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 7

post #91 of 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thad-E-Ginathom View Post

Yes, of course being a scientist doesn't make a person infallible, but  if I'm to take anybody's word, then the CV is certainly impressive. As is the capacity to patiently explain and put into layman, even non-mathematical, terms. Read some of his stuff on Hydrogen Audio too.

Don't get me wrong. I wasn't being critical of him. I've known him for years and just haven't seen much of him lately.

se
post #92 of 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by elmoe View Post

How about you offer some argument then? What are your credentials? Hmmm.

Let's not forget that it's the argument that makes the argument, not the "credentials" of the person making the argument. Not even Einstein got away with that.

se
post #93 of 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Eddy View Post


Don't get me wrong. I wasn't being critical of him. I've known him for years and just haven't seen much of him lately.

se

 

Not getting you wrong... speaking generally :)

post #94 of 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thad-E-Ginathom View Post

Not getting you wrong... speaking generally smily_headphones1.gif

Gotcha. beerchug.gif

se
post #95 of 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xenophon View Post
 

Connect your flamethrowers, I don't care a whit but imo some of you people are overdoing it a bit.  You're entitled to your opinion and sure, most of it will be based upon science -so was an opinion about medicine dating back to the 15th century which I just read, btw.  The 'science' honchos of that time are now generally considered as idiots wearing pointed hats while they were just reasoning based on what was available in terms of 'knowledge' at that time- but the attitude and lack of tolerance of some toward 'non believers' would do the taliban proud.

 

I'm sure this site can be criticised, yet although the owners are under no obligation whatsoever to provide you with any kind of platform, you have the liberty to express your views.  If nothing else, that deserves some respect 

Not to be rude, but I'm sure that no one else here has a Phd in Audiology. 

 

I was also just stating a fact

 

Plus after I was tested I was told I have a perfect ear and I just need to maintain it.

I later asked them if I could be tested higher frequencies and it was not audible through my ear nor through hers.

So next time, please visit a doctor who at least has a  masters, in stead of googling it or checking wikipedia.

 

A first born can here frequencies 20hz to 18khz

While adults can here only up to 8khz

(I forget what the lower frequency was) 

 

Also when you have a very wide bandwidth being played it will be audible to the ear because of the larger soundstage, and more of a 3D perspective.

 

I hope this helps,

Noah

post #96 of 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noah99 View Post
 

Not to be rude, but I'm sure that no one else here has a Phd in Audiology. 

 

I was also just stating a fact

 

Plus after I was tested I was told I have a perfect ear and I just need to maintain it.

I later asked them if I could be tested higher frequencies and it was not audible through my ear nor through hers.

So next time, please visit a doctor who at least has a  masters, in stead of googling it or checking wikipedia.

 

A first born can here frequencies 20hz to 18khz

While adults can here only up to 8khz

(I forget what the lower frequency was) 

 

Also when you have a very wide bandwidth being played it will be audible to the ear because of the larger soundstage, and more of a 3D perspective.

 

I hope this helps,

Noah

 

 

All one has to do is twiddle an eq to prove the 8khz limit wrong. But why would an audiologist's equipment produce different results from say online test? That seems a little odd. Did you ask him/her for the reason?

post #97 of 334

I just tried the 12khz band on the graphic EQ in JRMC and swept it from 12db to -12db and the difference was not subtle.  I bet every single person in this thread could here that.  14khz on the other hand was much more subtle. 16khz? Forget about it.

post #98 of 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by elmoe View Post
 

 

How about you offer some argument then?

 

What I have to offer is nothing that has not been said in a 50 page thread by a poster who calls himself "gregorio", or out of one my books.

 

 

I do my own listening, and believe that is how everybody should draw there own opinions conclusions. There is actually no "right" or "wrong" with the 192khz sample rate as the author implies. It's entirely a subjective thing and opinions vary.  What can't be denied is that there is an audible difference between 24/192 and 16/44.1

post #99 of 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by robertsong View Post
 

 

What I have to offer is nothing that has not been said in a 50 page thread by a poster who calls himself "gregorio", or out of one my books.

 

 

I do my own listening, and believe that is how everybody should draw there own opinions conclusions. There is actually no "right" or "wrong" with the 192khz sample rate as the author implies. It's entirely a subjective thing and opinions vary.  What can't be denied is that there is an audible difference between 24/192 and 16/44.1

 

If the only way we'll get your opinion is through buying one of your books, you shouldn't post in this thread to start with.

 

The difference can, and is denied by every DBT ABX test ever done by anyone. If your claim was anywhere near truthful then there would be countless DBT tests proving it, there isn't a single one. What can't be denied objectively is that there is in fact, absolutely NO DIFFERENCE between 24/192 and 16/44.1 files of the same recording/master to be heard by the human ear. If you'd like to deny this claim feel free to make your own DBT ABX test under the proper procedure and film it for us all to see. If it could be done it would've been a long time ago.


Edited by elmoe - 5/4/14 at 9:17am
post #100 of 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeyerMonster View Post
 

Out of curiosity, do you have the same attitude towards vendors selling 256 kbps or even 128 kbps MP3s as CD-quality or "near CD-quality"?

 

In the case of lossless high-res audio case, you can at least argue that their production and distribution costs are higher (storage/bandwidth).

In the lossless cases, they're actually saving money via lower costs/bandwidth.

 

Arguments for/against audible differences can be applied in either scenario.

An mp3 is not 'near CD quality' so personally I would disagree with them - perhaps if they rephrased it to 'audibly close to CD quality' for a 320kbps mp3 I could understand, but just saying near CD quality is a bit ambiguous. Personally I struggle to tell the difference a lot of the time between a high bit rate mp3 (256+) and lossless, but in some cases I can and so can others so I have no problem with lossless audio at 44.1/16. Scientifically compare (e.g. spectrum analysis) an mp3 and lossless PCM and there is a large measurable difference within the audible range. This isn't the case with higher sampling frequencies.

 

Sure, higher bandwidth costs more. My complaint is when it is claimed that it sounds better, or that there are problems with 44.1/16. As bigshot says, 44.1/16 was chosen for a reason.

post #101 of 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by robertsong View Post

What can't be denied is that there is an audible difference between 24/192 and 16/44.1

Then demonstrate it with something more than hand-waving and empty claims.

se
post #102 of 334
It's as easy as doing an abx switching plug-in on Foobar, a capable DAC and decent phones.
post #103 of 334
If we spin this around, and say that the ONLY reason that 24/xxx could be better than 16/xxx is because it offered more headroom / dynamic range, would that then make things easier for both sides of this to see where the other is coming from?

Personally, I'm happy to listen to 256kbps mp3, as much as I am a DSD file, can I genuinely tell the difference? in mastering, yes, quite possibly, but to these ears, only by virtue of better headroom on the higher res file...

Then again, for those producers that don't push everything deep into the red, redbook can still sound extraordinary.
post #104 of 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by robertsong View Post
 

Wow, this "Monty" character is an enormous crackpot. Whether he truly believes the stuff that wrote in that joke of an article, or whether he an agenda to pass on such propaganda is impossible to tell. He does not state any credentials what-so-ever, nor does he disclose his full name. Hmmm.

 

My guess is this is somebody with nothing more than a computer programming background. No actual audio engineering experience. Am I right?

 

PS: He his DEAD WRONG.


Assuming we are talking about the same article he explains what the broad outlines of human hearing are.  None of that is controversial or unsupported.  His name is Christopher "Monty" Montgomery.  I believe he developed OGG encoding/decoding and works on H264 audio/video codecs.  I don't know if his background is mostly in programming or what.  Since his codecs work pretty well he knows something about what he is doing and talking about.

 

As you appear to be very mistaken in saying he is dead wrong perhaps a more detailed critique by you is in order. 

post #105 of 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by robertsong View Post
 

 

What I have to offer is nothing that has not been said in a 50 page thread by a poster who calls himself "gregorio", or out of one my books.

 

 

I do my own listening, and believe that is how everybody should draw there own opinions conclusions. There is actually no "right" or "wrong" with the 192khz sample rate as the author implies. It's entirely a subjective thing and opinions vary.  What can't be denied is that there is an audible difference between 24/192 and 16/44.1


Then it appears Sir, you are in the wrong forum.  Everybody listening to form their own opinion with no right or wrong isn't how this particular sub-forum works.  If you have some credible evidence or explanation of how 192 vs 44 is audible now would be the time to enlighten us. 

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.