quote:

Originally posted by harriz Boy you are truly clueless....

Well I think I'm not.

quote:

Recording at a higher sample rate does not ''add'' any dynamics to the sound you idiot.

When I said that?

quote:

It is just capable of capturing the sound far more accurately due to the higher resolution. There is more room for rounding errors as it goes from thousands to millions.

Yes. That only matters when you are MIXING TRACKS TOGETHER. Not in the final product.

quote:

I think you don't know what you are talking about. If it' s 24 bit there is more continuous fu cking bass there. The longer waveforms of the low end sound better if you are listening to 24 bits.

LOL. You don't know anything about sampling.. bit depth is only amount of possible sound pressures. It has nothing to do with waveform lenghts.

quote:

Wrong again.

In theory wrong, but for practical situations right.

quote:

(Real) studios work at 24bit 96k and so do high end audio equipment. All things in the analog stage equal the higher the sample rate the better the sound.

Yeah. 24bit/96kHz is for BETTER MIXING. Mixing 70 tracks together, the result is better when it has less quantization noise (errors). That's why people still use ANALOG mixers, because there's is no such a thing like quantization noise / error. 96kHz is better for mixing digitally than 44,1 but it has NOTHING TO DO WITH playing a record at 44,1/16bit.

Last edited by humilis on Aug-29-2006 at 10:11

quote:

Originally posted by humilis Yes. That only matters when you are MIXING TRACKS TOGETHER. Not in the final product.

If your final poduct is 24bit 96.000 will it or will it not be higher in resolution that if your final product is 16bit 44.100?

quote:

Originally posted by harriz If your final poduct is 24bit 96.000 will it or will it not be higher in resolution that if your final product is 16bit 44.100?

There's no AUDIBLE differences between 96 and 44,1kHz (if there is, the most of the audible differences will come from crappy DA-converters or bad sample rate conversion when downsampling). Between 16 and 24bits there is, but it depends on what are you listening to. And I don't know any record, which needs those extra bits

Last edited by humilis on Aug-29-2006 at 10:30

quote:

Originally posted by harriz Damn right it's shinning. Shinny and and brittle is the word to describe redbook. Lets assume for a second that you are right and red-book is just as good sonically as DVD-A... A sample of 24 bit 96.000 is just as good in terms of clarity and depth as a sample of 16 bit 44.100... Tell me... Why do studios since the early 90s record at DVD-A and not at red-book fidelity? Why do they dither to cover up the linearity of digital? Why does most professional digital audio equipment operate at least at 24 bit 96k resolution?

Why? Because of math. When mixing, the depth given by sixteen bits only provides so many units to work with, so the summing of some transients will be inaccurate in some cases. Furthermore, sample rates may not line up perfectly, and lower bit rates make the resulting summing problems more apparent. Raising the bit rate reduces the commonness of this. So the higher fidelity at the production stage prevents lower fidelity later on.

When listening to music, however, this precision is not needed, so to save space, producers bring the fidelity down to within such parameters that the drop in quality cannot be discerned.

quote:

If you are right they wouldn't need those cpu intensive sample rates... Everything would be redbook... But it is not redbook anymore is it? Why? Redbook is just as good according to you...

It's not as good. It sounds the same to the human ear, though.

Seriously, read up on psychoacoustics, and you'll learn a lot about just how little humans can distinguish.

quote:

There are several DAC and come in different prices... Which DAC are you talking about?

Ok, I'll concede that There are shit DAC's, but even then. What does that have to do with the CD's quality? The quality inherent in the CD?

___________________

www.jexmusic.com - My website

Last edited by thoughtlessjex on Aug-29-2006 at 13:48

dude are you really from chapel hill?

i think the problem is you guys either have crappy stereo+speakers you bought at a pawn shop or you have damaged ears or something. the first time i heard dvd-a i was blown away, i couldn't believe how much better it sounds vs regular cds. the first thing i recall was how much it sounds like a vinyl record.

the same reason vinyl sounds better than a cd is the same reason an electric guitar sounds better than a cd of an electric guitar.

im at work i dont have time to search google to back this up.

___________________
DJ TORZ - dubstep portion of live set Mar 14th 2009

quote:

Originally posted by stevësto i think the problem is you guys either have crappy stereo+speakers you bought at a pawn shop or you have damaged ears or something.

Then that'd only have me saying that vinyl is better than CD, because I listen to vinyls on my Dad's Hi-Fi, while my personal stereo is for CDs.

quote:

the first time i heard dvd-a i was blown away, i couldn't believe how much better it sounds vs regular cds. the first thing i recall was how much it sounds like a vinyl record.

I'm not saying anything about DVDs. Personally, I'd support a move by the music industry to that medium. You can argue in favor of DVDs all you want, but thus far, the only valid argument I've heard anyone here make in favor of vinyl is romanticization of its imperfections.

And no, "you can hear the difference," is not a valid argument, because psychoacoustics, like anything with the affix, "psycho," are subject to the whims of suggestion. In other words, you can fool yourself into hearing things that aren't there if you think you're going to hear it.

Unworldly:
Well, during the academic year, I live in Chapel Hill, mostly for the sake of attending UNC (Go Heels). I live with my family in Cary otherwise.

___________________

www.jexmusic.com - My website

quote:

Originally posted by stevësto i think the problem is you guys either have crappy stereo+speakers you bought at a pawn shop or you have damaged ears or something. the first time i heard dvd-a i was blown away, i couldn't believe how much better it sounds vs regular cds. the first thing i recall was how much it sounds like a vinyl record.

Well, how about a blind ABX listening test then?

Let's sample a vinyl record to harddrive and burn it to 44,1/16 CDA and 96/24 DVD-Audio and let's see your listening results.

Ok. That is almost impossible to prove, because vinyl sounds different every time and converters of CD and DVD sound different in different sample rates..

And. I prefer vinyl's warmer sound too, but when playing sampled vinyl from cd, I can't hear differences in sound in general. That was my point.

Last edited by humilis on Aug-29-2006 at 14:03

So then, I think we all finally agree that vinyl sounds better.

I thought we all had accepted that and were arguing about whether CD is good enough for most people or not. Really I don't think it is as simple as "all vinyls sound better than all cd's", cuz some vinyls are crackly and some cd's are made through bad ADC's. Given both are in mint condition then vinyl would win obviously, but in the real practical non ideal world, you have to factor in economics and the costs of vinyl is much much greater.

I think that is the cause of all the argument, many people seem to feel as if the increased sound quality of vinyl doesn't justify the extra cost. The DVD thing might actually be a good idea, dvd burners are really cheap and could be the the higher quality cheap alternative that people are looking for, at least until somebody makes a cheap analog storage that isn't so bulky and fragile.

I heard that many of the popular portable mp3 players use 12 bits rather than 16, I wonder where this threshold is, when are people going to start noticing the difference?

forget about the convenience, economics, etc. harriz and I are arguing one specific point with people that act smarter than they are ... that vinyl is still the best sound quality format available, even to this day. especially when the volume is turned way up where every detail is magnified. especially when you take certain drugs that makes your hearing much more accute. especially when you mix 2, 3 or more tracks together with an analog mixer. these are the times the unbroken waveform really stands out.

___________________
DJ TORZ - dubstep portion of live set Mar 14th 2009