3 ms·
Only one of these points is a thing. Even if you could find some situation where the dynamic range of a CD was inadequate, shaped dither or even complete garbag
by microcolonel 6y ago
Only one of these points is a thing. Even if you could find some situation where the dynamic range of a CD was inadequate, shaped dither or even complete garbage uniform dither would render that moot.
No producer or technician has any basis to complain about CD audio quality for listening by humans; the deficiencies of their CDs are entirely their fault.
- jsjohnst 6y ago> No producer or technician has any basis to complain about CD audio quality for listening by humans Ok, so since I can still identify sound frequencies >22khz despite being now 40yrs old, I’m not entitled as a human to critique the CD audio format, especially as I can tell you the exact moment when the audio range is being clipped in the songs I enjoy?
- microcolonel 6y agoOkay, even if you could hear frequencies in that range in an actual released musical recording, and not just at near-pain-threshold levels in isolation, 48kHz has become more popular since it's a more convenient "computery" number. Tell me you can hear frequencies above 23kHz, below the pain threshold, let alone not in isolation.
- jsjohnst 6y agoI think you’ve gotten off track here. I’m not claiming higher bit rates and sampling rates than CD audio are inherently better in every case, just that CD audio is not what I’d call lossless.
- garaetjjte 6y agoIt is highly unlikely that you can hear difference with >22kHz when listening to music. It could be just intermodulation distortion introduced by playing near-ultrasonics on normal equipment. https://web.archive.org/web/20200310174634/https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html https://web.archive.org/web/20200310174634/https://people.xi...