xiph.org on 24/192 releases - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > Source & Line > Digital Source

Digital Source Digital Players and Recorders: CD , SACD , Tape, Memory Card, etc.

Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.

Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 6th March 2012, 11:10 AM   #1
Atilla is offline Atilla  Norway
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Default xiph.org on 24/192 releases

I think this should be the right place for this link. It's one of the most well-written articles I've read on audio quality in general and digital audio specifically. The references in this article provide good and detailed read on the subjects as well. Well worth it.

24/192 Music Downloads are Very Silly Indeed
  Reply With Quote
Old 6th March 2012, 05:35 PM   #2
gfiandy is offline gfiandy  United Kingdom
diyAudio Member
 
gfiandy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Cambridge UK
This paper by Julian Dunn provides some of the reasons why higher sample rates may help especially given that not all processing is done using the best available techniques. He also discusses some of the ways processing can be improved. Whilst this paper covers 96k rather than 192k it is basically the same concept.

http://www.nanophon.com/audio/antialia.pdf

I am unclear why the author suggests 16 bits is enough as whilst you can hear signals well below the noise floor of a 16 bit signal so signal linearity can be encoded, You can also hear the hiss of the noise floor and this is a distraction to the music. Shaped dither that uses the behaviour of the minimum audible field to mask this hiss is quite processor intensive, prone to exposure by post processing and because it pushes alot of energy into the HF region can heat up the tweeter causing thermal distortion.

This paper has many good points but I think it may be supporting the 44k 16 bit argument rather to strongly. I think this standard was developed as a good compromise between high quality and storage capacity. I am not convinced it is a perfect match for the human auditory system, as seems to be proposed in this paper.
  Reply With Quote
Old 6th March 2012, 09:47 PM   #3
Atilla is offline Atilla  Norway
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
I did find his point on 16/24bit a bit confusing, to be fair. He does argue against his case here in two places, the noise floor is mentioned. Certainly, in modern times the storage wasted by using 24 bit won't really scare anyone.

But as a whole I like the way he presents it and I thought it'd be nice to see what people here have to say.
  Reply With Quote

Reply


Hide this!Advertise here!
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
24/192 basic question pforeman Digital Line Level 26 21st December 2011 03:31 AM
Are there any DIP 24/96 or 24/192 ADCs and I2P to FireWire Codecs? BoilermakerFan Digital Source 0 21st July 2008 08:27 PM
192/24 spdif soundcard ESI Julia vs Audiophile 192 vs ...? stolbovoy Digital Source 5 12th October 2005 06:25 PM
Wtb 24/192 Dac rmihai Swap Meet 5 22nd April 2005 01:28 AM
24/96 and 24/192 is no good. MP3 sounds better! peranders Digital Source 92 30th July 2002 09:30 AM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 01:59 AM.


vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright 1999-2014 diyAudio

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2