81–90 of 445 posts
So, you have to up-sample the songs to high rates with less bits, like 1bit to 6bits, then do the conversion, and get the best SNR you can.
In this sense, there's simply a lot of advantage of using 24/196 since the above conversion can result in less loss and higher SNR
I've said it before, this video demo is one of the very best I've ever seen. 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 have said the same thing. I was a film major, a video producer, and a tech writer (now a programmer), and I am in awe.
Consider a dog that lives with a musician who plays, for example, trumpet. The musician plays the trumpet at home to practice, and also records his practices to review.
A trumpet produces significant acoustic energy out to about 100 KHz [1]. When the musician plays live the dog hears a rich musical instrument. When the musician plays back his recordings, half the frequency range that the dog could hear in the live trumpet will be gone. I'd imagine that this makes the recorded trumpet a lot less aesthetically pleasing to the poor dog.
I've always been able to tell when something on Spotify I've heard before is lower quality now. I can instinctively tell in my car when that's the case. It's mostly due to how loud certain parts of the song are or how it sounds at higher volumes. I guess, given what he says, that wouldn't be the case if made sure they were the same dB.
It is well known that music media for "popular" consumption are often intentionally mastered with much less dynamic. This is called "compression", but has, on the surface, nothing to do with compression of bits* . It's the dynamic that's compressed, making quieter and louder sounds be closer together. For markets with people that are more likely to care about sound quality, though, a much larger dynamic range is pres…
Off topic, but I've noticed in the gym, sometimes the music playing from the instructor's iPhone through one of those cheap Ion Block Rocker bluetooth speakers (big boxy one, looks like a guitar amp) has very very noticeable pitch sag in various parts of various songs. It's via bluetooth, and the source is Pandora. I even googled Pandora and pitch change, and found some forums with folks discussing bluetooth causing…
To your point, I would lean towards bluetooth as I've never associated the phenomena with Pandora. My friends and I mostly use Spotify.
What about for non-humans? Consider a dog that lives with a musician who plays, for example, trumpet. The musician plays the trumpet at home to practice, and also records his practices to review. A trumpet produces significant acoustic energy out to about 100 KHz [1]. When the musician plays live the dog hears a rich musical instrument. When the musician plays back his recordings, half the frequency range that the do…
I've said it before, this video demo is one of the very best I've ever seen. 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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
24/192 can capture audio well beyond what we can hear. These sounds can, though, lead to distortion that is within our hearing range, depending on the equipment used. Therefore, rather than just being useless extra data, it can be actively harmful to the listening experience.
But weren't those "outside our hearing range sounds that can distort our hearing range" present in real life when the recording was made? So I would have heard the distortions had I been there in real life?
What about for non-humans? Consider a dog that lives with a musician who plays, for example, trumpet. The musician plays the trumpet at home to practice, and also records his practices to review. A trumpet produces significant acoustic energy out to about 100 KHz [1]. When the musician plays live the dog hears a rich musical instrument. When the musician plays back his recordings, half the frequency range that the do…
Have we asked the dogs?
This article makes the same mistake that is done frequently with video. So, let’s look at a similar issue with video. Your display is likely only 720p, or 1080p, but a 4K video on youtube will still look a lot better, although technically it should have no visible difference. But the reality is, we don’t get uncompressed video, or uncompressed audio. We have a choice between audio or video compressed with lossy codec…
Suppose you have a 5 Mbps data budget, 1080p display, and 4k source material. You will get better quality by first downsampling the 4k to 1080p and then compressing and distributing the result. If you compress and distribute the 4k, followed by downsampling to display at 1080p, you cannot recover the color and/or motion information that was lost in order to fit all of those pixels into 5 Mbps. However, if you have a…