|
compressed digital recordings may not be good for you and your health (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| RickyM |
| quote: | Originally posted by Aiwendil
i wouldn't want to damage my life energy. maybe i'll buy a fake diamond and hang it in my window to help repair it. |
:D :D :D |
|
|
| Zombie0915 |
wow, DSD sounds really cool, I hope it catches on, sounds like the precision I enjoy in digital media combined with the continuity one desires in an analog signal.
The thing about recording though, it really isn't a sceintific thing proving one method over the other, it is more of a judgement call. The fundamental question is always "how good is good enough?" analog stuff always gets closer and closer to the ideal responses, calculations and sample rates always getting faster, just how good does it have to be?
"Better than the other guy" is what most people answer answer with these days, but I'm not so sure this is the way to go. |
|
|
| torontotrance |
| neither is work but I still work to pay da bills but that gives me stress, should I quit as well?:stongue: |
|
|
| don_q |
a couple of replies..
no offense, but the one who loved wav files is a :whip:
protect yourself - learn something
if you compare high frequencies of cd vs. vinyl be shure (no pun intended :tongue2 ) to get the correct needle. learn well before concluding
Nou, you can't really believe every marketing you read. Normally there's more info missing than what they give. And you could give some out of this world people false hopes
Nonetheless, the DSD concept is pretty cool. However the DSD chosen format is not that good compared to high-quality PCM. DSD was not designed to sound so much better than PCM. Granted the article has some truth (excluding of course any comment on the fate of the world chant), but the filtering effect on PCM has been well studied and I can assure we're doing pretty good. DSD tried to offer an alternative and is about to fail. to bad for that. |
|
|
| Zombie0729 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Nou
Honestly I think PCM has reached its limits as far as quality goes, you wont notice that much an improvment over 24/96 and 24/192 (which is DVD-A), like alot of the stats on SACD, samplerate is now also a marketing term.
I gurentee you though that a production that is totally kept out of the digital realm all the way up to its pressing as an SACD will sound 100x better than a normal CD. |
this is not just directed to you, so don't take it personally.
but 1.) the reason people don't "notice" the discrepancy in 192 is because the human ear actually can't hear it. it is so subtle to us that it has become a fluke in the digital world. people use them, yes, but defiently no where near their full potential...
almost all productions(speaking for our genre predominantly), start off as digital and end in digital. the analog debate, ESPECIALLY in vinyl is completely wrong. no one uses a completely analog studio... especially in sequencing, therefore this 'analog' warmth people talk about is stupid because the original master was digital. |
|
|
| DJ NGE |
| If listening to MP3s costs so much energy, i should be as thin as Mahatma Ghandi, right? :toothless |
|
|
| don_q |
| quote: | | almost all productions(speaking for our genre predominantly), start off as digital and end in digital. |
See, thats just one of the details this has hidden. You won't find any recording which doesn't have some kind of digital processing, regardless of genre. Even for DSD ALL digital processing is done in PCM format. There isn't any processing in the 1-bit realm. So DSD you get in SACDs was at some point PCM!!! So what's the point?? |
|
|
| DJ Lucas |
so listening to music is causing everyone stress. anyone else disagree with this study?
::casts firaga:: |
|
|
| Dirichlet |
Ever hear of the Nyquist theorem??
It states that any signal of a given frequency can be identically reproduced given that it is sampled at a minimum of twice that frequency. The limit of human hearing is ~20000 Hz. Thus, a sample rate of over 40000 Hz will accurately reproduce the original signal(s) without false noise (known as aliasing). Most digital recordings are at 44000 Hz. Thus, I must conclude that any difference you hear at this sample rate is simply in your head.
p.s. God, i'm a dork :tongue2: |
|
|
| Dirichlet |
| quote: | Originally posted by Nou
That is a load of bull, since you could have a 96bit mp3 at 44.1khz and this would mean it would sound the same as a CD. |
Actually, it's not bull - look it up. The Nyquist theorem refers to one frequency, however. You are correct that the bitrate (which effects the minimum distance between "steps" that somebody described before) will effect the sound fidelity - the more 'steps', the higher the resolution of the sound. Given a high enough bitrate, and high enough sample rate, any wave can be exactly reproduced... But you don't have to take my word for it, look it up. |
|
|
| Zombie0915 |
well, a nyquist frequency will faithfully reproduce the overall shape of the function, but there are more variables in any given musical piece, that leave gaps in information between the samples which cant always be reconstructed.
So you take samples twice as fast as you oscillate, but many times those samples will be on either side of a peak, and miss the top of this peak, effictively chopping off the top of it. Sure you can get it back with the right reconstruction, but that ideal reconstruction doesnt actually exist ouside of the textbooks, and can't be executed in real time.
I'm prefectly happy listening to cd's and mp3's to tell you the truth, the sampling just doesnt bother me, but this stuff is still pretty interesting. Only time will tell which recording method gets popular next. Then everyone who likes another kind will mouth off for whatever they like better, its more judgement than it is science. |
|
|
|
|
