• From: West Georgia
  • Registered: 2006-10-14
  • Posts: 2,557

Topic: High Resolution CD's

Hello My Friends!

I get a magazine called Sound And Vision and last month it touted these CD's, the way they are engineered and how much better they sound than those I would buy from, say, Amazon. They carry a hefty price tag ($25 to $30 dollars, some of them) but what I read intrigued me to the point of coming to my family (Y'all, of course) and asking: Do you own one or more of these and could you review what you have for us?

There is a website which explains their process and they do give you samples to listen to, but unless I missed it, those samples are of music so obscure that one may never have heard of it and there's no way to compare the normal cd to the Hi-Rez ones.

Now, my way of testing these things out is to play Dark Side Of The Moon normally and hi-rez; or LA Woman the same way and then rate the sound. Just giving you a few samples and saying "these are high resolution" just doesn't make my cut.

What say you, my friends?

Thanks

Bill

Epiphone Les Paul Studio
Fender GDO300 Orchestral - a gift from Amy & Jim
Rogue Beatle Bass
Journal: www.wheretobud.blogspot. com
  • From: Western Oregon,US
  • Registered: 2008-07-22
  • Posts: 2,498

Re: High Resolution CD's

Okay..... I'm gonna chuckle on this for a few seconds, , , , , ,  Now that's over, I remember hanging around a sound engineer who at one time mentioned that I was shopping way over my head putting together a really "Hi-Fidelity" sound system.  His point has haunted me ever since, first off we are "Guys" and incapable of hearing above or below certain frequencies courtesy of "Mother Nature".  Women have much more range of hearing than we.  So I was advised not to seek much above 75-80 Watts per channel output and look more specifically at the frequencies that the speakers can reproduce below that threshold.  The lesson here is that no matter how good the recording (or media) is, without the ability to hear and appreciate it, is it still a good value?

Everyone is unique and your mileage may vary, but I doubt that I could tell the difference if there was one.

"what is this quintessence of dust?"  - Shakespeare

3 Reply by Strummerboy Bill (edited by Strummerboy Bill 2016-06-19 06:35:26)

  • From: West Georgia
  • Registered: 2006-10-14
  • Posts: 2,557

Re: High Resolution CD's

And I have a 40% loss of hearing, Doug. Thanks for  bringing that up - it never even occurred to me.

I'm chuckling a bit myself. Your next to last sentence triggered the "Tree falls in the forest......" question for me. smile

Thanks, my friend and Happy Father's Day!

Bill

Epiphone Les Paul Studio
Fender GDO300 Orchestral - a gift from Amy & Jim
Rogue Beatle Bass
Journal: www.wheretobud.blogspot. com

4 Reply by Tenement Funster (edited by Tenement Funster 2016-06-19 08:59:01)

  • From: Nova Scotia, Canada
  • Registered: 2013-01-20
  • Posts: 4,083

Re: High Resolution CD's

Doug's story reminds me of a sound engineer I chatted with years ago, when getting my home stereo system set up.

This was before CDs, and direct-to-disk vinyl recordings were about the best on the market. He asked me to bring a few to his store one Saturday morning, and we'd test some systems out. He then had me sit "back to" the options we tried, close my eyes, and listen for realism above anything else. He said, "When you're listening, it should sound like there's a real guitar in the room, a real piano, etc." The trio ended up being a Thorens turntable, a Revox power amp & pre-amp combo, and Polk Audio studio monitors.

The amp and speakers are still going strong, and I often think about how good his advice was.

  • From: NY
  • Registered: 2009-08-26
  • Posts: 4,320

Re: High Resolution CD's

Well, keep in mind one thing:  What are you listening to these CD's on?  Just because they MIGHT be capable of holding and sending out a better recording, if you're listening on something not capable of playing that better recording then what's the sense? 

This reminds me of a ton of questions and discussions I avoided a few years ago as everyone I knew was running out trying to buy new TV's and it seemed as if 720 was a bargain buy and 1080 was the MUST HAVE.  A lot of people I know wasted a lot of money as they believed the hype.  I imagine things have changed now with 4K coming to the scene.  I don't keep up with it anymore, because of #3 below.
1. It's hard to really distinguish between 720 and 1080 with the naked eye.  You would have to have the two TV's next to one another and really be looking to see a difference.
2. Cable companies could only send the signal equivalent of 720 through coax, even if it showed that it was broadcast by the original station in 1080 - so that whole 1080 really only mattered if you're watching Blue-Ray - I was working for a cable company. (this was a few years ago, and probably isn't the case anymore as lot of cable lines have been upgraded)
3. If you wear glasses for distance like I do, and you don't wear them to watch TV like myself, you're not really seeing the 720 anyway - my naked eye won't ever tell the difference between 720 and 1080 or even 4K without my glasses on (I do wear them to watch movies, but not sitcoms).

I'd go to many family members houses during this time and be encouraged to ooooo and ahhhhhh over their new TVs on cable.  I didn't try to explain that it was more clear due to the technology used to display more colors rather than the old three color system, or some other technological advance related to the screen itself or lighting system used - having nothing to do with the capability of 1080.

Art and beauty are in the eyes of the beholder.
What constitutes excellent music is in the ears of the listener.

mekidsmom's Website

  • From: Bellevue, WA
  • Registered: 2006-06-15
  • Posts: 3,336

Re: High Resolution CD's

https://s3.amazonaws.com/ksr/assets/002/067/482/627e01dc88c9ba7f7f2d756903b6b369_large.png

"High Def" recording is mostly a scam, for the reasons Doug mentioned.  Human hearing really can't distinguish much beyond 44K sample rate, and that's based on sound science.  We can't hear much above 20K, so the Nyquist theorem says you basically need the sample rate to be twice the frequency, so something above 40K is where our ears aren't going to help us much any more.

I typically record at 44K and 24 bits, but that's only because when you're running with VST effects, you can't replace data that isn't there.

Someday we'll win this thing...

[url=http://www.aclosesecond.com]www.aclosesecond.com[/url]

jerome.oneil's Website