3 ms·

I don't know if that is meant to be tounge in cheek, but for most ears it is physically impossible to discern any broader audio spectrum.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
bayindirh 3y ago
Actually it is, but I'm stoned to death even when I share audible sound deltas between lossy and lossless codecs, so I'll just leave it with one sentence: Higher sampling rates and higher quality encodings result in a broader, more impressive and immersive sound stage primarily, and more details are secondary, and in some cases are elusive to run after.
- kuschku 3y ago
  "more impressive and immersive sound stage" is a nice way to say "placebo". Lossy codecs, at too low bitrates, can be a problem, yes. But every content can be recorded and played back as 48kHz 24-bit FLAC, which is perfect. No amount of money you spend can improve upon that.
  - bayindirh 3y ago
    Here we go. So I have a setup: Akai AM2850 Amplifier, a pair of HECO Celan GT 302 speakers, a Yamaha CD-S300 CD player, which has USB input with iPod interface and MP3 capability. A well mastered album (read: No brickwalling) like Wasting Light (Foo Fighters) or Brother in Arms (Dire Straits) will provide you a larger soundstage when you listen in front of this set from CD (or any lossless source, but let's keep everything in the same DAC), even compared with 320kbps MP3 (it's minimal, but audible). This can be ruled as placebo alright, but audio science is hard science. It's subjective, and there's an aura of lies around it due to great deal of real snake oil in this. Yet, I listen to same amplifier for 30 years, and I know how it behaves in any genre, any sound source and any input level, yet I can make sense of the subtle sound stage changes, because I'm so familiar with it. Honestly, I played in large orchestras and whatnot, but when listened intently, the difference is there. It's difference between a good cup of Tchibo vs good cup of Davidoff coffee, but it's there. I'm currently not at my home, but if you want I can provide you a fresh set of sound deltas (FLAC vs. 320kbps MP3) when I return.
    - kuschku 3y ago
      I agree that higher encoding quality can provide the differences you describe, but higher sampling rates (beyond 48kHz, that is) cannot. Personally, I try to acquire all music on CD or as FLAC from e.g. Qobuz or Bandcamp. But I see no reason to go beyond 24-bit 48kHz for any kind of audio unless I plan on slowing it down for e.g., a slow-mo video.
      - bayindirh 3y ago
        I have a 24bit WAV version of Radiohead's "OK Computer Oknotok" directly from the band, and sounds absolutely beautiful, though I don't remember whether it's 48K or 96K. In any case, I really don't believe that I have a system can render 96K sound meaningfully different than 48K. I'm also not sure that I can tell the difference unless I try very intently, either. I also an avid Bandcamp shopper. Some of the people make really beautiful music there. Lastly, if I'm happy with the sound I get, I don't run after numbers. I use a Behringer Bass V-Amp as my bass processor, and even though it's far inferior on the paper, the result is not for my ears. Heck, if Haggard can use this thing for live and studio, why can't I?
- krageon 3y ago
  A sound stage is not quantifiable, subjective and probably not real. I've heard similar things said many times for a number of audio systems and encodings and in a blind test it is just not discernible IME.
  - bayindirh 3y ago
    It's discernible and measurable. It's called stereo separation and instrument placeability in mastering parlance. iZotope Ozone has a nice stereo imaging view to show the stereo separation in tracks. When you mic a big orchestra (or any orchestra) clearly, you can capture the stereo image (which is generally done with non-instrument ambient microphones), too. Mixing this ambience into the final stereo mix can increase the instrument placing when done correctly, but needs a good room with good acoustics. This is why we have Atmos and other tech. It allows you to virtually position channels in a room, and increases this separation, in theory. Nice when done subtly, ugly when done overboard. Also, speakers' sound rendering has something with it. For example, the Celans I have can fill a room with positionally correct instruments fairly impressive. What's more impressive is, Creative Gigaworks speakers also capable of doing this while being desk speakers (yet they have kevlar cones and silk tweeters too). There's a sensible upper limit to pay for audio systems. Mine is neither top of the line, nor too cheap to be true. It's a powerful, yet vintage all analog powerhouse, and I have it for 30 years or so. After some point, even if the resolution provided by the system is justified by the money it requires, finding sources to saturate is impossible to find. So, when you find something you like for the first time, you stop there. I plan no changes in my audio system for example. There are infinite number of variables in audio (system, source, room, placement, etc.), but sound resolution and soundstage are not placebo effects. If it was, a $4 headphone would sound the same wth $44 or even with $440 one, yet they don't. Same for speakers, amps, etc. Until a certain point as I said.
- rbanffy 3y ago
  When you hit a drum there are all sort of short duration high pitched components that make that chest thumping all the more impressive.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

bayindirh 3y ago

Actually it is, but I'm stoned to death even when I share audible sound deltas between lossy and lossless codecs, so I'll just leave it with one sentence: Higher sampling rates and higher quality encodings result in a broader, more impressive and immersive sound stage primarily, and more details are secondary, and in some cases are elusive to run after.

kuschku 3y ago
"more impressive and immersive sound stage" is a nice way to say "placebo". Lossy codecs, at too low bitrates, can be a problem, yes. But every content can be recorded and played back as 48kHz 24-bit FLAC, which is perfect. No amount of money you spend can improve upon that.
- bayindirh 3y ago
  Here we go. So I have a setup: Akai AM2850 Amplifier, a pair of HECO Celan GT 302 speakers, a Yamaha CD-S300 CD player, which has USB input with iPod interface and MP3 capability. A well mastered album (read: No brickwalling) like Wasting Light (Foo Fighters) or Brother in Arms (Dire Straits) will provide you a larger soundstage when you listen in front of this set from CD (or any lossless source, but let's keep everything in the same DAC), even compared with 320kbps MP3 (it's minimal, but audible). This can be ruled as placebo alright, but audio science is hard science. It's subjective, and there's an aura of lies around it due to great deal of real snake oil in this. Yet, I listen to same amplifier for 30 years, and I know how it behaves in any genre, any sound source and any input level, yet I can make sense of the subtle sound stage changes, because I'm so familiar with it. Honestly, I played in large orchestras and whatnot, but when listened intently, the difference is there. It's difference between a good cup of Tchibo vs good cup of Davidoff coffee, but it's there. I'm currently not at my home, but if you want I can provide you a fresh set of sound deltas (FLAC vs. 320kbps MP3) when I return.
  - kuschku 3y ago
    I agree that higher encoding quality can provide the differences you describe, but higher sampling rates (beyond 48kHz, that is) cannot. Personally, I try to acquire all music on CD or as FLAC from e.g. Qobuz or Bandcamp. But I see no reason to go beyond 24-bit 48kHz for any kind of audio unless I plan on slowing it down for e.g., a slow-mo video.
    - bayindirh 3y ago
      I have a 24bit WAV version of Radiohead's "OK Computer Oknotok" directly from the band, and sounds absolutely beautiful, though I don't remember whether it's 48K or 96K. In any case, I really don't believe that I have a system can render 96K sound meaningfully different than 48K. I'm also not sure that I can tell the difference unless I try very intently, either. I also an avid Bandcamp shopper. Some of the people make really beautiful music there. Lastly, if I'm happy with the sound I get, I don't run after numbers. I use a Behringer Bass V-Amp as my bass processor, and even though it's far inferior on the paper, the result is not for my ears. Heck, if Haggard can use this thing for live and studio, why can't I?
krageon 3y ago
A sound stage is not quantifiable, subjective and probably not real. I've heard similar things said many times for a number of audio systems and encodings and in a blind test it is just not discernible IME.
- bayindirh 3y ago
  It's discernible and measurable. It's called stereo separation and instrument placeability in mastering parlance. iZotope Ozone has a nice stereo imaging view to show the stereo separation in tracks. When you mic a big orchestra (or any orchestra) clearly, you can capture the stereo image (which is generally done with non-instrument ambient microphones), too. Mixing this ambience into the final stereo mix can increase the instrument placing when done correctly, but needs a good room with good acoustics. This is why we have Atmos and other tech. It allows you to virtually position channels in a room, and increases this separation, in theory. Nice when done subtly, ugly when done overboard. Also, speakers' sound rendering has something with it. For example, the Celans I have can fill a room with positionally correct instruments fairly impressive. What's more impressive is, Creative Gigaworks speakers also capable of doing this while being desk speakers (yet they have kevlar cones and silk tweeters too). There's a sensible upper limit to pay for audio systems. Mine is neither top of the line, nor too cheap to be true. It's a powerful, yet vintage all analog powerhouse, and I have it for 30 years or so. After some point, even if the resolution provided by the system is justified by the money it requires, finding sources to saturate is impossible to find. So, when you find something you like for the first time, you stop there. I plan no changes in my audio system for example. There are infinite number of variables in audio (system, source, room, placement, etc.), but sound resolution and soundstage are not placebo effects. If it was, a $4 headphone would sound the same wth $44 or even with $440 one, yet they don't. Same for speakers, amps, etc. Until a certain point as I said.
rbanffy 3y ago
When you hit a drum there are all sort of short duration high pitched components that make that chest thumping all the more impressive.