So basically this is an irrelevant subject based on the fact that the recording industry don't give a chuff. I have been led to believe that the yield for the artist through some streaming services is about 0.0003p per track. If that's the case I wouldn't give a chuff either.
Wasn't meant to be patronising, Clare. Sorry about that.
Simply that it was a different take on the discussion.
:silenced:
JC
Simply that it was a different take on the discussion.
:silenced:
JC
jcbrum said:
see below graphical representation of 1kHz sinewave recorded at -90dB referenced to full scale. this is only 6dB above resolution limit for 16 bit format and some 50dB above resolution limit for 24 bit format. first quantized with 16 bit data:
and now quantized with 24 bit data:
as you can clearly see both graphs look markedly different. the reason is higher number of amplitude "steps" that 24 bit format can carry and therefore it can reproduce infinitely variable analog wave more faithfully. -90dB input signal is somewhat extreme but it proves my point. BTW this example also shows that using any digital format to its limit is pointles.
if you were comparing the same sine wave recorded at full scale you'd see no difference between 16 bit graph and 24 bit graph since +65k amplitude levels for 16 bit audio is more than any human can discern between.
jcbrum said:
are you sure? maybe you'd like to compare audio sampled at 8 bits without and then with dither applied. you'll clearly hear that quantization artifacts "dissapear" when dither is applied and you get a few bit more of DR without raising the bit depth of input audio. the same efect applies regardless if you're using 16 bits or whatever. 8 bits is useful in this exercise in that it reveals quantizing error artifacts much sooner than higher bit depth formats.
jcbrum said:
this is true, however at certain point due to decreased available resolution quantizing error artifacts begin to be audible. see graphs above and hear 8 bit audio samples linked to.
jcbrum said:
the NS theorem governs frequency domain only. it has nothing to do with reconstruction of amplitude domain of the signal.
Don't agree with you on NS theorem.
Bit depth governs dynamic range and hence noise floor.
Sample rate governs frequency range.
Quantisation error is always present, but is reduced to inaudible levels by dither.
Dither increases the noise floor.
Haven't got time to deal with your post in greater detail because I've got to go out to the Bank.
I'll be back later.
JC
Bit depth governs dynamic range and hence noise floor.
Sample rate governs frequency range.
Quantisation error is always present, but is reduced to inaudible levels by dither.
Dither increases the noise floor.
Haven't got time to deal with your post in greater detail because I've got to go out to the Bank.
I'll be back later.
JC
SpursGator
Well-known member
Goodness, I leave for a few days and come back, and you are on page 15??? I thought we already had this debate?
In the mid-90s I recorded a concert with a DAT player (at 48/24). The sound was stupendously good. We then burned a few CDs, which required converting it to 44.1/16. Much of the magic was gone. Maybe this was from the dithering we used, but as someone said above, since most recording studios use 96/24, you will get the best sound by listening to that. It's common sense.
When CDs came out, we were told that it was so much better than anything else available that it would make everything else obsolete. There were theorems to prove it and everything. It turned out not to be true (well, ok, not 100% true).
I know plenty of people who stuck to vinyl and couldn't stand CDs, who now happily listen to HD recordings and extol their virtues. All of them are classical music fans. I seriously doubt that you can tell much difference on a recording of a rock concert, but on certain recordings, there is an audible difference. Too many people without an ax to grind have written about it.
Do you think that SACD was developed purely as a marketing ploy? It was a pretty unsuccessful one, wasn't it? I think it was developed due to the widely-recognised limitations of the Redbook format. You think a successful speaker designer like Troels Gravesen is hearing an improvement from HD audio because he is hallucinating?
The doctor from Kansas who said that ulcers could be caused by bacterial infections in the stomach lining had his career destroyed because the science said it wasn't possible. But he observed that people were getting better with antibiotics. Eventually - after he was dead - the science caught up and realised he had been right. There are always those smug people who want to bludgeon people with their mastery of science. As if it is a mastery of truth itself. But science evolves; truth stays the same.
Someone here a few years ago was railing about the idea that different capacitors could sound different in a speaker - after all, a microfarad is a microfarad, right? It won't burn in or sound different. This despite overwhelming observational evidence that there was a difference. Then the concept of microphony in a capacitor became better understood and, wait a minute, there is 'science' behind it after all!
The most important aspects of the scientific method are open-mindedness and observation. Some people listen and hear a difference - hundreds of thousands of people, actually. Others say that it isn't possible and quote equations and theorems to prove it. You'll have to decide who most resembles Galileo, and who most resembles the Pope.
In the mid-90s I recorded a concert with a DAT player (at 48/24). The sound was stupendously good. We then burned a few CDs, which required converting it to 44.1/16. Much of the magic was gone. Maybe this was from the dithering we used, but as someone said above, since most recording studios use 96/24, you will get the best sound by listening to that. It's common sense.
When CDs came out, we were told that it was so much better than anything else available that it would make everything else obsolete. There were theorems to prove it and everything. It turned out not to be true (well, ok, not 100% true).
I know plenty of people who stuck to vinyl and couldn't stand CDs, who now happily listen to HD recordings and extol their virtues. All of them are classical music fans. I seriously doubt that you can tell much difference on a recording of a rock concert, but on certain recordings, there is an audible difference. Too many people without an ax to grind have written about it.
Do you think that SACD was developed purely as a marketing ploy? It was a pretty unsuccessful one, wasn't it? I think it was developed due to the widely-recognised limitations of the Redbook format. You think a successful speaker designer like Troels Gravesen is hearing an improvement from HD audio because he is hallucinating?
The doctor from Kansas who said that ulcers could be caused by bacterial infections in the stomach lining had his career destroyed because the science said it wasn't possible. But he observed that people were getting better with antibiotics. Eventually - after he was dead - the science caught up and realised he had been right. There are always those smug people who want to bludgeon people with their mastery of science. As if it is a mastery of truth itself. But science evolves; truth stays the same.
Someone here a few years ago was railing about the idea that different capacitors could sound different in a speaker - after all, a microfarad is a microfarad, right? It won't burn in or sound different. This despite overwhelming observational evidence that there was a difference. Then the concept of microphony in a capacitor became better understood and, wait a minute, there is 'science' behind it after all!
The most important aspects of the scientific method are open-mindedness and observation. Some people listen and hear a difference - hundreds of thousands of people, actually. Others say that it isn't possible and quote equations and theorems to prove it. You'll have to decide who most resembles Galileo, and who most resembles the Pope.
lindsayt said:
It is difficult to be specific about the test performed, as the linked article does not make clear what is being measured at all. From the description, at best the test is measuring the noise in the master that was used to produce the CD / LP plus the entire recording and playback chain, the guys soundcard and who knows what else. Not really a valid test of anything.
Setting up and calibrating tests of this nature require decent gear, and the understanding of how to use it (possibly one of the reasons that so few publications attempt it). Have a look at the stereophile articles linked to above (that clearly show noise power vs. frequency), that gives you an idea of what can be done.
steve_1979
Well-known member
lindsayt said:
Wow! You really are trying to argue that CD's have less dynamic range than LP's.
I despair, I really do.
SpursGator
Well-known member
steve_1979 said:
I believe he said that LPs have a lower noise floor above 500 Hz.
I don't think this statement is true either, but it's a far cry from what you quoted him as saying.
steve_1979
Well-known member
SpursGator said:
Oh yes so he did. :doh:
The noise floor comment is a load of rubbish too though.
Our technical editor Ketan's thoughts on this one: http://www.whathifi.com/blog/high-res-audio-the-science-behind-the-numbers
This blog nearly went up last week before this thread was created, strangely enough.
This blog nearly went up last week before this thread was created, strangely enough.
Clare Newsome said:SpursGator said:
:clap:
"And yet it moves*"
*If it's well-mastered
Galileo's analysis was based on rigorous observation and measurement. As far as I can tell from the historical record, at no point did he say 'trust your eyes'
Alec
Well-known member
andyjm said:Clare Newsome said:SpursGator said:
:clap:
"And yet it moves*"
*If it's well-mastered
Galileo's analysis was based on rigorous observation and measurement. As far as I can tell from the historical record, at no point did he say 'trust your eyes'
HA!
SpursGator
Well-known member
andyjm said:
He handed the Pope the telescope and said (something like), 'Have a look, guv.' And the Pope said, 'Nope, not looking, because I know it ain't possible.'
I believe Trust Your Eyes was exactly the point. He thought it would be the one argument that simply had to win the day. He was wrong, of course.
Alec
Well-known member
Joe Cox said:
So it may still be the mastering, and "they" think very little of cloth eared CD buyers? Lovely.
BigH
Well-known member
Alec said:
I don't agree with the DR figs he uses, 60 for classical, where? 15 for pop you will be lucky I would say the mean is around 7 if you are lucky. Highest on DR database is about 20, highest "pop" one is about 17 which I think is Copperfield Road, not many above 10 in the last decade.
altruistic.lemon said:
Lemon.
Get the BEST album you own (SQ wise), then check out the DR using one of the available applications.
I doubt very much it is over 20.
Look here...
http://www.dr.loudness-war.info/
Joe Cox said:
This blog is up. Really, this thread should be closed and people should just agree to differ. There are some quite nasty posts.
BigH
Well-known member
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Question Suggestions for foundational parts of a longer term vinyl setup- Started by RTHerringbone
- Replies: 41
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram