Originally Posted by Little country rat /img/forum/go_quote.gif The samplerate has been chosen to reproduce 22 kHz, considered as the limit of human ear, and in order to be able to do it you need to double the samplerate frequency (it's maths)...
oh look! we have audio forensics engineers to the rescue now
Originally Posted by leeperry /img/forum/go_quote.gif "160Kbit MP3 should be enough for anybody", everyone knows that! I read it on Hydrogen Audio so it's true
...and 640KB RAM, early SS equipment, and a host of other things. The level of fundamentalism on HA (it has gotten better as time has gone on) is crazy. That's why you'll find me as a user with basically no recent activity. While I walked away from something rather trivial (FUD warning for stating a fact), I've had far worse go on here against me--it just didn't make me feel like I was reading a forum for Born Again folks, just having their faith in numbers (I'm not talking about Pio2001 and such folk--there were and are wholly awesome members, too).
You're doing equal injustice, and trolling.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little country rat /img/forum/go_quote.gif The samplerate has been chosen to reproduce 22 kHz, considered as the limit of human ear, and in order to be able to do it you need to double the samplerate frequency (it's maths)...
And I don't want to be rude but 44,1kHz samplerate is not that much when speaking of frequencies above 18 kHz. To acquire a higher quality switching to 96 kHz is quite a good idea.
...assuming you want a 22.05kHz sawtooth (or maybe the DAC will make a nice sine out of it--still not really useful as part of a music waveform). There are good arguments for much higher sampling rates than the use of higher frequencies (likewise, the majority of music existing below ~5kHz is an argument for 22kHz being enough, even then). There's more to it than just, "can do anything up to 22kHz."
Originally Posted by cerbie /img/forum/go_quote.gif The level of fundamentalism on HA (it has gotten better as time has gone on) is crazy.[...]
You're doing equal injustice
I was only being sarcastic
to me 192JS and lower are junk. 224S and higher are acceptable, but still the upper spectrum sounds a tad distorted
this HA forum is full of ppl that are simply out of their mind and like to prove other ppl wrong, just for the hell of it....to them 160JS through KMixer sounds identical to FLAC in ASIO. Houston we got a problem!
Actually, it has been shown in other tests that young listeners have come to prefer the tinny sound of 128KBPS MP3 to the original recording. Really.
Also, I can't hear above 19Khz (blame my work experience). Nor can I hear the difference between 320 ogg and 320 MP3. Granted, I don't own anything that I have to spend more than $100 on, but let's face it: only hardcore head-fi members with HD800s hooked up to an SACD via a Darkvoice 337 are going to be able to tell.
the comments on that link are pretty amazing : "i got it wrong. after listening to it about 20 times. i used $700 dollar noise cancelling headphones"
well the hihat sounds distorted and wooshy as HELL in that 128kb sample! it reminds me of that underwater sound you get in 128kbit files...the original waveform is so beat up that the brain can't really identify what it's hearing
you can hear up to 19Khz through SineGen ? I'm stuck at 17.5, then it's silent...and maybe I'm just hearing aliasing from the soundcard
224S and above sound OKish, but 192JS and lower are junk IMHO...the money is really on 256kbit AAC through nero, this thing really flies! MP3 is such an old technology, standards are here to stay, eh
to hear a difference you need a proper pair of headphones w/ clear trebles and very low distortion op-amps(LME49720 being your weapon of choice) on a soundcard/DAC w/ a very clean analog path(high SNR, low IMD+N...you can see these on RMAA measurements). you don't quite need the sort of equipment you're mentioning, use them in a bit-perfect audio renderer and you'll quickly find out that lossless is the trouble-free solution for home use, or newer lossy technologies than MP3....even WMA3 does better than MP3 I think.
Originally Posted by Gamemako /img/forum/go_quote.gif Actually, it has been shown in other tests that young listeners have come to prefer the tinny sound of 128KBPS MP3 to the original recording. Really.
Also, I can't hear above 19Khz (blame my work experience). Nor can I hear the difference between 320 ogg and 320 MP3. Granted, I don't own anything that I have to spend more than $100 on, but let's face it: only hardcore head-fi members with HD800s hooked up to an SACD via a Darkvoice 337 are going to be able to tell.
While more revealing equipment can help a great deal, and 320 will take a very long search for problem tracks, I started noticing problems with MP3s of my own with very noisy onboard sound and KSC50 (predecessor to KSC75) that it wasn't driving very well. It's going to be much more about training, once the equipment can reveal reasonable detail, relative to what's missing and added. You'll find more than a few here with very high-end rigs that openly admit they can't tell a bit of difference. Tis the way of things.
Originally Posted by cerbie /img/forum/go_quote.gif There are good arguments for much higher sampling rates than the use of higher frequencies (likewise, the majority of music existing below ~5kHz is an argument for 22kHz being enough, even then).
I totally agree with you, it was just a quick answer (too quick I see) to a strange argument including the music industry.
I can tell the difference, but the lossless music must be familiar to me.
If I go into a double blind test with music that I've never heard before, I definitely won't be able to tell unless the lossy recording has popping noises.
I read in another thread that ppl in the past were enjoying music in far worse quality than what we get w/ 192JS on proper headphones nowadays
I often find myself analyzing the audio more than enjoying the music for what is is...when you stop focusing on the 0.0003% THD+N distortion on the hihats, you can actually start enjoying MP3
I'm still dubious about JS coz it seems to do some crazy crossfeed sometimes ?!
There are some lossless rips of really loud cds, which are unlistenable, on good audio gear.
In theory the more high end equipment, the more cold it is, in this case mp3 distortion can be good, isnt tube amplifing some kind of distort sound..
hehe, good point! the same way lousy op-amps will increase the distortion and give a tube-like sound(NE5532/JRC2068), let's just say that mp3 gives a tube sound on sterile equipment
Originally Posted by leeperry /img/forum/go_quote.gif hehe, good point! the same way lousy op-amps will increase the distortion and give a tube-like sound(NE5532/JRC2068), let's just say that mp3 gives a tube sound on sterile equipment
nope I haven't....I've only used lame digital recreations(like OzoneMP), I was told that a tube amp would give a very soft and less analytical sound than solid state, less agressive and softer...and also more distorted, but also more musical sounding.
Originally Posted by leeperry /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'm still dubious about JS coz it seems to do some crazy crossfeed sometimes ?!
FLAC does joint stereo too.
The problem with joint stereo in MP3 (and lossy compression) is that the encoder can decide to compress the side channel differently than it does the mid channel. The side channel is where the soundstage is and if it gets compression artifacts you can get soundstage problems. The advantage to JS is that the encoder can choose to give the mid channel more bits and the mid channel is where the majority of the music is for most recordings, but that means the side channel gets deprived. In lossless compression involving JS you obviously don't have these problems.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
