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: Why 24bit/48kHz/96kHz/ (Read 399743 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Why 24bit/48kHz/96kHz/

Reply #350 –
Quote from: crimsontide on
I should know, I have a PRS (guitar), with a 1980-something marshall guvnor, running through a JCM900 valve head, all plugged into a 1960 Marshall 4*12 which i bought off Genesis' ex-roadie, who "acquired" it from the band.

And i can tell you, no amount of technical jiggery pokery can reproduce that sound, nor explain it, not the best mic or the most powerful amplifier - or the flattest speaker response.


You are very off-topic crimsontide: the discussion about 24bit etc if a whole different story. Also why these strange 2007' SACD should sound better than the good old CDs? ^^.... nobody can reproduce the feeling of a great, traditional, bad filter used for the 44khz.

[VERY offtopic]
However after reading your post I started to do some interesting (anthropological) thoughts. To understand you, I need to think about some acoustic instrument (a guitar... a violin...) since I have no respect for the electronic sound, while for me acoustic-instruments craftsmen are a sort of wizards, and each instrument is unique and irreproducible -nobody can rebuild a Stradivari-, and it changes and lives each day.

I still could not record the sound and the feeling I have when I play my acoustic and classical guitars. Indeed It seems it is more simple to synthesize them than to record! You can easily check what I said if you try to looking  for the "best" system to amplifying an acoustic guitar to achieving a *natural* sound. They are a sort of synthesizers!

These kind of thoughts are not strange: music was born as a form of magic, and each instrument has a myth  that tells you about a god that invented it. And all craftsmen were ever viewed as wizards. Even a blacksmith, Hephaestus, is a god!

But while I'm attending the courses of electronic engineering, I haven't still seen Harry Potter among my classmates  . Maybe it is the same for a craftsman.

The industrial production has, at least partially, destroyed the myth...

Quote
no amount of technical jiggery pokery can reproduce that sound

Can't you rebuild all your equipment exactly as it is, with the same components? I think there is not "lost knowledge" about it. It was an industrial product. Then I have a doubt: why nobody build it now, in 2007?

Why 24bit/48kHz/96kHz/

Reply #351 –
Quote from: Mercurio on
[Can't you rebuild all your equipment exactly as it is, with the same components? I think there is not "lost knowledge" about it. It was an industrial product. Then I have a doubt: why nobody build it now, in 2007?

I am sure that some part of the music industry is based on faith, just like the hifi industry.

It has been claimed that certain vintages of Fender and Gibson electric guitars sound different from others, and people are trying to build instruments that offer the same qualities in 2007. Who knows what percentage is placebo and what percentage is actual sound/mechanics?

In the case of Hammond organs, at least, its a question of wages. The amount of manual labor needed to build a new one today without capitalising on more advanced (and cost cutting) production methods would ensure that noone could buy it. Back in the 60s people were put i debt to buy Fenders and Gibsons etc here in Europe. Today, you can do it with no sweat...

The question of hifi is a lot simpler because we are building a reproduction chain that isnt supposed to make artistic statements on its own, it is supposed to recreate the soundwaves found in some recording venue (or in the head of some record producer).

-k

Why 24bit/48kHz/96kHz/

Reply #352 –
Mercurio (and crimsontide),

You may have thought you were way off topic, but you're actually very on topic in a way.

There are loads of things about being somewhere which just listening to a recording (even a "perfect" one) cannot re-create. Even if the exact same sound waves hit our ears, all the other senses, experience, and memories could be completely different.

That is interesting, but irrelevant in terms of doing the best we can to reproduce the sound itself.


However, what you said is so important because, all the extra stuff aside, there is lots of information in the sound field of a real acoustic event which isn't captured or reproduced. The same sound waves do not hit our ears. Surely that's a bad thing? Surely we should try to do that at least!

The whole high-res audio debate has concentrated on delivering sound waves to our ears which are more accurate in ways which human ears simply cannot detect, while neglecting to improve the accuracy of the sound waves in ways which almost anyone can detect.

That's what's so tragic. It's not even as if re-creating accurate sound fields is a black art or magic - the science is well known, it's just more difficult that doubling the sampling rate of a DAC! Plus it wouldn't do much for all the old recordings which are just stereo. I'm sure we all realise that any new audio format is partly an excuse for selling us all the same recordings all over again!


The reasons why modern CDs can be so disappointing compared to older releases are well covered here on HA. However, more striking is just how bad any recording (made with conventional microphone layouts) is at reproducing real acoustic instruments in a real space. This is most apparent with instruments which send out different sound waves in different directions, which them bounce around the room and hit the listener from all different directions. We've got used not having this in a recording, but you only have to try to make a realistic recording of a violin or an acoustic guitar to realise that we're dealing in pale, flat imitations. It's no wonder some people like things which distort the sound (e.g. vinyl, valve/tube amplifiers etc) - there is so much lost that people want to put something back in, even if its wrong or artificial. FWIW I don't think 5.1 help much at all, though 6.0 or ambisonics is a step in the right direction.


If ever I have the equipment to perform the test, I want to compare 24/96 stereo with 6.0 driven from 3 256kbps mp3s! I'm willing to bet the latter sounds better.

Cheers,
David.

Why 24bit/48kHz/96kHz/

Reply #353 –
Quote from: 2Bdecided on
Mercurio (and crimsontide),
The whole high-res audio debate has concentrated on delivering sound waves to our ears which are more accurate in ways which human ears simply cannot detect, while neglecting to improve the accuracy of the sound waves in ways which almost anyone can detect.


I agree - this is why I smile to the whole discussion. It seems to me 24bit etc are not the weak ring of the audio chain.

I'm just looking for a good (cheap) headphone, and so I'm reading about distortions, strange frequency response and so on, so big that thinking about 24 bit, 130db of  dynamic range etc etc is simply (yet?) beyond my visual.

Why 24bit/48kHz/96kHz/

Reply #354 –
Now we are onto something interesting :-)

Question is, how many users are willing to do the considerable spending and home-redecoration that is necessary for most multi-channel delivery systems?

Why arent dolby etc more focused on delivering general systems that can be "resynthesized" in terms of soundfield, speaker number and placement according to customer needs?

How many technicians will be able to record music in a way that suits such systems?

Even in a perfectly echo-free chamber with many, many speakers rendering the spatial soundfield with very high precision, are we able to fool our brain into analysing this as a room 30 times larger than what our vision is telling us?

-k
 

Why 24bit/48kHz/96kHz/

Reply #355 –
Quote from: Mercurio on
Do you think you have a better experience when you listen hi-res audio, PKG? Why do you think it is an effect of 24 bit/96khz? Maybe it can be an effect of the light in your room ^^

Yes. I've atteneded many auditions where a fair sweep of price range, resolution and sources was used. The environmental variables across this are simply vast. Moreover, as I never took notes of the audition and equipment, I can't make a valid comment on specifics and I''ve never conducted a back-to-back ABX or test of the higher res format.

But what I can say with certaintly is that I've been moved more by the higher end equipment. I currently own some mid-range Sugden valve o/p equipment and the way it reproduces Sara Maclachlan's 'Angel's' sends shivers all over me and the first time I heard it in a friends' audio room moved me to tears.

Lighting, cables, stands, positioning, tuning & the equipment all played their part. All these variables affected (and affect) the reproduction of the standard CD format we heard.

There were probably no artifacts present in this home based situation (reproduction would have changed with a variable being altered) but was my real world affect by the higher end & res audio just down to better reproduction?

This improved reproduction (from some of this equipment) would have added in better transitions and dynamic range, so I would say yes. But that's measurable.

What's catching us out here is our lack of measured evidence to support what output is produced by higher res sources. This obviously must inlcude the effect (or lack of) the reproduction equipment has.


At the moment, it's just a gut feeling. But it's a feeling I like..

Why 24bit/48kHz/96kHz/

Reply #356 –
Quote from: knutinh on
Even in a perfectly echo-free chamber with many, many speakers rendering the spatial soundfield with very high precision, are we able to fool our brain into analysing this as a room 30 times larger than what our vision is telling us?


I bet it works with your eyes closed!

Until you cough, or just sniff loudly - and then the lack of sound coming back to you makes your brain realise it's all a trick.

FWIW I found normal stereo sounded truly awful in an anechoic chamber.

Cheers,
David.

Why 24bit/48kHz/96kHz/

Reply #357 –
I think this has broadened into a seriously good debate.



I find it fascinating that the subject touches people in so many different ways and is really what I love about music and the technology of Audio...

Why 24bit/48kHz/96kHz/

Reply #358 –
Quote from: putanik on
Dear David, I came in to answer a question of 22049 sine wave perfect reconstruction, and said that this kind of reconstruction exists only on paper. a filter getting from 0 to -98 in 1Hz shall be at least 5s long, what means 44.1^2*1e6*5 Flops ~ 10 G flops, and my gut feeling is that double precision is not enough for all sinewaves from 1hz to 22049 with amplitudes from -80 dBm and up. but people here are completely sure it's a piece of cake.



Really now?

I haven't seen anyone say "that's a piece of cake". Could you please provide a citation?

You do notice Redbook CD has a 2.05 kHz transition band, don't you? Nobody tries to put a 22049 Hz signal through a Redbook CD.

So, how is this straw man any sort of contribution at all to the discussion?

Btw, with a 5*44100 tap filter, you'll need about log base 2 of that in extra bits at the bottom of the filter resolution.  Why is this news?  It's old hat.
-----
J. D. (jj) Johnston

Why 24bit/48kHz/96kHz/

Reply #359 –
Quote from: Mercurio on
Can't you rebuild all your equipment exactly as it is, with the same components? I think there is not "lost knowledge" about it. It was an industrial product. Then I have a doubt: why nobody build it now, in 2007?



I concur my wine tasting analogy was probably a bad move.

However I'm not as off topic as you may think. My point is - that even WITH 24bit, 96khz, through the very best and stupidly powerful amplifier, with incredible speakers, it's just not going to sound the same hearing that riff chugging out of those 4 * 12" greenback cones. At present we do not have the technology to make it sound like that through synthesis (i.e. VST plugins etc.) - nor does recording it reproduce this faithfully. The question even stands - can our current hifi speakers reproduce that kind of noise, and vibration, can they really disturb the air in that way?

I know that there will be cries of "microphone" now, and rightly so.....but assuming the micorophone is perfect........one day........perhaps we will get speakers and microphones which make 24bit 96khz worthwhile, even if it cannot be abxed with todays sources.

I agree with you about acoustics too - my dads has a beautiful 12 string which i dearly love to play (although tuning is a right pain!), and it really is this intangible "feeling" which I'm not convinced I've ever heard coming from a digital sample (from any source).

Well thats my last on the matter, I'll probably lurk for another 6 to 12 months now.....I will read any replies however.

I guess I wanted to say, that while abxing the digital samples can't be done at the moment, perhaps if we keep developing this higher resolutionm technology, we will find that once the other weak points in the chain are improved, we actually CAN abx between these audio resolutinos and frequencies. Food for thought anyway. Not wine, but food.
Gone.

Why 24bit/48kHz/96kHz/

Reply #360 –
Quote
Quote
You're not the only one. Really.


Well I haven't been here since before Christmas, so can I circle just one more time please?


I just want to clarify what I meant, cause I'm also not sure if I passed the message correctly. To avoid a somewhat inflammatory comment I contained myself. What I really wanted to say was (in a less dubious way): "I'm also tired of you [putanik] going around in circles". I mean, putanik gets all touchy when his competence is questioned but refuses to provide scientific evidence of discernible difference (ABX tests). He refused to answer simple/concrete questions related to the technical arguments he raised and in the end (before my post) he invites Woodinville to meet and "discuss things in a normal way". I mean, WTF?! Not to sound like a drama queen, but to me this is called disrespecting everyone involved in this discussion, including the ones just reading.

Regarding the topic: no, I don't have reasons to believe that anything more than 44.1 kHz/16bit (properly mastered and dithered) is necessary for listening purposes. On the contrary, from human physiology limits (hard to circumvent) to restrictions on almost all recording and playback devices, everything seems to point that 44.1 kHz/16 bit is enough. Unfortunately, my knowledge is not that great and that's why I enjoy reading threads like this.

Would I have problems with 96 kHz/24bit becoming the minimum choice in generally available consumer formats? No, not really, as long as I could still rip and encode it in whatever way I need/want.

Why 24bit/48kHz/96kHz/

Reply #361 –
Quote from: crimsontide on
I agree with you about acoustics too - my dads has a beautiful 12 string which i dearly love to play (although tuning is a right pain!), and it really is this intangible "feeling" which I'm not convinced I've ever heard coming from a digital sample (from any source).


(*this applies to the electric issue as well*)

Consider.

When you hold the guitar, you feel the vibration as well as hear it. The guitar has nothing like a uniform radiation pattern, it is different to the two ears, and different to the surroundings that reflect.

There is, in short, a lot more information than can be conveyed in two channels. Even if you use binaural miking, you can't move your head the same way twice (for the binaural miking and the playback) and you wouldn't feel the guitar vibrating in your hands, against your chest, etc.

So there's no way the experience is going to seem similar.

The point, of course, is that all of these effects are way, way above any kind of auditory threshold or sensory threshold, and the effects from 16/44 are, at best, at the very teeny-tiny-barely-perceptable even if they are.

Much information is lost in recordings. That is the major issue with verisimilitude in recordings.  This information is primarly spatial, and is not due to the flaws of the system, except in that the system is only two channel.  Yes, multichannel works better.

Quote from: 2Bdecided on
FWIW I found normal stereo sounded truly awful in an anechoic chamber.

Cheers,
David.


It's possible to make a recording that does sound good played back in stereo in an anechoic chamber.

It is, however, not a normal recording, and it wouldn't sound so hot in a normal room.

Quote from: m0rbidini on
He refused to answer simple/concrete questions related to the technical arguments he raised and in the end (before my post) he invites Woodinville to meet and "discuss things in a normal way".


Well, the question of bit depth is directly related to the peak level one can get from one's system and the noise level of both the room and the atmosphere.  At best, the noise level of the atmosphere at the eardrum is circa-6dB SPL white noise. So 6+96=102, if you listen below 102dB peak level, 16 bits has to suffice.

Most equipment will go somewhat beyond that, though. So you could need a bit more, until you consider the noise level in a good, quiet listening room, which is well above that 6dB number. Even in very good, custom-built commercial isolated settings, 9dB is an extraordinarily good number to achieve.
-----
J. D. (jj) Johnston

Why 24bit/48kHz/96kHz/

Reply #362 –
Don't forget that with proper dithering and noise shaping you can get some extra dB with 16-bit audio.

Why 24bit/48kHz/96kHz/

Reply #363 –
Quote from: Firon on
Don't forget that with proper dithering and noise shaping you can get some extra dB with 16-bit audio.



At redbook standards, not a lot, though.

Now a 4th order shaper at 64kHz...
-----
J. D. (jj) Johnston

Why 24bit/48kHz/96kHz/

Reply #364 –
Quote from: Light-Fire on
Quote

...As a pragmatic mathematician ... I can't imagine a reason why anybody would spend his/her time on altering CD version vs stereo SACD, especially in classical music, where profits are 0.


I can think of a couple:

Pushing a new format where you have copy protection.

Pushing a new format that people will believe has a better audible quality and will be encouraged to upgrade their collections.



A third:  making the CD version more listenable (louder) in a noisy (automobile, portable) environment because you can play the CD tracks in a car/discman/ipod, whereas you can't play the SACD layer in any of them (without first recapturing analog output to digital PCM).  Nothing especially 'shady' about that.  It's simply a decision about the market.

Quote from: PKI on
Is feeling the music a placebo response?


It can be, if you are 'responding' to something extramusical -- like a subconscious bias that a 'high resoution' format will sound better.



Quote from: PKI on
Quote from: pepoluan on

Now, those "inaudible high frequency artifacts" you're saying... if they are inaudible, by the previous conjectures they are also incapable of inducing any 'feeling' in you.


I'm aware that this is a scientific forum so I'm going to stay away from the tenuous 'I can feel something' argument, but we are talking about sonic resonances that may be having an affect on certain people, that when mixed with other stimuli you mention (memory, smell, touch etc), creates that feeling.


We cannot hear 'resonances' above ~22 kHz, nor can we differentiate bitdepths above ~15 bits.  So if the sonic input is already encompassing these limits, then the 'other stimuli' MUST be what is causing the different 'response'.  Not the sound!  Why is this so hard to grasp?


Quote
Just because we can't hear these (super, infra) artifacts, it doesn't mean that they're not there playing their part in the overall signature of what you're experiencing.


Actually, given what is known, it DOES mean that.  Unless you have some good evidence to the contrary.

Why 24bit/48kHz/96kHz/

Reply #365 –
Quote from: crimsontide on
Without meaning any disrespect, nor to direct this at anyone in particular, the whole point of trying to scientifically examine the listening of a musical recording is like trying to digitally sample the aesthetics (for want of a better word) of a good mature glass of wine.


BULL.  Really.  I'm tired of this particular , anti-scientific, perennial non-argument from woo.  I move that its ilk be added to the list of TOS violations for RAHE.


Quote
Those of you who appreciate wine will know that this simply cannot be done,


Bull.  The reality of wine differences CAN BE and ARE routinely validated via blind tests.    THAT is all that we are asking: evidence that differences that are reportedly 'heard' , are really due to the SOUND.

Quote
and computer equipment must be at least 3 decades to a century short on development for this particular application (wine).


Actually wine qualities are already being decoded into chemical correlates.  There's a chemist making very good money selling his chemistry-based recommendations to the vintners of the world. 

Quote
I should know, I have a PRS (guitar), with a 1980-something marshall guvnor, running through a JCM900 valve head, all plugged into a 1960 Marshall 4*12 which i bought off Genesis' ex-roadie, who "acquired" it from the band.

And i can tell you, no amount of technical jiggery pokery can reproduce that sound, nor explain it, not the best mic or the most powerful amplifier - or the flattest speaker response. As of 2007 - it still cant be done.


I'd bet it could actually be simulated pretty well digitally, if someone cared to.

Quote
ABX is not the be all and end all of audio comparisons.


They're a damn sight more reliable than sighted methods.

Quote
To form an analogy, ABX is to sonic comparison, what a postcode is to an address - an engineering necessity, but with wholly inaccurate results.


THat's a rather bad analogy.  Here's another slightly better one: assuming sighted listening is 'accurate' is like depending on someone to ALWAYS write the correct address.

Quote
It gets a general result, but does it actually answer the question....? I think its time to chat with some audiophiles, who would concur with my wine analogy.


Yeah, it is, for you...I suggest you skidaddle to Audio Asylum or some other den of woo, where standards of evidence are considered bad form.

Why 24bit/48kHz/96kHz/

Reply #366 –
Quote from: PKI on
...Lighting, cables, stands... All these variables affected (and affect) the reproduction of the standard CD format we heard...



This is one of the most absurd things I've ever heard!

Why 24bit/48kHz/96kHz/

Reply #367 –
Quote from: krabapple on
Quote
Those of you who appreciate wine will know that this simply cannot be done,
Bull.  The reality of wine differences CAN BE and ARE routinely validated via blind tests.    THAT is all that we are asking: evidence that differences that are reportedly 'heard' , are really due to the SOUND.
I agree. It's just a shame that those who can afford the >€100 per glass wines are seldom the ones who can identify them in a blind test
Quote
Actually wine qualities are already being decoded into chemical correlates.  There's a chemist making very good money selling his chemistry-based recommendations to the vintners of the world.
My father-in-law is a wine lover and tried to analyse wine in his chemical lab years ago. That worked very well, but re-synthesizing the wine, using exactly the same components was a great disillusion.
Quote
Quote
ABX is not the be all and end all of audio comparisons.
Perhaps ABX isn't, but double-blind is, IMHO.

Why 24bit/48kHz/96kHz/

Reply #368 –
I think that wine is an excellent example that:
1. Science cannot do everything. Simply analysing and resynthesizing the best wines is either impossible or prohibitively expensive.

2. The above does not matter in establishing "facts" as we can simply do a blind test to find the best wine.



It astonishes me that presumably intelligent audiophiles keep hammering that "science is not good enough", "the ear has more resolution than any measurement", when logically, that does not matter. What matters is that the moment you remove the info on what is playing, the audiophile cannot "hear" the improvements reported by using hoax cables, green marker, and hirez audio.

The single, intelligent model for explaining the above is that humans are subjective devices that responds to other stimuli as well as sound. Once agreed upon, it is evident that you cannot take the claims from a sighted test ("improved soundstage") to mean anything about the sound alone. It can only be seen as a total subjective rating on anything from looks, tactile feel, marketing etc.

-k

Why 24bit/48kHz/96kHz/

Reply #369 –
From a socialogical (?) perspective, there is one thing that astonishes me:
Belonging to a "objectivist" school of thought myself, I have no strong feelings about the capabilities of human hearing. We might have really bad capabilities, or we might be able to circumvent any measurement devices. What matters to me is that in all probability, it is limited. Just because most things in nature are limited, the number of processing units in our brain is limited etc.

But for those that subscribe to the "subjective" school of thought, it seems like there is a mission to actively suppress any info that counters their initial believe. That there is no need for good arguements because the truth should be self-evident. In fact, if you are trying to make an arguement, then you are a cold, life-less engineer not able to appreciate the music. Oh, and by the way, that music "flows" better in a 96kHz path because the electrone-particles are smaller and therefore more analog-like :-)

I actually think it would be very cool if the hearing was proven to be more than the scientists have proven so far. Interesting. But as long as the alternative/subjectivist camp is incapable of providing coherent lines of thought that would pass the scruitiny of a 5-year-old, I suspect that any such revelations will appear from elsewhere.

This is sad because it is always more interesting to discuss with smart people than angry people, even if you disagree on everthing.

-k

Why 24bit/48kHz/96kHz/

Reply #370 –
Quote from: krabapple on
I'd bet it could actually be simulated pretty well digitally, if someone cared to.


Well if you had any knowledge, experience or indeed any valid opinion whatsoever on this subject you'd be well aware that this is not possible yet. Have you ever actually heard a combination of equipment like this in real life? Have you ever tried using that ridiculous cabinet simulation equipment, or VST valve emulators?

I know the answer - NO.

because they all sound absolutely rubbish - tried pretty much all of them, as my friend works in turnkey in london.

I'm not sure you really know what a guitar sound should really be like... so you're using a logic gate of blind comparisons to work out whats best.....it's ridiculous. What happened to flavour......my point was that you really can't record that, and if you COULD, maybe we would be able to ABX it, its just that the microcphones can't record the raw power, and miss a lot of texture.

Quote
Yeah, it is, for you...I suggest you skidaddle to Audio Asylum or some other den of woo, where standards of evidence are considered bad form.


you failed to provide any evidence yourself back there......

I'm beginning to think this forum is full of pale skinned sun-dodgers who've never left their house but read a lot of forum bullshit, and all concur, since it is the latest scientific opinion in their favourite circles of pseudo social groups, that in the fact the earth IS flat, because noone has provided any "evidence" that it is is in fact round.

I'm suggesting there are other possibilities, since you missed my second post to follow up the one that just tickled your hate buds, you don't seem the kind of person to cover all angles anyway.

This forum appears to be the audio-scientific equivalent of the Arian Brotherhood, except, ain't nobody got your back.

There really is no discussion here....just fascism.

I'm pleased to say you dont have to add me to any list, because I am already gone.
Gone.

Why 24bit/48kHz/96kHz/

Reply #371 –
I vote for this topic to be closed.

The nonsense starts to be too high.  And there has been no proove that high-resolution is needed, so point closed.

Just stupid references to simulators..

Why 24bit/48kHz/96kHz/

Reply #372 –
Quote from: crimsontide on
This forum appears to be the audio-scientific equivalent of the Arian Brotherhood, except, ain't nobody got your back.

There really is no discussion here....just fascism.

YMMD! 

Since this thread is growing long I guess it was about time, right? All hail Godwin!

Why 24bit/48kHz/96kHz/

Reply #373 –
Quote from: crimsontide on
Quote from: krabapple on

I'd bet it could actually be simulated pretty well digitally, if someone cared to.


Well if you had any knowledge, experience or indeed any valid opinion whatsoever on this subject you'd be well aware that this is not possible yet. Have you ever actually heard a combination of equipment like this in real life? Have you ever tried using that ridiculous cabinet simulation equipment, or VST valve emulators?

I know the answer - NO.

because they all sound absolutely rubbish - tried pretty much all of them, as my friend works in turnkey in london.

That's true. The main reason for this is that guitars and amplifiers are highly non-linear systems. Most digital systems try to simulate them using LTI theory or, I believe, coupled interpolated LTI systems to simulate some degree of non-linearity. The problem is, that non-linearities are one of the main reasons guitar purists prefer valve amps ("warm", "smooth", etc). Furthermore, things like amp <-> speaker feedback and speaker <-> air response are hard to simulate.

There are some quite good simulators on the market (I actually use one myself, which emulates a Vox amp quite nicely). However, when I plug my guitar into the Fender Twin of our other guitarist I'm in guitar heaven for at least half an hour... 

By the way I don't think this topic should be closed. I see nice postings from both "camps". I'm currently deeply into human auditory and cognitive research, so I find it highly interesting.

Why 24bit/48kHz/96kHz/

Reply #374 –
Quote from: Light-Fire on
Quote from: PKI on


...Lighting, cables, stands... All these variables affected (and affect) the reproduction of the standard CD format we heard...



This is one of the most absurd things I've ever heard!


You're missing the point and I'm only asking you to look beyond the purely scientific viewpoint for a few seconds.

You've taken that stement out of a wider context. I was saying that there are many variables that will affect the way the sound is reproduced... Are you telling me that the various dymanic ranges and electrical characteristics of the equipment won't make any difference? But this isn't about what we can hear or measure in an ABX or lab..

Of course we can't 'hear' above 22k.. we all agree that bit depths above 15 or 16 become hard(er) to differentiate.. Science and good mearuring has proved as much.. but just because we can't hear them, doesn't mean that frequencies greater than 22k or lower that 18 Hz aren't playing their part in the 'experience'... 

You can remove various influences to lean or focus the measuring, but you simply can't discount all other known or unknown factors and state they have no effect...

I may have bettered the most absurd thing you've ever heard, as It doesn't suit the black and white mathematical model, but the phrase you're looking for is it just might..

If it stays a friendly, then I agree that this should stay open, as it is nice to see some behavioural input.