Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: More misinformation (Read 111708 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: More misinformation

Reply #50 –
Quote from: saratoga on
Quote from: KozmoNaut on
That's not what I'm arguing, I'm simply arguing that your statement "If you really don't have analog volume control I would upgrade to something better" is disingenuous, as digital volume control is perfectly fine and comparable in quality to analog volume control, in most cases.

He was arguing that he needed 24 bit source material because of Windows volume control.  This is:

1) wrong.
2) a good indication that you probably need an analog volume knob somewhere if this is actually becoming a problem.

Digital volume control can work fine, but its harder to do well then just adjusting gain, which is why few systems lack analog volume somewhere in the chain.

Fair enough, you'll get no further argument from me, since I think we actually agree.

Re: More misinformation

Reply #51 –
Quote from: pdq on
Quote from: jumpingjackflash5 on
Then many discussions would disappear and every consumer could experience  (buy) the maximum reasonable quality at standard prices.
Please present your evidence that 44/16 is not reasonable quality.


And to be more concrete, if the recordings be distributed in 24/48 (24/96)
- dithering would not be discussed at consumer's level
- noise floor will be so low that it would be all the time under the DAC SNR
- resampling during play would be rarely needed on different hardware
- theoretical benefits of moving from 16/44.1 to 24/48 (although their ABXability is debatable) will occur
- consumers could make their V0 MP3's, FLAC's or other conversions from a very good master source they pay for (they can even make a very high quality 16/44.1 CD if desired)

etc ...



Re: More misinformation

Reply #52 –
All this talk of 24bit 48Khz distribution being reasonable compromise is broken thinking predicated on the false belief that if one meets crazy half-way that their irrational behavior will cease.
Creature of habit.

Re: More misinformation

Reply #53 –
"So long as digital audio standards conform to my woefully incomplete understanding of digital audio no one else will argue about it."

Sigh.

EDIT: Soap beat me.  That two separate people came up with essentially the same message speaks volumes.

The title of this discussion is a gift that keeps on giving.

Re: More misinformation

Reply #54 –
Quote from: jumpingjackflash5 on
I was arguing that one of the reasons for 24 bit is also the digital volume control. I know that doing digital volume control at 16 bit is possible and introduces no or very small (inaudible) distortions.

Digital volume control requires a DAC with more dynamic range, it does not require 24 bit material, and in fact if you actually have >16 bit source material you cannot use digital volume control without sacrificing at least some dynamic range.

If I understand your reasoning, you are actually arguing for 16 bit source material and something like 19-20 bits on the DAC so that volume adjustment can be done in software. This will work but it's not really necessary.

Quote from: jumpingjackflash5 on
Still after all those discussions I clearly see that consumers would highly benefit from 24/48 kHz, if that would not be agreed the 24/96 standard. When I could buy my albums at those rates, I would not discuss the things I am discussing now. CD 16/44.1 is hifi, but is too close to limits and especially at computers age slowly sees its limits and borders.

What limits have you personally seen?

Re: More misinformation

Reply #55 –
Quote from: jumpingjackflash5 on
And to be more concrete, if the recordings be distributed in 24/48 (24/96)
- dithering would not be discussed at consumer's level
- noise floor will be so low that it would be all the time under the DAC SNR
- resampling during play would be rarely needed on different hardware
- theoretical benefits of moving from 16/44.1 to 24/48 (although their ABXability is debatable) will occur
- consumers could make their V0 MP3's, FLAC's or other conversions from a very good master source they pay for (they can even make a very high quality 16/44.1 CD if desired)
In today's CDs dithering is not really necessary because their S?N is well under 16 bits. Even in the old days, before excess compression, you would have to look long and hard to find one whose master came anywhere near 16 bits.
The reason that the DAC needs more S/N is because one applies a volume control between the raw audio data and the amplifier. Otherwise 16 bits would be adequate for DACs as well.
Resampling during play is a problem that existed ten years ago.
One does not listen to theoreticalbenefits.
24/48 is perfectly reasonable for processing audio data. If you want to take the 16/44 from a CD and process it in some way then go right ahead. All I am saying is that as a distribution medium there is no benefit to going above 16/44.

Re: More misinformation

Reply #56 –
Alright, it seems that I have said enough for the reasons that 24/48 (24/96) would be in todays enivronment a better distributing standard. I do not want to discuss those controversial things all over and over. Maybe the future will tell, I think that in the next 10 years 24/48 or other new format will be standardized as a distribution format for audio.

best regards, Jan

Re: More misinformation

Reply #57 –
Quote from: jumpingjackflash5 on
Alright, it seems that I have said enough for the reasons that 24/48 (24/96) would be in todays enivronment a better distributing standard. ... Maybe the future will tell, I think that in the next 10 years 24/48 or other new format will be standardized as a distribution format for audio.

The future will tell if 24/48 becomes standardthe prevalent distribution format, but even if it does that doesn't mean the adoption was merited.
Creature of habit.

Re: More misinformation

Reply #60 –
If those arguments that were discussed on this thread, including the ABXed performance of a very common SB Audigy SE card, are not enough for you, then I cannot help further. I did not say anything very bad against 16/44.1 as a format, though. I think that I have been concrete in the statements, of course when some people were want to prove me wrong they will always find an argument or can twist a sentence against me.

Thats all for discussion, we can continue on the actual topics here or elsewhere.

Re: More misinformation

Reply #61 –
Quote from: jumpingjackflash5 on
If those arguments that were discussed on this thread, including the ABXed performance of a very common SB Audigy SE card, are not enough for you,

Just so we're clear, thats an example of an ancient device that uses a bad resampler.  I don't think its even related to what you're talking about (no one doubts that bad resampling is possible), so its definitely not "enough".  Its not even relevant.   

Quote from: jumpingjackflash5 on
I did not say anything very bad against 16/44.1 as a format, though.

If there is no problem, then there is also no need for a solution.  This is what I am pointing out.  Changing to something else for no reason is a bad idea.   
 

Re: More misinformation

Reply #62 –
Ok,  in this sense and within your own logic you are right.

Re: More misinformation

Reply #63 –
As if none of this has been discussed here long before?

"The industry must change their standard in order to compensate for all inadequately designed hardware, past, present and future." <scoffs>

Meanwhile, software resampling is and has always been an acceptable solution for rational people who use sound cards with poor resampling.

Re: More misinformation

Reply #64 –
Ok, as I have said. In this sense and within the exposed logic (16/44.1 format itselfs is enough and we will defend it) you are right.

Re: More misinformation

Reply #65 –
Quote from: jumpingjackflash5 on
Ok, as I have said. In this sense and within the exposed logic (16/44.1 format itselfs is enough and we will defend it) you are right.

Unless you're going to change your mind and argue that there is some problem with 16/44.1, I don't see why you'd quality it.

Just go back to what I told you originally:  switching to another format would be pointless.

Re: More misinformation

Reply #66 –
Quote from: greynol on
As if none of this has been discussed here long before?

"The industry must change their standard in order to compensate for all inadequately designed hardware, past, present and future." <scoffs>

Meanwhile, software resampling is and has always been an acceptable solution for rational people who use sound cards with poor resampling.

This.

To back up the mod: I have games that use 32 KHz 4-bit ADPCM for endless looping music and resampling it to 44.1 or 48 KHz never hurt anything.  Still played fine.  In fact game consoles and PCs pretty much already do this quietly in the background while you're enjoying the game.

Re: More misinformation

Reply #67 –
Quote from: jumpingjackflash5 on
Alright, it seems that I have said enough for the reasons that 24/48 (24/96) would be in todays enivronment a better distributing standard.
Yes, too many audiophile "Hi Re$" beliefs.

Quote from: jumpingjackflash5 on
Maybe the future will tell
You missed the last 17 yrs, SACD, DVDA, etc?
Loudspeaker manufacturer

Re: More misinformation

Reply #68 –
In my opinion it is a pity that one of those formats (e.g. Dvd-audio at 24/48 or 24/96) did not succeed. But it sometimes unfortunately happens on the market   ::)

Re: More misinformation

Reply #70 –
Quote from: greynol on
Because of a missed opportunity for surround to become mainstream, yes.  Not because of hi-res unicorns, however.

Well, concerning the sample rates and hi res I am not an very big expert and thus I respect the opinions of experienced people like Dan Lavry, whose papers Sampling Theory For Digital Audio and The Optimal Sample Rate for Quality Audio you probably know (googleable). There are arguments like

"Nyquist pointed out that the sampling rate needs only to exceed twice the signal bandwidth.
What is the audio bandwidth? Research shows that musical instruments may produce energy
above 20 KHz, but there is little sound energy at above 40KHz. Most microphones do not pick
up sound at much over 20KHz. Human hearing rarely exceeds 20KHz, and certainly does not
reach 40KHz. The above suggests that 88.2 or 96KHz would be overkill. In fact all the
objections regarding audio sampling at 44.1KHz, (including the arguments relating to pre
ringing of an FIR filter) are long gone by increasing sampling to about 60KHz. ..."

"In fact, high quality audio converters operating at sample rates no higher than 96 KHz offer results that are very close to the desired theoretical limits."

"And for audio, it is best to reject the energy outside of the range of hearing. Of course I want to accommodate the most sensitive ears, and with some serious “safety margin”. However, even after adding an extra 10 KHz, we are talking about bandwidth no higher than 40 KHz. That is why 88.2 or 96 KHz are preferred rates for audio quality."

Also the people who were around creating CDs (I do not have exact reference available now) spoke about that it would have been ideal to make the common "final" standard somewhere around 20 bits and 50-60 kHz. Before CDs there was an Soundstream technology avaliable which sampled at 50 kHz http://arpjournal.com/soundstream-the-introduction-of-commercial-digital-recording-in-the-united-states/ .

To sum up, I know well that a law of diminishing returns exists and that "more is not always better" in audio.

Also because of those reasons i think it would be great to offer music for buying at 24/48, or if not agreed on that 24/96 kHz format. of course from recorded masters at that rate, not upsampled from cds/vinyl ripped as we see sometimes now.


Jan

Re: More misinformation

Reply #71 –
I suggest you search the forum instead if rehashing dead arguments. There have been plenty of posts from people every bit as knowledgeable as Dan Lavry who don't have a pecuniary interest in peddling snake oil.

Re: More misinformation

Reply #72 –
Ok, thanks for recommendation, I will stay at the points of view I expressed, which do not mean I dream of must-having 24/96 or 24/192 or whatever as written here Hi-Res$$ approach.

Re: More misinformation

Reply #73 –
I am sorry to get on another side, but except of electrostatic speakers the frequencies above 20 kHz are usually not reproduced by the hifi chain at all.

But I am also open to the theory that we can somewhat "feel" even the frequencies e.g. in 20-30 kHz range (although they do not contribute directly to the sounds we hear), not many proofs of this however has been done.

Re: More misinformation

Reply #74 –
HydorgenAudio has TOS8, if anyone have superhuman hearing they can always post their DBT results and related audio samples here.

Just make sure the listening test is correctly performed. It is too easy to get false positives. For example this one:

https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,110058.0.html