In Reply to: RE: "goal is bit-perfect, high-res, analogue, output from the PC" - whose goal is that? posted by Storris on September 12, 2014 at 15:39:40:
"Just as the difference between 1080p and 360p video is obvious, Hi-Res audio should be just as perceptible (roughly a factor of 3, the same as 24/192-24/666)."
In this case the base level format had output that was nowhere near the limitations of the human eye. 1080p was much closer and so looked better. When you get to the so called "retina display" levels of resolution, you're pretty much up against the limitations of the human eye. Tripling the resolution of a retina display is not going to give you a three times better picture.
You'll find the core dispute in this forum is between those who argue that human hearing has some limitations to it and therefore at some point further refinement to the audio signal is inaudible while others argue that the limits of human hearing are still unknown and that every change to a system, however subtle, may be audible. The first group argues that for changes to be audible they should also be measurable, the second group argues that the ear can hear changes that are not measurable and therefore hearing trumps measurement. The first group thinks that "Redbook CD" is pretty darn close to the limitations of human hearing and so is "transparent," while the second group thinks Redbook is not close enough to the unknown limits of human hearing to be considered transparent, therefore they want even more elaborate formats and greater signal density, so called "Hi-Rez" music. The first group thinks this is a golden age of audio because even modestly priced equipment can be "transparent," while the second group also thinks this is a golden age of audio because however pricey and fancy the piece of equipment under consideration it can always be further improved by additional tweaking.
JE
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- RE: "goal is bit-perfect, high-res, analogue, output from the PC" - whose goal is that? - Jaundiced Ear 17:25:02 09/12/14 (26)
- Redbook Proven to be not transparent - Tony Lauck 10:06:18 09/13/14 (8)
- RE: Redbook Proven to be not transparent - Jaundiced Ear 14:03:02 09/13/14 (4)
- RE: Redbook Proven to be not transparent - Tony Lauck 14:19:40 09/13/14 (3)
- "You have to read .... 4000+ posts" - or, he could assemble a reasonably resolving system, and listen. - carcass93 08:44:07 09/15/14 (0)
- RE: Redbook Proven to be not transparent - Jaundiced Ear 22:32:03 09/14/14 (1)
- RE: Redbook Proven to be not transparent - Tony Lauck 11:57:33 09/15/14 (0)
- Subjective objectivity - Storris 12:46:51 09/13/14 (2)
- RE: Subjective objectivity - Tony Lauck 13:31:09 09/13/14 (1)
- RE: Subjective objectivity - Storris 15:06:06 09/13/14 (0)
- RE: "goal is bit-perfect, high-res, analogue, output from the PC" - whose goal is that? - Storris 01:03:47 09/13/14 (16)
- Food for thought - Jaundiced Ear 14:09:19 09/13/14 (14)
- RE: Food for thought - Storris 21:46:59 09/14/14 (8)
- RE: Food for thought - Jaundiced Ear 22:30:32 09/14/14 (7)
- RE: Food for thought - Storris 22:58:36 09/14/14 (6)
- RE: Food for thought - Jaundiced Ear 23:06:56 09/14/14 (5)
- RE: Food for thought - Tony Lauck 12:37:33 09/15/14 (0)
- RE: Food for thought - Storris 01:33:46 09/15/14 (3)
- RE: Food for thought - Jaundiced Ear 04:05:30 09/15/14 (2)
- RE: Food for thought - Storris 04:30:48 09/15/14 (1)
- RE: Food for thought - Jaundiced Ear 05:04:01 09/15/14 (0)
- RE: Food for thought - Tony Lauck 17:30:00 09/13/14 (3)
- RE: Food for thought - Jaundiced Ear 22:40:30 09/14/14 (1)
- RE: Food for thought - Tony Lauck 05:21:15 09/15/14 (0)
- "Outrage" is interesting word. Do I feel outrage, reading that non-experiential crap? - carcass93 19:04:38 09/13/14 (0)
- RE: Food for thought - Storris 14:59:22 09/13/14 (0)
- RE: "goal is bit-perfect, high-res, analogue, output from the PC" - whose goal is that? - Storris 03:21:03 09/13/14 (0)