Shouldn't we upgrade the 20-20 audible range ?!

[krabapple]

Well it can be done but not by anyone untrained. Amir has published some of his blind test results here where he can do it 20 times out of 20.

And if I sit a foot away from my highest def TV playing the highest def sources, I can still see pixels.

And knowing that I could see them, if I did this, doesn't mean I do see them in normal watching. Or be able to tell 720 from 1080 'just by looking' from my normal distance.

 

[krabapple]

microphones are lossy

So is hearing.

 

[Julf]

When Sony and Philips launched CD they called it "perfect sound forever" and they had very compelling reasons to believe that was true.

That is also an old audiophile myth. When they talked about "perfect sound forever", they meant that it will last forever, and not deteriorate every time it is played, like vinyl and magnetic tape.

 

[Sal1950]

Nope, fully audibly transparent to the source like RedBook is good enough.
DD and MP3 is not always transparent and can be heard by many folks, under many conditions, and with various program material. Not Good Enough.

Or so you dearly believe. The facts say, not so much. To name just one , DD is typically experienced in surround. How many excellent DBTs do you know of that have properly compared it to lossless? It's pretty complicated to do.

Another: what 'conditions' allow people to hear differences between MP3 and lossless? Do they resemble anything like normal listening conditions?

Why did you bring DD into my comment of Redbook being fully transparent.
I clearly already stated that DD and MP3 was Not Good Enough
DD = 32 kbps to 640 kbps Redbook = 176.4 kB/s
Is this just an attempt to start a argument on a straw man?

 

[pablolie]

That is also an old audiophile myth. When they talked about "perfect sound forever", they meant that it will last forever, and not deteriorate every time it is played, like vinyl and magnetic tape.

Yes... plus we are obsessing about frequency ranges when that is BY FAR not even remotely the only or even first thing we should focus on when it comes to genuine sound quality. When some recording sounds great, it is NOT because it fully covers the 10Hz to 22kHz spectrum, it is because of things like low distortion, clean transient reproduction, smooth phase behavior, absence of resonances and other things rather than the silly focus on a few extra kHz up top.

 

[krabapple]

Why did you bring DD into my comment of Redbook being fully transparent.

Who wrote this? "DD and MP3 is not always transparent and can be heard by many folks, under many conditions, and with various program material. Not Good Enough."

I believe it was you.

I clearly already stated that DD and MP3 was Not Good Enough

Yes you did. And I pointed out the flaws in that statement of yours that I quoted.

DD = 32 kbps to 640 kbps Redbook = 176.4 kB/s
Is this just an attempt to start a argument on a straw man?

Citing bitrates like this indicates you don't understand how lossy works. Which you have indicated before.

(And you know Redbook preceded MP3 and consumer Dolby Digital, right? It wasn't developed because they were 'not good enough')

 

[Sal1950]

For more modern releases where there is only one mastering and it has low DR, well, we're getting what they intended us to get, like it or not.

Absolutely, do folks think any of these artists released these recordings not knowing they were squashed to 0dr?
There's 4 or 5 more pages of this garbage. LOL

Who wrote this? "DD and MP3 is not always transparent and can be heard by many folks, under many conditions, and with various program material. Not Good Enough."

I believe it was you.

I did not, I posted what was linked, it has never been edited. In any way you try to exaggerate my post, the first question still stands.

Why did you bring DD into my comment of Redbook being fully transparent.
I clearly already stated that DD and MP3 was Not Good Enough
DD = 32 kbps to 640 kbps Redbook = 176.4 kB/s
Is this just an attempt to start a argument on a straw man?

 

[krabapple]

I did not, I posted what was linked, it has never been edited. In any way you try to exaggerate my post, the first question still stands.

You literally posted this under your name, as a response to welwynnyk:

"Nope, fully audibly transparent to the source like RedBook is good enough.
DD and MP3 is not always transparent and can be heard by many folks, under many conditions, and with various program material. Not Good Enough."

I didn't 'edit' a thing. You asked why I 'brought DD into it' so I quoted that second sentence and bolded the letters 'DD', to demonstrate that it was you who first mentioned 'DD'. Obviously?
I guess not. Weird.

 

[Mnyb]

Just to add this, here's the video (with time stamp):

He looks for silent passages, pumps the volume to an unhealthy level and listens for the quantization noise. Anybody can do this. Amir does not claim that high res sounds any different and notes himself that he could not ABX 16 vs 24 bit successfully without that trick.

Yes very contrived circumstances don’t you think ?

But I do get why to do such tests.

The very high bar of 115dB sinad ASR counts as a strict limit really are just that . You can not by any contrived are otherwise forced or ”unnatural” set of circumstances detect this . It’s just not possible.

If you set a lover bar maybe ? but not really ? certainly not with your favorite record during a normal listening session ?

I did another experiment everyone can do bury a pure sine at various depths like 1kHz and crank up the volume to normal listening volume and sit in you listening position and also try with your ear against the drivers ( treble or midrange ) .

Also do the same with full volume and note if different ( you may learn about the gain scaling of your system )

With the contrived circumstances of full volume ( I never listen at that volume ) I could just about detect a -80dB signal at the listening position in my room with my ear pressed against the drivers it was -112dB . ( This was with my old Meridian HT btw ) .

Hence the maybe this tells me that in my room at the levels I listen at , 16 bits covers inaudible to breaking my speakers levels

 

[Sal1950]

You literally posted this under your name, as a response to welwynnyk:

"Nope, fully audibly transparent to the source like RedBook is good enough.
DD and MP3 is not always transparent and can be heard by many folks, under many conditions, and with various program material. Not Good Enough."

I didn't 'edit' a thing. You asked why I 'brought DD into it' so I quoted that second sentence and bolded the letters 'DD', to demonstrate that it was you who first mentioned 'DD'. Obviously?
I guess not. Weird.

Oh now I get it, so then your claim is I'm wrong with the second statement, and DD nor MP3 can ever be identified against a lossless master ?

 

[ahofer]

Agreed, but that's not the context where lossy and lossless are used - which relates to the compression algorithms used, not down-sampling.

OK, fine redbook is lossless and your initial assertion is now moot. We can move on.

 

[ahofer]

So is hearing.

Wait a minute! My hearing is “fully transparent”! Golden Ears, I tell you.

 

[krabapple]

Yes very contrived circumstances don’t you think ?

Indeed.

Golden ears leap on any positive ABX of small difference -- no matter how contrived -- to 'prove' that they hear it too -- routinely.
(And better still: when they switch from A to B ..even their wives ion another room can hear it! )

It's barking braggadocious nonsense.

If it takes a helping of forensic listening to start aceing the ABX, the difference is not likely to be something you would 'ace' afterwards in routine listening.
You'll have to go through that danged routine again. Find a fadeout tail. Find a 'tell' in a cymbal or tambourine hit. Play that half second of audio over and over. Ya got it!

Fun, right?

 

[EJ3]

For more modern releases (as well as remasters) where there is only one mastering and it has low DR, well, we're getting what they intended us to get, like it or not.

Not really: because "they" know that most people listen on cruddy ear buds (not saying that there are not any good ear buds and cruddy headphones (same for them). And not on great sound systems. So (many times) they are not mastered so that people will want a great sound system to listen with.

 

[krabapple]

Oh now I get it, so then your claim is I'm wrong with the second statement, and DD nor MP3 can ever be identified against a lossless master ?

You have been on this rodeo before, and whether lossy can be 'good enough' and why and how, has been hashed out extensively on QuadraphonicQuad, where they used to yuk about 'Dullby' (but gee, not so much, anymore).

The claim is not that lossy can never be distinguished from lossless. That's not a claim I would ever make. What matters are the conditions under which the difference can be heard, and the correct ways to compare and determine what was heard. The average punter hasn't likely done the due diligence on those, to so blithely dismiss lossy (including, specifically, Dolby Digital and MP3 codecs) as 'not good enough'.

 

[solderdude]

Being ASR, everyone preaches scientific principles over subjective, but is then selective about the scientific research they accept. If the research shows that 44.1k audio is transparent, it is gleefully accepted as irrefutable cast iron proof. If the research shows that 44.1k audio isn't transparent, it's immediately discredited by any means possible.

A few questions for you. Suppose you could set a new standard....

1: What research shows 44.1/16 LPCM is not 'transparent' ?
2: What is meant with 'transparent' (as in what is the or your definition) ?
3: If science would find 44.1/16 insufficient these days what would be sufficient... 60/20 or 88.2/16 or 44.1/24 or 48/24 or 96/24, DXD ?
4: If there were a need for physical storage of an album what format/type would that be ?

Consider that around 50 years ago when development started the best that could be produced was 16 bit converters (and even they did not reach true 16 bit performance).
Likewise the optical technology that could be made at that time had practical limitations.
CD thus was a compromise based on what was known about minimum requirements for audio and what was feasible to produce at that time using digital technology for home audio.
Consider that there was a physical size and playtime constraint as well as optical method limiting the CD format.
I don't know if it is true but the Sony guys had the demand that the disc should fit in the breast pocket of a shirt and at least must be able to play a full performance of a certain overture. Turns out it was a rumor. That defined playtime and size and thus the amount of info that must be on that disc.

At that time there were no micro-SD cards nor streaming that could hold tens/hundreds of albums in a much higher resolution nor did anyone have an idea that 30-40 years later people would play music on a personal device with unlimited access to information and nearly all music one could ever listen to in a lifetime.

So... what would you set as specs if it were up to you and what would be the rationale for choosing that ?

 

[Sokel]

To the original OP, and by healthy engineering point of view alone (and not audibility, ASR is past that with the astronomical specs we seek sometimes) if the whole chain (record and playback) consists of sane choices and proper engineering (like this filter implementation for example) 20Hz-20kHz is more than good enough.

What some people feel that is missing is somewhere else IMO, every time I have listen to a high DR system with low noise nothing ever bothered me except maybe lack of mid-bass or excessive 2kHz-8kHz energy or bad room, etc.

 

[danadam]

(like this filter implementation for example)

Your link is just http://Bricasti

 

[Sokel]

Your link is just http://Bricasti

Sorry about that, fixed.

 

[Mart68]

Not really: because "they" know that most people listen on cruddy ear buds (not saying that there are not any good ear buds and cruddy headphones (same for them). And not on great sound systems. So (many times) they are not mastered so that people will want a great sound system to listen with.

The vast majority of people have always listened on very poor quality equipment since recordings became available but that hasn't stopped there being many stellar quality recordings made since the 1950s at least. They tend to be popular with civilian enthusiasts too, assuming the music is accessible. How many copies has The Eagles Greatest Hits sold?- one of the best selling albums of all time, high DR.

There's also Aja, Brothers In Arms, Harvest...