2. digital
  3. 1423589627

Does HiRez really sound better?

I came across this article from Goldmund Audio which I"m sure will raise some hackles. Don't think me a troll but I'd like to read some feedback on the supposed benefits of HiRez. Some of this has already been gone through but the blind listening test mentioned concluded that the ability to hear a difference between PCM and DSD was no better than the flipping of a coin.
http://attachments.goldmund.com.s3.amazonaws.com/2015/01/23/15/49/42/359/goldmund_does_high_resolution_audio_sound_better_white_paper.pdf.

All the best,
Nonoise
nonoise

Showing 3 responses by raymonda

raymonda
855 posts
 
I've been recording in high Rez for 11 years when I converted to 96/24. IMHO, and to these ears, it makes a difference. Now, whether that matters to you is another story but it matters to me.
raymonda
855 posts
 
As a recording engineer I would strongly disagree that r to r tape is less resolving than hi rez digital. They both, when done right, can sound fantastic and in many cases r to r can sound even better.

Did you know that Walter Becker ' s Circus Money was recorded on r to r using dolby sr noise deduction. Yes it is a bit overly compressed but as for pop it wipes the floor of most all pop recorded today....hi rez digital or not.

You really need to listen to well recorded analog to appreciate what that medium can do.

Also, what about direct to disk? If that ain't hi rez....well......
raymonda
855 posts
 
First off I'm not advocating one medium over the other. I record strictly in the digital domain at 96/24 or 48/24, which I modestly say with good results. However, if I could, I would love a top of the line Dolby SR multitrack system. It is high Rez and does many, many things well. It has a dynamic range of 95 dbs and is tomb quiet

I think 99.99 percent would not be able to tell whether they were listening to this or the best that digital has to offer and in some cases folks may prefer it over pure digital.
More to discover