Something I've always wondered about: Exactly how big is an order of magnitude?Honestly if you're worried about that kind of resolution, your speakers are probably the weak link by orders of magnitude.
Something I've always wondered about: Exactly how big is an order of magnitude?Honestly if you're worried about that kind of resolution, your speakers are probably the weak link by orders of magnitude.
10x is the usual definition. Anymore it is used more loosely, especially when not in a scientific context.Something I've always wondered about: Exactly how big is an order of magnitude?
If the sample rate doesn't "time spread" the transient down to a 20kHz bandwidth, then your ears will. Your ears are bandwidth limited also.Yes, I had already seen this interesting video some time ago. But the theme here is slightly different: we are talking about the time spread of transients when switching from signals with a high sampling frequency to a lower one and the fact that our auditory system could detect this effect in the form of an alteration of the localization of the sources in the space.
If the sample rate doesn't "time spread" the transient down to a 20kHz bandwidth, then your ears will. Your ears are bandwidth limited also.
Oh brother. Not again. And especially after this week’s DAC, Measurement and Breakin audibility nonsense and fairytales.
Edit. And I forgot the all time favorite in yet another season of “the difference in power cables” featuring GR.
And arrival time difference in stereo channels of 16/44 can be much less than 22 or even 5 µs.But for localization aspects, for which the differential analysis of arrival time and/or signal levels (ITD and ILD) counts, this limit does not apply.
Yes the ears aren't timing transients of 5 microseconds. They are timing arrival differences. CD can do that down to at lest 110 picoseconds. Here is the longer explanation of how that works.And arrival time difference in stereo channels of 16/44 can be much less than 22 or even 5 µs.
FLAC is just a lossless compression scheme. What you mean is you can't distinguish 320 mp3 (a type of lossy compression at a high quality setting) from lossless PCM (which could be any of these file types: WAV, AIFF, FLAC, MLP...)I don't know if anyone is capable of feeling such differences. I can't distinguish a 320 mp3 file from FLAC,
Ewwww! Sirius radio hurts my ears. I forget, but it is some very low bit rate early codec. 64 kbps."I listen to music in the car"
In my car I can clearly ear the difference between Sirius radio (flat sound stage) and a CD or better Amazon Music HD from my phone.
For sure I am speaking the when the car is idle in the traffic.
Download samples from 2L as they have multiple resolutions of entire demo tracks. Then use Deltawave that pkane wrote. It will upsample to match and compare the nulling of two files with different sample rates. Oops looks like 2L has removed their free sample download in a website upgrade.Regarding this, I have to say I don't know. I don't think its possible to tell by looking at such a short sample. In a real world scenario, the amplitude and frequency is changing all the time.
A thought experiment. Assume 2 identical albums, 1 in high resolution (say 24/192), the other in 16/44. Then we down sample the high resolution to 16/44, will we get identical data? Probably not exactly the same. Then we need to compare where are the differences and when we convert the bits into analogue wave, whats the differences? I dont expect big difference but I am not sure if some of the differences are audible or not.
Even after knowing the differences, we still have to test if an audio equipment will be able to reproduce the differences at audible volume. This is what I am thinking. For albums that have rapid and frequent changes in volume/frequency (perhaps an orchestra playing), I believe its possible to have difference. But for slow pieces like JAzz, solo instruments, probably not.
I have one of those systems... I'm on the fence about the higher res mp3s, but I certainly can't hear a difference between 16 bit 44.1KHz and any of the various higher resolutions.I've got shocking news for OP...even on "highy resolving boutique audiophile gear" you're going to have a REAL hard time in a blind test distinguishing high res from a 320kb mp3 (I'd be willing to bet nearly impossible actually). CD quality is more than enough resolution.
I think you will find this of interest, with references in the footer;24bit/sample and higher sample rates such as 192KHz
Download samples from 2L as they have multiple resolutions of entire demo tracks. Then use Deltawave that pkane wrote. It will upsample to match and compare the nulling of two files with different sample rates. Oops looks like 2L has removed their free sample download in a website upgrade.
Of course I can tell you that you are barking up the wrong tree. Does not seem to matter how many times it is demonstrated, people just want to believe more rez is better.
If that's why mp3 is also one of the many audio compression protocols, I simply gave an example between the two most used protocols of lossy and lossless audio (which are the ones I use)FLAC is just a lossless compression scheme. What you mean is you can't distinguish 320 mp3 (a type of lossy compression at a high quality setting) from lossless PCM (which could be any of these file types: WAV, AIFF, FLAC, MLP...)