What is High-Resolution Audio?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 30 вер 2024
- High-Resolution Audio is audio that uses a higher sampling rate than in CDs and MP3s for the encoding and playback of music.
Listening to Hi-Res music allows you to pick up on the subtle details and nuances that you would hear in a recording studio.
This video helps you to understand what is different and how it enhances listening experience.
Sony High-Resolution Audio products let you hear music as the artist intended.
www.sony.net/Hi...
![If you can't hear this then you're not an audiophile [See description for link to followup video]](/img/n.gif)
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?
"let's make a video about high end audio. let's use the cheapest microphone we can find to record it..."
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.
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.
I would like to push UA-cam 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.
UA-cam 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 UA-cam 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 UA-cam, if not lossless, then atleast double the bitrate or higher.
It's so easy to understand with all the animations, thanks a lot for those. Great video.
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 UA-cam 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 UA-cam.
@@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
This is wrong at so many levels...
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 😂😂😂
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.
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
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
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.
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
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.
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.
I have to disagree 16bit. 44k, noise shaping, job done and you will NEVER be able to tell the difference between CD and any format after (24/192). It was the wheel, or fender Stratocaster, of it time, right first time. Well done Sony / Philips. Why? Well just take the practical’s, you have a speaker cable, it's 2M long, very thick high end driving an 8R speaker. Cable is 0.03 ohms (I said it was thick!). Your speaker impedance is 8 ohm, average of 6.8R with a dip to 4.5R and a rise to 10R still well in the audio bank (10kHz ish area). The voltage drop of the drive signal along the cable will change with the load impedance. We are outside of any feedback loop so this is an un-correctable error. Ohms law, so irrefutable. This difference in impedance for the above is 196bits at full signal. IE if we drove a full 16bit encoded sine wave at the 4.5R frequency and again at the 10R frequency, the 4.5R tone would be smaller by an equivalent of 196 bits due to the additional voltage drop over the speaker cable. The point I am making is to get 16bits resolution through a real world system is next to impossible, so 24bits is _fairly_ pointless. It isn't just speaker cable, the temperture drift of your volume pot or left / right mismatch makes the speaker cable issue look small. THe whole system just chips away and you can not avoid it.
The audiophile community is toxic ngl
toxic
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.
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.
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.
8:30 if the frequencies are inaudible, how do they effect the character of the sound?
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 did my mp3 in 320kbps and compared to flac...my hearing can barely notice anything :)
The audio quality on this video is kinda ironic
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.
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.
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
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.
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
Nice marketing gimick, its lossy or uncompressed, if your listening to sony music artists dont worry it sounds like overmarketed garbage in uncompressed form too
But can you hear over 20,000 Hz?
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?
It's just pure SNAKE OIL imo.... If you don't have the ears and a good equipment.... What's the point?
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
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..
The fact that this is a 320 kbps audio tracks is the biggest irony.
It's 160kbps lol
@@Haydos nah mate, UA-cam 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?
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)
HiRes makes no sense, because the human ear is not able to differentiate between "regular" lossless and hi-def. The CD standard fully covers the whole spectrum perceivable by humans. Worse, as some sound engineers will tell you, hidef can actually introduce errors.
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.
SONY IS THE BEST 🤩😍👌♥️
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
are ath m50x headphones by audio technical good enough to distinguish hi-res music?pls reply :)
"Listening to Hi-Res music allows you to pick up on the subtle details and nuances that you would hear in a recording studio."
Yes, particularly the destructive force of dynamic overcompression, which only exists thanks to the greed of companies like yours. You destroy the natural qualities of the music to make it louder and "hotter", and then try to convince us to buy your snake oil, as if listening to inaudible frequencies would solve all the problems.
Exactly like deadmau5 said it, they destroy music. Look for "deadmau5 hates dubstep"
spot on
Get a life, idiot.
+vo7tage great point there.
you are right but that's a different debate.
this is about distribution format.
what the artist/producer chooses to do to the music is still up to them.
btw- you have your cause and effect backwards. 'over compression' was a growing thing that the mp3 era made defacto. you HAVE TO over compress to get any life out of an mp3. if we have hi-res many of those tricks could go away.
So we are missing out on XYZ. How lucky we are, that they made it audible here ON A HIGHLY COMPRESSED AUDIO STREAM! 😏
I thought the improved emotional response was just me being eccentric about high definition audio
“...means that you have more dynamic range.” Not necessarily. If the song is mixed/mastered terribly, as they were in the loudness wars, it’ll sound like trash no matter what.
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.
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
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.
This video is like the mafia in Sony is trying to convince us to buy their "high res audio products". LOL.
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.
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)
27 seconds in the video after he walks into his office the answer be-
"It's snake oil"
The end.
his voice is resampling to 32khz and mono
well, you need to learn editiing
16 bits isn't the bit rate, it's the bit resolution. Very big difference!!
That irony though.
So basically CD quality FLAC is more than enough.
The problem is UA-cam compresses their audio
Alex Koch you listen to music only via UA-cam?..
The paper folding analogy is incorrect. A folded sheet of paper keeps the same volume.
Right. A better analogy would be trying to look at the picture through a filter with holes or something, where you would not see the same level of detail in the original picture if you apply compression (low-res).
This is just a glorified commercial for Sony products..
Stop LYING Sony!!
Beyond nyquist frequncy (40khz) there is no difference in the reproduction of the original sound wave up to 20 kHz. It doesn't matter if it's 44.1 kHz, 48 kHz, 96 kHz, 192 kHz they will all reproduce the 20 kHz sound signal perfectly and identically.
Bit rate affects the dynamic range, i.e. quantization noise. 16 bit has -96 dB quantization noise and 24 bit has -144 dB quantization noise. Neither are audible in a home theater setting. To put thing in context, blasting your speakers at 110 dB (max exposure per day at 4 mins) the quantization noise will be at 14 db, quieter than your regular room with a fan spinning!! You can't hear that! If you play at reasonable levels ~80-90dB, the quantization noise is below 0 dB which is impossible to hear.
This Hi-Res BS has nothing to do with audio resolution. It's just to appeal to numberophiles / idiophiles - and $$$.
"It doesn't matter if it's 44.1 kHz, 48 kHz, 96 kHz, 192 kHz they will all reproduce the 20 kHz sound signal perfectly and identically."
Perfectly is arguably true. Identically, no. The original analog is sampled, not copied 100 percent.
This guy trying to say a wax cylinder sounds better than a DR 12 CD. Pure jokes here. "CD sounds flat and lifeless" - only if it's produced to be that way! 16/44 WAV will never be surpassed because that's beyond what we can hear. Sony you'be make a mockery of your history.
+Raffie Quler are you sure they're the same master? Are the DR ratings the same? Has the EQ been altered? Where did you get the studio master, HD Tracks?
+Raffie Quler dude you sound an absolute tool lol
Did you know vinyl sounds warmer than CD because the bass is actually MONO ! , its made this way to so it wouldn't damage the needles.
+Silentsky that's half-right, the bass is mono on the innermost groove of the track, as the quality of the playback deteriorated as you got close to the middle of the record. That has nothing to do with "warmness" though, which is usually attributed to harmonic distortion in the upper mid-range.
oh, I thought warmness was created by more bass and lower midrange relatively to the rest. just tonality differences not harmonic distortion!
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.
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
This is a really high-over explanation, and doesn't capture the advantages or subtleties of Hi-Res music. Can everyone hear (or appreciate) the difference? Definitely not. There are those who are perfectly content with a 128kbps MP3 file, and the headphones and speakers used by most people for listening to music via their phone, stereo, or TV distort the audio so much that most of the subtleties are lost anyways. In fact, (non-linear) analog distortion helps mask the abrasive (linear) digital distortion generated by high compression. Listening to low quality digital audio is far more tolerable on low quality than high quality audio equipment. The analog distortion functions almost as dithering to improve the quality of overly compressed digital audio.
Digital sampling is approximating the original soundwave through absolute, digital information. In terms of math, digital music falls into the Q(uotient) realm, and analog into the R(eal) realm of numbers. A higher bit depth (like 24bit i.s.o. 16bit) allows a better approximation of the amplitude value, and a higher sampling frequency (like 96kHz i.s.o. 44.1kHz) a better approximation of the frequency. The higher the precision, the lower the amount of digital noise generated by the digital format, and the more true to life the audio sounds. It's not about being able to produce audio up to 48kHz with a 96kHz sampling rate. The human ear comes nowhere close to being able to register those frequencies (nor do dog ears in fact).
And above only covers PCM (Pulse Code Modulation) audio, which measures the wave amplitude (bits) at specific intervals (Hz). Then there's PDM (Pulse Density Modulation) which doesn't measure the amplitude at given intervals, but reproduces sound by increasing the number of "1" values to represent a higher amplitude, and increasing the number of "0" to represent a lower amplitude, at insane frequencies. SACD (Super Audio Compact Disc) utilizes a "sampling" frequency of 2.8 MHz, but those samples aren't measured values. They are single bit values. An uncompressed SACD file is 4x the size of a CD file (64x the sampling frequency, 1/16th the bit depth). The single bits produce an enormous amount of digital noise, but at such high frequencies that the human ear cannot register them. (Please heed the warning on an SACD (player) not to turn the volume up too high as the ultrasonic noise can, and will fry your speakers/headphones).
After all that, Hi-Res audio doesn't guarantee great sounding audio. Old recordings can be made with equipment lacking in quality or dynamic range, and modern masters often suffer from brickwalling. There are excellent remasters available (like the Hi-Res Led Zep collection), but there are also many you should really stay far away from (like the brickwalled Garbage, Metallica, or Dire Straits Hi-Res files). Often an original master first release CD will sound better than a brickwalled Hi-Res remaster. Look for Hi-Res copies of original master tapes (like The Beatles, Rolling Stones, Van Halen or ZZ Top), and be very cautious when a recording is advertised as Remastered.
his voice totally caught my high resolution ears by surprise
"What is high res audio"? A scam.
what is quality? real.
what is signal chain? real.
what are people like you that just label things scams with no evidence of such? a troll.
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.
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
HAHAHAHA Excatly how they intended it to HAHAHAHA Yeah right all of them are going to think that because a lot of people each prefer different headphones, speakers, earbuds, and equalizer settings HAHAHA Even when the eq is set to flat or off, the sound coming from your headphones or earbuds is probably not 100% Flat HAHAHAHA So if some band wanted some one to listen to their songs with the eq off or the eq set to flat, than that would probably not happen ever now days HAHAHAHA The sony MDR 7506 are pretty flat when the eq is set to flat or off though HAHAHA
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!
This is nonsense. The simple fact is that if you have human ears, you won't be able to notice any difference with sound resolutions higher than CD quality. High-resolution audio is snake oil. They acknowledge in their own video that CD quality already reproduces all the frequencies the human ear is capable of hearing. If you're buying music for your dog, high-resolution audio might be worth while.
The reason the experience of going to a concert is different from listening to a CD is not because of the ultra-high, beyond human hearing frequencies present in the room at the concert, but because of a million other different reasons - they are totally different experiences. Analogue recording mediums have certain qualities that people like but can't be said to have higher resolution than CD quality.
Where a company like Sony gets the nerve to shovel this nonsense I don't know. We should be pushing to move back to CD quality, and not move beyond it to these silly overkill formats.
+Matt Roberts I've listened to a $200k home speaker system in an untreated room. Expensive systems with pure audio create the soundstage that you pay big money to experience, because they have close to absolutel headroom and reproduction. Higher sample rates do affect clarity because the harmonics that dictate the timbre of instruments do go beyond the human hearing range, but when they can't be reproduced they distort. When you have a medium that can maintain those harmonics (44.1-96k), you get distortion free sound. Lossless. The fact is, you need much more expensive equipment in all aspects of the chain to notice. Our cell phones, computers, tablets, all have cheap 25$ amps in them to reproduce the sound. You can't exactly say it's all nonsense just because you haven't heard the difference.
+Jason Kutchma
No, you don't need expensive equipment. I notice the difference even on the cheapest computer speakers. High resolution files sound better in every way. From the bass to the highest frequencies, the sound is much smoother, better integrated and you can crank it up much higher before the sound becomes annoying.
I'm actually not basing my belief that the this is snake oil on my own observations at all - I'm basing it on mathematical calculations and scientific observations that CD quality audio reproduces all frequencies detectable to the human ear. I have actually heard the opposite regarding reproducing frequencies beyond human hearing - they actually cause distortion if the frequencies within human hearing. I'm also basing it on scientific studies that have shown that in controlled double blind testing, no one can consistently tell the difference between CD quality and higher resolution audio.
It is possible that high resolution audio tracks might be more likely to have been mastered with an audiophile in mind, I. E. with less compression, and that would legitimately increase the listening experience, especially on quality equipment. But that isn't because of the resolution itself.
I would suggest that anyone who wants to test high resolution audio for themselves get a high resolution audio file, downsample it to CD quality, and then use lacinato.com/cm/software/othersoft/abx to do a double blind study. Past tests would predict that you will not be able to consistently tell the difference, regardless of the equipment used to playback the audio.
Here's a good article by c net : www.cnet.com/news/sound-bite-despite-ponos-promise-experts-pan-hd-audio/
+Matt Roberts people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html another good read on why these "HiRes" is utter nonsense :)
Thank you Sony!
More people need to be aware of this
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.
Good record is more important
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.
He sounds like a Korg from Thor 3
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!
Amazing, Sony. Can't wait for WH-1000XM4.
Did you get that, if so how do you play songs
@@methenics4903 Didn't, sadly.
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
You keep using that word "Bitrate", I do not think it means what you think it means.
The once great Sony, has stooped to this level. Sad.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
Wilful ignorance sells, if you pay a high price you are likely to hear a high price sound.
the so called subtle nuances, often these are sounds you do not wish to hear in the first place.
I've heard remasters that sounded like they had only been remastered from a second generation source and not the original.
Yeah, like those Galaxy crap products by Samsung
Thats due to poor mixing and just terrible recordings. Having more accurate sound can also expose poor recordings as well as it can improve the sound of good ones.
I want 999999999bit, 99999999999999999khz
Wow that was clearly explained I'm impressed I can now be able to explain to others why hi res matters
Awesome video explaination
Sony - the masters of mumbo jumbo. FLAC (CD quality) is perfect and for the human ear there is nothing to improve in 2 channels stereo. If it sounds different with hi-res audio it's because it's recorded or sampled different. Totally nonsense!
First you wanna make me watch a video by huge corporation telling me about something their marketing team is interested in me buying, then they screw up the audio less than minute in, heck, even 42 seconds in. No way, man, thanks for nothing
Nice try, Sony. Nice try.
High-Resolution Audio is a good name for High-Profit Audio.
Who forcing you??
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 don't know why people even bother with MP3's nowadays with a SD card you can reletively cheaply get 256GB of storage and a FLAC file only take up 50MB~ for for average song length, that's still 5242 songs which is more than enough to be getting along with on the go, and at home you can with a $70 3TB drive store around 60,000 songs that is enough songs only assuming a 3 minute run time for 125 days of music, even for streaming with a 10Mb contention you are not going to even use 1/4 your connection speed streaming a FLAC file, although it's the music streaming/downloading services that are at fault for that short full.
Because 10Mb isn't exactly a blistering fast internet connection, and even then your nowhere near saturating it.
Cerastes.
Not so with me - ride cymbals sound different on Tidal Standard (320Kbps using the file format AAC) vs Tidal HiFi (FLAC lossless). Edit: Just compared the same formats on the song Aja by Steely Dan: SQ was much better on FLAC with individual instruments sounding more like IRL. What equipment are you listening on when making your comparisons?