+OhNoItsGojira Informative, yet contradictory. The video itself said that the CD format is more than sufficient to capture all the range of audible sound, yet tries to convince us that reproducing ultrasonic frequencies, inaudible to humans, make any difference, and that you need more than 16 bits to hear "the tapping of a pianist's fingernails". It tries to create a difference between "hearing" and "experiencing", suggesting that Hi-Res audio will compensate for all the loss of quality you get from the shitty mastering and production in recent professional recordings. The snake oil is strong in this one.
You are very ignorant. The frequencies above 20 kHz have a huge influence on what goes below 20 kHz. The sound of a studio master file is always thicker, warmer, more spacious and more dynamic.
***** "24 bits is 24 zeros and ones..more data and samples/sample rate = more accuracy and closer to an analog sound wave / sine wave" Bro, do you even Nyquist?
It’s a waste of bandwidth and server storage. RUclips is a video streaming service first and foremost, not a music streaming service. (And not a very good one, at that) Both their video and audio compression is quite lossy. They have so much more content to store and stream compared to the ‘competition’ in video streaming services (Netflix etc), and have less of a need for high quality video and audio. Personally I’d like to see RUclips improve their video compression before allowing bandwidth hogging lossless audio.
@@kebbinator Its a waste of bandwidth and server storage? So is 4k and 8k video, which takes even MORE space than lossless audio. Storage space isn't an issue anymore either. The uploader must have the option to upload videos with uncompressed audio.
Acid does wonders for music. More than anything, in fact! I played some Derek and the Dominos, Pure Prairie League & Little Feat on 4 hits & I saw God!
@@Quad3 dumbass youtube never compress any audio of the video it uploads the exact same audio which the song has otherwise those dj khaled songs wouldn't be so crisp and clear
@@Piyushrahi It does compress the audio. All videos on RUclips are AAC with around 125kbit/s a second and 44,1khz sample rate. Opus audip exits aswell, it is always 48khz and ranges between 100-200kbit/s on RUclips.
Not being able to hear the music doesn't stop you from hearing the music. Human exposed to very low frequency sound (those below 10hz) will express stress and unease, even though they can't hear anything. Same goes to very high frequency sound.
It's ironic, because Hi-Res audio is better, but not for the reasons mentioned in this video. That's the sad part about advertising... To put it short, Hi-Res audio has tremendous advantage for hardware design like the D/A converters. High sampling rate of 192kHz or more is not to reproduce frequencies above hearing range, it's to eliminate the interpolated noise we have insert in between the samples in regular CD audio D/A conversion (recovery) stage. And we have to insert a lot of noise. 64x times that of original information. It's outrageous. We are still fooled though. To put it in simple terms, D/A converter of a CD player is conning us big time. With Hi-Res audio, we don't need to insert as much noise in between the samples, because the sample gaps are smaller. In fact, in DSD codec (sample rate of 2.8224MHz) we don't need add any noise. But I digress... To put it simple, Hi-Res audio is more truth to the honest storing of the actual audio information that was recorded by the A/D converter. In other words, Hi-Res is less of a scam than CD audio.] Do we need more than 16-bits? Yes, we need a few more bits than that, but not to represent 144dB volumes, that would be pain our ears would not handle. We need those extra bits to represent the quiet (pianissimo) parts of a musical piece. Great thing for the classical buffs. You don't believe me we lose resolution on a CD for quite parts? Find a song with a fade away ending. Then crank up the ending, you'll hear graininess in the sound. That's because you might end up with like 4-bits of resolution for the quiet parts. I am not saying you should listen to song fade aways. I am saying this is useful for classical music pianissimo parts (or good jazz piano, you know stuff like that). These are all valid reasons for higher sampling rates and higher bit resolutions, which Hi-Res audio provides. Hi-Res also eliminates the need of near brick wall filter at the A/D stage. It's not really a square brick, the filter has some slope. When we're recording into 44.1kHz digital audio, we start rolling off frequencies above 20kHz. The reason we use 44.1kHz and not 40kHz sampling rate, is so that we have space for the filter slope. Yes, we use that extra 2.05kHz above 20kHz just for that. With Hi-Res we don't need that steep of a filter. We can process all frequencies, even 40kHz, without them folding back into the audio range (aliasing). It's fantastic. Hi-Res is a great thing. Sony advertises it wrong... It's sad.
Well, accurate more or less. I'd still want to believe that an ultrasonic whistle can have influence on us. I mean, you can't hear it, but boy, doesn't that thing vibrate and buzz in your mouth? Also, ultra high frequencies, being very high harmonics, might have an impact of our perception on the overal timbre. I believe harmonics are infinite in nature, so we won't capture all, but why not capture most if we can? I am a simple man. I am looking for the most truth to the honest digital audio encoding. Truth doesn't exist in science of course. But I think we should try our best to get as close as possible, with good intentions and all.
ezrazski No. This video is more accurate than this. He only pointed out the by product or part of the benefits of hires. It is a real shame that many people think like this. But at least he didn't say that people only can hear 20khz then higher than 20khz is useless.
44.1khz at 16-bit was chosen for a reason. The frequency is high enough to exactly reproduce any human audible frequency, and the bit _depth_ (not bit rate Sony) is high enough that there is effectively no noise. The vast majority of people will not be able to hear the difference between a 320kbps mp3 file, and a CD anyways.
Going above 44.1khz and above 16bit resolution is just useful to work with audio (like using RAW to edit pictures), it doesn't improve listening experience. Human hearing highest frequency is at 20Khz, which 44.1khz sample rate files can record and play perfectly.
+Albee213 Because the souce material isn't the same. Take the audio of that disc, rip it to a lossless format with same properties than SACD audio format and burn it into a CD Audio. Though you could skip this part and just re encode it to 44.1Khz 16 bit lossless file (uncompressed wav or flac). Now ask someone to put yo some headphones and ask that person to play a few seconds of one of the two files that the person will choose without you knowing which. Try to guess which one is and have the person take note of your guess. Repeat this multiple times (try let's say 10). I'm sure at the end of it, you will guess correctly nearly half of the time. This experiment has already been done with experienced audio engineers and the result was that they could only guess correctly 49.6% of the time. Google about it.
Sony is not the only music studio out there lol and volume level is decided during the mastering process. We must want music capable of going louder if they have made it louder since back in the day, I did and I haven't noticed any diminishes in dynamic range
It's hi-res only if the entire production chain beginning with recording and ending with mixing can stay above the redbook standard. I doubt many commercially released content qualifies.
0:49 he lies. A CD made of the master will sound exactly like the master, 100% with no difference, not "flat and lifeless." It is not opinion, it is digital signal processing, which is physics. Google Nyquist Theorem and watch a few XIPH videos if you are not in this field.
You're absolutely right. Just to add a little information, you cannot add more information than what was recorded in the master tape. Anyone that claims that a high res audio is better than a CD from the same master tape (which was made to store only 20hz to 20khz) is lying!
@@timotheusn.h.nakashona1001 you should try a device designed specially for play music, phone's sound chips are cheap and low quality, if you have the chance try Fiio M6 with your FLAC files... you will be surprised.
Just sharing my experience. I bought some songs from HiRes website. Then I compare the song with CD version. Did I hear the difference? Yes, for only some of them. Ok, hmm.... HiRes is true then! So I tried another approach. I down sample the 24/192 to 16/44.1 with software, and I compare the down sampled with CD again, did I hear the difference? Yes! So lets compare the down sampled version to original purchased version, hmm...... I cant really hear any difference among them. So what? Hi Res, seems like just a remastered version of the same music, and purposely push up the sampling and bit rate and then tell the customers, Hey! Because it is BIG, so it is BETTER!
I think the real advantage with buying hi-res audio is the fact that it was mastered differently for that audience, without the DR compression, with the bonus that it carries less guesswork to be made by reconstruction algorithms due to the higher sample rate. Also be aware that you cannot see the advantages of superior audio files without proper hardware to do so, going from onboard audio on my motherboard to a sound card and entry level studio headphones made me see the quality difference between files that I couldn't see before, even the MP3 files sounded better by upgrading those two.
A lot of my downloaded music is in 24 bit FLAC at 44.1 Khz for file size and volume purposes as I still have MP3s and regular FLACs in the same playlist.
Great job, Sony. Even in recording your own audio in your own videos full of specialists you screwed up the voice recording. I couldn't keep listening to this dude after 20 seconds in hearing his first word in each sentence being muted.
Using a phrase like "high definition" for audio is misleading because it makes people think they're getting extra detail when they're not. 1) all using a bit depth of 24 bits does is lower the noise floor, which is inaudible at 16bit anyway, and 2) the standard CD snapping rate of 44kHz is more than enough samples to capture the frequency range of human hearing. Tl;Dr - all "high resolution" audio does is cost more money and take up more disk space without improving the detectable quality of the sound at all.
Well they are and they aren't. Whether you can see the difference between fullHD or 4K images or not, is irrelevant. There is more detail in a 4K image. That's a fact. Same for HD audio. Just stating facts. Whether the receiver aka. the human ear can hear a difference, is - technically speaking - irrelevant.24 bits compared to 16 bits doesn't only lower the noise floor, it also captures the correct 'loudness' for a particular frequency better. There's a significant difference between 65K and 16M+ levels. Ofc, you are right when you say it wouldn't make a difference in most cases. It takes high end materials and apparatus throughout the entire chain for it to stay relevant. Good amp, good speakers, good wires, and a good ear. So in that regard, you're probably correct.
@@MacSvensson Formats capable of reproducing frequencies of over 20kHz actually harm fidelity since equipment often suffers from intermodulation distortion which only manifests if you try to make high frequencies go. All higher bitrates do is minimize quantization during recording which is basically rounding the loudness to the nearest value. Quantization adds noise which is avoided when using a higher bitrate. Doing that is however unnecessary since you the noise is already about -100dB under the signal which is enough for all musical recordings.
Sampling rate is not just about reproducing frequencies, it also allows accurate phase differences between two channels to reproduce 3d effects better. Although our brains only discern tones up to about 20khz, they are much more precise in discerning arrival differences between the ears. This information is filtered by completely different circuitry in the brain which is why we can instantly pinpoint the location of a sound in the real world. Even the best binaural recordings lack realism and depth. To add to this, it has been shown that the average human has a temporal resolution of around 8-10 micro seconds which corresponds to a frequency response of around 120khz. To be clear, you do not 'hear' this information, your brain just 'positions' it.
@@Jadinandrews thank you, this comment should be high ranked as it provides detail about music perception that goes against common sense (old rules that should be revisited aka:20KHz is insufficient to have a good musical experience)
Sony, once was an innovator using science to push the envelope. They, with Phillips, developed the compact disc and through the 1970s, 80s, 90s and 00s were had revered products both for home audio and the studio. How sad is it now Sony resorts to marketing and psuedoscience, trashing their legacy in the process. If Sony was really interested in natural sound, rather than pushing hi res, which has no sonic advantages over CD for human beings, they would stop releasing brick-walled, squashed, loudness wars type of recordings from their remastered music catalogue.
He uses the term bit rate 16 but actually he is referring the bit depth. Rate is related to the transfer of a quantity, such as: 128 Kbits per second (kbps)
Many of us, especially listening in cars or lower end equipment at home, may not even be able to tell the difference. With decent equipment, there is a difference, but at the end of the day, just enjoy music in any format: Vinyl, cassette, CD, Hi-Res, Mp3, etc. Enjoy the healing that music can bring to your soul.
Whats the point of high res audio when the mastering is done wrong. And i also want to address something as loudness war. Sony did a terrible job at remastering cd's of jarre in the late 90's
You couldn't be farther from the truth if you tried. High-Resolution audio = (not limited to) those soundwaves still in the audible spectrum, that could not be captured previously with low bitrate digital formats (mp3, aac, flac, cd etc.).
This is baad marketing. 1) 96 db should be absolutely sufficient dynamic range for any consumer application, audio is compressed when it is produced to much lower range, and I dont speak only about squeezed dubstep. Ok, some very quiet part of classical recording can benefit from lower noise. 2) Again, consumer doesnt hear over 20, not even 18 unles it is child. There is *hypothesis* , that if the hardware is able to produce the high frequencies, and if the hi res oversampled format is used, and if the recording actually *contains* that high information, then the high overtones can backwards influence those closer to the fundamental and actually change the *perception* of the hearable tones. It is difficult to test it though, bcs comparing two identical files in audible range, one of them having low pass somewhere obviusly make them sound different due to the missing content on one of them, however, it is not possible to state whether the perception of low information which is shared actually varies comparing them. And to be able to even try to perform this test with hi freq-hi res audio we would need a dog to tell us.
Higher frequencies than 20khz are useless. They don't make you feel anything more because you don't hear them. And saying 20khz is already very generous. And most of us get old by the time we can afford these fancy audio gear that are capable of reproducing these unnecessary frequencies anyway.
And higher bitrate than 16 bit can have greater but useless dB range. So its just all hype as long as music mixers deliberately stop properly mixing and compressing a good music to 44Hz and 16 bit which is more than enough. You dont need HiRes for a properly mixed music.
Loudness war needs to end, and better equipment needs to be more available, kinda wish music streaming would die or step up the quality Also I know you guys likely tossed this video together in an afternoon to make something that could have been an article or entry on your site but probably a lot more interesting in video format But you could probably have spent some extra time fixing the audio in this video to make it a more watchable video
Internet speeds increase = streaming quality increases. We already have super fast mobile networks and much of Europe has access to 100+ mbit/s cable and landline based internet so it’s only a question of time.
Now I can say I'm finally satisfied with the hi-res audio product I bought from SONY and 2 weeks into I can notice some extra details on specific audio files. ❤
What no one points out is that the analog stage, that ultimately reproduces the music, is not as precise as they make out the digital side to be. It would require a ridiculous level of the most minoot and impossible changes in voltages. Having a well recorded song in the first place is much more important at this point in technology than pushing the digital limits in playback. My 1980's Phillips 16 bit CD player (with upgraded modern op-amps) sounds better than my high-res stuff with the same song.
C'mon Sony...you're better than this. Just admit that the record labels are trying to sell snake oil. 16-bit/44.1 kHz CD quality audio IS high resolution. If they wouldn't have started squashing the life out of music with abuse of brickwall limiters there would be no need for remasters.
oh no not you again! if 16/44 is hi-res then 24/192 is higher res. it's sad you can't hear it or don't think anyone else can. i have been bumping 24bit audio on my DAP for 2+ years now, and before that I always loved it in the recording studio. you just need a good DAC and amp to hear the difference.
I'm sorry but if you have a hi-res capable music player and a good quality headphone with higher than 20khz frequencies response then the difference between 16 44 and 24 96 will be obvious, unless you can't tell, which is a shame I'm rocking 24 96 with my V10 and the MDR 100aap and I swear I'll never look back to CD anymore
Actually there's a difference it's call dynamic. The High Res is not there to actually give a greatest quality of sound but a greatest RESOLUTION. When you hear a sound in real life, there's no such things as formats or compression. High Res is a way to listen to music like the fucking instruments are in the same room as you cause the sound is much more "realistic" with more dynamics. That's all, you hear harmonics above the 20 Khz cause a sound is form by these harmonics
... Give me just one.. JUST ONE exsample of any recorded music with more than 96db of dynamic range..Just one? Just to proove youre right..;-). And please show me one exsample that you or anybody else for that matter hear anything above 20Khz?
High-Resolution Audio augments listening experience if you have audio files in more detailed spectrum like FLAC or Lossless format. It's still wise to get CD quality audio and then use high-resolution audio to capture the details. And I agree with "loudness war" mentioned in many comments. But I belong to old school music, especially, of 60s and 70s.
In electronic/line input music high res should sound better because frequencies we can't hear interact with frequencies we can hear which only happens through our speakers but in acoustic/mic recorded music that process already takes place through the air before its received by the microphone (not that acoustic instruments have frequencies lower or higher than our hearing). So to guarantee we hear what an electronic artist hears (or more) we need to have high res
If the master is designed for high res then by math alone you get more information to enjoy and by that I am not talking about freq's above 20khz. For example there is a considerable difference between a low res picture and a high res picture. This is the same with the details of sound. If I am old and my eyes are bad I can't see everything clearly but I can see that there are more details than the flat low res picture. The same with sound. I decided to test this myself a while back and what I find is high res brings the symbols clarity and the jazz drum brushes or a hit on the rim of the drum where on lower res I couldn't make this out on a hi res created file. Digitally a hi res player will recreate the hi res created sound and likewise a normal res player will not bring out these details digitally. I would not attempt to compare Vinyl since that format has all the high res detail in its design range available to hear when you push it out a good turntable, speakers and amp. However a lot of old vinyl has its own artistic interpretation and thus it is a different instrument offering its own unique qualities of sound.
Virtually every modern CD has OVER-compression of dynamic range. If this stupid loudness war was stopped, then we'd have no need for any format above 16/44 - heck, I'd estimate that most contemporary albums use about 2 - 3 bits of dynamics!
false -- the format is different than any loudness war. loudness is a constant battle between air and volume for that particular format. the format going up to hi-res could decrease the loudness war but it's no guarantee. they aren't that interdependent.
What’s put on a cd is up to the mastering engineer not the limitations of the physical medium. If you want loud we can push the levels up to where you’re getting a square wave instead of a regular sign wave is not the fault of the CD.
The question as to whether high res audio is worth having is.. Do sound frequencies we can't hear interact with sound frequencies we can hear? That would be the only reason it would sound better.
The compression method that MP3 uses is called lossy because it drops a lot of info in a manner that our ears don't "easily" notice, but how much is lost depends on the sample rate used. AAC which is I think essentially MP4 but with Apple specific settings is considered lossless so even though it's compressed it shouldn't sound any different to CD. Now High Res will sound better but if you want to be able to hear the difference then you would need to invest in a very expensive amplifier and speakers to have any chance. Yes you are right to ask question of whether it's worth it, and I would say no. It's like a 0.01% improvement.
@@etmax1 High res matters less for acoustic music because the sound frequencies interact with each other producing the final sound that the artist was hearing before they are recorded by the microphone, with electronic music/electric guitar the sound frequencies don't get a chance to interact with each other so any loss of detail means we don't hear what the artist was hearing. Sound frequencies interact with each other. Ideally electronic should be recorded from pa speakers/monitors with microphones in my opinion.
@@Bhomik98 High res only worth for studio and master purpose. For public users using 48khz/24bit is perfect. Most important is how mix and mastering process. Good mix and mastering make your music sound good at high end $20.000 rig and low end $2.000 rig
@@vigd6298 BS. Ultra high-res audio is mindblowingly good compared to standard mp3/flac stuff. Go listen to a DSD128 or higher song, even those sourced from vinyl, and it will blow your socks off. Hi-res digital audio (10 to 100 thousand kpbs) is what we need for digital music to finally be absolutely amazing and analog-like.
@@edfort5704 I dont wanna join into your DSD vs PCM war. Both have pros and cons. The quality of the recording and mastering plays a far more significant role than the format or resolution it is distributed in
And now back to REALITY: if you want a better audio listening experience, ignore this marketing BS and get better designed speakers, improve your signal path from playback to speaker, and improve your listening acoustics. If you want the truth about bit depths and sample rates, read "Mastering Audio" by Bob Katz.
Как раз познаю основы аудио. Много пересмотрел обзоров наушников и других систем, но все что говорили обзорщики было для меня непонятным. Вы очень доходчиво объяснили основы. Спасибо
I'm not getting it, the guy stated that the 44.1 kHz sampling rate of the CD is already enough to cover the 20Hz - 20kHz spectrum of human hearing and that a 16-bit depth already offers a dynamic range of 96 dB. If that's true, then why would you need a much higher sampling rate and higher bit-depth if they exceed these measures that are supposedly already enough? Also, digital streaming services like Apple Music and Spotify actually offer almost CD-quality playback. I've tested it myself and it's almost impossible to distinguish a track played from a CD and the same track played from one of these services (using the same audio setup).
What is sad about that? You pay 10-20€ for a CD obviously you get more quality out of that than out of the 3€ (family subscription) you pay for spotify
That's why you have Tidal for lossless audio streaming. It's super expensive though. I have to be honest when I listen to a track on Master quality (losseles) on a pair of Sony LDAC headphones it does actually sound better.
If only these companies concentrated on good quality Mastering for their digital releases, instead of ignoring the subject. I buy high res pretty regularly now from hdtracks and find the biggest sound difference is in mastering and not as much the difference in sample rate from CD quality to 24/96.
@E. O. It doesnt matter for quality just file size. I personally do level 8 because I can wait an extra five minutes per album to ensure I can fit as much as possible onto my DAP.
Why has high resolution audio 44.1 KHz CD, 48 KHz DVD, 96 - 192 KHz HD-Blu-ray while speakers have frequency responses 20 Hz - 20 KHz for human hearing ranges?
The former is sampling rate for music, which you need in order to capture the multiple, simultaneous soundwaves that a song has. The latter is, as you mentioned, the frequency spectrum that a young, healthy human ear can capture and detect.
Because the CD was designed when sony still had honest sound engineers who knew 44.1 kHz / 16 bit PCM is enough to recreate the human audible range fully without any perceivable artifacts whatsoever. DVD has 48 kHz audio, because 48 kHz divides evenly by all the commonly used frame rates (24, 25, 30, 50, 60 fps) for video, which allows a fixed number of audio samples per video frame, which is handy. Blu-ray was designed for dolphins, appearantly.
Sad about Sony is jumping on the High Res train as well. It's only a hype. If your dac is good there is no diffrence you'll hear. Even Sony engineers said they can't hear a diffrence between comparing MP3 256 with DSEEX with High Res version of the same file.
Sony keeps advertising about Hi-Res audio and ANC earphones but not all high-end Xperia phones don't have the Hi-Res ANC earphones in the box. Some markets the earphones come in the box, others only get the standard cheap earphones. For example, the Z3 and Z3C.
Commercial talk. CD quality includes everything that is needed for high quality listening: uncompressed, frequencies up to 20kHz and dynamic range of 96dB. That's all we can hear. SONY sound engineers should know that.
Music can be made up of a large number of different, simultaneous sound waves. CDs (1411kbps) just don't have the required bitrate to represent all the soundwaves that high-quality, highly-detailed analog music can have. And I refer to just the audible spectrum (20Hz-20kHz), not going into the debate of the utility of capturing soundwaves outside the audible spectrum.
@@edfort5704 strange way of looking at it: there is only one "sound wave" that has to be sampled. And if there would be information outside of the audible spectrum (which is not, because filtered), then it is not audible, is it?
Audiophiles are so concerned with audio quality (real or imagined) that the music itself seems to have become a second priority. Sometimes I feel we are only loosing ourselves with all this marketing BS
"It's the music the counts not the hype" Eddie and the Cruisers 2 movie. Totally agree and I have been enjoying/obsessed with music for at least 25 years(age 40) got my first pioneer component home stereo at age 15 . Now I have like 4,000 songs on my playstation vita combined with jbl xtreme and flip 3 speakers along with sony xb70bt earbuds, very happy with how audio/tech has evolved
I know a few older people with record collections they keepd but still use the newer formats as well hardly going back. I am sure there are still a few die hard fans that use records only but its a niche group though
How does inaudible 25k hertz help you experience music differently? Character? What character? I don't think it matters that much. Most people won't notice a difference. Even most audiophile would fail a test.
Generations have listened to tape, cd & MP3. Whatever explanation you give about high res is a for a small percentage. Unless prices come down for high res music files and it's devices , high res will just pass by sooner or later.
superdupercake one day try this, Get a high res audio supported headphone then get a high res music with flac connect it to ldac then... You are enjoying the clearest music you can find without spending thousands of dollars.
I have a 200€ Hi-Res DAC+Headphoneamp with 350€ Hi-Res headphones and Hi-Res flacs, waves and DSD material. And I can tell, if I hear the same material as 320kBit/s mp3 with 40€ headphones and 35€ 16Bit/48KHz DAC I notice no difference in audio quality. Nuff said.
I have two Sony Headphones. One focuses on lower frequency range, X-bass. The other reproduces the mid-range and higher range very well. So I use them interchangeably depending on my mood. I've tried both on Hi-Res audio and they were great.
Great video. It’s a start in promoting better sounding music for the general public listeners. Let’s create a bigger community of people wanting better sounding quality audio and the other questions like Loudness war will eventually pop up. Let’s join forces in promoting those ideas, especially for the young consumers out there.
Yeah but you're not going to be promoting better sounding music by pushing 'hi res' formats which make no difference to sound quality. All that does is diverts attention from things that do matter, like the loudness wars.
Hi-Res - Sony reinventing the wheel for dummies with mp3. DSD, 24/96k was available 25 years ago with Meridian Audio doing a lot research on Hi-Res. For me regular very well recorded CD like MA Recordings, Chesky, others is OK. I think it has more to do with the quality of the actual recording than number of bits or sampling of the final product.
it's all a marketing lie. the truth behind high-res audio is pretty simple: the high-res files are provided with less compression in mastering, so you only have more dynamics in the music. you could do the same with 16bit / 44.1khz. how to find out? the high-res files are always a bit quieter at the same volume, compared to 16bit / 44.1 khz. that is the whole trick that the "industry" uses here. you will be lied to.
Fact is "hi-res" digital music files are old news. Its used in studios since decades. However,meanwhile chips and storage place are that cheap that even in entry level consumer electronics it doesnt burden producers with additional costs. So voila,now you have it as a new feature in consumer gadgets. As for vinyl vs. CD. The CD does a awesome job. It clearly has a better price/quality ratio.
Didn't you say 4:03 from the clip Human Hearing 20Hz - 20Khz. So the CD quality is 44.1Khz then WHY we need Hi-Res 96Khz? Clip 7:50. Human can' hear Hi-Res Audio......anyway.
Very comprehensive. You didn't mention that there exist other physical Hi-Res audio formats recorded in high capacity disks like SACD and DVD-Audio, which hold 96/24 or 192/24 tracks. CD music signal was agreed to be cut at 44/16, 20-20 for storing convenience by then, but wider bandwiths allow for a more realistic experience. Note that to have REAL Hi-Res remasters they must be re-rendered from the original audio projects in studio, not from recorded CDs because they are already 44/16 and can't go back. It's like in video, you can't produce a REAL full hd blu-ray from a DVD. Ah, and it is not about loudness, it's about resolution.
ignore cerestes who just pushes the xiph.org line from the 90's -- who can hear anything anyway? professionals and audiophiles have been hi-res for many years now. this is just about the lowest common denominator. the main consumer format. sometimes it gets worse, like 8 track, and mp3.
Probably do to their limited success. I never saw a consumer with DAT,SACD,etc back in the day due to the cost not being seen as worth it for a slight if any quality boost. Sort of like how vhs beat laser disc though laser disc had a pretty big quality advantage and still lost
Yeah i imported a SACD into adobe audition and found the signal to not go above 22khz anywhere just happens that 22khz is the maximum frequency that 44khz samples can provide. 16bit depth allready gives 96db of dynamic range. It gets to a point when its just a numbers game. A headphone jack cant even stand up to 96db with crosstalk interference. A analogy, its like having a camera with a 50 mega pixel sensor but the lens can just about cope with 12 mega pixels. 16bit 44.1 is more that fine.
That term can fool no one. Hi res is no more than a paid market gimmick which is pretty much a openly secret now. You can totally have bad sounds with hi res label and good sounds without
Pretty decent effort - I will give you a like despite this being pitched at the adolescent level. The fundamental points not addressed is why (a) 24 bit are better (at least from a sound engineering point of view) and (b) how the higher frequency sounds better (and I believe it does) despite CD quality (aka Redbook) being beyond the limit of human hearing.
hd is higher resolution which means more info recorded and reproduced which means more energy and more energy nuance felt. You don't just hear with your ears but with your whole body as your cells are communicating with frequencies see How cells work by Bruce Lipton. So that means higher quality music means better health. Remember that when scientists measured the ear bandwidth they had certain tools to do so, those have evolved. Also when ear capabilities measurements where done scientists had certain presupposed hypothesis in mind, those are gone and where back then too: that's why audio engineers have recorded music at a far higher resolution than CD a long time ago. Don't believe you have limits, you have none. Science don't know everything, it keeps learning all the time.
Really, Sony? A bar chart? Coordinates are used to recreate waves, not boxes. 44.1/16 is all you need for humans to percive. Data compression is basically zipping. You do not lose any information. You just have to unzip it first. However there is something called lossy compresion that does that. mp3 is an example. Dynamic range compression is done in the studio to achive "comercial level". Due to background noise, there is not even a reason, to go futher than 60db dynamic range. There is a place in production to have higher bit rates, but that has nothing to do with the mixdown. The non audible spectrum (~18 kHz) is often cut off in mastering, so it does not interfere with the audible spectrum. SACD and other high res formates are often remastered. That's why they probably sound better.
The audio on this video is screwed it self 😂😂😂😂
+OhNoItsGojira
Informative, yet contradictory. The video itself said that the CD format is more than sufficient to capture all the range of audible sound, yet tries to convince us that reproducing ultrasonic frequencies, inaudible to humans, make any difference, and that you need more than 16 bits to hear "the tapping of a pianist's fingernails". It tries to create a difference between "hearing" and "experiencing", suggesting that Hi-Res audio will compensate for all the loss of quality you get from the shitty mastering and production in recent professional recordings. The snake oil is strong in this one.
You are very ignorant. The frequencies above 20 kHz have a huge influence on what goes below 20 kHz. The sound of a studio master file is always thicker, warmer, more spacious and more dynamic.
*****
Oh, look, there comes the creepy stalker.
Fernie Canto
You seem very hurt. What's wrong?
***** "24 bits is 24 zeros and ones..more data and samples/sample rate = more accuracy and closer to an analog sound wave / sine wave"
Bro, do you even Nyquist?
I would like to push RUclips to allow uncompressed audio on here
you do not need it. a lot of music is fine , it is more important to upload top quality files ...
It’s a waste of bandwidth and server storage.
RUclips is a video streaming service first and foremost, not a music streaming service. (And not a very good one, at that)
Both their video and audio compression is quite lossy.
They have so much more content to store and stream compared to the ‘competition’ in video streaming services (Netflix etc), and have less of a need for high quality video and audio.
Personally I’d like to see RUclips improve their video compression before allowing bandwidth hogging lossless audio.
@@kebbinator Its a waste of bandwidth and server storage? So is 4k and 8k video, which takes even MORE space than lossless audio. Storage space isn't an issue anymore either. The uploader must have the option to upload videos with uncompressed audio.
yeah like WAV-files..
Yes please, we need higher quality audio on RUclips, if not lossless, then atleast double the bitrate or higher.
High Res Audio is fine, but in first place its more important to stop this "Loundness War", and the release of heavily compressed music !
and dont forget the normalise button .... one of the worst inventions for audio .
wast3mytim3 What if i want to literally want to make my ears bleed and to liquify my brain
chris pieters as a user of this trick i can guarantee it works
Acid does wonders for music. More than anything, in fact!
I played some Derek and the Dominos, Pure Prairie League &
Little Feat on 4 hits & I saw God!
I have CDs from the 90's that sound better.
I appreciate how the narrator explains how the ultimate goal of hi end audio is an emotional connection with the music. Right on the money.
"let's make a video about high end audio. let's use the cheapest microphone we can find to record it..."
Hi-Res Audio: Delivering sound, you can't even hear.
Why? Because we can.
*Sony Japan*
@@Quad3 dumbass youtube never compress any audio of the video it uploads the exact same audio which the song has otherwise those dj khaled songs wouldn't be so crisp and clear
@@Piyushrahi It does compress the audio. All videos on RUclips are AAC with around 125kbit/s a second and 44,1khz sample rate. Opus audip exits aswell, it is always 48khz and ranges between 100-200kbit/s on RUclips.
@@Piyushrahi yeah it does compress the audio of all videos!!!
Not being able to hear the music doesn't stop you from hearing the music.
Human exposed to very low frequency sound (those below 10hz) will express stress and unease, even though they can't hear anything. Same goes to very high frequency sound.
@Esteban Outeiral Dias. Nope. Because the audio engineer already cut off the high freq (>22khz) in mix and mastering. So its just placebo
It's ironic, because Hi-Res audio is better, but not for the reasons mentioned in this video. That's the sad part about advertising... To put it short, Hi-Res audio has tremendous advantage for hardware design like the D/A converters. High sampling rate of 192kHz or more is not to reproduce frequencies above hearing range, it's to eliminate the interpolated noise we have insert in between the samples in regular CD audio D/A conversion (recovery) stage. And we have to insert a lot of noise. 64x times that of original information. It's outrageous. We are still fooled though. To put it in simple terms, D/A converter of a CD player is conning us big time.
With Hi-Res audio, we don't need to insert as much noise in between the samples, because the sample gaps are smaller. In fact, in DSD codec (sample rate of 2.8224MHz) we don't need add any noise. But I digress... To put it simple, Hi-Res audio is more truth to the honest storing of the actual audio information that was recorded by the A/D converter. In other words, Hi-Res is less of a scam than CD audio.]
Do we need more than 16-bits? Yes, we need a few more bits than that, but not to represent 144dB volumes, that would be pain our ears would not handle. We need those extra bits to represent the quiet (pianissimo) parts of a musical piece. Great thing for the classical buffs. You don't believe me we lose resolution on a CD for quite parts? Find a song with a fade away ending. Then crank up the ending, you'll hear graininess in the sound. That's because you might end up with like 4-bits of resolution for the quiet parts. I am not saying you should listen to song fade aways. I am saying this is useful for classical music pianissimo parts (or good jazz piano, you know stuff like that).
These are all valid reasons for higher sampling rates and higher bit resolutions, which Hi-Res audio provides. Hi-Res also eliminates the need of near brick wall filter at the A/D stage. It's not really a square brick, the filter has some slope. When we're recording into 44.1kHz digital audio, we start rolling off frequencies above 20kHz. The reason we use 44.1kHz and not 40kHz sampling rate, is so that we have space for the filter slope. Yes, we use that extra 2.05kHz above 20kHz just for that. With Hi-Res we don't need that steep of a filter. We can process all frequencies, even 40kHz, without them folding back into the audio range (aliasing). It's fantastic.
Hi-Res is a great thing. Sony advertises it wrong... It's sad.
+Andrew Piatek - nailed it! so much ignorance about audio and digital signal chain online, good to read 5 whole paragraphs of accurate information.
Well, accurate more or less. I'd still want to believe that an ultrasonic whistle can have influence on us. I mean, you can't hear it, but boy, doesn't that thing vibrate and buzz in your mouth?
Also, ultra high frequencies, being very high harmonics, might have an impact of our perception on the overal timbre. I believe harmonics are infinite in nature, so we won't capture all, but why not capture most if we can?
I am a simple man. I am looking for the most truth to the honest digital audio encoding. Truth doesn't exist in science of course. But I think we should try our best to get as close as possible, with good intentions and all.
ezrazski No. This video is more accurate than this. He only pointed out the by product or part of the benefits of hires. It is a real shame that many people think like this. But at least he didn't say that people only can hear 20khz then higher than 20khz is useless.
Andrew Piatek I will make a full long video to describe and show everyone out there who does not know the benefits and limits of hi res audio.
Andrew Piatek Well I have one video shows the difference between different sampling rates.
It's so easy to understand with all the animations, thanks a lot for those. Great video.
44.1khz at 16-bit was chosen for a reason. The frequency is high enough to exactly reproduce any human audible frequency, and the bit _depth_ (not bit rate Sony) is high enough that there is effectively no noise. The vast majority of people will not be able to hear the difference between a 320kbps mp3 file, and a CD anyways.
YES Thank you. Bit DEPTH not RATE.
Going above 44.1khz and above 16bit resolution is just useful to work with audio (like using RAW to edit pictures), it doesn't improve listening experience. Human hearing highest frequency is at 20Khz, which 44.1khz sample rate files can record and play perfectly.
+Adyrhan
You have no idea. The CD files are compressed down from studio master files. They sound flat and harsh in direct comparison.
Why does Pink Floyds Dark Side of the Moon sound way better on SACD?
+Albee213 Because the souce material isn't the same. Take the audio of that disc, rip it to a lossless format with same properties than SACD audio format and burn it into a CD Audio. Though you could skip this part and just re encode it to 44.1Khz 16 bit lossless file (uncompressed wav or flac).
Now ask someone to put yo some headphones and ask that person to play a few seconds of one of the two files that the person will choose without you knowing which. Try to guess which one is and have the person take note of your guess. Repeat this multiple times (try let's say 10). I'm sure at the end of it, you will guess correctly nearly half of the time.
This experiment has already been done with experienced audio engineers and the result was that they could only guess correctly 49.6% of the time. Google about it.
I actually attempted to do that, and once it was changed to 44.1/16bit it sounded exactly the same as the CD, go figure.
+Adyrhan you don't listen to hifi with headphones....go google
Sony you need to stop making music loud. Once you do that then talk about hi res music. Loud doesn't mean better! We need dynamic range!
Sony is not the only music studio out there lol and volume level is decided during the mastering process. We must want music capable of going louder if they have made it louder since back in the day, I did and I haven't noticed any diminishes in dynamic range
When you listen in the car all the time dynamics don't exist.
@tyvek05 you don't know what loudness is, do you? We're not talking volume here
*Compressed audio sounds bad?*
*FLAC: "Hold my bits...".*
FLAC is compressed, but is lossless.
MP3 is also compressed, but not lossless
320kbps is close to flac
@@navarrmh8773 Nah. Stereo image is damaged, there's data loss at 19KHz.
@@navarrmh8773 Not at all
@@saricubra2867 you'd almost certainly not able to tell the difference in a blind abx test
It's hi-res only if the entire production chain beginning with recording and ending with mixing can stay above the redbook standard. I doubt many commercially released content qualifies.
his voice totally caught my high resolution ears by surprise
0:49 he lies. A CD made of the master will sound exactly like the master, 100% with no difference, not "flat and lifeless." It is not opinion, it is digital signal processing, which is physics. Google Nyquist Theorem and watch a few XIPH videos if you are not in this field.
+Wavestrike Electronics
Who needs science when you have a greasy guy on a suit feeding you corporate lies, right?
Digiphex Electronics Hahaha!Hahaha!Hahaha! GOOD ONE! HAHAHA! HAHAHA!
If people had basic understanding digital audio, Sony would be sued for false advertising. Those are some blatant lies
You're absolutely right. Just to add a little information, you cannot add more information than what was recorded in the master tape. Anyone that claims that a high res audio is better than a CD from the same master tape (which was made to store only 20hz to 20khz) is lying!
Wrong
The only possible advantage of "Hi Res" Audio is that it makes the digital filters easier to design as they can have a much more gentle slope.
the other advantage is the vibrations in the inaudible spectrum changing how loudspeakers display the audible spectrum.
The audio quality on this video is kinda ironic
I'm old and still like my CDs I just rip them in FLAC and it sounds amazing.
And what hardware do you use for play those files?
@@j2mp423 am I allowed to say my phone and some quality headphones.
@@timotheusn.h.nakashona1001 you should try a device designed specially for play music, phone's sound chips are cheap and low quality, if you have the chance try Fiio M6 with your FLAC files... you will be surprised.
Just sharing my experience. I bought some songs from HiRes website. Then I compare the song with CD version. Did I hear the difference? Yes, for only some of them. Ok, hmm.... HiRes is true then! So I tried another approach. I down sample the 24/192 to 16/44.1 with software, and I compare the down sampled with CD again, did I hear the difference? Yes! So lets compare the down sampled version to original purchased version, hmm...... I cant really hear any difference among them. So what? Hi Res, seems like just a remastered version of the same music, and purposely push up the sampling and bit rate and then tell the customers, Hey! Because it is BIG, so it is BETTER!
I think the real advantage with buying hi-res audio is the fact that it was mastered differently for that audience, without the DR compression, with the bonus that it carries less guesswork to be made by reconstruction algorithms due to the higher sample rate. Also be aware that you cannot see the advantages of superior audio files without proper hardware to do so, going from onboard audio on my motherboard to a sound card and entry level studio headphones made me see the quality difference between files that I couldn't see before, even the MP3 files sounded better by upgrading those two.
A lot of my downloaded music is in 24 bit FLAC at 44.1 Khz for file size and volume purposes as I still have MP3s and regular FLACs in the same playlist.
Great job, Sony.
Even in recording your own audio in your own videos full of specialists you screwed up the voice recording.
I couldn't keep listening to this dude after 20 seconds in hearing his first word in each sentence being muted.
So we are missing out on XYZ. How lucky we are, that they made it audible here ON A HIGHLY COMPRESSED AUDIO STREAM! 😏
Using a phrase like "high definition" for audio is misleading because it makes people think they're getting extra detail when they're not.
1) all using a bit depth of 24 bits does is lower the noise floor, which is inaudible at 16bit anyway, and 2) the standard CD snapping rate of 44kHz is more than enough samples to capture the frequency range of human hearing.
Tl;Dr - all "high resolution" audio does is cost more money and take up more disk space without improving the detectable quality of the sound at all.
Well they are and they aren't. Whether you can see the difference between fullHD or 4K images or not, is irrelevant. There is more detail in a 4K image. That's a fact. Same for HD audio. Just stating facts. Whether the receiver aka. the human ear can hear a difference, is - technically speaking - irrelevant.24 bits compared to 16 bits doesn't only lower the noise floor, it also captures the correct 'loudness' for a particular frequency better. There's a significant difference between 65K and 16M+ levels.
Ofc, you are right when you say it wouldn't make a difference in most cases. It takes high end materials and apparatus throughout the entire chain for it to stay relevant. Good amp, good speakers, good wires, and a good ear. So in that regard, you're probably correct.
@@MacSvensson Formats capable of reproducing frequencies of over 20kHz actually harm fidelity since equipment often suffers from intermodulation distortion which only manifests if you try to make high frequencies go.
All higher bitrates do is minimize quantization during recording which is basically rounding the loudness to the nearest value. Quantization adds noise which is avoided when using a higher bitrate. Doing that is however unnecessary since you the noise is already about -100dB under the signal which is enough for all musical recordings.
Sampling rate is not just about reproducing frequencies, it also allows accurate phase differences between two channels to reproduce 3d effects better. Although our brains only discern tones up to about 20khz, they are much more precise in discerning arrival differences between the ears. This information is filtered by completely different circuitry in the brain which is why we can instantly pinpoint the location of a sound in the real world. Even the best binaural recordings lack realism and depth. To add to this, it has been shown that the average human has a temporal resolution of around 8-10 micro seconds which corresponds to a frequency response of around 120khz. To be clear, you do not 'hear' this information, your brain just 'positions' it.
I always valued good sound in recordings.
@@Jadinandrews thank you, this comment should be high ranked as it provides detail about music perception that goes against common sense (old rules that should be revisited aka:20KHz is insufficient to have a good musical experience)
But can you hear over 20,000 Hz?
Sony, once was an innovator using science to push the envelope. They, with Phillips, developed the compact disc and through the 1970s, 80s, 90s and 00s were had revered products both for home audio and the studio.
How sad is it now Sony resorts to marketing and psuedoscience, trashing their legacy in the process. If Sony was really interested in natural sound, rather than pushing hi res, which has no sonic advantages over CD for human beings, they would stop releasing brick-walled, squashed, loudness wars type of recordings from their remastered music catalogue.
He uses the term bit rate 16 but actually he is referring the bit depth. Rate is related to the transfer of a quantity, such as: 128 Kbits per second (kbps)
It's the nixt bist thing!!!
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Fush n chups mite
It's bittah!
British accent = highly intellectual people
i scrooled back jus to like this cument 😂😂😂
I did my mp3 in 320kbps and compared to flac...my hearing can barely notice anything :)
Amazing, Sony. Can't wait for WH-1000XM4.
Did you get that, if so how do you play songs
@@methenics4903 Didn't, sadly.
Many of us, especially listening in cars or lower end equipment at home, may not even be able to tell the difference. With decent equipment, there is a difference, but at the end of the day, just enjoy music in any format: Vinyl, cassette, CD, Hi-Res, Mp3, etc. Enjoy the healing that music can bring to your soul.
Whats the point of high res audio when the mastering is done wrong. And i also want to address something as loudness war. Sony did a terrible job at remastering cd's of jarre in the late 90's
8:30 if the frequencies are inaudible, how do they effect the character of the sound?
High-Resolution audio - Those frequencies you can't hear at a premium price
You can't see infrared but I'm sure you feel it....
@@stephanelouvet1113 false analogy
You couldn't be farther from the truth if you tried.
High-Resolution audio = (not limited to) those soundwaves still in the audible spectrum, that could not be captured previously with low bitrate digital formats (mp3, aac, flac, cd etc.).
@ReaktorLeak
More like:
Audiophile: A opinionated luddite who easily trapped to snake oil
The fact that this is a 320 kbps audio tracks is the biggest irony.
It's 160kbps lol
@@Haydos nah mate, RUclips stores audio as 320 kbps
@@____-fv4bm
your wrong but thats ok its 160kbps for non prem and 256 for prem
@@____-fv4bm also do you have proof?
Yes he talks about the folding up a drawing, but a flac file is still wrinkle-less when you unfold it
This is baad marketing.
1) 96 db should be absolutely sufficient dynamic range for any consumer application, audio is compressed when it is produced to much lower range, and I dont speak only about squeezed dubstep. Ok, some very quiet part of classical recording can benefit from lower noise.
2) Again, consumer doesnt hear over 20, not even 18 unles it is child. There is *hypothesis* , that if the hardware is able to produce the high frequencies, and if the hi res oversampled format is used, and if the recording actually *contains* that high information, then the high overtones can backwards influence those closer to the fundamental and actually change the *perception* of the hearable tones. It is difficult to test it though, bcs comparing two identical files in audible range, one of them having low pass somewhere obviusly make them sound different due to the missing content on one of them, however, it is not possible to state whether the perception of low information which is shared actually varies comparing them. And to be able to even try to perform this test with hi freq-hi res audio we would need a dog to tell us.
Higher frequencies than 20khz are useless. They don't make you feel anything more because you don't hear them. And saying 20khz is already very generous. And most of us get old by the time we can afford these fancy audio gear that are capable of reproducing these unnecessary frequencies anyway.
And higher bitrate than 16 bit can have greater but useless dB range. So its just all hype as long as music mixers deliberately stop properly mixing and compressing a good music to 44Hz and 16 bit which is more than enough. You dont need HiRes for a properly mixed music.
High-Resolution Audio is a good name for High-Profit Audio.
Who forcing you??
Loudness war needs to end, and better equipment needs to be more available, kinda wish music streaming would die or step up the quality
Also I know you guys likely tossed this video together in an afternoon to make something that could have been an article or entry on your site but probably a lot more interesting in video format
But you could probably have spent some extra time fixing the audio in this video to make it a more watchable video
+Scholar Deville Or internet speed can increase
Internet speeds increase = streaming quality increases. We already have super fast mobile networks and much of Europe has access to 100+ mbit/s cable and landline based internet so it’s only a question of time.
Now I can say I'm finally satisfied with the hi-res audio product I bought from SONY and 2 weeks into I can notice some extra details on specific audio files. ❤
Thank you Sony!
More people need to be aware of this
What no one points out is that the analog stage, that ultimately reproduces the music, is not as precise as they make out the digital side to be. It would require a ridiculous level of the most minoot and impossible changes in voltages. Having a well recorded song in the first place is much more important at this point in technology than pushing the digital limits in playback. My 1980's Phillips 16 bit CD player (with upgraded modern op-amps) sounds better than my high-res stuff with the same song.
C'mon Sony...you're better than this. Just admit that the record labels are trying to sell snake oil. 16-bit/44.1 kHz CD quality audio IS high resolution. If they wouldn't have started squashing the life out of music with abuse of brickwall limiters there would be no need for remasters.
oh no not you again! if 16/44 is hi-res then 24/192 is higher res.
it's sad you can't hear it or don't think anyone else can. i have been bumping 24bit audio on my DAP for 2+ years now, and before that I always loved it in the recording studio. you just need a good DAC and amp to hear the difference.
You really don't have a clue..
I'm sorry but if you have a hi-res capable music player and a good quality headphone with higher than 20khz frequencies response then the difference between 16 44 and 24 96 will be obvious, unless you can't tell, which is a shame
I'm rocking 24 96 with my V10 and the MDR 100aap and I swear I'll never look back to CD anymore
Actually there's a difference it's call dynamic. The High Res is not there to actually give a greatest quality of sound but a greatest RESOLUTION. When you hear a sound in real life, there's no such things as formats or compression. High Res is a way to listen to music like the fucking instruments are in the same room as you cause the sound is much more "realistic" with more dynamics. That's all, you hear harmonics above the 20 Khz cause a sound is form by these harmonics
... Give me just one.. JUST ONE exsample of any recorded music with more than 96db of dynamic range..Just one? Just to proove youre right..;-). And please show me one exsample that you or anybody else for that matter hear anything above 20Khz?
Anyway thank you Sony for providing me a test track for my audio gears next time
his voice is resampling to 32khz and mono
High-Resolution Audio augments listening experience if you have audio files in more detailed spectrum like FLAC or Lossless format. It's still wise to get CD quality audio and then use high-resolution audio to capture the details. And I agree with "loudness war" mentioned in many comments. But I belong to old school music, especially, of 60s and 70s.
I like some old music like the beatles but prefer to be able to achieve a higher volume level than previous generations were capable of
I thought the improved emotional response was just me being eccentric about high definition audio
In electronic/line input music high res should sound better because frequencies we can't hear interact with frequencies we can hear which only happens through our speakers but in acoustic/mic recorded music that process already takes place through the air before its received by the microphone (not that acoustic instruments have frequencies lower or higher than our hearing). So to guarantee we hear what an electronic artist hears (or more) we need to have high res
Wow that was clearly explained I'm impressed I can now be able to explain to others why hi res matters
If the master is designed for high res then by math alone you get more information to enjoy and by that I am not talking about freq's above 20khz. For example there is a considerable difference between a low res picture and a high res picture. This is the same with the details of sound. If I am old and my eyes are bad I can't see everything clearly but I can see that there are more details than the flat low res picture. The same with sound. I decided to test this myself a while back and what I find is high res brings the symbols clarity and the jazz drum brushes or a hit on the rim of the drum where on lower res I couldn't make this out on a hi res created file. Digitally a hi res player will recreate the hi res created sound and likewise a normal res player will not bring out these details digitally. I would not attempt to compare Vinyl since that format has all the high res detail in its design range available to hear when you push it out a good turntable, speakers and amp. However a lot of old vinyl has its own artistic interpretation and thus it is a different instrument offering its own unique qualities of sound.
exactly. good to hear accurate info re: audio. you understand signal chain and how our ears and bodies detect and enjoy music.
The problem is RUclips compresses their audio
Alex Koch you listen to music only via RUclips?..
Virtually every modern CD has OVER-compression of dynamic range. If this stupid loudness war was stopped, then we'd have no need for any format above 16/44 - heck, I'd estimate that most contemporary albums use about 2 - 3 bits of dynamics!
false -- the format is different than any loudness war. loudness is a constant battle between air and volume for that particular format.
the format going up to hi-res could decrease the loudness war but it's no guarantee. they aren't that interdependent.
What’s put on a cd is up to the mastering engineer not the limitations of the physical medium. If you want loud we can push the levels up to where you’re getting a square wave instead of a regular sign wave is not the fault of the CD.
The wars over we won!
The question as to whether high res audio is worth having is.. Do sound frequencies we can't hear interact with sound frequencies we can hear? That would be the only reason it would sound better.
The compression method that MP3 uses is called lossy because it drops a lot of info in a manner that our ears don't "easily" notice, but how much is lost depends on the sample rate used. AAC which is I think essentially MP4 but with Apple specific settings is considered lossless so even though it's compressed it shouldn't sound any different to CD. Now High Res will sound better but if you want to be able to hear the difference then you would need to invest in a very expensive amplifier and speakers to have any chance. Yes you are right to ask question of whether it's worth it, and I would say no. It's like a 0.01% improvement.
@@etmax1 High res matters less for acoustic music because the sound frequencies interact with each other producing the final sound that the artist was hearing before they are recorded by the microphone, with electronic music/electric guitar the sound frequencies don't get a chance to interact with each other so any loss of detail means we don't hear what the artist was hearing. Sound frequencies interact with each other. Ideally electronic should be recorded from pa speakers/monitors with microphones in my opinion.
You'd think line input was clearer but actually no.
The noise gate they applied I think was before pre production ie during recording itself.
And they are talking about High Res audio.
Ending the loudness war is what's important; not this 'hi-res' nonsense.
Stop listening to lamestrem music kid, problem solved
Hi res nonsense lol. Do you even know what you're talking about kid?
@@Bhomik98 High res only worth for studio and master purpose. For public users using 48khz/24bit is perfect. Most important is how mix and mastering process. Good mix and mastering make your music sound good at high end $20.000 rig and low end $2.000 rig
@@vigd6298 BS. Ultra high-res audio is mindblowingly good compared to standard mp3/flac stuff.
Go listen to a DSD128 or higher song, even those sourced from vinyl, and it will blow your socks off.
Hi-res digital audio (10 to 100 thousand kpbs) is what we need for digital music to finally be absolutely amazing and analog-like.
@@edfort5704 I dont wanna join into your DSD vs PCM war. Both have pros and cons. The quality of the recording and mastering plays a far more significant role than the format or resolution it is distributed in
And now back to REALITY: if you want a better audio listening experience, ignore this marketing BS and get better designed speakers, improve your signal path from playback to speaker, and improve your listening acoustics. If you want the truth about bit depths and sample rates, read "Mastering Audio" by Bob Katz.
27 seconds in the video after he walks into his office the answer be-
"It's snake oil"
The end.
Как раз познаю основы аудио. Много пересмотрел обзоров наушников и других систем, но все что говорили обзорщики было для меня непонятным. Вы очень доходчиво объяснили основы. Спасибо
I'm not getting it, the guy stated that the 44.1 kHz sampling rate of the CD is already enough to cover the 20Hz - 20kHz spectrum of human hearing and that a 16-bit depth already offers a dynamic range of 96 dB. If that's true, then why would you need a much higher sampling rate and higher bit-depth if they exceed these measures that are supposedly already enough?
Also, digital streaming services like Apple Music and Spotify actually offer almost CD-quality playback. I've tested it myself and it's almost impossible to distinguish a track played from a CD and the same track played from one of these services (using the same audio setup).
Vylkeer the human ear wouldn’t be able to hear the difference, CD quality is excellent quality for me.
A CD is still better quality than what you stream through Spotify. Which is kinda sad.
What is sad about that? You pay 10-20€ for a CD obviously you get more quality out of that than out of the 3€ (family subscription) you pay for spotify
But still it can be reproduced back to its high quality if your device is capable of playing hi res audio.
That's why you have Tidal for lossless audio streaming. It's super expensive though. I have to be honest when I listen to a track on Master quality (losseles) on a pair of Sony LDAC headphones it does actually sound better.
VegasMeat Deezzer HiFi subscription now provide CD Quality 16bit 44.1khz for about 10$ monthly its so gooood
If only these companies concentrated on good quality Mastering for their digital releases, instead of ignoring the subject. I buy high res pretty regularly now from hdtracks and find the biggest sound difference is in mastering and not as much the difference in sample rate from CD quality to 24/96.
Some do some don't. The music I listen to sounds awesome but I only listen to mainstream artist which tend to have the best mastering processes
SONY IS THE BEST 🤩😍👌♥️
I do not use streaming I use cds and rip them
Goodman. I do the same and have built a great sounding library on the cheap. Flac has solved the data issue.
@@hithere8753 Sweet I will probably have to resort to streaming for my 1001 albums series though :'( T_T
@@hithere8753 thanks I will have to resort to streaming a. It for my 1001 albums series
@E. O. It doesnt matter for quality just file size. I personally do level 8 because I can wait an extra five minutes per album to ensure I can fit as much as possible onto my DAP.
16 bits isn't the bit rate, it's the bit resolution. Very big difference!!
Why has high resolution audio 44.1 KHz CD, 48 KHz DVD, 96 - 192 KHz HD-Blu-ray while speakers have frequency responses 20 Hz - 20 KHz for human hearing ranges?
The former is sampling rate for music, which you need in order to capture the multiple, simultaneous soundwaves that a song has.
The latter is, as you mentioned, the frequency spectrum that a young, healthy human ear can capture and detect.
Because the CD was designed when sony still had honest sound engineers who knew 44.1 kHz / 16 bit PCM is enough to recreate the human audible range fully without any perceivable artifacts whatsoever. DVD has 48 kHz audio, because 48 kHz divides evenly by all the commonly used frame rates (24, 25, 30, 50, 60 fps) for video, which allows a fixed number of audio samples per video frame, which is handy. Blu-ray was designed for dolphins, appearantly.
Sad about Sony is jumping on the High Res train as well. It's only a hype. If your dac is good there is no diffrence you'll hear. Even Sony engineers said they can't hear a diffrence between comparing MP3 256 with DSEEX with High Res version of the same file.
is your hearing bad or your headphone is not studio class
I gues your headphones have issues
All things considered, i thought it was a great explanation of what Hi-Res Audio is and how it works, without boring me to sleep. Thank you very much.
Sony keeps advertising about Hi-Res audio and ANC earphones but not all high-end Xperia phones don't have the Hi-Res ANC earphones in the box. Some markets the earphones come in the box, others only get the standard cheap earphones. For example, the Z3 and Z3C.
Does anyone know where to get high res audio? I can't find anyway practically
It's a scam. Convert your cds to flac and you will have hifi music on the cheap. Trust me, you will not notice.
if youre serious about hifi youd have to sink a lot of money (which the person above me obviously didnt do)
are ath m50x headphones by audio technical good enough to distinguish hi-res music?pls reply :)
Commercial talk. CD quality includes everything that is needed for high quality listening: uncompressed, frequencies up to 20kHz and dynamic range of 96dB. That's all we can hear. SONY sound engineers should know that.
Music can be made up of a large number of different, simultaneous sound waves.
CDs (1411kbps) just don't have the required bitrate to represent all the soundwaves that high-quality, highly-detailed analog music can have.
And I refer to just the audible spectrum (20Hz-20kHz), not going into the debate of the utility of capturing soundwaves outside the audible spectrum.
@@edfort5704 strange way of looking at it: there is only one "sound wave" that has to be sampled.
And if there would be information outside of the audible spectrum (which is not, because filtered), then it is not audible, is it?
Super video
Great explanation
Excellent teacher
Thanks so much 🙏🙏🙏🙏
Audiophiles are so concerned with audio quality (real or imagined) that the music itself seems to have become a second priority.
Sometimes I feel we are only loosing ourselves with all this marketing BS
"It's the music the counts not the hype" Eddie and the Cruisers 2 movie. Totally agree and I have been enjoying/obsessed with music for at least 25 years(age 40) got my first pioneer component home stereo at age 15 . Now I have like 4,000 songs on my playstation vita combined with jbl xtreme and flip 3 speakers along with sony xb70bt earbuds, very happy with how audio/tech has evolved
The Sony WH-1000XM3 wired to my laptop (HP) and the Deezer Hifi are best friends now. Hard Dance Music to every detail, thanks!
People are going back to classic vinyl records for a reason . Who cares about Technology if a song is not mastered properly .
I know a few older people with record collections they keepd but still use the newer formats as well hardly going back. I am sure there are still a few die hard fans that use records only but its a niche group though
Awesome video explaination
i use FLAC audio format which is quite good resolution to listen to. also for quick conversion to FLAC audio formats, google ZillaTube, it works.
One of the best explanations 👍👍👍👍
You keep using that word "Bitrate", I do not think it means what you think it means.
Thanks for the Info. IM A MUSIC LOVER. and i want the best available sound quality
How does inaudible 25k hertz help you experience music differently? Character? What character? I don't think it matters that much. Most people won't notice a difference. Even most audiophile would fail a test.
Generations have listened to tape, cd & MP3. Whatever explanation you give about high res is a for a small percentage. Unless prices come down for high res music files and it's devices , high res will just pass by sooner or later.
why not just listen to flacs or wav files?
superdupercake one day try this,
Get a high res audio supported headphone then get a high res music with flac connect it to ldac then... You are enjoying the clearest music you can find without spending thousands of dollars.
Rock GamingTV why not just enjoy music
I have a 200€ Hi-Res DAC+Headphoneamp with 350€ Hi-Res headphones and Hi-Res flacs, waves and DSD material. And I can tell, if I hear the same material as 320kBit/s mp3 with 40€ headphones and 35€ 16Bit/48KHz DAC I notice no difference in audio quality. Nuff said.
Subi_fan can i ask where to download hi res audio?
@@Nookbart But you can't tell because you don't have anything above.
I have two Sony Headphones. One focuses on lower frequency range, X-bass. The other reproduces the mid-range and higher range very well. So I use them interchangeably depending on my mood. I've tried both on Hi-Res audio and they were great.
@BBN does xb series support hi res Audio
That irony though.
Awesome illustrations
Great video. It’s a start in promoting better sounding music for the general public listeners. Let’s create a bigger community of people wanting better sounding quality audio and the other questions like Loudness war will eventually pop up. Let’s join forces in promoting those ideas, especially for the young consumers out there.
Yeah but you're not going to be promoting better sounding music by pushing 'hi res' formats which make no difference to sound quality. All that does is diverts attention from things that do matter, like the loudness wars.
@@prep74 Precisely. The term Acoustic Transparency is criminally left out in most of these conversations
Hi-Res - Sony reinventing the wheel for dummies with mp3. DSD, 24/96k was available 25 years ago with Meridian Audio doing a lot research on Hi-Res. For me regular very well recorded CD like MA Recordings, Chesky, others is OK. I think it has more to do with the quality of the actual recording than number of bits or sampling of the final product.
it's all a marketing lie. the truth behind high-res audio is pretty simple: the high-res files are provided with less compression in mastering, so you only have more dynamics in the music. you could do the same with 16bit / 44.1khz.
how to find out?
the high-res files are always a bit quieter at the same volume, compared to 16bit / 44.1 khz. that is the whole trick that the "industry" uses here. you will be lied to.
then you're listening to the wrong high res files.
@@brandenlucero you're listening to voodoo..
@@brandenlucero you're listening to voodoo..
Fact is "hi-res" digital music files are old news. Its used in studios since decades. However,meanwhile chips and storage place
are that cheap that even in entry level consumer electronics it doesnt burden producers with additional costs. So voila,now
you have it as a new feature in consumer gadgets.
As for vinyl vs. CD. The CD does a awesome job. It clearly has a better price/quality ratio.
That`s why i put that term in brackets,thinking anything higher than 16/44,1 fits it.
Didn't you say 4:03 from the clip Human Hearing 20Hz - 20Khz. So the CD quality is 44.1Khz then WHY we need Hi-Res 96Khz? Clip 7:50. Human can' hear Hi-Res Audio......anyway.
Well explained from a professional. I got it all.
Very comprehensive. You didn't mention that there exist other physical Hi-Res audio formats recorded in high capacity disks like SACD and DVD-Audio, which hold 96/24 or 192/24 tracks. CD music signal was agreed to be cut at 44/16, 20-20 for storing convenience by then, but wider bandwiths allow for a more realistic experience. Note that to have REAL Hi-Res remasters they must be re-rendered from the original audio projects in studio, not from recorded CDs because they are already 44/16 and can't go back. It's like in video, you can't produce a REAL full hd blu-ray from a DVD. Ah, and it is not about loudness, it's about resolution.
ignore cerestes who just pushes the xiph.org line from the 90's -- who can hear anything anyway?
professionals and audiophiles have been hi-res for many years now. this is just about the lowest common denominator. the main consumer format. sometimes it gets worse, like 8 track, and mp3.
Çerastes Who pays you to spread FUD?
Probably do to their limited success. I never saw a consumer with DAT,SACD,etc back in the day due to the cost not being seen as worth it for a slight if any quality boost. Sort of like how vhs beat laser disc though laser disc had a pretty big quality advantage and still lost
Yeah i imported a SACD into adobe audition and found the signal to not go above 22khz anywhere just happens that 22khz is the maximum frequency that 44khz samples can provide. 16bit depth allready gives 96db of dynamic range. It gets to a point when its just a numbers game. A headphone jack cant even stand up to 96db with crosstalk interference. A analogy, its like having a camera with a 50 mega pixel sensor but the lens can just about cope with 12 mega pixels.
16bit 44.1 is more that fine.
That term can fool no one. Hi res is no more than a paid market gimmick which is pretty much a openly secret now. You can totally have bad sounds with hi res label and good sounds without
Pretty decent effort - I will give you a like despite this being pitched at the adolescent level. The fundamental points not addressed is why (a) 24 bit are better (at least from a sound engineering point of view) and (b) how the higher frequency sounds better (and I believe it does) despite CD quality (aka Redbook) being beyond the limit of human hearing.
hd is higher resolution which means more info recorded and reproduced which means more energy and more energy nuance felt. You don't just hear with your ears but with your whole body as your cells are communicating with frequencies see How cells work by Bruce Lipton.
So that means higher quality music means better health.
Remember that when scientists measured the ear bandwidth they had certain tools to do so, those have evolved. Also when ear capabilities measurements where done scientists had certain presupposed hypothesis in mind, those are gone and where back then too: that's why audio engineers have recorded music at a far higher resolution than CD a long time ago.
Don't believe you have limits, you have none. Science don't know everything, it keeps learning all the time.
Reading the comments made me realize I can't tell good sound quality from bad so I probably won't miss LDAC. Thanks Sony.
It's just pure SNAKE OIL imo.... If you don't have the ears and a good equipment.... What's the point?
You can use Dithering to increase Dynamic Range even for 16Bit CD from 96dB to 120dB its enough for human Listening
Really, Sony?
A bar chart? Coordinates are used to recreate waves, not boxes. 44.1/16 is all you need for humans to percive.
Data compression is basically zipping. You do not lose any information. You just have to unzip it first.
However there is something called lossy compresion that does that. mp3 is an example.
Dynamic range compression is done in the studio to achive "comercial level".
Due to background noise, there is not even a reason, to go futher than 60db dynamic range.
There is a place in production to have higher bit rates, but that has nothing to do with the mixdown.
The non audible spectrum (~18 kHz) is often cut off in mastering, so it does not interfere with the audible spectrum.
SACD and other high res formates are often remastered. That's why they probably sound better.
I'd say they know more than you mate!
I bought a sony wireless Earphone,, it makes me mad n emotional 😍 how natural is this... Sony Legend