Going purely based on research evidence, the evidence suggests that Redbook is not sufficient, but 24/96 is: http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=18296The paper is not perfect (nor the studies it references) and even its justification for 24/96 is quite weak, but with rapidly shrinking storage/bandwidth costs, there is not a lot of reason not to standardize on 24/96. Somewhere I have a link that showed slightly better timing discrimination in some subjects, with a bandwidth just slightly over 20KHz, but virtually no benefit to going much higher than this. This would also suggest Redbook may not be perfect for everyone, but 24/96 would cover everyone. You can always take away information at the playback stage if you are worried about distortion at >20KHz. |
There has never, to my knowledge, been any positive indication that any mechanism in the human auditory system can detect past 22KHz, nor has there been any mechanism shown in the human auditory system that can cause modulation of ultrasonics to audible frequencies. While this can be shown to occur environmentally, as we are talking a playback system, the playback, if the goal is accuracy, should never add something at playback that was not there at recording.
The question, is, should we avoid the potential for euphonics, for the sake of technical accuracy? Technical accuracy shuns ultrasonic modulation to audible frequency. That doesn't mean that some (or even a lot) of people won't like it, even if it is near impossible to control. Even allowing that as a creative control is warranted. I think on balance 24/96 makes sense, even if not technically warranted by current research.
So back to the ops question, Yes, 24/96, properly implemented appears to be all we need, and anything higher carries no benefit.
|
GK: remaining irrelevant one post at a time.
|
GK: remaining irrelevant one post at a time.
|
GK: remaining irrelevant one post at a time.
|
Porscheracer,
You don't fall into the target market of "people who don't think for themselves". It doesn't matter how right you are, you will never get an answer that is based in fact OR see any data to back up the claim, data that is extremely easy to generate. |
Yup Porscheracer, he will triple and quadruple down. He could simply provide easily measured error rates, jitter from CD players common in the audiophile world, heck anything. Nope, more subterfuge. Next he will probably give us the reasons why amplifiers cannot provide 250db SNR. GK, you could simply say 24/96 is good enough and let it go, not provide multiple irrelevant posts that show you have nothing to refute 24/96 is enough.
|
See what I mean Porscheracer. GK's target market is people who don't think for themselves. Therefore, instead of providing information on C2 error rates, discussing the SNR of the detection system, discussing the off-angle rejection ratio of the optical system, or frankly anything relevant, he posts a link to a generic article in an attempt to make it look like he knows what he is doing, and yet, he has not even done the most basic of tasks, defining the nature of the problem. |
You don't have to accept it since there is lots of data on CD error rates, and certainly 25% is not "errors" or missing. Unfortunately some people have a disconnect from reality. One can only assume that a person who makes such a statement does not truly understand CDs, and hence does not realize that 25% of the data on a CD is error correction, but confuses this (or tries to confuse others) that it is "missing" data. porscheracer123 posts11-28-2019 1:53pmNo,
I will not accept that 25% of the data is missing. You are so wrong on
this I don't even know where to begin. You are spreading lies and
misinformation. |
Tatyana69,
44.1/16 upsampled to 192/24 is still 44.1/16. A standalone upsampler is just a more accurate digital resampler or it is intentionally making the 192 signal less accurate which is okay if you like the result.
Your post would suggest 24/96 is enough? |
tatyana69,
Are you saying you were comparing normal CD to native 192, or normal CD against CD upsampled do 192?
|
VI,
Your 50% information theory, which was previously 25% is a fantasy not a reality. Unless your CD is severely damaged, the multitude of control system and data correction methods on a CD player take care of all the things you claim and eliminate effectively all the errors with few exceptions. Modern CD players also buffer and reclock so you can't even claim timing issues.
VI, if you had any, and I do mean any data to back up what you claim, that data very easy to produce, then you would be broadcasting that from the rooftops. You do not. You just have an unfounded hypothesis. Basically a fantasy about the missing "information".
|
I think what VI is saying is that he is pretty much making up any numbers he is using and his statements are nothing more than unsubstantiated marketing numbers. His posts can be effectively in this thread, like most threads ignored. They are essentially advertisements targeting people looking for magic solutions to whatever ails them. You can pretty much guarantee that any reply VI will make to this post will be nonsensical, likely condescending, and using any number of tired jokes stolen from other people.
|
Considering the car analogy was specific about what information is in typical music, and what the potential is of CD, and Not, how it is manipulated, then the car analogy is appropriate. Your Cadillac / VW analogy is also valid, it just represents a different problem on the way from the recording to our ears.
I am with you on the math, 144db is perceptibly about 169 times more dynamic range than 70db.
|
VI,
The whole point of the database is to keep track of how recording engineers and the industry are compressing music (unnecessarily). It is not relegated just to CD, but has been happening to Vinyl as well since the early 70's. It is a choice. The Average shows the decisions of the recording engineer. The peak is most reflective of the format potential. A CD or digital download can use it's peak DR throughout the whole CD if it so chooses. With vinyl, you will literally jump the track with too much DR, and you are limited in track space. The time is 4:04pm VI, not blue.
|
This is completely irrelevant to the discussion. Why post a database of human intervention in mastering when the discussion is about the abilities of a data format independent of whatever decisions a human made during mastering? geoffkait18,603 posts11-29-2019 2:13pmHydrogen Audio? Don’t make me laugh! Ooops, too late! 😁 😁 😁
For those in my past who haven’t done so, I urge you to visit the unofficial dynamic range database and get eddicated.
http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/list?artist=Ten+years+after&album= |
Folks, this is not faulty logic. It is no logic at all. From: https://www.maat.digital/dro2/ . This has absolutely nothing to do with whether 16//44.1 is enough or 24/96 is enough. It is like saying "blue" when I ask you what time it is. However, since you want to selectively use this database to move forward an irrelevant argument, I can play along too. If you look at the peak dynamic range, which is the best indicator of the technical ability of the format, as opposed to the average dynamic range, which is more indicative of mastering choices, then virtually all the top peak dynamic range albums are download, or CD (or unknown). http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/list/dr-max/descWhat is DR? The DR algorithm, related to PLR (Peak–to–Loudness Ratio) or “crest factor,” specifically measures the dynamic density or lack of dynamics caused by overly aggressive dynamic compression and limiting. Although the companion DRMeter MkII provides a manual measurement of the "official" integrated DR or DRi, only DROffline and DROffline MkII can generate official values automatically and in the background. geoffkait18,604 posts11-29-2019 3:27pm
>>>>Folks, that’s the kind of faulty logic that comes from reading technical books too much and not spending enough time in reality. The discussion of dynamic range and the dynamic range database has *everything* to do with the discussion of data rate, sampling rate and format. What the dynamic range database shows - if you analyze it - is you’re screwed no matter which digital format you buy into. He-loo! Unless you don’t care about dynamics. In which case you’re in the wrong hobby, gentle readers. 🧑🏻🚀 |
To someone who actually understands this data, and understands how it is calculated, then no, it is not an assertion, no more than my claim that 1+1 = 2. You probably don't even know that while dynamic range is in the title, it is not even really a measure of dynamic range, but crest factor, from the average sound level, to the peak sound level over an arbitrary 3 second interval. The average, peak, min, are for the songs themselves, so that lists the average of all songs on the album, the minimum for the album, and the maximum for the album on a song by song basis. The peak is more representative of the format, as it shows what is possible. Digital has no issues with playing loud all the time. Vinyl doesn't as there is not enough track space. But that all said, this databases is not and was never intended to be an indication of what is possible in any format, but to push the industry to stop compressing CDs (and vinyl) so much, something that has been happening since the 70's, before CD existed. That VI (or you) brings this up at all, really distracts from and adds nothing to the discussion of whether 24/96 is enough.
cleeds2,593 posts11-29-2019 4:05pmI’m not sure that’s even remotely true. It’s just another of your "opinion stated as fact" assertions.
... virtually all the top peak dynamic range albums are download, or CD (or unknown).
|
No, VI, it actually does not. It tracks with a group of people, particularly with audiophiles, but anyone who has rented a car, invariably to find the bass cranked, knows that all musical tastes are not the same, nor are all listening environments the same. All the database reveals, for the 4th time is decisions made at recording, NOT the format, not even what the preference of the majority of the populace likes. Do you have anything relevant to add to the discussion of whether 24/96 is enough? Do you even understand that that is what this thread is about? I think we can all assume that since one of the great "proponents" of subjective evaluation can't offer anything in this area that refutes 24/96 being enough, then we can assume it is. Thanks for clarifying that VI. geoffkait18,612 posts11-29-2019 5:27pmThe funny thing is the data in the dynamic range database tracks
(no pun intended) perfectly with listening results. But atdavid would
rather fight than listen. |
I will just assume you were making a joke wolfie62 .... |
Has anyone ever noticed that it is mainly old people that complain about CDs and digital. Young people don't experience listening fatigue with it. Maybe old brains just get information overload listening to digital? |
They are listening to vinyl on cheap systems. It is purely a nostalgia thing. They actually do care about sound, but they are driven by convenience. They are every bit as interested in music as older people are, they just have different tastes than the generation before them .... just like almost every other generation. My kids listen to digital music for hours on end. They never complain about listening fatigue. That would never occur to them, no more than someone driving for hours complains about listening fatigue from their car stereo.
They not only don't "dislike" dynamically compressed music, they seem to prefer it. Look at what sells. Look at the music that is played in clubs which seems to lack any variance in volume.
Live concert would not inherently be dynamically compressed. That would all depend on the artist. It will be loud though. I must say as I get older, less and less of my age-peers are interested in going to concerts.
|
