181–190 of 445 posts
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.
I don't think there are flaws in the article as you claim. It already explicitly explains that oversampling at the ADC or DAC is an acceptable engineering solution: > Oversampling is simple and clever. You may recall from my A Digital Media Primer for Geeks that high sampling rates provide a great deal more space between the highest frequency audio we care about (20kHz) and the Nyquist frequency (half the sampling ra…
> I don't think there are flaws in the article as you claim. It already explicitly explains that oversampling at the ADC or DAC is an acceptable engineering solution Of course it is acceptable . Even 14 bit audio at 36KHz with a great DAC would be fairly nice, acceptable. What the article claims is that 192KHz is useless, of no benefit. And i contend that it is of benefit when you want more than just good or acceptab…
It doesn't matter if you're a music lover or critical listener!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I do not believe it. 24 bits is definitely needed for processing (better yet, use floating-point). Not 192 kHz; no friggin' way. Repeated processing through multiple blocks at a given sample rate does not produce cumulative discretization problems in the time domain; it's just not how the math works.
> better yet, use floating-point Both your inputs (ADC) and outputs (DAC) are fixed-point. Why would you want to use a floating point in between? Technically, 64-bit floating point format would be enough for precision. But that would inflate both bandwidth and CPU requirements for no value. 32-bit floating point ain’t enough. Many people in the industry already use 32-bit integers for these samples. > Not 192 kHz; no…
To be replaced soon by "4k video is very silly indeed" If you look at the angular resolution of the eye, unless you are sitting very close to the screen, you can't resolve 4k video.
Sure, if you're looking at a little 40" TV five meters away, not so much, but for many screens in common use 4K is useful (but getting close to the point of diminishing returns, sure). Whereas as this article says, higher than 48kHz audio should be literally impossible to discern for any human in any setup.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I do not believe it. 24 bits is definitely needed for processing (better yet, use floating-point). Not 192 kHz; no friggin' way. Repeated processing through multiple blocks at a given sample rate does not produce cumulative discretization problems in the time domain; it's just not how the math works.
> better yet, use floating-point Both your inputs (ADC) and outputs (DAC) are fixed-point. Why would you want to use a floating point in between? Technically, 64-bit floating point format would be enough for precision. But that would inflate both bandwidth and CPU requirements for no value. 32-bit floating point ain’t enough. Many people in the industry already use 32-bit integers for these samples. > Not 192 kHz; no…
But it's not resolution, right? It's extra frequencies outside the audible range. Is there any natural process that would make those affect the audible components, if I were listening to the music live instead of a recording?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To truly support downstream remixing, musicians would need to distribute the original, separate tracks. Occasionally an independent musician will do this, but it's not at all common AFAIK.
For software, you have a source code, you compile it with a standard-complying compiler, and you’ll more or less reproduce the result. Music is different. If you have the original multi-track composition, you can’t reproduce the result unless you also have the original DAW software (of the specific version), and all the original VST plugins (again, of the specific version each). All that software is non-free, and typ…
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 felt that the presenter is a very rare example of a engineer who felt that his expression and purpose was attractive to his imagined audience. Without diversion via the questions embedded in the profession and the perception and self perception of the male geek working and academic world, I so rarely see a presenter reacting to a sense of apparent human warmth in the room, and beyond the lens, which even with the m…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is no reason the DAC or ADC can't internally do the resampling itself. In fact, most take it to the extreme - they resample to several MHz, but at 1 bit per sample, with noise shaped dithering as explained in the video linked elsewhere. They then have a very simple analog low pass filter - the noise is shaped far into the stop band of the filter. That is no reason to store or even process your music at higher r…
> There is no reason the DAC or ADC can't internally do the resampling itself. You are describing alternative (b) i mentioned above: digital filtering plus oversampling. This also isn't without side effects. Oversampling a 44KHz signal is not the same as having a 192Khz material to start with. Very different.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To truly support downstream remixing, musicians would need to distribute the original, separate tracks. Occasionally an independent musician will do this, but it's not at all common AFAIK.
For software, you have a source code, you compile it with a standard-complying compiler, and you’ll more or less reproduce the result. Music is different. If you have the original multi-track composition, you can’t reproduce the result unless you also have the original DAW software (of the specific version), and all the original VST plugins (again, of the specific version each). All that software is non-free, and typ…
BTW, I'm merely a dilettante when it comes to recording and especially mixing.
I’m not sure how big that market is these days, though. I recently decided to move from a block in the city to a house in the surrounding countryside purely to get a quieter listening environment and let me really enjoy the high-dynamic-range recordings I have – I listen to a lot of classical music, especially the avant-garde with its even greater range, e.g. the Ligeti cello concerto starting from pppppp. Yet even among my friends who are really obsessed with such music, seeking a better listening environment seemed an extreme measure to take.
So, people who a generation ago would have invested in higher-end equipment (not audiophile snake oil, just better speakers) and who would have sought silence are now giving in to listening to music on their phones or cheap computer speakers. It’s a big shift.