High-res audio: any questions (for Sony)?

[hammill]

There's a televison programme from the US of A called, "The Big Bang Theory". There's a character in it named 'Sheldon'. Someone here reminds me very much of him

I would love to see Sheldon's reaction to someone who is shown a mathematical proof that shows that the expensive product they are buying cannot be better than a cheaper one and yet they still buy it. Very funny program by the way, although I know a number of scientists and computer programmers and none of them like comic books. A fair few are borderline autistic though.

 

[fr0g]

I'm a software developer (computer programmer is so 1990's) and I like comics, although I prefer hard sf and sci-fi film / tv.



Sheldon is nothing like the type of person he portrays from my experience, although I love the show.

 

[hammill]

I'm a software developer (computer programmer is so 1990's) and I like comics, although I prefer hard sf and sci-fi film / tv.



Sheldon is nothing like the type of person he portrays from my experience, although I love the show.

I have been a computer programmer since 1982 and I don't intend to stop now You are genuinely the first comic fan I have met in my line of work (at least the first who has "come out")

 

[fr0g]

I'm a software developer (computer programmer is so 1990's) and I like comics, although I prefer hard sf and sci-fi film / tv.



Sheldon is nothing like the type of person he portrays from my experience, although I love the show.

I have been a computer programmer since 1982 and I don't intend to stop now You are genuinely the first comic fan I have met in my line of work (at least the first who has "come out")

You have 6 years on me...

I prefer to say "I'm in IT" though.

 

[davedotco]

Nyquist Shannon is completely counter intuitive, the proof of which requires a grasp of integral mathematics and the concepts underlying fourier transforms. Given that there are posters on here who are convinced that changing their mains cable brings marked benefits to their system performance, I think you might be aiming a little high with "I'm not sure why so many people are unable (or unwilling) to understand the simple and provable fact..."

Next time I am enjoying listening to my humble 320K AAC and ALAC content (via AirPlay), i'll try to to remember how EDITED un-credentialled I am to have the privilege!

I have tried one or two Linn 24/96 downloads in the past but (a) they were too expensive, (b) the files took up too much room for my purposes (no patience or desire or room for a dedicated NAS set-up), (c) I was not impressed with what little improvement (over ALAC) the 'full-fat' 24/96 version might have been offering. At the time it was via a Beresford DAC (optical from an iMac) into a Naim amp. Subsequently I went in a completely different direction aimed at optimising quality, convenience, flexibility, space (physical and memory), simplicity and fun.

As far as I can tell I got it just right. The latest 'incarnation' of my system (the new M-CR610) now does all the 24/192 stuff too, but I am not interested because (apart from a, b and c listed above) the 'hi-res' sites will probably never offer even a small percentage of the content I enjoy.

Higher mathematics and physics were absent at all stages of my decisions when changing system (sorry science dudes) and have been - mercifully - absent from my enjoyment since. (Not an oscilloscope or spectrum analyser in sight!)

I am also still using the same mains cable that Marantz saw fit to provide in the box. (I know I should have lab tested and DBX'ed a whole bunch of alternatives first, but I trusted the manufacturer like the uneducated simp you might suppose me to be.)

There is absolutely no reason to bring science or mathematics into the process that brought your hi-fi and your enjoyment of it to it's present state.

It works for you, delivers what you want and there is absolutely no need to bring calculus into it.

But then you are not trying to prove anything, devotees of hi-res digital are often near evangelical about their beliefs and often attempt to 'prove' their beliefs by spurious science, when, just a basic understanding of the conclusions of Shannon-Nyquiist, would show them the error of their ways.

 

[hammill]

I'm a software developer (computer programmer is so 1990's) and I like comics, although I prefer hard sf and sci-fi film / tv.



Sheldon is nothing like the type of person he portrays from my experience, although I love the show.

I have been a computer programmer since 1982 and I don't intend to stop now You are genuinely the first comic fan I have met in my line of work (at least the first who has "come out")

You have 6 years on me...

I prefer to say "I'm in IT" though.

Then they think your job is like the guys from the IT crowd, telling people to reboot their PC for a living.....

 

[Joe Cox]

There is absolutely no reason to bring science or mathematics into the process that brought your hi-fi and your enjoyment of it to it's present state.

It works for you, delivers what you want and there is absolutely no need to bring calculus into it.

Indeed

 

[fr0g]

There is absolutely no reason to bring science or mathematics into the process that brought your hi-fi and your enjoyment of it to it's present state.

It works for you, delivers what you want and there is absolutely no need to bring calculus into it.

Indeed

Absolutely indeed so long as you're also honest. Sadly lacking in the Hi-fi and music industry and surrounding media corps.

Why not a campaign against the loudness wars, instead of the pushing of unnecessary and misleading formats which bring nothing to the table; unless of course you're a shareholder of one of the aformentioned?

 

[Alec]

What is hard SF?

Incidentally, if there is anyone here who is still as gree regarding the loudness wars as I was 'til recently, listen to American Jesus by Bad Religion, then listen to the Andy Wallace mix of the same song. Even using youtube it is possible to get a sense...but then I shouldn't be recommending that was a goood way of comapring.

Actually, I'm not sure which version I prefer. You may stone me now.

 

[John Duncan]

'gree'

 

[AlmaataKZ]

...and enlarge the range of human hearing and you would hear a difference...

zooming in in this analogy is the same as reducing the bit depth in the audio. ie yes, if you halved a 16 bit audio file to 8 bit you would possibly hear it, just like you might see the difference if you halved the pixel density

the point being, 16 bit and a peak of 22 kHz is enough. As is 300 dpi. At those levels, any increase won't able you to see or hear any more...hd music is a ruse to make people buy...yet again...and it is helped by the underhand tactic of using a better source. Just as if someone used a high end dSLR to show you the 40Mp image, and a point and shoot for the 20...

Reverse that, use a good cam for even a 5 Mp image, and a camphone for a high res image, look at it on a computer screen, the smaller image will be better...

Use a good recording for a 128 kbps mp3 and a compressed one for a 192 32 recording... the mp3 will sound better

good posting, frog

 

[AlmaataKZ]

My question to Sony would be, how about making all your music available without 'loudness' compression? I'd rather it wasn't 'hi-res', especially if I'm downloading it, just make the music available with a high quality master. I'd happily pay for that.

good posting, craig

 

[AlmaataKZ]

There is absolutely no reason to bring science or mathematics into the process that brought your hi-fi and your enjoyment of it to it's present state.

It works for you, delivers what you want and there is absolutely no need to bring calculus into it.

Indeed

Absolutely indeed so long as you're also honest. Sadly lacking in the Hi-fi and music industry and surrounding media corps.

Why not a campaign against the loudness wars, instead of the pushing of unnecessary and misleading formats which bring nothing to the table; unless of course you're a shareholder of one of the aformentioned?

very good posting. Shareholders or indirect stakeholders.

 

[altruistic.lemon]

Shame Mr Frog knows zero about photography. If he did, he'd know the higher the resolution and the higher the pixel count (within the limits of current technology) produce recognisably better photographs. It isn't rocket science.

Of course, it could be his speaker system isn't capable of resolving the detail high res files theoretically give - joke, by the way

.

 

[Tonestar1]

Shame Mr Frog knows zero about photography. If he did, he'd know the higher the resolution and the higher the pixel count (within the limits of current technology) produce recognisably better photographs. It isn't rocket science.

Of course, it could be his speaker system isn't capable of resolving the detail high res files theoretically give - joke, by the way

.

Using that theory.....

This 41 Megapixel £600 phone

S

Should give a better picture than this 24.3 megapixel £3000 DSLR.....

Unfortunately photography isn't rocket science.....

>)

 

[Craig M.]

Hahaha!!!

Stick to souffles al.

 

[altruistic.lemon]

Shame Mr Frog knows zero about photography. If he did, he'd know the higher the resolution and the higher the pixel count (within the limits of current technology) produce recognisably better photographs. It isn't rocket science.

Of course, it could be his speaker system isn't capable of resolving the detail high res files theoretically give - joke, by the way

.

Using that theory.....

This 41 Megapixel £600 phone

S

Should give a better picture than this 24.3 megapixel £3000 DSLR.....

Unfortunately photography isn't rocket science.....

>)

No, it's also the resolution, as I said. Do you know what that is?

 

[steve_1979]

There's a televison programme from the US of A called, "The Big Bang Theory". There's a character in it named 'Sheldon'. Someone here reminds me very much of him

 

[chebby]

Discussions about cameras are rubbish without photos. (And I don't mean photos of cameras.)

Prove the point of your arguments with some nice pictures instead.

 

[Tonestar1]

Shame Mr Frog knows zero about photography. If he did, he'd know the higher the resolution and the higher the pixel count (within the limits of current technology) produce recognisably better photographs. It isn't rocket science.

Of course, it could be his speaker system isn't capable of resolving the detail high res files theoretically give - joke, by the way

.

Using that theory.....

This 41 Megapixel £600 phone

S

Should give a better picture than this 24.3 megapixel £3000 DSLR.....

Unfortunately photography isn't rocket science.....

>)

No, it's also the resolution, as I said. Do you know what that is?

It was supposed to be a bit of fun, hence the smiley at the end of my comment. No need to be insulting. Photography is not a good analogy for this argument. I'm no expert in resolution but I'm pretty sure a lumia pic at 41 megapixel on an ultra HD screen won't look better than a Canon 24.3 megapixel on a standard hd screen.... Would you disagree?

 

[fr0g]

Shame Mr Frog knows zero about photography. If he did, he'd know the higher the resolution and the higher the pixel count (within the limits of current technology) produce recognisably better photographs. It isn't rocket science.

Of course, it could be his speaker system isn't capable of resolving the detail high res files theoretically give - joke, by the way

.

I'mbeginning to realise you can't think logically. At all.

The latest Sony phone produces a 20 Mp image.

Grab an ancient full frame dSLR that had only 5 Mp. Compare the 2 pictures on a computer screen (as I said!) and the dSLR WILL be the better picture. by a LONG margin.

ie it is the source of the picture that is the deciding factor.

You are taking what I said, then changing the rules. ON A COMPUTER SCREEN! NUMBNUTS. And without zooming in.

Sheesh.

 

[CnoEvil]

.......and the thread was going so well.

 

[fr0g]

Discussions about cameras are rubbish without photos. (And I don't mean photos of cameras.)

Prove the point of your arguments with some nice pictures instead.

To demonstrate the point I was trying to make (and which AL was trying his best to misunderstand), you would need to get 2 pictures, taken of the same subject with the different cameras, then show them full screen on a laptop.

Seeing as a full HD laptop is around 2 Mp (1920x1080), even a 2 Mp dSLR image will look better than a 20 Mp phone cam image.

It isn't quite so easy on a rather wonky forum.

However, I will try and do this sometime.

 

[fr0g]

By the way, I forgot my



I have nothing against AL (some of the time) although slightly obscure analogies don't seem to be a strong point

 

[John Duncan]

.......and the thread was going so well.

When?