221–230 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.
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.
Thanks for sharing that! I was convinced to watch it from all the other recommendations and can concur (FWIW at this point) that it was well worth it. The camerawork was excellent and the demonstration integration/trinket-wielding was seamlessly done. I get the impression the people who made this had a case of "let's use the ThinkPad for this, and let's do it this and that way," and they pulled it off so perfectly ,…
I know and understand how incorrect down-sampling from high frequencies can cause distortion in the form of sub-harmonics in the audioable range.
I know about audible dynamic range and how many decibels of extra range 8-bits are going to give you.
I know all this, but I still have to admit: if there's a hi-res recording (24-bit, >48kHz) available for download/purchase, I'll always go for that instead of the "regular" 16-bit 44.1/48kHz download. I guess escaping your former audiophile self is very, very hard.
Anyone else want to admit their guilty, stupid pleasures? :)
I've done signal and sound-processing courses at the university. I know the Nyquist-Shannon theorem. I know all about samples, and digital sound not been square staircases. I know and understand how incorrect down-sampling from high frequencies can cause distortion in the form of sub-harmonics in the audioable range. I know about audible dynamic range and how many decibels of extra range 8-bits are going to give you.…
Deriving pleasure from listening to music has a large subjective component. So if I've paid more for a track and / or I got the most amount of bits I could I'll probably enjoy it more. Also makes for great conversation topics.
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.
That's pretty amazing.. why wouldnt he set up his own sound to eliminate more of that signal generator fan noise though. So distracting.
The sound was done similarly to the previous video, which hadn't drawn comments. This time though, a sizable fraction of people said it was distracting.
There's a very straightforward practical reason why you might want to keep downloading 24/192. The people who put those together are on average "audiophile" snobs so the rips tend to be perfect, often from high quality sources like SACDs, hdtracks, etc. The source of the recording is usually the best master known for that record (special remastered editions, etc.). If you download mp3/spotify chances are the copy you…
> "If you download mp3/spotify" You are misconstruing Monty's argument here. He is very much against mp3...in fact he says he could tell the difference between high bitrate mp3 and 16 bit 44k wav. The real point of the video is that 16 bit 44k wav is beyond sufficient...don't need to go beyond that to 24-bit 192kHz.
In the early days, when all mp3 encoders were pretty bad, I could tell which encoder produced a given file. mp3 encoders today are vastly better. I've not been able to do that party trick in a long time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
interesting viewpoint, however, did you think about the experiment I presented? without an answer, sample rate and cabling cannot be considered equivalent distractions on the road to high fidelity.
You’re talking about something orthogonal to the question at hand. It’s like complaining that the 4K TV sucks at VR. Of course it does. It’s not meant to provide VR. Same thing with sampling and bit-depth. Those address digital encoding of analog signals. They have nothing to say about speaker design, number of audio channels, room acoustics, or the myriad other factors that go into replicating a live stage performan…
And you haven't answered my question about the array of 20kHz tone generators. In fact, NOBODY has, and yet the question has been down-voted! How is that even possible? Posing a novel experiment which might invalidate the populist view considered harmful?
TFA's author is not active in the field of advancing man's ability to recreate live music more convincingly, AFAIK; he writes codecs. He believes people shouldn't purchase 192kHz downloads. He's certainly right that most consumers won't be able to tell the difference with their current equipment. But he makes no mention of the interaural time difference in human auditory perception, so he's already not telling the whole story. There is more to learn here, folks, and down-voting a question is an embarrassing failure of these forums. Why aren't posts in support of music piracy down-voted (read above)?
Contrary to what he says, I can most certainly see some IR remotes. Not super bright but enough to notice. Same goes for the IR lights in my Kinect.
Am I the only one who have no idea what 16/44.1 or 16/48 mean? I initially thought 192 here was referring to 192 vs 320 etc but this is apparently about something completely different?
192 and 320 usually refers to the bitrate for mp3 compressed audio, which indeed is something different. The mp3 compression removes more and more details from the original audio to fit "inside" this bitrate speed window, hence higher is better because less original content is removed. Only great ears can hear what was removed from a 320 stream.