[castleofargh]

  Thanks for the asnwer they just increase the range! Ok, I understand, but It really goes sideways, I don't ask how can we improve the overall quality, really I guess I'm not spesific enough.
 
I donwloaded from tone generator and from 35.7 to 35.1 hz and I can and most will hear the diffrence I guess. But does it like that indeed, or does my equipment is rounding off to 35 and 36 repectively? When it comes to speaker? I know even speaker will not play exactly 35 but there is an audible diffrence I'm questioning.
 
Do you have the numbers regarding how minimal we can increse the frequency and desbiell in a lossless file? Again, I'm not arguing increasing it would gain an audible advantage, but just asking it.

some devices won't play exactly the perfect right pitch(I'm trying to be strict here, because pretty much nobody cares to even control that, it's a non issue in general). I remember all the fuss about the sansa clip having a pitch variation some years back, so it was playing everything a tiny bit too fast or too slow I don't remember ^_^. but the variations as you mention between 2 tones would still be correct even on those old sansa clips with the old firmware. the clocks used even in the crappiest device is many times faster than those frequency values and will always be able to keep 35.7hz and 35.1hz as 2 different frequencies with about that difference(if a device can do 20000hz, it knows how to 35.1 ^_^). what you want is simply a sample rate at least twice the value of the frequency you play. look up Nyquist theorem or those so very informative and now classic videos https://www.xiph.org/video/
 
about the speaker, in fact the frequency is the one thing it will always get right. it may add a few others, but the one in the signal will be good. worst case, if it's moving too slow, it won't be able to reach the amplitude(loudness) it should, but the oscillations will follow the speed of the signal. drivers mess up a lot of stuff but not that.

 

[spruce music]

16/44 would differentiate 1000 hz from 1000.00000000056 hz. Add dither and you can add some zeroes. That is if you have a noise floor below 96 db and rarely will be the case with anything not an artificial signal. 24 bit add more zeroes.

As for levels, assuming 2 volt max output you can differentiate steps of 30 millionths of a volt. Again even smaller if you dither.

 

[HAWX]

Oh thank you! I'm refering to artificial signal yes. And about 24 bit I don't get it. Does it add more zeroz and increase presicion like 1000.000000000(+000)56 hz? (I know it isn't really important in real life.)

 

[Danz03]

Interesting how ppl are worried about digital frequencies shift, it's quite minute compare to analogue tapes or vinyls and yet no one ever complained about those.

 

[spruce music]

Oh thank you! I'm refering to artificial signal yes. And about 24 bit I don't get it. Does it add more zeroz and increase presicion like 1000.000000000(+000)56 hz? (I know it isn't really important in real life.)

Yes 24 bit makes it more precise. Add two zeroes and end with 22.

 

[HAWX]

Yeah I am asking especially for some kind of coding but in the future. For playback may be the imperfections make better and natural experience, don't know

 

[TheoS53]

Loving this thread. It's always good to see something being objectively tested and discussed rather than relying on pseudo BS.

For a while I stuck with 192/24 files simply because my player has the capability to play it, so I figured "why the hell not?"

Recently, I decided to test out and see what the best compromise actually would be. To do this I used a track from a 192/24 album that I purchased on HDTracks and converted it to various sampling rates and formats. What I wanted to test was how accurate the file remained after the conversions compared to the original. So what I did was to convert, then import the original and the converted one into Audacity, and invert one of the tracks. If they were identical, there should be no sound, right?

What I found was that converted to 96/24 there was a minor amount of noise added, but it genuinely could not be heard. I turned the amp up as well as turning the gain all the way up in Audacity, and still, it simply could not be heard. 48/24 added a bit more noise, but again, no matter what I did, it simply could not be heard. 

However, when converted to 44.1/16, there was a noticeable hiss. Granted, I strongly doubt that you're gonna hear this when playing music...but the whole point of my test was to see what the best compromise would be to have as small a file, with essentially zero degradation of the file (i.e nothing lost, nor added within the audible range).

Lossy formats were a total joke though....there was quite a bit of detail lost. So much so, in fact, that I could still make out the lyrics. 

 

[RRod]

  Lossy formats were a total joke though....there was quite a bit of detail lost. So much so, in fact, that I could still make out the lyrics. 

 
That's because the point of lossy formats is to throw out material that you can't hear when other material is playing around it. Null tests on lossy files will almost always have easily audible material, sometimes even sounding like a softer version of the track. But try to hear that difference underneath the lossy file itself: at any decent bit rate, you'll find it a hard task. A better null test to try would be to do a difference on two rates of the same lossy format.

 

[TheoS53]

   
That's because the point of lossy formats is to throw out material that you can't hear when other material is playing around it. Null tests on lossy files will almost always have easily audible material, sometimes even sounding like a softer version of the track. But try to hear that difference underneath the lossy file itself: at any decent bit rate, you'll find it a hard task. A better null test to try would be to do a difference on two rates of the same lossy format.

Agreed. I actually plan on making a video of my findings as well as different rates for the lossy files as you suggested. 

 

[tigen]

Did you never think that some people might enjoy playing music for dogs, bats, dolphins, or aliens? I think you're all just being selfish.

 

[watchnerd]

  Did you never think that some people might enjoy playing music for dogs, bats, dolphins, or aliens? I think you're all just being selfish.

 
Aliens don't have ears.

 

[uchihaitachi]

  Agreed. I actually plan on making a video of my findings as well as different rates for the lossy files as you suggested. 

It's worth bearing in mind that high fidelity tracks are not quite neutral either. At a practical level, it's worse and it's been proven in listening tests that distortion due to ultrasonic content can indeed be audible.
 
Distortion tends to increase sharply at the lowest and highest frequencies. Say if the transducer reproduces ultrasonics along with audible content, any nonlinearity will shift some of the ultrasonic content down into the audible range as an uncontrolled spray of intermodulation distortion products covering the entire audible spectrum. Nonlinearity in a power amplifier will produce the same effect. The effect is very slight, but listening tests have confirmed that both effects can be audible.
 
 
You can however offset it

• A dedicated ultrasonic-only speaker, amplifier, and crossover stage to separate and independently reproduce the ultrasonics you can't hear, just so they don't mess up the sounds you can. (BUT WHYYYYY?!?!?!?!?!? 
  
  )
• Amplifiers and transducers designed for wider frequency reproduction, so ultrasonics don't cause audible intermodulation. This will still be at the cost of some performance degradation in the audible portion of the spectrum.
• Speakers and amplifiers carefully designed not to reproduce ultrasonics.
• Not encoding such a wide frequency range to begin with. You can't and won't have ultrasonic intermodulation distortion in the audible band if there's no ultrasonic content.

 
 

 

[castleofargh]

 

  Did you never think that some people might enjoy playing music for dogs, bats, dolphins, or aliens? I think you're all just being selfish.

 
Aliens don't have ears.

please provide evidence to your claim.

this guy doesn't seem to have ears, or at least not where humans have them.
but the next one clearly has what could be interpreted as ears:


maybe it's a male/female variation, but do aliens have different sex? I find all this highly inconclusive.

 

[watchnerd]

 
please provide evidence to your claim.

this guy doesn't seem to have ears, or at least not where humans have them.
but the next one clearly has what could be interpreted as ears:


maybe it's a male/female variation, but do aliens have different sex? I find all this highly inconclusive.

 
Real aliens are not anthropomorphic.

 

[limpidglitch]

  Did you never think that some people might enjoy playing music for dogs, bats, dolphins, or aliens? I think you're all just being shellfish.

 
FIFY