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 109969 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: More misinformation

Reply #525 –
Quote from: bennetng on
Quote from: GUTB on
Just because 99% of the music consumers don't have equipment that is able to render 24-bit audio without most / all of the extra information being lost to mediocre noise performance doesn't mean 24-bit audio isn't without value -- if nothing else, for the enjoyment of the 1% who DO have the equipment. Also, archiving in 24-bit opens the possibility for more consumers to enjoy high resolution audio in the future when they can afford higher end gear.
Do you have relevant citation about this 99% and 1% claim? Why it is not 98.5 or 99.3?


And this approach is one of the reasons the debates are going in circles here. The sense of that post is not to make exact quantification of shares.

Re: More misinformation

Reply #526 –
Quote from: jumpingjackflash5 on
Quote from: bennetng on
Quote from: GUTB on
Just because 99% of the music consumers don't have equipment that is able to render 24-bit audio without most / all of the extra information being lost to mediocre noise performance doesn't mean 24-bit audio isn't without value -- if nothing else, for the enjoyment of the 1% who DO have the equipment. Also, archiving in 24-bit opens the possibility for more consumers to enjoy high resolution audio in the future when they can afford higher end gear.
Do you have relevant citation about this 99% and 1% claim? Why it is not 98.5 or 99.3?


And this approach is one of the reasons the debates are going in circles here. The sense of that post is not to make exact quantification of shares.
When there is no reliable sources to prove the correctness of statistics, citing numbers are absolutely useless. It is not even needed to debate, since you can simply imagine any numbers.

Re: More misinformation

Reply #527 –
BTW, this guy http://www.justmastering.com/article-masteredforitunes.php is also "flawed authority"?

Also this link http://www.justmastering.com/article-highresolutionaudio.php on his site seems important to me, as he clearly defines the terms concerning 24 bit audio etc., while being aware of the marketing-hype (Hi-Re$$$$ called here) risk (... at first, one might think this is all about marketing, and I think that is a fair judgement in some ways ...)

And he also writes that ...

"And what's wrong with CDs? Mine still sound fantastic.

Absolutely nothing. CDs were designed to last for a lifetime of use thanks to the fact that nothing (other than our hands!) touches the media, and they are extremely durable. The 16-bit format is - to this day - considered a standard file format for the majority of applications. 16-bit 44.1kHz can be made to sound virtually indistinguishable from 24-bit  to the majority of listeners thanks to technologies like noise-shaped dither, and technical advancements in recording technology ..."

Of course some statements there are also debatable (e.g. he mentions 192 kHz as one of  possible sources which is dismissed by D. Lavry as introducing distortion), but I see good approach on that site to the definitions etc.

Edit: links added

Re: More misinformation

Reply #528 –
Quote from: jumpingjackflash5 on
As I have written much has been said and no need to search for fallacies, paranoia and other disorders ....

But I was talking also about "digital audio losslessness" and tried to explain what I mean under this - not losing digitally audio relevant or "sonically correlating" information to the original recording

That's why patients in an asylum don't assess themselves (or make poor assessors) , the trained Doctors and other professionals do good buddy.
Loudspeaker manufacturer

Re: More misinformation

Reply #529 –
Quote from: ajinfla on
Quote from: jumpingjackflash5 on
As I have written much has been said and no need to search for fallacies, paranoia and other disorders ....

But I was talking also about "digital audio losslessness" and tried to explain what I mean under this - not losing digitally audio relevant or "sonically correlating" information to the original recording

That's why patients in an asylum don't assess themselves (or make poor assessors) , the trained Doctors and other professionals do good buddy.


That is your view of the situation. I am glad I have found some links to other sites that have more reasonable (and not craving) approach to audio. Example posted higher.

Re: More misinformation

Reply #530 –
Quote from: jumpingjackflash5 on
And this approach is one of the reasons the debates are going in circles here. The sense of that post is not to make exact quantification of shares.
It's the posterior derived "stats" and "theories" driving the circular "debate".
Loudspeaker manufacturer

Re: More misinformation

Reply #532 –
Quote from: ajinfla on
Quote from: jumpingjackflash5 on
That is your view of the situation.
And others trying to help your ilk, as I just said. You're not here to learn anything, but we can try.

I think that i have learned here something, but also on other sites/papers that write well about audio. But only here are users that refer to asylums, doctors and other defamating things. Will you please stop this kind of talk and return to topics, if you want to ?

Re: More misinformation

Reply #535 –
Quote from: jumpingjackflash5 on
Quote from: bennetng on
https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,111271.msg918293.html#msg918293
My summary remains correct regardless of any papers you cited right?

In  certain sense, yes. I know that 24-16 is audibly lossless when done properly and I need additional space to save 24 bit audio. But this is not the point of 24 bit container.
What certain sense? Do you mean in audible sense? Please clarify.

Re: More misinformation

Reply #536 –
Quote from: bennetng on
Quote from: jumpingjackflash5 on
Quote from: bennetng on
https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,111271.msg918293.html#msg918293
My summary remains correct regardless of any papers you cited right?

In  certain sense, yes. I know that 24-16 is audibly lossless when done properly and I need additional space to save 24 bit audio. But this is not the point of 24 bit container.
What certain sense? Do you mean in audible sense? Please clarify.

In the sense that audibility at end user scenarios is not the only criteria I take into account, differing from practice on Hydrogen Audio forum, but in accord with practice of Apple Mastering fo Itunes, Rob Stewart from Just Mastering and some other audio professionals.

Re: More misinformation

Reply #537 –
Quote from: jumpingjackflash5 on
Quote from: bennetng on
Quote from: jumpingjackflash5 on
Quote from: bennetng on
https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,111271.msg918293.html#msg918293
My summary remains correct regardless of any papers you cited right?

In  certain sense, yes. I know that 24-16 is audibly lossless when done properly and I need additional space to save 24 bit audio. But this is not the point of 24 bit container.
What certain sense? Do you mean in audible sense? Please clarify.

In the sense that audibility at end user scenarios is not the only criteria I take into account, differing from practice on Hydrogen Audio forum, but in accord with practice of Apple Mastering fo Itunes, Rob Stewart from Just Mastering and some other audio professionals.

To clarify my question, my summary has 2 parts.

[1]  jumpingjackflash5's obsession in 24-bit lossless distribution for listening purpose is not based on any audible reasons. He has a lot of disk space to waste as well.

[2] While he is obsessed with 24-bit lossless in distribution, he also prefers lossy formats converted form 24 or 32-bit sources, ignoring the objective in lossy encoding is transparency, not data integrity.

Since Apple is talking about lossy encoding, I will focus on [2], and I think you already agree with [1] right? So, can you demonstrate audible differences that lossy files generated from 16-bit sound different from 24 or 32-bit sources in double blind tests?

Re: More misinformation

Reply #538 –
Quote from: jumpingjackflash5 on
Of course some statements there are also debatable (e.g. he mentions 192 kHz as one of  possible sources which is dismissed by D. Lavry as introducing distortion), but I see good approach on that site to the definitions etc.
Note that this entire HiRes labelling business with MQ-A etc. was and is a marketing exercise. It is an attempt to get some order into the terminology, but I personally think it only has increased the cacophony. There's nothing in this article that would add any sound reasoning to the debate whether any of this was actually needed.

The reasons given for adopting HiRes are not related to actual audibility, and no evidence is given to this end.

The one single reason why 24-bit is used during recording and mastering is the added dynamic range that eases working with the audio, as one doesn't have to worry constantly about the right compromise between noise floor and distortion. This is a nonexistent problem from the point on where the result is "frozen" into something that gets distributed. It would only be a problem if the dynamic range afforded by 16-bit would be exceeded by actual, real-world productions. That is something I haven't seen yet and don't expect to see, because it would put unreasonable demands on the listening environment. Moreover, I don't know of any art form that would benefit from it.

There is no further case in 24-bit vs. 16-bit. Specifically, it has nothing to do with fidelity, resolution, or any of those warm and fuzzy terms. This is only about noise floor, and the question is whether the dynamic range of 16-bit is enough or not. For all contemporary music, it is far and away enough. No HiRes format will change anything here.

A final remark about using the arguments of mastering engineers:

Mastering engineers are amongst the most vocal supporters of bullshit in the pro audio scene. It fits their own self marketing to emphasize "high resolution". After all, who wants to hire a "half-deaf" mastering engineer? Furthermore, the term "true mastering quality" is almost a curse for me. The single most prominent degradation step in audio quality is the mastering, where they squeeze out dynamics in favor of loudness. They blame the technical distribution format for their own crimes. That's highly hypocritical in my book. They would be the last ones I would turn to for technical expertise on audio formats.

Re: More misinformation

Reply #539 –
To me one of the reasons to advocate any format higher than 16/44 is due to the fact that CD cannot be effectively copy-protected. As long as 16/44 is transparent (without intentional crippling) I will stay away from formats which can be uniquely and audibly watermarked or copy protected by any dirty means.

Re: More misinformation

Reply #540 –
Quote from: pelmazo on
Quote from: jumpingjackflash5 on
Of course some statements there are also debatable (e.g. he mentions 192 kHz as one of  possible sources which is dismissed by D. Lavry as introducing distortion), but I see good approach on that site to the definitions etc.
Note that this entire HiRes labelling business with MQ-A etc. was and is a marketing exercise. It is an attempt to get some order into the terminology, but I personally think it only has increased the cacophony. There's nothing in this article that would add any sound reasoning to the debate whether any of this was actually needed.

The reasons given for adopting HiRes are not related to actual audibility, and no evidence is given to this end.
There is no further case in 24-bit vs. 16-bit. Specifically, it has nothing to do with fidelity, resolution, or any of those warm and fuzzy terms. This is only about noise floor, and the question is whether the dynamic range of 16-bit is enough or not. For all contemporary music, it is far and away enough. No HiRes format will change anything here.

Quantization, dithering, generational loss when saving as 16 bit, ADC SNR higher than CD dynamic range .... but that does not have to change end-user audibility, I agree. But that is stated even there.
 

Re: More misinformation

Reply #541 –
Quote from: jumpingjackflash5 on
I think that i have learned here something, but also on other sites/papers that write well about audio.

"Write well" means tell you what you want to believe. You admit to not being knowledgeable, link nonsense, yet somehow you are able to assess what is "well written"? Again, you are not here to learn, just espouse your audiophile beliefs about 24 bit while constantly saying it isn't audible to not violate TOS, but then believing otherwise. You clearly believe 24 bit is audible, to you, despite the "container" word game nonsense.

Quote from: jumpingjackflash5 on
In the sense that audibility at end user scenarios is not the only criteria I take into account, differing from practice on Hydrogen Audio forum, but in accord with practice of Apple Mastering fo Itunes, Rob Stewart from Just Mastering and some other audio professionals.

That's pure Appeal to Authority, but you have no capacity for cognizance, else you wouldn't have done it. You believe 24 bit Hi Re$ is audible, but you can't come out and claim so on HA due to the TOS, so you are reduced to fabricated terms and word games about preferred "containers".
You can't produce any audible evidence because you don't and ever will have any, period. The questions about you citing specific classical music and remasters are rhetorical. It's obvious to anyone here you don't remaster anything and most likely don't even listen to classical. You simply believe in 24 bits, which a symptom we've seen here many, many times before, on other fishing trips.
Loudspeaker manufacturer

Re: More misinformation

Reply #542 –
Quote from: jumpingjackflash5 on
.... but that does not have to change end-user audibility, I agree.
You are either paying lip service due to HA TOS, or you are admitting that you "need" 24 bits for psychological, not audible reasons.
Rhetorical question, which is it?
Loudspeaker manufacturer

Re: More misinformation

Reply #543 –
Quote from: ajinfla on
most likely don't even listen to classical. You simply believe in 24 bits, which a symptom we've seen here many, many times before, on other fishing trips.


How do you know I do not listen to classical music? I am not English so I listen to my national symphonic works like Smetana, Dvorak, Janacek etc.

Yes I believe that 24 bit has its benefits, although I know that 16 bit is audibly lossless when properly done.

You are the one attacking, often with wrong claims about me, even personally. I am just defending subtle position I take.

Re: More misinformation

Reply #544 –
Quote from: jumpingjackflash5 on
How do you know I do not listen to classical music? I am not English so I listen to my national symphonic works like Smetana, Dvorak, Janacek etc.
Sure. Rhetorical: Cite the specific composition you remastered from 16 bits and found it an inadequate "container"...and why.

Quote from: jumpingjackflash5 on
Yes I believe
Right we know. But HA requires audible evidence, not belief.

Quote from: jumpingjackflash5 on
I know that 16 bit is audibly lossless when properly done.
Then you also know why we don't "believe", like you do.

Quote from: jumpingjackflash5 on
You are the one attacking, often with wrong claims about me
Great, then correct my wrongness. Cite the remastered classical composition and specifics.
Loudspeaker manufacturer

Re: More misinformation

Reply #545 –
Quote from: ajinfla on
Quote from: jumpingjackflash5 on
How do you know I do not listen to classical music? I am not English so I listen to my national symphonic works like Smetana, Dvorak, Janacek etc.
Sure. Rhetorical: Cite the specific composition you remastered from 16 bits and found it an inadequate "container"...and why.

Quote from: jumpingjackflash5 on
Yes I believe
Right we know. But HA requires audible evidence, not belief.

Quote from: jumpingjackflash5 on
I know that 16 bit is audibly lossless when properly done.
Then you also know why we don't "believe", like you do.

Quote from: jumpingjackflash5 on
You are the one attacking, often with wrong claims about me
Great, then correct my wrongness. Cite the remastered classical composition and specifics.


All over again. You know well that I do not have ABX test of 24/16 audibility "ready". I admitted that. And you keep asking. Give it to us! This was not the point I discussed recenlty.

Re: More misinformation

Reply #547 –
Quote from: jumpingjackflash5 on
You know well that I do not have ABX test of 24/16 audibility "ready".
Right. Nor any remasters, or anything you've theorized, fabricated or believe.
Yep, 20+ pages worth. When you're "ready", get back with some evidence. No one's holding their breath here.
Loudspeaker manufacturer

Re: More misinformation

Reply #548 –
Quote from: ajinfla on
Quote from: jumpingjackflash5 on
You know well that I do not have ABX test of 24/16 audibility "ready".
Right. Nor any remasters, or anything you've theorized, fabricated or believe.
Yep, 20+ pages worth. When you're "ready", get back with some evidence. No one's holding their breath here.


No need for me to continue discussion on this level. I do not owe you any evidence, I was thinking this is a discussion forum, not an examination or asylum admittance talk. That is all I can say to your offending posts!

Re: More misinformation

Reply #549 –
Quote from: jumpingjackflash5 on
Quote from: ajinfla on
Quote from: jumpingjackflash5 on
You know well that I do not have ABX test of 24/16 audibility "ready".
Right. Nor any remasters, or anything you've theorized, fabricated or believe.
Yep, 20+ pages worth. When you're "ready", get back with some evidence. No one's holding their breath here.


No need for me to continue discussion on this level. I do not owe you any evidence, I was thinking this is a discussion forum, not an examination or asylum admittance talk. That is all I can say to your offending posts!
I think ajinfla's post is very reasonable and polite this time. How can you say his post (at least this one) is offending simply because you cannot prove you are right?

And you haven't answered my "other question" yet.