Post #34402 showed enough difference between 16/44k to the original for me to call it not perfect. Audibility of such difference is a different matter altogether.
There appears to be some flaw in the sound of many CD recordings that can be heard at very low levels when played on a very low distortion system. High quality upsampling and conversion to DSD seems to help, but not completely remove all audible shortcomings. Most people would probably never notice the flaw(s) on typical reproduction systems since there is a whole lot of mid-level masking distortions and noises going on all at once. Almost sounds like one is hearing all there is on a CD. No so, on most systems unfortunately. Of course, talk in a forum is unconvincing (be it eyeballing or listening 🙂 ), thus the offer of visiting to hear for oneself. Nobody ever does visit though.
That's the part that makes me feel uneasy: if we make an analogy with the movie business, first we had the VHS, then the DVD came and it was better, and so we had to re-buy all those American icons such as Star wars, Indiana Jones, and so on. And then BluRay came, and started the buying frenzy all over again. And now we have 4K...
Better than planned obsolescence: planned heist!
3rd signal? I am just comparing two. And, those two have different periods. Why? Dont tell me its an illusion. Try another answer/explanation, pls.
To correlate to a sound, yes you might want to know more about the ear. However, this is electronics and waveforms. in and out. Comparing the same signal being processed. We dont want to see any ampl or time differences, ideally. The amplitude and the freq and envelope differences seem to me significant. No, I cant predict the sound from that... just it is worse than it needs to be and maybe if it was better, how would it sound then?
THx-RNMarsh
Last edited:
No Hans, I do not like debates. It is obvious the definition of the word perfect that we use do not match, and I will not participate on arguing over that.
Since apparently nothing that can be humanly said here is of zero value to you, have you asked one of your workplace experts about the difference between modulation and interference?
Meantime, you may want to read about in the poor man's encyclopedia (although I am hot holding my breath you will do so).
Wave interference - Wikipedia
Amplitude modulation - Wikipedia
What would it take for you to stop this absurd debate? Everybody to concede that:
a) You are a genius that just discovered an unexplored path in signal processing?
b) Didn't pass through primary school, therefore they should STFU?
c) Is an idiot debating with you?
d) Is a poodle barking at a lion?
Or:
e) Shame you?
f) Quietly acknowledge the bores?
g) Ignore you?
h) Let go and bake a cake?
i) All of the above?
j) Anything else?
Last edited:
Post #34402 showed enough difference between 16/44k to the original for me to call it not perfect. Audibility of such difference is a different matter altogether.
What do we have here? That rather dramatic differences.....
-RM
I agree in the sense that if I purchase something, I would like to have the highest quality version of the file made available. If I purchased a photograph I would like the raw file, not a JPEG, even if I can’t see the difference.
I know for a fact the some of my 1983 Bruce Springsteen did use it.
It wasn't as good as the vinyl but they still work. I saw very little that actually had it.
Scott Wurcer showed Cymbal recording, Green at 24/192k, Blue with all data >22050 Hz removed and the difference in Red. Start at Post #34358.
I agree with Richard, in the electrical domain, copy input to output. In the acoustic domain, then yes, how we hear is important and where the psychoacoustic research is properly concentrated in my view.
I have a few RR CDs that I really should rip and decode so see if I can hear the different. I know Keith appears to be a particular obsessive over SQ.
First theres a questions I have about AM. If I AM a signal(under modulating it) with a sine then AM it again with a cosine I get my original back. ( dont make me draw the picture). Does Fourier do this with the phase? Then we need to keep track of phase no?
Im not sure were using fourier correctly. From Digital Signal Processing by William D Stanley pg245.
If Im reading this corectly, sampling makes the time function periodic and non/discrete which makes the freq function PERIODIC and discrete/non so a copy of the entire freq function arises around F=0 so filtering below 1/2 fs restores the entir function.
Edit:sorry about the pic quality but you can still read it
Attachments
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.