HD Radio Isn't High Definition! - Page 3

Your request that I listen is fair and reasonable but my high-end audio system does not have a source component for 96/24. Since virtually all the recordings that I like are recorded in 2 channels on a standard CD, I have not upgraded to multichannel audio. (I only acquire recordings that I like in the highest quality available.) All my audio system purchases are based on valid scientific data as well as auditions which explains why I was interested in a double-blind test and was not interested in doing my own test. A prime example is ultra expensive speaker cables which have been proven no better than 12 gauge copper wire which is what I use.
Richard

Interesting that you go out of your way to keep these recordings off of the most popular music format in the world because you don't "believe in compact discs". Almost everyone (including almost all audiophiles) believe 44.1 Khz/16 bit PCM is the ultimate format. It seems like you have to "believe" in a format for it to sound good.


Because subjective conclusions are often false conclusions.

Take a recording and crank up the highs. People will say it sounds better than the original recording. Tell them it sounds better because it's HD Audio or Monster cables or whatever. They'll believe you.

Or you can hook up a BOSE 3-2-1 system for someone that is only listening to movies on their TV speakers and they will think it is because of Bose, and not because their TV speakers are just inadequate.

On 10/30/2004 Boston Audio Society ran a double-blind comparison test between 24bit/96khz high resolution audio and 16bit/44.1 CD quality, an ABX test. As a member I could not find the results and I wrote to the President and he advised as follows:
"Summary-Correct responses were less than chance. Brad will eventually write it up. It will appear in the AES JOURNAL 1st."
This supports what MIKE WALKER, SCOWL, MATTDP, myself and others have stated. Under controlled conditions you cannot hear any difference.
These results should not be dismissed since BOSTON AUDIO SOCIETY is a highly regarded organization with outstanding credentials.
Richard

And Dr AIX if you think the rim shot is 90 db louder, even at it's loudest peak, than the noise level in the room, you're delusional. Hell dude, this can actually be measured. SHOW US A SCOPE PHOTO, accompanied by a .wav file of the rim shot that's 90 db higher than the noise level.

If the volume control is advanced so that the noise floor is just audible, and a peak comes along that is 90 db louder, it will either be deafeningly loud, or (more likely) the amplifier will clip (even with efficient speakers this would require thousands of watts), or the tweeters will be fried. NOBODY is actually reproducing 96db dynamic range at present! And if recordings actually did have this much dynamic range, people would take them back and demand a refund, because the average level would be so damn low!

Those of us who have actually viewed uncompressed waveforms on a scope or computer screen ain't falling for the "music has greater than 90db dynamic range" silliness. 'Tain't so, and if it was, most people wouldn't want it in their listening room! REAL homes aren't quiet enough to hear anything recorded that low, and real amplifiers and speakers aren't up to reproducing anything that dynamic.

Yes, don't we need an amplifier that can generate a 96db sound to enjoy this expanded dynamic range? That's not difficult for headphones of course, but sounds that loud could start to wreck your hearing.

Dr Aix, with due respect, you DID NOT PROVE that any recording of yours actually has a 90db range between the noise floor and the loudest sound. THAT is what you claimed, and THAT is what I asked you to prove.

Since homes are seldom quiet enough, amplifiers seldom powerful enough, and speakers seldome robust enough to handle such wide dynamic swings should they exist, I assert that it's actually possible to have too much dynamic range in a recording. GASP, I dared to state the obvious. If quiet passages disappear below the ambient noise in my room, while loud passages are at the threshold of pain, it sure doesn't represent anything I've ever heard live. And being a trumpet player who used to play in a symphony orchestra (though not a famous one), I'm quite familiar with what music actually sounds like live.

IMHO, an engineer who strives to extend the dynamic range of a recording beyond what is either audible or tolerable in a concert hall is the audiophile's version of masturbation. He isn't doing anything for anyone else, but as long as it makes him feel good!

Want to do something worthwhile? MAKE RECORDINGS THAT SOUND GOOD IN MY ROOM, under the conditions that actually exist in people's homes! DUH!

Look, I admit that 24 bits/96khz captures more information than 16/44.1, and that it's important to capture as much information on the recording end as possible. Especially since today's technology makes it relatively simple to do so. Where we differ is in whether this extra information has any importance to listeners in real rooms, on real speakers, at the end of real amplifiers, with the ambient noise levels present in people's homes. There's certainly no harm!

Where audiophiles drive me freakin' nuts is when they start changing the language from "dynamic range' to "acoustic energy", and using all the fruity, tasty language to describe what is simply the pressurization and depressurization of air. That is, after all, all that sound is. ALL sound has only three components...amplitude, frequency, and phase/polarity. That's it. The rest exists between our ears! There's nothing "magic" about it! Shhhhh, don't tell any of your audiophile friends! If they learn the truth, that the only differences POSSIBLE are those of either frequency, amplitude, or polarity/phase, then they're going to feel cheated out of the thousands of dollars they paid for "magic" from their systems

By the way...the above is a generalization, and of course it's not fair. I don't mean to dismiss your work, especially since I haven't heard it. That's cruel, and hurtful, and I would hate it if you did the same to my work. The above is simply my experience based upon my experiences to date. I could change my mind. I have before! Friends?
The only real magic is produced by the performers...in the music itself. The best a recording can do is stay out of the freakin' way! Ditto an audio system. Don't make "magic". LET ME HEAR THE RECORDING!

Sorry to be so dramatic, but I'm a "recovering audiophile", studio owner (mostly radio production, with some audio for video and voiceover work), and musician. I KNOW WHAT SOUNDS REAL, and what's simply b.s. The idea that 90db dynamic range is even desirable is, well, BS!

Now see. . . That is what I am talking about. . . We can all be passionate about our positions and still show the love.

Ain't it the truth, Master. Thanks Dr. AIX for "showing the love". I hope to be able to repay the kindness in the future.

Dr. AIX seems incredibly diplomatic. I still wouldn't buy his snake oil but I don't mind the way he tries to sell it.

I won't call it "snake oil", but I would say that just because "other people" say it's good, doesn't mean it is. I can point out hundreds of doctors that reccomended cigarettes as a good thing. . . Does it make it true?

There are several "IBOC haters" out there that look only at the numbers and don't listen to the sound and bash it for being a scam. I think the argument is similar. I have never heard High-Definition Audio, and can not say, but judging by only the numbers is a faulty test. Objective is important, yes, but when combined with subjective judgment can be the most effective.

I don't care that my 3Mb/s high-speed connection is "faster" than the 1.5MB/s, I happen to know, based on my experience that I have a harder time playing my online games since I upgraded to the higher speed. . . Does that make my subjective test flawed?

For some reason when I upgraded from 3mbps to 5mbps, the most noticable jump in performance was on my Dell Axim x51v PocketPC, which only has 802.11b. It makes no sense, but web pages load faster, and audio and video stream much more reliably. Sometimes the differences we expect, and what we actually experience, are quite different!

Why not? These are not unbiased third parties. These organizations all benefit from promoting new audio formats (except Leonard Maltin who would never sway my opinion). Awards do not change facts.

I actually heard IBOC on the MW side and it sounds like crap on the stations that have it in our area. FM sounds no different or like a internet audio stream on some stations that have multple feeds (ie HD-2,etc). I heard it in a rental car that had an IBOC tuner and the HDT-1 I got for my b-day.

I'm sure your recordings did sound great, but it all comes back to... how would they have sounded on old fashioned CD format? I suspect if they had been listening to CD's they also would have won awards.


Well, my ears aren't that good, I guess. I don't listen to things at 96db on purpose and Mike Walker proved I'm deaf somewhere around 17 Khz so you're not selling me anything I can use. In fact the old CD format exceeds the range of my hearing!

Do you really think people should be listening to music at 100+db? That's the equivalent sound pressure of a jackhammer at one meter! Do you think kids should start listening to their music this loud so they can appreciate HD Audio (for a while anyway)?

BTW, isn't Leonard Maltin a film critic? When did he start giving out audio awards?

DR. AIX,
Surround sound recordings can be two original recorded channels(stereo) processed into multiple matrix channels as well as four or more original recorded discrete channels. Where do your recordings fit in? I'm trying to comprehend what you are doing with surround sound.
Richard

But Dr. AIX I would add that the USEFUL dynamic range for listeners is a function of the ambient noise level in the room, the power of their amplifier, sensitivity of their speakers, and their tolerance for high SPLs.

Useful dynamic range will ALWAYS be less than 96db in a real room in a real home. Which is why PLAYBACK FORMATS (as opposed to recording or archiving formats, which SHOULD preserve more information than the final product) with greater dynamic range than 96db seem kind of silly...mostly a way (I've always believed) of stopping the practice of "cd ripping", while trying to convince the public they're receiving a "benefit". THEY ARE NOT (IMHO)!

Dr. AIX
Your work in producing quality audio is appreciated. I feel your CD'S do sound better than standard stereo CD'S since you produce quality surround sound discrete channels as opposed to those surround sound CD'S that are nothing more than matrix channels from stereo CD's. As proven by double-blind tests you cannot hear the difference between 44.1/16 and 96/24 playback but for recording purposes 96/24 is preferred.
Richard