Sound settings in Windows

[gregorio]

If you want high SQ - do yourself a favor - don't listen to gregorio!

The actual fact is that within the range of human hearing there is no higher SQ than 16/44. Of course anyone is free not to listen to the actual facts and instead make-up their own or believe false marketing made-up by others.

BTW, digital is not analogue - it has its own laws. Like, i.e.: A digital copy of a digital recording can sound better. That is not an opinion that's how digital works. Many people still don't understand even the basics of digital audio reproduction.

Clearly one of those people is you! Digital does indeed have “it’s own laws”, one of them being that a digital copy is exactly the same bits and therefore must sound exactly the same, neither better nor worse!

G

 

[Zapacat]

Clearly one of those people is you! Digital does indeed have “it’s own laws”, one of them being that a digital copy is exactly the same bits and therefore must sound exactly the same, neither better nor worse!

G

LOL! That was the belief 40 years ago, maybe you should... ahhh it is senseless to talk to loudmouth clueless people like you. If you really want to learn how Digital reproduction works you should read something about it or at least ask real experts like Meitner etc.
Plz do not bother me further with your ignorance and complete lack of any knowledge about DAC's. And you proved it yourself with your statements.

 

[gregorio]

That was the belief 40 years ago, maybe you should... ahhh it is senseless to talk to loudmouth clueless people like you.

It’s not a belief, it’s a proven fact and incidentally it was proven over 70 years ago not only 40 years ago. If it were not a fact then the whole internet and digital technology in general would not work. But don’t let the facts get in the way of a juicy insult! lol

If you really want to learn how Digital reproduction works you should read something about it or at least ask real experts like Meitner etc.

That’s funny, seeing as I’ve not only “read something about it” but read a very considerable amount about it, certainly all the standard text books on the subject, plus numerous papers, as well as discussed it with many experts and have a pretty good understanding of the subject, all of which was a requisite of being a senior university lecturer in music/digital audio technology for quite a few years! You really should take your own advice BEFORE you falsely dish it out to others.

G

 

[Slogra]

Nowaways Youtube only has 2 different formats:
- Opus 48khz 140kbps
- Aac 44.1khz 129kbps

Opus is the default and should sound the best, but aac will sound fine too. You can verify which format is used, by right clicking the video -> Stats for nerds.
You should see Opus (251) there, where 251 is the youtube audio id (NOT the bitrate).

As opus 48khz is the default it would make sense to set your Windows output samplerate to 48khz too, so no resampling is needed.
But honestly the resampling of windows is good nowadays, so i don't think you will hear difference between 48 and 44.1.khz output.


(btw I believe you can get 256kbps audio if you have Youtube premium, but i don't have it, and cannot verify)

 

[Zapacat]

Bit perfect, as used by some audio folks, is a somewhat tricky term. You must remember all our digital data is currently transmitted via analog transmissions! This is true even when you read data from a Hard Drive, CD-ROM, or even directly from the RAM in your computer. There is quite a bit of latitude in what you can do to that analog signal and still call the result bit perfect. Quite a bit indeed, and most of the things you can do result in a perceived change in the final sound that is output.

Forget who wrote this.

 

[Svperstar]

Bit perfect, as used by some audio folks, is a somewhat tricky term. You must remember all our digital data is currently transmitted via analog transmissions! This is true even when you read data from a Hard Drive, CD-ROM, or even directly from the RAM in your computer. There is quite a bit of latitude in what you can do to that analog signal and still call the result bit perfect. Quite a bit indeed, and most of the things you can do result in a perceived change in the final sound that is output.

Forget who wrote this.

That is an old quote. SSDs have no moving parts so way less noise then HDD. Who uses a CDROM for music in 2024?

The windows audio stack has come a long way since the 1990s as well

 

[Zapacat]

That is an old quote. SSDs have no moving parts so way less noise then HDD. Who uses a CDROM for music in 2024?

1. Just because it is old (which is not btw), does not mean that it is wrong. You mean just we have now 2024 your data is not transmitted analogue? LOL!
2. If you use SSD or CDROM does have nothing to do with the meaning of this quote and does not change anything.
3. When you have tons of CD's like me and all the other millions of folks out there owning trillions of CD's to copy it on SSDs or HDs...
4. You clearly did not understood the meaning of this quote - your arguments are hair raising illogical. Please read it again, thx.

P.S.: "..even directly from the RAM in your computer..." You are ignoring this? Or maybe you did not even read all of the quote?

 

[VNandor]

Bit perfect, as used by some audio folks, is a somewhat tricky term. You must remember all our digital data is currently transmitted via analog transmissions! This is true even when you read data from a Hard Drive, CD-ROM, or even directly from the RAM in your computer. There is quite a bit of latitude in what you can do to that analog signal and still call the result bit perfect. Quite a bit indeed, and most of the things you can do result in a perceived change in the final sound that is output.

Forget who wrote this.

Whoever wrote this did not even bother checking the wikipedia and made up some BS he thought was clever.

"An analog signal is any continuous-time signal representing some other quantity, i.e., analogous to another quantity. For example, in an analog audio signal, the instantaneous signal voltage varies continuously with the pressure of the sound waves."

It's quite literally the first sentence of the article. Digital data is indeed transmitted by a continous time varying signal but it is not analogous to pressure of the sound waves. Digital audio signals represent binary data, not pressure of sound waves so it's not an analog signal.

 

[gregorio]

Bit perfect, as used by some audio folks, is a somewhat tricky term.

It’s one of the simplest, least ambiguous and non-tricky terms used in digital audio. It simply means; do the bits received identically match the bits sent. That’s it, it doesn’t get any less “tricky” than that!

You must remember all our digital data is currently transmitted via analog transmissions!

Why must we remember something that’s false?

There is quite a bit of latitude in what you can do to that analog signal and still call the result bit perfect. Quite a bit indeed, and most of the things you can do result in a perceived change in the final sound that is output.

There is absolutely no latitude whatsoever in “what you can do to an analogue signal and still call the result bit perfect”. An analogue signal is not a digital signal, analogue signals do not have any bits and therefore whatever you do or don’t do to an analogue signal, it can never be bit perfect!

Forget who wrote this.

Someone who didn’t even know the fundamental basics of what digital and analogue audio means, or they did know and were deliberately trying to mislead others!

G

 

[amigastar]

16-bit/44.1khz

You can set it to 24-bit since it doesn't matter unless your DAC has only 16-bit of course.

 

[Roseval]

all our digital data is currently transmitted via analog transmissions

Of course, there are no digital electrons. Be it electricity or light, it is as analog as hell.
The difference is the interpretation. Do we use the absolute value of the incoming signal? Our interpretation is analog.
Do we use the change of state of the signal? Our interpretation is digital.
In the analog case there is nothing we can do about any distortion picked up as we simply don't know what has been send.
In case of digital we can stomached a lot of distortion until we no longer are able to detect that dramatic change of state properly.
But if we can, we can reconstruct what has been send 100%.

 

[Zapacat]

Whoever wrote this did not even bother checking the wikipedia and made up some BS he thought was clever.

"An analog signal is any continuous-time signal representing some other quantity, i.e., analogous to another quantity. For example, in an analog audio signal, the instantaneous signal voltage varies continuously with the pressure of the sound waves."

It's quite literally the first sentence of the article. Digital data is indeed transmitted by a continous time varying signal but it is not analogous to pressure of the sound waves. Digital audio signals represent binary data, not pressure of sound waves so it's not an analog signal.

You did not even bother checking the whole information:
From Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_signal
"In a digital signal, the physical quantity representing the information may be a variable electric current or voltage, the intensity, phase or polarization of an optical or other electromagnetic field, acoustic pressure, the magnetization of a magnetic storage media, etcetera."

I think the author does not talk about if the signal is digital or analog but rather that the digital transmissions (which are electric like the analog signals) taking place via the known analog routes, cables, materials and connections - with the exception of optical.

 

[VNandor]

Look at the article you linked... It starts off by saying a digital signal represents data as a sequence of discrete values. The fact that the "sequence of discrete values" (really, just numbers) can be transferred by voltage or current does not make a digital signal magically analog. A DAC could convert a digital signal to an analog one, although without the use of magic. It can convert the series of numbers into an analog voltage that varies according to whatever physical quantity the analog voltage is supposed to represent.

 

[Zapacat]

Look at the article you linked... It starts off by saying a digital signal represents data as a sequence of discrete values. The fact that the "sequence of discrete values" (really, just numbers) can be transferred by voltage or current does not make a digital signal magically analog. A DAC could convert a digital signal to an analog one, although without the use of magic. It can convert the series of numbers into an analog voltage that varies according to whatever physical quantity the analog voltage is supposed to represent.

Is this a provocation or a try to manipulate?
Where in the article does the author claim what you wrote? Show us plz!

 

[m-i-c-k-e-y]

If you guyz wanna highjack this thread...go to the proper section "Sound Science" and debate in there.