[castleofargh]

  What you perceive is reality........at least for you

100% of arkham asylum's population agrees with this and wishes to be let out to go post in the cable section.

 

[arnyk]

  What you perceive is reality........at least for you

 
Only true if you are a solipsist.  If you are experienced and rational you are at least familiar with common illusions, and can manage them effectively.

 

[christian u]

man ...I had look that up

 

 Solipsism from Latin solus, meaning "alone", and ipse, meaning "self")^[1] is the philosophical idea that only one's own mind is sure to exist. As an epistemologicalposition, solipsism holds that knowledge of anything outside one's own mind is unsure; the external world and other minds cannot be known and might not exist outside of the mind. As a metaphysical position, solipsism goes further to the conclusion that the world and other minds do not exist.

 

[watchnerd]

  man ...I had look that up

 

 
If you were a real solipsist, you wouldn't trust someone else's definition of solipsism.

 

[christian u]

But do we want real proof or is looking at his hands good enough?

 

[PoorAudiophile]

Hi Guys,

I'm a newcomer and happy to join the circle of music lovers.

I would like to share my experience.

Few months ago, I was given by my audio equipments dealer couple of studio master files at 32-384 bits resolution.

Since my stereo system, cannot play that high resolution, i down sampled them the to 24, 16 bits with different sample rates of 44.1, 48, 96 and 19Hi Every One,

I'm a new member and happy to join the circle if music lovers.

I would like to share my experience.

Few months ago, I was given by my audio equipments dealer couple of studio master files at 32-384 bits resolution in wav format.

Since my stereo system, cannot play that high resolution, i down sampled them to 24, 16 bits with different sample rates of 44.1, 48, 96 and 192 in wav format.

I then compare them to each other.

To my surprise, the 16-44.1 res sounds similar to the 24-192 res. Same dynamics, same details.

It seems that 16-44.1 res is more than adequate. And the most important aspect is the quality of the mastering.

My stereo system consists of oppo 105D, cyrus cdi, chord Hugo and atc scm40A.

Is there something i have missed? Or my system is not good enough to differentiate the various resolutions?

Regards,

 

[Toom]

Hi Guys,

I'm a newcomer and happy to join the circle of music lovers.

I would like to share my experience.

Few months ago, I was given by my audio equipments dealer couple of studio master files at 32-384 bits resolution.

Since my stereo system, cannot play that high resolution, i down sampled them the to 24, 16 bits with different sample rates of 44.1, 48, 96 and 19Hi Every One,

I'm a new member and happy to join the circle if music lovers.

I would like to share my experience.

Few months ago, I was given by my audio equipments dealer couple of studio master files at 32-384 bits resolution in wav format.

Since my stereo system, cannot play that high resolution, i down sampled them to 24, 16 bits with different sample rates of 44.1, 48, 96 and 192 in wav format.

I then compare them to each other.

To my surprise, the 16-44.1 res sounds similar to the 24-192 res. Same dynamics, same details.

It seems that 16-44.1 res is more than adequate. And the most important aspect is the quality of the mastering.

My stereo system consists of oppo 105D, cyrus cdi, chord Hugo and atc scm40A.

Is there something i have missed? Or my system is not good enough to differentiate the various resolutions?

Regards,

 

Congratulations on finding the Exit.

 

[PoorAudiophile]

Can anybody advise me of a track that res is higher than 16-44 bits and after down-sampling to 16-44 bits looses in sound qualities?
 
I did down-sample an excerpt of a Classical piece (studio master file) from 32-384 to 16-44 bits and could not detect any musicality difference in the two files.
 
However there is a factor of more than 10 in respect of the size of the file.
 
Thanks for any suggestion.

 

[RRod]

Originally Posted by PoorAudiophile /img/forum/go_quote.gif

Can anybody advise me of a track that res is higher than 16-44 bits and after down-sampling to 16-44 bits looses in sound qualities?
 
I did down-sample an excerpt of a Classical piece (studio master file) from 32-384 to 16-44 bits and could not detect any musicality difference in the two files.
 
However there is a factor of more than 10 in respect of the size of the file.
 
Thanks for any suggestion.

 
You could take it even lower (15 or 14 bits, 38k rate) and probably not hear a difference. You could run it through a modern lossy codec like AAC, Vorbis, or Opus and also probably not hear a difference. Our hearing mechanisms have limits and our listening environments are noisy: there's only so much spec we need for user-end delivery. Higher specs help with production, where there is extensive analog and digital signal processing to do. But for just throwing on your headphones and kicking back, 16/44.1 is really darn good.

 

[hogger129]

   
You could take it even lower (15 or 14 bits, 38k rate) and probably not hear a difference. You could run it through a modern lossy codec like AAC, Vorbis, or Opus and also probably not hear a difference. Our hearing mechanisms have limits and our listening environments are noisy: there's only so much spec we need for user-end delivery. Higher specs help with production, where there is extensive analog and digital signal processing to do. But for just throwing on your headphones and kicking back, 16/44.1 is really darn good.

 
Not only is 16/44.1 really good, it is perfect since it covers everything in the range of human hearing.  

 

[Baxide]

The extra bits in the larger file format could be going towards making the audio waveform sound a bit warmer, instead of digitally harsh. But to make those extra bits audible does require an amplification system that is low in noise and distortion. Try the DVD of Bladerunner. On a cracking good system you can hear/feel the extremely low bass of some sort of spacecraft in the first minute of the film. On a not so good D to A and amp system, that low bass sound is nowhere to be seen or heard.

 

[RRod]

   
Not only is 16/44.1 really good, it is perfect since it covers everything in the range of human hearing.  

 
Yeah I was being overly cautious. I'm sure there are sonic situations that can't be captured perfectly by 16/44.1, but I doubt I'd want to hear them in my living room.
 

  The extra bits in the larger file format could be going towards making the audio waveform sound a bit warmer, instead of digitally harsh. But to make those extra bits audible does require an amplification system that is low in noise and distortion. Try the DVD of Bladerunner. On a cracking good system you can hear/feel the extremely low bass of some sort of spacecraft in the first minute of the film. On a not so good D to A and amp system, that low bass sound is nowhere to be seen or heard.

 
Lowest RMS even among my most dynamic classical albums is about -70dBFS, generously. So we're not even really pushing 16/44.1 yet and it's already getting annoyingly quiet for my non-treated listening environments.

 

[christian u]

And now MQA is coming;
 
the absolute sound magazine;

 The sound of MQA, reproduced through a pair of Meridian DSP7200 loudspeakers, was simply stunning in every way. I heard a wide range of music, from full-scale orchestral to voices to a very quiet piece by the Modern Jazz Quartet from the 1950s. I can still vividly recall the delicacy, ease, and resolution of the cymbals in the MJQ piece. I was also struck by the precision of their placement and how they appeared to float in the air against a completely silent background. The treble was totally unlike any other digital I’d heard, completely free from the metallic hardness and artifacts we assume are part-and-parcel of digital audio. Instrumental timbres were so naturally rendered to be almost eerie in their realism. Voices had a stunning palpability and immediacy that were all the more realistic for their compact image size and the sense that they were surrounded by a natural acoustic. It’s interesting that, as I recall the experience, my sonic impressions were so striking that they are still vivid nearly a year later—yet I can’t remember any other demo I heard at the show.

 

[gregorio]

Is there something i have missed?

 
No.
 

  The extra bits in the larger file format could be going towards making the audio waveform sound a bit warmer, instead of digitally harsh.

 
Hang on, if there's more digital bits, then there's obviously more digital, wouldn't that make the larger formats harsher? Why would more bits be warmer?
 

  But to make those extra bits audible does require an amplification system that is low in noise and distortion.

 
True ... but fortunately, such a system does not exist. If such as system did exist it would permanently damage your hearing (or worse!), which is why it's fortunate such as system does not exist!
 

  Try the DVD of Bladerunner. On a cracking good system you can hear/feel the extremely low bass of some sort of spacecraft in the first minute of the film. On a not so good D to A and amp system, that low bass sound is nowhere to be seen or heard.

 
You seem to be proving the point that there is no audible difference. The audio on the Bladerunner DVD is in Dolby Digital 5.1, which is a VERY lossy codec, not dissimilar to an MP3 at 128kbps! BTW, you don't need a good DAC to hear that low bass, pretty much any DAC will do but you will probably hear reduced bass on any stereo system. You need to play it back on an actual 5.1 system to get the full effect.
 

  And now MQA is coming

 
Oh goody. Providing it's at least competent, we'll another audibly indistinguishable format to argue about!
 
G

 

[Baxide]

   
 
Hang on, if there's more digital bits, then there's obviously more digital, wouldn't that make the larger formats harsher? Why would more bits be warmer?
 
 

You obviously have no real knowledge of the effects of bit rates. Less bits give a harsher sound. More bits give a more analogue sound. Once one is not aware of that, the remainder of your argument falls apart.