IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

> Hydrogenaudio Forum Rules

- No Warez. This includes warez links, cracks and/or requests for help in getting illegal software or copyrighted music tracks!
- No Spamming or Trolling on the boards, this includes useless posts, trying to only increase post count or trying to deliberately create a flame war.
- No Hateful or Disrespectful posts. This includes: bashing, name-calling or insults directed at a board member.
- Click here for complete Hydrogenaudio Terms of Service

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
[TOS #8,#12] From: ...no point to distributing music in 24 bit/192 kHz, From Topic ID: 93853
forart.eu
post Mar 15 2012, 08:17
Post #1





Group: Members
Posts: 74
Joined: 10-December 09
From: italy
Member No.: 75798



Just a note: it has been scientifically proven that sounds are not perceived only through ears...

Anyway, in our case, bit depth is *mutch* more important than frequency IMHO.

This post has been edited by forart.eu: Mar 15 2012, 08:19
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
bandpass
post Mar 15 2012, 08:40
Post #2





Group: Members
Posts: 326
Joined: 3-August 08
From: UK
Member No.: 56644



QUOTE (forart.eu @ Mar 15 2012, 07:17) *
Just a note: it has been scientifically proven that sounds are not perceived only through ears...

I don't think it matters—when you're sitting in front of the speakers, doing an ABX test, you can use any organ of your body you like to help make the determination (you might want to lock the door first though).
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
forart.eu
post Mar 15 2012, 09:01
Post #3





Group: Members
Posts: 74
Joined: 10-December 09
From: italy
Member No.: 75798



QUOTE (bandpass @ Mar 15 2012, 08:40) *
I don't think it matters—when you're sitting in front of the speakers, doing an ABX test, you can use any organ of your body you like to help make the determination (you might want to lock the door first though).

Well, in this perspective lossless is useless if you can't ABX lossy... blink.gif

No, ABX isn't the unique method to evaluate sound quality, IMHO.

BTW just think about low frequency effect on your floor (then to your feets): even if your ears hear certain frequencies, the listening experience wouldn't be the same if the floor would not vibrate. wink.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post Mar 15 2012, 09:19
Post #4





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 10000
Joined: 1-April 04
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 13167



Ok, I'll bite. Where is your scientific "proof" that 16/44.1 is inadequate as a delivery format?

This post has been edited by greynol: Mar 15 2012, 23:15


--------------------
Placebophiles: put up or shut up!
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
forart.eu
post Mar 15 2012, 10:04
Post #5





Group: Members
Posts: 74
Joined: 10-December 09
From: italy
Member No.: 75798



16/44 *is* sufficient, but 32/44 (or 48) would be *mutch* better, IMHO. cool.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Martel
post Mar 15 2012, 10:07
Post #6





Group: Members
Posts: 553
Joined: 31-May 04
From: Czech Rep.
Member No.: 14430



Certain percentage of customers clearly aren't satisfied with it (statistics). Listening to a "mere 44.1/16" source (they have to be aware of it) causes subjective degradation of the enjoyment for them.

I'm not advocating anything, I just applied science (statistics) to "prove" that 44.1/16 is not enough. smile.gif
(Don't take it too seriously, it's a joke)

This post has been edited by Martel: Mar 15 2012, 10:09


--------------------
IE4 Rockbox Clip+ AAC@192; HD 668B/HD 518 Xonar DX FB2k FLAC;
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
2Bdecided
post Mar 15 2012, 10:46
Post #7


ReplayGain developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 5062
Joined: 5-November 01
From: Yorkshire, UK
Member No.: 409



QUOTE (forart.eu @ Mar 15 2012, 08:01) *
No, ABX isn't the unique method to evaluate sound quality, IMHO.
Do you remember the 10th of December 2009? It was the day you joined the wrong forum. wink.gif


Seriously, it's pretty trivial to ABX the feeling of the floor vibrating beneath your feet as you play a deep bass line.

The other commonly known "non ear" perception of sounds is via bone conduction (though I think it's your hears that do the final transduction). You can "hear" 50kHz if the transducer is coupled to you. Plenty of research into this. All rigorous stuff using double-blind testing.

Ultra High Frequency bone conduction is irrelevant for normal listening (unless you have your speakers a lot closer to your head than most people! wink.gif ).

Cheers,
David.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
forart.eu
post Mar 15 2012, 14:25
Post #8





Group: Members
Posts: 74
Joined: 10-December 09
From: italy
Member No.: 75798



QUOTE (2Bdecided @ Mar 15 2012, 10:46) *
Do you remember the 10th of December 2009? It was the day you joined the wrong forum. wink.gif

For your knowledge, i joined this forum before you on 2nd October 2001 mate. huh.gif

QUOTE (2Bdecided @ Mar 15 2012, 10:46) *
Seriously, it's pretty trivial to ABX the feeling of the floor vibrating beneath your feet as you play a deep bass line.

It was just an example.

So you're substantially claiming that non-ABXable lossy-encoded sound is equal to a lossless one ?

If true, than what's the meaning of lossless encoders ?


BTW - once again - my position is that we don't need more Hz, but we need more bits !



This post has been edited by forart.eu: Mar 15 2012, 14:37
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
bug80
post Mar 15 2012, 14:40
Post #9





Group: Members
Posts: 398
Joined: 23-January 05
From: The Netherlands
Member No.: 19254



QUOTE (forart.eu @ Mar 15 2012, 14:25) *
BTW - once again - my position is that we don't need more Hz, but we need more bits !

[there's that *** picture again smile.gif]

Please read the article in the first post, especially the part titled "Sampling fallacies and misconceptions"

QUOTE
So you're substantially claiming that non-ABXable lossy-encoded sound is equal to a lossless one ?

If true, than what's the meaning of lossless encoders ?

You cannot proof that two samples sound equal. You can proof that they sound different to you with a high enough probability, though.

This post has been edited by bug80: Mar 15 2012, 14:43
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
matt the cat
post Mar 15 2012, 14:42
Post #10





Group: Members
Posts: 30
Joined: 28-December 10
Member No.: 86874



QUOTE (forart.eu @ Mar 15 2012, 15:25) *

Wasnt it explained by xiphmont why thinking like this is wrong? huh.gif

Edit: Got ninja'd

This post has been edited by db1989: Mar 15 2012, 20:33
Reason for edit: demoting image to link
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
probedb
post Mar 15 2012, 14:50
Post #11





Group: Members
Posts: 1197
Joined: 6-September 04
Member No.: 16817



QUOTE (forart.eu @ Mar 15 2012, 13:25) *
QUOTE (2Bdecided @ Mar 15 2012, 10:46) *
Do you remember the 10th of December 2009? It was the day you joined the wrong forum. wink.gif

For your knowledge, i joined this forum before you on 2nd October 2001 mate. huh.gif


Really?

Group: Members
Posts: 74
Joined: 10-December 09
From: italy
Member No.: 75798
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Martel
post Mar 15 2012, 14:56
Post #12





Group: Members
Posts: 553
Joined: 31-May 04
From: Czech Rep.
Member No.: 14430



Now do these pictures for 16 vs. 24 bit. laugh.gif


--------------------
IE4 Rockbox Clip+ AAC@192; HD 668B/HD 518 Xonar DX FB2k FLAC;
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
dhromed
post Mar 15 2012, 15:01
Post #13





Group: Members
Posts: 1287
Joined: 16-February 08
From: NL
Member No.: 51347



Photoshop won't let me create an image with 2^24 pixels to a side. emot-haw.gif

This post has been edited by dhromed: Mar 15 2012, 15:01
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Porcus
post Mar 15 2012, 15:01
Post #14





Group: Members
Posts: 1842
Joined: 30-November 06
Member No.: 38207



QUOTE (forart.eu @ Mar 15 2012, 14:25) *
my position is that we don't need more Hz, but we need more bits !


... than two? I'm buying that even without your ABXing it.


--------------------
One day in the Year of the Fox came a time remembered well
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
skamp
post Mar 15 2012, 15:18
Post #15





Group: Developer
Posts: 1412
Joined: 4-May 04
From: France
Member No.: 13875



QUOTE (forart.eu @ Mar 15 2012, 14:25) *
For your knowledge, i joined this forum before you on 2nd October 2001 mate. huh.gif

Explain.

QUOTE (forart.eu @ Mar 15 2012, 14:25) *
If true, than what's the meaning of lossless encoders ?

Lossless encoders have other applications besides playback, like transcoding.

QUOTE (forart.eu @ Mar 15 2012, 14:25) *
BTW - once again - my position is that we don't need more Hz, but we need more bits !

I'm no engineer, but as I understand it: because of the way digital audio works, 1 bit adds 6dB to the scale, giving you twice the loudness. That's no matter how many bits you have, 16, 24 or 32, the value will always be the same. Increasing the number of bits will not make for a finer scale (more detail), but a bigger scale (more values, leaving original values intact). 1 bit will still be +6dB. Without dithering, 16 bits gives you 96dB to play with, 24 gives you 144, and 32 gives you a whopping 192dB. Suffice to say, that's a stupidly large scale, that would "allow" you to record sounds from the absolute threshold of hearing (0dB) to way above the threshold of pain (120-140dB if I'm not mistaken?).

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong (and if I am, please explain like you would to a 10 year old).


--------------------
See my profile for measurements, tools and recommendations.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
SebastianG
post Mar 15 2012, 15:23
Post #16





Group: Developer
Posts: 1317
Joined: 20-March 04
From: Göttingen (DE)
Member No.: 12875



QUOTE (forart.eu @ Mar 15 2012, 14:25) *
BTW - once again - my position is that we don't need more Hz, but we need more bits !
http://www.joelstrait.com/blog/2009/10/12/..._per_sample.png

I don't see how these pictures support your position. As Monty said already in his article: Pictures can be deceiving. You seem to lack an understanding of how and why dithering works. Go back to Monty's article and read it again.

This post has been edited by db1989: Mar 15 2012, 20:32
Reason for edit: demoting image to link
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Canar
post Mar 15 2012, 15:26
Post #17





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 3348
Joined: 26-July 02
From: princegeorge.ca
Member No.: 2796



QUOTE (forart.eu @ Mar 15 2012, 05:25) *
The fact that you're posting this image proves that you did not read the article. Linear interpolation is not how the signal is reconstructed.

This post has been edited by db1989: Mar 15 2012, 20:32
Reason for edit: as above


--------------------
You cannot ABX the rustling of jimmies.
No mouse? No problem.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Porcus
post Mar 15 2012, 15:46
Post #18





Group: Members
Posts: 1842
Joined: 30-November 06
Member No.: 38207



QUOTE (skamp @ Mar 15 2012, 15:18) *
Increasing the number of bits will not make for a finer scale (more detail), but a bigger scale (more values, leaving original values intact).


Well, that is not right. You can always use the volume knob to give you a 'bigger scale' in the sense of sound pressure difference between 'full' volume and 'silence'. 1 bit can tell you 'sound on/sound off'. Two bits can give you 4 levels including silence. n bits can give you 2^n levels including silence.

But assume that while you vary the number of bits, you adjust the volume knob so that the largest signal -- all bits to '1' -- gives you the loudest useful output. Any other signal will then be some dB's less than this. Then the 'bigger scale' interpretation is the difference between the smallest *NONZERO* signal and the full volume. This smallest signal is the least-significant bit.

But that also gives you a 'fineness' (resolution): say you have an 8 bit signal, then for any of the first seven you can have *******0 or *******1. The difference between the two, is this smallest-nonzero-signal -- the 'fineness' of the scale. You can add this least-significant bit to every signal except the full volume (and by the 'loudest useful output' assumption, you do not wish to do so for full volume).

If you have so many bits that the 000[etc]0001 signal is at the hearing threshold and 111[etc]1 is the loudest useful, then what? Not only can you feed the listeners the quietest signal (s)he could detect in a dead room, you can also add this signal to anything below full volume. If we assume that there is never a 'negative masking effect' -- a hearing threshold sound is no easier to detect if another louder signal is played simultaneously, than if played in a dead chamber -- then this gives you a scale that is sufficiently fine when you have turned the volume knob up so much that it is sufficiently big. Any volume difference so small that the ADC rounds it off, is also so small that it is inaudible.



(All of this is slightly complicated by positive/negative amplitude. I've written as if everything is positive.)

This post has been edited by Porcus: Mar 15 2012, 15:50


--------------------
One day in the Year of the Fox came a time remembered well
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 29th July 2014 - 15:30