Skip to main content
Topic: [TOS #5] Re: Dither vs Sampling Rate (Read 467 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

[TOS #5] Re: Dither vs Sampling Rate

And that is what I strongly disagree with. Regardless of audible difference proven by ABX test, one should be allowed/recommended to choose the TPDF or shaped dither based on what is "digitally" done with that audio file. Of course if we can prove an audible  difference by ABX, it is a very strong or even crucial argument for decision, but we can decide also based on knowledge of the actual changes in audio file and their character or theoretical impact in human audible spectrum.

You can put this post in Recycle Bin if it is against the rules. I would not debate this way again, but at this topic the nature of the problem clearly emerged.

Re: Re: Dither vs Sampling Rate

Reply #1
TPDF or shaped dither based on what is "digitally" done with that audio file.
Arnold took the time to explain it and you still demonstrate that don't have the faintest idea what you're talking about. 

Regardless of audible difference proven by ABX test, one should be allowed/recommended
You're advocating the ability to make ignorant and baseless recommendations?  There are other forums on the web that will be more welcoming.

based on knowledge of the actual changes in audio file and their character or theoretical impact in human audible spectrum.
Knowledge that you don't appear to possess.

I would not debate this way again,
Especially when compelled.
Is 24-bit/192kHz good enough for your lo-fi vinyl, or do you need 32/384?

[TOS #5] Re: Dither vs Sampling Rate

Reply #2
:-(, no comment.

By the way, a store in our country Supraphonline started recently to offer some (mostly older) albums in 24/192 kHz or 24/44.1/48 format http://www.supraphonline.cz/vyhledavani/alba/hi-res , I obtained some sample tracks from there,  as far as I know they are not upsampled but digitized in this format directly from analog master tapes or recorded in that format directly digitally for new albums. 192 kHz is for sure complete overkill and unfortunately they chose plain WAV format for distribution, but I resample them to 24/48 FLAC on desktop (16/48 for mobile) and use that way. I consider this as an advance from common practice of selling poorly mastered CDs.

I mention this because some time ago we talked here about availability of better recordings to consumer, I predicted that the online stores can soon start to distribute music in 24 bit or higher sampler rates (even if we know that >48 kHz is overkill and 24 bit benefit has not been proven in ABX tests), now it slowly becomes a reality. With this development, some of the heated debates here will become obsolete, since everybody can then choose whatever he prefers, In this case, I think,  the consumer can be pretty confident he is getting very close to the original studio sound, and that is what I always asked for.


 
SimplePortal 1.0.0 RC1 © 2008-2019