Reasonable definition of ‘hi-res’ music

[hmack]

Well - If you are attempting to make a point then I’m afraid you have completely lost me.

“usual/normative subjectivist stance” - does this mean something?

However, I do agree with you that this thread is about hi-res. If you work your way up to the first post in this thread, you will see that it is one of my own posts which happens to refer to one of your own and very clearly states my own ‘perfectly reasonable’ definition of what constitutes ‘hi-res’ in this context.

[Jazzfan_NJ (Listening to JAZZ since 1972!)]

Ah yes, there is no one more vocal about the horrors of smoking than the reformed smoker who has quit smoking - except perhaps the reformed ‘Audiophile’ about so called ‘high-end’ hi-fi.

To clarify - I would still be considered an audiophile by most people since I do not normally purchase mass market audio equipment. And while I still follow and concur with many audiophile beliefs and principles, I no longer blindly follow each and every audiophile trend or claim. I now evaluate each new claim using the best available science that I can find (meaning I do some research) and if the claim has no basis in science then I dismiss it. $500 USB cables - no scientific basis, dismissed. 24bit offering greater dynamic range of the actual music present on the recording - no scientific basis, dismissed.

However on the other hand - speaker cabinet bracing to reduce unwanted vibrations - real science, embraced. Proper matching of power amp and speaker load - real science, embraced. Well made cable and speaker wire versus poorly made cheap cables - real science, embraced.

So basically what I try to do is separate the real science from the marketing BS - and this ends up producing real bang for the buck in my audio purchases since I’m no longer buying pipe dreams.

[ron_jeremy]

Ah yes, there is no one more vocal about the horrors of smoking than the reformed smoker who has quit smoking - except perhaps the reformed ‘Audiophile’ about so called ‘high-end’ hi-fi.

“I once was lost, but now I’m found ……”

Actually, as with most things there is a sensible middle ground. I completely agree that for most audiophiles (and I include in this category anyone who enjoys listening to music on anything other than a very cheap transistor radio) music and a love of music is of paramount importance, and that music can be enjoyed on a very cheap audio replay system - even occasionally on a cheap transistor or car radio.

Gold. Pure gold.

“I disagree, and here’s why…” then contradicts himself. Thanks for the laugh, now go see your dealer – they have a pair of $10K bookshelfs for you to buy.

[hmack]

Well, that’s pretty much in line with my own position on 'Audiophilia" - it looks as though we are more or less in agreement for the most part after all.

[hmack]

Gold. Pure gold.

“I disagree, and here’s why…” then contradicts himself. Thanks for the laugh, now go see your dealer – they have a pair of $10K bookshelfs for you to buy.

I really have no idea what you are trying to say.

Why on earth would I buy a pair of $10k bookshelves - although I am sure there are a few decent ones out there?

[SKBubba]

It is impossible to replicate a live performance of any scale on a hi-fi system. However, in my experience, it is more or less impossible to create even a relatively close illusion of the scale of such a performance without a pair of relatively large and consequently relatively expensive speakers. It is also often the case that these speakers present a difficult ‘load’, and consequently require a capable (and consequently often expensive) amplifier to drive them successfully.

I hear (no pun intended) what you’re saying. On the other hand, an affordable pair of vintage Klipsch horn loaded speakers and any amp with 25 or more watts sounds as close to a loud, honking, feedback screeching live rock concert as you will get. Other genres sound acceptable with a little EQ and/or room correction.

[crenca]

Wait, you went from this - a scolding based on analogy:

Ah yes, there is no one more vocal about the horrors of smoking than the reformed smoker who has quit smoking - except perhaps the reformed ‘Audiophile’ about so called ‘high-end’ hi-fi.

"I once was lost, but now I’m found ……"

To being lost and innocent:

I really have no idea what you are trying to say.

You don’t actually think you are fooling us do you? Don’t you have a audiophile subjectivist thread to start up?

[andybob (Andrew Cox)]

Please try to keep the discussion about the ideas rather than each others’ posts

[Chrislayeruk (Chris)]

I am now going to introduce you all to a real audiophile…

This is Stan. On Saturday night he was running the guest list and merch table at our venue in Essex. On Wednesday he has traveled to Birmingham to see Angel Snow and Joe Wilkins. On Friday he will be in Billericay with me enjoying The Chorlton Country Club and next week we will be in Sudbury to enjoy Angel Snow again. These are only the gigs I know about but I can tell you for certain, he does not own a stick of Hi Fi equipment yet he appreciates Hi Res Music all the time, Live.
Nearly all of the touring artists know him by name, such is his devotion and service to great live music. He is also such a nice, generous man who I am fortunate enough to call a friend.

Joe wilkins confirmed my spot in this pic from The Kitchen Garden venue.

Here is the Set List for the collectors out there

[hmack]

You don’t actually think you are fooling us do you? Don’t you have a audiophile subjectivist thread to start up?

This is just getting too ridiculous and surreal to be comfortable, so I will end with a few comments.

I have no idea who you are, or what your collective ‘us’ (presumably a small group of individuals who see yourselves as a guardian of the term 'audiophile) actually is. I am not trying to fool anyone about anything, and I really couldn’t care less if you think that because I own a stereo system I should be considered to be a foolish ‘audiophile’. I am perfectly happy to be considered to be an audiophile - it’s such a wide ranging term that it is virtually meaningless even when used in such a pejorative way.

And no - I have no desire to create an “audiophile subjectivist” thread. Perhaps I should leave that to someone who understands what it means.

Going away now to listen to some music.

[Anders_Strengberg (String)]

Your not actually addressing the topic which is “Reasonable definition of ‘hi-res’ music”.

I only wrote that a “Red Book” Or 16/44.1 CD Record/Format!
Is a 24/88.2 = Hi-Res before it’s down sampled in the Mastering!
But it’s also kept in 24/88.2 or up sampled to 24/96-192 in the Mastering, to SACD etc…

So I did actually addressing “The Topic”!
“Reasonable Definition Of Hi-Res Music”!

But I don’t think the word! “Reasonable Definition” is the “Right Word’s”!!! About this “Topic” since it’s a lot of “Hard and Disrespectful Word’s”!!!
From some of the Roon Community Users!
Against other Roon Community Users, Fought’s and Writing’s!

You should be more Politely and Nice, To Each Over!

Love & Respect

String

[hmack]

hmack:

It is impossible to replicate a live performance of any scale on a hi-fi system. However, in my experience, it is more or less impossible to create even a relatively close illusion of the scale of such a performance without a pair of relatively large and consequently relatively expensive speakers. It is also often the case that these speakers present a difficult ‘load’, and consequently require a capable (and consequently often expensive) amplifier to drive them successfully.

I hear (no pun intended) what you’re saying. On the other hand, an affordable pair of vintage Klipsch horn loaded speakers and any amp with 25 or more watts sounds as close to a loud, honking, feedback screeching live rock concert as you will get. Other genres sound acceptable with a little EQ and/or room correction.

Yes - I completely agree. I have absolutely no argument at all with this point of view. Vintage systems can be inexpensive and provide really enjoyable sound quality.

[Jazzfan_NJ (Listening to JAZZ since 1972!)]

I hear (no pun intended) what you’re saying. On the other hand, an affordable pair of vintage Klipsch horn loaded speakers and any amp with 25 or more watts sounds as close to a loud, honking, feedback screeching live rock concert as you will get. Other genres sound acceptable with a little EQ and/or room correction.

And if the Klipsch are unavailable then go with a pair of these:

Altec Lansing “Voice of the Theatre” speakers

And one can also recreate the authentic sound of a 1970’s disco with by adding a piezoelectric tweeter to either the Klipsch or Altecs. Now you have loud and honking plus that wonderfully painful drilling provided by those piezoelectrics.

So why oh why do we want to recreate this at home?

[SKBubba]

So why oh why do we want to recreate this at home?

So I can hear music above the noise floor of my tinnitus?

[Jazzfan_NJ (Listening to JAZZ since 1972!)]

So I can hear music above the noise floor of my tinnitus?

Best. Reply. Ever.

[Martin_Kelly]

To return to the topic:
I personally object to MQA being called ‘High-Res’ audio. It is not, IMO.
The currently-accepted definition of ‘High-Res’ is ‘better-than-CD’ quality, especially as it pertains to the word length/number of bits.
Hence, 24/44.1 is currently defined as High-Res. And it would go without saying that 24/88.2, 24/96 etc are also defined as High-Res.
It’s important to note that all these formats (including good-old RB/16.44.1) are lossless.
The ‘odd one out’ in this respect would be DSD, but which is also accepted as High-Res.
MQA is not lossless, it is lossy, and purports to use a 13/14 bit word length.
That doesn’t make it ‘bad’. Personally, I like the sound that MQA produces. But it can’t, IMO, claim to be ‘High Res’ Audio.