|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
99.57.82.28
In Reply to: RE: 24 bit BUT 44.1 KHz(?) "Hi Res" from HDTracks. SQ compared to 16bit/44.1? posted by jamestavegia@gmail.com on September 23, 2015 at 15:11:14
I had already expressed my opinion on 24/44.1 land 24/48. No sonic advantage to me only Marketing posturing.
Jim Tavegia
Follow Ups:
But 20 bits is the real/practical limit that the human and the best gear can utilise.
I'm sure you know why gear uses 24 bits instead of 20, it doesn't mean the extra 4 are actually "heard" per se (they're not, usually and usefully). However, our listening systems are in many cases A/V computers, and the data is processed, and making it 24 bits in calculations helps prevent rounding errors. It has nothing to do with "hearing" the extra 4 bits. When the music data is stored on a computer, each 20 bits of data would take up 24 bits anyway, all the digital systems are set up for bytes, not bits, so might as well make it 24 bits to start with, plus it impresses the rubes (32 even more so).
Much current equipment processes multiples of 48kHz much better than it does 44.1kHz or multiples. Sad but true. Multiples of 48kHz is much more commonly used in production nowadays, I doubt too many are using 44.1kHz multiples for *master* production.
The difference between 6 extra khz of sampling is not as discernible as the remastering EQ that was done for the new issue. I also do believe in multiples of sampling rates as that has been proven to sound better. We also know that playback devices that ram buffer the data stream have often sounded much better when properly clocked, something no one knew in the beginning of the CD. There is just more going on than just worrying about the sample rate and bit depth.
That article from the late Roger Nichols about the initial pressing problems of 2 VS Nature for Steely Dan changed my whole perspective of the music process from start to delivery. There are too many hands in the soup. I am also sure they will be new things we will learn about downloads as we have about using dirty USB power for our computer DACs.
Everything matters, but just more outside sample rate and bit depth choices. In IMHO, which often isn't humble anymore with all the marketing hype that takes place. So now I buy my music from places like BlueCoast Records, Linn Music, and eClassical where I know the original tracking rates. I do love the 2496 and 24/192 downloads I've bought and even my own ears can hear the diff. After that it comes down to what am I willing to pay for.
I have not done DSD downloads as my AT&T download speed of 12-20 MBPS is not conducive to "fast" downloading, but that is MY problem and not the industry. I will get there as BlueCoast is doing their best with their high quality products and promotions to entice me. These markets are small, but I know here I am getting all there is to hear.
To other companies who do downloads I hear more "different" than really "better". It is all subjective anyway. You hearing may be excellent and your gear way better then mine and you can easily discern and like the changes you hear, which is all it is about anyway.
Jim Tavegia
Oh yeah, the source quality matters the most.
I was just talking about where *I* prefer the bandwidth be spent. You can digitize crap at the highest resolution imaginable, to the point that it's analog!, and crap sounds like crap. I was more commenting on what I see as marketing silliness i.e. higher numbers = better.
The bitrates you already have from your ISP already make me jealous, by a fairly high factor too. I've been meaning to ask Abe all about his service: I don't think such rates are even available to any "regular" person in Canada. His rates are as far from yours as yours are from mine, and I don't live in the boonies either!
I was not thinking that it was possible for someone to be slower than 12-20mbps than me when I have friends just north of Atlanta running 80mbps, but they have fiber in their nicer subdivisions than the copper we have here. Our subdivision is only 16 years old and you might have thought AT&T might be more forward thinking and put fiber in for what services would be coming down the road.They chose not to do that and just paid a recent fine for limiting bandwidth to customers who are now streaming more and more. If their CFO actually knew anything and listen to his engineering people he might have rethought the fiber issue. Then with U-Verse it also comes along the copper making things even worse.
I know enough about all of this to be dangerous, but too many bad business decisions will just slow down the music business' only growth model...downloads.
I never thought anyone would be slower than 12mbps.
Jim Tavegia
Edits: 09/27/15
A lot slower here, almost a 30-year-old area. I can see what people around me could possibly be getting max (wifi scan!, shows available rates and which mode they're using) and it's not pretty. The ISPs throttle and compress (video), reduce monthly "bandwidth" alotments, etc. to get the most revenue/customers without having to spend.
All bitrate tiers are sold here as "up to" xMbps, which technically/legally means zero is within the range. Seriously, I was paying for a high bitrate and wasn't getting near the tier max, so went a tier lower, and then again, and again, and I still had the same bitrate! For a lot less $$.
We have plenty of available "tiers" where you'll get less than 12Mbps (e.g. 3/6/10Mbps are common). But then again, anything less than a sustainable 40Mbps would not make me change the way I do anything, as it would be a step down, and I won't do that as long as I am able. In new developments, or more likely condos with "forced" service with a provider, 50Mbps and even 100Mbps are available. I've never heard of higher in Toronto, but I don't keep up that much as it's not available where I am.
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: