16 bit files almost unlistenable now...

[esldude]

39 minutes ago, Sonicularity said:

 

I am not weak in my mathematical knowledge and deductive reasoning.  I don't recall establishing my financial means; though, I suppose it was simply assumed from my comments.   Neither of us will probably ever change GUTB's perspective on audio gear and its relationship with cost.  I recognized the futility of continuing on in that direction.  

Giving advice based upon price is one thing, and has pitfalls of course.  Giving advice that is obviously wrong for technical reasons and likely to induce problems from following that advice is another.  Using an extension cord probably makes sense to GUTB because of his idea about how digital things are all noisy.  He's fairly wrong about that. Using an extension cord for another circuit for that wrong-headed reason has the additional problem of likely increasing system noise and hum over ground connections.  So definitely bad advice.  He does this often enough I don't care about changing his mind.  I hate to see his advice be taken when it is so often wrong. 

[Cary]

On 7/14/2018 at 5:41 PM, Sonicularity said:

 

Simple and efficient.  The only thing that matters is that I feel that it sounds wonderful.  I am in bliss and see no need to upgrade anything at this time.  If I did choose to make any update, I would get different speakers, as this would make the most significant difference in the sound.  The rest of my gear, including the streaming mp3 files, would see almost no change to my ears, unless that other gear was not functioning properly.

 

 

This is all that matters.  If you are happy with it, that is what counts.  There are people who have spent $100,000+ on their system and are unhappy and those that have spent $20 on a set of ear buds for their phone and are ecstatic.  

 

I can hear minor differences between 320kb/sec MP3 and 16/44.1 Flac on my main system (Magnepan 3.5s, Schiit Gungir MB, and so on) on well mixed music.  For most stuff, it unfortunately doesn't make a bit of difference.  I would gladly trade those minor differences for listening to everything in 320kb MP3 if I could get it all to be mastered well.  

[diecaster]

41 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

Very cogent. 

 

I still stand by my recommendation to try out some Redbook files for your favs.

 

also, IIRC some rates or bit depths can vary for mp3s, even beyond the types of music that may be just fine with mp3 - @mansr can explain this I think

 

MP3 bit depth is always 16 bits. The bit rate can be anything from 32 to 320 kbits/s. The supported sample rates are 32000 Hz, 44100 Hz, and 48000 Hz.

[sandyk]

15 minutes ago, Cary said:

I can hear minor differences between 320kb/sec MP3 and 16/44.1 Flac on my main system (Magnepan 3.5s, Schiit Gungir MB, and so on) on well mixed music.  For most stuff, it unfortunately doesn't make a bit of difference.  I would gladly trade those minor differences for listening to everything in 320kb MP3 if I could get it all to be mastered well.  

 

 What is to be gained by doing this when storage is cheap these days, and .flac can also be compressed to small sizes as well as being able to be reconverted to the original higher quality format if required ?

[Cary]

Just now, sandyk said:

 

 What is to be gained by doing this when storage is cheap these days, and .flac can also be compressed to small sizes as well as being able to be reconverted to the original higher quality format if required ?

 

I wasn't discussing storage.  I store in FLAC when I rip from CD or download purchases, not MP3, as storage is, as many have pointed out, cheap.  I have some music I purchased in Mp3, as it wasn't available in Redbook or better.  I end up using Amazon for some streaming, but primarily rely on Deezer for that.  

[sandyk]

2 minutes ago, Cary said:

 

I wasn't discussing storage.  I store in FLAC when I rip from CD or download purchases, not MP3, as storage is, as many have pointed out, cheap.  I have some music I purchased in Mp3, as it wasn't available in Redbook or better.  I end up using Amazon for some streaming, but primarily rely on Deezer for that.  

 

Even on UseNet, .mp3 has almost completely been replaced by .flac, and even YouTube and Vevo use .aac audio which can sound very good at even the maximum bit rate of 187Kilobits with 1280 res. videos.

.aac is also used with .mpeg4 Digital TV.

[Cary]

7 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

Even on UseNet, .mp3 has almost completely been replaced by .flac, and even YouTube and Vevo use .aac audio which can sound very good at even the maximum bit rate of 187Kilobits with 1280 res. videos.

.aac is also used with .mpeg4 Digital TV.

 

 No clue on UseNet.  I am old fashioned and still buy or rent my music.  

[sandyk]

8 minutes ago, Cary said:

 

 No clue on UseNet.  I am old fashioned and still buy or rent my music.  

 

 All that I am suggesting is that there are now far better alternatives than using Lossy .mp3.

Admittedly, .aac audio is also lossy, but can do a fine job without the need for fussy remastering, which is why it's used for YouTube music videos where the TOTAL bandwidth, including the video component, may be as little as a single track on a CD,  and still sound better than many .mp3s

[Cary]

1 hour ago, sandyk said:

 

 All that I am suggesting is that there are now far better alternatives than using Lossy .mp3.

Admittedly, .aac audio is also lossy, but can do a fine job without the need for fussy remastering, which is why it's used for YouTube music videos where the TOTAL bandwidth, including the video component, may be as little as a single track on a CD,  and still sound better than many .mp3s

 

Thanks for ruining my evening.  Now I have to go read about mp3 v aac.  

[Ralf11]

I'll save you some time - AAC is a bit better than mp3.  Lossless is what you want, and today there is little cost or storage or transmission downside to it.

 

 

[esldude]

52 minutes ago, Cary said:

 

Thanks for ruining my evening.  Now I have to go read about mp3 v aac.  

Actually more like AAC is better at lower bitrates like 128k or less.  Maybe a tiny bit better at middling bit rates.  Little if any categorical benefit between them at 220k or more.  If you really want to be bothered throw in Ogg Vorbis to compare. 

 

If possible, yes lossless is what you want. FLAC or ALAC or WAV or AIFF.

 

Here is a chart showing quality in one simple graphic.  No one is claiming 128 kbps is transparent vs lossless.  But they get near that once you starting going above 128 kbps.  Therefore none of the formats have a decisive advantage at the upper rates.   Opus btw is an open source codec from xiph.org.  Soundcloud can/does use Opus. 

 

http://opus-codec.org/comparison/

 

[sandyk]

35 minutes ago, esldude said:

But they get near that once you starting going above 128 kbps

 Even at 187Kilobits, .aac and other lossy formats sound way below what is obtainable from16/44.1 .wav or ,flac unless your system isn't very resolving .

[esldude]

12 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 Even at 187Kilobits, .aac and other lossy formats sound way below what is obtainable from16/44.1 .wav or ,flac unless your system isn't very resolving .

Well these results are from carefully done evaluations of codecs.  

 

Can I hear a quality deficit at 160 kbps?  Yes I can.  At 220 kbps it gets harder, but is still there.  At higher rates I have trouble hearing the difference, but can.  Obviously that is what one would expect the only issue being how low is acceptable.  So your post doesn't really disagree with anything I've posted.  

 

By the time you get above 128 kbps the difference window between that and lossless is getting smaller and necessarily the difference in various lossy codecs is less.  At 128 kbps and less AAC is better than MP3, and maybe Opus is better than both.  Much above that point, it is less important which codec you use for lossy.  

[sandyk]

Dennis

 I can't stand 128Kilobits .aac etc. With a previous Video Downloader if I wanted Audio to better match the quality of the Video I would DL both the 1080 and 1920  versions, and replace the audio of the lower bitrate 1920 x 1080  version with the 187Kilobits .aac of the 1080 x 720 version.

 

Alex

 

 

 P.S.

 Further improved differences in that other area now.

[esldude]

16 minutes ago, sandyk said:

Dennis

 I can't stand 128Kilobits .aac etc. With a previous Video Downloader if I wanted Audio to better match the quality of the Video I would DL both the 1080 and 1920  versions, and replace the audio of the lower bitrate 1920 x 1080  version with the 187Kilobits .aac of the 1080 x 720 version.

 

Alex

 

 

 P.S.

 Further improved differences in that other area now.

I don't like 128 either for any length of time.  To me, and this likely is variable in people, 160 kbps is a large subjective improvement.  It still is clearly not lossless, but the annoyance is noticeably reduced.  The difference between hearing a lack of resolution and hearing an annoying additive is brought down. When I listen to internet radio, it has to be something of special interest for me tolerate 128 kbps.  I like to stick to 192k and above. 

[MetalNuts]

Most of my best sounding albums are those ripped from Redbook CDs.  High resolution downloaded album are good but only a few can match with those well recorded 16/44 albums. 

 

The quality of recording matters more than the claimed resolutions.

[GUTB]

5 hours ago, esldude said:

Giving advice based upon price is one thing, and has pitfalls of course.  Giving advice that is obviously wrong for technical reasons and likely to induce problems from following that advice is another.  Using an extension cord probably makes sense to GUTB because of his idea about how digital things are all noisy.  He's fairly wrong about that. Using an extension cord for another circuit for that wrong-headed reason has the additional problem of likely increasing system noise and hum over ground connections.  So definitely bad advice.  He does this often enough I don't care about changing his mind.  I hate to see his advice be taken when it is so often wrong. 

 

I'm neurotypical. My advice is based on personal experience; sometimes I have the theoretical knowledge to explain my experiences and sometimes I don't. I'm not a prophet, just an audiophile.

 

Running an extension from another room with an unused circuit is because you want your audio gear off the circuit with all the trash that would be on a general household circuit such as switching PSUs, AC motors (fridges, fans, etc), lights, dimmers, etc and so on.  If you have a religious belief that power delivery doesn't matter than it might seem like segregating the power circuits this way is bad advice. 

[Don Hills]

15 hours ago, gmgraves said:

OK. 

It actually led me down the rabbit hole, to a clip with no music at all. It shows an engineer setting up microphones to record an organ in a church. It reinforces the point that the best position for the microphones is nowhere near the best seating position...

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ccpk7o5Cevk

 

[GUTB]

Just now, MetalNuts said:

Most of my best sounding albums are those ripped from Redbook CDs.  High resolution downloaded album are good but only a few can match with those well recorded 16/44 albums. 

 

The quality of recording matters more than the claimed resolutions.

 

This is just a truism that hides the reality that high resolution is better.

 

Early digital recording is mostly trash. Indeed, even modern digital recording is trash -- that's why we audiophiles are stuck in our audiophile label ghetto that use high end digital recording techniques and employ talented studio engineers. 

 

Native DSD recordings are the best digital has to offer. Unfortunately digital doesn't like 1-bit sample rate because you can't do logic operations on 1 bits (without padding, ie, DSD-Wide), so these native DSD recordings can only do small ensemble / solo type music.

 

PCM sucks and nothing is going to fix it. However, it can be pretty good starting at 176/192. Redbook sucks.

[PeterSt]

1 minute ago, GUTB said:

Early digital recording is mostly trash. Indeed, even modern digital recording is trash -- that's why we audiophiles are stuck in our audiophile label ghetto that use high end digital recording techniques and employ talented studio engineers.

 

No suppose everybody would believe you. How would this audiophile world of yours look like ?

[esldude]

7 minutes ago, GUTB said:

 

I'm neurotypical. My advice is based on personal experience; sometimes I have the theoretical knowledge to explain my experiences and sometimes I don't. I'm not a prophet, just an audiophile.

 

Running an extension from another room with an unused circuit is because you want your audio gear off the circuit with all the trash that would be on a general household circuit such as switching PSUs, AC motors (fridges, fans, etc), lights, dimmers, etc and so on.  If you have a religious belief that power delivery doesn't matter than it might seem like segregating the power circuits this way is bad advice. 

Yes, quite often, despite the imagined hash on the circuity you measure little or no difference in signal quality coming out of gear. 

 

However, connecting grounds between separate circuits of the wiring system in your house is nearly guaranteed to increase ground current between devices and cause an increase in hum and noise.  It might be hardly noticeable (though quite easily measured) or might be an obvious hum or buzz heard at the speakers.  

 

You give technically, demonstrably, wrong advice at a 10:1 ratio to the bad if not worse.  This is just one more example.  You are the one with the religious power belief.  Unfortunately it is a wrong belief..........again.  You are unwilling to entertain the idea you are incorrect.  So the best thing is to warn people against your wrong-headedness.  

[MetalNuts]

2 minutes ago, GUTB said:

 

This is just a truism that hides the reality that high resolution is better.

 

Early digital recording is mostly trash. Indeed, even modern digital recording is trash -- that's why we audiophiles are stuck in our audiophile label ghetto that use high end digital recording techniques and employ talented studio engineers. 

 

Native DSD recordings are the best digital has to offer. Unfortunately digital doesn't like 1-bit sample rate because you can't do logic operations on 1 bits (without padding, ie, DSD-Wide), so these native DSD recordings can only do small ensemble / solo type music.

 

PCM sucks and nothing is going to fix it. However, it can be pretty good starting at 176/192. Redbook sucks.

 

Disagree early digital recordings are mostly trash.  I think there are more trash analogue recordings at the time of early stage of digital recordings than the digital recordings.

 

The blame cannot be put on the digital recordings itself but on the overall encoding and decoding process.  With modern digital equipment, some of the early digital recordings sound much better than they were before.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

1 hour ago, MetalNuts said:

With modern digital equipment, some of the early digital recordings sound much better than they were before.

 

That's very true and something many people are reporting thanks to better digital playback gear and notable engineers and designers daring to think outside the box.

[sandyk]

13 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

That's very true and something many people are reporting thanks to better digital playback gear and notable engineers and designers daring to think outside the box.

 

Some of the earlier recordings were very good indeed, but it took much more recent DACs and output stages with much improved S/N to do them justice, as they were recorded at maximum  levels well below those used these days, and had little (if any) compression.

" Roberta Flack-Killing Me Softly"  was a good example of the earlier CDs that earlier players were unable to do justice to.

[Summit]

2 hours ago, GUTB said:

 

This is just a truism that hides the reality that high resolution is better.

 

Early digital recording is mostly trash. Indeed, even modern digital recording is trash -- that's why we audiophiles are stuck in our audiophile label ghetto that use high end digital recording techniques and employ talented studio engineers. 

 

Native DSD recordings are the best digital has to offer. Unfortunately digital doesn't like 1-bit sample rate because you can't do logic operations on 1 bits (without padding, ie, DSD-Wide), so these native DSD recordings can only do small ensemble / solo type music.

 

PCM sucks and nothing is going to fix it. However, it can be pretty good starting at 176/192. Redbook sucks.

 

I don’t think what MetalNuts wrote it truism and I disagree that PCM sucks. I think you need to understand that the quality of a recording matters more than the resolution or format. The quality of a recording depends on so much more than the final product and how it is packaged. That doesn’t mean that “resolution” and format are irrelevant, just less.

 

If the quality of the recording is bad no stereo or format going to make it sound good.