6 reasons why we don’t need hi-res audio

Over the last 12 months the call for high resolution audio to be adopted for listener delivery formats (eg MP3, ACC, streaming, CD, iTunes, DVD etc) has moved from audio professional forums, into the mainstream.

Neil Young, among others, has been vocal about the shortcomings of CD and MP3 audio (but still found time to record an LP in low-fi vinyl 1940s recording booth!). Despite being known for the distinctly lo-res nature of many of his recordings, he has been instrumental in the development and marketing of his own hi-res audio Pono playback device (guess who’s top of the Pono chart!).

He and others believe the time is right to significantly improve the listener experience by ..

- increasing the sample rate and word length of digital audio

- scraping, or decreasing the negative effects of, lossy compression codecs such as MP3

- adopting raw PCM audio or lossless formats

We love Neil Young (especially Tonights The Night), but does he really have a case? CD quality audio, which first reached mainstream acceptance in 1987, is indeed an ageing format. These are, we think, the primary arguments for hi-res audio ..

- On paper, CD quality audio (44,100 samples per second) seems barely adequate for the highest frequencies at 20KHz, taking only 2.14 sample per cycle (it's fine for low frequency harmonics)

- The 16-bit word length of the CD format is out of date now that 24-bit audio is standard for even the humblest of home recording studios

- MP3 was developed to get around the bandwidth limitations of early dial-up connections, but we now have internet connections (broadband, 3G, 4G etc) more than capable of higher quality

- Portable SDD storage is up to the task of larger files

- DVD and Blu-Ray are already capable of holding larger files

- We have HD TV and video, why not HD audio?

All good and well. However, we think their are 6 reasons which undermine the case for hi-res audio ..

1 At it’s highest audio data rate setting (320kbps), in a blind test, even many professionals find it hard to hear the difference between MP3s and a hi-res audio file (eg raw uncompressed PCM data)

2 If you double the CD sample rate to 88,200, you still only have a little over 4 samples per cycle at 20kHz, hardly a quantum improvement (and the file sizes doubles).

3 There is no objective evidence that encoding/recording sound above 20kHz is audible in any way, and no way to prove it (hearing is subjective). Our hearing degrades as we move into adulthood, and few 18 year olds will be able to hear much above 18kHz. And it's all downhill from there.

4 24-bit word lengths are important for tracking and mastering but its arguable whether an audience will hear the difference. They may just complain they can't get as many tracks on their phone.

5 Most music is listened too on either crappy ear-phones, mini / shelf hi-fi systems (hi-fi? don’t make us laugh!), or in situations with high background noise (eg in car). The days of good sound in the home (the halcyon hi-fi years!) are long gone. How many people do you know who have a decent amp and monitors (i.e. costing £1000 plus?).

6 All previous attempts at getting listeners to buy hi-res formats, and change their playback technologies (car stereos, phones, video and CD players etc) have failed, most folks just can’t hear the difference!

We love hi-quality audio, but in our experience the best improvements are heard when a recording is well recorded, mixed and mastered, and played back via a good amp and speaker combination (think £1500+). Oh, and if the performance and songs are great! You’d be surprised how good CD can sound.

We’re off to listen to Revolver. In mono. On vinyl (sounds good to us).

What do you think? Thanks for reading.
FairFax