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 111853 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: More misinformation

Reply #500 –
Quote from: bennetng on
To sum up, 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.

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.

With drives like this available ..... https://www.alza.co.uk/seagate-nas-value-hdd-4000gb-d429882.htm?catid=18853206

Yes, audible lossness is not debated now. I do not prefer lossy formats, just pointed out that they can be defended also under some light.

Edit: but when they are created from 24 bit masters it can have better (theoretically) results.

Re: More misinformation

Reply #501 –
Quote from: greynol on
Quote from: jumpingjackflash5 on
For pure playback and if you choose dither well (e.g with low-shibata or modified-e-weighted one)
We're now experts at recommending dither all of a sudden?
Not an expert, just mentioning dither types that seem good to me for a CD conversion.

Re: More misinformation

Reply #502 –
Quote from: jumpingjackflash5 on
Quote from: bennetng on
To sum up, 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.

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.

With drives like this available ..... https://www.alza.co.uk/seagate-nas-value-hdd-4000gb-d429882.htm?catid=18853206

Yes, audible lossness is not debated now. I do not prefer lossy formats, just pointed out that they can be defended also under some light.

Thanks for confirming my summary is correct.

Re: More misinformation

Reply #505 –
Quote from: jumpingjackflash5 on
Edit: but when they are created from 24 bit masters it can have better (theoretically) results.
Please elaborate on your foundation for this theory.

Re: More misinformation

Reply #506 –
Quote from: greynol on
Quote from: jumpingjackflash5 on
Not an expert, just mentioning dither types that seem good to me for a CD conversion.
Based on what evidence?

Based on my listening of amplified dither "patterns" that someone posted here not a long ago, the SoX noise shaping diagrams http://sox.sourceforge.net/SoX/NoiseShaping and my general preference to add as small dither noise as possible/adequate. But I agree that they are not audible in results. Maybe the high-shibata example or plain TPDF from the link is {some claim that), I do not know.

Re: More misinformation

Reply #507 –
Quote from: greynol on
Quote from: jumpingjackflash5 on
Edit: but when they are created from 24 bit masters it can have better (theoretically) results.
Please elaborate on your foundation for this theory.

This I took from the Apple "mastered for ITunes" PDF I already posted. If you do not like their approach, I am OK with it. Maybe you can talk to their engineers.

Re: More misinformation

Reply #508 –
Quote from: jumpingjackflash5 on
they are not audible in results.
[...]
I do not know.
It would have been nice if you were honest about this up front rather than pretend to be giving expert advice.

Re: More misinformation

Reply #510 –
Quote from: jumpingjackflash5 on
This I took from the Apple "mastered for ITunes" PDF I already posted. If you do not like their approach, I am OK with it. Maybe you can talk to their engineers.
Would it be safe to say that you are not aware of any single track in Apple's entire catalog that would provide any sort of audible benefit from a 24-bit source over a 16-bit source?

Re: More misinformation

Reply #511 –
Quote from: jumpingjackflash5 on
Many times I admitted than I am not an audio expert, just a computer technician.
Apparently a tad bit more than that...
https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,111271.msg917076.html#msg917076
...but I digress.

Re: More misinformation

Reply #512 –
No point of continuing like that. If the benefits of 24 bit do not appeal to you, do not use it, or create a 16/44.1 CD from a 24 bit master and delete it (master). I would keep them and use them, if I get them instead/with a CD record, anyway.

Re: More misinformation

Reply #513 –
Quote from: jumpingjackflash5 on
No point of continuing like that.
No point in holding your feet to the fire, or was there something else?

You can be sure someone will do it so long as you continue to offer opinions/advice/recommendations for changes in business practices without any real and tangible substantiation in accordance with the norms of this community.

But hey, people are more than welcome to PM you if they like.  I would advise against sending unsolicited PMs, however.

Re: More misinformation

Reply #514 –
Quote from: greynol on
Quote from: jumpingjackflash5 on
This I took from the Apple "mastered for ITunes" PDF I already posted. If you do not like their approach, I am OK with it. Maybe you can talk to their engineers.
Would it be safe to say that you are not aware of any single track in Apple's entire catalog that would provide any sort of audible benefit from a 24-bit source over a 16-bit source?

I did not listen to Apples entire catalog, only to a very small fraction of it. Ask Apple engineers if they found out some during the building of that catalogue (and that is not ironic).

Re: More misinformation

Reply #515 –
Quote from: jumpingjackflash5 on
I did not listen to Apples entire catalog, only to a very small fraction of it. Ask Apple engineers if they found out some during the building of that catalogue (and that is not ironic).
I'm sorry, but the burden of proof is on you.

At present, you've done nothing more than commit a logical fallacy: appealing to an authority.

I don't understand why it is so hard simply to answer a yes or no question, but it should be obvious to anyone that your answer was clearly a yes.

Re: More misinformation

Reply #516 –
Quote from: greynol on
Quote from: jumpingjackflash5 on
I did not listen to Apples entire catalog, only to a very small fraction of it. Ask Apple engineers if they found out some during the building of that catalogue (and that is not ironic).
I'm sorry, but the burden of proof is on you.

At present, you've done nothing more than commit a logical fallacy: appealing to an authority.

Because you put me in a position I cannot comfortably be in. I do not want to (dis)prove "audible lossness", but if asked, I think that the engineers of big catalogs should be more qualified to answer questions like that.

Re: More misinformation

Reply #517 –
Quote from: jumpingjackflash5 on
Because you put me in a position I cannot comfortably be in. I do not want to (dis)prove "audible lossness", but if asked, I think that the engineers of big catalogs should be more qualified to answer questions like that.
I wouldn't be so sure.

I would also suggest that what you're attempting to pass off as fact may not have even been authored by engineers, not that it matters.  Marketers may or may not be just as knowledgeable as engineers who may or may not be knowledgeable enough to make such statements.  There is no reason the authors couldn't be both marketers and engineers.  Perhaps they were economists.  The point is that you're being asked to provide a reason to believe what is in that paper beyond the corporate label which is all you've given.

Re: More misinformation

Reply #518 –
Quote from: greynol on
Quote from: jumpingjackflash5 on
Because you put me in a position I cannot comfortably be in. I do not want to (dis)prove "audible lossness", but if asked, I think that the engineers of big catalogs should be more qualified to answer questions like that.
I wouldn't be so sure.

I would also suggest that what you're attempting to pass off as fact may not have even been authored by engineers.

"Mastered for Itunes" PDF http://www.apple.com/itunes/mastered-for-itunes/ seems to me written by someone who understands computer audio, Nyquist, resampling etc very well.

Re: More misinformation

Reply #520 –
Quote from: greynol on
In other words you have nothing more to offer than an appeal to authority.

When put in a position like you and some others want me to be, yes .... To the 24 bit container I have said I think what I considered important. It appeals to me to use it if I get it with/instead CD, if it does not appeal to the others, I am OK with it.

Re: More misinformation

Reply #522 –
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.

Re: More misinformation

Reply #523 –
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.

Good approach. And 24 bit gear is actually quite common these days. But that is not the point of "minimum audible lossless" approach defenders that is discussed in this thread, as it is known that for 24 bit playback 16 bit source can be used ....

We are going in circles, really. I also think that 24 bit container is better, even if there is no audible loss for vast majority of end users scenarios.

Re: More misinformation

Reply #524 –
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?