Recent content by GrO

...can you provide any scientific article with references that confirm this? I don't want any Monty from 'youtube'.

...and why any sample couldn't play at 22kHz no matter how many of them has been used? By the way, human's audible frequency range is 20Hz-20kHz but it's out of the topic.

I've also never said that I want to persuade anyone to anything, and for more information you may want to check this video: 8Hz difference applies to A4 note only. It's a quite controversial statement. That's right but the value of 1.8% seems a bit rounded compared to the playback ratio...

As far as I know it only makes a difference in file size and container being used, and I have to admit that I don't get your idea with those volume levels, maybe it would make more sense if you'd use 25% (instead of 0), 50% (as low), and 100% (as doubled), but it's still not a very good example...

I usually quote the lines I'm referring to and there's nothing wrong in it, but if you want to be on some list so much then you could be placed on a list of banters. ;) However I should thank you for a nice piece of detailed information that I didn't actually know, but I've never said the...

@LeftCoastTim could you try to make more precise quotes next time? I've just asked a normal question, I didn't say anything about some conspiracy, but which theory we should accept now: the 'pitch inflation' or the value rounding due to primitive electronics and temperature-dependency?

Yeah, true but I don't really know why Schumann and why 432 while there are many different tunings in the history of composers. Maybe I should know but I've never really followed this whole "magic" theory.

I've never mentioned any magic related or Schumann, just some facts from the history. 430.54/432Hz were mainly used by Joseph Sauveur and Giuseppe Verdi. For most of the time in Europe musicians were using even lower tunings. The history also says that 440 was propagated by physicists (not...

You're right here, it's the most common usage, but it can also be used in the opposite way with e.g. Sony's 'élastique timestretch' feature.

Yeah, once I've realized it back in the days I've just dropped all lossy-compression-codecs at once. Yeah, same thing here about all those music shops and many times it's just easier to order via internet, and considering a television I'm very happy I've dropped it too for many different...

Hmm? Didn't you just write it? I've used that feature many times and it requires some really good hardware sound processor to do it in good quality. Maybe you didn't know but that's called 'time-stretching'. ;)

Thank you for your testings guys now the topic has been cleared up as for AAC 256 kbps and 320 kbps, but can we afford to say the same comparing 320 and 512 kbps, and if 512 is even worth using regarding the file size to the quality benefits ratio if there are any? Yeah, that's also the only...

I'm aware of those methods but lower sample rate equals the lower quality, and I know that time-stretching effect disturbs the sound a lot. Videos include sound too and no I didn't read about VLC's algorithms but I have a very sensitive hearing, I also use lossless or uncompressed sources...

...another insult. -.-

I understand your point of view, but he insulted me first this time and there really was no reason. We can explain things we're familiar with without saying who makes sense and who don't, especially when they admit they need to learn about some things.