4 ms·

A reason (probably one of the main ones, IMO) people post Xiph links is because they contain very well reasoned arguments, backed up evidence (i.e the math of h

by korethr 12y ago

A reason (probably one of the main ones, IMO) people post Xiph links is because they contain very well reasoned arguments, backed up evidence (i.e the math of how digital audio works, or in the case of the the video linked in the parent, actual meassurement). When seeing arguments on why 16-bit/44.1kHz is insufficient, I more often see faualty reasoning and a lack of evidence to support the arguments being made. You are correct in that human hearing is highly sensitive in the 300-3kHz band, and that sensitivities to minute timing and phase differences between the ears helps us accurately localize sound with only two ears. But I fail to see how that is relevant to whether or not 16-bit/44.kHz digital audio being enough to reproduce sound without audible distortion. Are you aware of some evidence that shows how 16-bit/44.1Khz is insufficent? I would be very interested to see it.

DiabloD3 12y ago
There isn't enough research being done on that frontier yet. We know the 300-3khz has a "higher sampling rate" than 44.1khz, but we don't know how high. However, I'm actually happy with properly mastered 16/44.1 on a proper DAC that has THD and noise levels below what is required for 16 bit (which I can get for $100 in an external DAC, for $150 with multiple inputs, from Schiit). The big issue is, they don't properly master them, and releasing the HD versions seems to lessen the impact of an improper master (such as we can hear finer steps in volume than 16 bit can do when all the samples have a smaller dynamic range, but we can't if they had mastered everything with 12+ bits of dynamic range like the creators of CDs had intended). Honestly, if CDs had chosen 20/48 instead of 16/44.1, most of this bullshit would have never happened. tl;dr I'm a bigger proponent of increased bitdepth over sampling rate, but I'm happy if I get both to get just one.

by korethr 12y ago

DiabloD3 12y ago

There isn't enough research being done on that frontier yet. We know the 300-3khz has a "higher sampling rate" than 44.1khz, but we don't know how high. However, I'm actually happy with properly mastered 16/44.1 on a proper DAC that has THD and noise levels below what is required for 16 bit (which I can get for $100 in an external DAC, for $150 with multiple inputs, from Schiit). The big issue is, they don't properly master them, and releasing the HD versions seems to lessen the impact of an improper master (such as we can hear finer steps in volume than 16 bit can do when all the samples have a smaller dynamic range, but we can't if they had mastered everything with 12+ bits of dynamic range like the creators of CDs had intended). Honestly, if CDs had chosen 20/48 instead of 16/44.1, most of this bullshit would have never happened. tl;dr I'm a bigger proponent of increased bitdepth over sampling rate, but I'm happy if I get both to get just one.