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 3

post #31 of 334

Here is my criteria for looking at high res audio:

 

First of all I always try to get a 24bit album over a 16bit CD version or download, that is if the original recording was made in 24bit. 

Second I try to get the recording at the sample rate it was recorded, if it was recored 48khz then I go for that, if its 192khz then its 192khz

Third if the price for an album download is not right common sense applies....

 

Other than that I am just enjoying high res music 

post #32 of 334

Just knock it all down to AAC 320 and save a load of disk space.

post #33 of 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post

The limitation is in human ears. It doesn't matter how high a frequency you want your stereo to produce and how wide a dynamic range, it all comes down to whether human ears can hear it.

Audiophools love to spend lots of money pushing the decimal point further and further to the left and making the frequencies go higher and higher, but at a certain point, it all becomes moot because only bats can hear it.

 

Lol, on point plus a good laugh :p

post #34 of 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by ralphp@optonline View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by kraken2109 View Post
 

Everyone on this board knows that, it's the rest of head-fi you have to convince. Which is difficult since head-fi themselves are sponsered by HDTracks...


Sometimes I wonder if there is any difference between sponsorship and outright bribery. In the case of high end audio publications similar lack of difference exists between advertising revenue and outright bribery.

 

Truth, honesty and integrity are all just so 20th century. The 21st century is all about lies, dishonesty and corruption.

 

I think you're confusing us with other sites. Sponsorship has zero bearing on the running of the site excepting that sponsors are except from most of the restrictions for Members of the Trade in the Terms of Service. Advertising is not handled by anyone who actively runs the site. In the case of most sponsors (such as the ones that don't post or don't have obvious banners), I'd have to actually ask Huddler if they are sponsoring or not. Actually, pre-Huddler, a company that had become successful through popularity on Head-Fi was expected by the community to pay for sponsorship to support it in turn.

 

One of the nice things we have here is the choice to discuss what one likes, either in favour or against different approaches to audio gear. You guys should value that. :smile:

post #35 of 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by Currawong View Post
 

 

I think you're confusing us with other sites. Sponsorship has zero bearing on the running of the site excepting that sponsors are except from most of the restrictions for Members of the Trade in the Terms of Service. Advertising is not handled by anyone who actively runs the site. In the case of most sponsors (such as the ones that don't post or don't have obvious banners), I'd have to actually ask Huddler if they are sponsoring or not. Actually, pre-Huddler, a company that had become successful through popularity on Head-Fi was expected by the community to pay for sponsorship to support it in turn.

 

One of the nice things we have here is the choice to discuss what one likes, either in favour or against different approaches to audio gear. You guys should value that. :smile:

I understand what you're saying, but when head-fi have threads and even videos featuring Jude advertising an album from HDTracks where he himself tells you to buy the highest resolution version I can't help but feel it is influencing people in a negative way.

 

Surely the idea of this forum is to educate people, not sell products from sponsors?

post #36 of 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by kraken2109 View Post
 

I understand what you're saying, but when head-fi have threads and even videos featuring Jude advertising an album from HDTracks where he himself tells you to buy the highest resolution version I can't help but feel it is influencing people in a negative way.

 

Surely the idea of this forum is to educate people, not sell products from sponsors?


+1

 

Currawong: Please explain without tripping over your tongue.

post #37 of 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post

How much dynamic range can you hear?

The instantaneous dynamic range of our ears is about 60dB.

se
post #38 of 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by kraken2109 View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Currawong View Post
 

 

I think you're confusing us with other sites. Sponsorship has zero bearing on the running of the site excepting that sponsors are except from most of the restrictions for Members of the Trade in the Terms of Service. Advertising is not handled by anyone who actively runs the site. In the case of most sponsors (such as the ones that don't post or don't have obvious banners), I'd have to actually ask Huddler if they are sponsoring or not. Actually, pre-Huddler, a company that had become successful through popularity on Head-Fi was expected by the community to pay for sponsorship to support it in turn.

 

One of the nice things we have here is the choice to discuss what one likes, either in favour or against different approaches to audio gear. You guys should value that. :smile:

I understand what you're saying, but when head-fi have threads and even videos featuring Jude advertising an album from HDTracks where he himself tells you to buy the highest resolution version I can't help but feel it is influencing people in a negative way.

 

Surely the idea of this forum is to educate people, not sell products from sponsors?

 

So if Jude (or I) like something that happens to be made by someone who sponsors the site, he shouldn't talk about it?   That's basically what you're saying. 

 

I like the music, personally, and appreciate the effort to make better recordings, since I have more expensive than average gear for a member here. The nice thing here is that we can discuss these topics freely and put forth out opinions (as long as we aren't being rude).

post #39 of 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by Currawong View Post
 

 

So if Jude (or I) like something that happens to be made by someone who sponsors the site, he shouldn't talk about it?   That's basically what you're saying. 

 

I like the music, personally, and appreciate the effort to make better recordings, since I have more expensive than average gear for a member here. The nice thing here is that we can discuss these topics freely and put forth out opinions (as long as we aren't being rude).

I believe that issue isn't whether or not you, Jude or anyone else on this site should be able to "talk" or "discuss" a given product on the site but rather whether you, Jude or anyone else on this site should be recommending fellow members purchase a product, particularly when, in the face of all the hard scientific evidence, there is no proof that the product is worthwhile other than on a purely subjective basis. And more to the point under discussion that a high resolution download sound superior to the CD without conducting proper comparative listening tests.

 

Now of course the simple way around this is for you, Jude or anyone else on this site who makes such a recommendation to qualify that recommendation by clearly stating that the recommendation is based purely on subjective listening and that the recommendation runs counter to evidenced based objective reasoning. That I could live with :L3000: (remember that is the "Sound Science" section.)

post #40 of 334

I'm older, and I'm certain my hearing doesn't come close to hearing the upper and lower ends of the spectrum.  Yet I still feel that I notice a difference in the dynamics of many of the high def recordings.  If I have deluded myself into believing this, so be it.  I have posted many times the concept that "perception is reality", and that you cannot separate the psychology from the physics of how humans hear and perceive music.  You do not educate people if they only hear one side of an argument, you indoctrinate them.  I'm quite comfortable that most Head-fiers are intelligent enough to draw their own personal conclusions.

post #41 of 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by ralphp@optonline View Post

Now of course the simple way around this is for you, Jude or anyone else on this site who makes such a recommendation to qualify that recommendation by clearly stating that the recommendation is based purely on subjective listening and that the recommendation runs counter to evidenced based objective reasoning. That I could live with L3000.gif (remember that is the "Sound Science" section.)

Except Jude isn't posting the reviews/videos/recommendations you're speaking of here in the Sound Science forum. Those are posted in the DBT Free Zone forums.

se
post #42 of 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Eddy View Post


Except Jude isn't posting the reviews/videos/recommendations you're speaking of here in the Sound Science forum. Those are posted in the DBT Free Zone forums.

se


Fair enough. Plus that explains my confusion since that is one section of the the forum that I avoid at all costs :D

post #43 of 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by ralphp@optonline View Post


Fair enough. Plus that explains my confusion since that is one section of the the forum that I avoid at all costs biggrin.gif

biggrin.gif

se
post #44 of 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverEars View Post
 

Well, when I A/B'd my DACs, I found one that my ears seems to favor, and sounded transparent.  I wonder what it could be, maybe the DAC's analog stage is done better than the others?


It's entirely possible that both DACs are perfect to better than the limits of human perception, but one is outputting the signal at a slightly different level than the other (and very slight level differences are often perceived as quality differences). It's also possible (if you didn't do the test blind) that the differences are entirely psychological. That's why it's important when testing equipment by ear (if you want the most accurate results) to carefully level match with a digital multimeter (preferably to 0.1 dB or better) and to do the test blind. If you did both of these, and still heard a significant difference, then I agree with bigshot - one of the dacs was very poorly designed or defective.


Edited by cjl - 5/2/14 at 8:52am
post #45 of 334
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post
 

Just knock it all down to AAC 320 and save a load of disk space.

Mp3 LAME V0, save more space!

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.