HiFi Subjectivist ¦ Audio Forum ¦ NVA User Group

No, I didn't say that, John Darko did. I don't think there's anything in the article that hasn't already been discussed, but it's a good read all the same.

https://darko.audio/2023/08/when-hi-res-audio-stops-making-sense/

I agree with that article.

I'd rather listen to a DR 14 MP3 than the highest resolution DR 9 version.

The music biz stopped making sense 30 years ago. It feels like the Loudness Wars have been going on longer than the Reconquista.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... y_duration
When is peace going to break out so we can have dark green DR's again?

I do not agree with Darko. As much as I hate compression, the damage anything less than CD quality does is even worse.

In my experience, dynamic range is a good deal more important than sampling rate. An original CD with a DR of 14 sounds superior to a 192 download of the same album but remastered with a DR of 9. The 192 download of the remaster may sound a bitter better than the 44 download, though.

savvypaul wrote: ↑Tue Aug 29, 2023 11:51 am In my experience, dynamic range is a good deal more important than sampling rate. An original CD with a DR of 14 sounds superior to a 192 download of the same album but remastered with a DR of 9. The 192 download of the remaster may sound a bitter better than the 44 download, though.

Dynamic range is important, but sample rate is equally so. They go hand in hand. For me, the best is high DR uncompressed .wav - I know upsampled files can sound great, but I'm yet to experience that.

George Hincapie wrote: ↑Tue Aug 29, 2023 3:40 pm

savvypaul wrote: ↑Tue Aug 29, 2023 11:51 am In my experience, dynamic range is a good deal more important than sampling rate. An original CD with a DR of 14 sounds superior to a 192 download of the same album but remastered with a DR of 9. The 192 download of the remaster may sound a bitter better than the 44 download, though.

Dynamic range is important, but sample rate is equally so. They go hand in hand. For me, the best is high DR uncompressed .wav - I know upsampled files can sound great, but I'm yet to experience that.

I doubt that sample rate is equally as important as dynamic range. YMMV

CN211276 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 9:35 pm I do not agree with Darko. As much as I hate compression, the damage anything less than CD quality does is even worse.

When it comes to CD quality and above things are not so cut and dried to my ears. All my listening on the main system is upsampled; 44kHz to 705kHz, 48 - 192kHz to 765kHz. Yet I find that many recordings with an incoming sample rate of 44kHz sound better than some with an incoming sample rate of 192kHz. This can only be because of greater DR and/or better mastering. The benefits of a 24 Bit Rate over 16 Bit can be nullified.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I'd quibble with anything over 44kHz/16 bit sounding any better. It's all in the mind.

CN211276 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 29, 2023 7:53 pm

CN211276 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 9:35 pm I do not agree with Darko. As much as I hate compression, the damage anything less than CD quality does is even worse.

When it comes to CD quality and above things are not so cut and dried to my ears. All my listening on the main system is upsampled; 44kHz to 705kHz, 48 - 192kHz to 765kHz. Yet I find that many recordings with an incoming sample rate of 44kHz sound better than some with an incoming sample rate of 192kHz. This can only be because of greater DR and/or better mastering. The benefits of a 24 Bit Rate over 16 Bit can be nullified.

Mastering is the most important element IMHO. You cannot make a silk purse from a pig's ear.

savvypaul wrote: ↑Tue Aug 29, 2023 4:50 pm

George Hincapie wrote: ↑Tue Aug 29, 2023 3:40 pm

savvypaul wrote: ↑Tue Aug 29, 2023 11:51 am In my experience, dynamic range is a good deal more important than sampling rate. An original CD with a DR of 14 sounds superior to a 192 download of the same album but remastered with a DR of 9. The 192 download of the remaster may sound a bitter better than the 44 download, though.

Dynamic range is important, but sample rate is equally so. They go hand in hand. For me, the best is high DR uncompressed .wav - I know upsampled files can sound great, but I'm yet to experience that.

I doubt that sample rate is equally as important as dynamic range. YMMV

Some people seem to be less sensitive to dynamic compression than others.
How else can one explain people buying and keeping Harbeth speakers?
And others saying that London Grammar's first CD is a great recording?

It's clear that Darko is sensitive to dynamic compression. I am too.

I struggle to get into the minds of the people that are responsible for dynamically compressed remasters. The little shits should have a reasonable level of system to master on, in a quiet room. They must know that dynamically compressing the music makes it sound worse (with a suitable adjustment to the volume knob when listening to the original). They have such a cynical attitude to the music buying public.

Imagine a chef that has fresh ingredients available from the market on his doorstep. That freezes everything he makes before re-heating it and serving it to his customers. That would be the same attitude as the music biz.