Click to view our Accessibility Statement or contact us with accessibility-related questions
Sujay Rao
109
Dec 17, 2015
It has turned into a Pixel War! In an audio world? Read on.
I listen to Western and Indian Classical, Jazz and Blues and some classic Rock. An overwhelming proportion of the best music of these genres happened at a time before there was high quality recording, much less hi-res audio. Take the best body of work of Billie Holiday, Ben Webster, Liberace, Stefan Ashkenazy, Karajan, Ravi Shankar or Bhimsen Joshi for example. Converting a Toscanini Concert into a FLAC file may produce some improvement in audio quality, but no matter how much you scrub and polish it you cannot inject new data into a lower resolution original just as you cannot put in new pixels into a low resolution photo, except by a software trick.
Has anybody stopped to think that there may be limits to how finely the human auditory system can resolve detail and judge quality? Surely there must be a point beyond which one can no longer tell the difference with a device whose improvements may be measurable in a lab but not discernible to the ear.
Much as in photography, where ridiculously higher pixel counts are being offered in a fiercely competitive market, the quality of an image is more than the number of mega pixels it contains. So it is with music where sheer resolution and cold clinical precision are not everything. Instead, I would much prefer to listen to the warmth and charm of a slightly less perfect and relatively inexpensive tube amp (Thank heaven for the Chinese and the likes of Bottlehead!).
I think there are two kinds of audiophiles. There are those who love high quality audio but are primarily focussed on the music they listen to. They would relish a less than perfect recording of Sinatra over a high resolution sample of music that didn't move them much. Then there are those for whom the prime motivation is the audio quality. I don't mean that they are indifferent to the music itself, but that they are very intolerant of poor sonic quality, no matter how great the music.
I guess if you belong in the latter category, trading in both kidneys for a bargain Astell - Kern or a Hifiman 901s makes sense. If not consider giving up one for a X5 or X7 (I have the former). If you're a really bad sport and determined to hang on to all your body parts, there's always the old reliable iPod Touch, now resurgent in a brand new avatar!
echineko
196
Dec 17, 2015
Sujay RaoA FLAC file provides no improvement in audio, none whatsoever, absolutely right. It is merely a container that allows more details to be stored compared to formats where compression causes information (fine details, stereo imaging, etc) to be lost. Hence lossy (MP3) vs lossless (FLAC). There are many formats, keeping it simple for discussion. Your question on resolution and detail is valid, scientists say 24/192 is the limit the human ear can perceive, I believe (please correct if I'm mistaken). I see many manufacturers push the technical specs of high resolution when there realistically aren't even any (or close to no) sources (32-bit music, DSD256, anyone?). Meanwhile recording studios that own super high quality master recordings aren't financially motivated to widely release them in a high res format. Not quite the pixel wars, I think, this is even worse :p Edit: Oh, and finally, if you're determined to hang on to all your body parts, start with a Hifiman HE-400S ($299 or less on sale) it will be the best initial investment you make to improve your sound quality, even out of a mobile device. It is an open design, so don't use it on the subway
Sujay Rao
109
Dec 18, 2015
echinekoAgree completely. Just bought a Beyerdynamic DT990 off Massdrop. Feeling guilty as expected. Will try the HE-400S sometime. Thanks.
PRODUCTS YOU MAY LIKE
Trending Posts in Audiophile