IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

High-Resolution Audio Explained, PCMAG, February 1, 2012
skamp
post Feb 1 2012, 23:25
Post #1





Group: Developer
Posts: 1343
Joined: 4-May 04
From: France
Member No.: 13875



High-Resolution Audio Explained (PCMAG, February 1, 2012)

[Neil Young] was referring specifically to the compressed MP3 and AAC files most people listen to today. Truth is, they just don't sound all that good. [] Even 256Kbps (and yes, 320Kbps) files are still audibly different than what you hear on a CD, although at least those are somewhat closer to the mark. [] Switch to an uncompressed FLAC file, and all of the above flaws go away. [] Stereo sound fields become three dimensional, with a sense of depth and space. It sounds as if a veil has been lifted; everything has more definition and natural sound.


--------------------
caudec.net
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies
Brand
post Feb 2 2012, 17:18
Post #2





Group: Members
Posts: 312
Joined: 27-November 09
Member No.: 75355



Neil Young and others talking about this "high res" audio as if it's some futuristic project (I watched the video from the other thread) is exactly what's wrong with the "free market" today. Why do we have to wait for a big company like Apple to create a mass demand for these things?
People who are even moderately educated and care about this stuff can already buy lossless music from various sources. HDTracks has been around for a while and so have several others.

Anyway, I think when lossless gets pushed on a larger scale, especially in "high res", it will probably be accompanied by different masters (much like SACD and DVD-A), promoting the idea that you actually need 24bit 96kHz to make a decent sounding product, without crappy dynamic range compression and all. That might help sell the "high res" files a bit faster, although I don't think it will ever be a massively popular thing. Audiophiles have always been a niche and most people usually opted for cheap/convenient instead.



On a lighter note:
QUOTE (odious malefactor @ Feb 2 2012, 06:23) *
QUOTE (skamp @ Feb 1 2012, 14:25) *
High-Resolution Audio Explained (PCMAG, February 1, 2012)

Switch to an uncompressed FLAC file, and all of the above flaws go away.


"Uncompressed FLAC"--is that even possible?

You don't wanna know.
I didn't bother reading all of it, but the last post (the conclusion) is:
QUOTE
Flac compressed definitely sounds worse than Flac uncompressed...

I also read elsewhere it being called "the best of both worlds", aka the sound quality of WAV with the tagging capabilities of FLAC.
cool.gif

This post has been edited by Brand: Feb 2 2012, 17:35
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Posts in this topic


Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 20th April 2014 - 18:08