or Connect
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Why would 24 bit / 192 khz flac sound any better than 16 bit / 44.1 khz flac if both are lossless (if at all)?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Why would 24 bit / 192 khz flac sound any better than 16 bit / 44.1 khz flac if both are lossless (if at all)? - Page 6

post #76 of 386
Quote:
Originally Posted by elmoe View Post
 

How am I trying to upset you? Sound quality is relative to size of driver, I am adding on to the accurate information of your post above. I don't blame you for not wanting my Logitech speakers though.


Copying another troll post that adds zero information other than a childish attempt to provoke another person.

post #77 of 386
Quote:
Originally Posted by ag8908 View Post
 


To be clear, stating that speakers sound better than headphones is a bannable offense on head-fi? I want to understand this, because it would speak volumes about the credibility of this site and its operators (I assume you are speaking as a moderator who represents this site's policies and not speaking with authority you don't have).


I am not a moderator nor do I know if your posts will get you banned (I seriously doubt it) but I do know that all you will end up doing is start a useless flame war.

 

Just for the record I do most of listening via speakers not headphones but I do not agree with some of your statements regarding the sound of headphones (which of course means that I do agree with some of your statements). Nonetheless for the most part I keep my feelings about the superiority of speakers to myself since this is a HEADPHONE forum.

 

What I'm trying to say is that even though one may absolutely hate heavy metal music it just is not polite to post one's opinions on heavy metal music on a thread about heavy metal. Sometimes the less said the better.

post #78 of 386
Quote:
Originally Posted by ralphp@optonline View Post
 


I am not a moderator nor do I know if your posts will get you banned (I seriously doubt it) but I do know that all you will end up doing is start a useless flame war.

 

Just for the record I do most of listening via speakers not headphones but I do not agree with some of your statements regarding the sound of headphones (which of course means that I do agree with some of your statements). Nonetheless for the most part I keep my feelings about the superiority of speakers to myself since this is a HEADPHONE forum.

 

What I'm trying to say is that even though one may absolutely hate heavy metal music it just is not polite to post one's opinions on heavy metal music on a thread about heavy metal. Sometimes the less said the better.

 

If you're not a moderator, why did you issue a "warning" to me? A warning is a communication designed to tell a person that they will be punished in some way if they don't comply with your wishes. If you don't want to start flame wars, then you may wish to start by refraining from dictating contrived and arbitrary rules about what people can and can't post, like you run this place.

 

That's my last post on this two page distraction that you and elmoe (both of whom who did the same thing with me in another thread) started. Grow up already and please end your forum stalking. Thank you!


Edited by ag8908 - 3/20/14 at 10:31am
post #79 of 386
Quote:
Originally Posted by pockits View Post
 

Speakers as loudspeakers, and little speakers as headphones sound different in all levels. There are crucial factors as the distance from our ear to the source of the sound ( membrane of the driver), for example. and how are this frequencies reproduce.

 

 

That's all true, but one of them sounds closer to the actual live sound than the other. That's the only point I'm making.

post #80 of 386
Quote:
Originally Posted by pockits View Post
 

 

As an engineer I can discuss all of this but as an audiophile I Can as well say this is all wrong.

 

....

 

Regarding the theory it is, in fact , not only a theory but a scientific fact and is called the Nyquist rate, this is twice the bandwidth of a bandlimited function or a bandlimited channel, Ergo, if you hear 22 kHz, as a function you need twice the bandwidth or 44 kHz,.

 

 

....

Greetings, from a fellow engineer.

 

Nyquist is not wrong. But the idea that 22KHz BW is sufficient for human hearing is in question.  While we may not hear sinosoids at 22KHz, it may be that people do some perceive energy up at and beyond those frequencies.

 

Besides, remember that the oddball sampling rate of 44.1KHz came from a practical need to sync up to video recorder frequencies of the time. At the time it was deemed sufficient to cover the 20KHz bandwidth that was common belief to be sufficient.  We ended up being stuck with it today.

post #81 of 386
Quote:
Originally Posted by ag8908 View Post
 

 

If you're not a moderator, why did you issue a "warning" to me? A warning is a communication designed to tell a person that they will be punished in some way if they don't comply with your wishes. If you don't want to start flame wars, then you may wish to start by refraining from dictating contrived and arbitrary rules about what people can and can't post, like you run this place.

 

That's my last post on this two page distraction that you and elmoe (both of whom who did the same thing with me in another thread) started. Grow up already and please end your forum stalking. Thank you!


I think that you are just a little confused about who is stalking and who is behaving like a child.

 

Enough said. Now go find someone else to have a little spat with because I'm done.

post #82 of 386
Quote:
Originally Posted by Digitalchkn View Post
 

Greetings, from a fellow engineer.

 

Nyquist is not wrong. But the idea that 22KHz BW is sufficient for human hearing is in question.  While we may not hear sinosoids at 22KHz, it may be that people do some perceive energy up at and beyond those frequencies.

 

Besides, remember that the oddball sampling rate of 44.1KHz came from a practical need to sync up to video recorder frequencies of the time. At the time it was deemed sufficient to cover the 20KHz bandwidth that was common belief to be sufficient.  We ended up being stuck with it today.


Exactly... Red Book ... and all the NAB standards, but since not everyone here are engineers with electronics knowledge I try not to be a Pa*** in the A**.

 

BTW Nyquist is clearly not wrong.

post #83 of 386

I find this forum a challenging place to get good, genuinely useful information because it seems that many discussions quickly degrade into "I'm right and you're wrong!" arguments. It is a fact of life on most discussion forums, but it seems to me that is happens disproportionately often here. Why? Is it just because people are passionately committed to their listening experience, or is it a giving in to the urge to indulge in "opinionated utterances"? I would think these discussions would be far more fruitful to the casual reader (such as myself) if I wasn't a required to weed out 75% of the comments for their excesses and confrontational nature.

 

I now have to assume the above paragraph is going to be taken as an unnecessarily harsh criticism, and if it is, that is a shame. But please realize I am not being critical of the people who invest their time and energy to express an opinion/knowledge, I am being critical of the confrontational behavior of our species, and the nature of some of the content itself. I wish the signal-to-noise ratio was better, that's all. :-(

post #84 of 386
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cannikin View Post
 

I find this forum a challenging place to get good, genuinely useful information because it seems that many discussions quickly degrade into "I'm right and you're wrong!" arguments. It is a fact of life on most discussion forums, but it seems to me that is happens disproportionately often here. Why? Is it just because people are passionately committed to their listening experience, or is it a giving in to the urge to indulge in "opinionated utterances"? I would think these discussions would be far more fruitful to the casual reader (such as myself) if I wasn't a required to weed out 75% of the comments for their excesses and confrontational nature.

 

I now have to assume the above paragraph is going to be taken as an unnecessarily harsh criticism, and if it is, that is a shame. But please realize I am not being critical of the people who invest their time and energy to express an opinion/knowledge, I am being critical of the confrontational behavior of our species, and the nature of some of the content itself. I wish the signal-to-noise ratio was better, that's all. :-(


In my opinion, there's nothing wrong with expressing your opinion and ending it. It's just that when someone who doesn't like what you say impersonates a moderator and threatens you with a "warning" for stating your opinion or makes childish taunts that have nothing to do with the discussion that it becomes a problem. It's quite sad if you think of it.

post #85 of 386
Quote:
Originally Posted by Digitalchkn View Post

Greetings, from a fellow engineer.

Nyquist is not wrong. But the idea that 22KHz BW is sufficient for human hearing is in question.  While we may not hear sinosoids at 22KHz, it may be that people do some perceive energy up at and beyond those frequencies.

Besides, remember that the oddball sampling rate of 44.1KHz came from a practical need to sync up to video recorder frequencies of the time. At the time it was deemed sufficient to cover the 20KHz bandwidth that was common belief to be sufficient.  We ended up being stuck with it today.

Question: if, as you state, it is possible that some people can perceive energy above the 20khz threshold has there ever been a test where a recording with only sounds above 20khz are played to see if some people can hear or sense that the recording is playing?

Such a test would put to rest the question of whether not these high frequencies matter or not.
post #86 of 386
Quote:
Originally Posted by ralphp@optonline View Post


Question: if, as you state, it is possible that some people can perceive energy above the 20khz threshold has there ever been a test where a recording with only sounds above 20khz are played to see if some people can hear or sense that the recording is playing?

Such a test would put to rest the question of whether not these high frequencies matter or not.

 

What would be the value of that test?  I am not aware of a recording that has sounds only above 20KHz.

post #87 of 386
Quote:
Originally Posted by Digitalchkn View Post

There is general agreement that even not-so-high-end headphones have higher resolution than many of the better speaker systems.  So it depends on what you prefer.

But why listen to others.

I have done my own tests comparing 16/44 to even 24/48. I used same quality 24/96 source with large dynamic range to generate 16/44, 16/44 dithered, 24/48 and  16/44 upscaled to 24/48. I used quality conversion software with floating point resolution so the conversion error is well below the 24 bit noise floor.  On my 24 bit headphone chain I CAN TELL A DIFFERENCE between 16/44 and 24/48 versions.

Nice. Can you demonstrate to anyone else that you CAN TELL A DIFFERENCE under proper testing conditions?
post #88 of 386
Quote:
Originally Posted by Digitalchkn View Post
 

 

What would be the value of that test?  I am not aware of a recording that has sounds only above 20KHz.

I think that you misunderstood me. One of the reasons that people claim that recordings having a sampling rate above 44.1kHz are needed is that some people can perceive energy/sound above the 20khz threshold and by having a recording with only frequencies above 20kHz would show that this is either true or false. My guess is that no human will be able to hear these frequencies, which is not something the people pushing high resolution would like to have proved.

 

Next up: the myth about higher sampling rates producing smoother, i.e. more accurate, sine waves at all frequencies but especially at or near 20kHz. Oh wait that one's probably been bandied about in the High-end Audio Forum section. I forgot that this is the Sound Science section.

post #89 of 386
Quote:
Originally Posted by riverlethe View Post


Nice. Can you demonstrate to anyone else that you CAN TELL A DIFFERENCE under proper testing conditions?

 

I see no reason. If I can tell a difference then I am convinced. I don't have to convince anyone else :L3000:

post #90 of 386
Quote:
Originally Posted by Digitalchkn View Post

I see no reason. If I can tell a difference then I am convinced. I don't have to convince anyone else L3000.gif

Then why state it in a public forum? :P

Seriously, what sort of test did you do?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Why would 24 bit / 192 khz flac sound any better than 16 bit / 44.1 khz flac if both are lossless (if at all)?