Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Why 24 bit audio and anything over 48k is not only worthless, but bad for music.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Why 24 bit audio and anything over 48k is not only worthless, but bad for music. - Page 20

post #286 of 334

+1 on the 14 kHz limit but then my hearing is going downhill fast once we're at 15 kHz...16 kHz I can't detect a difference anymore to be honest.  Cutting out the 1-2 kHz region is as disastrous as I thought it'd be given the places where most instruments are most of of the time.

 

Bigshot:  do yourself a big favour and get the VLC-player.  I run it on my Mac, handles (almost) everything  under the sun in audio and video.  

post #287 of 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post

Try cutting out the octave between 1kHz and 2kHz and see what it does to the music.

I think this thread has officially run its course.

post #288 of 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeyerMonster View Post

I think this thread has officially run its course.

Where does the 'officially' come from?
post #289 of 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agharta View Post


Where does the 'officially' come from?
Officially Origin:
1300–50; Middle English  < Late Latin officiālis  of duty, equivalent to Latin offici ( um ) office + -ālis -al
post #290 of 334
That's the problem with high definition - it's officially for pedants.
Edited by Agharta - 5/8/14 at 1:28pm
post #291 of 334

Today the weather changed and my sinuses kicked in. My ears plugged up and I'm not hearing much of anything. I have an interesting echo effect going from my Eustachian tube in one ear though. It sounds like surround sound.

post #292 of 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post
 

Today the weather changed and my sinuses kicked in. My ears plugged up and I'm not hearing much of anything. I have an interesting echo effect going from my Eustachian tube in one ear though. It sounds like surround sound.


Is there a Sinus-Fi foobar plugin?

 

Cheers

post #293 of 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agharta View Post
 
Where does the 'officially' come from?

Asserting that some frequencies near the upper ends of the hearing spectrum are unimportant to music and therefore unnecessary for proper reproduction of music is a reasonable hypothesis. You can explore that, create some experiments, and to some degree either confirm or refute. This is at least related to whether capturing/reproducing frequencies above 20 kHz are relevant to music and therefore whether higher sample rates are necessary or even useful.

 

Suggesting that we try listening to music without a frequency that is near the middle of our hearing range and indisputably carries musical content is no longer remotely relevant to the OP, this thread, or the discussion about whether 24/192 or 24/96 offer meaningful differences as compared to 16/44.1.

 

And yes, I misused "officially".

post #294 of 334

You aren't reading what I am saying. I'm not saying that upper frequencies are unnecessary. I am saying that among the ten octave range of human hearing, the top octave is the *least* important to sound reproduction. To provide an example of the relative importance, I suggested comparing music with the top octave filtered out to music with an octave smack dab in the middle filtered out.

 

Relative importance, not absolute statements of necessary/unnecessary.

post #295 of 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post
 

You aren't reading what I am saying. I'm not saying that upper frequencies are unnecessary. I am saying that among the ten octave range of human hearing, the top octave is the *least* important to sound reproduction. To provide an example of the relative importance, I suggested comparing music with the top octave filtered out to music with an octave smack dab in the middle filtered out.

 

Relative importance, not absolute statements of necessary/unnecessary.

So are you saying that any flaw in a sound reproduction system is only worth addressing if it is at least as significant a flaw as a complete band-stop filter from 1-2kHz?

post #296 of 334

I'm saying that when you are looking at specs for a set of headphones, or working on getting your speakers to work well in the room, or choosing equipment, there are things that reap huge rewards if you pay attention to them, and things that really don't matter a lot. It isn't enough to get the right answer... you need the correct context too.

 

Here is a for instance for you... I have seen quite a few people in the headphone forum up in arms when looking at response charts because of a high end roll off at the top end, but don't care at all about huge boosts in the upper midrange. Why? Because the chart they are looking at doesn't reflect Fletcher Munson, so the upper mid hump looks nice and flattish, while the precipitous drop at the end looks like the wrong end of a roller coaster. "Humans can hear to 20kHz!" they cry. "I want every single frequency!" Meanwhile the elephant in the corner goes completely ignored.

 

It is really important to be able to quantify and prioritize things. Some things matter a lot, some hardly at all. It doesn't help when Sound Science people pipe up to pretty straightforward questions with long convoluted answers that include caveats about obscure exceptions to the rule that are highly unlikely to be the situation the questioner finds himself in. A normal person hears these sorts of confusing absolutist statements and only half understanding the context and relative importance, ends up chasing specs down to five, ten, twenty a hundred times beyond the threshold of hearing.

 

It shouldn't start an argument to simply say that of the ten octaves that comprise the range of human hearing, the top octave is the least important to reproducing music. That seems like a pretty obvious thing if you are aware of what each octave of sound sounds like.

post #297 of 334

As I said before though, I even disagree with that final statement - I'll take a system which is flat from 40Hz-20kHz any day over one which is flat from 20Hz-10kHz (and the former is much easier to achieve too - making a tweeter flat out to 18-20kHz is much simpler than making a sub that can play flat to 20Hz, especially in a good size room and if you realize that THD isn't terribly important at those high frequencies). I agree that little dropoffs in the very extreme upper end of human hearing (>16kHz or so) don't matter, and I also agree that headphones which have both a huge midrange flaw and a rolled off treble will sound bad primarily because of the midrange, not the rolled off treble. However, the fact remains that the upper octave (especially the 10-16kHz region) is both audible and important to a wide range of music, and as a result, you cannot claim to have a true high-fidelity, near audibly perfect system unless it can recreate that part of the frequency range accurately. This is not some kind of fuss over nothing, this is not making a big deal out of some inaudible triviality, it is not chasing down specs that are five, ten, or twenty times beyond the threshold of human hearing. It is addressing a provably real, significantly audible portion of the music.

 

As for your complaint about sound science? It's sound SCIENCE. It's about what is real, what is measurable, and what is empirically demonstrable. Unfortunately for your argument, that does actually include some caveats, some corner cases, and some situations that cannot be simplified down to a twelve-syllable anecdote. Looking at relatively high-end audio, many of these corner cases are not entirely uncommon either - it is entirely reasonable to expect that someone getting information in this section might own something that genuinely falls in one of those "exception" areas, and if they are not addressed, it could lead to incorrect information or a false impression. Besides, if I am interested in the legitimate technical and scientific details, I am free to discuss them. Nobody made you a moderator of this portion of the forum.


Edited by cjl - 5/8/14 at 5:51pm
post #298 of 334

Hoo boy!

post #299 of 334

(sorry if I sound a bit terse and irritable by the way - I've had a frustrating day at work...)

post #300 of 334

My interest is in figuring out how to make home audio sound good... really good, not good to the nth degree crossing every t and dotting every i or "feel good" with self delusion. I realize that I'm a minority on the internet.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Why 24 bit audio and anything over 48k is not only worthless, but bad for music.