21–30 of 77 posts
And that's the point.
When you print a photo in size 9x13cm, does it matter whether you print it in 10,000dpi or 20,000dpi? Hardly, unless you always run around with a microscope.
And it does not matter, whether the photo was originally a good picture or not.
The methodology might be flawed, but the point stands: We can't use the full dynamic range of a 24 bit signal for audio. Great converters have 20-21 bits of range and if we fully use this range, hearing damage will start at maximum volume levels. If the volume is kept the same between the two files, there is a 48dB drop in level - not inaudible, but there are very few source materials that will actually use the extra…
but that doesn't have anything to do with number of bits? I mean, an audio player system is basically a digital stream sent into a DA converter outputting an analog signal which is then fed into an amplifier where the signal is amplified and then sent into speakers of some sort. No matter if you have an 8bit audio stream, or a 128bit audio stream, the stages afterwards play a much larger role in the hearing damage caused. Also not all DA converters ouput the same level to begin with. Some are -5V to 5V while others (single power supply) can be 0V to 5V, etc etc.
Honestly as an end user its really good enough. If I was remixing this stuff and processing the audio I would want the non-compressed. (similar to shooting Raw photographs ). But at 256kbps honestly it really is amazingly good. thinking back to cassette tapes and records, its astonishing.
As for the tape hiss on the classical music, the performances are so good I just ignore it. Sometimes I think people get worked up about the quality of the recording and ignore the quality of the performance.
Sure, but when sampling and then processing things, you can consider it "headroom". Just like it's not hard to edit a photo in a few steps that the limitations of 8 bits per pixel begin to show. Though I suspect sampling frequency is a lot more important there, 24bit can't possibly be "too much".
Yes, I understand that this is not a good argument for consumer products to be more expensive and need more storage, just so musicians of the future, or pirate musicians of today, can have a better time. So I think the best plan is to encourage everybody to become hobby musicians, then it would be an easy sell.
The methodology might be flawed, but the point stands: We can't use the full dynamic range of a 24 bit signal for audio. Great converters have 20-21 bits of range and if we fully use this range, hearing damage will start at maximum volume levels. If the volume is kept the same between the two files, there is a 48dB drop in level - not inaudible, but there are very few source materials that will actually use the extra…
Great converters have 20-21 bits of range and if we fully use this range, hearing damage will start at maximum volume levels but that doesn't have anything to do with number of bits? I mean, an audio player system is basically a digital stream sent into a DA converter outputting an analog signal which is then fed into an amplifier where the signal is amplified and then sent into speakers of some sort. No matter if yo…
If you set up a 20 bit system (120dB) so that you can hear the lowest bit toggling, 120dB above that will most certainly cause hearing damage if used for very long.
144 dB (24 bit) or more SPL will cause near instantaneous damage and pain.
For the test the quality of the input does not matter. You can conduct the same test with a beautiful 24-bit recording as source, you would still not be able to hear much in the end. And that's the point. When you print a photo in size 9x13cm, does it matter whether you print it in 10,000dpi or 20,000dpi? Hardly, unless you always run around with a microscope. And it does not matter, whether the photo was originally…
It can matter when you put it in a scanner though. I tried scanning some old photos, they look horrible compared to even my puny 8mp camera. Then I tried scanning a piece of cloth, and was blown away by the detail..
One thing that is alluded to but perhaps not explored fully is the use of noise-shaping dither techniques which rely on pushing the noise out into the ultrasonic region. Xiph mentions it in the context of 16 bit resolution, but I believe it interacts with the discussion of 192 kHz sampling. Significant noise power at ultrasonic frequencies (or even a skewing towards higher audible frequencies) represents a problem fo…
One thing that is alluded to but perhaps not explored fully is the use of noise-shaping dither techniques which rely on pushing the noise out into the ultrasonic region. Xiph mentions it in the context of 16 bit resolution, but I believe it interacts with the discussion of 192 kHz sampling. Significant noise power at ultrasonic frequencies (or even a skewing towards higher audible frequencies) represents a problem fo…
Weird that the author uses a 'ordinary MP3' as source for the test. Garbage in, garbage out. Right? Would be a better test with a very high rez audio file.
I suspect it's heavily compressed audio. His argument is that you'll have a hard time hearing it at all, so if anything's going to help you hear it in the first place, it's garbage in. garbage recordings are the only ones which will survive this test. Anyway, nobody here is both qualified and willing at the same time to tell you what you need to know about this topic. The article referred to, written by Monty at Xiph…
Maybe people who work in professional (not consumer) audio? Who design these systems for a living?