arnyk wrote:
> http://www.computeraudiophile.com/
>
> Is IME good hunting grounds.
I tend to avoid even posting a link to that site, as it really is a
major propagator of BS (and is of course a commercial site, paid for by
vendor advertising).
"To try to judge the real from the false will
sckramer wrote:
> Haha, where do you find this crap /s?
http://www.computeraudiophile.com/
Is IME good hunting grounds.
arnyk's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=64365
View this thread:
Mnyb wrote:
> Some kind of entropy analysis , i think most recordingsbwould need less
> than 16 bits :/
Before word length mania was even a sparkle in the usual suspect's eye,
(ca. 1975-1980) BBC studied the matter and set their limit at 13 bits.
The source material was professionally
I see the same pattern as before with people that reported to hear 24bit
advantages in old Jazz music that was pulled from sale for being padded
16bit. Later they heard advantages in dsd and now welcome MQA but at the
same time are completely overwhelmed with the most simple abx because of
to
Ues thats a point a pop or rock song can be bundle of adc and shrug
sampling
:) deblur that
Main hifi: Touch + CIA PS +MeridianG68J MeridianHD621 MeridianG98DH 2 x
MeridianDSP5200 MeridianDSP5200HC 2 xMeridianDSP3100 +Rel
Wombat wrote:
> For MQA we read many sceptic comments but some claim to hear advantages
> in detail and lower distortion be it the secret sauce or just because it
> is a newer remaster does not matter.
> Every attempt like bit-freezing may solve a bandwith issue but won't be
> taken serious.
andy_c wrote:
> I browse Audio Asylum from time to time, and I saw this one on a forum
> called "Isolation Ward" ("Iso"). :)
>
> Once in a blue moon I get some good information from AA. I found out
> about the 1jazz.ru group of Russian jazz stations from there and have
> been listening to the
For MQA we read many sceptic comments but some claim to hear advantages
in detail and lower distortion be it the secret sauce or just because it
is a newer remaster does not matter.
Every attempt like bit-freezing may solve a bandwith issue but won't be
taken serious.
Transporter (modded) ->
Julf wrote:
> No. It can't tell tape hiss from music - there is some music where I
> can't always tell the music from random noise... :)
You can also hear down into to the noise on fade outs on some songs .
So maybe an engineer have to make a judgement over what's the usable S/N
ratio on the
Mnyb wrote:
> or just good old noise , some recordings are inherently very noisy , ie
> old analog tape to 24bit ADC ? can the decoder see that ?
No. It can't tell tape hiss from music - there is some music where I
can't always tell the music from random noise... :)
"To try to judge the real
Julf wrote:
> Absolutely. The FLAC encoder can already tell when there is no
> information in the lowest bits, allowing for a way to detect the most
> blatant cases of "repackaging".
or just good old noise , some recordings are inherently very noisy , ie
old analog tape to 24bit ADC ? can the
Mnyb wrote:
> Some kind of entropy analysis , i think most recordings would need less
> than 16 bits :/
Absolutely. The FLAC encoder can already tell when there is no
information in the lowest bits, allowing for a way to detect the most
blatant cases of "repackaging".
"To try to judge the
Julf wrote:
> Wouldn't that require AI to determine what is random noise and what is
> music? Not that I have come across any commercial recordings worthy of
> 20 bits...
Some kind of entropy analysis , i think most recordingsbwould need less
than 16 bits :/
drmatt wrote:
> The only "advantage" if you can call it that is that a bit freeze allows
> you to stick with a standardised packaging method such as 24/48k flac
> and still get the space compression benefit. So some recordings that are
> worthy of it would retain 20 "unfrozen" bits, the rest
The only "advantage" if you can call it that is that a bit freeze allows
you to stick with a standardised packaging method such as 24/48k flac
and still get the space compression benefit. So some recordings that are
worthy of it would retain 20 "unfrozen" bits, the rest would retain only
16 or
Mnyb wrote:
> "Bit freezing" seems like FUD , just do a proper resampling with dither
> to 16-18 bits There about and pick some sample rate slightly higher than
> 44.1 kHz and be done.
I asked Jim Lesurf about that on uk.rec.audio, and he admitted that that
is precisely what his "bit freezing"
16 matches
Mail list logo
