MajorFubar said:
Real audio is the sumation of multiple different frequency sine waves of varying amplitude. Check out Fourier Analysis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourier_analysis
Put simply your pictures are wrong.
CnoEvil said:
No. You have the properties of the vinyl material rubbing against a needle drowning out the resolution of vinyl by a large amount of noise. The resolution of vinyl isn't an exact number as in digital but it isn't as important to vinyl either as it isn't a limiting factor as it is in CD.
tino
Well-known member
Don't wish to get embroiled into a which is the better format for listening .. after all it all depends on your expectations and the limitations of your equipment (electronic and ears). But if you are going to go to the trouble of ripping your music from CD for example then it makes sense to maintain as much of the original source information as possible e.g. using WAV or FLAC, then converting to a lossy or lower res format at a later point to suit the equipment you are listening to the music on (in terms of audio quality / storage space). I rip to WAV, then convert to FLAC (so I can tag it). This is what I play back on my hifi. I convert down to MP3 VBR V2 for playback/streaming from a portable player. If you are going to download rather than rip, then you'll just have to weigh up whether it's worth paying the extra for something you might not be able to hear.
dannycanham said:
No. Real audio is the hairs on the back of my neck standing up. Real audio is closing my eyes and being transported to another place or time. Real audio is an emotional response to the melody or words that the composer has arranged. A perceived meaning in the lyrics that relate to your current emotional state or memory.
nopiano
Well-known member
This is such an interesting debate. A unique aspect of buying music as a download is that you can choose the quality (usually).
When we bought LPs, or cassettes (eek!), or CDs, we pretty much got the one standard. Sure, for a time you could buy different formats (e.g. LP or CD) of the same album, but mostly there was no choice. Very rarely you could by a 'gold' CD or whatever, but it was pretty much the same thing. Now we have a choice of quality, and a price incentive to get lower-res files.
However, noting the limitations of hard drives, both mechanical and audible (they don't all sound the same, but this is largely untested territory) and other storage mechanisms, I am with the camp that says why not store at the best quality possible. Our expectations do increase with exposure. A good example is to try analogue TV if you can still get it, compared with Sky, Freeview or Freesat HD. I can scarcely believe we thought that was OK. If you can't try that, how about VHS tapes?
My greater concern is whether the download of 2011 will still be playable in 2051, because my parents' LPs still sound great 40 years on. Good old analogue! But then maybe the only way the music industry will stay afloat is by contriving to get us all to buy the same thing over again every 10 to 15 years?
When we bought LPs, or cassettes (eek!), or CDs, we pretty much got the one standard. Sure, for a time you could buy different formats (e.g. LP or CD) of the same album, but mostly there was no choice. Very rarely you could by a 'gold' CD or whatever, but it was pretty much the same thing. Now we have a choice of quality, and a price incentive to get lower-res files.
However, noting the limitations of hard drives, both mechanical and audible (they don't all sound the same, but this is largely untested territory) and other storage mechanisms, I am with the camp that says why not store at the best quality possible. Our expectations do increase with exposure. A good example is to try analogue TV if you can still get it, compared with Sky, Freeview or Freesat HD. I can scarcely believe we thought that was OK. If you can't try that, how about VHS tapes?
My greater concern is whether the download of 2011 will still be playable in 2051, because my parents' LPs still sound great 40 years on. Good old analogue! But then maybe the only way the music industry will stay afloat is by contriving to get us all to buy the same thing over again every 10 to 15 years?
Lee H said:
A piece of audio can be described as both an experience and an analysis. You are listing possible emotional responses to an experience of audio. With the "no" are you implying that audio can only be described as an emotional response? With a listing of only emotional responses to audio are you implying that only audio that triggers emotional responses are audio? I assume you think your post adds to the discussion?
By far the biggest argument for using 24bit and 96khz or above is because we can. There are many upgrades that may not be audible but are a strive to perfection. It is very difficult to say whether making several theoretical inaudible upgrades to your system will or won't breach into an audible or subconscious improvement. In the future I'd happily watch TVs with a resolution and refresh rate much higher than human perception and I want the same with music.
There are no negatives to using higher accuracy disk based information in the digital domain even if it doesn't translate as improvements to the analogue domain as effectively. There are side positives such as companies paying more attention to the production of high resolution music and users paying more attention to high resolution files. One thing is for certain if I rebuy a piece of music at high resolution I will pay more attention and my brain will process more of the musical information (until high resolution becomes the norm anyway).
The problem is that as with alot of audio. A truer viewpoint (and no there isn't just a yes no or everyone has opinions (that is like valuing the opinion of the Amish when it comes to rocket science), our human brain and ears are all based on a similar design even if they aren't the same, we have a common range of correct opinions and a common range incorrect opinions) would be that
"hi res audio" "you may get more from it, you may not"
isn't very good for marketing and you may hear it amongst science circles but you won't hear it from journalist or those selling equipment. They have a vested interest in promoting consumerism.
On another point I get really fed up with what hi fi s mantra of
"storage is cheap and plentiful so uncompressed is a no brainer"
Quiet, low powered storage is not cheap. Storing and backing up terabytes of music on fanless, spindleless storage is not cheap. I can hear hard drives much much more easily than I can the difference between high bit rate lossless (lossy doh!) files and flacs, as soon as they spin in fact! I wish what hi fi would stop misleading people into thinking cheap loud mass storage is a good idea when listening to music.
There are no negatives to using higher accuracy disk based information in the digital domain even if it doesn't translate as improvements to the analogue domain as effectively. There are side positives such as companies paying more attention to the production of high resolution music and users paying more attention to high resolution files. One thing is for certain if I rebuy a piece of music at high resolution I will pay more attention and my brain will process more of the musical information (until high resolution becomes the norm anyway).
The problem is that as with alot of audio. A truer viewpoint (and no there isn't just a yes no or everyone has opinions (that is like valuing the opinion of the Amish when it comes to rocket science), our human brain and ears are all based on a similar design even if they aren't the same, we have a common range of correct opinions and a common range incorrect opinions) would be that
"hi res audio" "you may get more from it, you may not"
isn't very good for marketing and you may hear it amongst science circles but you won't hear it from journalist or those selling equipment. They have a vested interest in promoting consumerism.
On another point I get really fed up with what hi fi s mantra of
"storage is cheap and plentiful so uncompressed is a no brainer"
Quiet, low powered storage is not cheap. Storing and backing up terabytes of music on fanless, spindleless storage is not cheap. I can hear hard drives much much more easily than I can the difference between high bit rate lossless (lossy doh!) files and flacs, as soon as they spin in fact! I wish what hi fi would stop misleading people into thinking cheap loud mass storage is a good idea when listening to music.
dannycanham said:
Your assertion that real audio is the sumation of multiple different frequency sine waves of varying amplitude leaves out any and all reference to emotion. Whilst a debate on how audio is contructed is interesting, the statement that real audio is not linked to emotion is incorrect.
As for my post, it elicited a response and a correction that audio was both emotional and a piece of analysis, so yes it could be described as adding to the debate - would you say your sarcasm added to it or was just a personal attack on a post presenting an alternate view?
nopiano said:
Hmm how will that play out.
I have over 20 years collected around 30 days worth of continuous legal digital music at 16bit 44khz.
What would it take for me or anyone like me to rebuy it? For a start going up in digital accuracy wouldn't do it. It is only part of the chain. One of the reasons HD TV has picked up is that the whole chain is seeing massive advances as well as cleaned up re issues. It isn't all about the HD bit. DVDs are still sometimes produced to a higher standard than some blu rays thanks to the investments.
Could audio see massive advances right from the room and microphones? High resolution digital sensors to pick up the audio like current high resolution video sensors? A recording system that can somehow negate noise at the source? Maybe light is just not as messy as sound waves and there is more to work with? Video rooms are just dimly lit boxes after all. There is no worry about background video, putting video too close to walls, video reflections or video getting muffled by other video, video cancellation from two sources showing opposite pictures.
Then the playback system. One that sees a reinvention of the speaker with all the benefits but none of the negatives of cones, ribbons, horns or excited panels. Maybe the storage isn't the limiting factor even with the most high end systems.
I don't see us getting an update across the chain that would make a shift to rebuying wothwhile (could be as dumb as a "in the future I see a computer in every town" type comment but). If anything we are making our environment worse for audio to the point where mp3 may become the audible limit. Poorly built closely nit modern housing, vehicles on the road multiplying, electrical gadgets multiplying, we transmitting signals on every frequency we can at stronger and stronger levels and a poor work/leisure balance, climate change possibly leading to exagerated weather patterns. None of that encourages a quiet pieceful open zen like listening experience. At least for video we have cut down on smog and have invented laser eye surgery. Maybe our expectations have been on the decrease with exposure and that trend will continue.
dannycanham said:
...exactly; which is why I specifically used the words "in theory" ie. to cover the inherent weaknesses that are part and parcel of this format.
The following is a chapter on d-a and a-d conversion from
The Scientist and Engineer's Guide to Digital Signal Processing By Steven W. Smith, Ph.D.
http://www.dspguide.com/ch3/3.htm
It points out the capabilities and limits with digital resolutions as well as likewise limits in analog. Reasonably easy to read.
The Scientist and Engineer's Guide to Digital Signal Processing By Steven W. Smith, Ph.D.
http://www.dspguide.com/ch3/3.htm
It points out the capabilities and limits with digital resolutions as well as likewise limits in analog. Reasonably easy to read.
tino
Well-known member
dannycanham said:
Fair enough ... just the way I had EAC set up. I use EAC to go to WAV first (using FreeDb to at least build up artist / album / track directory structure, then use FLAC encoder and compression from Foobar2000 which I also use to tag. I only rip CD's when I buy them, so it's not much of an overhead - I can even go for a cup of tea whilst the computer munches away for 5 - 10 mins.
On a previous point about storage not being cheap to store uncompressed file .... I think it is relatively cheap compared to several hundred / thousands of £££ of digital audio player / DAC combinations that you might need to play hi-res music to audiophile quality. And FLAC actually is a compressed format design to save disk space even though it is also conveniently lossless.
Also on another point about there being "there are no negatives to using higher accuracy disk based information" ... except for the fact that it costs a lot more (almost double) in the first place that normal "CD quality" formatted music :O
I believe you need to re-evaluate your definition of "reasonably" 
I think I will stick to the enjoyment of music, rather than putting it through an autopsy.
.....but thx for the link.
I think I will stick to the enjoyment of music, rather than putting it through an autopsy.
.....but thx for the link.
tino said:
Not to mention that all the actual real gains in quality (which are there without a doubt), are outside the range of human hearing, and no higher quality than redbook has been successfully proven to be audible (to my knowledge).
Lee H said:
Sorry to be pedantic, but he is absolutely correct. You are talking about "music", not "audio"
(which may I add, can be appreciated on a kitchen radio)...
proffski said:
I agree completely.
I've been avoiding mp3 until very recently. Having downloaded some 320kbps stuff, I find the sound quality is quite poor and is way inferior to CD resolution in my opinion.
The degradation is clear to hear, it's too bright at high frequencies, low frequencies are unclear, ill-defined and lacking in weight, and there's also crackly distortion present.
Again, I agree. It's great for people who want to store masses of music for listening on the move or for background music when doing other things, but for serious listening on a high quality system, well, I shall continue to avoid.
Sorry Danny, I'm not going to argue; I didn't post the screengrab to start an argument anyway. Its purpose, solely and purely, was to visually demonstrate - for the benefit of anyone who was interested - how an increase in samples-per-second gets a digital file to more-closely represent the true shape of a sound, particularly high-frequency sounds. For simplicity of demonstration, I chose a 10kHz sinewave. In that context, the picture I uploaded was not wrong. What's wrong is how you (and some others here) are choosing to interpret what you see. Maybe it's just that you (and some others) don't understand how DAW software represents waveforms graphically.dannycanham said:
Either way, if you (or others) still feel like disputing something about the screengrab, feel free to write to Sony and explain that their premium audio-editing software is displaying digital audio incorrectly.
I've even forgotten now why I posted the picture in the first place. But it's another one of those things where I now wish I hadn't bothered. I'm getting that feeling more and more on this forum recently.
(Edited because I just re-read what I typed and realized that it sounded very confrontational. I didn't intend it to be.)
steve_1979
Well-known member
Quenzer said:
I agree that many downloaded MP3's are poor quality but I've found that MP3's ripped from a CD sound much better.
Here's a thread on the subject: www.whathifi.com/forum/computer-based-music/downloaded-mp3s-vs-mp3s-ripped-from-a-cd
manicm
Well-known member
I'm using EAC and the latest LAME MP3 encoder, and compared to earlier versions, 320k rips definitely have high-frequency rolloff - they're lacking that last bit of transparency. I will now only listen to MP3s in the car.
I've got my CA 751BD, I will hook up a USB hard drive, rip to WAV or FLAC, or even uncompressed FLAC and enjoy. I will then lockup the iPod and dock and throw away the key. For good.
Cos music is my drug, I want the best and I've got no time for pussyfooting around.
I've got my CA 751BD, I will hook up a USB hard drive, rip to WAV or FLAC, or even uncompressed FLAC and enjoy. I will then lockup the iPod and dock and throw away the key. For good.
Cos music is my drug, I want the best and I've got no time for pussyfooting around.
Overdose
Well-known member
Clare Newsome said:
I have to disagree with that statement Clare. The 'hi-fi' world is not just about opinions, but is, or should be largely based on the science of sound reproduction, as opposed to a lot of pseudo science used to sell some overpriced equipment. Ideally, high-fidelity equipment has minimal amounts of noise and distortion and an accurate frequency response, all of which are measurable and can be proven.
The problem is when people cannot differentiate between subjective and objective. For example, a speaker might be designed to have the lowest distortion and greatest frequency response in it's price range, technically superior to anything else, but it's sound might not be to the liking of a few listeners. The speaker will still be technically superior though, regardless of opinions of how it sounds to some.
Sorry to digress from the original topic, but as is the way with such thread topics, that happened fairly early on in the discussion.
John Duncan
Well-known member
Hearing is a subjective thing, so what one person hears may not be what someone else hears.
However one of the most important things to consider when listening to mp3s is to understand how mp3 are encoded and decoded. If you are listening to mp3's in 16bit resolution, the chances are you are not hearing all the music. Don't assume just because the mp3 source was 16 bit (CD), it is ok to playback these files at this bit depth as the decoded PCM may be contain additional rounding errors which could account for the differences people hear.
Mp3 is a lossy encoding method and it is always best to decode internally using 32bit floating point and then output at 24bit to get the most accurate playback and minimise any rounding errors.
However one of the most important things to consider when listening to mp3s is to understand how mp3 are encoded and decoded. If you are listening to mp3's in 16bit resolution, the chances are you are not hearing all the music. Don't assume just because the mp3 source was 16 bit (CD), it is ok to playback these files at this bit depth as the decoded PCM may be contain additional rounding errors which could account for the differences people hear.
Mp3 is a lossy encoding method and it is always best to decode internally using 32bit floating point and then output at 24bit to get the most accurate playback and minimise any rounding errors.
steve_1979
Well-known member
I've just tried some 'lossless vs MP3' experiments on a friend of mine and got some very interesting results.
For the first experiment I played him a series of two identical MP3 files but lied and said that one of them was lossless. Most of the time he couldn't tell any difference but a few times his said the at the fake lossless file was better than the MP3 even though it was really identical.
For the second experiment I swapped the files around. I told him that the MP3's were lossless and that the lossless files were MP3's. This time he thought that the MP3's sounded better than the lossless files.
For the third experiment I played him some lossless and MP3's and told him the truth about which one was which. He mostly prefered the lossless files to the MP3's this time.
For the fourth experiment I let him do an ABX test using Foobar and he couldn't tell the difference.
For the first experiment I played him a series of two identical MP3 files but lied and said that one of them was lossless. Most of the time he couldn't tell any difference but a few times his said the at the fake lossless file was better than the MP3 even though it was really identical.
For the second experiment I swapped the files around. I told him that the MP3's were lossless and that the lossless files were MP3's. This time he thought that the MP3's sounded better than the lossless files.
For the third experiment I played him some lossless and MP3's and told him the truth about which one was which. He mostly prefered the lossless files to the MP3's this time.
For the fourth experiment I let him do an ABX test using Foobar and he couldn't tell the difference.
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
LG Display spills the beans on its new super-bright OLED panel- Started by What Hi-Fi?
- Replies: 0
-
-
I test OLED TVs for a living – and trust me, different sizes perform differently
- Started by What Hi-Fi?
- Replies: 3
-
-
We've built a gold-standard hi-fi system that delivers sweet streams aplenty – and looks good, too
- Started by What Hi-Fi?
- Replies: 1
-
The LG B4 is a bargain once more, thanks to this superb OLED TV deal
- Started by What Hi-Fi?
- Replies: 0
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram