![\"High](\"https:\/\/img.bfmtv.com\/c\/630\/420\/4ba\/cf0291d49e39d6313addc1f868394.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
With more accurate analog sound sampling, this technology promises better digital sound than traditional audio CDs.
\nMarketing requires manufacturers not to miss the opportunity to put beautiful acronyms on their devices to indicate the presence of new “revolutionary” technologies. Therefore, in recent months, some headphones and speakers have blossomed, especially the labels “HD audio” or “high-resolution audio”. What does “high resolution audio” (or high definition) mean? In particular, it is a digital sound of at least 24 bits \/ 96 kHz, so it offers better quality than the 16 bits \/ 44.1 kHz of the audio CD. If we synthesize too much, we could say that it is a sampling gap similar to that which can separate Blu-ray from DVD.<\/p>\n
How is it possible ? To fully understand it, it is important to go back to the beginnings of digital sound. Originally, the sound is analog data, such as the variation in air pressure or an electrical signal over time. To digitize the sound, samples are regularly taken and encoded in a series of bits. When creating the audio CD, manufacturers agreed on 16-bit encoding and sampling at 44.1 kHz, or 44,100 times per second. Therefore, one minute of mono sound requires about 5.3 MB of data and 10.6 MB of stereo per minute. When the first audio CDs were released in 1984\/85, vinyl fans cried as a betrayal, accusing the digital sound of not reproducing the warmth of analog sound from the former 33rpm.<\/p>\n
Is there really a difference?<\/p>\n
We had the opportunity to test the entire high-resolution audio system multiple times: 192 Hz FLAC audio files, on a NWZ-A compatible high-resolution player and MDR-1A headphones, also Hi-Res. The reproduction is of course very good by ear and it seems that the songs on our test album (Play MemoriesDaft Punk) have been given precision. Even when the volume is pushed to the limit of the maximum threshold, the reproduction is still excellent and well detailed. But we also listened to the same MP3 album, in a (relatively) high 320 kbit \/ s sample, even with Sony’s portable music player and high-resolution headphones. And it is clear that the difference was frankly not clear. Our perception of representation was just as good. We continue the experience by listening to the MP3 version of the Daft Punk album, this time with less high-quality headphones than the Sony MDR-1A. And there the register was even worse: muted, less accurate in the treble and less powerful in the bass. Result: By ear sampling of the file had less influence on the reproduction because the quality of the products used to reproduce the sound, ie the player and the headphones. So a question about everything from a material order. For the right choice, go to our helmet department and our two specific comparisons:<\/p>\n
– Comparison of headphones for less than 100 euros
\n– Comparison of headphones for more than 100 euros<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"