91–100 of 328 posts
At 96KHz and higher with certain samples I can slow down by 80% and it will still sound good.
Problem with music sounding bad doesn’t really have much to do with the distributed format: V0, V1, or 320 mp3s should sound pretty much the same compared to 16-bit flac. You can only the difference between mp3 and flac at shitty bitrates no one uses anymore (like 120). The reason why a lot of recent digital music sounds bad is because of the intentionally terrible mastering. Since everyone is listening of crappy ear…
So this is why streaming Google Music on my fairly nice sound system ends up sounding like total crap?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Umm, Nyquist-Shannon Theory? Listening to 24Bit 192Khz can actually damage the cillia in your ear
Bingo! Exactly, Nyquist theory. But no one can make a truly good, brickwall filter at this frequency. It is much easier to make a lot less steep frequency response, whilch would start at 22 khz and would slowly go down all the way to 96 kHz. By the way, how would it damage the ears if it was thoroughly filtered?
I've never heard of what newaccoutnas is talking about, but I guess if a high-frequency sound is ridiculously loud, the energy could be absorbed somewhere in the cochlea. I've only heard of experiments of subsonic hearing damage, not supersonic.
Problem with music sounding bad doesn’t really have much to do with the distributed format: V0, V1, or 320 mp3s should sound pretty much the same compared to 16-bit flac. You can only the difference between mp3 and flac at shitty bitrates no one uses anymore (like 120). The reason why a lot of recent digital music sounds bad is because of the intentionally terrible mastering. Since everyone is listening of crappy ear…
I had always assumed they were taking the same master and just carving it into vinyl. I wonder what percentage of "modern vinyl releases" are actually remastering before pressing...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually that's a defensible position when you're mixing and mastering audio. A spectrogram won't tell you which settings sound better, but your ears will. Maybe not relevant in the context of GP's post though. In the context of digital tools telling you two signals are identical, then I suspect they are, and if you want to prove to me your ears hear better then you're going to need a blind A/B test.
But I don't care about proving anything to you. I don't need you to believe me for me to enjoy my music. You can tell me you prefer coffee from Brazil to coffee from Honduras and we can talk about what characteristics you notice, not whether or not you've done a blind A/B test.
>How does it affect your life that I listen to music encoded at 24/196?
It doesn't, but Monty contributes to the Xiph project, which constantly has to deal with thousands of people saying "why doesn't Opus/Vorbis support 192 kHz??" This is his answer to that general question. There is actual money on the line for companies that use audio codec technology, and supporting useless formats that have no psychoacoustic effect is a waste of time, money, and effort.
I have a degree in electrical engineering, and I'm currently in a graduate course on computer music systems, so I hope that qualifies me enough to avoid the author's ad hominem attacks he seasons this stinkpiece with. I can't stand seeing frequency response charts and scientific measurements in articles about audio. Like my favorite audio reviewer says [1], I listen to music for enjoyment and I talk about audio in su…
If you really had any qualifications, that anti-scientific rant made the irrelevant.
TL;DR: 24/192 is useful at the mastering stage, to avoid error creep from mixing and effects. This is way beyond human hearing however, so scaling down to 16/44.1 (CD quality) in the final mix for playback won't result in noticeable degradation. CD quality was chosen on principles of human limits. Perhaps we could give a bit of extra headroom for kicks, to widen the envelope at extremes however. A useful amount would…
Problem with music sounding bad doesn’t really have much to do with the distributed format: V0, V1, or 320 mp3s should sound pretty much the same compared to 16-bit flac. You can only the difference between mp3 and flac at shitty bitrates no one uses anymore (like 120). The reason why a lot of recent digital music sounds bad is because of the intentionally terrible mastering. Since everyone is listening of crappy ear…
Phone = LG V20 which has an [ES9218](https://www.androidauthority.com/lg-v20-quad-dac-explained-7...) chip for its DAC.
Headphones = Sennheiser HD380 pro, pretty good for under $200.
Soundcard = "ASUS Xonar DGX PCI-E GX2.5".
Sound source = FLAC, Google Play Music subscription)
I'd like to upgrade to a really nice DAC and headphone amp to connect to the PC via USB, but that's way down the list of spending priorities.
I know that I'd probably have trouble distinguishing between audio components and sources in a blind listening test, and of course I have tinnitus, but I think my current "setup" if you can call it that is good enough for most stuff.
I am absolutely with you on the loudness wars though. It's a joy to listen to stuff that has real dynamic range, but it's not something I obsess over when I'm listening to music in the car for instance.
Thanks to this article, when I torrent music that is shared in 24/192 format, I always resample to 24/96: ffmpeg -i foo.flac -ar 96000 -acodec flac bar.flac
I'm curious why you torrent music still when streaming is so widely available and free/cheap? I did a lot of torrenting back in the 2000s, but thinking back on it I spent a ton of time finding things, organizing my file system, transcoding, editing metadata, etc. I do not miss that hassle at all now.
To provide you with another answer, most of the artists I listen to aren't on any of the music streaming services. Because local underground bands whom only have CD's handed out at their shows rarely exist outside of the pirating scene - which has a knack for distributing local underground bands with limited release/number of CDs. A small percentage of the bands/artists are on Spotify or Bandcamp but most aren't.
I buy what I can because I enjoy having the album arts but most of my music cannot be purchased or streamed.
There's also no guarantee that the streaming services will still exist in 10, 20, 30+ years - but there is an almost 100% chance that the hardware and software necessary to listen to or convert .flac will exist for me to continue to listen to my music.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure. I don't need to invalidate someone else's experience.
What if they were wasting a bunch of money on it and trying to convince others to do the same?