noobcannon
Honorable
- Nov 16, 2012
- 10
- 0
- 10,510
- Status
[citation][nom]Parsian[/nom]why would i need this when i can play .FLAC on my Android device? I havent tried 24 bit resolution but im certain if it cannot play now, it will be soon as hardwares get faster and libraries grow.[/citation]
its not just he media, its also the hardware that drives the headphones that would be better.
[citation][nom]tolham[/nom]Neil's heart is in the right place, but his execution is horribly off the mark. 16/44.1 and mp3 are perfectly capable of preserving enough audio fidelity for the human ear. the biggest problem with music production is the *MASTERING* - nearly every album released in the last ~15 years is hellishly compressed&clipped into a solid brick. Neil should put his money and energy into educating the public about this problem and convincing the labels to end the loudness war.[/citation]
the ear can precieve sound at higher frequencies even if we cant technically hear it. sure on paper mp3 is enough, but wow does the little extra flac give you make all the difference with a properly mastered recording.
[citation][nom]chewy1963[/nom]This is kind of like those out there who are clamoring for 4k video despite the fact they'll need a 100" display viewed at like 5 feet to be able to see the difference. Human hearing is limited to around 20hz to 20,000hz. That is easily reproduced at 16bit 44 KHz resolution. The only question from there is can your equipment (amp/speakers) meet the 20-20,000hz spec.[/citation]
true, but it really depends. when you get to the high end of audio equipment, as in the things that require an amplifier to be driven properly, you are looking at about 700-1500 and each one in that range if they are built with quality parts, and not just to try and exploit the stupid, do have some degree of being clearer and better than lesser headphones.
you NEED a high end head set, in the 3-500$ range to tell the difference between flac and mp3 at a high bit rate, and you also need GOOD music too, none of the compressed to hell crap that comes out now.
if the sorce is crap, than you will never be able to hear the difference between a 320 mpe and a flac, much less even a 64 and 128 mp3
now that is headphones, with speakers that's a whole another monster altogether, where to even come close to a heaphone in quality, you need to spend 5-10 times the amount you did on the headphones.
[citation][nom]vittau[/nom]He should focus on providing good stock headphones with it (as most people don't care to replace it) and a high quality headphone amplifier, instead of 192k/24-bit playback (which is completely useless).But it's pretty obvious he's gonna turn this [192k/24-bit playback] into a marketing ploy, even some so called audiophiles believe this. They must have never heard of the Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem.[/citation]
this is marketed to people with their own headphones already.
[citation][nom]jcb82[/nom]We (the mass market) stopped caring about music quality about 10 years ago. There's not much more juice to be squeezed out of the digital quality orange and its not worth the extra expense. If this was for minimal additional expense, then I'm sure people will acquiesce otherwise its true a diminishing returns scenario. I'm sorry Mr. Young, if this is supposed to be a mass market device, it is going to bomb.[/citation]
and this is why i despise the mass market. people use to get ungodly large sound systems for casseets but the moment we got dvd audio, everyone stopped caring about quality.
its not just he media, its also the hardware that drives the headphones that would be better.
[citation][nom]tolham[/nom]Neil's heart is in the right place, but his execution is horribly off the mark. 16/44.1 and mp3 are perfectly capable of preserving enough audio fidelity for the human ear. the biggest problem with music production is the *MASTERING* - nearly every album released in the last ~15 years is hellishly compressed&clipped into a solid brick. Neil should put his money and energy into educating the public about this problem and convincing the labels to end the loudness war.[/citation]
the ear can precieve sound at higher frequencies even if we cant technically hear it. sure on paper mp3 is enough, but wow does the little extra flac give you make all the difference with a properly mastered recording.
[citation][nom]chewy1963[/nom]This is kind of like those out there who are clamoring for 4k video despite the fact they'll need a 100" display viewed at like 5 feet to be able to see the difference. Human hearing is limited to around 20hz to 20,000hz. That is easily reproduced at 16bit 44 KHz resolution. The only question from there is can your equipment (amp/speakers) meet the 20-20,000hz spec.[/citation]
true, but it really depends. when you get to the high end of audio equipment, as in the things that require an amplifier to be driven properly, you are looking at about 700-1500 and each one in that range if they are built with quality parts, and not just to try and exploit the stupid, do have some degree of being clearer and better than lesser headphones.
you NEED a high end head set, in the 3-500$ range to tell the difference between flac and mp3 at a high bit rate, and you also need GOOD music too, none of the compressed to hell crap that comes out now.
if the sorce is crap, than you will never be able to hear the difference between a 320 mpe and a flac, much less even a 64 and 128 mp3
now that is headphones, with speakers that's a whole another monster altogether, where to even come close to a heaphone in quality, you need to spend 5-10 times the amount you did on the headphones.
[citation][nom]vittau[/nom]He should focus on providing good stock headphones with it (as most people don't care to replace it) and a high quality headphone amplifier, instead of 192k/24-bit playback (which is completely useless).But it's pretty obvious he's gonna turn this [192k/24-bit playback] into a marketing ploy, even some so called audiophiles believe this. They must have never heard of the Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem.[/citation]
this is marketed to people with their own headphones already.
[citation][nom]jcb82[/nom]We (the mass market) stopped caring about music quality about 10 years ago. There's not much more juice to be squeezed out of the digital quality orange and its not worth the extra expense. If this was for minimal additional expense, then I'm sure people will acquiesce otherwise its true a diminishing returns scenario. I'm sorry Mr. Young, if this is supposed to be a mass market device, it is going to bomb.[/citation]
and this is why i despise the mass market. people use to get ungodly large sound systems for casseets but the moment we got dvd audio, everyone stopped caring about quality.
chewy1963
Honorable
- May 9, 2012
- 246
- 0
- 10,680
[citation][nom]mcd023[/nom]I guess there's only a few ppl here that can hear the difference between vinyl and cds. Well, I can.[/citation]
So can I, CD's are much clearer, have a vastly better dynamic frequency range and are more consistent than vinyl. Not only that, they don't easily develop scratches that ruin the quality even further.
So can I, CD's are much clearer, have a vastly better dynamic frequency range and are more consistent than vinyl. Not only that, they don't easily develop scratches that ruin the quality even further.
chewy1963
Honorable
- May 9, 2012
- 246
- 0
- 10,680
[citation][nom]alidan[/nom] people use to get ungodly large sound systems for casseets but the moment we got dvd audio, everyone stopped caring about quality.[/citation]
This is what I'm talking about... the absolute best cassette tape in the world (metal or chromium bias) has a dynamic frequency range of about 20-15,000hz. It doesn't matter one wit how great you system reproduces 15Khz-20Khz because the sources can't get that high. But with CD's and mp3's over 128kbs the source is now able to take advantage of those great tweeters or the high frequency performance of your headphones.
Increasing the source to 50Khz and upgrading all your equipment to match however is a waste. Your ears can't tell the difference over a system that is good at reproducing 20-20,000hz. If you claim you can you are either not human or you are full of sh!t.
This is what I'm talking about... the absolute best cassette tape in the world (metal or chromium bias) has a dynamic frequency range of about 20-15,000hz. It doesn't matter one wit how great you system reproduces 15Khz-20Khz because the sources can't get that high. But with CD's and mp3's over 128kbs the source is now able to take advantage of those great tweeters or the high frequency performance of your headphones.
Increasing the source to 50Khz and upgrading all your equipment to match however is a waste. Your ears can't tell the difference over a system that is good at reproducing 20-20,000hz. If you claim you can you are either not human or you are full of sh!t.
Couldn't care less about this. I get that there's a small sub-section of music enthusiasts that care about uber-high-quality sound, but I think what consumers really need from musical artists is a further pull from the stranglehold of the record label ecosystem. Not yet another way to generate large and expensive music files that 99.999% of the consumer market could never make use of.
[citation][nom]chewy1963[/nom]This is what I'm talking about... the absolute best cassette tape in the world (metal or chromium bias) has a dynamic frequency range of about 20-15,000hz. It doesn't matter one wit how great you system reproduces 15Khz-20Khz because the sources can't get that high. But with CD's and mp3's over 128kbs the source is now able to take advantage of those great tweeters or the high frequency performance of your headphones. Increasing the source to 50Khz and upgrading all your equipment to match however is a waste. Your ears can't tell the difference over a system that is good at reproducing 20-20,000hz. If you claim you can you are either not human or you are full of sh!t.[/citation]
While this will contradict my general opinion that I wrote above, but the goal of this higher-quality audio reproduction is not to cover frequencies over a broader range that surpasses the ear's detection region; it is to offer better sound reproduction resolution over the current frequency range used. For example, instead of today's "standard" 16-bit depth (also considered resolution), where you have ~65,536 different bins throughout the frequency range used (i.e., 20Hz-20,000Hz), this will use 24-bit depth over the same frequency range, giving you almost 17-million bins throughout the frequency range--which means that the frequency reproduction can be more-accurate, and ears and speakers depending, you can enjoy theoretically better frequency separation.
I couldn't care less about that, but the benefit is more bit depth in the current frequency range, not a broader frequency range reproduction.
[citation][nom]chewy1963[/nom]This is what I'm talking about... the absolute best cassette tape in the world (metal or chromium bias) has a dynamic frequency range of about 20-15,000hz. It doesn't matter one wit how great you system reproduces 15Khz-20Khz because the sources can't get that high. But with CD's and mp3's over 128kbs the source is now able to take advantage of those great tweeters or the high frequency performance of your headphones. Increasing the source to 50Khz and upgrading all your equipment to match however is a waste. Your ears can't tell the difference over a system that is good at reproducing 20-20,000hz. If you claim you can you are either not human or you are full of sh!t.[/citation]
While this will contradict my general opinion that I wrote above, but the goal of this higher-quality audio reproduction is not to cover frequencies over a broader range that surpasses the ear's detection region; it is to offer better sound reproduction resolution over the current frequency range used. For example, instead of today's "standard" 16-bit depth (also considered resolution), where you have ~65,536 different bins throughout the frequency range used (i.e., 20Hz-20,000Hz), this will use 24-bit depth over the same frequency range, giving you almost 17-million bins throughout the frequency range--which means that the frequency reproduction can be more-accurate, and ears and speakers depending, you can enjoy theoretically better frequency separation.
I couldn't care less about that, but the benefit is more bit depth in the current frequency range, not a broader frequency range reproduction.
in_the_loop
Distinguished
- Dec 15, 2007
- 158
- 17
- 18,685
[citation][nom]teh_chem[/nom]Couldn't care less about this. I get that there's a small sub-section of music enthusiasts that care about uber-high-quality sound, but I think what consumers really need from musical artists is a further pull from the stranglehold of the record label ecosystem. Not yet another way to generate large and expensive music files that 99.999% of the consumer market could never make use of.While this will contradict my general opinion that I wrote above, but the goal of this higher-quality audio reproduction is not to cover frequencies over a broader range that surpasses the ear's detection region; it is to offer better sound reproduction resolution over the current frequency range used. For example, instead of today's "standard" 16-bit depth (also considered resolution), where you have ~65,536 different bins throughout the frequency range used (i.e., 20Hz-20,000Hz), this will use 24-bit depth over the same frequency range, giving you almost 17-million bins throughout the frequency range--which means that the frequency reproduction can be more-accurate, and ears and speakers depending, you can enjoy theoretically better frequency separation.I couldn't care less about that, but the benefit is more bit depth in the current frequency range, not a broader frequency range reproduction.[/citation]
Bit depth determines dynamic range. But CD-quality is more than enough, where 16 bits reallyh is overkill.
When the CD-standard was to be decided in the late 70;s it was either gonna go 14 bit or 16 bit.
Even 14 bit gives you more dynamic range than the best multitrack studiotape and they still went beyond that quality at 14 bits (Which, by the way, was the number of bits used in Nicam Stereo for television).
24 bit with 16 million values may sound like "it must be better" than 16 bits at 65536. But there is a point where you won't notice the difference and where more isn't better.
There is a difference when recording and mixing pro audio. More headroom for loads of track and summing tracks down in 24 bits makes some type of difference in the end, but that is a totally different thing.
I think that this benefit you get when using 24 bit for recording and mixing pro audio has somehow found its way to the normal consumer single tracks.
Just try it out for yourselves (if you have a DAW capable of it. There are some free that probably will do it).
Take a track that has been recorded in 24 bits.
Render it to 16 bit.
The do A/B comparasions for the two different tracks(the 16 bit will still play back when played in the projects settings 24 bit mode, but with the reduced number of bits).
If you can tell the difference, then you are not a specimen of Homo Sapiens.
They always sound exactly the same!
Even when turning off the dithering for the rendering it is very hard (if not impossible) to tell the difference!
Bit depth determines dynamic range. But CD-quality is more than enough, where 16 bits reallyh is overkill.
When the CD-standard was to be decided in the late 70;s it was either gonna go 14 bit or 16 bit.
Even 14 bit gives you more dynamic range than the best multitrack studiotape and they still went beyond that quality at 14 bits (Which, by the way, was the number of bits used in Nicam Stereo for television).
24 bit with 16 million values may sound like "it must be better" than 16 bits at 65536. But there is a point where you won't notice the difference and where more isn't better.
There is a difference when recording and mixing pro audio. More headroom for loads of track and summing tracks down in 24 bits makes some type of difference in the end, but that is a totally different thing.
I think that this benefit you get when using 24 bit for recording and mixing pro audio has somehow found its way to the normal consumer single tracks.
Just try it out for yourselves (if you have a DAW capable of it. There are some free that probably will do it).
Take a track that has been recorded in 24 bits.
Render it to 16 bit.
The do A/B comparasions for the two different tracks(the 16 bit will still play back when played in the projects settings 24 bit mode, but with the reduced number of bits).
If you can tell the difference, then you are not a specimen of Homo Sapiens.
They always sound exactly the same!
Even when turning off the dithering for the rendering it is very hard (if not impossible) to tell the difference!
getochkn
Polypheme
- Jul 2, 2006
- 12,407
- 54
- 65,040
128k mp3's sound like crap compared to even 320 mp3's or even better flac, and if anyone thinks a 3mb file is exactly the same sounding at as a 300mb, your ears have been damaged by apple too much to help you. That's like saying a 100mb video file looks the same as a 1gb file.
tolham
Distinguished
- Jul 10, 2009
- 347
- 0
- 18,780
you have that reversed. on paper 24/192 makes all the difference in the world. in reality mp3 v0 has enough fidelity to be transparent from it's lossless source to the vast majority of people on all but the highest-end audio equipment. and when it comes to portable audio (as Neil is aiming for with pono) you can take the encoding sub v0 and retain transparency.
LORD_ORION
Distinguished
- Sep 12, 2007
- 814
- 0
- 18,980
-You can't consciously tell the difference above 20kHz
-You do get more Alpha Waves in your brain from 20kHz up to 24kHz, so it "feels" like the music has more texture. (go familiarize yourself with Benjamin's 1/2 second delay. this is how long it takes the brain to "do work" and create the pathetically narrow conscious awareness of the extremely awesome high bandwidth sensory inputs of your body)
How you get 24kHz on a headphone seems impossible though, as there is not enough air density between the ear canal and headphone to propagate the sound waves properly.
Regardless, if you were raised on 24kHz, you would feel "hollow" listening to anything less the 20kHz... you wouldn't be able to consciously put your finger on it, but you would feel that something was missing.
-You do get more Alpha Waves in your brain from 20kHz up to 24kHz, so it "feels" like the music has more texture. (go familiarize yourself with Benjamin's 1/2 second delay. this is how long it takes the brain to "do work" and create the pathetically narrow conscious awareness of the extremely awesome high bandwidth sensory inputs of your body)
How you get 24kHz on a headphone seems impossible though, as there is not enough air density between the ear canal and headphone to propagate the sound waves properly.
Regardless, if you were raised on 24kHz, you would feel "hollow" listening to anything less the 20kHz... you wouldn't be able to consciously put your finger on it, but you would feel that something was missing.
Tolham has covered the basics already. Human hearing cannot tell the difference.
More detail here:
people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html
Explained in the link. Think about how often the flash of IR light from your remote control has bothered you. It is just outside the human red spectrum. Getting better sound is the same you won't hear it.
More detail here:
people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html
Explained in the link. Think about how often the flash of IR light from your remote control has bothered you. It is just outside the human red spectrum. Getting better sound is the same you won't hear it.
Dynamic frequency range and signal separation are two different beasts, potentially there would be more of the recording ambience and detail from the studio. The Fender Reverb Twin, the Steinway, the Gibson 335, etc…. would sound like it should. With my moderate amp and speakers I can sense the space on Santana’s black magic woman with an old dual DAC Sony CD player. Converting the song to 320 bit mp3 and playing off the computer through the same system, the lack of depth is noticeable.
You pay for the music and systems to play it on. The quality is up to you, mp3 and CD cost nearly the same yet mp3 has less detail and the CD can easily be down-converted to mp3 for free.
Neil Young hurts my ears at any resolution. Sorry I just don’t like the old woman’s voice.
You pay for the music and systems to play it on. The quality is up to you, mp3 and CD cost nearly the same yet mp3 has less detail and the CD can easily be down-converted to mp3 for free.
Neil Young hurts my ears at any resolution. Sorry I just don’t like the old woman’s voice.
Neil Young is totally right, but the main issue is what a few people have mentioned - the loudness war. People need to spread the word on this as much as possible:
Turn Me Up! Bringing Dynamics Back To Music
Wikipedia - Loudness war
Dynamic Range Database
YouTube - The Loudness War
YouTube - Another Loudness War Example
YouTube - Curmudgeon by Nirvana (1992 vs. 2004)
YouTube - Fighting The Loudness War (Iron Maiden examples)
A few CD's tagged on Amazon.com as "victim of the loudness war"
Turn Me Up! Bringing Dynamics Back To Music
Wikipedia - Loudness war
Dynamic Range Database
YouTube - The Loudness War
YouTube - Another Loudness War Example
YouTube - Curmudgeon by Nirvana (1992 vs. 2004)
YouTube - Fighting The Loudness War (Iron Maiden examples)
A few CD's tagged on Amazon.com as "victim of the loudness war"
[citation][nom]chewy1963[/nom]This is what I'm talking about... the absolute best cassette tape in the world (metal or chromium bias) has a dynamic frequency range of about 20-15,000hz. It doesn't matter one wit how great you system reproduces 15Khz-20Khz because the sources can't get that high. But with CD's and mp3's over 128kbs the source is now able to take advantage of those great tweeters or the high frequency performance of your headphones. Increasing the source to 50Khz and upgrading all your equipment to match however is a waste. Your ears can't tell the difference over a system that is good at reproducing 20-20,000hz. If you claim you can you are either not human or you are full of sh!t.[/citation]
no, thats not what i was talking about at all.
my parents back in the cassette an early cd era, spend little over a grand on sound equipment. but now... they are ok with an ipod and the headphones it came with.
hell it wasn't till they got a 52 inch tv that they even cared about audio again because the thing had such abysmal sound that they had me re setup their older tv speakers.
we are going for looks and style now apposed to actual quality.
and as for the we cant hear above XXX khz, sure, humans i think at best can hear in the 32khz range, but that is an epic ear that can hear it. but even if most cant hear it, we still perceive it. you give someone decent equipment and give them one audio clip with everything in tact, and one where you remove what they cant hear, they will more often than not go with the one where they had the more range.
[citation][nom]getochkn[/nom]128k mp3's sound like crap compared to even 320 mp3's or even better flac, and if anyone thinks a 3mb file is exactly the same sounding at as a 300mb, your ears have been damaged by apple too much to help you. That's like saying a 100mb video file looks the same as a 1gb file.[/citation]
cant fight you there, but i can say this, i have some 100mb files that are hd, that somehow compare as equal or better to 500 and 1gb files i saw floating around, dont ask me how, as i SO dont understand why they are as good as they are.
[citation][nom]klockwerk[/nom]If you care about music fidelity, you are much better off spending a thousand or two on good speakers.[/citation]
it depends, take a look at the sennheiser 700 hd and 800 hd.
sure you wont have room thumping base, but damn, you get some great music out of it, to the tune of about 5 grand for speakers that can do the same.
now if you get audio equipment, i fully recommend spending a few grand on anything if you have the money, because we arent getting better at making speakers, something from 20-30 years ago, driven properly will be as good if not better than what you get today, sure some form factors like the in ear speakers, get better over time, but for normal large can headphones or bookshelf speakers, you wont do yourself any favors by skimping on the price.
[citation][nom]visage55[/nom]Dynamic frequency range and signal separation are two different beasts, potentially there would be more of the recording ambience and detail from the studio. The Fender Reverb Twin, the Steinway, the Gibson 335, etc…. would sound like it should. With my moderate amp and speakers I can sense the space on Santana’s black magic woman with an old dual DAC Sony CD player. Converting the song to 320 bit mp3 and playing off the computer through the same system, the lack of depth is noticeable. You pay for the music and systems to play it on. The quality is up to you, mp3 and CD cost nearly the same yet mp3 has less detail and the CD can easily be down-converted to mp3 for free.Neil Young hurts my ears at any resolution. Sorry I just don’t like the old woman’s voice.[/citation]
except its technically illegal to convert a cd to mp3.
also, with a cd you are paying for only a few songs you like while an mp3 you are paying for just what you want.
that said, if i really like a song, i look into the highest quality recording i can find of it.
no, thats not what i was talking about at all.
my parents back in the cassette an early cd era, spend little over a grand on sound equipment. but now... they are ok with an ipod and the headphones it came with.
hell it wasn't till they got a 52 inch tv that they even cared about audio again because the thing had such abysmal sound that they had me re setup their older tv speakers.
we are going for looks and style now apposed to actual quality.
and as for the we cant hear above XXX khz, sure, humans i think at best can hear in the 32khz range, but that is an epic ear that can hear it. but even if most cant hear it, we still perceive it. you give someone decent equipment and give them one audio clip with everything in tact, and one where you remove what they cant hear, they will more often than not go with the one where they had the more range.
[citation][nom]getochkn[/nom]128k mp3's sound like crap compared to even 320 mp3's or even better flac, and if anyone thinks a 3mb file is exactly the same sounding at as a 300mb, your ears have been damaged by apple too much to help you. That's like saying a 100mb video file looks the same as a 1gb file.[/citation]
cant fight you there, but i can say this, i have some 100mb files that are hd, that somehow compare as equal or better to 500 and 1gb files i saw floating around, dont ask me how, as i SO dont understand why they are as good as they are.
[citation][nom]klockwerk[/nom]If you care about music fidelity, you are much better off spending a thousand or two on good speakers.[/citation]
it depends, take a look at the sennheiser 700 hd and 800 hd.
sure you wont have room thumping base, but damn, you get some great music out of it, to the tune of about 5 grand for speakers that can do the same.
now if you get audio equipment, i fully recommend spending a few grand on anything if you have the money, because we arent getting better at making speakers, something from 20-30 years ago, driven properly will be as good if not better than what you get today, sure some form factors like the in ear speakers, get better over time, but for normal large can headphones or bookshelf speakers, you wont do yourself any favors by skimping on the price.
[citation][nom]visage55[/nom]Dynamic frequency range and signal separation are two different beasts, potentially there would be more of the recording ambience and detail from the studio. The Fender Reverb Twin, the Steinway, the Gibson 335, etc…. would sound like it should. With my moderate amp and speakers I can sense the space on Santana’s black magic woman with an old dual DAC Sony CD player. Converting the song to 320 bit mp3 and playing off the computer through the same system, the lack of depth is noticeable. You pay for the music and systems to play it on. The quality is up to you, mp3 and CD cost nearly the same yet mp3 has less detail and the CD can easily be down-converted to mp3 for free.Neil Young hurts my ears at any resolution. Sorry I just don’t like the old woman’s voice.[/citation]
except its technically illegal to convert a cd to mp3.
also, with a cd you are paying for only a few songs you like while an mp3 you are paying for just what you want.
that said, if i really like a song, i look into the highest quality recording i can find of it.
[citation][nom]mas[/nom]Yup, and after SACD was such a SPECTACULAR success(sic)!& with this having even more draconian memory requirements, expect this to go nowhere even faster...[/citation]
by the time that even came close to makeing headway, we had napster.
keep in mind it was the first time that the general public got a hold of music piracy
mp3 became a dominate format because of this
and shortly after we went from napster to kazaa, and itunes started makeing headway also, along with the ipod
gone were the days of 10-up to 50$ a cd for only 2 songs you like, and in came the i can get anything i want and only what i want for a dollar each.
people also went from giving a damn about audio toy accepting a crap mp3, and slowly moved to good enough mp3s.
if the sacd came out id like to say 5 maybe 10 years before napster, it would have set the standard we have today in music. but because music price dropped to nothing (comparatively) people demanded less of the songs.
please, don't bring up a superior format, and say it failed so no one wants high quality music, and look at why it failed.
by the time that even came close to makeing headway, we had napster.
keep in mind it was the first time that the general public got a hold of music piracy
mp3 became a dominate format because of this
and shortly after we went from napster to kazaa, and itunes started makeing headway also, along with the ipod
gone were the days of 10-up to 50$ a cd for only 2 songs you like, and in came the i can get anything i want and only what i want for a dollar each.
people also went from giving a damn about audio toy accepting a crap mp3, and slowly moved to good enough mp3s.
if the sacd came out id like to say 5 maybe 10 years before napster, it would have set the standard we have today in music. but because music price dropped to nothing (comparatively) people demanded less of the songs.
please, don't bring up a superior format, and say it failed so no one wants high quality music, and look at why it failed.
Any listening experience is only going to be as good as it's weakest link.........
From original organic (hopefully!) source via pickup/mic (organic again - keep it real!) into to the multitude of AD/DA converters (e.g. outboard fx routing), sample/bit rate selection, a little sprinkling of black magic for mixing and mastering, all with a very liberal touch of that extremely important - and demanded - effect (execs) - over-compression/brick-wall limiting! (we do have a Loudness War going on, don't we?, thus we need to compete, don't we?).....to the final DA then onto the equally crucial speaker/s, thus releasing the music to our ears (yet another 'important' variable). So there's a number of factors to take account before Neil's very worthy ambition can be realised.
From original organic (hopefully!) source via pickup/mic (organic again - keep it real!) into to the multitude of AD/DA converters (e.g. outboard fx routing), sample/bit rate selection, a little sprinkling of black magic for mixing and mastering, all with a very liberal touch of that extremely important - and demanded - effect (execs) - over-compression/brick-wall limiting! (we do have a Loudness War going on, don't we?, thus we need to compete, don't we?).....to the final DA then onto the equally crucial speaker/s, thus releasing the music to our ears (yet another 'important' variable). So there's a number of factors to take account before Neil's very worthy ambition can be realised.
Anyone ever hear of hdtacks? I'm sorry but the more bits then the more natural the original analog wave is reproduced. Blu-Ray can be 24/192 and no one makes a fuss. WTF! Sampling is not the same as audible frequency. My Oppo Blu-Ray player does 24/192 Flac perfectly from an external hard drive. It sounds as if one is in the studio during the original recording. Why not let others hear some great sounding audio from a portable player to.
http://www.hdtracks.com/ if you are curious
http://www.hdtracks.com/ if you are curious
Too bad MP3 players and iCrap has brainwashed everyone thinking there is nothing is better. As long as an analog source exists the digital conversion will always be better with more bit depth. There is not enough information on a CD to match vinyl and certainly MP3 is much worse. If and only if a portal device can withstand the quantum noise of solid state (non vacuum tubes), have matching headphones, and a receiver dock then all is good. Otherwise just let the crap portable devices exist.
I guess people don't understand sine waves enough to know that digital is just a bad representation of the original analog wave form until there is enough information to form the wave. 16 bit wasn't enough when CDs were released but 24 is much better. You can't digitize analog to duplicate the original wave but for each digital upgrade (suckers) it becomes closer to analog perfection. I guess crappy music deserve MP3s anyway. What is the point having a studio and releasing an MP3 anyway? Just record it in the shitter. It will sound the same without conversion.
chewy1963
Honorable
- May 9, 2012
- 246
- 0
- 10,680
[citation][nom]coreym72[/nom]I guess people don't understand sine waves enough to know that digital is just a bad representation of the original analog wave form until there is enough information to form the wave. 16 bit wasn't enough when CDs were released but 24 is much better. You can't digitize analog to duplicate the original wave but for each digital upgrade (suckers) it becomes closer to analog perfection. I guess crappy music deserve MP3s anyway. What is the point having a studio and releasing an MP3 anyway? Just record it in the shitter. It will sound the same without conversion.[/citation]
Yes digital is a bad representation of a sine wave.... On an oscilloscope. The human ear isn't that picky.
Yes digital is a bad representation of a sine wave.... On an oscilloscope. The human ear isn't that picky.
techguy911
Distinguished
- Jun 8, 2007
- 1,075
- 0
- 19,460
This is not about hearing frequencies over 20khz this is about compression and the loss of frequency ranges from said compression resulting in ok sounding music but it is nowhere near lossless sudio masters.
Also most music today even masters are low quality so even with lossless compression it still sounds ok but it will never sound like your there.
It all depends on quality of the source i can tell the difference from LP to cd to mp3, i use to be a disc jockey and in my day ran with LP's cassette tape was just out at the time and listening to mp3's now even 128 i can tell there is alot of midrange getting cut it just does not sound good.
Problem is kids are use to this and really don't care about quality just quantity.
Also most music today even masters are low quality so even with lossless compression it still sounds ok but it will never sound like your there.
It all depends on quality of the source i can tell the difference from LP to cd to mp3, i use to be a disc jockey and in my day ran with LP's cassette tape was just out at the time and listening to mp3's now even 128 i can tell there is alot of midrange getting cut it just does not sound good.
Problem is kids are use to this and really don't care about quality just quantity.
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
-
News US sanctions transform China into legacy chip production juggernaut — production jumped 40% in Q1 2024- Started by Admin
- Replies: 32
-
RTX 4070 vs RX 7900 GRE faceoff: Which mainstream graphics card is better?
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 70
-
Question I have been stuck between NVMe and SATA SSD. What should I do now?- Started by maniac2556
- Replies: 19
-
Question New pc build r9 7900x3d rtx 4080 super no post only ram rgb turns on- Started by Harvey Durward
- Replies: 5
-
Question 1TB HDD 80% Fragmented, Windows 10 Optimise Drives Program Doesn't Help
- Started by sdfbvcxbf
- Replies: 7
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram