What a fake audiophile looks like (video) - Page 3 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #61 of 88 Old 01-12-2014, 04:41 AM
Member
 
CubicleCrusher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 188
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 22
I stumbled on this article by PeachTree the other day and it seemed to make sense to me:
http://www.peachtreeaudio.com/blog/peachpits/why-does-a-24192-dac-matter/

Talks briefly about bit rates, etc - and speaks to why Amarra is better than iTunes.
CubicleCrusher is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #62 of 88 Old 01-12-2014, 06:58 AM
FMW
AVS Special Member
 
FMW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,551
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 129 Post(s)
Liked: 639
Quote:
Originally Posted by CubicleCrusher View Post

I stumbled on this article by PeachTree the other day and it seemed to make sense to me:
http://www.peachtreeaudio.com/blog/peachpits/why-does-a-24192-dac-matter/

Talks briefly about bit rates, etc - and speaks to why Amarra is better than iTunes.

Except that most of what he talks about isn't audible. What it audible are the low bit rate files you get from Itunes and Pandora. You can actually remove 80% of the data from a WAV before things start to become audible. There is great fear of lossy files because people think of the music they get from places like Pandora. Those are low bit rate files. I don't listen to anything but lossy files and I've done the bias controlled tests to be confident that there is no audible loss from an original CD. I use high bit rate MP3 and have for a dozen years.

The purpose of 24 bit audio is provide digital overhead for mixing and mastering. It doesn't sound any different from 16 bit audio. Most of this article is salesmanship peppered with hearing bias. It's pretty hard to sell expensive equipment saying what I just said.
FMW is online now  
post #63 of 88 Old 01-12-2014, 05:46 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
kbeam418's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: 41.7080574, -83.5911255 N41° 42.4834', W083° 35.4675'
Posts: 368
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by FMW View Post

Except that most of what he talks about isn't audible. What it audible are the low bit rate files you get from Itunes and Pandora. You can actually remove 80% of the data from a WAV before things start to become audible. There is great fear of lossy files because people think of the music they get from places like Pandora. Those are low bit rate files. I don't listen to anything but lossy files and I've done the bias controlled tests to be confident that there is no audible loss from an original CD. I use high bit rate MP3 and have for a dozen years.

The purpose of 24 bit audio is provide digital overhead for mixing and mastering. It doesn't sound any different from 16 bit audio. Most of this article is salesmanship peppered with hearing bias. It's pretty hard to sell expensive equipment saying what I just said.

iTunes is 256 AAC, Pandora is 192 kbps (for one users). Pandora one actually sounds pretty good, when I think low bit-rate I think satellite radio.

"Then one day you find ten years have got behind you no one told when to run you missed the starting gun."
kbeam418 is offline  
post #64 of 88 Old 01-12-2014, 08:56 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Summa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: North Georgia
Posts: 2,639
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked: 118
This is a really interesting discussion...for me, lossy vs lossless is a moot point, though.

I've always commented about how good MP3 tracks have sounded to me, even when played on my big mama Magnepans. With most tracks I doubt I could tell the difference between lossless and MP3. That being said, I don't have any desire to intentionally take away information from the track, regardless of whether it's audible or not. The video says they don't like a single lossless track taking up so much space, but the ALAC codec that iTunes/Apple uses takes up only about half as much space as FLAC does. Further, with larger hard drives and now cloud drives being so inexpensive and easy to come by, I just don't see any need to maximize space (speaking for myself here). I've always just used iTunes, like many of you have said above, and it couldn't be easier. Everything is saved in ALAC and I can convert to other lossless formats if the need/preference arises. Ripping a full length CD into ALAC with error correction takes only a few minutes.

One of my favorite ways to expand my music library is to buy used CDs off Amazon for a few bucks - sometimes even less if the case is cracked or the insert is missing - rip it to iTunes, and then just toss it in a box in the closet, likely never to be heard from again. I love digitizing my music and being able to sync it to my device, send it wirelessly throughout the apartment, or just fire up iTunes directly while I'm online. Much more fun that swapping out discs in the CD player.
Summa is offline  
post #65 of 88 Old 01-12-2014, 09:31 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
kbeam418's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: 41.7080574, -83.5911255 N41° 42.4834', W083° 35.4675'
Posts: 368
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by Summa View Post

This is a really interesting discussion...for me, lossy vs lossless is a moot point, though.

I've always commented about how good MP3 tracks have sounded to me, even when played on my big mama Magnepans. With most tracks I doubt I could tell the difference between lossless and MP3. That being said, I don't have any desire to intentionally take away information from the track, regardless of whether it's audible or not. The video says they don't like a single lossless track taking up so much space, but the ALAC codec that iTunes/Apple uses takes up only about half as much space as FLAC does. Further, with larger hard drives and now cloud drives being so inexpensive and easy to come by, I just don't see any need to maximize space (speaking for myself here). I've always just used iTunes, like many of you have said above, and it couldn't be easier. Everything is saved in ALAC and I can convert to other lossless formats if the need/preference arises. Ripping a full length CD into ALAC with error correction takes only a few minutes.

One of my favorite ways to expand my music library is to buy used CDs off Amazon for a few bucks - sometimes even less if the case is cracked or the insert is missing - rip it to iTunes, and then just toss it in a box in the closet, likely never to be heard from again. I love digitizing my music and being able to sync it to my device, send it wirelessly throughout the apartment, or just fire up iTunes directly while I'm online. Much more fun that swapping out discs in the CD player.

Data storage is so cheap now I don't really what harm there is in using lossless, you can get a 500 GB HDD for $100 on Newegg. I still use CDs because I don't think ipods have the best sound quality, although I do use my ipod for one of my albums that's all scratched up.

"Then one day you find ten years have got behind you no one told when to run you missed the starting gun."
kbeam418 is offline  
post #66 of 88 Old 01-12-2014, 09:37 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Summa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: North Georgia
Posts: 2,639
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked: 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbeam418 View Post



Data storage is so cheap now I don't really what harm there is in using lossless, you can get a 500 GB HDD for $100 on Newegg. I still use CDs because I don't think ipods have the best sound quality, although I do use my ipod for one of my albums that's all scratched up.

Exactly. I bought an outboard HD in 2009 for like $70, and as you said, they're even cheaper now. I'm probably going to pick up a NAS drive, cause those have really come down in price, as well.
Summa is offline  
post #67 of 88 Old 01-13-2014, 05:00 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 13,847
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 403 Post(s)
Liked: 1047
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbeam418 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Summa View Post

This is a really interesting discussion...for me, lossy vs lossless is a moot point, though.

I've always commented about how good MP3 tracks have sounded to me, even when played on my big mama Magnepans. With most tracks I doubt I could tell the difference between lossless and MP3. That being said, I don't have any desire to intentionally take away information from the track, regardless of whether it's audible or not. The video says they don't like a single lossless track taking up so much space, but the ALAC codec that iTunes/Apple uses takes up only about half as much space as FLAC does. Further, with larger hard drives and now cloud drives being so inexpensive and easy to come by, I just don't see any need to maximize space (speaking for myself here). I've always just used iTunes, like many of you have said above, and it couldn't be easier. Everything is saved in ALAC and I can convert to other lossless formats if the need/preference arises. Ripping a full length CD into ALAC with error correction takes only a few minutes.

One of my favorite ways to expand my music library is to buy used CDs off Amazon for a few bucks - sometimes even less if the case is cracked or the insert is missing - rip it to iTunes, and then just toss it in a box in the closet, likely never to be heard from again. I love digitizing my music and being able to sync it to my device, send it wirelessly throughout the apartment, or just fire up iTunes directly while I'm online. Much more fun that swapping out discs in the CD player.

Data storage is so cheap now I don't really what harm there is in using lossless, you can get a 500 GB HDD for $100 on Newegg. I still use CDs because I don't think ipods have the best sound quality, although I do use my ipod for one of my albums that's all scratched up.

iPods measure and sound about as good as a good CD player, and have very good headphone amps. Usually the worst sounding part of them is the earphones that come with them, or that people buy for them. Crappy low bitrate or ancient lossy compressed files can hurt sound quality, too.

Just because its more expensive, doesn't mean its better.

People like to throw sand in their face and I don't know why. However, you can get a Sansa Fuze or Fuze+ for a fraction of the price, get the same basic performance. The Fuzes take external micro SDHC cards that are cheap and can expand the thing beyond reason without the slings and arrows of an actual mechanical hard drive.
arnyk is offline  
post #68 of 88 Old 01-13-2014, 06:52 AM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
kbeam418's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: 41.7080574, -83.5911255 N41° 42.4834', W083° 35.4675'
Posts: 368
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

iPods measure and sound about as good as a good CD player, and have very good headphone amps. Usually the worst sounding part of them is the earphones that come with them, or that people buy for them. Crappy low bitrate or ancient lossy compressed files can hurt sound quality, too.

Just because its more expensive, doesn't mean its better.

People like to throw sand in their face and I don't know why. However, you can get a Sansa Fuze or Fuze+ for a fraction of the price, get the same basic performance. The Fuzes take external micro SDHC cards that are cheap and can expand the thing beyond reason without the slings and arrows of an actual mechanical hard drive.

I got an iPod because of the 160 GB hard drive.

"Then one day you find ten years have got behind you no one told when to run you missed the starting gun."
kbeam418 is offline  
post #69 of 88 Old 01-13-2014, 07:21 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 13,847
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 403 Post(s)
Liked: 1047
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbeam418 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

iPods measure and sound about as good as a good CD player, and have very good headphone amps. Usually the worst sounding part of them is the earphones that come with them, or that people buy for them. Crappy low bitrate or ancient lossy compressed files can hurt sound quality, too.

Just because its more expensive, doesn't mean its better.

People like to throw sand in their face and I don't know why. However, you can get a Sansa Fuze or Fuze+ for a fraction of the price, get the same basic performance. The Fuzes take external micro SDHC cards that are cheap and can expand the thing beyond reason without the slings and arrows of an actual mechanical hard drive.

I got an iPod because of the 160 GB hard drive.

The capacity of the Sansa Clip/Fuze/Fuze+ is practically unlimited. You just page your music inventory across as many 16-64 GB micro SDHC chips as you need to. A small matchbox holds dozens. For 320 kb MP3s each chip holds at least a 1,000 songs. It takes seconds to swap chips. If you want .WAV or FLAC, it supports those too, and videos as well. The organic LED is good enough to watch Powerpoint presentations.
arnyk is offline  
post #70 of 88 Old 01-13-2014, 05:03 PM
Advanced Member
 
bo130's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 515
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by A9X-308 View Post

When you made your first post, I thought we were going to be on the end of another subjectivist rant, but you have taken the effort to listen and actually test out some things for yourself. You don't see that happen much in the audio world, so good on you.

+1

I was going to say, this is actually rather refreshing. Instead of someone simply shutting down the opportunity to learn or experience (or to take a different perspective) we have someone who is actually doing the opposite.
bo130 is offline  
post #71 of 88 Old 01-14-2014, 03:27 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
kbeam418's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: 41.7080574, -83.5911255 N41° 42.4834', W083° 35.4675'
Posts: 368
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

The capacity of the Sansa Clip/Fuze/Fuze+ is practically unlimited. You just page your music inventory across as many 16-64 GB micro SDHC chips as you need to. A small matchbox holds dozens. For 320 kb MP3s each chip holds at least a 1,000 songs. It takes seconds to swap chips. If you want .WAV or FLAC, it supports those too, and videos as well. The organic LED is good enough to watch Powerpoint presentations.

That's something I forgot about. I'll probably get one, when I have the money, because every now and then my iPod has to read the HDD and thus cuts out. I don't know why Apple didn't have the songs going into cache as the song are being played, it's got like 64 MB of memory after all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bo130 View Post

+1

I was going to say, this is actually rather refreshing. Instead of someone simply shutting down the opportunity to learn or experience (or to take a different perspective) we have someone who is actually doing the opposite.

I try to be open minded and try things out. Problem with me is that make opinions before actually trying it for myself, but hey at-least I started a conversation.

"Then one day you find ten years have got behind you no one told when to run you missed the starting gun."
kbeam418 is offline  
post #72 of 88 Old 01-14-2014, 11:07 PM
Advanced Member
 
DotJun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 870
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 25 Post(s)
Liked: 43
And that's why I asked 50 or so posts ago whether this was a subjective or objective difference in the whole lossy vs lossless debate, because one of them is yes there is, and the other depends on the user 😊
DotJun is offline  
post #73 of 88 Old 01-15-2014, 02:35 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 13,847
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 403 Post(s)
Liked: 1047
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbeam418 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

The capacity of the Sansa Clip/Fuze/Fuze+ is practically unlimited. You just page your music inventory across as many 16-64 GB micro SDHC chips as you need to. A small matchbox holds dozens. For 320 kb MP3s each chip holds at least a 1,000 songs. It takes seconds to swap chips. If you want .WAV or FLAC, it supports those too, and videos as well. The organic LED is good enough to watch Powerpoint presentations.

That's something I forgot about. I'll probably get one, when I have the money, because every now and then my iPod has to read the HDD and thus cuts out. I don't know why Apple didn't have the songs going into cache as the song are being played, it's got like 64 MB of memory after all.

I don't want to raise any unecessary concerns but IME a iPod with a good hard drive won't do that. Sounds like your hard drive may be stepping out the door. The delay may be due to extended retries. You may hear clicking if you hold the iPod to your ear while this is happening and if so you are close to a total disaster.
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by bo130 View Post

+1

I was going to say, this is actually rather refreshing. Instead of someone simply shutting down the opportunity to learn or experience (or to take a different perspective) we have someone who is actually doing the opposite.

I try to be open minded and try things out. Problem with me is that make opinions before actually trying it for myself, but hey at-least I started a conversation.

Well it was good to see someone put their well-choreographed and properly done personal experiences where their mouth was. Yet another real world example of why good subjective tests are so highly preferred by people who have done them.
arnyk is offline  
post #74 of 88 Old 01-15-2014, 08:29 AM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
kbeam418's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: 41.7080574, -83.5911255 N41° 42.4834', W083° 35.4675'
Posts: 368
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

I don't want to raise any unecessary concerns but IME a iPod with a good hard drive won't do that. Sounds like your hard drive may be stepping out the door. The delay may be due to extended retries. You may hear clicking if you hold the iPod to your ear while this is happening and if so you are close to a total disaster.

It doesn't have "the click of death" just the usual noises a HDD makes. Honestly I think it's the fact that I'm using ALAC because when I play back an album that's lossy it doesn't due it. Either way I'm screwed since it doesn't have a warranty frown.gif

"Then one day you find ten years have got behind you no one told when to run you missed the starting gun."
kbeam418 is offline  
post #75 of 88 Old 01-18-2014, 04:53 PM
Member
 
hogger129's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: The Dark Side Of The Moon
Posts: 183
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbeam418 View Post

These videos are full of s*** that can be proven wrong but you guys be the judge;

Lossless encoding does matter. But for me, it's not about hearing a difference. It's because with lossless encoding, the original source is entirely preserved where lossy encoding cuts off some inaudible information based on what the algorithm tells it to discard.

I don't mind buying music from iTunes if it's at a good price. I find the sound quality to be barely inferior to a CD, so much that I can't even tell 99% of the time.

I don't think they took the "archival" reason into account.


As for cables and sample rates, I don't have any fancy cables, so I can't comment. 44.1khz sampling rate sounds fine to me. I can't hear much of an improvement with higher ones, but it is there. For example, I have Let It Bleed 24/176 from HDTracks and the same thing on a CD. The 24 bit one seems smoother, more flowing. Hard to explain without hearing it.
hogger129 is offline  
post #76 of 88 Old 01-19-2014, 02:45 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 13,847
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 403 Post(s)
Liked: 1047
Quote:
Originally Posted by hogger129 View Post


As for cables and sample rates, I don't have any fancy cables, so I can't comment.

Been there done that, and fancy cables are a scam or at least just audio jewelry.
Quote:
44.1khz sampling rate sounds fine to me. I can't hear much of an improvement with higher ones, but it is there. For example, I have Let It Bleed 24/176 from HDTracks and the same thing on a CD. The 24 bit one seems smoother, more flowing. Hard to explain without hearing it.

Different sample rates don't sound different and there are rafts of scientific tests to support that. It's easy enough to test these days using FOOBAR2000 as was done a few posts back.

Many times higher sample rate recordings are remastered, and while sample rates > 44.1 KHz are moot, remastering isn't moot.
arnyk is offline  
post #77 of 88 Old 01-19-2014, 03:46 AM
Member
 
hogger129's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: The Dark Side Of The Moon
Posts: 183
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

Been there done that, and fancy cables are a scam or at least just audio jewelry.
Different sample rates don't sound different and there are rafts of scientific tests to support that. It's easy enough to test these days using FOOBAR2000 as was done a few posts back.

Many times higher sample rate recordings are remastered, and while sample rates > 44.1 KHz are moot, remastering isn't moot.

The reason for me hearing a difference then could have been the DAC. I made a Data DVD with WAV files of that Let It Bleed 24/176 and played it with a Blu Ray player. On my computer, it sounds no different than the Mastered For iTunes version.
hogger129 is offline  
post #78 of 88 Old 01-19-2014, 08:57 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 13,847
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 403 Post(s)
Liked: 1047
Quote:
Originally Posted by hogger129 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

Been there done that, and fancy cables are a scam or at least just audio jewelry.
Different sample rates don't sound different and there are rafts of scientific tests to support that. It's easy enough to test these days using FOOBAR2000 as was done a few posts back.

Many times higher sample rate recordings are remastered, and while sample rates > 44.1 KHz are moot, remastering isn't moot.

The reason for me hearing a difference then could have been the DAC. I made a Data DVD with WAV files of that Let It Bleed 24/176 and played it with a Blu Ray player. On my computer, it sounds no different than the Mastered For iTunes version.

In my reading of this, the word Mastered in "Mastered for iTunes" is most likely the truly relevant word.

DACs, not so much.

The purpose of mastering is to make recordings sound different. Since all good DACs sound the same, their purpose is to avoid sounding different (from sonic perfection)
arnyk is offline  
post #79 of 88 Old 01-19-2014, 10:16 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
kbeam418's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: 41.7080574, -83.5911255 N41° 42.4834', W083° 35.4675'
Posts: 368
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

Been there done that, and fancy cables are a scam or at least just audio jewelry.
Different sample rates don't sound different and there are rafts of scientific tests to support that. It's easy enough to test these days using FOOBAR2000 as was done a few posts back.

Many times higher sample rate recordings are remastered, and while sample rates > 44.1 KHz are moot, remastering isn't moot.

I record at 88.2, in Audacity but that's because I'm using effects.

"Then one day you find ten years have got behind you no one told when to run you missed the starting gun."
kbeam418 is offline  
post #80 of 88 Old 01-20-2014, 05:29 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 13,847
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 403 Post(s)
Liked: 1047
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbeam418 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

Been there done that, and fancy cables are a scam or at least just audio jewelry.
Different sample rates don't sound different and there are rafts of scientific tests to support that. It's easy enough to test these days using FOOBAR2000 as was done a few posts back.

Many times higher sample rate recordings are remastered, and while sample rates > 44.1 KHz are moot, remastering isn't moot.

I record at 88.2, in Audacity but that's because I'm using effects.

All fine and good, but irrelevant to hi fi playback or even hi fi recording. It's even irrelevant to most recording using effects because most effects used in recording including equalization, time delays, and even reverb are linear. However musical effects that simulate some legacy analog synths may use nonlinear processing.

However, it shows how some people may blunder into audio systems that actually make high sample rates sound different.

The science, as the writer I am responding to probably knows, is that any processing in the digital domain that adds nonlinear distortion is subject to aliasing. Aliasing takes program material at high frequencies and folds it or mirrors it down into the audible range.

For example in a 44 KHz sample rate system, any nonlinear distortion that is created at frequencies > 22.05 KHz get folded down in to far more audible frequencies below 22.05 KHz. 22.05 KHz is the frequency where a kind of frequency mirror in a 44.1 KHz sample rate system is located. Everything that gets folded, gets folded down to some frequency below 22.05 KHz, which is mostly audible.

Now, lets say that we have a digital system with 192 KHz sampling. The folding frequency is 96 KHz. Frequencies now get folded to some frequency below 96 KHz and aren't audible until they get folded to below 20 KHz.

However, the prerequisite for this is nonlinear processing, such as is commonly used in making or synthesizing musical sound as opposed to reproducing music. In general there is no intentional audible nonlinear distortion in a hi fi system. So folding is irrelevant in a hi fi system even though it can be highly significant in a music synthesizer.
arnyk is offline  
post #81 of 88 Old 01-20-2014, 02:25 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
kbeam418's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: 41.7080574, -83.5911255 N41° 42.4834', W083° 35.4675'
Posts: 368
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

All fine and good, but irrelevant to hi fi playback or even hi fi recording. It's even irrelevant to most recording using effects because most effects used in recording including equalization, time delays, and even reverb are linear. However musical effects that simulate some legacy analog synths may use nonlinear processing.

However, it shows how some people may blunder into audio systems that actually make high sample rates sound different.

The science, as the writer I am responding to probably knows, is that any processing in the digital domain that adds nonlinear distortion is subject to aliasing. Aliasing takes program material at high frequencies and folds it or mirrors it down into the audible range.

For example in a 44 KHz sample rate system, any nonlinear distortion that is created at frequencies > 22.05 KHz get folded down in to far more audible frequencies below 22.05 KHz. 22.05 KHz is the frequency where a kind of frequency mirror in a 44.1 KHz sample rate system is located. Everything that gets folded, gets folded down to some frequency below 22.05 KHz, which is mostly audible.

Now, lets say that we have a digital system with 192 KHz sampling. The folding frequency is 96 KHz. Frequencies now get folded to some frequency below 96 KHz and aren't audible until they get folded to below 20 KHz.

However, the prerequisite for this is nonlinear processing, such as is commonly used in making or synthesizing musical sound as opposed to reproducing music. In general there is no intentional audible nonlinear distortion in a hi fi system. So folding is irrelevant in a hi fi system even though it can be highly significant in a music synthesizer.

I figured it didn't matter.

"Then one day you find ten years have got behind you no one told when to run you missed the starting gun."
kbeam418 is offline  
post #82 of 88 Old 01-21-2014, 07:08 PM
Member
 
hogger129's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: The Dark Side Of The Moon
Posts: 183
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 36
I understand that it's necessary to master in 24/88 or 24/96, but that 16/48 or 16/44 is good enough for the consumer level.



Does anybody know what benefit there is in 48khz over 44.1khz? I notice nearly every movie soundtrack is encoded in 48khz. Is there any benefit to it for music?



Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

In my reading of this, the word Mastered in "Mastered for iTunes" is most likely the truly relevant word.

DACs, not so much.

The purpose of mastering is to make recordings sound different. Since all good DACs sound the same, their purpose is to avoid sounding different (from sonic perfection)

I am finding that Mastered For iTunes is supposed to be a 256k AAC VBR file created from a high resolution master. Also seen forums that say it's just a way for Apple to sell more Macs to mastering engineers.

I don't really know what difference there is in it if it's Mastered For iTunes or not. Wouldn't a good CD-quality file encoded to iTunes Plus sound just as good as a high-res 24-bit file encoded to iTunes Plus? In the end, it's all 256k AAC VBR.
hogger129 is offline  
post #83 of 88 Old 01-22-2014, 03:54 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 13,847
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 403 Post(s)
Liked: 1047
Quote:
Originally Posted by hogger129 View Post

I understand that it's necessary to master in 24/88 or 24/96, but that 16/48 or 16/44 is good enough for the consumer level.

Except that's not how it is.

At the pro level every box has a 24/96 mode, and its hard for people doing production to avoid it just because it is there. Some people are thinking about the relatively tiny incremental additional sales of actual high-rez media, given that SACD and DVD-A have become niches. But let's be clear about this - today the vast majority of media that is ever going to be sold is going to 44/16 or less, and often its less or much less. I'm talking about digital online sales which are generally and overwhelmingly perceptually coded.

44/16 is actually an overkill format, people have pretty uniformly never had the ability to hear the difference associated with anything much more than 32/13. 48/16 justifies itself by fitting into video formats.
Quote:
Does anybody know what benefit there is in 48khz over 44.1khz? I notice nearly every movie soundtrack is encoded in 48khz. Is there any benefit to it for music?

48 KHz sampling has historically fitted better into frame rates and data formats used in video production. At one time it simplified things for video and the sound associated with it to be synchronized at several levels - data words, frames, etc. Today lossy compression of both audio and video are the de facto standard and the hardware and software is sophisticated enough to not really benefit that much from being rigidly synchronous, but customs and comfort zones persist.

I mean, what does sample rate mean when everything is lossy-compressed and perceptually coded?
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

In my reading of this, the word Mastered in "Mastered for iTunes" is most likely the truly relevant word.

DACs, not so much.

The purpose of mastering is to make recordings sound different. Since all good DACs sound the same, their purpose is to avoid sounding different (from sonic perfection)

I am finding that Mastered For iTunes is supposed to be a 256k AAC VBR file created from a high resolution master. Also seen forums that say it's just a way for Apple to sell more Macs to mastering engineers.

I think that Apple is genuinely interested in sound and video quality, both the perception and the actuality.
Quote:
I don't really know what difference there is in it if it's Mastered For iTunes or not. Wouldn't a good CD-quality file encoded to iTunes Plus sound just as good as a high-res 24-bit file encoded to iTunes Plus? In the end, it's all 256k AAC VBR.

Exactly. The rule of the weakest link persists, and in those production chains the weakest link from a sonic perspective is potentially AAC, if there is a weak link at all. The real weakest link is usually the listener's ears and the sonic environment in which he is listening.
arnyk is offline  
post #84 of 88 Old 01-22-2014, 04:40 AM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
kbeam418's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: 41.7080574, -83.5911255 N41° 42.4834', W083° 35.4675'
Posts: 368
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

Except that's not how it is.

At the pro level every box has a 24/96 mode, and its hard for people doing production to avoid it just because it is there. Some people are thinking about the relatively tiny incremental additional sales of actual high-rez media, given that SACD and DVD-A have become niches. But let's be clear about this - today the vast majority of media that is ever going to be sold is going to 44/16 or less, and often its less or much less. I'm talking about digital online sales which are generally and overwhelmingly perceptually coded.

44/16 is actually an overkill format, people have pretty uniformly never had the ability to hear the difference associated with anything much more than 32/13. 48/16 justifies itself by fitting into video formats.
48 KHz sampling has historically fitted better into frame rates and data formats used in video production. At one time it simplified things for video and the sound associated with it to be synchronized at several levels - data words, frames, etc. Today lossy compression of both audio and video are the de facto standard and the hardware and software is sophisticated enough to not really benefit that much from being rigidly synchronous, but customs and comfort zones persist.

I mean, what does sample rate mean when everything is lossy-compressed and perceptually coded?
I think that Apple is genuinely interested in sound and video quality, both the perception and the actuality.
Exactly. The rule of the weakest link persists, and in those production chains the weakest link from a sonic perspective is potentially AAC, if there is a weak link at all. The real weakest link is usually the listener's ears and the sonic environment in which he is listening.

Correct if I'm wrong but anything lower 40 khz won't give you flat frequency response. Not that it really matters because once you reach 30 you can't hear past 15 k, but if your my age and can hear past 20 k it makes a difference.

I doubt that Apple cares about sound quality, in there article they say if there is clipping it won't have the "mastered for iTunes logo" yet the whole "13" album is full of clipping (analysed it in Audacity).

"Then one day you find ten years have got behind you no one told when to run you missed the starting gun."
kbeam418 is offline  
post #85 of 88 Old 01-22-2014, 05:01 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 13,847
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 403 Post(s)
Liked: 1047
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbeam418 View Post


Correct if I'm wrong but anything lower 40 khz won't give you flat frequency response.

Flat frequency response and the human ear don't fit well in the same sentence! ;-)

Anybody who doubts this needs to refresh their memory with a set of Fletcher Munson curves.


Quote:

Not that it really matters because once you reach 30 you can't hear past 15 k,

Most people who haven't seriously damaged their ears can detect a loud pure sine wave > 20 KHz.
Quote:
but if your my age and can hear past 20 k it makes a difference.

Unfortunately not so much. The primary mechanism for our inability to hear the absence of sounds > 16 KHz has to do with the fact that musical sounds are complex sounds and spectral masking > 13 KHz is very strong. Our threshold of hearing for pure sine waves has very little to do with it.
Quote:
I doubt that Apple cares about sound quality, in there article they say if there is clipping it won't have the "mastered for iTunes logo" yet the whole "13" album is full of clipping (analysed it in Audacity).

In the end it appears to me that Apple has no direct control over that. They aren't going to refuse to let someone upload a hit album, or even an also-ran. The mastered for iTunes label appears to be very voluntary to me. If someone wants to pay lip service and there is money on the table, go figure! ;-)
arnyk is offline  
post #86 of 88 Old 01-22-2014, 12:23 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
kbeam418's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: 41.7080574, -83.5911255 N41° 42.4834', W083° 35.4675'
Posts: 368
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

Flat frequency response and the human ear don't fit well in the same sentence! ;-)

Anybody who doubts this needs to refresh their memory with a set of Fletcher Munson curves.


Most people who haven't seriously damaged their ears can detect a loud pure sine wave > 20 KHz.
Unfortunately not so much. The primary mechanism for our inability to hear the absence of sounds > 16 KHz has to do with the fact that musical sounds are complex sounds and spectral masking > 13 KHz is very strong. Our threshold of hearing for pure sine waves has very little to do with it.
In the end it appears to me that Apple has no direct control over that. They aren't going to refuse to let someone upload a hit album, or even an also-ran. The mastered for iTunes label appears to be very voluntary to me. If someone wants to pay lip service and there is money on the table, go figure! ;-)

By flat response I meant that 44.1 is necessary to be able to go up to 20 k. According to Apple's document that anybody can read, you can't have any clipping if you want to get that logo. Not that it really matters because anyone who is going to care about that is just going to buy the album on CD. I have Metallica's "Black" album from iTunes and it sounds fine.

"Then one day you find ten years have got behind you no one told when to run you missed the starting gun."
kbeam418 is offline  
post #87 of 88 Old 01-26-2014, 03:54 AM
Member
 
hogger129's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: The Dark Side Of The Moon
Posts: 183
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbeam418 View Post



By flat response I meant that 44.1 is necessary to be able to go up to 20 k. According to Apple's document that anybody can read, you can't have any clipping if you want to get that logo. Not that it really matters because anyone who is going to care about that is just going to buy the album on CD. I have Metallica's "Black" album from iTunes and it sounds fine.

You don't have to have a good recording to get that logo. For example, RHCP's "I'm With You" is full of clipping yet is considered "Mastered For iTunes." I believe iTunes just sells what the label supplies them. Mastered For iTunes just seems to be a set of guidelines that the labels are supposed to follow.

They should not allow an albums to be uploaded as "Mastered For iTunes" if it has any clipping or massive amounts of dynamic range compression.
hogger129 is offline  
post #88 of 88 Old 01-26-2014, 12:32 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
kbeam418's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: 41.7080574, -83.5911255 N41° 42.4834', W083° 35.4675'
Posts: 368
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by hogger129 View Post

You don't have to have a good recording to get that logo. For example, RHCP's "I'm With You" is full of clipping yet is considered "Mastered For iTunes." I believe iTunes just sells what the label supplies them. Mastered For iTunes just seems to be a set of guidelines that the labels are supposed to follow.

They should not allow an albums to be uploaded as "Mastered For iTunes" if it has any clipping or massive amounts of dynamic range compression.

That's exactly what I think.

"Then one day you find ten years have got behind you no one told when to run you missed the starting gun."
kbeam418 is offline  
Reply 2 Channel Audio

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off