432hz

[Juhazi]

GrO, how about this article with quotes, references by PhD Lynn Cavanagh? https://symposium.music.org/index.php/42/itemlist/user/892-lynncavanagh

https://www.wam.hr/sadrzaj/us/Cavanagh_440Hz.pdf "A brief history of the establishment of international standard pitch a=440 hertz L y n n C a v a n a g h"

from above, final words:
"Meanwhile, the revival in recent decades of period instruments tuned to one or the other historic pitch has prompted a new awareness of pitch as stylistically contingent rather than absolute. "

 

[GrO]

I am sure they wouldn't (in a blind test), if there was no equalization and levels were matched. But happy to be proven wrong - with evidence.

There's no need of asking for evidence while you can check things on your own.

There's a huge difference between untouched lossless 1411 kb/s stream and 128 kb/s, or even 256 kb/s AAC. Also there's no built-in equalization in 'youtube', and the fact the songs are at a lower volume level is a result of extremely lowered bit rate itself - it's just a side effect of high lossy compression and you can read about it, or ask some expert if you would (higher bit rate gives crisper and better sound).

I didn't say that most people would hear the difference between CDA 1411 kb/s and HQ MP3 320 kb/s with the same loudness level, because it requires a good and trained ear (maybe you have to born with it), but I said they would hear and feel the difference compared to the lousy sound from 'youtube', and everybody can check it on their own. You like to demand evidence but for your own theories you give none, while I give you the facts that any semi-advanced user is able to verify without any hassle.

 

[GrO]

"Meanwhile, the revival in recent decades of period instruments tuned to one or the other historic pitch has prompted a new awareness of pitch as stylistically contingent rather than absolute. "

Nice lecture of her, thanks, and yes it also may be the case but it does not contradict the fact where the higher tuning produces the sharper and louder sound (especially with string instruments), and as far as I know the safest sounds for our ears are those soft and not too loud (especially in the age of headphones and very loud concerts). It's definitely good to have some variety in the world, that's why I'm glad that circle of 432-artists is growing, unfortunately many of'em shares their creativeness via 'youtube' what I hope will change in the future, because after years of listening to retuned 432Hz lossless sound doing it with 'youtube's 128 kbps AAC is just not acceptable in every way.

 

[Grooved]

I am sure they wouldn't (in a blind test), if there was no equalization and levels were matched. But happy to be proven wrong - with evidence.

It depends on the tracks used, but you can try ABX in Foobar if you want, or use a website like http://abx.digitalfeed.net/
On this website, there is a test with AAC 320 and FLAC from Tidal, and as I got 100% right answers on a track the last times I did it, I'm pretty sure it would have been the same with Youtube instead of AAC 320 (Youtube have worst quality than AAC 320).

 

[GrO]

It depends on the tracks used, but you can try ABX in Foobar if you want, or use a website like http://abx.digitalfeed.net/
On this website, there is a test with AAC 320 and FLAC from Tidal, and as I got 100% right answers on a track the last times I did it, I'm pretty sure it would have been the same with Youtube instead of AAC 320 (Youtube have worst quality than AAC 320).

...it's funny because AAC allows max 256 kb/s (for stereo stream) what makes your source totally not credible. ^^

 

[mSpot]

...it's funny because AAC allows max 256 kb/s (for stereo stream) what makes your source totally not credible. ^^

AAC certainly supports higher bitrates. Perhaps you are thinking of Bluetooth? Even iTunes will rip a CD to 320kbps AAC.

 

[Grooved]

...it's funny because AAC allows max 256 kb/s (for stereo stream) what makes your source totally not credible. ^^

Sorry, but this is the setting used by Tidal in "High" setting (Low setting uses 96kbps) :

 

[GrO]

AAC certainly supports higher bitrates. Perhaps you are thinking of Bluetooth? Even iTunes will rip a CD to 320kbps AAC.

Sorry, but this is the setting used by Tidal in "High" setting (Low setting uses 96kbps) :

View attachment 167693

So you contradict what it's developer states? Okay.

Advanced Audio Coding - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

[This page was last edited on 22 November 2021, at 19:31 (UTC).]

I didn't mean no 'bluetooth' while I don't use it and I always advice people not to use it also, and you can confirm this by watching my video tutorial on the 5th page of this topic.

I can even make 512 kbps AAC (screenshot), but it's just a placebo.

You could even convert 64 kbps MP3 into 1411 kbps WAV but all you would achieve is a bigger container with the same sound quality, so it's better to use lossless FLAC or ALAC and be sure you don't lose anything. I thought a person with 350 likes at 'audio science' forum would be aware of such a basics.

Considering that 'iTunes' makes money I am not surprised they fool people, but I am sometimes surprised by a level of naivety of some users.

Even if it would be possible to force 2-channel-AAC to stream at a real 320 kb/s you still can't compare it with lossless 1411 kb/s, and now think about all those people listening that flat lousy 128 kb/s pseudo sound on 'youtube' everyday.

 

[Julf]

there's no built-in equalization in 'youtube', and the fact the songs are at a lower volume level is a result of extremely lowered bit rate itself

Can you please explain how and why a lower bit rate would result in lower volume?

 

[UKPI]

...it's funny because AAC allows max 256 kb/s (for stereo stream) what makes your source totally not credible. ^^

Unfortunately, you are wrong.

NCC is an acronym for Number of Considered Channels.

For a stereo PCM signal with a sampling rate of 44100Hz, the maximum possible bitrate of an AAC General Audio coded signal (which includes AAC LC) is (6144/1024)*44100*2 = 529200 bps = 529.2 kbps.

Source: ISO/IEC 14496-3:2009, Subpart 4, page 124

Even if it would be possible to force 2-channel-AAC to stream at a real 320 kb/s you still can't compare it with lossless 1411 kb/s

AAC LC stream encoded with a decent encoder can perform decently even at 104 kbps (on average). You might be able to discern between high bitrate lossy files and lossless files on specific samples that are hard to lossily compress. But for the vast majority of music? Highly unlikely.

Please try a proper blind test before proclaiming this. It is one of the easier blind tests to perform by yourself. foobar2000 has a great plugin for that.

the fact the songs are at a lower volume level is a result of extremely lowered bit rate itself

Youtube applies volume normalization to most of its content. That's probably the reason for lower volume.

 

[GrO]

Can you please explain how and why a lower bit rate would result in lower volume?

Lossy compression cuts of some frequencies thus the final sound spectrum streams less data. Now let's treat well known graphic equalizer as a chorus of different voices, when you take away some of'em it will result with a lower loudness just like it is with a human choruses.

The higher the compression the more noticeable difference (without 'replay gain' enabled in media player) but there's another aspect which has been nicely explained here:

head-fi.org/threads/does-higher-bitrate-produce-more-clean-volume.

 

[Julf]

Lossy compression cuts of some frequencies thus the final sound spectrum streams less data. Now let's treat well known graphic equalizer as a chorus of different voices, when you take away some of'em it will result with a lower loudness just like it is with a human choruses.

And the codec doesn't compensate? If so, you should compensate when comparing.

there's another aspect which has been nicely explained here:

head-fi.org/threads/does-higher-bitrate-produce-more-clean-volume.

As so often is the case with head-fi, lots of subjective opinions, very little substantiated facts.

 

[GrO]

And the codec doesn't compensate? If so, you should compensate when comparing.

As so often is the case with head-fi, lots of subjective opinions, very little substantiated facts.

...then why don't you test it for yourself? If your ears are ok then just convert different formats to different bitrates and compare them on a single track of your choice without the replay gain feature.

 

[GrO]

Unfortunately, you are wrong.

...by saying that you also claim that the developer of AAC is wrong, you're aware of that?

Advanced Audio Coding - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

[This page was last edited on 22 November 2021, at 19:31 (UTC).]

I can even make 512 kbps AAC (screenshot), but it's just a placebo.

You could even convert 64 kbps MP3 into 1411 kbps WAV but all you would achieve is a bigger container with the same sound quality, so it's better to use lossless FLAC or ALAC and be sure you don't lose anything.

Please try a proper blind test before proclaiming this. It is one of the easier blind tests to perform by yourself. foobar2000 has a great plugin for that.

...I have experienced that many times in many situations and I don't need any 'foobar' for this. The fact you don't hear any difference doesn't exclude people who actually do.

Youtube applies volume normalization to most of its content. That's probably the reason for lower volume.

...another not credible source, it seems you like those.

 

[Julf]

The fact you don't hear any difference doesn't exclude people who actually do.

It also doesn't exclude the possibility that there is a china teapot revolving in an elliptical orbit between Earth and Mars.

 

[UKPI]

...saying that you also claim that the developer of AAC is wrong, you're aware of that?

Since when was Wikipedia the webpage for the developers of AAC? I brought you an excerpt from the standard document of AAC and you dismiss it as uncredible? Do you know what ISO is?

...another not credible source, it seems you like those.

That article is written by Ian Shepherd. Do you know who he is?

Here is the link to the "Wikipedia" page about him.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Shepherd

Edit: Typo correction.

 

[Julf]

...then why don't you test it for yourself? If your ears are ok then just convert different formats to different bitrates and compare them on a single track of your choice without the replay gain feature.

I have, of course. And why without replay gain? Shouldn't the tracks be normalized?

 

[UKPI]

I have, of course. And why without replay gain? Shouldn't the tracks be normalized?

As far as I know, volume normalization such as Replaygain or ITU-R BS 1770 aren't designed with ABX or ABC/Hr codec listening tests in mind. Not to mention that they are far from perfect.

Also, the goal of MP3, AAC, Vorbis, etc is using as little bits as possible while achieving transparency. Therefore, the output of an ideal encoder should be transparent without extra normalization if they are used in the intended bitrate.

Edit: Slight change in wording.

 

[Julf]

Also, the goal of MP3, AAC, Vorbis, etc is using as little bits as possible while achieving transparency. Therefore, the output of an ideal encoder should be transparent without extra normalization if they are used in the intended bitrate.

Indeed. Which is why I an questioning the claims about violume differences. They seem to stem from a very simplified understanding of the codecs.

 

[Pluto]

If it did then transposing music to another key would make a psychological difference rather than just moving it up or down in pitch. (I'm remembering Nigel in Spinal Tap going on about D-minor being the saddest key of all

Is it not true to say that if you are working in a truly, 100%, modal system of music (without regard to our modern system of keys and equal temperament) then there are sad modes and happy modes. Modes for dancing, modes for mourning and modes to make payment of your tax bill less painful... in a entirely modal world?

Modern (i.e. post medieval) musical systems have made it possible to play any mode at any pitch. I think of it in terms of only having the white notes to play on and, consequently, a change of mood entailed a change of pitch. When the black notes and equal temperament arrived, that limitation was largely eliminated.

All the foregoing is simply a non-musician's attempt to explain the entire modal concept to himself, but am I that wrong is basic principle?