11–20 of 445 posts
While the extra quality is lost on listeners, from experience I've found that super-HQ source material can change your results (for the better) when fed through distortion/compression/warming effects processors
> Its playback fidelity is slightly inferior to 16/44.1 or 16/48, and it takes up 6 times the space. The article is highly technical. Does anyone have a way to describe this phenomenon intuitively?
While the extra quality is lost on listeners, from experience I've found that super-HQ source material can change your results (for the better) when fed through distortion/compression/warming effects processors
> Its playback fidelity is slightly inferior to 16/44.1 or 16/48, and it takes up 6 times the space. The article is highly technical. Does anyone have a way to describe this phenomenon intuitively?
Therefore, rather than just being useless extra data, it can be actively harmful to the listening experience.
I would expect the samples to be interpolated before the final DA conversion takes place, so no extra ultrasonics should be involved. And there would be filters for them anyway, we still have to use them for 44.1, 48, 96 etc.
While the extra quality is lost on listeners, from experience I've found that super-HQ source material can change your results (for the better) when fed through distortion/compression/warming effects processors
> Its playback fidelity is slightly inferior to 16/44.1 or 16/48, and it takes up 6 times the space. The article is highly technical. Does anyone have a way to describe this phenomenon intuitively?
Another way to look at is that digital audio is not like digital imaging. There aren't pixels. Increasing the data rate does not continue to make the waveform more and more detailed to human auditory perception in the way that raising the pixel density does for human visual perception.
To describe it intuitively, forget your intuition that audio is like visual and start from "there is no metaphor between these two things."
While the extra quality is lost on listeners, from experience I've found that super-HQ source material can change your results (for the better) when fed through distortion/compression/warming effects processors
Is that because of the HQ audio, or because the processing software introduces less artifacts at those sample rates/bit depths? I.e. could you get the same results by up-sampling CD quality audio?
While the extra quality is lost on listeners, from experience I've found that super-HQ source material can change your results (for the better) when fed through distortion/compression/warming effects processors
https://xiph.org/video/vid2.shtml
So well prepared, so well presented, so little that could be removed without ruining it.
I aspire to do such good demos but always fall so short.
I don't hear a difference between various rips that are 16/128 or 24/192, but I have noticed a difference listening to the Blu-ray version of it (which is many-many gigabytes in size). It is a definitely interesting experience, but the way I can describe it is as an absolute absence of noise.
Every single version but this one exhibits noise at the start (the heartbeat sound) as the sound goes from very quiet to loud.
But, to be fair, it could just be different masters.
While the extra quality is lost on listeners, from experience I've found that super-HQ source material can change your results (for the better) when fed through distortion/compression/warming effects processors
Is that because of the HQ audio, or because the processing software introduces less artifacts at those sample rates/bit depths? I.e. could you get the same results by up-sampling CD quality audio?