If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(C|Net)   If you have been asking what is the latest on Neil Young's new high-resolution music system - then this link's for you   (news.cnet.com) divider line 59
    More: Cool, Neil Young, David Letterman, stereos  
•       •       •

3030 clicks; posted to Geek » on 24 Oct 2013 at 10:15 AM (25 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



59 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-10-24 05:26:43 PM

likefunbutnot: B.L.Z. Bub: Sheesh, I just want to listen to decent-sounding music, not major in sound engineering.

The thing is, if you really care, what you find out pretty quickly is that a lot of the things that are done in relation to modern audio engineering practices are antithetical to a good listening experience.


MP3s sound fine to me. I'm not going to claim they're the best possible sound because that would be ridiculous, but they're good enough for me and the format is convenient to boot. The sound quality OCD freaks act like MP3s are on par with cassette tapes or wax cylinders. It's like, if it doesn't meet your extremely exacting demands then it's just UNLISTENABLE, and almost every music listening experience for you is just AGONY because IT COULD BE BETTER. Whereas me, I'm almost never bothered by that problem. Gee, I wonder which of us has an easier time enjoying music.
 
2013-10-24 05:55:06 PM

B.L.Z. Bub: I'm glad I don't have this much OCD about sound quality. How do you people enjoy ANY music? I get a headache just trying to understand these threads, all these debates about how you record the VERY BEST POSSIBLE sound, and then how do you get the VERY BEST POSSIBLE sound playback, and what equipment to use and cables and speakers and on and on. Sheesh, I just want to listen to decent-sounding music, not major in sound engineering.


Not a problem. Pono is not really aimed at you.
 
2013-10-24 06:41:31 PM

B.L.Z. Bub: I'm glad I don't have this much OCD about sound quality. How do you people enjoy ANY music?


honestly, it's not that hard.  i'm an audio engineer and i listen to plenty of shiatty mp3's and stuff like pandora and last.fm.  i'm not always in "critical listening" mode, most of the time i'm just in "rock out to shiatty punk rock" mode.  the only really "unforgivable" sin i have with recorded music is when i can hear the mp3 compression.
 
2013-10-24 07:11:22 PM

mccallcl: Scrotastic Method: 44.1 kHz sample rate
16-bit word length
Samples represented in twos complement binary
8 to 14 expansion
Set reproducer for reference level: 1000 Hertz

To the one true God above, this is my prayer.

/nothing is obscure on Fark


Not in this particular place.
 
2013-10-24 07:33:37 PM
Meanwhile, Dan Swano's newest album Witherscape - The Inheritance, comes with an uncompressed vinyl mix and a different mix specifically to compensate for how mp3 alters the sound, right there on the disc.

Why is this difficult?
 
2013-10-24 08:28:17 PM
More barn!
 
2013-10-24 10:45:25 PM

NateAsbestos: Nyquist tells us that to losslessly convert a signal from analog to digital, you have to use a sampling rate of at least twice the highest frequency you want to encode. For humans that'd be about 42khz... lower resolution than a CD. 44.1khz is plenty of headroom in that regard, and increasing the sampling rate will NOT give you better sounding audio. It's the equivalent of demanding that movies include ultraviolet wavelengths on their encodings. You can't possibly detect it anyway.


See, I get this... except I don't get why upping the sampling rate to say 96KHz doesn't help smooth out the aliasing on those frequencies the human ear can discern, which makes for a better digital-to-analog conversion. To me it's like saying screen resolution of 72 dpi is perfect for viewing web pages, therefore anything else is unnecessary.
 
kab
2013-10-25 02:00:56 AM

theorellior: NateAsbestos: Nyquist tells us that to losslessly convert a signal from analog to digital, you have to use a sampling rate of at least twice the highest frequency you want to encode. For humans that'd be about 42khz... lower resolution than a CD. 44.1khz is plenty of headroom in that regard, and increasing the sampling rate will NOT give you better sounding audio. It's the equivalent of demanding that movies include ultraviolet wavelengths on their encodings. You can't possibly detect it anyway.

See, I get this... except I don't get why upping the sampling rate to say 96KHz doesn't help smooth out the aliasing on those frequencies the human ear can discern, which makes for a better digital-to-analog conversion. To me it's like saying screen resolution of 72 dpi is perfect for viewing web pages, therefore anything else is unnecessary.


Because the difference between 44.1 and 96 isn't detectable by our ears at any frequency.    Bitrate is also important to discuss as well.   CD standard is 16 bit, most music is recorded @ 24, and then reduced to 16 at the mastering stage.

http://www.tested.com/tech/1905-the-real-differences-between-16-bit- an d-24-bit-audio/
 
2013-10-25 02:27:42 AM

bearded clamorer: More barn?


Sad this took 4 responses. Best music story I've heard in a while
 
Displayed 9 of 59 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report