 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
81.185.161.248
In Reply to: RE: RPi5 - the first month posted by Ryelands on December 27, 2023 at 06:18:24
yea right "a wealth of literature on the effect of electronic noise on audio performance"...
Sure, on ANALOG audio maybe, but even then you would be pretty incompetent to be there after people like Rupert Neve eliminated most of that with high quality transformers.
However digital audio is simply a stream of 0s and 1s.
It's simply binary mate!
You can't change the code with noise added or subtracted.
Playing back digital audio is simply a bit stream with a buffer.
With camillaDSP you can ask it to show the bitstream and the buffering in pretty much real time.
So put it this way, if a DSP can cope with the ups and downs of CPU and memory use without a glitch, then ideas about SSD or HD or all the other buffers along the route is just more BS.
"Audiophiles" love talking BS, and they love to invent stuff that doesn't exist, to prove their "golden ears" are a zillion times better than mine.
Well come on then come to our place and do a double or triple blind test to tell us which mics we use, or see if you can hear the difference between high bit rate mp3, 16 bit audio and 24-96.
You will FAIL.
I can bet a case of new year champagne on it.
Follow Ups:
or see if you can hear the difference between high bit rate mp3, 16 bit audio and 24-96.
Too funny! Here's the 44/16 version of the opening track to the soundtrack of Rogue One called "He's Here For Us":
By contrast, here's the original studio 96/24 version:
Perhaps you cannot hear the difference!
...the same section of music. The "audio position" of the 44.1K/16 track shows 1 min 24 secs while the second image shows zero. Plus, the time runs of the two tracks are different. Then, the 44.1k/15 track shows 96K/24 on the side.
CD quality has around 96 dB of dynamic range while hirez can go to about 120 dB from a practical standpoint. Contrast that to analog tape or LP formats which typically struggle to get past 70 dB of dynamic range. There is no technical reason that a CD quality can't provide the dynamic range needed for uncompressed music playback.
Now, what the record companies and producers CHOOSE to do with respect to dynamic compression is a whole 'nother issue. If your two images do present a dynamic range difference between the two formats for the same recording, it is because they =wanted= to do that, not because it was due to technical limitations.
First of all, there aren't hundreds of remastered releases for that recent soundtrack. The time segment differences simply relate to adjusting the default view.
Hearing the difference between the master and the 44/16 version are profound. See my other response in thread for more on that.
I've got some really good CD content from labels like Telarc and Windham Hill. Just never as good as the best high sample rate 24 bit content. The world's engineers today really aren't fools as some suggest.
> > "The world's engineers today really aren't fools as some suggest."
No one said they or the producers were fools. They put out content that they think will sell -- mass market and audiophiles are two radically different audiences.
We have plenty of CD re-releases of the same album that vary widely in quality -- sometimes the newest "remaster" is the worst of the lot -- and all that happened without changing the recording format.
There are playback situations where too much dynamic range is an inferior listening experience -- for example in a car where the pianissimo sections vanish into the road, wind and engine noise.
That said, I still don't believe the two screencaps you posted show the exact same section of music even if they are from the same performance.
No one said they or the producers were fools
I reference the Estonian guy who challenged an inmate to...
see if you can hear the difference between high bit rate mp3, 16 bit audio and 24-96.
That's hilarious or truly sad for anyone to assert that lossy 44/16 is as good as it gets. Ask any recording engineer if they share that absurd belief see what they say. I met Jack Renner when I participated in the Telarc recording of ASO's Firebird . He told Dr. Stockham of Soundstream forget it if the good doctor was not able to increase the sample rate of his recorder above the CD standard. That's why the very first digital recordings were 50/16 and later ones in DSD. The 44/16 standard was fenced in from the outset with the limitations of the late 70s era 700 MB optical media available at the time.
I still don't believe the two screencaps you posted show the exact same section of music even if they are from the same performance.
You are welcome to create your own reality! While the original version runs a bit longer in the display, both start from the beginning of the track. Which in its uncompressed form can raise the hairs on your arm with the initial SLAMM! totally lost with the 44/16 version. If you have Tidal or Qobuz you can hear the latter version. You'll have to download the studio version from HDTracks.
View YouTube Video
I'll take your word that the screencaps are from the same section of the same track.
But you still seem to be missing the point that the CD version's more compressed rendering was an intentional editing choice made by the people who produced the CD. It was not =necessary= to compress it for the 44.1/16 format.
I'm not at home right now, but later this evening I have an experiment I plan to try with your track.
But you still seem to be missing the point that the CD version's more compressed rendering was an intentional editing choice made by the people who produced the CD.
Evidently, you haven't read this post in the thread.
I logged onto my Qobuz account and found both the CD quality and hirez versions of the Giacchino track you showed earlier. I captured the first 1 minute and 20 seconds of each version. The 44.1K version first, then followed by the 96K version on the right side of the image below. As you can see, they appear identical.
I ran some statistics on each of them in Adobe Audition. The quietest section of actual music occurs about 17 seconds into each track -- both are identical at about -34 dB from the 0 dB max. With CD's 96 dB dynamic range, this leaves 62 dB of range =below= the quietest section of music in the first minute and 20 seconds of this recording.
The only difference in dynamic range I was able to find occurred at the very obvious peaks -- the CD version peaks at -0.49 dB while the hirez version peaks at -0.38 dB. I'm not sure an extra tenth of a dB is going to add much to the startle effect. But, that is also not to say the hirez version won't have a bit more resolution, probably more due to the 24 bits versus 16 bits than from the higher sampling rate.
But this gets back to my original point on the images you posted -- what they did to your CD version was simply an artistic choice on the producer's or record company's part. In no way was it required by the CD quality file format. I've never said hirez can't be better than CD, but the example you posted has very little to do with the differences in file format and everything to do with the intentional choices made by producers and record companies.
to Zack.Note the new 44/16 version is the expanded version where a better choice was made. Years after the first take.
Edits: 12/28/23
-nt
learning that five years after getting that music and making those comparisons, Qobuz now has both and offers the extended version with new content!
That has got to rate as the single most stupid post I have ever seen on here.
(And you are using Audacity)
Congratulations!
Amateur.
it is Audacity displaying the difference in dynamics between the 96/24 master download and a 44/16 release of the same content.Amateur.
If that's how you characterize works by Disney made at the Sony Sound Scoring Stage , suit yourself!
Edits: 12/27/23
Who is to say the original wasn't compressed to get to 16/44? That compression alone will make it sound different.
I've done comparisons with unsuspecting people where they are playing the Spotify version of a song through Airplay into my kitchen system, and I'll have them stop theirs and play the same song at 24/96 from Qobuz onto the same system and they are always astounded at the difference.
Don't know about you, but I live in the real world of commercial recordings. I buy whats available- not based upon theoretical postulations.
While lossless 44/16 can come closer to what the studios actually use, content is usually compressed for the masses in that format. Along with compromises in transparency required by the brickwall filtering known decades ago. Call me crazy, but I prefer listening to the master resolution.
Lossy is a last resort if that's the only way the music is available.
"Note:
We're a small group of audiophiles over here running pretty similar setups"
yes you are a small group of nutters claiming to hear things that you can't.Proof of this..
"Call me crazy, but I prefer listening to the master resolution".
You have not the slightest idea what is "master resolution".
If you had actually worked in a professional recording environment you would understand a bit more.
It's not about 16 v 24 or 48 v 96, there's loads more to it than that esp as we are mostly in AES67 territory now/multichannel/latency/convolution.
Studios make stuff for people who live in their little bubble and like to write blogs about what imaginary stuff they think they can hear in there....then criticise male chauvinist groups like ASR for going down their own rabbit hole.
They wouldn't even know most of that stuff has been subject to compression and convolution on a massive DSP based scale, because they wouldn't recognise the artefacts.
Another rabbit hole is the "tube v solid state" arguments, and yet another about speakers or even LS3/5 v any version of it..
I get fed up with shooting rabbits....
"I live in the real world of commercial recordings. I buy whats available".
No you don't you live in your small imaginary bubble of what rubbish is put out there on a daily basis by the commercial entities that determine what you should hear (perhaps), and are dumb enough to pay them for it.
If you were involved with live recording and live stereo broadcast + all the immense problems involved in monitoring it (I won't even start on headphones!), then you might get it.
I won't even start on the problems with surround sound, - which btw I have done quite regularly and successfully...
As for the original posts, I am tearing down the Router/DAC/CM4 system for a bit of maintenance today, and to make up a proper solid installation for my Sowter transformers, which send balanced lines to the amp inputs.
What is more important to me, is to keep that ARM CPU cool when outputting HD video at the same time as running the DSP and the DAC.
That's a tough call.
It makes an amazing home cinema system under Linux 64, but in hot summer weather it's a struggle.
I don't doubt the CM5 will be a horror story to keep cool in those conditions, especially as it has NO wifi ext antenna and NO 9-24V PSU possibility.
A good idea to release in NH winter eh, so as nobody yet knows how hard it will be to keep cool!
btw I do have a version of the CM4 running ANDROID with sound out on HDMI.
If anything it's the best of all for video and glitch free mpeg audio.
I run an enormous heatsink on it, as it's on the official Raspi board.
No you don't you live in your small imaginary bubble of what rubbish is put out there on a daily basis by the commercial entities that determine what you should hear (perhaps), and are dumb enough to pay them for it.
????
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
