111–120 of 274 posts
I'm not interested in finetuning everything in my life for efficiency.
Music producer here. High resolution audio is useful for editing and anywhere there might be downstream processing or format conversion that may or may not be high quality, let alone lossless. The article covers that pretty well. However, the article claims that the final distribution doesn’t need to have a bit depth of more than 16. That does not match my experience. I can tell the difference between my renders that…
Foobar2000 has an extension that allows you to blindly test whether you can tell the difference between two tracks.[1] The prime use is to compare different encodings of the same song from the same lossless master. It kind of changed me a bit when I ran through 20 lossless tracks I had re-encoded to various mp3 bitrates and realized that even on a fancy system, it can be really hard if not impossible to discern even…
We store files in the highest quality because it gives us the option to encode the music without audible loss of quality.
Also, sadly consumers are getting used to low quality audio nowadays - they often listen to lossly compressed audio on social media (sometimes decompressed and re-compressed several times) which is then re-compressed to send to bluetooth headphones, or played back on an awful smartphone speakers. Streaming services also use compressed audio.
They make sense for so called audiophiles who don’t understand Nyqist frequency theory. It’s like photographers who are confused about the difference between raw and bitmap (jpeg), videographers confused about the difference between linear raw vs log vs gamma encoded, etc. Just because a data format with higher bit depth/sampling frequency/whatever exists for editing purposes, doesn’t mean it’s “better” or makes sens…
Forms of manipulation bring inaudible content into the audible range.
Of course that doesn't mean audiophiles aren't being audiofooled by it, but there is legitimate usage.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you want to hear the difference between an audio file recorded at 44.1 and 88.2kHZ, then you need slow the audio playback down. Otherwise, a trained ear cannot physically hear the difference.
44.1 is "enough" only in theory. This assumes a physically impossible steep filter. Realistically, frequencies around 20 kHz will create audible artifacts (aliasing). So yes, a trained ear can tell the diffrenece between 44.1 and even 48 kHz. Like many other commenters in this thread, you are mixing up math theory with physical limitations of AD/DA converters. Oversampling is a common way to address this limitation,…
The OP is a bit off with their description of why pro audio engineers work in higher bit rates and sample rates. We use 24bit to preserve low level sounds eg reverb, breaths etc and use 32bit float when recording as the headroom is so massive clipping is not an issue (other than of course still neeing to avoid overloading microphones with max SPL - cleanly recorded distorted sound is still a fail). Unclipping 32bit f…
Nobody uses 32 bit float for recording (to do so is just to capture at least 10 bits of noise, most of that being brownian); its strictly a format for mixing and processing. You don't get any more resolution from 32 bit floating point than you do from 24 bit integer formats, but the result of "clipping" is less dramatic, hence the appeal of the format.
While there is some evidence that non-auditory human sensory perception may be sensitive to ultrasonic acoustic waves, it's pretty weak right now, and somewhat in the "woo" zone. It may turn out to be significant, or it may not. I wouldn't base an audio production workflow that requires 4x the cpu power and 4x the disk space on such tentative claims, but you're welcome to.
As they say, most people listen to their music with equipment. Audiophiles listen to their equipment with music.
I might be something from the middle. Yes, I did spend a hefty 5000 euros to my headphone setup. And yes it sounds absolutely magical and every day I'm happy listening to music with it. But I also have a large multi-terabyte music collection, I follow new music, go to concerts, go to parties, talk about music with my friends in signal group chats. It's a hobby, and when you get a bit older and start having some savin…
Nobody downloads music these days and everybody just streams. Audio at 24 bit still takes a small fraction of the bandwidth that 1080p video takes, so I don’t understand the hate for it. I use a DAC by focusrite which can do 24-bit, and if I want to listen to higher fidelity audio on my planer headphones then I should be able to. Why should I limit myself to 16-bit
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And that's fine! I've got a flatmate who loves 320kpbs MP3s on studio monitors, I've got musician friends who swear by CD-audio and Sennheiser HD200s, and others who love how vinyl uniquely degrades over time on big speakers. The takeaway from these sorts of posts, at least in my opinion, should be two-fold: * Understand the physical limits of human senses and perceptions to help inoculate yourself against outright s…
> Understand the physical limits of human senses and perceptions to help inoculate yourself against outright scams and grifts Also understand that while there is an upper limit, we are all different within that. I can hear the difference between 128Kbps and FLAC, at least for some content, but not 256Kbps, maybe not 192. For some content (spoken word etc.), 64Kbps, sometimes less, is perfectly acceptable (to me). The…
You've established this with double bind testing, correct?