I recently tuned in to the “You and Yours “article on
HIRES music on BBC Radio 4 iPlayer which was first broadcast in March 2014. Their piece can be heard in HIRES from a download which can be found here:
Your ears may be able to hear a difference just as mine did but this is not down to whether the music was from a CD quality file or a 24/96 HIRES file as the guest experts explained below. I really recommend that you listen to the broadcast.
My ears could not distinguish between CD and
24/96 resolution even when listening to the high definition broadcast through a
good quality DAC, amplifier and headphones.
The host, Winifred, and her two guests listened to jazz, pop
and classical music in both CD and 24/96 HIRES format. One of the comparisons
was blind and both of the sound engineering experts, Stephen Rinker and Steve
Levine, had the courage to say that they would be embarrassed if they could not
tell the difference. They failed to identify the HIRES music but I hope they
were not ashamed of themselves as they were in good company.
As far as I can tell, no-one has been proven to hear the
difference between CD quality and HIRES, with all other parameters being equal
and even when using high quality equipment. Proof can only be obtained by using
double-blind tests in a peer reviewed study using the scientific method. Such
peer reviewed studies are conducted by the medical profession to prove whether a
treatment works or not or is safe to use. Surely, what is good for medical
science is also good for sound engineering?
The sound engineers behind the radio programme did not use
the same volume level for the single blind test and the two experts were easily
misled by this. One of the experts explained the Fletcher –Munson curve which demonstrates
that human beings perceive the frequencies of music differently according to
volume level.
The scientific tests, which have been conducted, up until
now, have used small samples of people so it is possible that individuals can
be found who are able to hear the difference. Sound engineers, HI-FI
journalists and audiophiles have a duty to step forward to prove that they are
better able to distinguish between CD quality music and HIRES than the likes of you and me.
Who is going to have the courage of Rinker and Levine and
allow themselves to be double-blind tested at their leisure with the equipment
of their choice? Let’s have some real evidence, rather than assertions, to
prove the sceptics wrong.
Such tests will be costly and time consuming and would have
to use the highest quality sound reproduction equipment and sound engineering
techniques. The tests would also have to be conducted ethically to ensure that
participants are not exposed to volumes which would damage their hearing. Perhaps, the BBC could divert some funds from
“Top Gear” or “Strictly Come Dancing” to conduct such a study for they have the
nous and expertise to do it.
There are good reasons for proving whether HIRES music
sounds better at our ears or not:
HIRES music is now being scrutinised by consumer programmes and the mainstream newspapers so let’s prove the benefits once and for all, if they really exist, and end any
controversy or sonic opinion turf wars.
and here is your chance to spot the hidden errors! Try the graphics for a start.
The anecdotal and hearsay evidence is not strong enough; we
need the proof to confirm the theory.
We must confirm that the resolution of our ears is good
enough to appreciate the technical and mathematical superiority of HIRES
reproduced music.
If there are people who can genuinely tell the difference then
shouldn't we want to know why? Then, shouldn't we want to know if
sound engineering can improve the situation for those of us who have reduced
hearing acuity?
If no-one can truly
perceive a difference then there would be little point proceeding with 24/96
sound delivery just to go up a costly blind alley.
Many other
improvements could be made to recording and sound reproduction techniques
without the use of HIRES files at the point of delivery but only the scientific
method can verify any improvement and help us to move forward.
Stephen Rinker and
Steve Levine made the perfectly valid point that 24/96 resolution is extremely
useful in the studio and at the sound mixing desk; so 24/96 does have a proven case for the
recording of music if not its delivery.
As far as the individual enthusiast is concerned, you should
be open-minded to the fact that your perception can be misled by a simple
change of volume levels when you listen to a sales demonstration or make comparisons
at home. Beware of the pitfalls before you part with substantial amounts of
cash unless your purse or wallet is bulging.
As far as I am concerned, I shall still buy 24/96 recordings
if that is the only way to obtain music which has been mastered to the highest
quality; otherwise its CD quality to save money and hard disk space. This might be a hard nosed approach but really
it is only the music that matters to me.
