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 111888 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: More misinformation

Reply #600 –
Quote from: bennetng on
Quote from: jumpingjackflash5 on
We can let it be, I did not expect to heaten the debate again, just wanted to add some things about 24 bit.
Yes, you added the fact that you cannot prove 320k mp3s and 256k aacs will sound better when using 24-bit sources.

I agree, I cannot prove it. Maybe someone else can.

Re: More misinformation

Reply #601 –
Quote from: jumpingjackflash5 on
It seemed to me that they are interested in real audio quality from what i have read from them. They know Nyquist, dithering ....
Then they've been successful:

Quote from: Wombat on
It is the cheapest way for them to claim being part of the HiBit business and making customers believe.

They cater perfectly for the audio inclined hipster that knows very little about audio, except that their beloved Apple provides hi-res files ... well, except they don't, they are not even lossless...
Think about it, the dynamic range is drastically lowered by the lossy compression and even though the sampling rate used is 44.1 or even 48 kHz (with their "mastering-quality" resampler) the lossy compression will introduce evil pre-ringing - the latest FUD attempt in the industry - that is (theoretically) more audible than any lossless 44.1/16.

Yes, it seems they do know a bit about audio (which is why they give you lossy files, see transparency) but they know a lot more about marketing.
"I hear it when I see it."

Re: More misinformation

Reply #602 –
Maybe yes. I do not want to flame about Apple ....

Re: More misinformation

Reply #603 –
Even without Apple, think about what lossy compression does to the precious bits! It's the true audiophile's worst nightmare, and yet when these people are put to the test most of them fail, even with much lower bitrates ...

As with most audiophile topics there is a grain of truth hidden under a mountain of FUD, marketing, ignorance and bias => misinformation, partly deliberate.
"I hear it when I see it."

Re: More misinformation

Reply #604 –
Just to be clear: That Apple document, though it claims to be recommendations for "mastering", is aimed at an audience where they felt it necessary to explain what dynamic compression and even EQ is. IOW, it's aimed at the Garageband crowd, not professionals. Outside of describing their tools, there is little useful information in it for anyone with a basic understanding of audio production.

Re: More misinformation

Reply #605 –
Quote from: xnor on
Even without Apple, think about what lossy compression does to the precious bits! It's the true audiophile's worst nightmare, and yet when these people are put to the test most of them fail, even with much lower bitrates ...

As with most audiophile topics there is a grain of truth hidden under a mountain of FUD, marketing, ignorance and bias => misinformation, partly deliberate.


Alright, as I said, no flame about "placebophilia etc". I just added some post about 24 bit. Do not want to enter the area of "least still audibly indifferent format" again .....

Re: More misinformation

Reply #606 –
Quote from: xnor on
Think about it, the dynamic range is drastically lowered by the lossy compression and even though the sampling rate used is 44.1 or even 48 kHz
Dynamic range or SNR?  Please think carefully about this before you reply.

Quote from: xnor on
Yes, it seems they do know a bit about audio (which is why they give you lossy files, see transparency) but they know a lot more about marketing.
+1 with a bullet.

Re: More misinformation

Reply #607 –
Quote from: jumpingjackflash5 on
Alright, as I said, no flame about "placebophilia etc". I just added some post about 24 bit.
You bumped a topic that is chalk-full of your hollow idiotic fluff with nothing but placebophilia once again.  It is hard to take you for anything other than a troll at this point.

Quote from: jumpingjackflash5 on
I agree, I cannot prove it. Maybe someone else can.
Quote from: jumpingjackflash5 on
Do not want to enter the area of "least still audibly indifferent format" again .....
Then shut the fuck up until you come back with adequate substantiation.

"Maybe someone else can." WTF?!?

Re: More misinformation

Reply #609 –
Quote from: greynol on
Quote from: jumpingjackflash5 on
Alright, as I said, no flame about "placebophilia etc". I just added some post about 24 bit.
You bumped a topic that is chalk-full of your hollow idiotic fluff with nothing but placebophilia once again.  It is hard to take you for anything other than a troll at this point.

Quote from: jumpingjackflash5 on
Do not want to enter the area of "least still audibly indifferent format" again .....
Then shut the fuck up until you come back with adequate substantiation.

Very "polite and rational" discussion post, really. Maybe violates TOS .... If you want me to stop this way, it is your decision.

Re: More misinformation

Reply #610 –
Quote from: jumpingjackflash5 on
Very "polite and rational" discussion post
Versus what, 25 repetitive pages of your complete and utter inability to defend your moronic nonsense?

1) We're well beyond polite.

and 2) How dare you insinuate that your discourse lies in the realm of rational!

The spirit of your posts violates the founding principle that is at the very core of this community, so yes, pretty please with sugar on top: stop!

Re: More misinformation

Reply #611 –
Quote from: greynol on
Quote from: jumpingjackflash5 on
Very "polite and rational" discussion post
Versus what, 25 repetitive pages of your complete and utter inability to defend your moronic nonsense?

1) We're well beyond polite.

and 2) How dare you insinuate that your discourse lies in the realm of rational!

The spirit of your posts are violating the very core founding principle of this community, so yes, pretty please with sugar on top: stop!

Ok, no problem with stopping, this thread is finished from my side.

The spirit of your posts reminds me the middle age church inquisition, however ....

Re: More misinformation

Reply #612 –
Quote from: jumpingjackflash5 on
Ok, no problem with stopping, this thread is finished from my side.
I'm not interested in counting the number of times you said that in this discussion. Then, after the topic was dormant for, count them, three weeks, today you went ahead and bumped it yet again with *ZERO* justification.

Why should anyone believe you when you say you're finished?!?

Quote from: jumpingjackflash5 on
The spirit of your posts reminds me the middle age church inquisition, however ....
Funny you should say that since it is you who is defending a religious position.

In this thread you are nothing more than a clown; and I'm a complete idiot for thinking you have even a modicum of shame.

Re: More misinformation

Reply #613 –
Lower SNR, of course. I really need to get more sleep...
"I hear it when I see it."

Re: More misinformation

Reply #614 –
On a quick glance, a bit confused. Wasn't Apple's position that 24-bit source material enables their lossy encoder to work a bit more efficiently as compared to 16-bit(dithered or not)? That is, achieving transparency at lower bitrates. Similar to 10-bit vs. 8-bit for H.264. IIRC lossy audio formats don't have a "native" bit depth.

Re: More misinformation

Reply #615 –
Did i dream this thread was closed for good?
Is troll-adiposity coming from feederism?
With 24bit music you can listen to silence much louder!

Re: More misinformation

Reply #616 –
Quote from: Mangix on
On a quick glance, a bit confused. Wasn't Apple's position that 24-bit source material enables their lossy encoder to work a bit more efficiently as compared to 16-bit(dithered or not)?
That should be fairly easy to demonstrate on a sample by sample basis, at least.

Re: More misinformation

Reply #617 –
Quote from: Wombat on
Did i dream this thread was closed for good?
Just giving the discussion a little time to cool off; and to make the point that jjf5's evidence-free contributions about sound quality will no longer be tolerated.

Re: More misinformation

Reply #618 –
Quote from: Mangix on
On a quick glance, a bit confused. Wasn't Apple's position that 24-bit source material enables their lossy encoder to work a bit more efficiently as compared to 16-bit(dithered or not)?  ...

The cynic in me says that it's because they want to build a 24-bit library they can sell us all over again when bandwidth becomes cheap enough to sell 24 bit FLACs.
Regards,
   Don Hills
"People hear what they see." - Doris Day

Re: More misinformation

Reply #619 –
Quote from: drewfx on
Just to be clear: That Apple document, though it claims to be recommendations for "mastering", is aimed at an audience where they felt it necessary to explain what dynamic compression and even EQ is. IOW, it's aimed at the Garageband crowd, not professionals. Outside of describing their tools, there is little useful information in it for anyone with a basic understanding of audio production.

Well that actually makes a hell of a lot of sense when you think about it because the average garageband probably doesn't have a whole lot of understanding of what some of that stuff actually is.

Re: More misinformation

Reply #620 –
Quote from: greynol on
Quote from: Wombat on
Did i dream this thread was closed for good?
Just giving the discussion a little time to cool off; and to make the point that jjf5's evidence-free contributions about sound quality will no longer be tolerated.

Since I have been yesterday pushed out in a very hard way that in my opinion violates the TOS I can only add that it is very sad when the true internal thinking of some, although technically and audio processing experienced, people is revealed :(

Re: More misinformation

Reply #621 –
Quote from: anonymous
Arguing with a stupid person is like playing chess with a dove. No matter how well you play, the dove will kick over the pieces, crap on the board, and stalk around as if she'd won.

Re: More misinformation

Reply #622 –
Quote from: jumpingjackflash5 on

No at all, even if I use normal FLAC (-5 option) then MP3 will be always smaller, regardless of the bitrate chosen. So it makes sense for me, when considering portables, use highest bitrate MP3 supports and still be much smaller than FLAC.

No, the MP3s that you're talking about (320kbps CBR) are NOT *always* smaller than FLAC. By definition CBR always wastes some space, and there are plenty of recordings where the FLAC ends up being smaller than the 320kbps CBR MP3.

Re: More misinformation

Reply #623 –
Quote from: lozenge on
Quote from: jumpingjackflash5 on

No at all, even if I use normal FLAC (-5 option) then MP3 will be always smaller, regardless of the bitrate chosen. So it makes sense for me, when considering portables, use highest bitrate MP3 supports and still be much smaller than FLAC.

No, the MP3s that you're talking about (320kbps CBR) are NOT *always* smaller than FLAC. By definition CBR always wastes some space, and there are plenty of recordings where the FLAC ends up being smaller than the 320kbps CBR MP3.
I don't know about "plenty", but it is certainly possible for the flac file to be smaller than 320 kbps, especially if it is fairly soft and monaural.

In such a case, if you used the highest quality vbr mp3 then most likely it would be smaller yet.

Re: More misinformation

Reply #624 –
Quote from: pdq on
Quote from: lozenge on
Quote from: jumpingjackflash5 on

No at all, even if I use normal FLAC (-5 option) then MP3 will be always smaller, regardless of the bitrate chosen. So it makes sense for me, when considering portables, use highest bitrate MP3 supports and still be much smaller than FLAC.

No, the MP3s that you're talking about (320kbps CBR) are NOT *always* smaller than FLAC. By definition CBR always wastes some space, and there are plenty of recordings where the FLAC ends up being smaller than the 320kbps CBR MP3.
I don't know about "plenty", but it is certainly possible for the flac file to be smaller than 320 kbps, especially if it is fairly soft and monaural.

In such a case, if you used the highest quality vbr mp3 then most likely it would be smaller yet.

Ok, I agree, I can imagine that there could be such tracks you are describing from the compression/space point of view.