I'm going to start a log of all the tree puns.
S
S
-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
Am I understanding basic audio science right?
- Thread starter hat28
- Start date
- Thread Starter
- #42
That wood be appreciated...
- Thread Starter
- #43
Video one was interesting enough but video two sorted me out completely- many thanks. Also, at the start of video two the presenter refers to 'an article on digital audio and why 24bit/192kHz music downloads don't make sense'. For some reason the link doesn't work but it is available at the Wayback machine and it too is very clear:
https://web.archive.org/web/20140311041729/http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html
watchnerd
Grand Contributor
Neil Young's lawyer's probably forced it to be taken down.
watchnerd
Grand Contributor
That would make me feel chipper.
It'll branch off quickly.
MRC01
Major Contributor
This is a neat test, but the actual dynamic range difference you can hear will be greater than this test indicates. That's because this test switches quickly, 1 second each. Our hearing applies its own built-in biological dynamic range compression to adjust for the loudness of sounds we are hearing. But this doesn't act instantaneously, or even very quickly. This gives us a maximum dynamic range of around 130-140 dB, but we can only use a fraction of that (I think at most around 60-70 dB if my own test results are representative) in any short time window.
This is one factor I had in mind when saying earlier that full perceptual transparency requires higher resolution than may be sufficient for encoding most music. Another factor is that trained listeners can hear the limitations of 44.1 k sampling with certain sounds, like square waves or jangling keys. This difference (perceptual transparency versus sufficient for music) is important yet often unstated, leading to some endless arguments about whether 44-16 (or any other resolution) is sufficient. The key question is: sufficient for what, exactly? Very little music uses the full range of human hearing perception; indeed, if it did, many people would be unable to appreciate it fully since those ranges vary quite a bit across individuals. And such "music" could be more painful than enjoyable to listen to.
In short, 44-16 is sufficient for encoding most music with 100% perceptual transparency relative to that music. With a few rare exceptions, like the 1812 Overture with actual cannons firing. Of course, it's debatable whether that is actually "music"
. We could come up with other examples, though I suspect they would end up being the exceptions that prove the rule. Even so, 44-16 is not 100% perceptually transparent.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2016
- Messages
- 20,762
- Likes
- 37,616
Not sure I agree that 44-16 isn't 100% perceptually transparent. However, I'm pretty sure it is 99% perceptually transparent which really leaves damn little to be gained by any more.This is a neat test, but the actual dynamic range difference you can hear will be greater than this test indicates. That's because this test switches quickly, 1 second each. Our hearing applies its own built-in biological dynamic range compression to adjust for the loudness of sounds we are hearing. But this doesn't act instantaneously, or even very quickly. This gives us a maximum dynamic range of around 130-140 dB, but we can only use a fraction of that (I think at most around 60-70 dB if my own test results are representative) in any short time window.
This is one factor I had in mind when saying earlier that full perceptual transparency requires higher resolution than may be sufficient for encoding most music. Another factor is that trained listeners can hear the limitations of 44.1 k sampling with certain sounds, like square waves or jangling keys. This difference (perceptual transparency versus sufficient for music) is important yet often unstated, leading to some endless arguments about whether 44-16 (or any other resolution) is sufficient. The key question is: sufficient for what, exactly? Very little music uses the full range of human hearing perception; indeed, if it did, many people would be unable to appreciate it fully since those ranges vary quite a bit across individuals. And such "music" could be more painful than enjoyable to listen to.
In short, 44-16 is sufficient for encoding most music with 100% perceptual transparency relative to that music. With a few rare exceptions, like the 1812 Overture with actual cannons firing. Of course, it's debatable whether that is actually "music"
Another way to look at it is 44-16 is perceptually transparent to at least 99% of the people. And the 1% for whom it can fall short it likely is fully capable for them 99% of the time. So for 1% of the people about 1% of the time it is not quite fully sufficient. I'd have to say, "Wow, the guys who picked 44-16 came awfully close to getting it exactly right." 50-18 or 60-20 would have left nothing on the table for anyone, but in the early days was technically difficult.
MRC01
Major Contributor
Fine, I actually agree that 44-16 is 99% perceptually transparent. Yet my point is that there is a difference between perceptual versus musical transparency, and clarifying which is the goal focuses the discussion.
It seems that many audiophiles seek perceptual transparency, or at least complain about various formats or devices not being perceptually transparent, losing sight of (or ignoring) the fact that musical transparency is sufficient for listening to music. Similar to your 99% point.
There are differences that are so subtle that one can only hear with specially constructed test signals, but not with music. Does such a difference matter? It seems it does to some, but not to others. Then they argue endlessly not realizing they're talking past each other because they're working with different definitions or goals for "transparency".
It seems that many audiophiles seek perceptual transparency, or at least complain about various formats or devices not being perceptually transparent, losing sight of (or ignoring) the fact that musical transparency is sufficient for listening to music. Similar to your 99% point.
There are differences that are so subtle that one can only hear with specially constructed test signals, but not with music. Does such a difference matter? It seems it does to some, but not to others. Then they argue endlessly not realizing they're talking past each other because they're working with different definitions or goals for "transparency".
Killingbeans
Major Contributor
Reminds me of how HDR on flat screen TVs is all the rage at the moment, while somebody pointed out that nobody wants to go blind if there's a shot of the sun on the screen
mhardy6647
Grand Contributor
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2019
- Messages
- 11,397
- Likes
- 24,715
JustAnandaDourEyedDude
Addicted to Fun and Learning
That leaves room for yet another pizza and root beer discussion, unless I'm barking up the wrong tree. On a count of one... two... tree!
Last edited:
MRC01
Major Contributor
They say that when pizza is good, it's great. And when it's bad, it's still pretty good. I can't say the same for music, where bad is just bad.
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2018
- Messages
- 583
- Likes
- 1,192
Actually, logarithms were invented a long time ago by Noah. After the great flood, when the Ark landed, he told all of the animals on board to go out and multiply, but these two snakes came up to Noah and said they could not do that, since they were adders. So Noah created logarithms so that they could multiply by adding.
redboat77
Member
One way to partially resolve this would be to have the original live source and compare it to the recorded version. Some sources, such as my wife's voice are readily available (to me), and the human ear is highly tuned by eons of evolution to sense subtle errors in the voice. I'm surprised that a lot of audio testing is performed on highly artificial processed concoctions that have no resemblance to anything in the natural world. It seems like direct comparison with available natural sources would be much more revealing. Of course, we would also be testing the recording system.
Similar threads
