Skip to main content
Recent Posts
1
General Music Discussion / Re: Can remastered CDs sound too different and modernized?
Last post by Porcus -
some albums labeled as "FDR" (that's full dynamic range), when they were previously released only with a lot of compression:
Carcass — Swansong
At the Gates — Slaughter of the Soul
(for all of the above I ignored releases on non-digital mediums, of course)

Earache's "full dynamic range" series, well ... not all have higher DR. I have not scrutinized it, but I found that both Bandcamp downloads of Sleep's Holy Mountain have a DR of 13, which is the same as my 1992 CD.
So they have a "full dynamic range" remaster with no higher dynamic range ...
That's why I added "when they were previously released only with a lot of compression".
Of course some of them had no problem to begin with.

That is the wrong part. Even at least one that was previously released with the same dynamic range now is for sale in two editions from the same outlet: a DR 13 edition, and a "full dynamic range" with a DR of ... 13.

I would make the hunch that they just went back to all their files and did a "flat" transfer without any limiting, and without checking whether the "other" had any such processing, but arguably it looks a bit like audiophoolery.
3
Support - (fb2k) / Re: Option buttons - problem
Last post by Case -
Such a button works fine here. Did you remember to have some file(s) selected when you clicked the button? A context command requires a context to run on.
5
General Audio / Re: (Free) Software to analyze HD and DSD tracks?
Last post by magicgoose -
You can use ffmpeg to convert to PCM and then analyze PCM as usual.
Also why do you need anything above 22 kHz? Do you plan slowing them down?
If not, you can simply convert them all to 44100 Hz or 48000 Hz without even looking.
It's 100% okay for good records to have a cutoff at ~20 kHz if they aren't intended for further sampling/creative use, because ultrasonic content can only make the sound worse if there are nonlinear distortions somewhere in the playback pipeline, and otherwise it's just extra wasted power in amplifiers/etc.

…just make sure you aren't introducing clipping when resampling. AFAIK if you do the resampling with sox, it will print a warning if the maximum sample level was exceeded.
6
General Audio / Re: This is a High Resolution Listening test
Last post by cliveb -
Anyone else get this error?
Nope. The file is fine:
OK, problem solved. Metaflac shows that Arny's file was encoded with libFLAC 1.2.1, and I was using an old 1.1.1 FLAC decoder.
Apologies - I should have checked that before my previous post. Downloaded a new FLAC decoder and all is well.

Results, played through my Lenovo T420 laptop's (presumably not very good) headphone output in a typical domestic study:
- Could hear up to #8 using Sennheiser HD435s. (Open-back headphones).
- Then tried Shure SE215 IEMs and could just hear #9.
8
General A/V / Re: High resolution audio - lowest audio setup?
Last post by magicgoose -
Listening tests. Low pass at 16.5k.  Check it to make sure there is no imaging and levels are identical in areas where there isn't any HF "musical" tones to be discarded.

Provide clips the critical part of the sample before and after low-passing that are 30 seconds or less.

Bonus points for providing a vinyl version that can withstand repeated plays.
https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,115880.new.html#new
I think I've done the lowpassing part correctly.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
9
Listening Tests / 16500 Hz lowpass test
Last post by magicgoose -
As requested in https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,115869.new.html#info_956270
I am using a sample from "Perdition City" album by Ulver which contains very loud ~18kHz tones.

My log:
Code: [Select]
foo_abx 2.0.4 report
foobar2000 v1.4 beta 11
2018-04-25 19:23:21

File A: original.flac
SHA1: e13538feeed7099972334ae94da4a400af82e88e
File B: lowpassed.flac
SHA1: 76b6e79649d86c8e77c71a00faa1196a58472af4

Output:
WASAPI (push) : Built-in Output, 24-bit
Crossfading: NO

19:23:21 : Test started.
19:24:46 : 01/01
19:25:12 : 02/02
19:25:22 : 03/03
19:25:31 : 04/04
19:25:40 : 05/05
19:25:48 : 06/06
19:25:56 : 07/07
19:26:08 : 08/08
19:26:08 : Test finished.

 ----------
Total: 8/8
Probability that you were guessing: 0.4%

 -- signature --
38880f32382b49c5f24b3c7ae7af53e431d2643a

I am leaving it at 8/8 as it is really painful to listen at the volume where I can confidently hear that tone. :/
This was surprisingly hard, and I found that I hear it now only with my left ear (used to be able to hear it with both ears back in the days).
If someone wants **/16 then I'd rather give up. I think someone younger will do this test a lot easier if they want to prove the point that sometimes there is some noticeable content above ~16kHz. And I'm apparently near the point of being too old to be able to do this.
SimplePortal 1.0.0 RC1 © 2008-2018