Reference playback
Not open for further replies.
Apr 9, 2024 at 2:28 AM Post #47 of 52
It seems for downloading, the common files are either FLAC or 320kbps mp3. I get the 320kbps mp3 and don't do anything further. If I was really trying to shoot for the best file size to no audible difference, I'm sure I could find something with a good setting. But in this day and age, hard drive space is so easy...since I've got 75TB of free space at this time (for data, movies, and music) it's easy enough for me just to go almost bit perfect in reproduction with 320kbps mp3.
Apr 9, 2024 at 3:05 AM Post #48 of 52
The difference between 320 lossy and lossless is much greater than the difference between 320 and lower data rates. It really doesn’t matter if you do 320 instead of 256 or 192.
Apr 9, 2024 at 3:11 AM Post #49 of 52
The difference between 320 lossy and lossless is much greater than the difference between 320 and lower data rates. It really doesn’t matter if you do 320 instead of 256 or 192.
And since 320 is the download for standard mp3, that's why I haven't fooled with seeing what's the best setting for a codec with "transparency" for say 2 pass VBR lowest acceptable bitrate.
Apr 9, 2024 at 3:36 AM Post #50 of 52
Nothing before your dac recorded what was going on in between the snapshots, so it can't be played.
The snapshots are taken from a band limited signal, and there is only one unique band limited signal that fits with the snapshots: and that of course is the sampled signal. So from the snapshots we also know everything that happened inbetween them.
This is proven mathematics by Nyquist and Shannon.
The reconstruction that you're describing has no math that can support consistent or realistic accuracy.
After filtering by the reconstruction filter a band limited analog signal remains that fits with the snapshots. Since there exists only one unique band limited signal that fits with the snapshots, the original band limited signal, that must be it: the original band limited signal.
This is proven mathematics by Nyquist and Shannon.
Because the snapshots are of limited precision, there is added noise, but not enough to be audible under normal listening conditions, and certainly a lot less than with vinyl.

Video works completely different. Video delivers discrete seperate images, totally different from digital audio that delivers a perfectly continuous output signal.
Apr 9, 2024 at 3:41 AM Post #51 of 52
Video works completely different. Video delivers discrete seperate images, totally different from digital audio that delivers a perfectly continuous output signal.
As someone involved with video....I'm not sure if I should clarify what I now see what was interjected. Well, I'll just do a bit of reconstruction there....

It did not start off with an insult. It started off with me saying that 192khz was better than 96. The insult was the way that someone disagreed with me, which I refute.
Imagine playing a fast reaction video game: at the new standard 24hz for movies, someone who is a far away speck can be moving across your screen erratically. Can you get your crosshairs on him quickly and accurately? What if there were more FPS, like Bruce Lee complained about the old 29hz spec only providing? The same is true for video, with the frames per second factor already existing for it..
What do you mean 24hz being a new standard? A native 24fps for TV is relatively new: it was the cinema standard for decades. So cinema projectors defaulted with having a frame rate of 24 frames and shutter of 48 frames. It was deemed acceptable because it was smooth motion and economical enough for fitting a duration of film on one reel (where feature length movies still needed to switch several reels through the duration).

There were other standards for TV broadcast. NTSC being 480i 59.94Hz (interleave half frame, and slight difference for having color information). PAL being 576i 50Hz. That TV was either 25fps or 30fps, that lead to other problems of converting frame rates of 24fps movies to TV. The simplest ways have been a pull down: trying to multiply and find a common denominator.

There have been a few movies that have tried to be high frame rate: and they've all been a failure: people are accustomed to an inherent motion blur with proper cinematography. The only potential issue with 24fps is that you'd see hiccups if a camera pans too quickly where you'd see stutter. Gemini Man is an example of a modern 4K movie that's 60fps. For many people, they complain it looks like it has the soap opera effect. We're just used to "cinema" having a certain motion blur.
The higher resolution photography is really nice, sometimes I think that's just a tick of the 4k, but no, digital camera's are still getting better at the rest of the camera's job, while the resolution increases. Photo's have a medium-free factor too, same with video.
Care to explain why DSD recordings are said to sound more analogue than cd's? Even in only the original SACD resolution?
You shouldn't try to compare modern video standards with audio. Because the current advances in digital technology is more pertinent to video than it is audio. You shouldn't compare new video codecs (that might be within the latest 5 years) vs SACD (which was standardized well over 30 years ago). So digital audio met the limits of analog recording decades ago. I've been involved with photography: I can safely say that digital now exceeds every metric of film. When I first delved into digital photography, the main advantage it had was higher sensitivity (better detail in low light). Color film had better resolution and dynamic range. Now digital cameras exceed those metrics as well: greater resolution and dynamic range.
Apr 9, 2024 at 8:13 PM Post #52 of 52
@Audiophiliac do you think nobody here understands the idea that if a curve is drawn with dots, then more dots help make something closer to a real curve? Literally everybody understands that if the aim is to draw that curve on a paper by hand. And probably everybody did think about digital audio your way the first time they thought about it, while not yet knowing how digital conversion works. After all, it's the simplest idea someone could come up with to try and imagine digital audio when not knowing how it works and why.

Then most of us here looked up digital audio and learned that it has necessary rules and tools that don't exist for the guy trying to draw a curve by hand using only dots on a piece of paper. The guy putting dots on paper has no physical limitation for joining the dots, beside maybe staying within the paper's surface(a signal does have limitations). The guy placing dots on paper has no simple way of band limiting the frequency content of the curve he's looking at. It's not what he's trying to do anyway. When he writes down amplitude values for the sampling part of the job, it's sampling with no band limiting done. And when trying to recreate the curve, the guy with his pen and paper can place the dots, join them in whatever way he thinks is right, but how does he then low pass the result at a determined frequency?
And here is the real problem with your made up kiddy rational for digital audio: sampling and reconstruction cannot be accurate without band limiting when sampling, and cannot be accurate without filtering when reconstructing the signal. Those are known, proven facts of digital audio! So your entire paranoid lesson-giving battle, comes down to you ignoring steps we cannot ignore. There is absolutely no link between hires being good or bad and your false logic based on how much you don't understand digital audio. Thinking your argument is BS does not make me anti hires. Stop flattering yourself with that false idea on top of your other false ideas.

You're like someone debating how to make the best metal parts while consistently showing you have zero understanding of heat treatments(quenching, tempering...). You can come up with the best looking 5-year-old idea about hammering, if the very concept of heating and cooling metal isn't in your model, people will know you're full of crap and painfully ignorant on the topic.
It's happening right now in this thread, and the only one not seeing it is you(and maybe a few other guys who also never learned anything at all about digital audio?). So, Soon I'll do what I did last time to stop you from stubbornly trying to become a punching bag. To be clear, my opinion is that everything happening here is your fault.
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread