[ScareDe2]

My current theory is that you want to receive at the same bitrate than the import work. For video, it seems that most video editors will import in 44Khz (not 41khz my mistake) hence why window sound seems better at 24 bits 44Khz for this purpose.

For music, I think uploaders import at 16 bits 48 Khz, but it is just a guess.

At the end of the day, use what works best for your ears. One thing is sure though, this industry has complicated things and should be blamed for that.

 

[bigshot]

You are talking nonsense. And you don't listen when someone nicely offers you the facts. You should take your theories elsewhere where people might appreciate them.

 

[ScareDe2]

My posts likes ratio is better than yours. My nonsenses are more appreciated than your facts.

 

[bigshot]

There should be a button to click for nonsense trolling. Ignored.

 

[KeithPhantom]

My posts likes ratio is better than yours. My nonsenses are more appreciated than your facts.

Facts do not care about like ratios you get in a random forum. Facts are testable and are established under experiments and peer review.

 

[KeithPhantom]

Facts do not care about like ratios you get in a random forum. Facts are testable and are established under experiments and peer review.

I would ask for @castleofargh to actually come and if possible communicate to our fellow friend that scientific discussion is what it is discussed in this sub-forum, and being willingly ignorant miscarries this purpose.

 

[bigshot]

The only thing he tests is all of our patience.

 

[Davesrose]

There should be a button to click for nonsense trolling. Ignored.

Well anytime anyone who's not aware and tries to engage him: we do have a quote that's from the horse's mouth:

My posts likes ratio is better than yours. My nonsenses are more appreciated than your facts.

 

[ScareDe2]

It is just better to leave the audio in the format it is originally in. It was reported that Window resampling was measured and result was not good.

 

[bigshot]

Well... How about them Dodgers?

I'm curious about the Mark Waldrop HD audio study... http://www.realhd-audio.com/?p=6993 Is there an article that details how it was conducted and the specific results, or does he plan to publish it in a peer reviewed journal first?

 

[Davesrose]

Well... How about them Dodgers?

You know I'm a member of a photography forum that has a "title fairy". So instead of "500+ Head-Fier" ScareDe2's title could read "My nonsenses are more appreciated than your facts"

 

[KeithPhantom]

I'm curious about the Mark Waldrop HD audio study... http://www.realhd-audio.com/?p=6993 Is there an article that details how it was conducted and the specific results, or does he plan to publish it in a peer reviewed journal first?

I read the description and you had to complete a survey to participate in it, also you would agree to not use software that reveals the sampling rate and bit depth. So, he is actually giving excessive trust to a group of complete strangers (the study's population) to get some results. I think it isn't scientific at all since there are no control groups and the chain of control is compromised.

 

[ScareDe2]

If the original work is published in hi-res format, then you should use hi-res playback. Simple.

 

[bigshot]

Well, it came out the same anyway I guess. I know with my own lossy vs lossless test that people try to game the system by peeking at waveforms. I've inserted a monkey-wrench for them in my test procedure. None of them have been able to overcome it. One guy on another forum tried and I was forced to embarrass him. (After I'd gotten him to make a bunch of incriminating statements, of course.) He never returned to the forum.

 

[old tech]

I would ask for @castleofargh to actually come and if possible communicate to our fellow friend that scientific discussion is what it is discussed in this sub-forum, and being willingly ignorant miscarries this purpose.

I've already raised the issue with the mods. He obviously is a troll, I mean no-one could be that thick, surely?