3 ms·

> However, the argument fails because human hearing doesn't work that way and the DVD/post-CD industry already decided to use 48/96/192 instead of 44.1/88.2/176

by skore 15y ago

> However, the argument fails because human hearing doesn't work that way and the DVD/post-CD industry already decided to use 48/96/192 instead of 44.1/88.2/176.4. That's quite a strong statement to make in such an off-handed fashion, particularly in reply to such a (at least seemingly) well researched and often linked article. Furthermore, the citing the decision of the industry reeks a bit of appeal to authority. Maybe you could back up your claims a bit better?

DiabloD3 15y ago
Go resample 48khz to 44.1khz using any resampling algorithm you choose. Go ahead. Thats all the proof I will ever need.
- skore 15y ago
  Alright, thanks for confirming my suspicion. You have no clue what you're talking about. Nobody is questioning that downsampling, particularly in that lower region, can degrade quality. The author even explicitly states that 48khz and 24bit at least cannot hurt that much. He makes a point about whether that kind of "fidelity" is necessary, whether it produces superior listening and whether it can even have a damaging effect. You claimed "Human hearing doesn't work that way" - well, then how does it work, in your mind? "Quantization noise is a killer" - The article clearly mentions that good dithering is the key here. "Resampling audio is just a bad thing to do" - Well, where does the article mention that resampling is great? Maybe we should better all go back to vinyl? To quote the two paragraphs where resampling is even mentioned: > Unfortunately, most samples are mastered to use the full digital range. Naive resampling can and often will clip occasionally. > It is commonly assumed that resampling irreparably damages a signal; this isn't the case. Unless one makes an obvious mistake, such as causing clipping, the downsampled and then upsampled signal will be audibly indistinguishable from the original. This is the usual test used to establish that higher sampling rates are unneccessary.
  - DiabloD3 15y ago
    Thats quite a long ad homonym attack you got there.
    - skore 15y ago
      That word that you didn't even care to spell right: It does not mean what you think it means. An ad hominem attack is "an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it." I have not "pointed out a negative characteristic" of yours except my belief that you are wrong. Even more than that: You didn't really have much of a claim to start out with, just an opinion, which I challenged you to support with detailed claims and facts. When you failed to deliver on that, I backed up my belief with arguments. That's how discussions work. Don't hide behind words when somebody is inviting you to state your case (remember my first reply to was asking you: "Maybe you could back up your claims a bit better?"). By now, however, you have already lost your case, so just accept defeat and try better next time.
      - DiabloD3 15y ago
        I'm sorry, but what? All you're doing is trolling. Please, find me a resampler that works for real world cases. You can point to URLs on the Internet or to research papers or to whatever you want; but when I use what the world considers the best available resamplers to deal with typical cases and the result audibly bad, then I'm not sure what you really want me to claim here. Also, down voting me isn't helping your case. This is HN, you can't intimidate people here with cheap tricks.

by skore 15y ago

DiabloD3 15y ago

Go resample 48khz to 44.1khz using any resampling algorithm you choose. Go ahead. Thats all the proof I will ever need.

skore 15y ago
Alright, thanks for confirming my suspicion. You have no clue what you're talking about. Nobody is questioning that downsampling, particularly in that lower region, can degrade quality. The author even explicitly states that 48khz and 24bit at least cannot hurt that much. He makes a point about whether that kind of "fidelity" is necessary, whether it produces superior listening and whether it can even have a damaging effect. You claimed "Human hearing doesn't work that way" - well, then how does it work, in your mind? "Quantization noise is a killer" - The article clearly mentions that good dithering is the key here. "Resampling audio is just a bad thing to do" - Well, where does the article mention that resampling is great? Maybe we should better all go back to vinyl? To quote the two paragraphs where resampling is even mentioned: > Unfortunately, most samples are mastered to use the full digital range. Naive resampling can and often will clip occasionally. > It is commonly assumed that resampling irreparably damages a signal; this isn't the case. Unless one makes an obvious mistake, such as causing clipping, the downsampled and then upsampled signal will be audibly indistinguishable from the original. This is the usual test used to establish that higher sampling rates are unneccessary.
- DiabloD3 15y ago
  Thats quite a long ad homonym attack you got there.
  - skore 15y ago
    That word that you didn't even care to spell right: It does not mean what you think it means. An ad hominem attack is "an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it." I have not "pointed out a negative characteristic" of yours except my belief that you are wrong. Even more than that: You didn't really have much of a claim to start out with, just an opinion, which I challenged you to support with detailed claims and facts. When you failed to deliver on that, I backed up my belief with arguments. That's how discussions work. Don't hide behind words when somebody is inviting you to state your case (remember my first reply to was asking you: "Maybe you could back up your claims a bit better?"). By now, however, you have already lost your case, so just accept defeat and try better next time.
    - DiabloD3 15y ago
      I'm sorry, but what? All you're doing is trolling. Please, find me a resampler that works for real world cases. You can point to URLs on the Internet or to research papers or to whatever you want; but when I use what the world considers the best available resamplers to deal with typical cases and the result audibly bad, then I'm not sure what you really want me to claim here. Also, down voting me isn't helping your case. This is HN, you can't intimidate people here with cheap tricks.