51–60 of 443 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Indeed. I rip everything losslessly and batch re-encode when I switch music players (man, I miss my Zunes)
+1. I store originals (rips and etc.) in FLAC and then encode in Opus (around 140 Kbps) to actually listen to. 140 is an approximation of transparency level, it can be lower according to these tests: http://listening-test.coresv.net/results.htm
I once spent ~2 hours explaining all of this (well maybe not all of it) to a friend of mine who was studying sound design at the time. He didn't believe me. I even transcoded some 24/192 FLAC Pink Floyd I had lying around and made him do a double blind test to show him that he'd prefer the slightly louder song every time, even if the louder song was 192kbps vs the FLAC. He did. He still doesn't believe me. He still t…
> Some people buy $500 wooden knobs to make their volume pots sound better. (or was that a hoax? i can't tell anymore) Some people buy small pyramids to elevate their cables off the floor, some people buy mats to put onto your CDs before putting the CD in a player ( http://dagogo.com/millenniums-m-cd-mat-carbon-cd-damper-revi... ), some people buy $1000+/meter digital interconnect cables ( http://www.theabsolutesound…
I once spent ~2 hours explaining all of this (well maybe not all of it) to a friend of mine who was studying sound design at the time. He didn't believe me. I even transcoded some 24/192 FLAC Pink Floyd I had lying around and made him do a double blind test to show him that he'd prefer the slightly louder song every time, even if the louder song was 192kbps vs the FLAC. He did. He still doesn't believe me. He still t…
>He still thinks he can hear the difference between FLAC and MP3 to this day. He works as a sound engineer now. It's really not fair to compare FLAC vs MP3 to "hi-rez" FLAC vs regular FLAC There's legitimately some instruments that do not compress well. The harpsichord is a particular example that you should be able to hear the difference on on any sort of decent equipment. Bur hi-rez vs regular flac is something tha…
I agree with the silliness of 192kHz, but not 24-bits. Here is why: In typical PCM recordings, like CDs, mid-range frequencies (e.g. 1kHz to 4kHz) are recorded with lower amplitudes because our ears are more sensitive to them. Sampling theory is correct and 16-bits can reproduce any waveform with ~100dB of range, however, in a complex waveform consisting of low, mid and high frequencies, the mid- and hi-range frequen…
Chris Randall of Sister Machine Gun (at least used to?) use a low-frequency generator at live shows to produce a sound that the audience could feel but not hear in order to make the music more intense. I suspect that you'd gain some of that effect with a larger bit size.
...or I could be completely wrong. Whatever.
The author seems to have stumbled into a poor example, as a recent study shows that humans can indeed see infrared light using an unexpected process. Should we read anything into the audio case from this? Probably not, but it's a sign that even those who are sure they are right because they have science on their side should retain some degree of openmindedness.
Human infrared vision is triggered by two-photon chromophore isomerization
This study resolves a long-standing question about the
ability of humans to perceive near infrared radiation (IR)
and identifies a mechanism driving human IR vision. A few
previous reports and our expanded psychophysical studies
here reveal that humans can detect IR at wavelengths longer
than 1,000 nm and perceive it as visible light, a finding
that has not received a satisfactory physical explanation.
We show that IR light activates photoreceptors through a
nonlinear optical process. IR light also caused
photoisomerization of purified pigments and a model
chromophore compound. These observations are consistent
with our quantum mechanical model for the energetics of
two-photon activation of rhodopsin. Thus, humans can
perceive IR light via two-photon isomerization of visual
pigment chromophores.
Ok, I have a 1k+$ of sound equipment, I listen to lossless, and my equipment is 24/192 DAC in hardware (so even if I pass 16/44.1, it will get up-converted). Now give me 24/192 music and don't tell me "you don't need it", because I need it. But for my mobile phone and 29$ earpods, 96 kbps 16/44.1 mp3 from soundcloud is good enough.
Uhhh, 16/44.1 can't be "upconverted" to 24/192. Once you lose that information is gone it is gone forever.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Some people buy $500 wooden knobs to make their volume pots sound better. (or was that a hoax? i can't tell anymore) Some people buy small pyramids to elevate their cables off the floor, some people buy mats to put onto your CDs before putting the CD in a player ( http://dagogo.com/millenniums-m-cd-mat-carbon-cd-damper-revi... ), some people buy $1000+/meter digital interconnect cables ( http://www.theabsolutesound…
If there's psychological phenomena that make them enjoy it more, what's the issue?
No one can see X-rays (or infrared, or ultraviolet, or microwaves). It doesn't matter how much a person believes he can. Retinas simply don't have the sensory hardware. The author seems to have stumbled into a poor example, as a recent study shows that humans can indeed see infrared light using an unexpected process. Should we read anything into the audio case from this? Probably not, but it's a sign that even those…
I agree with the silliness of 192kHz, but not 24-bits. Here is why: In typical PCM recordings, like CDs, mid-range frequencies (e.g. 1kHz to 4kHz) are recorded with lower amplitudes because our ears are more sensitive to them. Sampling theory is correct and 16-bits can reproduce any waveform with ~100dB of range, however, in a complex waveform consisting of low, mid and high frequencies, the mid- and hi-range frequen…
If the results are no better than chance, then 24-bit doesn't matter, regardless of how sound the underlying argument is.
EDIT: The experiment would also be extremely difficult to design. For example, you'd need to run this test with music, not simple sounds. So the question is, which music? I think whatever is most popular at the time would be a good candidate, because if people are listening to music they hate, they won't care about the fine details of the audio. But that introduces an element of uncertainty and noise into the results which is hard to control for.
Some people might deliver accurate results with https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zNSgSzhBfM but not with https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Tr0otuiQuU whereas for others it's the opposite.
Or, it could be the exact opposite: Maybe you can only detect whether a sound is 24-bit when it's a simple tone, and not music.
Age is also a factor. My hearing is worse than a decade ago.
The headphones used by the test are another factor. If you feed 24-bit input to headphones, there's no guarantee that the speakers are performing with 24-bit resolution. In fact, this may be the source of most of the confusion in the debate. I'm not sure how you'd even check whether speakers are physically moving back and forth "at 24-bit resolution" rather than a 16-bit resolution.