron, Justin Bieber and Margo Robbie. *barfs

@666PANDEMONIUM

8 жыл бұрын

The cringe is real!

@Jellyfish60

6 жыл бұрын

if it's an american adaptation then of course they all need to be white, but don't you worry, half of them are going to be black because forced diversity

When I was a young boy my mother took me to a store where sometimes I heard a noise that hurt my ears. By sheer chance I went to work in the security department at the same store as a young adult and discovered that the sound was coming from the ultrasonic motion detectors operating at a stated frequency of 25 kHz. Somewhere along the line I learned that hearing acuity peaked at age 17 and went downhill after that. My own experiences are consistent with that. I'm now in my 50s and don't hear much above 4 kHz, and I enjoy music as much as ever. Not once did my supersonic hearing benefit me in listening to music.

Beyond CD I can't hear shit, this is truth.

I think the problem is that a lot of sound engineers do a crap job in the first place , so you are getting crap music to start off with.

The Placebo Effect. Good video.

dude-- so r such a sound nerd! and i love it! tq for doing such an enlightening video into this hi-res mumbo-jumbo!

Wow! This video was incredibly well-researched. Excellent work Lachlan!

this is an excellent summary, thank you for making a well-thought video, nice job

I completely agree. 4k is easy to spot out over 480p, vs 320kbps over DSD. With pictures it's easy to see the grainy picture or essentially it looks out of focus the entire time.. where as Hi-Res Audio is a bit more difficult to pick out. However, it is noticeable when you know the song. For example, Certain parts of songs get congested with 320k audio, when FLAC and DSD just stay clear the entire time.. but of course, like I stated, you have to know your library and what it usually sounds like.. if you were to ask me a song I have never heard and point out the differences, I wouldn't be able to.. I completely agree.. but that's not the point.. the point is to take your current library and make it better to your ears. Due to that fact alone, is when you have to make the decision for yourself if it's worth the money or not. For me, it has been worth it. Your mileage may vary.

@riyadhfe3345

7 жыл бұрын

i don't think that you think it has been worth it i just think that you don't wanna cry on the money that you spent every time you listen to Hi-Res just remember this word Marketing Marketing Marketing Marketing Marketing Marketing Marketing (-_-)

@Rattacko

7 жыл бұрын

Its more of the audio hardware that makes the difference compared to 320k vs FLAC

Thanks for doing all this research. I'd love to see more like this.

Lachlan you are the best, I'm glad you're back. I was wondering where you were and then you came back like 2 days later, you actually are psychic.

@lachlanlikesathing

8 жыл бұрын

Thanks

Thanks for the links!

Dude, I like your channel.. and i like your inputs and opinions, usually very unbiased. I've been on this quest for discerning the usefulness of high res-audio, for a long time. I've actually worked at a High-end audio store/distributor, and the biggest difference i have noticed, has always been on the recordings themselves... not the gear used to put them on playback. And i agree that.. high-end tweeters make a pretty noticeable difference.. Tape tweeters are real game changers, in my opinion. With my gear, and in an acoustically poor room.. i have noticed a huge gap between mp3 @ 320kbs , and 16bit-48kHz playback of a CD recording of the same song. When i moved to 24bit @ 96kHz .. i still noticed.. but only minimally. And at 192kHz i was unable to notice the difference. However, @ work, i tested a couple of really good recordings using the same different quality samples and you could notice the difference a lot more clearly . Even at 192kHz . That's off course in a better sound-treated room, and using $10k gear. So,in my opinion.. it really depends on the quality of the recording.. Gear comes after. And for the average user.. i'd stay off mp3 and compressed audio.. but.. i wouldnt bother that much with high sampling rates, and all that jazz. Just ..make the most of what producers and engineers do, in studio, together with the musicians. that's my moto and my 2 cents, on this cheers and congrats again on your channel

Awesome video! Thank you for this kind of content

If the only way to detect high res audio is to have training and listen carefully, what's the point? The average person does not listen analytically in a quiet environment. There's too many unknowns here. For me, the difference should be clear and obvious, or else it's not worth it.

@therealist2000

8 жыл бұрын

For the main fact that everyone hears sound differently, "clear and obvious" will never happen.

@atomheartother

8 жыл бұрын

You can make the exact same argument about wine, image quality, fps/FOV in video games, mechanical keyboards, makeup, fashion, music - and any art form in general - and as a matter of fact, just about everything anyone can become good at spotting as they become a connoisseur at it. We have higher quality products for connoisseurs because they're willing to pay the price for them, saying "I don't care about learning about it so what's the point" is a little irrelevant - you're just not the audience for it.

@therealist2000

8 жыл бұрын

atomheartother That wasn't aimed at me was it? as I actually notice differences in audio quality as a retired audio engineer

@ChristopheChardon

8 жыл бұрын

If all resarches were based on average people expectations and perceptions, we would never see any improvement in any topics...

@SummersSnaps

8 жыл бұрын

I wouldn't exactly agree. You can't compare Hi Res argument with such topics as 144hz vs 60hz, or 720p vs 1080p, those differences are glaringly obvious and anyone (and I mean anyone) will pass with 100% success rates in tests like that. The High Res test is far more difficult to pass, which I think Lachlan highlights very well.

Very interesting, as usual. Thanks for your findings and the sharing.

Great video again, thank you for the papers! Greetings from Chile Lachlan c:

I haven't watched anime in a while but, Akira. what. a. movie! you have a new sub ! Seriously thanks for the plug man!

haha i too cranked akira to see if i could feel the hypersonic effect! cool analysis lachlan, and in the end that 62% doesn't make me ditch all my mp3s :)

This was very interesting lachlan learned something new :D

My 2 cents: Eversince I got exposed to 24 bit/dsd audio, I simply CANNOT go back to 16 bit. So there is some fact to this "hires" hype.

@GreeNHorneTBluE

6 жыл бұрын

Çerastes Gimmick to you only. Dont generalize n speak for others.

@GreeNHorneTBluE

6 жыл бұрын

Çerastes You better stick to 16 bit. Will make you happy.

@GreeNHorneTBluE

6 жыл бұрын

Çerastes Good 4 ur sorry ass.

Interesting! Lachlan I have a quick question: My new HTC 10 smartphone has a dedicated DAC/Amp separate from the standard one on the SOC (processor chip), and it supports 24-bit audio. How much of this is legit and how much is gimmick?

@lachlanlikesathing

8 жыл бұрын

+Frank Ding Regardless of support for high resolution audio, HTC phones have usually had very good clean outputs AFAIK, with low noise and good characteristics like low output impedance. I would give HTC the benefit of the doubt for implementing things in a way that produces good quality :)

Amazing video, such interesting information

Hi Lachlan, I would like to buy an over the ear headphone around $200. I would like to know you opinion. I am not sure whether you would reply or not. Just giving it a shot. Should I go for ATH-M50x or do I have any other good option right now in the market around the same price range? And Can you please suggest best budget microphone for vocals and music instrument recording? and may be do a video on top 5 if possible?

I have studied this for many years. There is a problem with some of the studies used, in that some high resolution content is remastered and really does sound better. It would sound better on CD as well, it is remastered! The reason we need these studies, and Sony and others would fund them, is that Hi-Res audio makes no theoretical sense. Our biology, physics and math shows it is impossible, yet it makes money for Sony so they will continue to fund bogus studies.

@cuongly5933

6 жыл бұрын

Tell that to some people! ...I listened to my AK380 with DFF files and there is absolutely no different from my mobil phone with mp3 files... even with my hearing aids on...apart from nice toys, you got to have good set of ears and brain to tell the diffrence.

@cuongly5933

6 жыл бұрын

Good suggestion, I'll try to edit my 42m pictures without my glasses. I think we still need those harmonics to make up a close enough waveform, something like a square wave at 5kHz, without any harmonic it just sine wave, although we can't hear past 18kHz, we still need those harmonics to make it looks a bit better, do we really need or can produce 7th ,9th and... harmonic is another question. some of us pay too much attention to perfection and forget the soul of music, just like those modern camera lens with no distortion and sharp from edge to edge, yet, still can't beat the picture taken from those old Leica lens.

@MrRoberacer

6 жыл бұрын

There are a lot of parts. In 1991 there would not have been many recordings done with digital tape (in the studio that is) so most of the mastering would have been done off of analogue mixes. Now, this is where it all gets so difficult to qualify. Some equipment manufacturers valued frequency response beyond 20 kHz but many did not. So the actual analogue recordings could have started out life frequency response limited. Your statements assume that all analogue signals have frequency response well in excess of 20khz and that is simply not the case. Never was either. Also in the same way as we had cassette tape types that reproduced higher frequencies better there were studio tape choices that did the same. Better sonics always costs more so sometimes in order to save money cheaper tape was run as well as lessor calibre gear etc. Some folks claimed anything above 10 kHz was "dog whistle stuff" and was unimportant. I think it is just that they were involved from years when they didn't have access to that kind of frequency response so they devised that theory. What I am trying to say is source material determines a lot in this. Did any of the studies qualify what exact sources they used to conduct their studies? You mentioned remastering (Digiphex Electronics). In 1991 we were mostly mastering to digital by then as CD ruled the market almost entirely. We would mix to analogue tape and send that off to mastering. They would run the recording through their analogue gear to tweak it at mastering but the end of their chain was usually an Analogue to Digital CONVERTER which typically dumped to DAT tape. Yes, 16 bit, 44.1Khz samples. Vinyl by then was considered extinct and had not had a resurgence yet so when a master LP was made it was cut from the DAT. Cassette was run from the DAT aswell. My point is it was already converted. Is a 1/2" 30 ips real to real (Let's say Ampex 499 tape) recording with Dolby SR (super hi-end studio analogue mixdown format) going to have more resolution than a CD if the source material fed to it is the same DAT used to make the glass master for the CD run? The answer is NO. Not 1 bit!!! You have already lost the data. That happened in mastering when they converted the analogue audio to digital. Unless it was mastered for both analogue and digital from the analogue tape that would be impossible and that would double the price as a digital master is a completely different animal than an analogue one. Brothers In Arms by Dire Straits was recorded and mixed at Air Monseratte before the hurricane destroyed the island. This was a super high budget project. I wonder if it might have had a separate master done for it. At any rate, you see the problem here right? In order for an end listener (you) to ever hear a quantifiable difference between the two different file formats the source material they are listening to has to be at least the resolution of the highest calibre comparative (the FLAC file). If you are going to compare digital to analogue then the source comparative can never have been converted to digital previous to the analogue. If you are going to compare FLAC to MP3 the original source needs to say a 24 bit,192khz sample, not the 320Mbps sample otherwise the FLAC is going to sound exactly like the MP3. Many things these days are mastered to MP3 as opposed to wave for CD as CDs are now extinct. With that, we can't even assume the new Katti Perry song that we downloaded from Itunes has always been a 16 bit 44.1 kHz minimum sample either. They usually master for mass distribution. In other words where that will be played the most is where they want it to sound the best. In short, it was quite likely dumbed down for MP3 before it ever left the mastering engineer. Just like video has "upscaling" audio has what we call "upsampling". The thing is you can never make up what you lost. You can just kinda disguise the holes where that lost stuff was a bit better. "And the plot thickens"

@mustardketchup

6 жыл бұрын

MQA

@CrackerboxPalace777

6 жыл бұрын

Rob Chapman Brothers In Arms was recorded on a Sony DASH machine - good old 16/44.1 on digital tape. I don’t know how it was mixed though. I suppose it’s possible that the master mix could exceed 16/44.1 quality if it was mixed to analog tape and high quality analog or digital reverbs and delays were in the mix, in a sense “masking” the 16/44.1 limitations

I was paying too much attention to the albums on your computer. Good stuff by the way. Yoshimi battles pink robots, The xx, The O' Brother soundtrack, etc. Also, was one of those albums Caveman's self - titled or the Decemberists' the king is dead album?

@lachlanlikesathing

8 жыл бұрын

+Julian West hmm I don't think it was either of those... But I do have The Crane a Wife in my library

@julianwest4030

8 жыл бұрын

+lachlanlikesathing That's a good album.

hey lachlan, does playing a Blu-ray (like Akira) - which only has 5.1 Japanese audio - on a 2.0 stereo system affect the quality or anything? I want to get the Blu-ray but idk whether that's a problem for my stereo setup?

Oh man what a video this was my 2nd video of urs i will start watching ur videos n if possible watch all of it

thanks for sharing this video

thanks for this informative episode

Nice video :D

Beyond the point I was making on my earlier post (the recording process), not many address the gear issue . If there is a mesurable difference what kind of audi gears is needed ? Did someone A/B test with Highend source-amp-cans ?

Thank you for the video. Great info! Although, the quality of the amplifier & headphones still matters. And I think there's a certain bitrate like (48KHz) that is easily distinguished. However there's a limit to the how far we can go, people should understand their limits. I'm saying that while realizing that nothing can compares to live music in front of you where you can feel the music and see it

Bone conduction is an interesting theory. There are other issues with hi-res audio: Most artists don't care, and can't really comprehend why hi-res audio is important. Their brains fill in the gaps that any (re)production entails. New artists with lots of crazy ideas can't afford the production values. It's extremely difficult to control the entire chain of production. And a lot of it is honestly boring - it's just some dude doodling, some obscure classical piece, or yet another cover of Ain't No Sunshine, or something. For example, let's take Iron & Wine's early albums. Fantastic songwriting, fantastic musicianship, but lo-fi as hell. Metal is full of lo-fi tracks. In fact, one of the best auditory experiences I've ever had was a band playing a cover of Wayfaring Stranger in a noisy park with screaming kids and a crap PA system. A number of tracks that I cherish are garage-produced MP3s, oddball demos, and over-compressed bubblegum pop.

Great info thanks... Still trying to identify the sound difference between flac and a 320kbps file they just sounds the same for me.. Or maybe my gear is just not enuf.

The frequency threshold of human hearing is 20hz-20khz. And if you're listening to a 24/96 audio source the maximum frequency will be 48khz due to Nyquist frequency.

Hi Lachlan, I agree that meta analyses are important resources. My takeaway was that training leads to an increase in correct detection of higher resolution audio in blind tests, and that this trend is shown consistently across multiple studies. I do however find that to be significant data. I agree though that people should not change their music purchasing habits because of the results of the paper. For high res to be worthwhile firstly the recording must be good enough to show a difference, secondly the playback system/environment must be resolving enough, and thirdly the listener must be capable. S/N on portable gear is usually higher, as is environmental noise, and storage capacities are limited, so I too would not recommend HiRes for most portable audiophiles. However if you care enough about music and feel you might build a really good hifi later, it might make sense to purchase high res for archival purposes.

It would be interesting to have deaf people try to detect the "HFCs" mentioned in Oohashi's papers. Oohashi's 2006 paper seems to suggest that we may not be detecting these vibrations through our ears. Anyway great video as always!

@skipfantry5059

Жыл бұрын

It would be interesting to expose deaf folk to hyper and infra sound to see if they respond to both high and low frequencies to see if the physicality of each is perceptible to them.

If I was in TV industry, I'd start selling "Extended range" TV sets with 5-pixel colors: RGB +ultraviolet +infrared. People would love it and everyone would be buying. Using IR or UV photography, it would be really easy to see the difference. Huge business potential as well for the Hollywood industry.

Hi-res is the new CD. The record industry hit a goldmine in the 1980s when CDs were released and they took off. People were willing to spend insane amounts of money to "upgrade" their music to CDs, because of the supposed superiority over previous music delivery media. And in my opinion, CDs were a HUGE improvement over media delivery methods that came before it. I think the record labels and artists see the same thing happening with hi-res music. It's the next cash cow. The real problem I see with hi-res is the fact that we're starting to see remasters and remixes of albums that are only being made available in hi-res format. Look at the 2012 release of Green Day's American Idiot and 21st Century Breadown. The 2012 remasters have less dynamic compression and just sound better. And they're only available on hdtracks.com as 24/96 files.

@Rattacko

7 жыл бұрын

I doubt it since online streaming is very popular nowadays (compared to phyical media), but yet the bitrate is very low, I don't see Hi-Res picking up the same adoption unless we see lossless streaming on spotify (here's an idea spotify, have Hi-Res Audio as a feature for your premium subscription) or youtube, which won't happen unless everyone gets a really fast internet connection

@AndyP126

7 жыл бұрын

There is no reason for Spotify to offer Hi-res, let alone lossless. For 99% of music (possibly as high as 99.5%), no one can tell a difference between Spotify's premium 320Kbps service and the lossless FLAC it came from. As for hi-res? Why should I pay extra for something it's impossible for the human ear to hear anyway? The maximum sample rate the human ear can hear is 40 Khz, so CD quality is more than enough to capture the full range of human hearing.

@nikosvault

7 жыл бұрын

For 99% of music (possibly as high as 99.5%), no one can tell a difference between Spotify's premium 320Kbps service and the lossless FLAC it came from. Speak for yourself.

@AndyP126

7 жыл бұрын

If you think I am wrong, feel free to post some ABX logs.

My brain just exploded with all the information I learned just now...

I am not qualified to talk alot about this, but as an avid fan of audio I can comment. My hearing is reduced. An infection some years back warped my right ear canal which makes high frequency sounds somewhat hampered (think 20-25% muffled@ 6k upwards). I mention this because it has made my left ear EXTREMELY sensitive and as such I can most assuredly blind test myself and get 9/10 between lossy and lossless. The only caviat being that I use my own equipment. Which is why I question these tests somewhat. If i listen to a new pair of cans I can't be sure. But one of mine, that I know intimately? Yup. Also, some cans are friendly to lossy audio (I know my m100's are). But my DT770 makes anything under 320 sound hollow. It's also dependant on mastering and what kind of genre you're listening to. I find low frequency tracks to be the most easy to distinguish. The depth just isn't there at lower bitrates.

Hey!! I think you should review the ZTE Axon 7. As an audiophile, I'd like to *hear* your take on it, hehe...

@MrSojek

6 жыл бұрын

What makes you an audiophile? There are people who can hear difference between CD and DSD, rest of them just pretend.

Sound has more characteristics to it than frequency and dynamics, it also has pulse and phase characteristic. And higher frequency fluctuations are not necessarily some independent sounds, they are parts of the whole complex signal. For example, some instruments (or instrument sections) attack speed is simply faster than the time between two samples in standard resolution, so that attack speed must be described by “high frequency” information. You can feel faster attack, but you can’t hear anything, if you will listen to just high frequency part and filter the rest of the spectrum. Small phase fluctuations (beyond CD resolution) in complex signal also can affect spatial hearing. For me, the question is can existing transducers (even at their best) reproduce sound so accurately? On the other hand, for example, my first portable player was a cassette player, where one cassette usually could contain 2x45min albums and you maybe could take one more with you, so its 4 albums. Now I can put tens of albums even with highest resolution on a microSD card. And I can carry plenty of that in a pocket. And it will be much cheaper. So do I have to care about space saving? Why should I listen to fucking mp3s? To save some money to buy Beats headphones?))))))))))))

I cracked up when you did the coin flip.

I simply love truth and people that exposes things that seems to make you wonder..theres 2 types of people , followers and leaders , the keaders are the one who questions and research the followers are the lazy and will believe anything as long as its presented in a professional manner and great packaging..You are the best keep up the awesome work..hey when get a chance olease review kef space one porsch design over ear headphone

Thanks for this. The recording industry went through this argument in the late 90s, early 00s. At first, we all assumed HSR, high bit depths would of course be better. And we did hear differences, no question. But when easily accessible and cheap ABX software became available we ended up with almost complete consensus that the emperor had no clothes and what we heard was placebo. With something as subjective as audio and no formal scientific training - no, I don’t consider SAE scientific training - there will be outliers, but the vast majority agree that 16/44.1 is more than enough for reproduction. This was roughly between 2005-2010, it had been found that HSR is just producing frequencies we can’t hear and if a recording is done at the optimal level, high bit rates cannot be heard by humans, although I would be prepared to admit the possibility of hearing noise (basically hiss, not some BS about grain) 96 dB down in an anechoic chamber with the right material. Imagine my surprise to find out by that bulwark of reality, truth and facts called social media, that this argument is still ongoing in the ‘audiophile’ (the flat earthers of the audio world) community. Facepalm.

So are the studies just doing "high resolution audio files vs standard (MP3) files" or are they using different hardware (speakers, amps, DACs, etc) as well?

Here's an interesting thought. I wanted to test the whole lossless vs. lossy idea. I have two versions of Van Halen's "Jump," a lossy 128 kbps version and a lossless 1,097 kbps version. Initially, I couldn't hear any differences just blind A-B listening to the songs completely back to back. But then, I started to just play the opening seconds of both songs back and forth very quickly, and bingo, I heard a difference! In the first 1/2 second of the song there is an opening synth bass tone (before the main synth theme notes come on). In the lossless version, this opening tone is deeper (it seems to actually be a slightly lower tone, just by a hair!) and seems to contain more "information," if you will. The lossy version sounds just a bit more "hollow" (yes, I know these terms are dumb). My point is, I think people are perhaps overloading their brains when A-B testing lossless vs. lossy music. Perhaps people should blind A-B test specific points or specific notes or tones in songs as opposed to listening to songs completely back to back (in which the brain is overloaded with information and cannot store the differences, if any can be determined, long enough to remember and discriminate between versions). My "theory" is that while there is more information in a lossless song version, it is so difficult for our human brains to determine what information is lost in a lossy version that you would literally have to go through each tone of both songs to determine what information is lost. Thoughts?

which version of the blu ray is this?

so if you are treble sensitive like i am, does that mean the hypersonic effect will cause you pain?

@duck_that_quacks

8 жыл бұрын

no, it is wayyy out of the human hearing range. so you probably will not hear anything apart from minor differences.

@Rattacko

7 жыл бұрын

just get some sennheisers and you'll be all good, the HD6XX is going to release in 2 days from now so I recommend that

Really liked this video. I'm now even more convienced that there's no use of spending money on high res music. I'm still willing to find better masters on CD format though. I've had couple of cases when I listened to different CD of same song, and realized how much better sound was. And it indeed was better mainly because it was different mastering with more air in dynamic range, and hence with more details. Could that have been the case with those claiming high res sounds way better than CD quality?

HI! Can u pliz make a review on headphones for sport! Like Jaybird Freedom!

whats the album display program name?

Here, why hd800 or auseze(s) doesnt have hires sticker? Thats my question for people that said hires makes huge-huge different

@lachlanlikesathing

8 жыл бұрын

Haha, as it happens, the HD800S has the high res certification now :3

@PRrrr_neutral

8 жыл бұрын

hahaha well true tho. they want to sell more

So I've been in the market for a set of Bluetooth headphones and very reluctant on spending my hard earned money, I like the sound that Bose provide but so expensive. Any alternative maybe more affordable?

@edrivas1404

8 жыл бұрын

The Mee Matrix 2 is pretty good.

@fordwaters9051

8 жыл бұрын

+Gregory Drivas they are only 62.99 on Amazon. Thank you

Great video. Keep practicing those coin flips.

whats that big screen behind?

very good vidoes

I theorised something like this about Akira long before I learned about this I felt like the music hypnotised me

Surely the quality of a person's hearing matters more than absolutely anything else. Was this something taken into account? Were the subjects vetted beforehand? So many people have very poor hearing due to damage from loud noise & music.

Streaming services are the future. And upto this point the fight for sound quality is at the point of diminishing returns. Fortunately for me I own a Zx507 and I am pretty content with the balanced Xba h3 and MDR 1A setup with the player alongside a Fiio Q5s.

Ive been into audio about 28 years and the more I learn the more i realize numbers are one thing but how its presented through the chain is another. I had a level that I thought was as good as gets got BUT when I heard more professional systems the more i realized how transparent a system can really be. The bottom line is ill take what I can afford with an informed decision. And by all means protect those ears so you can keep enjoying until your old and gray.

Hey Lachlan have you heard of musician Evelyn Glennie? She is a world class percussionist that is deaf and is able to talk by listening to the vibrations in her body. Defs recommend her Ted talk

after I did my own abx test on more than one occasion I lean towards there are no big difference. I did the Philips golden ear challenge (site has since been taken down) and I think the training said on paper could be similar, after going through samples after samples of different sampling rate you do notice difference, but most of the time it isn't better or not, at least for me, it is just different, e.g. you notice the cymbals sound a bit different that kind, but it is hardly convincing enough for me to go high res

now I know why my dog love that movie

I think that while most people (myself included) won't be able to tell the difference in high resolution audio (recordings; maybe flac, 24-bit, etc.), but maybe just maybe if we include all the different factors of "high resolution" audio together at once (super expensive low distortion DACs and amps, and other stuff like that), then there might be a slight difference heard. Though audio isn't like a static image (like we see with our eyes), so it can be much harder to discern the differences between two audio files (and setups) like we can when comparing 2 images, not to mention that humans brains are more developed for visual learning and interpretation than audio.

Did I hear right that his hi res dvd was a remaster of analogue tape ? I would have thought all that hi frequency stuff you can't hear anyway would not be present in an analogue tape

Fascinating. Mp3 code was established using double blind trials to find the minimum bit rate which was indistinguishable with high res. However some recording engineers, Steve Hoffman and glyn johns among them, still maintain vinyl sounds better than digital. Of course it doesn't mean anything if you're using poor speakers and low powered amplification

What you need to ask also is weather the original way of recording was accurate enough to warrant 25gb of it. Weather humans can even hear the difference between different filetypes or lossy/losstess etc doesn't even matter when the equipment used to record it all is of less quality than the used filetype.

The best reason to have 40khz certified speakers or headphones is that it's not rolled off by 20k. Listening analytically takes all the joy out of music. You go from enjoying music to listening to equipment.

I'm a believer in lossless music (FLAC for example) because I can definitely hear difference between it and a 128kbps youtube ripped music (no sh*t) BUT, I do agree with the point in the video that anything higher (24bit for example) and those expensive gears stickered with hi-res audio are a bunch of shenanigans. Though as for the hypersonic effect and whatnot, I can't comment because I mainly listen with portable gears like iems and headphones and I don't have experience with audiophile quality speaker sets. In my opinion, so long as you enjoy what you have or what you can afford/get, then that's good enough.

Very good, informative video. Since I'm not trained and don't listen to music analytically, I'll continue to stay away from Hi-Price audio.

Just an example from regular resolution sound: i mix sound at church, the drummer level is way too high, i suffer to hear the distortion of the base , but nobody else care so I can't adjust the level right.... I imagine how much difference could make to them an mp3 or a cd. At least who buy the stuff with a hires sticker make more attention to listen, and that makes a differents even if the hires music don't...

I personally think that hear the difference between lossless and hi-res file, it really depends on how good your earphone and headphone is.

20 KHz is optimistic in my case. I'm 48. Even if the human bones could conduct frequencies above 20 KZh, I doubt very much that skin, muscles, bone-marrow and tendons do. Perhaps teeth? And what organ would process such frequencies in the brain? Which part of the brain would be responsible for perceiving high frequencies? Any of this should be measurable.

I feel like most of the time the difference is negligible when it comes between 320 and flac, but let me enjoy the placebo haha.

I don't know If it's your soothing voice or my recliner

this is just like the full HD and quad HD in smartphone these days, although you can't really differenciate between the two with your naked eye, but of course the smartphone manufacturer wouldn't tell you that much.

I think it is kinda the same as with the lower frequencies. You cant hear frequencies below 20Hz, but you can feel them. Thats why boomy music and movies always have a better impact when using speakers cuz not only do you hear it but you can also feel it in your body. Its not like you can actually feel 20kHz+ like the way you feel bass rumbling through your body. But this is why i semi believe in this study.

Great video. Also, 99% Invisible is a great podcast.

Hypersonic sounds a bit like Therapeutic Listening. I have a mildly Autistic son, and at one point we were gonna try some Therapeutic Listening with him. I kinda bailed out on that because on paper not a lot made sense. Special Senny cans were used that involved frequencies beyond the human hearing, but then the device they recommended using was a Sansaclip+, which I think doesn't support outputting those frequencies... You were supposed to use their microsd card preloaded with wav files, and pay for these $300 cans, but then actually I don't think that was gonna work at all... lol Honestly, i can't remember all the details about it, it was at least 5yrs ago+ I briefly looked into it, perhaps tho you should have a look in that area, maybe ties in with High Res/Hypersonic somewhat... Good vid, posting on ABI. Cheers.

@lachlanlikesathing

8 жыл бұрын

Yeah, that doesn't quite sound like it checks out. This is somewhat related though, and I don't know if you have heard of this, but I was listening to the podcast Invisibilia the other day, and the episode was about clinical trials of Transcranial magnetic stimulation for autism (it's not something kooky, it is already being used clinically to treat depression and neuropathic pain). Very mixed results for autism thus far, but the episode features an interview with one woman for whom it seems to have helped. www.npr.org/podcasts/510307/invisibilia (Episode "Frame of Reference"). I don't know if any of these trials might be being conducted in Australia? Thanks for the comment, I wish the best for your family!

I do question these studies! Question 1) what was the original source material resolution? Question 2) was the source material analog or digital and reproduced in in the original format. Question 3) was every item in the audio path actually capable of reproducing the full audio spectrum of the original source material? Question 4) was the said audio reproduction done through speakers or headphones that actually could reproduce the full audio spectrum required to properly evaluate the source materials! Question 5) what room acoustics were observed under pink noise and white noise at know test levels to evaluate troublesome peaks and dips? Question 6) if pink and white noise test tones were used to evaluate the rooms in these test were those tones extended out to the expected full range of the source materials given frequencies! Anyway those are all of the possible reasons that a test such as this might not actually be successful that I could think of off the top of my head!

what about infrasonic,,,

Lachlan, you are into anime. Are you familiar with Macross?

To create HiRes Audio on Android: HiRes Audio Multi-part WAV (32-bit/192kHz) available in latest update of: play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.stereomatch.mp3.audio.recorder Normally this would work best on a HiRes Audio certified Android device (there are a few). However, even on a low end Android device, I have noticed a difference between 16-bit/48000 Hz and 32-bit/192kHz (better sounding). Don't know why.

It looks like the technologies preserving audio fidelity are reaching the limit of human perception, and Hi-Res Audio is the signifier of the apex. I'm not surprised that some people can't perceive the difference in quality between lossy and Hi-Res, because many people are more concerned about how many decibels of output they can get, and not the quality. For those who are concerned with audio quality and fidelity, those in the studio and audiophiles, they are going to be listening for that difference in quality of the track and its fidelity. I've read many comments and reviews from people in the studio saying that they can hear the difference when they scale down 24-bit to 16-bit, that it's obvious to them and matters with their listening setup. So, Hi-Res 24-bit audio is legitimate to them, though maybe not to others. I personally found that some Hi-Res Audio equipment has an undetectable noise floor, so that's the appeal to me, the clarity. However, as you were saying, the listening environment might negate the bit of benefit that Hi-Res audio equipment puts out. You're right, Lachlan, that it might not be necessary for someone who already has a nice setup to go out and replace everything with Hi-Res equipment, however for those who are buying anew or replacing worn-out equipment, I don't see what the issue with buying Hi-Res audio equipment is because a lot of it is comparably priced. It's not as if audiophile and studio-level equipment is cheap. If getting the absolute limit of what can be perceived aurally out of audio equipment is important to a person, then Hi-Res audio has a legitimate place in the market. Aside though, I took your recommendation and ordered a pair of Sony MDR-MA900 headphones and they sound remarkable after I performed the resistor network bypass on them to improve frequency response.

@lachlanlikesathing

8 жыл бұрын

Thanks! I have wanted to try that resistor bypass on the MA900 but never been game :P I do agree that as the price goes down for high resolution gear there's no real harm in buying it. I have heard anecdotally of people who refuse to buy gear without that sticker though, which seems a bit daft to me. Give it a few years and there will be a new sticker for 384kHz audio playback heh.

@bemorewantless

8 жыл бұрын

Hah, I'm not sure where that bias comes from-- I took my Hi-Res headphones and amp out a couple of times and the barrage of environmental noise made it pointless. I tend to use the Sony SBH80 Bluetooth headset when I'm out because the aptx encoding works really well with lossless files, and the convenience just beats the mess of wires. I think if they start pushing past 24/96, I'm gonna become skeptical. Aren't there issues upscaling lower-bitrate audio above that? I read brief mentions of it in passing. Edit: The resistor bypass adds a bit more force and sparkle to the MA900. Better overall presence. I think it's worth it if you can manage.

@lachlanlikesathing

8 жыл бұрын

I have a 192kHz Evangelion album The world! EVAngelion JAZZ night = The Tokyo III Jazz club = (max frequency 96kHz). Looking at the scopes, the microphones actually don't pick up much past 24kHz except when one particular brass instrument plays - I believe it's the trumpet? I don't think there are any particular issues with the upscaling past 96 per se, but there are definitely albums out there for which a 96/24 chip 'won't cut it'.

@bemorewantless

8 жыл бұрын

Hahah, nice. That's more hardcore than me. Hunting down 24-bit anything is a pain enough. Sometimes I send in requests and actually get results (Clazziquai Project uploaded an album to Bandcamp in 24-bit upon request), but I'm happy with CD-quality too. I've noticed a few Final Fantasy albums released in Hi-Res on Blu-ray, and thought, "Oh man, how am I gonna rip that?" It's like Hi-Res Audio brings forth a new form of music DRM.

@xyanide1986

7 жыл бұрын

The best way to get "hi-res"/SACD/DSD/whatever stuff is digital in my experience. I do still love buying CDs. I'd like to point to you sites such as HDtracks and qobuz as they're both DRM-free like bandcamp. You're right that some labels (i.e. ultimae records) on bandcamp offer stuff in higher samplerates. I hope more people do it, but often times the recordings really aren't worth the trouble.

"i predicted head" coin falls off "fuck"

Lossy and lossless is like difference from 90 and 92. And hires is like 97. It differs more.

I bought hi res audio when it was on sale so it better make good work.

A serious system definitely shows 24/96 as a better quality. I has heard it with mine own ears. I can tell instantly if digital files are proper hi-res or not. They just jump out of my speakers.

@bongofury3176

5 жыл бұрын

@Çerastes You state your views as fact. I merely report that which I have experienced. I have many albums on CD and in 24/96 and there is a notable difference with all of them. If you haven't tried it through a top system then delay your statements until you have...

I'm interested in high-res audio. it could be the case that the hypersonic effect occures because the body reacts to these technical higher frequencies, but this doesn't mean our ears can detect a better sounding quality of high-res material. maybe 16bit, 44,1 khz is the human "limit". for now i'll stick with my audio cd's, a good soundcard, and a reasonable soundsystem.

wait can twiters even go higher than 20 khz?

There is a strong argument in favour of 192kHz as a recording and delivery sample rate, but _not_ for the supposed hypersonic audio effect. *Time Smearing* Caused mostly by the filters, there is pre and post echo which smears the impulse response, causing the audio to sound “grainy” or “slightly muddied, lacking punch”. Even after nearly forty years of R&D and market innovations, even the best filters and circuits exhibit unacceptable time smearing when using 44.1kHz and 48kHz sample rates. The ear-brain system can perceive a temporal resolution of 7-10 microseconds. That’s the impulse response time, not the frequency response. 44.1kHz sampling only delivers about 28 microseconds temporal resolution - and that’s with the very best filters and circuits currently available. Most recording studios and certainly most consumer devices are much worse. The problem with CD audio is that it is physically impossible to construct filters that exhibit inaudible or negligible phase distortion and time smearing in the very restrictive 4kHz of available roll-off bandwidth below the Nyquist limit. Such filters are difficult to implement and they aren’t cheap. It makes much better sense to increase the sample rate to 192kHz and simultaneously use a much more gentle, affordable and easily constructed filter around 50kHz. This yields an effective frequency response of 20-40,000Hz - enough to satisfy the hypersonic theory proponents, whilst being sufficiently bandwidth limited to protect garden variety tweeters and amps. The _real_ benefit is a temporal resolution of 5 microseconds - superior to human acuity! *That* is why some people *can* perceive a marked improvement in audio quality on properly set up hi res gear using properly mastered hi res tracks. It’s all about *_Time Smearing_* - forget about extended frequency response and dynamic range..... Sony/Philips got it partially correct back in 1979: 16/44.1 _is_ more than enough, if the theoretical filters were actually physically achievable in the real world - which they are *not* Therefore gently filtered 192kHz audio *_is_* the best way forward 😀 Peace ✌️

I compare this to Raw vs jpgs. Can anyone tell the difference at the same resolution? Probably not. But which would I prefer... Definitely Raw because of the technical benefits to a jpg and retains more artifacts. Mp3 or aac sound good but it's can distort at higher volume much like sizing a jpg. That ceiling just gets a little higher and can keep its clarity with higher bit rate.

Assuming Oohashi himself did not want to find something disappointing. What would the results be if you remove his study form the total? Are we still talking 62% and an average of 52% or does it just become 50%? It does make sense that training our ears will increase our ability to make out differences. We can train our eyes to spot minute differences in art for instance, it stands to reason to our auditory track can be trained in a similar way.

@lachlanlikesathing

8 жыл бұрын

Great question! The 1991 Oohashi result was actually given a average of 49% in this paper, and considered a test with untrained listeners. Reiss points out in the paper that the residual 'masking' effect may have resulted in false negatives in the test: "Both Oohashi 1991 and Woszcyk 2007 may have suffered a form of Simpson’s paradox, where these false negatives canceled out a statistically significant discrimination of high resolution audio in other cases". There were also some subjects in the tests that would consistently guess incorrectly at rates greater than chance, which also suggests that they were able to discriminate in some way, but just the wrong way around. (ie: enjoying standard resolution more). I believe the Reiss paper only takes into account the subjective evaluation results and not the EEG results, as there wouldn't be a clear way to fit those results in with the other studies examined in the paper.

FiiO X7, HiFI Man 400i's a Cypher Labs Theorem 720 DAC.............ownership of these products for me and I'm happy. Let others argue. Great content btw.

Come on, even the $1500 UE IEMs says its frequency response is only between 5-22K, I certainly doubt human can make a monitor or speaker that fully reproduce these hi-res :(