24/192 a good thing?

[Clare Newsome]

JD is now deciding whether to take Valium or Red Bull! :shifty:

:rofl:

Is JD the only moderator around? Or simply the only non-clandestine one?

JD, I will refrain from participating in this thread out of sympathy for you. Although I would've responded to Lodge's misleading graph in the now-deceased thread (it's just restin')

I'm another 'outed' mod. Just catching up with the forum after watching We Need to Talk About Kevin for light relief

And this thread certainly doesn't bother me. It's an interesting read, and some interesting points. I agree that the quality of the recording is paramount, regardless of how you're listening and in what format. As the old saying goes, in the polite parlance: ordure in, ordure out.

But as with any of these unnecessarily heated discussions, I remain bewildered as to why people can't respect that others may have differing opinions, rather than having to score points, and prove they're *right* :? Maybe it's a chest-beating man thing :doh:

 

[John Duncan]

Maybe it's a chest-beating man thing :doh:

Some-kind-of-beating man thing, certainly.

 

[CnoEvil]

JD is now deciding whether to take Valium or Red Bull! :shifty:

White.

Good choice!

 

[Craig M.]

And this thread certainly doesn't bother me. It's an interesting read, and some interesting points.

thanks, that's the only reason i posted it.

Maybe it's a chest-beating man thing :doh:

i'm all oiled up and ready, who wants a naked wrestle in front of an open fire - oliver reed style?

 

[the record spot]

Oh come on RS, let's not indulge in obfuscation shall we? I will assume the author was talking about the same audio source sampled at different rates, and that's my point of reference too. Otherwise you're comparing apples and oranges. If anything, a pristine recording should show up weaknesses quicker in poor ripping.

Well, I wasn't, but nevertheless, the point remains; 192kbps, or 128 is fine. Hard disk space is substantial on most portable devices these days, so I imagine more people would use a higher rate if not WAV. A good recording will show up as a good recording irrespective of bitrate. And a poor rip means nothing to me. Except that it'll be a rip that either fails on copy, or endures dropouts on playback.

 

[SteveR750]

JD is now deciding whether to take Valium or Red Bull! :shifty:

:rofl:

Is JD the only moderator around? Or simply the only non-clandestine one?

JD, I will refrain from participating in this thread out of sympathy for you. Although I would've responded to Lodge's misleading graph in the now-deceased thread (it's just restin')

I'm another 'outed' mod. Just catching up with the forum after watching We Need to Talk About Kevin for light relief

And this thread certainly doesn't bother me. It's an interesting read, and some interesting points. I agree that the quality of the recording is paramount, regardless of how you're listening and in what format. As the old saying goes, in the polite parlance: ordure in, ordure out.

But as with any of these unnecessarily heated discussions, I remain bewildered as to why people can't respect that others may have differing opinions, rather than having to score points, and prove they're *right* :? Maybe it's a chest-beating man thing :doh:

+1

 

[John Duncan]

i'm all oiled up and ready, who wants a naked wrestle in front of an open fire - oliver reed style?

"Somehow they all knew the HDD-WHF bakeoff would end badly"

 

[shooter]

who wants a naked wrestle in front of an open fire - oliver reed style?

*hidesbehindsofa*

 

[SteveR750]

i'm all oiled up and ready, who wants a naked wrestle in front of an open fire - oliver reed style?

"Somehow they all knew the HDD-WHF bakeoff would end badly"

"My goodness Claire, you're just not the same anymore!

 

[Andrew Everard]

No – she used to be Clare.

 

[SteveR750]

Names changed to protect the guilty

 

[Alec]

Claire/Clare. HDD/AVI...

White though?! Milk will do you no good in that department.

 

[Anonymous]

No idea. To my ageing but sizeable ears even spotify premium sounds just fine these days

To my ageing but sizeable ears even Spotify free sounds just fine these days.

 

[Frank Harvey]

Just catching up with the forum after watching We Need to Talk About Kevin for light relief

You chose well. I watched that tonight too (amazing film) - definitely far more interesting than this thread! It seems in audio, nothing is what it seems, and the whole idea of "high fidelity" is a sham. Not content with trying to prove that 24/192 audio was any different to 16/44, it now seems it is worse!

I get the feeling that all this negativity started by individuals trying to ruin the hi-fi industry, and those jealous manufacturers that this industry left behind long ago, isn't going to let up until they get some sort of justice.

 

[oldric_naubhoff]

it would seem that 24/192 recordings actually give worse fidelity than 16/44.1 Click Here.

thanks for the link. very good read. definitely reveals how clueless I am in this digital conundrum.

so, no matter if you use 44.1 kHz or more of sampling freq the brick wall needs to be erected at 20 kHz anyway. that's the best part of the whole read for me. :rofl:

[edit] and I always thought that the higher sampling rate the "more natural" shape of the converted soundwave. how naive...

another one of note was explaining how human hearing thresholds were set up. this should shut those people who claim that ultrasound harmonics are relevant for "lifelike musical experience". in order to hear anything beyond 20 kHz you'll need to be presented with a sound of amplitude higher than 140dB!!! even if you heard ultrasound in such moment it would be a wasted victory as your hearing would be severely damaged after such a treat. :rofl:

the only thing I don't entirely agree with is the one about headphones. it's true that there's no problem with early reflections and no problem with any crossovers, i.e. a clearer sound. but I feel headphones present soundstage in a very unnatural way compared to speakers. stereo was invented to be used with speakers in front of you, not to your sides. however, with a little effort on your side you can greatly reduce disadvantages using speakers brings (some acoustic room treatment and appropriate choosing of speakers). anyway, it wasn't the main subject of the article so no need to moan about it.

cheers

 

[Alec]

Poor Wired.

I thought Beautiful Boy was better than ...Kevin, which I thought put the art-house aesthetic before substance. All that red symbolism was very laboured.

 

[paradiziac]

Good stuff.

The article removed my last traces of audiophilia nervosa about having invested in a computer-based frontend that only does 16/44 max, phew!

To comment on previous posts, with a computer frontend, if Spotify Premium is ever-so-slightly worse sounding than lossless via an "audiophile" software player, it's probably because Spotify's playback software isn't quite as good (e.g. Spotify has no support for WASAPI on Windows). But on my system, it's hardly worth worrying about. I don't even bother to rip/store my CD's these days if they're on Spotify...

At the end of the day...the mastering quality of the recording and the quality of the playback system is a much more significant contributor to sound quality than the file format (as long as you stay away from 128kbs mp3!).

 

[fr0g]

It's a great, well written article that explains how digital sound works. Shame about the totally illogical arguments against it so far.

"The earth is round", "BURN HIM!"

 

[manicm]

As I replied, that article wasn't well-written at all - his arguments had more holes than swiss cheese. If you're going to refute anything get evidence and do it in clearly and intelligently.

 

[paradiziac]

Interesting to read people's Spotify experiences.

It's a shame Spotify doesn't play local FLACs, it would be a piece of cake for developers to add this feature to the software and then comparison with lossless would be so much easier...

I guess Spotify are wary of making their product sound too good

 

[fr0g]

As I replied, that article wasn't well-written at all - his arguments had more holes than swiss cheese. If you're going to refute anything get evidence and do it in clearly and intelligently.

Actually the article is very nicely written.

Go back and read your rebuttal, and use your own advice when you decide to re-write it.

1. The dynamic range. As has been said, once the noise-floor has been taken into account, the DR is more than enough. What's more there has never been a recording made that utilizes even a third of what is available with the CD medium.

2. He doesn't state a bitrate. So? That doesn't undermine the content one bit.

3. Headphones. Yes, headphones. Even not so expensive headphones reproduce the enture audible sound spectrum. It's pretty well known that a good set of headphones is far higher fidelity than even high end speakers. I agree with someone elses sentiment that the presentation isn't right, but if we are talking "quality" then headphones are hard to beat.

4. You say "So nevermind 24/192, 128k MP3 is good enough with a good pair of headphones. I have nothing further for the defendant your honour." - That's called a strawman logical fallacy. Nowhere in that article does he mention 128K MP3. You did, to suit your argument.

 

[John Duncan]

"manicm and fr0g decided to settle this once and for all"

 

[manicm]

as long as you stay away from 128kbs mp3!).

fr0g and Craig M are gonna lynch you :rofl:

 

[manicm]

JD is now deciding whether to take Valium or Red Bull! :shifty:

:rofl:

Is JD the only moderator around? Or simply the only non-clandestine one?

JD, I will refrain from participating in this thread out of sympathy for you. Although I would've responded to Lodge's misleading graph in the now-deceased thread (it's just restin')

I'm another 'outed' mod. Just catching up with the forum after watching We Need to Talk About Kevin for light relief

And this thread certainly doesn't bother me. It's an interesting read, and some interesting points. I agree that the quality of the recording is paramount, regardless of how you're listening and in what format. As the old saying goes, in the polite parlance: ordure in, ordure out.

But as with any of these unnecessarily heated discussions, I remain bewildered as to why people can't respect that others may have differing opinions, rather than having to score points, and prove they're *right* :? Maybe it's a chest-beating man thing :doh:

Which is why you left WHF and can now listen to vinyl and tape in peace since us cavemen have run over the forums :rofl:

 

[fr0g]

as long as you stay away from 128kbs mp3!).

fr0g and Craig M are gonna lynch you :rofl:

Why?