24/96 vs 24/192
- Thread starter moejr
- Start date
Is that why you are always lol'ing? We're all so ridiculous that you break out in laughter?
Yup, that's pretty funny all right!
tmtomh
Active Member
What I wrote suggests that some people in some circumstances might be able to detect a difference between 44.1 and 48kHz - but only if the digital filters produced phase nonlinearities in the audible range, which is unlikely for modern equipment, not to mention unlikely for most people over the age of 30.
I thought the issue of complex content had been debunked here...?
As for filters, yes, but again, we should be careful not to overstate their effect.
Who records or releases content at 48 kHz? And you repeat a canard about hearing above 20 kHz that completely misses the point of how ringing and phase distortion from brick wall filters (digital included) affects the audible response octaves below that. Which is why no one - no one at all records at 16/44 today. Even Katy Perry is recorded at 24/44.1!
Perhaps for the Mavens of Mediocrity who ignore the results of studies like the one I linked to in my post. Did you follow the link and read the results? 13 of 16 consistently heard differences between 44.1 and 88.2 content. It's only an illusion to the non-experiential theorists.
I have to chuckle when I hear the unsupported rationalization that the only reason why hi-rez recordings are better is because of an improved mastering process. Which then raises the obvious question, "Why then are only deaf and incompetent engineers used for Redbook recordings?". If hi-rez is about better talent, why aren't those folks used to produce CDs - which is far and away the larger market?
The question isn't whether or not there are audible differences between Redbook recordings (driven by and strictly limited by 1980 storage technology) and higher resolution recordings. If even 4 GB DVD media (much less 25 GB Blu Ray) were available then, the standard would most certainly not be so limited. There are enough studies to prove otherwise.
Indeed, the question becomes, "does it matter to you?" - especially if your listening is limited to multi-tracked amplified music content.
Most folks are quite content with lossy MP3 recordings.
Last edited:
Scifi
Super Member
Years ago I tried comparing 16/44.1 vs. 16/48 using a DAT. I could hear the difference and thought 16/48 was a lot better quality. I also tried comparing 16/44.1 to 24/96 using a sound card and could hear the difference. I never listened to anything with a sampling rate of 192kHz. I've compared CDs, SACDs and DVDs (DVD with 24/96) and could hear a difference between all of them.
The Deaf Speaks.
Follow the link in post 63
So predictable for those who lack exposure to better. Or simply are unable to hear sublte differences - which we already know is the case with you. Let's hear it for the 405 with its LM301 op amps!
Last edited:
Scifi
Super Member
Chicks just keeps up his trolling.
http://home.cablelynx.com/~rhw/audio/Pras_Guastavino-AESMay2010.pdf
http://home.cablelynx.com/~rhw/audio/Pras_Guastavino-AESMay2010.pdf
Scifi
Super Member
The proof is that there was a market for 16/48 DAT, there's a market for 24/96 sound cards and other devices, and there's a market for SACD and DVD audio.
It's sad that many folks completely miss the point and create straw men arguments. And fail to read studies that prove otherwise. It does not have to do with reproducing supersonic frequencies - which would be limited by most speakers anyway.
It has everything to do with eliminating the phase errors and ringing caused by what is necessarily a very steep 100+ db filter.
You really should try experiencing what you don't understand.
SoNic67
Well-Known Member
What is YOUR proof?
chicks
Lunatic Member
Anyone with any engineering understanding will understand that Monty's article is proof. Trust your ears zealots are the only ones who seem unable to accept his obvious proofs.
SoNic67
Well-Known Member
I am an EE. Tell me how exactly does that work? I did send the "article" to shredder... That's not a "proof".
Last edited:
Perhaps for you, but not others. Tell us of your direct experience with 24/96 recordings vs their Redbook counterparts. I have about a dozen with which I have done comparisons.
And don't break out that silly $hit that moron engineers do 16/44 and the "only reason" 24/96, 24/192, DSD, etc sound better is because they finally found a competent engineer.
Those at Sony, Telarc, and a host of other quality recording labels do not share that opinion.
Last edited:
I just don't understand why those who cannot hear any difference b1tch the loudest about those who can. Consistently.
I don't share you insecurity nor am moved by Monty's show and tell which doesn't begin to cover all the elements in converting a digital signal to an analog one.
Go figure.
Last edited:
chicks
Lunatic Member
Lol. You are always good for a laugh! Men over the age of 50 can't hear anywhere near 20k, are lucky to hear beyond 10k, yet insist they can hear differences above 22k. Why? WTF are they trying to prove?I just don't understand why those who cannot hear any difference b1tch the loudest about those who can. Consistently.
I don't share you insecurity nor am moved by Monty's show and tell which doesn't begin to cover all the elements in converting a digital signal to an analog one.
Go figure.
D/A conversion is fundamentally based on the math, which doesn't lie. Marketers of overpriced DACs lie all the time. It's how they get fools to buy their products.
You beautifully illustrate a text book case of applying a straw man argument. You argue and shoot down your own perception of the problem - completely missing the point. Which is what non-experiential theorists do. You attack that which is outside your frame of reference because - well you can't *imagine* what others have.
And then those digits must be converted into the analog domain where filters live.
"Perfect sound forever" has never been either.
Last edited:
