All of the physical stuff being described can be modeled by a competent mechanical/electrical engineering team. Modeled so accurately that a 'virtual' copy of the speaker can likely predict the behavior incredibly accurately (including the enviornment.) All of the things like 'standing waves' on a speaker diaphragm are 'old hat', and can be predicted fairly well.
It is perhaps time to add a new knowledge to your personal culture... it hadn't been done yet, i would be very pleased to see one of that kind of study before my death. In an effort to stay in touch with the topic, i can say that the sound propagation in our environement (air, room and objects) is infinitely complex and unpredictible by nature, and the 1D point of view is a good explanation for the children but not for an adult.
The environment can also be included in models. But, at a certain point, it is silly to go into more detail. There are so many kinds of environments, that a generally applicable design will work well.
This is all about the nonsensical 'audiophile' reasoning (and pseudo-wine tasting language) vs. the real state of engineering and research. There are still alot of snake oil salesemen selling inferior product with 'personality' vs. very accurate equipment. I vote on the side of real, accurate engineering vs. the overly expensive snake oil. Too many people without real engineering backgrounds get taken in by snake oil marketing.
In some cases, some of the snake oil marketing IS backed by sound engineering, but that is really kind of sad. People are being dys-educated into being idiots in the guise of pseudo-tech.
Real world engineering thinking and work is where the real advances are made (or, in the case of a lot of legacy technologies -- e.g. most audio stuff), already have been made. Please refer to the rather curious love of vacuum tubes (definitely legacy, but cute technology.) It is damned hard to get really good distortion and bandwidth on tube gear, but they try (barely succeeding) -- and some make money at it, esp with the snake oil behind it. (I started designing with 'tubes' years ago -- I know what I am talking about.)
I just published the 3rd preview release of fre:ac with my SuperFast multi-threading technology. You can download it from GitHub.
This release adds support for multi-threaded LAME MP3 encoding. It scales very well with the number of CPU cores and can achieve a 3.5x speed-up on a quad core CPU. On my i7-6900K, I was able to measure up to 12x speed-up when running with all 16 threads (in most scenarios, however, either decoding or HDD/SSD speed will be a bottleneck before going to such speeds).
Two key points distinguish SuperFast LAME from previous attempts to build multi-threaded MP3 encoders:
It keeps the bit-reservoir enabled in order to achieve the same quality as the original encoder.
It uses an unmodified LAME encoder library, so the encoder can be swapped out for your own version.
Making it work while keeping the bit-reservoir enabled was actually the greatest challenge. Here is a technical article on how this is implemented: SuperFast LAME technical details
I plan to implement this technology on top of the command line LAME frontend in the future. For now, my priority is on releasing fre:ac 1.1 beta and final versions, though.
Thanks in advance for trying the preview and posting your results and opinions!
Last post by no9 -
I have two questions about equalizer. Is it possible to add one or two bands below 55 Hz? Can eq preserve settings while it is disabled and it's windows is closed? Now it resets all bands.
Last post by gfxnow -
Just wondering why LAME is not included with foobar2000 considering that the patents on mp3 expired last year. I have no issues downloading the LAME bundle from RareWares, just asking out of curiosity
I have a couple of questions concerning the average level of treble in recordings because, I am noticing differences between, let's say, original UK LP's back in 1991, versus the CD version of the same era. I can feel that some vinyl rips are a bit brighter and clearer and the CD seems the treble has a limit.
a) Do CDs do have a treble limit when mastered and follow a "right" reference? And if that is so: (1) What's the standard intensity of treble on a CD, expected? (2) How can this be measured by using Audacity, for both vinyl and CD? What to expect from the CD in terms of dB intensity of treble, and vinyl? How to know if someone got a master a little bit odd? (I'm not talking about the preemphasis technics here on 1980 CDs... those are superbright)
b) Are these vinyl rips impossible to tell what's really going on because of all the analogue to digital audio conversion factors involved, like equipment and cartridge used, needles, etc. Are some needles brighter? Or is the software for post-processing the data that creates any EQ and boosts the treble? Or are these vinyl cuts really a gem of their time?
I will use an example here: Kraftwerk - The Mix - Original UK CD vs. Original UK LP. The LP seems better. Or is it just brighter than it should and sound good to my ears but the CD is the right reference?
Certain pressings such as Tears For Fears - Songs From The Big Chair are also another hellish camp. I came across an almost perfect vinyl rip - UK original pressing - and boy does that sound so good, the mastering is definitely different. But the Mercury UK CD is "thinner" in sound, a little bit. While the LP has a bit more bass.
Last but not least: Can I downsample a 32/192 vinyl rip to 16/44.1 with no major problems using SoX (no dithering), or would it be wiser (though useless) to downsample such a high resolution to 24/96, 24/48 or 16/48 because of the even numbers of the samplerate (less complex math)? Now I'm not talking about any audible differences but wisdom to what theoretically "better" thing to do in this case.