Why do you keep confusing between ultrasonics and transients? This forum is not homogenous in terms of knowledge about the subject and many people come here to learn something but absorb wrong information from the loaded statements equating things wrongly.
-
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!
MQA: A Review of controversies, concerns, and cautions
- Thread starter mitchco
- Start date
- Status
Why do you keep confusing between ultrasonics and transients? This forum is not homogenous in terms of knowledge about the subject and many people come here to learn something but absorb wrong information from the loaded statements equating things wrongly.
buddy, resolution can be in dynamic range as well as timing. Bit depth is one factor.
near about 22 milli seconds. Good pair of human ears
can perceive upto 4 milli seconds. I didn’t want to make this technical and one side, but yeah side stepping there.why ultrasonic? Just because I mentioned higher sampling rate? So higher sampling rate just means ultrasonics to you. Ignorance is bliss.
such retorts don’t take the debate anywhere.
Please elaborate what in your opinion, apart from bitrate and sampling frequency, is required to capture and reproduce finer resolution in audio.
I agree, it is not a true hires only a stopgap compression codec and filter. That’s why I said commercial standards such as Dolby, DTS or even THX should set something out which is better and true hires suitable for streaming and acceptable to the media industry as a whole.
yeah never ending debate
But the reason this debate will never end is because the prevalent hires definition is only relative to the older generation CD quality.
The human ear can discern timing information and audio resolution nearly 250- 300khz. this remains a niche science with not too many academics and universities devoting enough time to the study.
Says who, Milind Kunchur? I watched James Johnston dismantle his work years ago on various forums. And regarding 'the' human ear, of what age?
old guards debating whether higher hires (
Video vs audio is another tired bogus zombie talking point. We were not near the visual resolution that humans are capable of. That's why there was actual room to improve video. For audio it's a very different story.
Don't worry, Pied Piper is on the case.
I am new to ASR, but based on what little I read so far, can’t help but notice the purveying of misinformation that is rampant here.
We need to not only help raise the standards of audiophile technology but also the standard of debates.
You have something better as an analogy, please enlighten
haha we are not taking about your college professor nor is it about you. Chill.
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2016
- Messages
- 20,747
- Likes
- 37,567
A little knowledge may help.near about 22 milli seconds. Good pair of human ears
https://troll-audio.com/articles/time-resolution-of-digital-audio/
To skip the full explanation above, redbook CD is capable of time resolution into the 110 picosecond range. So 4 milliseconds is nothing to worry about. You can just accept our help and not worry about it or figure it out with some help. Trust us is simpler.
You can also watch the Monty Montgomery video where he will demonstrate the truth of this in one portion of this video. 17:23 is the specific point on timing.
Ah, the electropsychometer
https://www.vice.com/en_au/article/qvmkjx/whats-inside-a-scientology-e-meter
Ok.... It's time to invoke the Monty on this BS.yeah never ending debate
But the reason this debate will never end is because the prevalent hires definition is only relative to the older generation CD quality.
The human ear can discern timing information and audio resolution nearly 250- 300khz. this remains a niche science with not too many academics and universities devoting enough time to the study.
old guards debating whether higher hires (
For anyone who believes that we need higher sampling rates to capture transients (in a bandwidth limited signal no less
this shows a profound lack of understanding of Shannon Nyquist) Please view the following video:Watch it a few times, there is plenty of good information in it. Note the part at around 21 mins, where it shows how signal edges are correctly encoded and reproduced "between the sample points".
[EDIT] Blumein 88's and my posts crossed, but I'll leave this because it points to the part of the video that makes the point.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2016
- Messages
- 20,747
- Likes
- 37,567
Yes, higher sample rates mostly are about wider frequency response. What do you think it does?
Ummm, no. And you're still apparently unclear on how Shannon-Nyquist works.
The irony, it burns.
Ok.... It's time to invoke the Monty on this BS.
For anyone who believes that we need higher sampling rates to capture transients (in a bandwidth limited signal no less
Watch it a few times, there is plenty of good information in it. Note the part at around 21 mins, where it shows how signal edges are correctly encoded and reproduced "between the sample points".
[EDIT] Bleumein88 and my posts crossed, but I'll leave this because it points to the part of the video that makes the point.
Ok since you insist, will give it watch. But going by what you say, humans are sorted till kingdom comes, with the 1979 CD technology 16/44 resolution. Don’t you find that to be having strong implications. Thx for the video though, will watch.
- Status
