Home of the Squeezebox™ & Transporter® network music players.
Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 57
  1. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by pablolie View Post
    So sue me but I am perfectly happy with the SQ of the current 320k stream. Plenty of listening tests out there show how hard it is to tell the difference between 320k/CD quality/HighRez. There are preciously few albums that are recorded with the required resolution, and even when you're very familiar with them you have to listen to artifacts to be able to tell, and that's with an amount of artificial focus for detail that completely kills the fun of listening to the music. And anyone that claims they can hear additional detail and "airiness" when listening to the 24/192 version of Bill Evans' 1962 "Waltz for Debby" was dropped on their head from a third floor as a baby, really. :-)

    I know I go against the fashionable "CD quality sucks" these days, but the whole thing about the combined obsession of HighRez with vinyl addiction to boot is laughable, sorry if I offend anyone.

    I spend time curating my collection and playlists, and little time obsessing over whether the castanets in Rodriguez' Concierto de Aranjuez sound ever so slightly more present in 320k or in the recently discovered 1968 mastertape hidden in a deceased Decca executive's secret closet... :-D
    when the cd was invented in the 80s it offered a resolution of 1411 kbps. when you bought a computer at that time it came with a 320x240 screen.
    fast forward to today, and the most popular streaming service offers 320 kbps. when you buy a high end computer it comes with a 4096x2160 screen

    so when streaming music we are at 1/4 of where we were 40 years ago, but when streaming movies or playing games visually our screen resolution improved by a factor of 100x.

    so, we are told that, you can not hear the former, but definitely see the latter. by the way I never saw a test where people are shown 10 second fragments of a random movie in 2 screens of HD and UHD resolution and are asked whether they saw any differences. because it would be almost impossible to the differentiate in a rushed test but over time with different program material it would show that 2x more resolution can make for a nice and noticeable improvement.

    when apple and others introduced the ipods way back, the biggest bottleneck was the hdd capacity. so they compressed the music and fed us the bullshit that it was not audible anyways. one may care or not, but it is audible in the long run with the correct music and correct setup just like computer screens and tvs.

    remember that if we did not have better screens nobody would develop better games or better movies. likewise when we have hi-res audio, the record companies will make better sounding music.

    compressed music is based on a lie, but with increased bandwidth and stuff can have the highest resolution audio possible. and all of us in these forums want that

  2. #22
    Senior Member pablolie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    bay area, california.
    Posts
    1,184
    Quote Originally Posted by mcduman View Post
    when the cd was invented in the 80s it offered a resolution of 1411 kbps. when you bought a computer at that time it came with a 320x240 screen.
    fast forward to today, and the most popular streaming service offers 320 kbps. when you buy a high end computer it comes with a 4096x2160 screen

    so when streaming music we are at 1/4 of where we were 40 years ago, but when streaming movies or playing games visually our screen resolution improved by a factor of 100x.

    so, we are told that, you can not hear the former, but definitely see the latter. by the way I never saw a test where people are shown 10 second fragments of a random movie in 2 screens of HD and UHD resolution and are asked whether they saw any differences. because it would be almost impossible to the differentiate in a rushed test but over time with different program material it would show that 2x more resolution can make for a nice and noticeable improvement.

    when apple and others introduced the ipods way back, the biggest bottleneck was the hdd capacity. so they compressed the music and fed us the bullshit that it was not audible anyways. one may care or not, but it is audible in the long run with the correct music and correct setup just like computer screens and tvs.

    remember that if we did not have better screens nobody would develop better games or better movies. likewise when we have hi-res audio, the record companies will make better sounding music.

    compressed music is based on a lie, but with increased bandwidth and stuff can have the highest resolution audio possible. and all of us in these forums want that
    CD resolution is based on 100% factual science. Look up Nyquist. Anyone claiming otherwise is delusional, frankly. If effing Karajan was 100% happy, and he might have had decent hearing.... anyhow, anyone is free to listen to their music with whatever compulsive crutch they need to think they have a better experience. I know what I enjoy. :-) CD resolution may reveal some additional detail over 320k in corner cases that are utterly irrelevant to the vast majority of recordings, and furthermore are hard to discern even for the very best recordings. And that's a widely documented fact. The comparison with 320p screens is fatally flawed.

    Listen - I have a very good system and love my music shrine. Clearly I enjoy very good sound quality. I play percussion, which is about as revealing as it gets when it comes to audio, by the way. Anyone that listens to "openness" and "staging" with HD audio resolution is provenly listening to all the wrong things when it comes to the only way to tell the difference between CD quality and compressed. It's sharp transitions in percussion that will tell the difference with a very well recorded album. And by the way the 320k will actually sound a tad sharper in many cases. And whoever doesn't know that has lived under the illusion they can tell a difference.

    320k is awesome sound quality. Look at how much bandwidth absolutely non-lossy FLAC takes... it's never CD PCM bandwidth. Non lossy data compression has many techniques that make it 100% safe. And add a layer of psychoacoustics on top, and fool yourself all you want... but the full PCM bandwidth isn't required for perfect human hearing resolution.

    That said of course I have stored all my favorite music as flac, and some of them even as 24/192. But I don't fool myself I can hear it - I do it for archive reasons and out of simple respect for the original.
    Last edited by pablolie; 2021-02-28 at 00:11.
    ...pablo
    Server: Win10 and LMS 8.1.0
    System: SB Touch -optical-> Benchmark DAC2HGC -AnalysisPlus Oval Copper XLR-> NAD M22 Power Amp -AnalysisPlus Black Mesh Oval-> KEF Reference 1
    Other Rooms: 2x SB Boom; 1x SB Radio; 1x SB Classic-> NAD D7050 -> Totem DreamCatcher + Velodyne Minivee Sub
    Computer audio: workstation -USB-> audioengine D1 -> Grado RS1/Shure 1540

  3. #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    7,213
    Quote Originally Posted by mcduman View Post
    when the cd was invented in the 80s it offered a resolution of 1411 kbps. when you bought a computer at that time it came with a 320x240 screen.
    fast forward to today, and the most popular streaming service offers 320 kbps. when you buy a high end computer it comes with a 4096x2160 screen

    so when streaming music we are at 1/4 of where we were 40 years ago, but when streaming movies or playing games visually our screen resolution improved by a factor of 100x.
    Yes, because it's just maths & physics. We hear about 20kHz of BW and that contains much less information than the resolution of the eye can use. Such BW could be perfectly digitized with 44.1kHz sampling rate, so we already reached the max at that time, which was not the case for 2D imaging signal. This no magic, this is math. As well 16 bits is a dynamic range if enough to represent our hearing capabilities (assuming you don't want to cover damaging levels). Anybody is free to use 192kHz @ 24 bits and pay for crazy expensive equipment for that, but telling it's much better from a mathematical point of view is just incorrect. You can buy a 20k$ pen if you want, but it will not improve your writing compared to a 1k$ pen. Still you are free to enjoy the 20k$ pen for reasons that has nothing to do with the technology of the pen and the handwriting result, that your money and choices.
    LMS 8.2 on Odroid-C4 - SqueezeAMP!, 5xRadio, 5xBoom, 2xDuet, 1xTouch, 1xSB3. Sonos PLAY:3, PLAY:5, Marantz NR1603, Foobar2000, ShairPortW, 2xChromecast Audio, Chromecast v1 and v2, Squeezelite on Pi, Yamaha WX-010, AppleTV 4, Airport Express, GGMM E5, RivaArena 1 & 3

  4. #24
    Senior Member chill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Nottingham, UK
    Posts
    2,100
    Quote Originally Posted by pablolie View Post
    320k is awesome sound quality.
    I agree with all of this, and I shall be resisting the temptation to fork out more each month for lossless streaming. I suspect Spotify know all this too, and have previously resisted the move to lossless not because of the technical challenges, but because it's not necessary. But like perfectly rational speaker manufacturers having to add an extra pair of terminals ('buy wiring'), it's one of those things that people expect, so to maintain market share they have to offer it.

  5. #25
    actually, everything about cd format was kind of arbitrary in order to fit Beethoven's 9th in one single portable cd. (https://www.classicfm.com/discover-m...cd-74-minutes/). it could have been 14 or 20 bits depending on how much fit in one cd. i am sure all the engineers from sony and philips from those days are surprised that whatever they came up with 40 years ago are still the high watermark of audio technology today. i am, for sure.

    more of every thing in technology from cpu power to screen resolution is good, whether you need it or not. but when it comes to audio resolution, less is good. how can this be true?

  6. #26
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Hertfordshire
    Posts
    7,056
    Quote Originally Posted by mcduman View Post
    actually, everything about cd format was kind of arbitrary in order to fit Beethoven's 9th in one single portable cd. (https://www.classicfm.com/discover-m...cd-74-minutes/). it could have been 14 or 20 bits depending on how much fit in one cd. i am sure all the engineers from sony and philips from those days are surprised that whatever they came up with 40 years ago are still the high watermark of audio technology today. i am, for sure.

    more of every thing in technology from cpu power to screen resolution is good, whether you need it or not. but when it comes to audio resolution, less is good. how can this be true?
    Your link is more about the physical size of the CD to achieve 74 minutes than the resolution or sampling frequency.

    Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk

  7. #27
    Senior Member philchillbill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    705
    Quote Originally Posted by mcduman View Post
    actually, everything about cd format was kind of arbitrary in order to fit Beethoven's 9th in one single portable cd. (https://www.classicfm.com/discover-m...cd-74-minutes/). it could have been 14 or 20 bits depending on how much fit in one cd. i am sure all the engineers from sony and philips from those days are surprised that whatever they came up with 40 years ago are still the high watermark of audio technology today. i am, for sure.

    more of every thing in technology from cpu power to screen resolution is good, whether you need it or not. but when it comes to audio resolution, less is good. how can this be true?
    I worked as an engineer at Philips CD Lab from 1985-1990 and I can reassure you that the 74 minutes requirement only directed the choice for the diameter of the disc (otherwise it would have been a bit smaller to only handle 60mins of audio like a C60 cassette tape). The desire to comfortably encode frequencies audible to humans was what drove the choice for bit-depth and sampling rates, with a little extra headroom for good measure. The bits/sec put on the actual disc is substantially higher due to clever techniques like interleaving data and adding redundancy checksums and such so that errors due to normal scratches can be completely eradicated.

    It’s not that less is good, it’s that enough is enough. Armstrong didn’t have to shave himself the morning he stepped on the moon because we couldn’t see his stubble from earth when looking up at the moon with our naked eyes anyway...

  8. #28
    Senior Member toby10's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    USA (home of the bottomless credit card)
    Posts
    9,299
    Quote Originally Posted by mcduman View Post
    .......... more of every thing in technology from cpu power to screen resolution is good, whether you need it or not. but when it comes to audio resolution, less is good. how can this be true?
    Bigger / newer / faster / more…… isn’t always “better”.

    You can grow a bigger tomato, but that doesn’t make it a better tomato.
    You can use a newer and “technologically “ advanced HD TV antenna, but you won’t get a better HD TV picture than your grand parents 1948 TV antenna.
    You can buy a 200 mph Ferrari, but you won’t get from London to Paris any faster than a Honda Civic.
    You can have a 100,000 song music library, but that doesn’t make it better music than a 1,000 song library.

  9. #29
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    UK, Nottinghamshire
    Posts
    416
    Falling down from 3rd floor on head comment maybe bit harsh as one cannot ever perceive other person experiences as we are all limited by our own senses.. (BTW That's why you get so many freaks in talent shows..)

    Anyway even when I can get around 70-80% of ab blind tests correctly I completely agree its only tiny tiny details I have to almost strain to find. And guess what.. I don't actually listen to music but to some details of hihat or others instrument which gives away this tiny sq improvement.. That's not whats music is for me.. Its like watching 4k tv demo in shops with some paint colours mixing you watch it for a seconds just for sake of quality. You need to appreciate content instead! So as long as you can hear all instruments selectively you are good to go and able to experience musical ecstasy

    Even heavily compressed 128 radio stream can make your day wonderful..

    If you are not excited with your music it's probably music itself not sound quality..
    3x Squeezebox Touch, 4x Squeezebox Radio, Squeezelite (RPi 3B with HiFiBerry DAC+Pro on OSMC), Material Skin Apk, Squeeze Commander, Logitech Media Server Version: 8.2.0 with Material Skin (Docker in DS218+)

  10. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by slartibartfast View Post
    Your link is more about the physical size of the CD to achieve 74 minutes than the resolution or sampling frequency.

    Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk
    sorry. 14 -16 bit discussion is in this link.

    https://www.openculture.com/2018/01/...-of-music.html

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •