High resolution audio. The science, or lack of...?

[Alec]

HaHa, sorry lemon. Perhaps I underestimated your intelligence.

I'll re-read your old posts.

JC

HA!

 

[Alec]

Lordy is this thread still going?!

Starting to remind me of a man I once met who never watched (or read) anything anything fictional, as he couldn't accept it was 'made up'.

He was particularly scathing about sci-fi, arguing that the 'sci' bit was invalid as there were so many breaches of scientific fact involved.

How sad.

That needs unpacking by a superior mind to mine, because I tried, and it felt like I'd just read manic's posts all over agian.

 

[Audiofilo]

Lordy is this thread still going?!

Starting to remind me of a man I once met who never watched (or read) anything anything fictional, as he couldn't accept it was 'made up'.

He was particularly scathing about sci-fi, arguing that the 'sci' bit was invalid as there were so many breaches of scientific fact involved.

How sad.

Well said.

 

[altruistic.lemon]

HaHa, sorry lemon. Perhaps I underestimated your intelligence.

I'll re-read your old posts.

JC

No worries, mate!

Not too high up in the intelligence stakes, wasted my youth and brains on sex, surf, drugs and music. Far better value than any Nyquist theorem but, you'd have to admit!

 

[jcbrum]

Starting to remind me of a man I once met who never watched (or read) anything anything fictional, as he couldn't accept it was 'made up'.

Ah, but that was for entertainment, . . .

This is HiFi, . . . It's serious stuff !

JC

 

[Alec]

Ooh, sorry, apologies to manicm, I meant to say Lemon's posts.

Beg pardon.

 

[jcbrum]

No worries, mate!

Not too high up in the intelligence stakes, wasted my youth and brains on sex, surf, drugs and music. Far better value than any Nyquist theorem but, you'd have to admit!

HaHa, Good answer

I was always a fan of George Best, I felt he had some special talents.

JC

 

[Clare Newsome]

Lordy is this thread still going?!

Starting to remind me of a man I once met who never watched (or read) anything anything fictional, as he couldn't accept it was 'made up'.

He was particularly scathing about sci-fi, arguing that the 'sci' bit was invalid as there were so many breaches of scientific fact involved.

How sad.

That needs unpacking by a superior mind to mine, because I tried, and it felt like I'd just read manic's posts all over agian.

Didn't think it was that obtuse (but then I am feverish with lurgy at moment!)

Just saying it seems some people seem determined to make science - rather than enjoyment - the focus of their thinking at all times. Which is odd as we're inherently talking about entertainment and emotional connection.

The guy I met couldn't understand how I could lose myself in the narrative of, say, Star Wars, or even a James Bond movie, while knowing it wasn't real. I equally couldn't fathom how you could go through life analysing everything for its 'reality' before allowing yourself to enjoy it...

 

[manicm]

Nope. That's perfectly scientific. If there's no absolute proof, making a decision on the balance of probability is perfectly reasonable. That is, if there is some evidence. If there is none either way...

Ok, for the sake of winding you and busb up :twisted: , on the balance of what 'probability' exactly? If you're gonna be scientific mate, go for it, but otherwise you and busb will be paradoxically going right up against fr0g's rules, and then all semblance of science goes out the window.

 

[shadders]

Hi,

Yes, excellent and informative article.

"Thus, 16 bit audio can go considerably deeper than 96dB. With use of shaped dither, which moves quantization noise energy into frequencies where it's harder to hear, the effective dynamic range of 16 bit audio reaches 120dB in practice [13], more than fifteen times deeper than the 96dB claim.

I read the paper very briefly - the reference [13] is not to a paper - there is not proof that 16bits can extend to 120dB for audio. This reference is for pure tone testing only.

120dB is greater than the difference between a mosquito somewhere in the same room and a jackhammer a foot away.... or the difference between a deserted 'soundproof' room and a sound loud enough to cause hearing damage in seconds.

16 bits is enough to store all we can hear, and will be enough forever."

He has based this claim on the above previous regarding the single tone test, which does not apply to audio music files. He has no proof that 16bits for audio files can extend to -120dB. If he has - can you provide this ?. Thanks.

"It's true enough that a properly encoded Ogg file (or MP3, or AAC file) will be indistinguishable from the original at a moderate bitrate."

Absolutely.

This is not relevant to the discussion where your analysis has been used in error. No data given in his statement - generalisations are not fact.

Regards,

Shadders.

You are definitely over analysing now Shadders. I know it isn't relevant, I am simply expressing my agreement to the article

Hi,

You are agreeing to the article which is based on psuedo -science. His references may be mathematical, but they do not prove his statements or claims he has mde. It is a con. You have been conned.

The papers he has referred to do not provide evidence that audio can be represented by 16bits and still meet 120dB dynamic range etc. There are lots of formulas and graphs, but no where in that text is the scientific theory presented, analysed and hence proven that the 120dB dynamic range is availble from 16bit word.

This is not over analysis - just analysing the information and concluding that the statements you have agreed to are not correct, but are supposedly supported by a very technical paper that does not support his claims.

If you agree to the article - you therefore must agree to the science he has stated as fact - where he has effectively conned you.

Do you believe that cables sound different ?

A simple yes or no, will suffice.

Regards,

Shadders.

 

[Alec]

Nope. That's perfectly scientific. If there's no absolute proof, making a decision on the balance of probability is perfectly reasonable. That is, if there is some evidence. If there is none either way...

Ok, for the sake of winding you and busb up :twisted: , on the balance of what 'probability' exactly? If you're gonna be scientific mate, go for it, but otherwise you and busb will be paradoxically going right up against fr0g's rules, and then all semblance of science goes out the window.

When there is no absolute proof, what do you do?

 

[jcbrum]

The guy I met couldn't understand how I could lose myself in the narrative of, say, Star Wars, . . // . . I equally couldn't fathom how you could go through life analysing everything for its 'reality' before allowing yourself to enjoy it...

Aww, come on Clare, everyone knows those spaceships can't make those whooshing noises while they're flying in space

Well, I suppose they might make them, but surely you can't hear them ? 'cause they're inaudible.

Aren't they ?

JC

 

[jcbrum]

When there is no absolute proof, what do you do?

There is absolute proof (start with Nyquist-Shannon theory), this is the quest for Shadders . . .

He'll pursue it, and probably get there, and find his 'absolute proof'.

But it'll be mathematical.

JC

 

[Alec]

When there is no absolute proof, what do you do?

There is absolute proof (start with Nyquist-Shannon theory), this is the quest for Shadders . . .

He'll pursue it, and probably get there, and find his 'absolute proof'.

But it'll be mathematical.

JC

Then I have got hold of the wrong end of something, so I'll retire from that particular strand of the thread.

 

[jcbrum]

Stick around, Alec, but I've gotta go, - cooking Sunday Dinner for friends. :cheers:

JC

 

[manicm]

Lordy is this thread still going?!

Starting to remind me of a man I once met who never watched (or read) anything anything fictional, as he couldn't accept it was 'made up'.

He was particularly scathing about sci-fi, arguing that the 'sci' bit was invalid as there were so many breaches of scientific fact involved.

How sad.

That needs unpacking by a superior mind to mine, because I tried, and it felt like I'd just read manic's posts all over agian.

Didn't think it was that obtuse (but then I am feverish with lurgy at moment!)

Just saying it seems some people seem determined to make science - rather than enjoyment - the focus of their thinking at all times. Which is odd as we're inherently talking about entertainment and emotional connection.

The guy I met couldn't understand how I could lose myself in the narrative of, say, Star Wars, or even a James Bond movie, while knowing it wasn't real. I equally couldn't fathom how you could go through life analysing everything for its 'reality' before allowing yourself to enjoy it...

Infidels!

 

[fr0g]

Lordy is this thread still going?!

Starting to remind me of a man I once met who never watched (or read) anything anything fictional, as he couldn't accept it was 'made up'.

He was particularly scathing about sci-fi, arguing that the 'sci' bit was invalid as there were so many breaches of scientific fact involved.

How sad.

That needs unpacking by a superior mind to mine, because I tried, and it felt like I'd just read manic's posts all over agian.

Didn't think it was that obtuse (but then I am feverish with lurgy at moment!)

Just saying it seems some people seem determined to make science - rather than enjoyment - the focus of their thinking at all times. Which is odd as we're inherently talking about entertainment and emotional connection.

The guy I met couldn't understand how I could lose myself in the narrative of, say, Star Wars, or even a James Bond movie, while knowing it wasn't real. I equally couldn't fathom how you could go through life analysing everything for its 'reality' before allowing yourself to enjoy it...

HD music costs almost twice as much as CD quality. I would say in this case it is a worthwhile cause to find out if it is worth buying. On the balance of the evidence I would say it isn't, other than where the master is different (and better).

It seems to me that everyone who buys HD music (me included) is being right royally shafted.

 

[AL13N]

If you prefer fiction, buy fiction (films, series). If you prefer fact buy fact (documentaries).

If you prefer Jazz, buy Jazz. If you prefer Punk, buy Punk.

It is subjective. High Resolution Audio is not.

This debate is not to get in the way of enjoyment, but to question a product that promises to increase said enjoyment whilst increasing bandwidth, storage and processing requirements and employing a mark up in purchase price of up to 80%.

Here is the link to the BBC documentary again, in case it got lost in all the above:

The Power of the Placebo

 

[steve_1979]

Aww, come on Clare, everyone knows those spaceships can't make those whooshing noises while they're flying in space

Well, I suppose they might make them, but surely you can't hear them ? 'cause they're inaudible.

Why in films can you see the light moving when a laser is fired? And why do they make a 'dewsh dewsh' noise? And why when a space ship blows up in the vacuum of space does it make a noise?

Not that this stops me from switching my brain off and enjoying the film but I have wondered.

(Sorry for the off topic posts)

 

[altruistic.lemon]

Again the **** placebo video??? Who really cares? Prices will come down, the mastering is better, people hear differences, and in the end, IT'S THEIR MONEY AND CHOICE!

I know it's Sunday, but could the preachers give us time out? We may not want our souls saved.

 

[Alec]

Again the **** placebo video??? Who really cares? Prices will come down, the mastering is better, people hear differences, and in the end, IT'S THEIR MONEY AND CHOICE!

I know it's Sunday, but could the preachers give us time out? We may not want our souls saved.

http://www.agentsofguard.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/missing_point.jpg

 

[Clare Newsome]

HD music costs almost twice as much as CD quality. I would say in this case it is a worthwhile cause to find out if it is worth buying. On the balance of the evidence I would say it isn't, other than where the master is different (and better).

It seems to me that everyone who buys HD music (me included) is being right royally shafted.

Not everyone if - as you say yourself - you're buying a different (and to your ears better) master. And that is about a human being taking the love and care to restore music to nearer its original mastered state, before multiple pressings, compression and other evils got in way.

is every different master a 'better' one? That's when it gets subjective again. For example, I know some people that love the hi-res version of Thriller; others think it sounds sterile and robbed of life.

Knowing the bits involved can't tell you whether you will enjoy music!! That's as true for everyone who dismisses all HD music (including excellent remasters) as it is for the equally slavish who think everything HD 'must' be better

 

[Alec]

Isn't it about whether people know they are buying a remaster, or buying some more bits with the expectation that it'll be better and, when they decide it is, assuming that it's because of the bits rather than the master?

 

[manicm]

In the end who cares? Maybe Linn has a reason to master their high-res recordings differently. Some will buy and see value in them, some will not. End of.

 

[fr0g]

In the end who cares? Maybe Linn has a reason to master their high-res recordings differently. Some will buy and see value in them, some will not. End of.

No, it isn't "end of", and many people "care".

The reason seems to be to gain profit. There is no reason why a CD quality download cannot be the equal quality of a High res download.

There is no reason for downloads which are 4 to 10 times bigger than they need to be.

Except they cost almost double.