Calling all masters of digital domain...

Oh yeah! That's one snappy dresser!


[Homer voice] Mmmmmm.... Pedullists wife!





:D






And turn on the "let people know I'm on this BBS"-thingie in your preferences!
 
I was in... it was interesting :)
I need more than three hours to download them :( Yeah, I know I should live in Download heaven like you, Ed :D, then again, I had to transmit them to those Romulans, and wait for their comments. No recieved signal yet... (And that will be more three hours to type their respond :D )

I can easily tell the difference between Unheald & Secret Heart. But that Neopolitan is a tricky one. May be I was into the song more than into the sound :D I think the idea to come with same song (like you did in the clinic) will be good, Ed (128vs 192 test) :)

No problem at all with 44.1KHz vs 48 KHz. Give us more... that was very fun & interesting, master sonusman :)
 
BTW, Pedullist...
Dont's screw this class... That belongs to our own "Hey moskus..." thread, you know... :D

That's your wife ? :) Hey... no wonder you're happy happy joy joy one :D She looks like moskus's mother when she was young anyway :rolleyes: :D

:D
 
O man, this thread is spoiled...

And people will question James' sanity. He normally answers his own questions, he now answers nonexisting questions.... :)
 
Jaymez, I don't know what you are on...but I want some:D

Very interesting thread amongst all the good natured piss taking, I actually learnt something:D Maybe I knew it already but its kind of good to get it underlined now and again.
 
<----cursing his 21K phone line....

Rats, Ed. I would have liked to listen. Ah, well. I just deleted a Red Sector tune I had laying around from one of the last times you posted a listening test. Back when I had broadband...

Thinking about it a bit, I'm not sure I buy all the stuff about noise floors and higher frequencies... Its certainly true, I suppose, but I'm not sure that's what matters to most listeners. Most recordings don't use anywhere near the dynamic range offered by most of the recording stuff over $100 and we don't hear the highs even if our stereos can reproduce them.

But in the conversion of an analog signal into tiny slices, it seems like the smaller the slices the better. The audio wave that is chopped into finer peices can be reassembled in more detail. Not noise floor or frequency wise, just accuracy-wise.

Human ears are amazing things. We can discern WAY more detail then we give ourselves credit for, even if we can't explain what those details are.

Anyway, I ramble at the expense of Jaymes' transmission bill to Neptune...

Chris
 
Chris Shaeffer said:
Thinking about it a bit, I'm not sure I buy all the stuff about noise floors and higher frequencies... Its certainly true, I suppose, but I'm not sure that's what matters to most listeners. Most recordings don't use anywhere near the dynamic range offered by most of the recording stuff over $100 and we don't hear the highs even if our stereos can reproduce them.
It's not the listener that talks abou the headroom, that's the musician/technician/whatever. I don't link the listener would notify the extra headroom, as you said.

But the listener will definentaly notice the samplerate/bitrate. Well, if the listnener has ears (I've discussed this on a norwegian BBS. Some of those fellas haven't heard a 24/96 recording, and the other half has heard it but didn't notice any difference. What do I tell these people?!?)
 
I guess the best way to describe what the big deal about sample rate compared to bit depth is this:

Indeed, bit depth will give you better divisions of volume, but what does it matter when you are taking fewer "pictures" of the sound?

I will put it in terms now to illustrate what I am talking about.

A low tone. This sucka takes some time to develope in the time line. That is why it is frequency right? :) But really take a good look at a bass wave and you see that the sound is in a linear fashion rising up and falling down in volume. Now, divide up the frequency by the sampling rate. You will see that the "pictures" being taken of the sound are happening at here, here, here here, here...per second. Great. But what about what happened between those pictures, and, what about the volume change between those pictures? Yikes, with lower sampling rates, you have MORE volume change between the samples! The effect this cause on your ears is a sort of distortion to the sound, and in addition, the "realism" of the sound is far less.

Let's face it guys, we don't NEED a full 24 bit resolution to represent almost ALL music productions! Really we don't. But we DO WANT as realistic "picture" of the original sound as possible.

Higher sampling rates don't just benefit the "high frequencies" to my ears. Bass sound a lot richer, and midrange seems to have a lot more detail. Stereo imaging improves dramatically. Things seem to stay in place in the oveall sound much better. There is a richness to the overall tone in higher sampling rates. DSP definately sounds much better.

My experiences with 96KHz sampling rates is that the audio captured that way sound far more realistic, and certainly more "analog like" than lower sampling rates.

I am dead ass tired right now after working sound all night, so I won't go into why audio that is SRC'ed down (sample rate converted) produces better audio than audio that was just captured at a lower SR, but once I do, it will make a lot of sense. Back when SRC's were pretty bad, thus avoided, the laymens advice of avoiding SRC was valid. It is NOT valid anymore as the code for SRC has improved tremendously in the last few years.

And I am still formulating in my mind how to show you all some real life examples of how sample rates will make a bigger difference to your audio that bit depth does. It will happen though.

Keep in mind that the reason software/hardware manufactures don't like to talk about sample rates is because upping sample rates in hardware, and coding for higher sample rates in software is MUCH harder to do that increasing bit depth, and thus, more expensive. It is the dirty little secret the industry is keeping quiet right now.

Peace.

Ed
 
sonusman said:
A low tone. This sucka takes some time to develope in the time line. That is why it is frequency right? :) But really take a good look at a bass wave and you see that the sound is in a linear fashion rising up and falling down in volume.
I thought that a bass wave didnt' require much samplerate at all. In fact that it takes alot more information to describe a 1 kHz wave than a 15 Hz wave. My books (I'm an acoustic (civil) engineer) tell me that it's no problem to describe a 2 Hz wave properly with 16bit/44.1 kHz, but the limit at 20 Hz was chocen because people don't "hear" under this frequensy.

And what do you mean by "takes some time to develope in the time line". The speed of sound is 340 meters/sec (around 100 ft/sec, right). Do not forget that a wave-sound is nothing else than altering in the air-preassure. The time-line with the sinus-signal is just "made" so that it's easier for us to see what's going on. It' doesen't take "time to develope" in the way I see it. But maybe I've misunderstood something... ;)
 
Yes, you have. :)

That is why it is called frequency moskus. 100 Hz obviously takes longer in the time line to develope a full cycle than 10KHz does eh?

In addition, the sinus shows exactly what is going on in regards to velocity too.

Also, the speed of sound is NOT a constant!!! It will change from humitity, and temperature.

If you are going to believe that low end doesn't sound better at higher sampling rate, you might as well leave this thread right now. I don't give a rats ass what books are saying. Hell, there are goings writing articles that have worked for certain big time bands with the initials S.D., who claim we don't need more than 44.1 for anything.

All that crap get's thrown out the window in real life tests where you don't know what sample rate is being played and you have to decide on the audio stictly based upon what you hear. Few fail this test.

Anyway...........

Ed
 
Yeah, that's what I thought... I have no clue how digital audio-systems work. But I do know my frequensies. I just din't get what you meant in your previous post about "develope". I am excused, english is my second language! :D

The speed of sound is extremely close to constant, within normal uses. You don't mix at the top of Himalaya, do you? ;)

And I didn't say that low end didn't sound better at higher frequensies. I'm just saying that the difference is bigger in the high end. And I think we've been talking around eachother...

Calm down... Didn't mean to upset you. :)
 
That is why it is called frequency moskus. 100 Hz obviously takes longer in the time line to develope a full cycle than 10KHz does eh?

This is why a bass guitar sound wave low "E" takes about 15 metres (50 feet) to develop properly.:cool:
 
Back
Top